[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
REDUCTION IN SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me very briefly respond to something
said by my colleague from Arizona. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has
included a provision in a piece of legislation he just introduced, one
with respect to building moratoriums, or a reduction in spending for
Federal buildings. I think there does need to be some additional
flexibility here and there. I do not disagree with my colleague from
Arizona. But I must say this: The Senator from Massachusetts is dead
right on this issue with respect to the need to reduce spending for
Federal buildings. I introduced, about a year ago, legislation here in
the Senate calling for a 2-year moratorium on building projects.
If we are going to reduce the Federal work force by 250,000 workers,
we can surely reduce the amount of money spent on building new,
elaborate Federal buildings. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts.
We may need to make some modifications as we go.
I also say that the new head of the GSA is a breath of fresh air, but
we need to provide the strength to stop spending on new projects. If we
are going to have a quarter million less people in the work force, we
do not need all of these projects in the future.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have taken the floor to briefly speak on
the behavior of the Federal Reserve Board.
Back in ancient Roman days, there was a practice called ``augury,''
in which the Romans would call on wise men who had wide experience to
predict the future by observing the flight of birds and evaluating the
entrails of cattle. These Roman priests, or augurs, gave advice to the
folks who were in charge at the time. Of course, now we do not have
augurs, and our advisers do not practice augury, and they do not read
the entrails of cattle. For better or for worse, we have economists
instead.
Economists do our prognostication for us today. They call it a
science. There is some question as to whether economics is truly a
science. One economist for whom I have great affection has predicted
nine of the last two recessions. And he is an economist whom I hold in
very high regard.
In 1990, on the eve of the most recent recession in our country, 40
of our leading economists made their predictions about the coming year.
Thirty-five predicted that in the next 12 months there would be steady
growth--35 of 40--and, in fact, in the next 12 months we entered into a
recession.
Using all of that as an introduction, let me tell you that I was
dumbstruck last week by the decision by the Federal Reserve Board to
increase interest rates. At a time when we have had steady reductions--
steady reductions--in the rate of inflation, at a time when we are just
coming out of recession, when this country's economic engine is not yet
at to cruising speed, we have the Federal Reserve Board, for reasons
unknown to me and I think unknown to most people here, deciding to
increase interest rates, to put on the brakes.
Surely, deep in the bowels of that marble edifice that houses the
Fed, there is a dark, dimly lit room in which two or three dozen
``augurs'' must be reading the flights of birds or the entrails of
cattle. What else would explain a decision by the Federal Reserve Board
to increase interest rates now? What other conceivable explanation
could there be? There is none by the evidence. Productivity is up,
inflation is down, 10 million people are still jobless, and this
country's economy is just coming out of a recession. What could
possibly persuade them to increase interest rates?
Let me try to answer this question, because I have introduced
legislation with some of my colleagues, Congressman Hamilton and
Senator Sarbanes. We are suggesting that we should change the way the
Fed behaves.
Do you know there are people on the Fed's Open Market Committee who
make decisions about this interest rate policy and are never confirmed,
never appointed, never accountable to the public sector? These are the
Federal Reserve Bank regional presidents. They are in the room helping
make interest rate decisions. Why would they have a hair trigger, as
the Senator from Maryland says, on inflation but be tone deaf to jobs
and economic growth? It is because they serve their constituency, and
their constituency is the big banks.
We need to change the Federal Reserve Board. The reform bills I have
supported include the requirement that the day the Federal Reserve
Board makes a decision, it ought to be announced that day. That has not
been the practice, although last week it happened, and the press
release floored the markets, because they had almost never seen one
from the Fed before. Generally speaking, the Fed operates in great
secrecy, behind a cloak of secrecy. Usually the Fed withholds its
decision, and then ordinary people do not understand what is happening
to monetary policy. That is one goal of my legislation: to have the Fed
announce its decision on the same day it is made.
Second, no one should vote on monetary policy who is not accountable
in some way to the public. Five votes in the Open Market Committee are
cast by people who are presidents of the regional Federal Reserve
banks, and they are accountable to nobody but the big banks. This must
change. They ought not to be voting members of the Open Market
Committee. They might represent their constituency, but they don't
speak for mine.
Third, the Federal Reserve Board ought to be open to audit. It has
spent well over $1 billion and has not been audited. We ought to open
the door just a bit and shine some light in on the Federal Reserve
Board, give it a little fresh air. More open air and more sunshine
around what the Federal Reserve Board does and how it affects the
American people cannot, in my judgment, harm the public interest.
My point today is to say that what the Federal Reserve Board did last
week was wrongheaded. I watched the Senator from Maryland [Mr.
Sarbanes], come to the floor and talk about these policies. He was
right. He is an effective and eloquent voice on these issues. What the
Federal Reserve Board has done runs counter to what we are trying to do
in this country.
We were told a year ago: Let us take the tough medicine on fiscal
policy and cut spending, and let us increase taxes and do everything
that is necessary to grapple with this Federal debt. Let us reduce the
Federal deficit. If we do that, we were told, we will then see interest
rates fall, and lower rates will then propel economic growth.
So we took the tough economic medicine and fiscal policy. And now the
people at the Fed who serve another constituency decide they are going
to have a counterbalancing or countervailing policy of higher interest
rates.
