[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Let me say at the outset, I wish to comment also on what Senator 
Warner and Senator McCain have said. I think the President has made a 
correct decision, and I salute him for helping to move forward the 
process with respect to our European allies. Many of us have felt for a 
long time that the United States needed to show leadership in respect 
to this complex issue. I believe the President has done that.
  Obviously, there are risks, but I think there are much greater risks 
to NATO, to the United Nations, and to our own superpower status to 
leave the threats that we have made on many occasions about a 
stranglehold on Sarajevo simply lying on the table. I think finally we 
have made it clear that there are limits and that the United States is 
prepared to join with its allies in taking some action. I look forward 
to the debate that the Senator has suggested.
  We have a serious interest in this. I have been listening to people 
for a long period of time say, ``What is our interest? What is the 
European interest?'' I even heard some Europeans saying that when I was 
there recently talking about the subject.
  The fact is that Europe has a fundamental interest in not allowing 
civilians to be slaughtered on its doorstep, repeating a period of 
history where they know people are being killed and little or nothing 
is done about it.
  Moreover, we all have an interest, after years of investing in NATO 
and years of investing in institutions that support international law, 
in not seeing NATO itself made into a paper tiger.
  Moreover, we have the fundamental interest as the world's only 
superpower in guaranteeing that the threats we made are not idle and 
that we in fact follow through. I would suggest ultimately that if 
agreement is reached in Bosnia and we are called upon to provide 
peacekeepers, not peacemakers, our capacity to do so without violence 
will be greatly enhanced by our willingness to stand by the NATO 
structure and the threats we previously made.
  There is nothing in life in foreign policy where you have to try to 
enforce your word that does not carry risks. We have learned a lot 
about that in the last half a century, sometimes winning, sometimes 
drawing, and sometimes even losing.
  I respectfully suggest that the lesson is being well applied in the 
caution with which the President has approached this, and now with the 
clear determination we have shown to follow through in a sensible and 
meaningful way.
  So I salute the President's decision, difficult as it may be, and I 
think Americans need to stop and consider hard what is really at stake 
and what risks we must take as a Nation to maintain our position in the 
world and ultimately to deter others from making choices that are 
adverse to our interests and, frankly, to the interests of basic human 
decency.
  (Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I will be offering an amendment to title 
III of H.R 3759--the rescission title--on behalf of myself and Senators 
Bumpers, Leahy, Bradley, Lautenberg, Wofford, and Feingold. Our 
amendment, on which we have worked over a number of months, makes 1994 
rescissions and also reduces and eliminates a number of wasteful 
Federal programs for a 5-year deficit reduction of $43 billion.
  I first must say that I was very tempted to vote for the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Nebraska. It was a very well designed, 
tough package. And my colleague made many points that needed to be 
made--most particularly about the difficult of proposing cuts compared 
to the relative ease of proposing spending increases. But I did not in 
the end vote for that amendment because I do not feel that this is the 
place or the time to start tinkering with health care reform. Whether 
one supports the Clinton plan, the Chafee plan, the Cooper plan, or 
some other plan I think most would agree that real comprehensive health 
care reform is needed. When we stand poised to finally take on that 
challenge, I would hate to see us cripple our efforts by making 
marginal changes that would remove $30 billion in cost savings from the 
package--making the effective cost of any reform package $30 billion 
higher.
  I also differ from a number of my colleagues in that I do not feel 
that all Federal disaster relief assistance should be fully paid for in 
the year in which it is funded. When an earthquake, a hurricane, a 
flood occur, Americans wish to respond as quickly as possible to help 
their fellow citizens. The reason we have a provision in budget law for 
emergencies is that we feel that we need flexibility in dealing with 
such disasters.
  However, I do feel that in those circumstances we should do what is 
reasonable to reduce the affect of the disaster funding on the deficit. 
This is what the House did and what I believe we should do on this 
bill.
  Further, Madam President, this bill is the only vehicle that the 
Senate will have to consider a rescission bill this year. When the 
Congress debated the President's budget last year and expressed 
disappointment that more cuts were not made, a promise was made to the 
House that they would be allowed an opportunity to consider a 
rescission bill last fall. They were given that opportunity. Well the 
remnants of that rescission bill are folded into this bill and it is 
the Senate's only opportunity to consider a rescission--and therefore 
our best chance to bring a package of cuts to the floor of the Senate.
  Ever since we debated the President's budget, I have argued that 
there is more that we can--and must--do to eliminate waste from the 
Federal budget. Although my heart goes out to those whose homes, 
schools, roads, and neighborhoods were devastated by the California 
earthquake, I feel we must take advantage of this one opportunity to 
make further rescissions.

  Finally, Madam President, this bill is not a pure disaster relief 
bill. If it were, I might feel more reluctant to amend it. Not only are 
there rescissions, but there are increases in spending that total 
approximately $3 billion. These increases have nothing to do with 
disaster relief; they include: $10 million to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corp. to enable a post office in New York City to be used as 
a train station; $1.3 million for assistance to 2 sugarcane mills on 
the Hilo-Hamakua Coast of Hawaii; an additional $1 million for the 
Office of the Secretary of the Senate; $12 million for construction on 
Indian reservations; an additional $60 million for NASA Research and 
Program Management; the bill provides funds for the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, to fund the costs of replanting, reseeding, or repairing 
damage to commercial trees and seedlings, including orchard and nursery 
inventory; $1.4 million for the Department of Agriculture extension 
service; an additional $10.1 million for a Labor Department survey; and 
$2.1 million for carrying out the forest plan in the Pacific Northwest.
  This bill also includes a total of $1.2 billion in non-emergency 
military funding--
  All this while we are readying ourselves to debate a balanced budget 
amendment and to consider the cuts included in the President's budget. 
Among the cuts the President has proposed in his budget and which we 
will surely debate here are a 40 percent cut to the subsidies for home 
heating oil will severely hit low-income Americans; the closing of 
1,100 USDA field offices; a $260 million reduction in the Interior 
Department's budget, which will cause the loss of 1,400 jobs; and cuts 
in NASA which will result in the loss of jobs for numerous contractors 
throughout the country.
  It is clear, from the fact that the President was forced to make 
these cuts, that we cannot afford to increase spending on nonemergency 
programs without an attempt to cut spending elsewhere. I know that 
there is a rescission portion of this bill which some will argue does 
pay for these nonemergency increases. But the rescission title of this 
bill is the Appropriations Committee's response to the President's 
rescission request. Those cuts were originally intended to reduce the 
deficit. Now they are paying for flower gardens.

  In this issue of deficit reduction, as so many others, the American 
people are far ahead of those of us who live inside the beltway. They 
are telling us loudly and clearly that it is time to take a carving 
knife to the Federal budget. They are tremendously frustrated with what 
they see as our inability to eliminate even the smallest, the least 
defensible programs.
  They know--and they are absolutely right--that there are many 
programs that have outlived their original purposes but which are 
staunchly defended by the entrenched interests that benefit from the 
programs. There are many others that never served a legitimate national 
interest but were initiated only to satisfy powerful political 
constituencies.

  My colleagues and I felt that the time had long since passed to 
dispense with rhetoric and achieve real results in cutting this pork 
from the Federal budget. In order to do so, we crafted a package of 
cuts around which we hope we will get maximum consensus--from the 
American people, from our colleagues, and from the President.
  We followed three principles from the start.
  First, we decided not to make changes to health care programs. A 
majority of our group--though certainly not all--decided that we should 
leave those changes to comprehensive health care reform. If we make 
piece-meal changes to the health care system now, we would jeopardize 
the comprehensive reform we as a nation are finally discussing.
  Second, we decided we would use no gimmicks in order to claim 
savings. No across-the-board cuts; no vague proposals; no double-
counting. For example, we decided we would not include in our package 
the elimination of the 252,000 Federal jobs proposed in the Vice 
President's national performance review--not because we did not feel 
that they should be eliminated but because we wanted to be conservative 
in our savings estimates and the savings from the elimination of these 
jobs have already been accounted for in the crime bill, the 
unemployment insurance bill, and the DOD budget.

  Third, we decided to ``let a thousand flowers bloom''--in other 
words, we would not compete with any other group that was seeking, as 
we were, to reduce the deficit. We would hope that the presence of a 
variety of plans and options would enhance the likelihood that the 
deficit would in fact be reduced. In fact, several members of our group 
participated in other efforts.
  Putting together the package meant eliminating programs each of us 
would have preferred not to cut. But in this era of shrinking Federal 
resources and rising demands for those resources we must all make tough 
choices.

  I know that none of my colleagues, if forced to actually choose, 
think they would support sending men into space over putting cops on 
the streets. But that is exactly the choice they make every year when 
they vote to continue funding for the space station.
  Cutting programs that no longer serve more than a narrow subsection 
of the national interest is the only way to restore fiscal sanity to 
our Federal budget, restore the faith of the American people that their 
elected representatives can be responsible with their tax dollars, and 
free up funds for our real national priorities.
  This morning's New York Times had an editorial which addressed the 
trade-offs we make inadvertently. It points out the fact that despite 
the $4 trillion Federal debt and the sacrifices that the President's 
budget calls on Americans to make, the Pentagon is actually scheduled 
to get more money next year than this. The Clinton administration is 
seeking $264 billion in defense spending authority for 1995, up $2.8 
billion from 1994. As the Times points out, ``Unless Mr. Clinton finds 
the courage to trim defense, he will be forced to short-change domestic 
investment for years to come.'' Those are the same investments we need 
to make if we are going to create jobs and raise U.S. living standards. 
They are the investments we need to make to increase funding for 
education and to fight crime.

  Almost half of the savings included in our amendment are achieved by 
cutting wasteful or bloated defense projects, such as the national 
aerospace plane, the Trident-II, the P-3 and others. But we have not 
stopped with defense spending. We cut the USDA's market promotion 
program so that instead of subsidizing advertising campaigns for large 
corporations we can subsidize salaries of teachers in our Nation's 
schools. We cut funding to the World Bank so that instead of providing 
first class airplane tickets for officials we can provide needed 
investment for our cities. And we cut back COLA's for Members of 
Congress because we feel that we too must share in the sacrifice that 
all citizens must make if we are to restore this Nation to fiscal 
sanity.

