[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.
____________________