We want this economy to begin moving up to cruising speed. We want to
get some juice to move this economy forward. We need economic growth,
and opportunity, and renewal. Instead, as the Senator from Maryland
said, we have a Federal Reserve Board that has a hair trigger on the
subject of inflation. Inflation is going down, not up. There is no
conceivable reason for this Federal policy of last Friday.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield for a moment, the Senator is
on to a very important subject, and I agree with everything he is
saying. Furthermore, the Fed says to us, ``Stay the course on
maintaining a tight fiscal policy,'' which, of course, the Congress is
committed to doing. We expect to do exactly that. But it seems to me
that part of the package is that the Fed should have stayed the course
on an accommodating monetary policy. If they start tightening up the
monetary policy, they are going to slow down the economy, and all of
these efforts, like economic growth and job restoration, are going to
be dealt a real blow.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Maryland puts it better than I could. In
my 30 final seconds, let me give three messages:
One to the Fed: Get your foot off the brake and let the economy grow.
Second to Congress: Pass the Federal Reserve bill and stop people
from voting down at the Open Market Committee who are not accountable
to the American people.
Third: We have two vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board. I ask the
President to appoint people to the Federal Reserve Board who understand
the price of groceries and the cost of living. Appoint my Uncle Joe,
for that matter. Or appoint some people who believe that we should
start this economic engine, and get it running, in order to provide new
jobs, opportunity, and new economic growth.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senate Republican leader.
Mr. President, I will momentarily propound a unanimous-consent
request so that we can begin to dispose of some of the several
amendments that have been, and are to be, offered to this bill.
I repeat what I have said many times. This is an emergency bill. The
people of California have a right to expect that we will act promptly,
as we did when natural disasters struck Florida, South Carolina, and
Midwestern States. We did not wait in those cases. We did not delay. We
acted promptly.
This is the largest of all of those natural disasters, certainly in
economic effect, and I think we should act promptly. So I encourage my
colleagues, first, to stop offering amendments that do not have
anything to do with this tragic emergency situation and can serve only
to delay action on the bill. I know that is not the intention of any
Senator. I know there is no Senator who is deliberately and
intentionally trying to delay action on the California earthquake
needs, but that is the effect of a lot of these amendments, the ones
that have nothing to do with the subject platter.
Obviously, if they relate to the subject matter of the bill, Senators
have a perfect right to offer them. But I hope that even those we could
keep to a minimum and bring to a close.
Unanimous-Consent Request
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that, at
3:15 p.m. today, the Senate vote on, or in relation to, the pending
Brown amendment to strike funding for Presidential salaries and
electronic communications; that upon the disposition of the Brown
amendment, the Senate vote on, or in relation to, the pending Murkowski
amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate regarding emergency checkoff
funds; that upon the disposition of the Murkowski amendment, the Senate
vote on or in relation to, an amendment by Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts regarding rescissions; that upon disposition of the Kerry
amendment, the Senate vote on, or in relation to, an amendment by
Senator Feingold, striking the section on peacekeeping; that upon the
disposition of the Feingold amendment, the Senate vote on in relation
to, the Durenberger amendment regarding a natural disaster trust fund;
that upon the disposition of the Durenberger amendment, the Senate vote
on, or in relation to, the McCain amendment regarding highway funds;
that no second-degree amendments be in order to the pending amendments;
that each of these votes occur without any further debate; and that all
votes after the first one be for 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am not going to object. We may be able to
have another couple of votes ready by the time those are completed.
I hope to offer my amendment. I am only going to take about 10
minutes on it. I think there is only one other amendment on this side.
That may not be offered.
We would like to get an agreement that we limit amendments, if we
can, right now or in the next few minutes, so we do not have anybody
coming out to the floor at 5:30 with some new amendment. So we are
going to try to do that on this side.
I understand there may be 2 or 3 amendments on that side that may not
be offered.
I just say to the leader and the manager that we want to expedite
this as quickly as we can.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not
expect to object, I take it the phrase ``on or in relation to,'' which
the distinguished majority leader has used in his request a number of
times, includes the making of a point of order. In other words, points
of order are not waived by this request.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, my intention in using the phrase ``on or
in relation to'' is to permit the making of a motion to table. Absent
an explicit request to waive points of order, I regard points of order
as remaining in order. So it is not my intention, either in my words or
in the effect of this, to preclude either motions to table or points of
order.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the response
of the distinguished majority leader satisfies that point.
In the event there should be a point of order raised, I say to the
leader, in connection with one of the amendments, I hope we would not
require that that provision which the majority leader uttered, meant
there be no debate intervening. There might need to be a little debate
if a point of order is raised.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, in a
parliamentary inquiry, whether the agreement as propounded would, in
fact, preclude debate in the event a point of order were made?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Points of order are not debatable and would be
rendered nondebatable unless provisions were made.
Mr. MITCHELL. Then I understand the response to be that points of
order are not debatable; that motions to waive the Budget Act to
overcome the point of order are ordinarily debatable but would not be
so under the formulation presented.
Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a
quorum so that we can agree on an alternative procedure that would
permit debate in the event a point of order is made and a motion to
waive in response thereto.
Mr. BROWN. I wonder if the Senator would be willing for us to proceed
with an amendment while that discussion goes forward?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no objection to that.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not think the majority leader meant to
indicate there has been any delay on this bill. We were on the bill
yesterday at 10 o'clock. One of the amendments from that side of the
aisle took about 7 hours.