  The madness must end, Madam President. It is time to make the tough 
choices. And we each must be willing to vote to eliminate programs that 
we know are not in the national interest. I hope that my colleagues 
will examine our package and join us in our efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the amendment's 
provisions and Congressional Budget Office estimates of fiscal year 
1994 and 5-year savings to be realized from each be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             LIST OF CONTENTS OF DEFICIT REDUCTION AMENDMENT            
                    [Outlays in millions of dollars]                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1st yr.       5-year  
                   Proposal                       savings      savings  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals from items below.................        3,087       42,488
                                               -------------------------
Terminate high temperature gas reactor (HTGR),                          
 also known as the gas turbine-modular helium                           
 reactor. This proposal terminates HTGR                                 
 research and development. The President has                            
 twice proposed to terminate the project. The                           
 National Academy of Sciences ranks this                                
 program as having the lowest priority of all                           
 civilian nuclear reactor research............            3           54
Terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor                             
 (ALMR). Terminates research on the ALMR,                               
 which is a breeder-capable reactor which                               
 ranked 21st out of 23 in an internal 1991 DOE                          
 study of preferred electrical technologies.                            
 Retains funding for termination..............           23          310
Scale Back DOE's weapons production and                                 
 maintenance activities to support an arsenal                           
 of only 4,000 warheads. Reducing the U.S.                              
 nuclear arsenal to 4,000 warheads. With this                           
 inventory limit, DOE would satisfy START                               
 while being able to economize its operations.                          
 This would reduce warhead production by two-                           
 thirds and also would permit DOE to shut down                          
 unneeded reactors which alone would result in                          
 immediate savings of $250 million............          250        5,450
Limit termination expenditures for the                                  
 superconducting super collider. The FY94                               
 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included                          
 $640 million for SSC termination costs. Many                           
 people believe that this amount is far in                              
 excess of what is needed to shutdown the                               
 project. In fact, former Secretary of Energy                           
 Watkins estimated that termination would cost                          
 less than $300 million. This proposal reduces                          
 the amount appropriated for termination by                             
 $200 million.................................           99          200
Align COLA compensation for Members of                                  
 Congress with that for civil servants.                                 
 Permanently change the formula for computing                           
 COLAs for Members to replicate the COLAs                               
 provided to all other Federal government                               
 employees....................................        (\1\)  ...........
Cap Senior Executive Service ability to accrue                          
 annual leave to 30 days. Most federal                                  
 employees may accumulate and hold up to 30                             
 days of unused vacation leave. There is no                             
 limit, however, on the amount of unused leave                          
 that members of the Senior Executive Service                           
 may accumulate. This affects about 8,000                               
 people. This proposal would prospectively                              
 align the leave accrual policy of the SES                              
 with that for other federal employees,                                 
 excepting overtime leave accrued by those                              
 involved in criminal investigation...........            2           55
Terminate Tennessee Valley Authority                                    
 Fertilizer Program. Terminate the TVA's                                
 fertilizer research activities. Activities of                          
 the National Fertilizer and Environmental                              
 Research Center benefit the private sector                             
 and the fertilizer industry is capable of                              
 supporting such research.....................           35          175
Eliminate the ``dual subsidy'' water subsidy                            
 (for growers whose crop subsidies are                                  
 terminated). Agricultural producers                                    
 participating in federal agricultural                                  
 programs for crops for which an acreage                                
 limitation program is in effect are now able                           
 to receive below-cost water. If a producer is                          
 receiving federal payments in an acreage                               
 limitation program, that producer would not                            
 be eligible under the proposal to receive                              
 below-cost water from the federal government.            0           40
Reduce funding for the USDA market promotion                            
 Program. The MPP funds both generic and brand-                         
 name advertising abroad for American                                   
 agricultural products. The reconciliation                              
 bill reformed the program but further                                  
 reductions in the program are possible. This                           
 proposal would reduce the MPP by $12 million                           
 per year beyond the reduction contained in                             
 legislation passed by Congress earlier in                              
 1993.........................................           12           60
Restructure Department of Agriculture Field                             
 and Headquarters Offices. According to the                             
 National Performance Review, USDA should                               
 streamline its field operations to eliminate                           
 unnecessary offices, reduce costs and better                           
 serve farmers. Although USDA's mission has                             
 changed dramatically since the 1930s, its                              
 organizational structure and management                                
 practices have remained largely unchanged.                             
 Then, agriculture was dominated by small,                              
 widely-dispersed, family-owned farms that                              
 sold their products domestically.                                      
 Communication and transportation systems were                          
 limited by geography. The conditions                                   
 justified a county-based decentralized field                           
 office system. Today, agriculture is                                   
 dominated by large operation, and the farm                             
 population has declined sharply. Only 16                               
 percent of the nation's counties were                                  
 designated as farm counties in 1986, down                              
 from 63 percent in 1950. Telephones,                                   
 computers, and highways have increased                                 
 farmers' access to various information and                             
 assistance programs. The USDA infrastructure                           
 and personnel should be cut back                                       
 significantly to reflect these changes.......           12          848
Terminate Space Station. The FY94 VA/HUD bill                           
 provides $2.1 billion for the Space Station.                           
 This proposal will rescind $1.6 billion in                             
 FY94 in NASA's Research and Development                                
 Account and provide that $500 million left in                          
 the account be used for the ``termination of                           
 the contracts relating to the space station                            
 program.''...................................          341       10,000
Establish a moratorium on purchase of Federal                           
 buildings. Immediately require the                                     
 Administrator of General Services to suspend                           
 the acquisition by construction, purchase, or                          
 lease of new federal office space on which                             
 acquisition and construction have not yet                              
 begun........................................           15        2,103
Terminate Uniformed Services University of                              
 Health Sciences. The USUHS is a medical                                
 school established in 1972 and run by the                              
 DOD. According to CBO, the cost for each                               
 physician from the school is $562,000, four                            
 times as much as physicians obtained under                             
 the health professions scholarship program                             
 and 10 to 40 times as much as physicians from                          
 other programs. Graduates of USUHS account                             
 for less than 9 percent of military                                    
 physicians. Closing the school was                                     
 recommended by the National Performance                                
 Review and the House Defense Appropriations                            
 Subcommittee. The school would be closed down                          
 effective on the graduation of the last class                          
 of students that enrolls on or before the                              
 date of enactment............................            0          163
Terminate Federal Information Center. The FIC                           
 provides information on federal agencies,                              
 programs, and services to the public, and                              
 answers approximately 6,000 calls a day                                
 through its toll free number. This proposal                            
 terminates the FIC on the grounds that the                             
 information it provides is available                                   
 elsewhere....................................            3           17
Restructuring and shrinkage of U.S.                                     
 Information Agency activities. The Clinton                             
 Administration has proposed to consolidate                             
 and downsize overlapping U.S. taxpayer-funded                          
 overseas broadcasting. This proposal would                             
 codify key elements of a compromise that                               
 would allow Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty                            
 to continue as a grantee, but would limit the                          
 grant to $75 million by FY96, as contemplated                          
 in the Administration's plan, and would                                
 impose new fiscal constraints on program                               
 operations...................................            0          373
Reduce funding for the World Bank. The                                  
 Administration requested $70.1 million for                             
 paid-in and a limitation on callable capital                           
 of $2.27 billion capital for the World Bank.                           
 The House appropriated $55.8 million for paid-                         
 in capital and a limitation on callable                                
 capital of $1.8 billion. The Senate                                    
 recommended $27.9 million for paid-in capital                          
 and a limitation on callable capital of                                
 $902.4 million. The Foreign Operations                                 
 conference report followed the House                                   
 recommendation. This proposal would restore                            
 the funding levels to those originally                                 
 approved by the Senate.......................            3          107
Rescind all funding for Selective Service                               
 System except to terminate the program.......           11          116
Terminate Trident II/D-5 Program. This                                  
 proposal rescinds all appropriated but                                 
 unobligated funds for the program and                                  
 terminates it. The navy now plans to procure                           
 428 D-5 missiles and install 24 of them on                             
 each of the ten Atlantic fleet Trident                                 
 submarines that are now either deployed or                             
 being built. This proposal stops procurement                           
 at 295 missiles. If each missile carries                               
 eight warheads rather than the four planned                            
 by the Navy, the warhead limit under the                               
 START II treaty will be reached..............          170        2,950
Terminate the Follow-On Early Warning System                            
 (FEWS Satellite). FEWS is intended to replace                          
 the current constellation of Air Force                                 
 Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites used                          
 to provide early warning of ballistic missile                          
 attack. Although the FEWS system would have                            
 capabilities beyond an upgraded DSP system,                            
 in the current budget environment, the                                 
 marginal increase in capability is not worth                           
 the cost. The DSP will continue to be                                  
 adequate at least for the next few years                               
 until follow-on technology is developed......           60        2,530
Reduce annual funding for Intelligence                                  
 Activities by $ billion......................        1,000        5,000
Reduce funding for the Ballistic Missile                                
 Defense Organization (BMDO), limiting to                               
 theater missile defense. This proposal                                 
 rescinds $900 million in FY94 appropriations                           
 for the BMDO and provides that of the                                  
 remaining $2 billion, priority should be                               
 given for theater missile defense systems and                          
 technologies. Admiral William Crowe, formerly                          
 the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,                                 
 contends that no more than $2 million in                               
 funding for BMDO is necessary................          900        8,000
Consolidate and downsize DOD's Recruiting                               
 Program. DOD spends $2 billion and devotes                             
 30,000 work-years at 6,600 recruiting                                  
 stations, resulting in an average of 10                                
 active recruits and 21 reserve recruits per                            
 recruiter. This proposal requires the DOD to                           
 introduce efficiencies so that its recruiting                          
 effort achieves the same results as during                             
 1984-89, when the average was 14 active                                
 recruits and 27 reserve per recruiter........           28          237
Reduction in P-3 antisubmarine warfare                                  
 aircraft. The breakup of the Soviet Union has                          
 diminished the threat from enemy submarines.                           
 The P-3's mission is to locate the submarine                           
 and to destroy them by launching depth                                 
 charges and torpedoes. This proposal reduces                           
 the number of P-3 anti-submarine aircraft                              
 squadrons from 37 to 18......................            0        1,950
Reduce Titan IV Military Launch Systems                                 
 Acquisition by one per year. This proposal                             
 eliminates one Titan IV system acquisition                             
 per year, each of which costs $300-400                                 
 million......................................          100        1,280
Terminate the National Aerospace Plane (NASP).                          
 The NASP was designed in 1987 by DOD and NASA                          
 to deliver civilian and military payloads                              
 into orbit from conventional runways. The                              
 program has encountered numerous problems,                             
 including technical difficulties, budget                               
 reductions, changes in management structure,                           
 and major adjustments to scope and schedule.                           
 None of the government entities involved with                          
 the program appear to be strongly committed                            
 to it. The NASP was originally estimated to                            
 cost $3.1 billion to develop. More recently,                           
 its cost estimates reached $15 billion;                                
 producing a minimum fleet of operational                               
 aircraft could cost an additional $20                                  
 billion. Given the current budget situation,                           
 it is extremely doubtful this plane will ever                          
 be completed. This proposal terminates the                             
 program......................................           20          180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Savings of under $1 million.                                         

                           Amendment No. 1452

  (Purpose: To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998)

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Wofford, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1452.

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (The text of amendment No. 1452 is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, let me, first of all, express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on 
the amendment that he just sent to the desk. Through his leadership, I 
and other Senators had the opportunity to participate in what I 
consider to be a real effort to try to do some cutting of spending 
around here and reduce the Federal deficit.
  We had the opportunity to contribute some of our own ideas, and by 
pooling those together, I think the Senator from Massachusetts has come 
up with one of the strongest and most honest packages for reducing the 
deficit I have had an opportunity to see. I am very happy to be a 
cosponsor of that provision.
  Let me also, Madam President, begin my remarks by first expressing my 
concern for the victims of the earthquake in southern California and 
the tremendous suffering that has occurred. It is hard to imagine a 
more frightening experience for people to undergo. I think all 
Americans in their hearts feel we should respond to this situation as 
we are trying to do through this legislation.
  I want to particularly praise the two Senators from California, 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, who came here this year as 
freshmen and have done just a wonderful job in pursuing a number of 
issues of concern to the whole country. They have had the bad luck, 
though, of having a series of terrible disasters occur in their home 
State, all in the course of their first few months in office. I have 
watched them go back to their home State to devote enormous time 
dealing with the disaster situation and, at the same time, the work 
they have done here has continued. That has been very impressive to me 
and a role model of what a United States Senator should do. Both serve 
the country and their State, especially at a time when their State is 
going through one of the worst disasters in American history.
  That same concern was shown for many of the States in my region of 
the country, the Midwest, when the flooding occurred last year.
  And though I think the issue of reducing the Federal deficit is the 
most important we have here, I would like to think that I and others 
have shown this year, on the record, that there is a notion of an 
emergency, that there are emergencies in Government. However, I think 
the meaning should be limited.
  I do not think the definition of emergency should be some sort of 
open-ended invitation to try to construct any kind of emergency you 
want. But I do think this emergency has merit and that this bill tries 
to address those problems.
  But there is a significant piece of this bill not having to do with 
the earthquake or the flooding that I think does not belong in the 
emergency bill.


                           Amendment No. 1453

       (Purpose: To strike out chapter 3 of title I, relating to 
             appropriations for international peacekeeping)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, on behalf of myself, Senator 
DeConcini, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Kohl, and Senator Wellstone, I 
now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     DeConcini, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1453.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out chapter 3 of title I.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this is a simple amendment. It deletes 
the $1.2 billion provided for in this bill for a so-called variety of 
emergency peacekeeping activities requested by the Department of 
Defense. My amendment leaves the funding for the earthquake and the 
funding that has to do with the floods intact.
  This amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union. What it 
is about is the process. What it is about is the budget process.
  The question that it asks is: Can we ever learn to actually pay for 
items that are nonemergency items?
  Madam President, I have had the opportunity to participate in very 
vigorous debates on items that have to do with $25 million and $3 
million, sometimes even smaller amounts. But what we are talking about 
here--$1.2 billion--is not spare change.
  The question is: How did a $1.2 billion item not having to do with 
the disasters suddenly get into the earthquake bill as if it is part of 
the emergency that happened in southern California?
  I realize, Madam President, that it is not really in vogue now for 
Members of the Senate to question the Department of Defense when it 
wants more money. But all of us entered into, in the last few months, I 
think, a good faith attempt to reduce the Federal deficit, and it has 
had some good results.
  The President and the administration have every right to brag about 
the progress that has been made in just a few short months on reducing 
the Federal deficit, especially with the recent efforts. But we can 
never forget that those deficit cuts that we voted for last year hurt a 
lot of people. People lost their jobs in some cases. In some cases we 
had Federal military retirees losing or having their COLA's delayed. 
Those folks that count on the wool and mohair subsidy are going to find 
out that that benefit has been eliminated. Just about every American is 
paying a higher gas tax. Those in the area of agriculture--and I 
represent an agricultural State, and serve on the Agriculture 
Committee--in almost every area of Government-supported subsidies for 
agriculture, there were cuts up to $3 billion; 250 different areas of 
cuts. And, of course, we heard a lot on this floor about the fact, 
regardless of who pays for it, that we did put into effect $250 billion 
in new taxes.
  That was a very painful process and everybody had to take a hit in 
the process.
  So, given that process that we all participated in, how does the 
Department of Defense get to get out of the deal? How do they get to 
come in here and get another kick at the cat in the name of an 
emergency?
  I thought we had all agreed to a process to share the pain in deficit 
reduction and once the deal was done, to stay within the bounds of that 
agreement. It reminds me a little bit of a book I read many years ago, 
a piece of it from George Orwell's ``Animal Farm.'' As you recall 
there, the animals got together and took over the farm and they wrote a 
little constitution. The constitution said, at least at the beginning, 
that ``All animals are equal.''
  But a little later on there was a little fine print added by the 
animals that were really running the farm. What they changed it to say 
is that ``All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than 
others.''
  Forgive me. I certainly do not mean to make any animal comparisons. 
So let us change it to, ``We thought all Federal Government departments 
were equal under our agreement on the deficit, but it appears here that 
one Government department feels it is more equal than the others.''
  For me and for the cosponsors of this amendment, and I hope for many 
other Members of this body, this leaves a bad taste in the mouth, to 
have this kind of provision tacked onto an emergency bill for southern 
California.
  This is to be a $1.2 billion item for peacekeeping, in part for the 
Bosnia action but also Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, and a number of other 
operations that have been going on for a few years. But what it really 
is, to me, is an attempt to turn the earthquake and flooding emergency 
bill into a gravy train. It is a gravy train that is on a fast track. 
In effect, the disasters that occurred are the engine of the train and 
this $1.2 billion is like the caboose that has been added on. But it is 
a caboose that does not look anything like the rest of the train. In 
fact, the disaster train, the attempt to provide relief for those 
victims of the earthquake, is really supposed to be an express train 
because it is trying to get help quickly to some people who are 
suddenly and tragically suffering.
  The Department of Defense thinks they should be pulled by this train, 
too. But what they are slowing down is another train. They are slowing 
down the train that is sort of chugging along, the train to try to 
reduce the Federal deficit. This is in fact a step backward for 
reducing the Federal deficit.
  I will be the first to admit that I would not be up here, taking the 
lead on this amendment, if I was not taken aback earlier in the week 
when I just took up the Washington Post and found out this large $1.2 
billion item had been tacked on. Maybe for some Members of this body 
this is just business as usual, this is the way you do it. You wait for 
a natural disaster and then you have your items you want to spend money 
on, you tack them on there, and the bill has to pass because it is a 
disaster.
  My reaction was that it was already difficult to vote for the 
disaster bill, even though it is a very compelling case. It is bad 
enough to spend anymore money at all. It is bad enough to have to spend 
more money on another disaster. This has been probably the worst year 
for disasters ever in the history of this country. It is bad enough we 
may not be able to offset all the funding for the disaster items in the 
bill, let alone additional items.
  It is bad to realize you have to explain to your constituents we do 
not have a fund in our Federal Government to provide for disasters, or 
insurance. We just kind of wait for these things to happen and then 
come up with the money off budget.
  All of those things were troubling to me, even before I learned about 
this $1.2 billion. But I still believe, and believed after I learned 
about those defense items, that there is a core notion of emergency and 
that on occasion an emergency, yes, it can outweigh all of those very 
important considerations that have to do with the deficit. I would 
always prefer we offset, but it is possible that we simply cannot. It 
is very likely that this California situation is such a compelling 
case.
  Let me also acknowledge the concerns of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator from West Virginia. I am 
by no means the only one who is troubled by the Defense Department's 
attempt to  do this in this bill. In fact the Senator from West 
Virginia has indicated his concern. I yield to him, of course, on his 
expertise and also his commitment to proper budgeting. I can tell from 
his comments he does not really like that this $1.2 billion is in this 
bill at all.