So I do not think anybody has been trying to delay this bill. It is
very important legislation. It involves very important issues of
emergency funding and what should be included in emergency funding. We
think many of the things that are included are not emergencies.
Certainly, even though we understand the need to get this done, we
are going to respond as quickly as we can. We have tried to offer
amendments, for the most part, that were constructive and at least make
the case. We probably are not going to prevail on any case. But I can
cite a number of cases that are not emergencies that are going to be
funded as emergencies. In the view of many, I think on both sides, this
is setting a bad precedent.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 1457.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. The amendment
is at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 1457.
On page 72 line 16 after the word Congress: insert
``provided further, that the President's request shall
specifically identify programs, projects and activities to be
funded and no funds shall be available for 15 days after the
submission of the request.''
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wanted to draw the attention of my
colleagues to page 72 of the bill, chapter 8, ``Funds Appropriated to
the President.'' Included therein is a provision that is not without
precedent, but is fairly unusual. It is a grant of $550 million to the
President. That money is to be used under his discretion with very,
very broad scope outlines.
Specifically, it is allowed for a very broad set of purposes. The
money can be spent for the southern California earthquake, for the
Midwest floods, or other disasters. And the other disasters are not
limited with regard to what disasters those are or when they even
occur. So presumably, it could be back quite a ways. It is an extremely
broad, broad grant of discretion. In addition, any Federal agency may
be used that meets that purpose. So it is extremely broad in that
regard.
I would feel much better if our appropriations committees had, at
least, an opportunity to see how the President proposed to spend this
money before, indeed, the money was spent.
So this amendment does a couple of things. It simply asks the
President to identify what he is going to spend it on and give the
Appropriations Committees at least 15 days before that money is
actually spent.
There is no intent to cause unnecessary delays here, but my hope is
that this will encourage working together of our appropriators and the
executive branch, to make sure there is at least some review of these
funds before they are spent from the Treasury.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am about to renew the request.
To accommodate the concern expressed by the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, I renew my request, modified to state
that, in the event a point of order is raised and a motion to waive is
made in response thereto, it being ordinarily debatable under the
rules, that would continue to be debatable, and that the language which
I used with respect to further debate not be applicable in that
circumstance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
modified unanimous-consent request of the majority leader is agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I now ask all Senators to be aware, and
the offices of all Senators not now in the Capitol to notify Senators
that, beginning at 3:15 p.m., there will be a series of at least six
votes. There will be at least six votes on pending amendments. I have
stated them previously. So I encourage Senators to be present.
The first vote will be under the usual time limitations. Each of the
succeeding votes will be for 10 minutes. We have to complete action on
this bill and we want to move promptly on it.
I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and I thank the chairman
for his cooperation.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is agreed to.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 1457
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from
Colorado has an amendment which both sides have agreed to accept.
Has his amendment been called up?
Mr. BROWN. I thank the chairman. The amendment has been called up.
Mr. BYRD. Very well, then the amendment has been stated.
Mr. President, this side is ready to accept the amendment offered by
Mr. Brown.
Mr. HATFIELD. We have no objections on this side.
Mr. BYRD. So there is no objection. I hope the Senate will adopt the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1457) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for
its immediate consideration, and I ask unanimous consent the amendments
now before the Senate be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1458
(Purpose: To strike all but the emergency relief provisions and
rescission provisions)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 1458.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 50, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
89, line 10, and insert the following:
TITLE I--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
watershed and flood prevention operations
For an additional amount for ``Watershed and flood
prevention operations'' to repair damage to the waterways and
watersheds resulting from the Midwest floods and California
fires of 1993 and other natural disasters, and for other
purposes, $340,500,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $50,000,000 of assistance shall
be made available where the primary beneficiary is
agriculture and agribusiness regardless of drainage size:
Provided further, That such amounts are designated by
Congress as emergency requirements pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That if
the Secretary determines that the cost of land and levee
restoration exceeds the fair market value of an affected
cropland, the Secretary may use sufficient amounts from funds
provided under this heading to accept bids from willing
sellers to enroll such cropland inundated by the Midwest
floods of 1993 in any of the affected States in the Wetlands
Reserve Program, authorized by subchapter C of chapter 1 of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3837).
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
emergency conservation program
For an additional amount for ``Emergency conservation
program'' for expenses resulting from the Midwest floods and
California fires of 1993 and other natural disasters,
$25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Funds made available in Public Law 103-75 for the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be available to fund the costs of
replanting, reseeding, or repairing damage to commercial
trees and seedlings, including orchard and nursery inventory
as a result of the Midwest Floods of 1993 or other natural
disasters: Provided, That the use of these funds for these
purposes is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that such use shall be
available only to the extent the President designates such
use an emergency requirement pursuant to such Act.
The second proviso of the matter under the heading
``disaster assistance'' under the heading ``Commodity Credit
Corporation'' of chapter I of the Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-50; 107 Stat. 241) is amended by
inserting before the colon at the end the following: ``,
including payments to producers for the 1993, 1994, and 1995
crops of papaya if (1) the papaya would have been harvested
if the papaya plants had not been destroyed, and (2) the
papaya plants would not have produced fruit for a lifetime
total of more than 3 crop years based on normal cultivation
practices''. Payments under this paragraph shall be made only
to the extent that claims for the payments are filed not
later than the date that is 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act: Provided, That the use of funds for
this purpose is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that such use shall be
available only to the extent the President designates such
use an emergency requirement pursuant to such Act.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCY
Small Business Administration
disaster loans program account
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters, $309,750,000, to remain available until
expended, of which up to $55,000,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriations for ``Salaries and
expenses'' for associated administrative expenses: Provided,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
administrative provision
Section 24 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 651) is
amended in subsection (a) by striking the period at the end
thereof and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``,
and shall give priority to a proposal to restore an area
determined to be a major disaster by the President on a date
not more than three years prior to the fiscal year for which
the application is made.''.