  He has his responsibilities as the Chair and I understand that. But I 
believe some of his own examples on pieces of legislation of this kind 
are instructive when it comes to the notion of what is or is not an 
emergency.
  I also do not want to pretend there are not any arguments that can be 
made for the expenditure of these $1.2 billion. The point is there is 
another way to do it, without trying to pretend these are emergencies. 
You can have another nonemergency supplemental bill with no offsets, if 
you can persuade the body to do that. You can have a bill and 
completely offset it with other expenditures from other areas of the 
Government, other sources of revenue. Or another alternative would be 
to have it offset from within the Department of Defense itself. I 
believe the Department of Defense could reprioritize to take care of 
this amount without doing any great damage to what it is trying to 
accomplish in items of national security.
  The point is this item should stand on its own merits. It should not 
be able to, in effect, bootstrap itself through this process on the 
back of the calamity in southern California.
  I think we all know this kind of attempt is just exactly what the 
American people suspect is wrong with Congress. We say we are going to 
play by new rules when we reduce the Federal deficit, but people 
suspect we will not really do that. We tell them we have cut 250 
programs or 150 programs, but they say back to me, you will find a way 
to delay or a way to fund it through the back door or, you will figure 
out some other way to not really cut the spending; ``that is, that you 
will have tricks to pull and you will use those tricks to make people 
think you are prudent, but in fact you will use various legislative 
techniques to evade your responsibilities.
  A lot of people say those kinds of things to me as I go around my 
State. And those who look at $1.2 billion item for any length of time 
will see it exactly for what it is. They will see it is an off-budget 
item that is not part of an emergency.
  There was quite a reaction yesterday when the Congressional Budget 
Office tried to resolve the question of whether the President's 
proposals in health care were on-budget or off-budget. I happen to 
think they were wrong. I agree with our majority leader. I think those 
items were premiums and they were off budget. But they said they were 
on budget.
  But in this case with the $1.2 billion, there is no question this is 
an off budget expenditure. And there are folks who will say we have to 
pay for this anyway, what is the difference, we might as well throw it 
into this bill and just be done with it.
  But I think it is a problem. I think we have to remember this is not 
a defense cut we are talking about here, this is an add on. This is 
plain and simple an additional $1.2 billion that was not previously 
contemplated or appropriated.
  Let us be clear, this does not have to do with anything the 
Department can really argue is an emergency. These are not unforeseen 
circumstances. These actions in some cases, in Somalia, Bosnia, the 
money for the Iraq situation, have been around for 1, 2, or even 3 
years.
  Let us also be clear that it is not as if the Department of Defense 
is trying to update some old Department of Defense budget that was 
created 10 years ago. We did this budget in August and September of 
this year. The Department of Defense knew about all of these items for 
which they are now asking for money. These situations are not any more 
urgent now than they were then.
  I will tell you when they became urgent. They became urgent when 
somebody realized this earthquake bill was going to be coming through 
the U.S. Senate. I have a feeling if there were no earthquake, there 
would be no emergency request by DOD at this point for $1.2 billion.
  Again, it is not that these programs have no merit. It is just they 
do not belong on the fast track. So, let it stand on its own merits in 
another nonemergency bill.
  Let me finally say, Madam President, that some have said when there 
was an amendment like this in the other House, that this was the first 
test of a new doctrine that President Clinton enunciated in his State 
of the Union Address. That doctrine is that there should be no more 
defense cuts. Maybe this is the first test of whether we are going to 
follow that doctrine. I have to say, I stood up many times for the 
President during the State of the Union. I thought it was a wonderful 
speech, one of the best speeches I had ever heard from any public 
official, especially a President.
  But there was one time when I did not stand. I could not stand when 
the President said ``no more defense cuts.'' I do not understand the 
rationale for that position. I do not think there is any branch of our 
Government or any department of our Government that should simply be 
exempted from the kind of scrutiny we need if we are going to ever have 
our deficit eliminated.
  Some of the best amendments that we heard out here during the 
reconciliation process and the appropriations process had to do with 
the Defense Department. We succeeded on some, such as the advanced 
solid rocket motor. Others were very eloquently argued, especially by 
the senior Senator from Arkansas. But we did not prevail: Items such as 
the Trident II Missile program, SDI, Project ELF, Project GWEN.
  There is still much that could be cleaned up and should be cleaned up 
in terms of the Defense Department.
  Of course we would not do those things, and I would not support doing 
those things, if it involved harming our national security. I do not 
support across-the-board cuts in defense. I do not support a meat-ax 
approach to defense expenditures, but I also do not believe the Defense 
Department, unlike other departments, should have in effect an 
impenetrable barrier around it so as to avoid rational, well-reasoned, 
well-researched cuts in its spending programs.
  We need a line-by-line review of the Defense Department on a regular 
basis, just as we do for every other department of the Federal 
Government. That is the approach that Senator John Kerry, of 
Massachusetts, took with his package--which is simply to say that we 
should not make a label, ``Department of Defense endorsed,'' sufficient 
to turn something into new law and into a new expenditure.
  That is no way to budget, and I think it is a formula for failure 
with regard to the deficit if we continue to give that kind of total 
exemption to any Department or cause.
  Let us remember, this is not even an example of a defense cut. The 
President said no more defense cuts. What this amendment in effect 
suggests--if people do not oppose it vigorously--is that any increase 
the Defense Department suggests should not be opposed and should not be 
questioned. That cannot be.
  So, Madam President, to conclude, I urge that we strike this $1.2 
billion item. I urge it with great respect for the military and other 
peacekeeping operations that are underway. I say it with respect for 
what the Department of Defense is trying to do in each of those 
theaters, and I say it especially with respect for the real reason for 
this bill, the attempt to get some help to the people of southern 
California who have suffered greatly.
  The American people know the difference between an unexpected 
emergency and an attempt to, in effect, grab onto that emergency to 
allow a certain department of the Federal Government to get more than 
it really deserves after the budget process has been concluded.
  The American people know that just because the deficit has been 
reduced, the debt is still going up. We just reduced the deficit but 
until you eliminate the deficit, the debt keeps going upwards. Until we 
completely reverse that trend, we have to be very vigilant in making 
sure that this notion of emergency is not distorted any further.
  So, Madam President I urge my colleagues to take the step of 
eliminating this $1.2 billion item so we can move forward with a clean 
effort to support those who have suffered so greatly throughout the 
country and especially in southern California.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
included as a cosponsor of the amendment of my colleague from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, on that subject, let me just say 
that I agree with everything he said, or practically everything he 
said. I figure peacekeeping is neither a disaster nor an emergency, if 
the decision that someone takes at a given point in time, and if we do 
not start planning in one way or some other appropriate way for these 
in advance, in effect we are going to give an excuse for peacekeeping 
that is not actually peacekeeping. So I compliment my colleague from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1454

  (Purpose: To establish a natural disaster relief trust fund in the 
                               Treasury)

   Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1454.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the ------, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . CREATION OF NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment of the Account.--Chapter 11 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1115, Natural Disaster Relief Trust Fund

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established a separate 
     account in the Treasury, known as the `Natural Disaster 
     Relief Trust Fund', into which shall be deposited an amount 
     equal to the average annual amount expended by the Federal 
     Government for natural disaster relief during the preceding 5 
     full fiscal years (as determined under subsection (b)).
       ``(b) Determination of Amount.--The President shall submit 
     with the President's fiscal year budget (beginning with the 
     budget for fiscal year 1995) an estimate of the average 
     annual cost to the Federal Government of providing assistance 
     to State and local governments and private entities in 
     recovering from natural disasters during the 5 full fiscal 
     years preceding the submission of the budget.
       ``(c) Transfer.--
       ``(1) On the first day of each fiscal year, there shall be 
     transferred from the general fund to the Natural Disaster 
     Relief Trust Fund the amount necessary to bring the amount on 
     deposit in the fund up to the amount determined under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(2) The amounts in the Natural Disaster Relief Trust Fund 
     may be appropriated exclusively for disaster relief.
       ``(d) Budget Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       ``(1) amounts transferred pursuant to subsection (c)(1) 
     shall be treated as discretionary appropriations for the 
     fiscal year in which the transfer is made: and
       ``(2) appropriations under subsection (c)(2) (not to exceed 
     the balances of the Natural Disaster Relief Trust Fund and 
     amounts of outlays that flow through budget authority 
     actually appropriated) shall be excluded from, and shall not 
     be taken into account for purposes of, any budget enforcement 
     procedures under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
       (b) Listing of the Natural Disaster Relief Trust Fund Among 
     Government Trust Funds.--Section 1321(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting at the end thereof the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(91) Natural Disaster Relief Trust Fund.''.
       (c) Requirement for the President To Report Annually on the 
     Status of the Account.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof:
       ``(29) information about the Natural Disaster Relief Trust 
     Fund, including a separate statement of amounts in that Trust 
     Fund.''.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, all Americans recognize that the 
earthquake in California is a national problem. We at the Federal level 
have to do what we can to help the citizens of the Los Angeles area 
rebuild their communities.


                     add it to the deficit--again?

  But the time has long passed when we can continue to tack disaster 
aid onto the deficit. That would be tantamount to asking our children 
to pay for the immediate needs of this generation, and that would be 
unconscionable.
  I know that that represents a practice of long standing in the 
Congress. But it was a foolish policy in the past, and we as a nation 
can no longer delude ourselves into the belief that we can get away 
with it.
  The national debt today is $4.7 trillion, more than four times what 
it was 15 years ago. In 1994, we are paying $298 billion of interest on 
that debt. All of the spending increases we have made in the past--all 
of the ``emergency'' spending we have approved, all of the packages 
like this one--they all seemed very important to us at the time.
  But look at what this spending did to the national debt. $4.7 
trillion.


                       no--we have to pay for it

  The 1992 election reflected the desire of the American people for 
change--and paying for what we spend is precisely the kind of change I 
believe they were demanding.
  Last summer, when floods devastated my home State of Minnesota and 
much of the Midwest, I rose to amend the bill providing emergency 
Federal disaster relief to pay for the emergency funding that we so 
desperately needed.
  Here we are again--another so-called ``emergency'' supplemental. 
Nobody will deny that this expenditure is necessary and justified. But 
I, along with some others, am here to ask the simple question: Why can 
we not pay for it?
  A few days ago, we heard that the request would be about $6 billion. 
Now it is up to $11.2 billion--including funds to clean up past 
disasters, and $1.2 billion in funding for U.S. participation in the 
U.N. peacekeeping operations overseas. I understand that additional 
supplemental requests in the President's 1995 Budget request have been 
included by the committee in this bill. This has evolved from a 
disaster relief bill to a catchall request. Do we really need emergency 
treatment for U.N. peacekeeping operations?
  What else is going to be included in this emergency package? Where 
does this process of considering all spending to be an emergency come 
to an end?
  This year's $11.2 billion of off-budget expenses come on top of last 
year's $4.6 billion in flood relief. The administration was going to 
try to take all the federally-mandated costs of health care reform off 
the budget. There is even talk that the $11 billion cost of the Uruguay 
Round GATT agreement may be unfunded.
  Did I miss something? Am I supposed to believe that just because the 
estimate for this year's deficit is lower than expected, it is suddenly 
OK to start piling everything onto the deficit again? Right onto the 
backs of our children and grandchildren?
  A $176 billion deficit estimate for 1995 is not peanuts. The 1990 BEA 
set $83 billion as the target for 1995. Settling for more than twice 
that amount is not exactly a fiscal victory.
  Concerned Minnesotans, and responsible groups like the Concord 
Coalition, continue to register alarm about the growing national debt. 
I am absolutely convinced that a great majority of our constituents 
would want us to pay for this relief, instead of getting back into our 
old practice of shifting the financial burden to the next generation. 
That was the message I heard--even last year, when the disaster was 
right back home in Minnesota.
  To hold back the needed relief is the last thing I would ever want to 
do. But I believe it is equally important that we support an offset to 
this funding. Senator Dole has an excellent package of spending cuts to 
offset the disaster relief. I think that supporting this offset is the 
only responsible thing to do.
  The Appropriations Committee did include $3.44 in rescissions as a 
partial offset to the Supplemental. Certainly a partial offset is 
better than no offset, but was not this the rescission money committed 
to deficit reduction? Indeed, did not the President promise these 
cuts--as a follow-up to the inadequate cuts included in the 1993 Budget 
Reconciliation bill?
  Are we now supposed to accept that there is going to be no vote this 
year on a rescission package? That the commitment to let Senators 
Kerrey and Brown offer their budget reduction package has been 
completely forgotten?