CHAPTER 3
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
For an additional amount for ``Flood control and coastal
emergencies'', $70,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
The prohibition against obligating funds for construction
until sixty days from the date the Secretary transmits a
report to the Congress in accordance with section 5 of the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is
waived for the Crooked River Project, Ochoco Dam, Oregon, to
allow for an earlier start of emergency repair work.
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
low-income home energy assistance
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-112 and designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, subject to the terms and conditions specified in
Public Law 103-112, $300,000,000, if designated by the
President as an emergency, may be allotted by the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services, as she
determines is appropriate, to any one or more of the
jurisdictions funded under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, to meet emergency needs.
The second paragraph under this heading in Public Law 102-
394 is amended as follows: strike ``June 30, 1994'' and
insert ``September 30, 1994''.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
impact aid
For carrying out disaster assistance activities resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters as authorized under section 7 of Public Law
81-874, $165,000,000, to remain available through September
30, 1995: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
student financial assistance
For an additional amount for ``Student financial
assistance'' for payment of awards made under title IV, part
A, subpart 1 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$80,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 1995:
Provided, That notwithstanding sections 442(e) and 462(j) of
such Act, the Secretary may reallocate, for use in award year
1994-1995 only, any excess funds returned to the Secretary of
Education under the Federal Work-Study or Federal Perkins
Loan programs from award year 1993-1994 to assist individuals
who suffered financial harm from the January 1994 earthquake
in Southern California and other disasters: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended: Provided further, That fiscal year 1992
Federal Work-Study and Federal Perkins Loan funds that were
reallocated to institutions for use in award year 1993-1994,
pursuant to Public Law 103-75, and fiscal year 1992 Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant funds that were
reallocated to institutions by the Secretary for use in award
year 1993-1994, pursuant to section 413D(e) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, to assist individuals who
suffered financial harm as a result of the Midwest floods of
1993 shall remain available for use in award year 1994-1995
by institutions that received such reallocations.
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Federal-Aid Highways
emergency relief program
(highway trust fund)
For the Emergency Fund authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125 to cover
expenses arising from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California and other disasters, $950,000,000; and in addition
$400,000,000, which shall be available only to the extent an
official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress, all to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided
further, That the limitation on obligations per State in 23
U.S.C. 125(b) shall not apply to projects relating to such
earthquake: Provided further, That notwithstanding 23 U.S.C.
120(e), the Federal share for any project on the Federal-aid
highway system related to such earthquake shall be 100
percent for the costs incurred in the 180 day period
beginning on the date of the earthquake: Provided further,
That project costs incurred prior to implementation of this
bill and subsequent to the January 17, 1994, Northridge
Earthquake, that are funded from other than Federal Emergency
Relief funds that were otherwise eligible for Emergency
Relief funding, are approved for Emergency Relief funds and
such costs regardless of initial funding sources are to be
reimbursed with Emergency Relief funds: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
made available by the Dire Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public Law 102-368) under ``Federal
Highway Administration, Metropolitan Planning (Highway Trust
Fund),'' $337,000 of the funds received by Hawaii shall be
made available by the State of Hawaii directly to the County
of Kauai, Hawaii, for conducting comprehensive reviews of
transportation infrastructure needs incurred in connection
with Hurricane Iniki, and, these funds shall remain available
until expended.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California,
$21,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $802,000 is available for transfer to General
Operating Expenses, the Guaranty and Indemnity Program
Account, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program
Account: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
construction, major projects
For an additional amount for ``Construction, major
projects'' for emergency expenses resulting from the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California and other disasters,
$45,600,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as may be necessary may be transferred to the
``Medical care'' and ``Construction, minor projects''
accounts: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
annual contributions for assisted housing
For an additional amount under this head, $225,000,000, to
remain available until December 31, 1995, of which
$200,000,000 shall be for rental assistance under the section
8 existing housing certificate program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) and
the housing voucher program under section 8(o) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), and
$25,000,000 shall be for the modernization of existing public
housing projects pursuant to section 14 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437l): Provided, That these
funds shall be used first to replenish amounts used from the
headquarters reserve established pursuant by section
213(d)(4)(A) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, for assistance to victims of the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California: Provided further,
That any amounts remaining after the headquarters reserve has
been replenished shall be available under such programs for
additional assistance to victims of the earthquake referred
to above: Provided further, That in administering these
funds, the Secretary may waive or specify alternative
requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for the requirements relating to fair
housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor
standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds and would not
be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute or
regulation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
flexible subsidy fund
For emergency assistance to owners of eligible multifamily
housing projects damaged by the January 1994 earthquake in
Southern California who are either insured or formerly
insured under the National Housing Act, as amended, or
otherwise eligible for assistance under section 201(c) of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a), in the program of assistance
for troubled multifamily housing projects under the Housing
and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as amended,
$100,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That assistance to an owner of a multifamily
housing project assisted, but not insured under the National
Housing Act, may be made if the project owner and the
mortgagee have provided or agreed to provide assistance to
the project in a manner as determined by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development: Provided further, That