  The rescission bill should not be abandoned. Both of the President's 
rescission lists should not be used for more spending. To do that would 
be to take the easy way out once again--claiming victory for only a 
partial offset, and one that was earlier dedicated for the very 
important purpose of deficit reduction. I contend that we ought to 
support the Dole amendment--because it is a full offset that includes 
new, real budget cuts.
  We have an opportunity today to vote for some rescissions. It may be 
our only chance. The revised Kerrey-Brown deficit reduction package of 
$99.1 billion will be offered as an amendment today. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this effort.
  When President Clinton was reviewing the disaster in California, he 
indicated that he was going to go back to Washington and figure out how 
to pay for this disaster. I was encouraged by that remark, and 
immediately communicated to the President that he should follow through 
on that notion. That is why I was very disappointed to learn that his 
advisers convinced him to take the easy way out--to just pile that 
amount onto the deficit.
  That is what the administration proposal would do. And that is why it 
has to be rejected.


reinventing disaster relief: budgeting for disasters before they happen

  Clearly, we have to rethink the whole way we handle disaster relief 
here in Congress. We need to start budgeting for disasters before they 
happen--and to ensure that much of the disaster relief is spent on 
preventive measures so that the next disaster costs less.
  And make no mistake: There will be a next disaster. Over the last few 
years, we have had a whole series of them. The flood cost us $4.6 
billion, plus the $435 billion we are spending this year. Before that, 
we spent $8.5 billion for Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. There were 
further emergency supplementals for the Chicago floods and the Los 
Angeles riots and the 1989 California earthquake. Hurricane Bob, fires 
on the west coast, storms in the Northeast and various agricultural 
disasters cost us another $8 billion--and a grand total of $22 billion 
over 10 years--all loaded onto the deficit.
  It is entirely possible that we will not have another disaster for a 
number of years. By the same token, it is entirely possible that we 
will have several in the next year alone. What I simply cannot fathom 
is why we in this chamber are so averse to preparing for these 
emergencies.
  Why do we resist authorizing and appropriating funds for these 
disasters? Is it because we simply cannot give up the opportunity to 
have a middle-of-session Christmas tree called a supplemental? Is it 
because we know we can rely on emergency supplementals and choose to 
appropriate that money for other favored programs?
  During the debate on the flood supplemental, I offered an amendment 
that would require the President to provide an offset for future 
disaster relief requests. I will shortly offer an amendment on this 
supplemental that would create a disaster emergency trust fund which 
would be set aside for future disasters and funded each year. This is a 
sensible, responsible way to handle the disasters we know will continue 
to occur.
  I noted with interest--in a February 3 Hobart Rowen column in the 
Washington Post--that Senator Simon may recommend a $15 billion 
emergency money pool the President could use during recessions. This 
could certainly include the disaster relief funds as well.
  In the House of Representatives, our colleagues Tim Penny, John 
Kasich, Jim Nussle, and John Myers have recognized the need for 
change--and I salute them for it. I further salute Speaker Foley for 
finally acting on a promise to convene a task force to examine the 
whole question of disaster relief. I commend Senator Byrd as well for 
amending the supplemental yesterday to provide for a Senate Task Force 
to study this important matter.
  I believe my trust fund amendment will give us the answer to the 
question of how best to prepare for the Federal response to these 
disasters. The Foley and the Byrd Task Forces must now examine the very 
difficult issue of how we can limit the Federal response to these 
crises--how we can encourage local and state governments to make the 
decisions necessary to avoid major damage in the future--and how we can 
privatize the granting of relief through reform of our insurance 
system.
  I believe there is a clear and pressing need to rethink how we in the 
Federal Government deal with natural disasters. This amendment would 
make a very important and necessary reform in national disaster relief 
policy.
  The amendment would establish a National Disaster Relief Trust Fund, 
patterned after the ``Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund'' authored by 
Senator Byrd in the crime bill. My amendment, however, does not 
dedicate certain savings or provide for specific reprogramming of funds 
into this trust fund, as Senator Byrd did. I leave that decision to the 
appropriators--those who can best make these decisions. While the trust 
fund would be a mandatory expense, the funds would have to be 
appropriated under the discretionary cap. The initial appropriation to 
the fund would be determined by the President, in an amount equal to 
the average annual Federal spending on disaster relief over the last 5 
years--a sum estimated to be about $4.7 billion. Each year the fund 
would be replenished to maintain that level of funding. If we are lucky 
enough to not have a natural disaster in 1 year, the following year the 
fund would not have to be replenished.

  Dedication of the initial $4.7 billion to the Trust Fund will be 
difficult. Difficult choices will have to be made. But this is what 
this amendment is all about. We have to make those difficult choices 
now, rather than piling this spending onto the debt.
  Indeed, one of the major reasons America is in a disastrous fiscal 
mess today is that we in Congress refuse to exercise the most 
elementary foresight. Why do we have to convene Congress to appropriate 
disaster relief funds every time there is a bulletin on CNN? Do we seek 
to delay funds to help those in need solely because we want to look 
like heroes? I contend that we would be greater heroes if we were able 
to respond immediately by releasing funds in the trust fund. This is 
the approach proposed in my amendment.
  And this trust fund would be on budget. Remember, this year we are 
going to pay $298 billion in interest alone on our national debt. That 
is the legacy of all the urgent spending we have approved over the last 
15 years, and it means we absolutely have to change course on fiscal 
policy. Just because the deficit figure is down for fiscal 1995 does 
not mean that our problems are over. We have a $4.7 trillion Federal 
debt lurking in the background. When constituents borrow and spend 
beyond their means, they must go through painful bankruptcy. Is our 
Government headed in that direction?
  That seems to be the word I am getting from the people back in 
Minnesota----and they are more than willing to put their money where 
their mouth is. Last summer, when I tried to pay for the relief for 
Minnesota's flood disaster, the comments I heard from Minnesota were 
largely supportive. The people of Minnesota know that we can't go on 
just adding to the deficit, shifting our debt burden to our children 
and grandchildren. Why can we not in Congress learn that lesson?
  We are going to pass this bill anyway. But my amendment has to do 
with the future. It would set a rational disaster-relief policy for 
next year and the year after. It will not delay the relief--I believe 
House conferees would accept this amendment in conference--but it will 
once and for all end the needless debate about the need for emergency 
spending on disasters when we know that sometime soon, somewhere in 
America, a disaster of some kind is going to happen.
  I view this amendment as the beginning of an intelligent overall 
disaster policy for America. First, we establish this trust fund to 
start actually paying for disaster relief instead of just piling it on 
to the deficit.
  Then we have to get to work on prevention.
  Would it not be better if we could privatize much of the disaster 
funding through reform of our insurance system? Perhaps the most 
important role for the Foley and Byrd task forces is to explore efforts 
to privatize disaster relief--by improving our insurance system. Today, 
there is no incentive to buy flood, earthquake, or crop insurance--
because Federal disaster relief is so readily available. At this point, 
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the 
Washington Post which calls for a sound insurance system.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Reinventing Disaster Insurance

       The Government has two methods of helping victims cope with 
     the cost of natural disasters, and to some extent they 
     conflict. The first is to provide what have come to be large 
     amounts of aid itself, directly; the second, to set up 
     insurance systems. Insurance is often the fairer way of 
     allocating costs. The problem is getting the people at risk 
     to subscribe so long as they have good reason to think the 
     government will bail them out anyway.
       There are certain costs of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods 
     and the like that are plainly the government's to pay--
     restoring order, protecting public health, providing 
     temporary shelter, repairing roads. But much of the cost when 
     disasters strike has to do not with these public functions 
     but with loss of private property--homes, businesses, crops. 
     The insurance approach says the cost of restoring these 
     should generally be borne by those at risk through premiums 
     rather than by the public at large through taxes--and the 
     government has both flood and crop insurance programs. But 
     neither functions as it should, in part because the 
     vulnerable groups have come to look to the government for aid 
     instead.
       You might think a Congress facing enormous spending 
     constraints would want to discourage this, but not so. The 
     emergency aid goes to people in genuine need; the 
     supplemental appropriations through which it is generally 
     given are almost the only times members can safely vote to 
     spend money without being criticized. At the same time the 
     bills are powerful locomotives to which the adroit can often 
     attach a little not-quite-emergency aid for the folks back 
     home. Presidents find it similarly advantageous to say yes, 
     and awkward to say no. The Clinton administration is already 
     preparing to spend some $7.5 billion to help hard-hit and 
     vote-rich California recover from the earthquake of two weeks 
     ago.
       There is some contrary pressure, however. The government 
     has already spent some $22 billion on disaster aid in the 
     last 10 years; that's a huge sum. Insurers have been hard hit 
     by some recent disasters and are looking for a broader-based 
     system. And in some cases environmentalists would like to see 
     costs borne through insurance as well, as a disincentive to 
     development of wetlands, coastlines and other fragile areas.
       The California earthquake has produced some interest in 
     Congress and the insurance industry in a new national 
     disaster insurance system that would spread risk more 
     broadly. In partial response to last year's Mississippi River 
     valley floods, the House Banking Committee has also approved 
     a bill that would bar the making of mortgage loans on any 
     flood-plain property in the country lacking flood insurance. 
     The bill would also deny federal flood insurance to fragile 
     oceanfront property subject to erosion. But similar 
     legislation failed in the Senate in the last Congress--the 
     opposition is almost always more concentrated than is the 
     support--and the measures' prospects are uncertain.
       An important difference this time around could be the 
     budget. Congress is under tight appropriations caps, and 
     conservatives have begun to argue that these should apply to 
     disaster funds no less than to other appropriations. Then the 
     price of giving disaster aid would be having less to spend 
     for other purposes. The harder it becomes to appropriate, the 
     stronger the case may become for a sound insurance system. If 
     the Clinton administration and its assorted critics in 
     Congress really want to reinvent government, maybe this is 
     another place to start.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, the task force should examine 
questions like the following:
  Should trailer parks be reestablished in hurricane areas?
  Should homes and farms be built on flood plains?
  Is there less damage in the long run if rivers are allowed to choose 
their own course, or should we continue to chart their courses through 
the use of levees?
  Should we build--or rebuild--highways on faults without proper 
earthquake-proof structure?
  How can we make all structures more earthquake proof?
  On a related matter, I am encouraged that the administration is 
moving quickly on crop insurance reform--an issue I pressed in 
conjunction with the flood relief in 1993, and one on which I have 
spent a great deal of time over the last year. Fortunately, the 
administration appears to be incorporating many of the components of my 
own crop insurance reform legislation into its proposal, which should 
be released shortly. But insurance reform will not work if we continue 
to encourage the perception that the Federal Government has an easy way 
to pay for disasters.
  The bottom line is that we have to seek an effective insurance system 
if we want to avoid huge Federal relief expenditures. What we do spend 
should be spent in a way that will make future disasters less costly, 
both in property and human lives. Perhaps the granting of future relief 
should be tied to commitments by State and local governments that much 
of the relief will be spent on efforts to promote the kind of 
rebuilding that will minimize the impact of future disasters. This was 
included in my amendment of last year.
  Today, you will be challenged to respond immediately to this 
emergency--and to oppose an offset. To those who choose this path, I 
would say the following: Join us for the next step in the reform 
process--as we pursue efforts to budget for these disasters in advance. 
Support the Durenberger amendment to set up the disaster emergency 
trust fund we so desperately need. The time to do this is now--there 
may not be a more appropriate vehicle this year.