assistance is for the repair of damage or the recovery of
losses directly attributable to the Southern California
earthquake of 1994: Provided further, That in administering
these funds, the Secretary may waive, or specify alternative
requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for statutory requirements relating to
fair housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and
labor standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds, and would
not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute
or regulation: Provided further, That after assisting
economically viable FHA insured projects, to the extent funds
remain available the Secretary may provide assistance to
economically viable projects assisted with a loan made under
section 312 of the National Housing Act of 1964 and projects
assisted under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 but not insured under the National Housing Act: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--General and Special Risk Program Account
For higher mortgage limits and improved access to mortgage
insurance for victims of the January 1994 earthquake in
Southern California and other disasters, title II of the
National Housing Act, as amended, is further amended, as
follows:
(1) In section 203(h), by--
(A) striking out ``section 102(2) and 401 of the Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'' and inserting ``Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'';
and
(B) adding the following new sentence at the end thereof:
``In any case in which the single family residence to be
insured under this subsection is within a jurisdiction in
which the President has declared a major disaster to have
occurred, the Secretary is authorized, for a temporary period
not to exceed 18 months from the date of such Presidential
declaration, to enter into agreements to insure a mortgage
which involves a principal obligation of up to 100 percent of
the dollar limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for single
family residence, and not in excess of 100 percent of the
appraised value.''.
(2) In section 203(k), by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(6) The Secretary is authorized, for a temporary period
not to exceed 18 months from the date on which the President
has declared a major disaster to have occurred, to enter into
agreements to insure a rehabilitation loan under this
subsection which involves a principal obligation of up to 100
percent of the dollar limitation determined under section
305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act
for a residence of the applicable size, if such loan is
secured by a structure and property that are within a
jurisdiction in which the President has declared such
disaster, pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, and if such loan otherwise
conforms to the loan-to-value ratio and other requirements of
this subsection.''.
(3) In section 234(c), by inserting after ``203(b)(2)'' in
the third sentence the phrase: ``or pursuant to section
203(h) under the conditions described in section 203(h)''.
Eligibility for loans made under the authority granted by
the preceding paragraph shall be limited to persons whose
principal residence was damaged or destroyed as a result of a
Presidentially declared major disaster event: Provided, That
the provisions under this heading shall be effective only for
the 18 month period following the date of enactment of this
Act.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
For an additional amount for ``Community development
grants'', as authorized under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, for emergency expenses
resulting from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California or the Midwest Floods of 1993, $500,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1996 for all activities
eligible under such title I except those activities
reimbursable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or available through the Small Business Administration
(SBA): Provided, That from this amount, the Secretary may
transfer up to $75,000,000 to the ``HOME investment
partnerships program'', as authorized under title II of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended
(Public Law 101-625), to remain available until expended, as
an additional amount for such emergency expenses for all
activities eligible under such title II except activities
reimbursable by FEMA or available through SBA: Provided
further, That the recipients of amounts under this
appropriation, including the foregoing transfer (if any),
shall use such amounts first to replenish amounts previously
obligated under their Community Development Block Grant or
HOME programs, respectively, in connection with the Southern
California earthquake of January 1994: Provided further, That
in administering these funds, the Secretary may waive, or
specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any
statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in
connection with the obligation by the Secretary or any use by
the recipient of these funds, except for statutory
requirements relating to fair housing and nondiscrimination,
the environment, and labor standards, upon finding that such
waiver is required to facilitate the obligation and use of
such funds, and would not be inconsistent with the overall
purpose of the statute or regulation: Provided further, That
the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for the
January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and other
disasters, $4,709,000,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
emergency management planning and assistance
For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance'', to carry out activities under the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to study the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California in order to enhance seismic safety throughout the
United States: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CHAPTER 7
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
Unanticipated Needs
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California, the
Midwest Floods and other disaster, $550,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to any authorized Federal governmental activity
to meet the requirements of such disasters: Provided further,
That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent
that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount,
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1994''.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment, while it is somewhat
lengthy, and thus I asked it be considered as read, is fairly
straightforward. What it does is simply strike from the bill all the
money that does not fit the category of emergency spending.
As I think the Senate is well aware, this bill has been expedited, as
I think all of us would feel is appropriate. Unfortunately, a number of
items which are nonemergency in nature were attached to the bill or
included therein.
Those items, it is this Senator's feeling, ought to have the scrutiny
of our Appropriations Committee in the normal process. That committee
is committed to keeping our spending within the budget guidelines. It
has a responsibility which I know they take very seriously. It is thus
inappropriate for us to include in this measure items that are of a
nonemergency nature.
Senators are well aware of the fact that being included in this
emergency bill provides certain waivers from the Budget Act. It also
provides waivers from the limits that are so essential in making
progress in reducing the deficit. What is more, if they are included in
this process, these particular expenditures are brought up and shot
through the process without the kind of scrutiny that I know the
committee is committed to and interested in providing.
For those Members who do not recall off the tops of their heads, let
me reiterate what the Budget Act calls for. It calls for emergency
spending items to come under this classification, they must be sudden.