                          fences or ambulances

  Madam President, let me remind my colleagues of the great truth 
contained in an old poem. The poem had to do with a steep cliff--and 
cars that would always drive off it toward certain death.
  In the poem, the villagers consider increasing how much they pay for 
the ambulance service at the bottom of the cliff. After all, people are 
dying all the time as cars plummet off that cliff. To oppose funding 
for the ambulance service is seen as insanely stingy--until someone 
finally points out that maybe, just maybe, it would be wiser to build a 
fence at the top of the cliff.
  Let us not abdicate our responsibility to make intelligent, forward-
looking policy for America. A natural disaster is no excuse for a 
fiscal disaster--a budget policy that has no role for prudence, 
foresight, or intelligent planning. If we make the right choice today--
if we set an intelligent precedent by paying for this disaster relief--
we can earn the gratitude of many future generations of Americans.
  Madam President, I am sure my colleague from West Virginia will 
comment that he has created a task force to study this, and this may 
just well be one of the recommendations that that task force comes up 
with.
  I suggest to him a logical suggestion that has come to me from many 
people in my own State and many of my colleagues as well. I am sure the 
task force can help us decide exactly how to raise the first $4.7 
billion, how exactly the program might work, how the appropriators 
might adjust it. But the concept is very, very difficult to argue with.
  So, Madam President, I suggest that while there are lots of other 
things we can do, we have an amendment on the floor which is a $3 
checkoff, we have a variety of other suggestions for how you pay for 
this. I have been through this on other disasters. I have tried to 
think of raising taxes, do this, do that, the other thing. This seems 
to be, after listening to all the arguments for and against paying for 
an emergency, this seems to be the most sensible kind of a way to go 
about this particular issue.
  So I recommend it to all of my colleagues.


                    earthquake relief funding for va

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am pleased to note that this 
emergency supplemental appropriations measure includes $45.6 million 
for cleanup at the Sepulveda, VA, Medical Center, as well as $21 
million in new budget authority for medical care and other expenses 
related to the earthquake in southern California.
  Madam President, the earthquake led to the closing of the Sepulveda, 
VA, Medical Center. Over 300 patients were moved from the Sepulveda 
facility to other VA facilities in southern California, all without 
incident. VA can and should be enormously proud of the way in which its 
employees have responded to the earthquake.
  The appropriation of $21 million for medical care would allow VA to 
cover the cost of treating veterans who were affected by the earthquake 
and who are now at other VA hospitals, as well as those who will be 
seen at other facilities until the Sepulveda facility is restored to 
operation or other accommodations are made to replace the lost bed and 
clinic capacity.
  Of this $21 million, VA would be authorized to transfer $802,000 to 
the Veterans Benefits Administration--to the general operating expenses 
account, the guaranty and indemnity program account, and the vocational 
rehabilitation loans program account. These funds would allow VA to 
make additional vocational rehabilitation subsistence loans to eligible 
veterans, assess damage to homes purchased with VA-guaranteed loans, 
and make veterans benefits counselors and vocational psychologists 
available at FEMA disaster assistance centers to assist veterans whose 
lives have been disrupted by the earthquake.

  Madam President, the other portion of the earthquake related funds in 
this supplement--$45.6 million in construction funds--will be targeted 
to making some repairs at the Sepulveda VAMC, as well as to the West 
Los Angeles VAMC, which suffered some damage during the earthquake. 
These funds will be used to do cleanup work, repair utilities, and take 
other first steps toward restoring the Sepulveda facility. They will 
not, however, allow for the full restoration of that medical center. 
Without significant further funding--estimated at approximately $150 
million--the bed facility at Sepulveda can not be reopened. I am quite 
concerned that the administration has not requested funding for the 
full restoration of the facility in this measure and fear that this may 
signal the start of a long, difficult process to restore the necessary 
VA presence in southern California, much like what has occurred in 
northern California in connection with the Palo Alto VA Medical Center, 
which was damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake, and the Martinez VA 
Medical Center, which was closed following that earthquake because of 
concerns about its seismic safety.
  Madam President, I intend to work closely with my counterpart in the 
House, Chairman Sonny Montgomery of the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, as well as the many Members of the Senate who are concerned 
about VA's ability to continue to meet the health care needs of 
veterans in southern California and elsewhere.
  Although the amounts in this legislation will not cover all of the 
earthquake-related costs suffered by VA, they are a start and will 
allow VA to begin to pick up the pieces and to begin to repair the 
damage. These funds will also allow VA to reach out and assist those 
veterans who have been severely affected by the earthquakes--veterans 
whose VA-guaranteed homes were damaged or destroyed, those who need VA 
benefits and loans, and those who need counseling or other assistance.
  VA is there, assisting in the aftermath, and must be provided with 
the means to continue its efforts. I will be paying close attention to 
all that the department is doing, and will be watching closely VA and 
the administration's activity relating to the future of the Sepulvada 
Medical Center.


                        title viii of h.r. 3759

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he would be willing to 
discuss one provision of H.R. 3759 to clarify its interpretation.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to discuss the provision in question with 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. My understanding is that chapter VIII of H.R. 3759 would 
appropriate $550 million to the President for unanticipated needs 
resulting from the Los Angeles earthquake and other disasters. Under 
chapter VIII, funds for emergency expenses could be transferred to any 
authorized Federal activity for which an official budget request has 
been made. My question is whether the fund would apply to Federal 
assistance related to the current disaster in the New England 
groundfish fishery.
  Mr. BYRD. Before responding to the Senator's question it would be 
useful to understand the statutory basis for providing such assistance.
  Mr. KERRY. Section 308(b) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 
1986 (16 U.S.C. 4107) authorizes appropriations for ``a commercial 
fisheries failure or serious disruption affecting future production due 
to a fishery resource disaster.'' The funds may be used ``for any 
purpose that the Secretary of Commerce determines is appropriate to 
restore the fishery--or to prevent a similar failure in the future.''
  Mr. BYRD. What evidence is there of a commercial fishery failure?
  Mr. KERRY. There has been a virtual collapse of groundfish stocks 
like haddock and cod in much of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. The 
neighboring Canadian fishery will be shut down completely for at least 
5 years. The U.S. Department of Commerce is proposing temporary 
reductions that will cut the permissible catch from the New England 
fishery in half.
  In recent years, the groundfish fishery in New England has provided 
about $600 million annually and employed about 24,000 people. Coastal 
communities are just beginning to assess the implications of the 
disaster, but its effects will be felt immediately. For example, 
Gloucester expects to see a 33 percent decline in the industry in 1994 
alone, with 50-60 vessels going out of business and facing 
foreclosures. Most lenders require boat owners to provide additional 
collateral, so many of the fishermen face the loss not only of their 
livelihood, but their homes as well. Not just for the individuals and 
their families, but also for the communities in which they live and 
base their fishing operations, and indeed, for the entire New England 
region, this fishery disruption is in fact a disaster--both in its 
effects and according to the definition of the Interjurisdictional 
Fisheries Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 4107).
  Mr. BYRD. As the Senator may know, the Appropriation for 
Unanticipated Needs is available for the Los Angeles Earthquake and 
``other disasters.'' Given the conditions you have outlined, which do 
sound quite severe, it would appear that Federal activities addressing 
the New England fishery crisis would be eligible for disaster 
assistance for which funding is provided by chapter VIII of the pending 
legislation if the President so determines.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 3759, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994.
  In a few devastating moments in the early morning on January 17, 
1994, 34,400 residential buildings were damaged or destroyed in the Los 
Angeles earthquake. Ninety-eight thousand people were forced out of 
their homes. Over 38 miles of roadway were closed, including the Santa 
Monica Freeway, the most heavily traveled highway in the country. The 
supplemental appropriations bill before us today will help the people 
of southern California begin the process of healing and rebuilding--a 
process that will take some time.
  I would like to begin by commending my colleagues from California--
Senators Feinstein and Boxer--who ensured that all of us had an 
understanding of the magnitude of the losses in California and of the 
corresponding need for Federal assistance. Senators Feinstein and Boxer 
have been tireless in moving this legislative relief package through 
the Senate.
  As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs, 
I would particularly like to support the HUD and mass transit funding 
components of this bill and to praise the critical roles played by 
Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and HUD Secretary Henry 
Cisneros. The prompt responses initiated by these two leaders 
demonstrate that the Federal Government works and has the ability to 
respond quickly to the needs of our people.
  Shortly after the quake ended, Secretary Cisneros and his staff were 
in Los Angeles coordinating the distribution of Federal relief to 
victims. HUD provided immediate relief in the form of housing vouchers 
for families rendered homeless, accelerated release of Community 
Development Block Grant and HOME Program funding that had already been 
appropriated, and expedited processing of FHA mortgage applications.
  The supplemental package before us provides an additional $575 
million in resources for HUD's programs. The relief provided in this 
package will not repair all the damage caused by the earthquake, but it 
is essential for housing the homeless, repairing homes, and rebuilding 
and strengthening communities.
  I would also like to highlight a small, but important piece of this 
legislation. The supplemental appropriations before us also provides 
$315 million emergency mass transit funding to address the immediate 
needs of Californians affected by the earthquake.

  While California fixes its highways, working people are getting to 
their jobs via public transportation. In the days immediately after the 
earthquake, the State concentrated its efforts on expanding mass 
transit capacity. A significant number of extra buses, locomotives and 
rail cars were secured from places as far away as Canada and Texas. Two 
temporary rail stations were opened to accommodate new riders. A 
freight rail line was converted to passenger use. Temporary satellite 
parking areas were set up to encourage commuters to park their cars 
outside the city and to take buses to work. California also began 
expeditious implementation of alternative mass transit programs such as 
telecommuting, establishing HOV lanes, providing expanded travel 
information, and rerouting commercial traffic.
  I want to highlight the transit portion of this supplemental budget 
request. We can learn from this emergency. The emergency and the 
reaction in California allow us to refocus our attention on the role of 
transit and the budget for these programs.
  The larger public policy issue was raised in an article by Jessica 
Mathews in the Washington Post on January 30, entitled, ``The 
Earthquake's Silver Lining''. Ms. Mathews writes: ``By the year 2010, 
average speed on its [Los Angeles'] freeways is projected to drop to 11 
mph. . . . Los Angeles is living proof--if only Americans could open 
their eyes and see it--that there will never be enough dollars to meet 
transportation needs by only, or mostly, building roads. New roads 
generate new traffic. The new traffic grows faster than new roads can 
be built.'' In sum, Ms. Mathews suggests that our response to the 
earthquake provides an opportunity to test out different transportation 
policies that better utilize mass transit. Mr. President, I ask that 
the full text of this article appear in the Record after my remarks.
  In testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works on January 27, Secretary of Transportation Pena presented similar 
themes. Secretary Pena testified that the Department of Transportation 
is working to provide both a short-term solution to the transportation 
problems caused by the earthquake, and to learn transportation lessons 
from this disaster. Secretary Pena stated: ``The economic effects of 
the earthquake will be felt long after the debris is cleared and the 
reconstruction of damaged homes, businesses, and highways has begun. 
Therefore, we must continue to employ the tools that we have used in 
these days immediately following the quake, such as increased use of 
public transportation, carpools, and telecommuting.''
  I find it ironic, then, that at the same time that the Administration 
is so aware of the current and long-term benefits of mass transit in 
southern California, that the 1995 budget request for mass transit 
severely cuts operating assistance. The proposed 25 percent cut in 
operating assistance for transit systems will greatly affect transit 
operators' ability to provide services at current levels. The American 
Public Transit Association surveyed 120 systems and found that 88 
percent said they would have to increase fares and reduce passenger 
service if a 25 percent reduction in operating assistance was 
implemented. The proposed across-the-board cut to operating assistance 
will devastate mass transit systems throughout the country, and the 
people who depend upon them. I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support more appropriate funding for operating assistance to transit 
systems during the upcoming appropriations process.
  In closing, Madam President, I would like to reiterate my support for 
the earthquake relief funding in the package before us and urge its 
passage by the Senate.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 30, 1994]

                     The Earthquake's Silver Lining

                          (By Jessica Mathews)

       After San Franciso's 1989 earthquake, the city's rapid 
     transit system shut down for one hour. It's four years and 
     counting for the damaged freeways.
       The two-level Embarcadero Freeway, which barricaded 
     downtown from the bay, was not repaired but replaced by a 
     street-level boulevard with a trolley line. Together, the 
     street and trolley carry as much traffic as did the freeway. 
     Opening up the waterfront has sparked a local real estate 
     boom.
       Los Angeles would do well to ponder its northern neighbor's 
     experience, good and bad. Not only does it need a 
     transportation system able to withstand a much stronger quake 
     than the one of Jan. 17, but it also now has one of those 
     rare postwar moments to rethink its infrastructure. Heaven 
     knows, no American city needs it more. By 2010, average speed 
     on its ever-expanding freeways is projected to drop to 11 
     mph.
       Los Angeles is living proof--if only Americans could open 
     their eyes and see it--that there will never be enough 
     dollars to meet transportation needs by only, or mostly, 
     building roads. New roads generate new traffic. The new 
     traffic grows faster than new roads can be built.
       This is no recent insight. Planners debated it in the 1930s 
     as bridge after bridge was built into Manhattan and each 
     became as congested as the one before. Sen. Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan described it brilliantly in a prescient piece titled 
     ``New Roads and Urban Chaos'' written 34 years ago. We've 
     lived it for the past 20 years as nearly every transportation 
     dollar went to building roads. In that time, urban highway 
     capacity rose by 4 percent. Road use nearly doubled. The 
     resulting congestion costs $100 billion a year. What does it 
     take to try something different?
       Perhaps an earthquake. If so, the disaster could prove to 
     have a silver lining for Angelenos and provide a beacon for 
     the rest of the country.
       There are plenty of options. In the 1940s, Los Angeles was 
     robbed of one of the world's best electric rail systems, a 
     sprawling network of quiet, pollution-free trains that 
     carried 80 million people a year. It was bought up and 
     scrapped by American City Lines, a front financed by General 
     Motors and Standard Oil of California, to make way for GM 
     buses fueled by Standard Oil diesel fuel. Soon the buses gave 
     way to cars, but some of the abandoned rail lines still 
     exist. One runs parallel to the country's busiest road, the 
     downed Santa Monica Freeway. Light rail service could be 
     quickly brought back.
       Reversible and HOV lanes can be easily built while the 
     roads are already out of service. West Los Angeles has long-
     vetted but never built plans for a veloway, a bicycle 
     freeway. The public utility commission could open access to 
     private jitney companies like the already popular Super 
     Shuttle. And the city's new commuter rail service can be 
     expanded with new track, new feeder buses and unused freight 
     lines.
       Revolutionary possibilities are in the offing. Chicago is 
     testing a personal rapid transit system that bears watching. 
     PRT's three-passenger cars are designed to zip along at 30 
     mph on a raised 3-foot wide track that can carry as much 
     traffic as a multilane highway. No operators are needed for 
     this 24-hour a day service. The cars wait at the station 
     instead of passengers. There are no stops--service is direct 
     because stations are off the track. The anticipated 
     construction cost is a fraction of heavy rail systems'. 
     Speed, safety, energy efficiency, immediate service and 
     privacy: On paper, at least, it's a commuter's dream.
       Many of these options could shorten Los Angeles's commuting 
     nightmare and cut its economic losses while the roads are 
     being rebuilt. But when the roads are reopened, will the 
     passengers disappear?
       The answer depends on money. Americans are not irrationally 
     car-crazed. We seem wedded to the automobile because policy 
     after government policy--many of them heavy subsidies--
     encourages us to be. The gas tax and the other charges 
     drivers pay cover less than two-thirds of the cost of 
     building and maintaining roads. These and other costs not 
     borne by drivers (including the value of tax-subsidized 
     parking, health and environmental costs of auto-generated 
     pollution, a share of military costs in the Middle East, the 
     loss in property values from noise etc.) amount to something 
     in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year, a staggering 5 
     percent of GNP. On a more personal scale, it has been 
     estimated that drivers going alone to work in major, downtown 
     business districts pay only 25 percent of the cost of their 
     commute. No wonder we like it.
       If automobile use bore even a healthy share of its full 
     costs, public and household funds would be spent quite 
     differently. Our choices would not be, as now, between well-
     funded roads, fragments of a transit system and practically 
     nothing else. The options would include high-speed intercity 
     rail, convenient transit (including new types that could 
     serve suburbs), walking or biking in hospitable surroundings 
     and, as a consequence of these alternatives, congestion-free 
     auto travel that served our convenience instead of ruling our 
     lives.
       Consumers spend more on transportation than on anything but 
     housing (three times more than health care). The mystery is 
     why we have doggedly pursued the same self-defeating policy--
     feed autos, starve the alternatives--no matter what the cost 
     in pollution, oil imports, immobility for the young and the 
     old, and consumption of land for parking and roads that lead 
     us back to the same traffic jams. There is a different future 
     out there, all we have to do is choose it. Los Angeles could 
     be the place to begin.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
supplemental appropriations bill before us. We must act quickly to 
extend relief to the victims of the devastating earthquake that hit 
southern California on January 17th. These people need our help to 
rebuild their homes and businesses and to put their lives back 
together.
  This bill also contains a less-publicized provision intended to 
respond to a natural disaster that has rolled through much of the rest 
of the country: record cold weather. The bill before us would give the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to target $300 
million in emergency low-income home energy assistance funds to States 
that have suffered through the recent cold snap. Millions of people 
rely on this program to heat their homes during the winter.
  This extra assistance is especially important in Connecticut and 
other cold weather States in the Northeast and Midwest that were hit 
hard by the cold weather in January. This weather came at a time when 
the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program was poorly equipped to 
cushion the blow for poor families. Taking inflation into account, the 
purchasing power of the program has been cut in half during the last 9 
years. The program now reaches only 25 percent of eligible households.
  In my own State of Connecticut, benefits were cut by 10 percent this 
year, and applications are up 7 percent. These are not just numbers: 
there are human faces behind them. This week I had the pleasure of 
visiting with a number of senior citizens in New Haven, CT, who depend 
on this program.
  Rose Depalma is a 74-year-old retiree who lives on $600 a month from 
Social Security. Her husband is diabetic and recently had heart bypass 
surgery. Even in normal times, they just get by, but this winter's cold 
weather has hit them particularly hard.
  ``You pay electric, gas, utilities and you're out of money,'' she 
says. ``You have to cut out any amount of social life you have. What's 
the sense of living after 65? We're supposed to be happy. We're not.''
  Federal home energy assistance is critical to people like Rose 
Depalma. The majority of households receiving help through this program 
have elderly or disabled members. Nearly three-quarters of the 
program's recipients have annual household incomes under $8,000.
  This program targets the truly needy, and it is the truly needy who 
need extra help paying their heating bills this winter. I am glad that 
the Appropriations Committee recognized this need and included $300 
million in emergency spending authority for this program. After this 
bill goes to conference, I hope the administration will move quickly to 
get this assistance to the people who need it most.