Some of the items that are of nonemergency status have been around for
years. They are in no way sudden. The Budget Act calls for them to be
urgent in nature. These matters are not urgent, and I suspect regarding
many of them, no one would claim they fit in the urgent category. They
must be unforeseen. A very, very large number of these are anything but
unforeseen. Most of them or many of them have been considered at some
length in previous discussions or previous times. And, of course, they
must be necessary. That is a judgment call by the members of the
committee.
I do not rise to question their judgment in that matter, except to
say my hope is that we will make sure they have had the time to
consider them, had the normal markup, and had provisions for testimony
on them so they can receive the kind of deliberations they need.
Should we move quickly to provide for the victims of the earthquake?
Absolutely. There is no question that that deserves prompt
consideration and prompt action. But we should not use this vehicle to
violate the Budget Act. To the extent we do, we undermine the very
credibility of this body in trying to deal with the deficit that
threatens the very lifeblood of our economy.
I believe nonemergency spending should be handled in the normal
process, in accordance with the budget guidelines and with hearings.
This amendment will strike from the bill $2.493 billion, which is the
amount of the various items that do not fit the emergency category. It
may well be that Members of the Senate decide in their wisdom that
ultimately these things should pass and should be appropriated. My
guess is there will be some that very few in the Senate will favor. My
guess is there will be some, also, that a large portion of the Senate
favor. But none of these items should be passed with this bill--with
the emergency declaration.
In simple terms, these are not emergencies. They do not fit the
definition of the Budget Act. They do not fit the parameters of the
bill. They have not had the proper hearings. It would be a tragedy to
include them in this process and thus distort our efforts to try to
deal with the deficit.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I will of course defer to the judgment of the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the timing of
the vote, but it may well be the distinguished chairman will wish to
include this with the other record votes.
If so, I will be happy to accommodate him.
Mr. President, at this point I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1459
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself, Senator Nickles, Senator Simpson, Senator Burns, and Senator
Roth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burns, Mr. Roth, and Mr.
Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered 1459.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. 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:
(The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk is a
substitute amendment to this emergency supplemental appropriations
bill. We all agree that we must provide timely Federal disaster
assistance to those affected by the devastating earthquake and fires
that rocked southern California and the 500-year flood that soaked the
Midwest. In person or on television, we have all seen the devastation,
and the need to respond. My amendment has one simple goal: To deliver
much-needed aid to the victims of these tragedies, and to do it without
adding to the deficit, without sticking a lot of stuff in there that is
not an emergency so that we do not have to deal with it later and cut
other programs.
There is no question that these emergencies are legitimate, and that
the need for relief is real. We all want to provide help as quickly as
we can. We also all want to contain the deficit. My amendment offers us
a chance to do both. The question is simple: Are we going to ring up
another $10 billion on Uncle Sam's credit card, or are we going to
shift our spending priorities to pay for this essential investment?
I might add, if you have not read the article in yesterday's paper
about the tax rate of the younger generation in the future, it is going
to be about 82 percent--82 percent--for your children born this year or
later, grandchildren, whatever. They are going to be in that big
bracket according to a study that was released yesterday. It is going
to be even worse if we do not start putting our fiscal house in order.
This disaster relief is going to be approved whether we pay for it or
not. We know that. It is going to be approved. But it seems to me the
responsible thing to do--and I might add we offer an amendment to pay
for it that involves the Midwest floods, which is my State of Kansas
and other States in the Midwest. We have to make the tough calls and
pay for this assistance now instead of sending Uncle Sam's credit card
bill to future generations of Americans.
We made a similar effort to pay for last year's flood relief package.
That effort did not succeed, but it does not mean we should not start
doing the right thing now.
Doing the right thing also means providing assistance for real
emergencies. That is why my amendment eliminates the provision in the
committee bill that, in the view of many, does not qualify as a real
emergency.
It is hard to justify labeling as an ``emergency'' the $315 million
that is earmarked to relocate a Federal highway damaged in the Loma
Prieta earthquake back in 1989--almost 40 months ago. The Federal
Government has already provided the money to rebuild the damaged
highway--I do not think anyone here would deny that that was clearly a
Federal obligation. But when local officials--nothing to do with the
earthquake--decide to relocate a highway at an even greater expense
than rebuilding, I am not certain that Uncle Sam should have to pick up
the tab for the incremental cost of relocating.
Maybe somebody got a better view, but the taxpayers are not going to
get a view at all. They have to pay for it. In any event, this
additional funding is certainly not an emergency, and it ought to be
considered on the merits during the normal appropriations process.
I said it last year and I will say it again today: If in a
supplemental they want to pay for this $315 million extra cost for
relocation and they pay for it, that does not create any problem for
me. That is what it is all about. This is not an emergency. The
earthquake was 4 years ago, 3\1/2\ years ago. They are still saying
there is some emergency. Just because the local officials--and I have
more information on that; I know it will be disputed. But I have
information that says that is precisely what it was.
I was also surprised to see the $1.2 billion to cover Defense
Department costs of peacekeeping sent to the Congress as a deficit-
increasing emergency request. If there is an emergency here, it is man-
made. The emergency was created by putting the needs of the United
Nations before the needs of American defense readiness.
The American people are getting tired of seeing more and more money
flow to United Nations' operations with little effect on American
security. While I will not oppose paying back the Defense Department
for costs incurred in U.N. peacekeeping, my amendment ensures these
costs are offset with spending reductions.
In order to prevent the legitimate disaster relief and the
peacekeeping funding from being tacked on to the deficit, my amendment
deletes all of the emergency designation language in the committee
bill, and instead pays for the remaining $6.3 billion in new
discretionary spending. The bill is paid for using a cut in world bank
funding to the level approved by the Senate last year; increasing the
committee-recommended rescission for aid to the New Independent States;
a cut in Agency for International Development funding to the level
requested by the administration; and an additional cut of $3 billion in
Federal outlays for so-called administrative expenses that would be
allocated among Government departments and agencies by the Director of
OMB.
This administrative expense reduction is similar to an amendment
offered by Senators Hutchison and Shelby last year. It targets travel
expenses, transportation, printing and reproduction costs, consulting
services, supplies and materials.
The amendment has been modified to accommodate many of the concerns
that were raised during last year's debate. It exempts the
administrative expenses of the Defense Department because of the deep
defense cuts that have already been approved by Congress. It exempts
the expenses of the Federal Emergency Management Agency because of the
added burdens placed on FEMA by the disasters targeted in this bill.
It would also exempt programmatic expenses in various agencies that
are typically funded through these administrative expenses accounts.
For example, Drug Enforcement Agency travel is exempted from this cut.
Veterans Health Administration travel, supplies, and materials are
exempted. NASA other services are exempted.
Mr. President, the bottom line is this: we need to provide timely
relief to the victims of these natural disasters. We also need to
provide relief to future generations of Americans who will have to pay
the bill if we add this spending to the deficit. We can do both by
cutting spending to pay for this much-needed disaster relief.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and at the appropriate time I
will ask for the yeas and nays.
But, Mr. President, I will make one final point.
I know the budget is tight. I know the appropriators have great
difficulty. I know it is tempting to call everything an emergency, to
have money available for other things later on. But if anybody can tell
me that relocating a highway after the damage has been paid for by the
Government is an emergency or peacekeeping operations that we have
certainly known about--should have known about--is an emergency, then
there is something I fail to understand about that particular
provision.
It is a clear-cut case. Do we want to pay for it or do we not want to
pay for it? I am not under any illusion that I am going to prevail in
this debate. I will prevail in the debate, but lose the vote, because
the facts are on our side.
But there will be, I understand, some point of order raised because
it did not come up in different committees. I am not sure the American
people understand that. That is one way to kill this amendment that
would pay for all the things we want to do in California, the Midwest,
and other cases that are listed here as emergencies. So we can kill
this on a technicality and probably will, I assume. But the point is
the American people should understand we have an amendment to pay for
it. It would not hurt anybody--cut down on travel of a lot of
bureaucrats. We have a lot of video techniques. You do not have to fly
everywhere these days. And some places they fly, they fly at the wrong
time of the year.
So we could save a lot of money just in travel of the Federal
employees in Government, Federal bureaucrats in the Government who
travel a great deal.
So I suggest that if we want to do this, we have a way to pay for it.
It is not totally painless, but as I said it rescinds the AID
assistance requested in the President's letter.
So I will be on record supporting the President here. It adopts the
Senate-passed level for World Bank contributions, $28 million in budget
authority, $3 million in outlays; it increases the former Soviet Union
aid rescission. We save $108 million in budget authority and about $23
million in outlays. The big reduction comes in Federal administrative
expenses. That is $6 billion in budget authority, $3 billion in
outlays; rescind voluntary peacekeeping contributions. That is $13
million in budget authority, $9 million in outlays. And rescinds 5
percent of the Economic Development Administration. That is $40 million
in budget authority and only $4 million in outlays. The Loma Prieta
highway relocation, about $315 million in budget authority and $31.5
million in outlays.
And again I see my colleague from California in the Chamber. If they
can find an offset to go ahead, they should. This is certainly not an
emergency. Nobody is going to convince me it is an emergency. But in
any event I am prepared to vote.
And I would just say before I yield the floor, I hope anybody who has
an amendment will try to get them offered before we start voting at
3:15. We have six straight votes, and that would take us well into
4:30, 5 o'clock. The managers, Senator Hatfield and Senator Byrd, still
need to go to conference, and it is important we complete action on
this very important bill either late tonight or tomorrow before we
leave for the weekend.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment's cut of $253
million from the assistance to the New Independent States account. This
amendment comes at a delicate point in the development of these new
states, and it is critical that we stick to our commitments.
I believe that in paring down our assistance, we would be sending a
dangerous political signal to Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and
the other States of the former Soviet Union. Reformers in the New
Independent States are, for the most part, facing uphill battles as
they try to change fundamentally the way their economies and
governments operate and as they seek consensus on arms control issues
that are of vital importance to the United States.
Precisely because the reformers are facing challenges to their
agendas, our continued commitment to support their reforms becomes even
more crucial. Reducing funding for the newly independent states would
only confirm what the reformers in the New Independent States fear--
that the West will not support them when the going gets tough.
Last year, President Clinton made a commitment to the emerging
democracies that we would help to bolster their reform efforts.
Although we were facing difficult budgetary times, the Congress fully
funded the President's request because we recognized that helping these
new countries is in our national interest. I believe it is still in the
national interest to operate programs with goals that include
supporting privatization, democratization, and the transition from a
defense-oriented to a civilian-based economy.