                            AVLIS RESCISSION

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy. Would the chairman please 
explain the $42 million rescission under the uranium supply and 
enrichment activities heading the title III of the bill?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. These are funds that the Department of Energy has 
retained for purposes of terminating AVLIS--the atomic vapor laser 
isotope separation program--if the United States Enrichment Corporation 
decides not to build a commercial AVLIS plant. Under the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992, the decision on whether to build a commercial AVLIS plant 
or not rests with the Enrichment Corporation. The Corporation plans to 
make that decision in April.
  The Energy Policy Act also transferred certain funds from the 
Department of Energy to the Corporation effective last July. The 
Department and the Corporation agreed, however, for the Department to 
retain $42 million of the Corporation's funds to pay any AVLIS 
termination expenses incurred by the Department.
  Mr. FORD. What happens then if these funds are rescinded and the 
Corporation decides not to build AVLIS? Who pays the termination costs?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Department of Energy. Research and development on 
AVLIS have been the Department's responsibility. Any termination 
expenses will be the Department's liability.
  Mr. FORD. But what happens if Congress rescinds the funds? Where will 
the Department get the money?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. When we wrote to Mr. Panetta, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, about this last November, he assured 
us that ``The administration feels that there are considerable balances 
remaining on the DOE account that have not been outlayed. * * *.'' So 
presumably, the Department of Energy will pay for any termination 
expenses out of other appropriated funds available to the Department.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield, I would like to join this 
colloquy. I share the concern of the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. 
Panetta's letter goes on to talk about the Enrichment Corporation's 
cash-flow. Does the administration intend to pass on the termination 
costs to the Corporation?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Corporation has no legal obligation to pay the 
termination costs. The Energy Policy Act is clear on these matters. The 
Department of Energy remains responsible for liabilities attributable 
to the operation of the uranium enrichment enterprise before the 
business was transferred to the Corporation. AVLIS has never been 
transferred. The preexisting research and development program remains 
the Department's responsibility. The act sharply limits the 
Corporation's ability to spend money on AVLIS. The act gives the 
Corporation neither the responsibility nor the authority to pay these 
expenses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Department has already held back $42 million that 
the law said should have been transferred to the Corporation. I remain 
very concerned that as soon as we approve this rescission, the 
Department will take a second $42 million from the Corporation to pay 
these expenses.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate the Senator's concern, but I do not see 
how this rescission can be read to transfer the liability from the 
Department to the Corporation.
  Mr. FORD. If the chairman of the subcommittee agrees that neither the 
pending rescission nor the Energy Policy Act permits either the 
Department or the Office of Management and Budget to withhold funds 
from the Enrichment Corporation to pay for AVLIS termination, will he 
and the Senator from New Mexico join me in opposing any future effort 
to pass on these costs to the Corporation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.


                           gulf war veterans

  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Riegle, in 
expressing my deep concern that veterans of the gulf war, like there 
Vietnam veteran predecessors, may be forced to wait years before a 
serious, comprehensive effort is made to deal with their exposure to 
toxic chemicals and biologically harmful substances in the course of 
their combat service. Their problem is real; it is immediate.
  Large numbers of Desert Storm veterans are suffering from health 
conditions which, by evidence I have heard, are due to exposure 
incurred during their service in the gulf war. Specifically, these 
symptoms include memory loss, muscle pain, chronic coughing, tremor and 
abnormal bleeding, and other problems which Senator Riegle has 
outlined. I understand that there is a plan to conduct a study to 
consider the possibility that nerve agents may be to blame for these 
unexplained health problems among Desert Storm veterans. However, Mr. 
President, I have yet to see our Government truly address the human 
element in all this, the men and women who are suffering today, and 
their families who watch helplessly as these veterans suffer. This is 
an urgent problem and needs to be treated as such.
  The Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, and other 
agencies of our Government must act with speed and vigor to get to the 
bottom of this situation quickly. I know that veterans' organizations 
have come forward with a range of approaches and the Veterans 
Administration has its own ideas. The important thing is that we not 
allow a repetition of the mistakes made in the case of agent orange and 
allow these veterans to linger in uncertainty over their health. Not 
only do they deserve better, they are entitled to their country's 
support. I addressed these concerns to Secretary Brown in a letter I 
sent to the Department of Veterans Affairs on November 8, 1993.
  We must deal with this urgent matter quickly and in a forthright 
manner that will win the confidence and trust of veterans across the 
country. We can do no less.


                 1994 supplemental and rescission bill

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the agriculture chapters of titles I 
and II of this bill contain the supplementals exactly as proposed by 
the President. We are providing $340,500,000 for the Soil Conservation 
Service and $25,000,000 for the Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service. Most of these funds are for further repair of 
damage caused by the Midwest floods last year. Two additional 
supplementals for the Extension Service and the Food and Drug 
Administration are included as proposed by the President.
  Madam President, the agriculture chapter of the rescission title of 
this bill contains $255,668,000 in rescissions, the same amount as the 
President proposed. My recommendation takes some of the President's 
cuts, rejects others, and proposes some new rescissions. I will 
summarize the highlights.
  Of primary concern to members of the Committee and other Senators are 
the research rescission proposals. The President proposed rescinding 
$16.2 million in the Agricultural Research Service, $8.5 million in 
Federal research facilities construction, $30.0 million in Cooperative 
State Research Service grants and $34.0 million in construction of 
State research facilities. The President's proposal, however, did not 
specify which grants would be cut or which facilities would not be 
funded. Rather, he asked for blanket authority for USDA to decide where 
to make the cuts.
  Madam President, I have listened to your speeches on the power of the 
purse and that power lies with Congress. I cannot see why, after we 
have spent the year determining what to fund and what not to fund, we 
would now throw that work out the window and let the administration 
decide how to spend the money.
  Therefore, in the research area, the bill before us recommends that 
each and every special research grant under the Cooperative State 
Research Service be cut by 6 percent. In addition, for the State-owned 
research facilities, we are cutting 6 percent of the appropriation for 
every facility with the exception of the 10 facilities for which we 
provided a final appropriation this year. In other words, the completed 
facilities will remain completed so that no additional funds will be 
needed next year. No rescission is recommended for the Federal 
facilities account because that account is already below the funding 
level for 1993.
  The President proposed rescinding $12,167,000 in salaries and 
expenses for three agencies. They are: First, the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service, second, the Soil Conservation 
Service, and third, the Farmers Home Administration. This bill would 
accept these recommendations in full.
  In addition, this bill recommends rescinding $21,158,000 for the 
watershed program and $25,000,000 for the rural housing voucher 
program. This voucher program was to be started this year. Funding 
would not have been available for some time because the Department 
would have to write and issue regulations. We had also provided a 
significant 10.6-percent increase for the rental assistance program for 
1994 that would serve a similar purpose by providing a rent subsidy for 
low-income individuals. In light of the increased need to make further 
cuts, I recommend that we not begin this new program at this time, and 
thereby save $25 million.
  The President proposed cutting the subsidies for the rural housing 
and rural electric and telephone direct loan programs. I concur with 
cutting the housing and electric subsidies because they reflect lower 
interest rates. The full loan amounts should still be made. My 
recommendation is to cut the telephone loan level by $25,000,000 which 
takes it back to the original $75,000,000 level that was proposed in 
the Senate bill earlier this year.
  Madam President, the nutrition area merits some discussion. The 
President proposed to cut the Commodity Supplemental Food Program by 
$12.6 million. This program provides food to women, infants, and 
children, and to low-income elderly in approved project areas. I am 
recommending a cut of $6.1 million, 48 percent of the request. While 
the $12.6 million is a carryover from 1993, USDA has dragged its feet 
in granting caseload increases for this program. Funds remaining will 
allow USDA to add several sites to the program.
  I also recommend rescinding $5.2 million in the Needy Family Program 
which provides agricultural commodities to eligible needy persons 
residing on or near Indian reservations or in the Trust Territories of 
the Pacific. This amount was carried over from 1993 into 1994.
  Finally, a 25-percent cut--or $30 million--is proposed for the 
emergency food assistance program [TEFAP]. This program began as a 
temporary program in order to donate and dispose of surplus commodities 
in the Commodity Credit Corporation's inventory. Since the 1985 farm 
bill, surplus commodities have dwindled, and in some cases, dried up. 
So in the 1990 farm bill, Congress authorized the purchase of 
commodities for this program in order to keep it going.
  I am just not sure we should be appropriating money to purchase 
commodities to maintain a program whose purpose was to dispose of 
surplus commodities. We need to consider phasing this program out. We 
have the food stamp program, we have the soup kitchen program, we have 
the elderly feeding program, we have WIC, and we have the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program--all of which received significant increases 
in the regular 1994 bill. The TEFAP program simply overlaps these 
programs. I note also, Madam President, that the President proposed no 
funding for TEFAP in his 1995 budget.


             future of the u.s. land remote sensing program

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I oppose the decision to rescind 
the defense funding from the joint DOD/NASA Landsat program in H.R. 
3759, the emergency supplemental appropriations act. This rescission 
jeopardizes our land remote sensing program, a program the United 
States has developed for over 20 years and has greatly enriched our 
understanding of the Earth and its resources.
  NASA launched the first land remote sensing satellite back in 1972. 
Today, archived and current Landsat data are used by Federal, State, 
and local governments, universities, and businesses for environmental 
monitoring, land use management, global change research, and even 
national disaster assessments. Landsat is an excellent example of how 
outer space can be a valuable tool for not only research scientists, 
but farmers and urban planners. Because the United States has invested 
in this technology for over 20 years and has ensured the continuity of 
Landsat data, we can detect global changes in the environment and 
better manage our natural resources.
  Under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, Congress directed 
the Department of Defense [DOD] and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration [NASA] to continue the Landsat program through the 
development of Landsat 7. Much to my disappointment, the Department of 
Defense has recently concluded that it cannot pursue its portion of the 
Landsat 7 program due to severe budget constraints.
  Just 2 days ago, the administration, through its newly established 
National Science and Technology Council, decided to transfer the 
responsibilities of developing Landsat 7 to NASA. All participants of 
this interagency decision-making body, which include DOD and NASA, 
agreed that transferring the program and remaining fiscal year 1994 
funds to NASA would be the best solution to ensure continuity of data 
for the civilian users of Landsat data.
  The administration has a plan to ensure the future of the U.S. land 
remote sensing program and ensure the continuity of Landsat data. NASA 
can assume total responsibility to develop Landsat 7 but it needs the 
$103 million remaining in fiscal year 1994 appropriations to DOD. DOD, 
NASA, and all the other agencies participating on the National Science 
and Technology Council agree that this is the best way to resolve DOD's 
budget problems and deliver the Landsat 7 program.
  The administration did not propose this rescission. In fact, the 
Statement of Administration Position [SAP] on this emergency 
supplemental bill specifically requests that these funds be restored 
because continuation of the Landsat program is so important to our 
defense as well as civilian communities.
  I urge my colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to restore the 
funds for the Landsat 7 program in conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, each of these unanimous consent requests 
have been cleared by the Republican side.

                          ____________________