I believe that it is important to remember that our bilateral
technical assistance does not consist of cash handouts. Rather, much of
our aid targets private and privatizing firms, the health, energy, and
agriculture sectors, and supports democratic development. Our programs
support structural reforms at the grass roots level that will lay the
foundation for further economic transformation down the road.
It is too early to pass final judgment on the success or failure of
our assistance program to the New Independent States. United States
assistance efforts have, in fact, just begun, with AID launching its
technical assistance program just over 1 year ago. Our aid efforts are
just starting to gain some momentum and show some preliminary results.
But real results will only be evident over the long term, and will
require uninterrupted support. To cut back on our efforts now would
nearly ensure that our efforts to date have been a waste. I would
strongly urge my colleagues to stick by the commitment we have made to
the reformers in the NIS by opposing this amendment.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Amendment No. 1460
(Purpose: To direct funds previously appropriated to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for certain law enforcement purposes)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment here that has been
agreed to on both sides, and I send it to the desk. I ask unanimous
consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with, that a
statement in support of it appear in the Record, the amendment be
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide
a temporary increase in staffing levels at the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Presently, the FBI has partially
exempted the Criminal Justice Information Services Division from a
hiring freeze, permitting the hiring of 10 people a month. At this
rate, the Criminal Justice Information Services Division will be left
nearly 1400 employees short of its proposed goal when its new facility
opens and is fully equipped with the most modern computers,
representing many millions of dollars of investment.
The amendment does not appropriate any additional funds. Rather, it
redirects $20 million within the funds previously appropriated to
defray expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification
services. The amendment would provide that the $20 million would be
used to address the immediate critical shortages of personnel required
to effectively staff the revitalization and relocation initiative.
The Criminal Justice Information Services Division is the Nation's
central clearinghouse and repository for criminal history and
fingerprint identification records. These records are at the very core
of our criminal justice system. The ability to identify criminals and
to determine their prior criminal history is crucial, if violent,
recidivist criminals are to be removed from our streets. These records
are also necessary for support of the Brady bill and the many other
laws and pending laws that require screening out individuals with
certain prior criminal convictions, such as child care providers,
airport security personnel, border security personnel and local law
enforcement applicants. There is widespread support and recognition of
the necessity for the revitalization of the FBI's identification
throughout the law enforcement community. The revitalization project
has been characterized as the single greatest increase in law
enforcement capability since police use of the car radio. These record
systems support all law enforcement officers, including the additional
100,000 provided for by the ``Crime Bill''. They also contribute to
officer safety, a necessity due to the pervasiveness of violence on our
streets. Mr. President, it does not make sense to construct a building,
equip it with state of the art computers, and understaff the facility
by 1400 employees. What type of message are we sending here?
Mr. President, I was instrumental in providing the initial $185
million to initiate the fingerprint identification revitalization and
relocation project. At that time, the FBI was faced with a prospect of
the identification division's remaining in its then current deprived
condition, with no realistic hope of upgraded technology of the ability
to retain sufficient employees to run its obsolescent operation. Faced
with these circumstances, the revitalization and relocation solution
was the only reasonable answer to save the FBI's identification
division and the jobs of more than 2500 employees. Without the
revitalization effort, the FBI would be unable to provide the services
required by the criminal-justice system to defeat sophisticated
criminals attacking our Nation's infrastructure with organized drug-
trafficking, violent crime, and related criminal enterprises.
Mr. President, anti-crime efforts must become an established
priority. Efforts are emerging in the Congress and in the
Administration to deal with the rampant criminal activity that abounds
in our country. Congress is working on a Crime Bill designed to reduce
the scourge of crime, drugs and violence which is sweeping across most
of this country.
Mr. President, the revitalization of the FBI's fingerprint division
was, and remains, a priority bi-partisan concern, with the strong
support of the current and previous OMB Directors. The Presidents of
both parties have acknowledged the importance of the revitalization of
the FBI's fingerprint division by designating it as a Presidential
Priority System and including the necessary funds in Presidential
budget requests to keep the project on schedule. The Congress has
consistently supported the project by providing more than $400 million
to revitalize the identification division.
Although I applaud the overall reduction in the number of Federal
employees, I find it contradictory to uniformly apply such reductions
to Federal law enforcement agencies. These agencies play a key role in
our Nation's law enforcement efforts. They provide essential training,
intelligence, forensic services, criminal history records and
identification services to State and local law enforcement agencies.
They are the mainstay of numerous joint task forces that are addressing
the problem of drugs, terrorism, and violent crime.
The amendment I am proposing will allow this high priority initiative
to get back on schedule by allowing the FBI to bring on board the
necessary personnel, most of whom have already been recruited and are
awaiting the finalization of the necessary personnel actions.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
So the amendment (No. 1460) was agreed to, as follows:
On page 89, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds made available for the purpose of
defraying expenses for the automation of fingerprint
identification services under the heading ``salaries and
expenses'' under the heading ``Federal Bureau of
Investigation'' in title I of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-121), $20,000,000
shall be available (to remain available until expended) to
hire 500 employees to carry out the automation of fingerprint
identification services without regard to any employment
ceiling imposed by the President or by law.
Mr. BYRD. I intend to speak on the amendment by Senator Durenberger.
If the distinguished Senator from California wishes to speak at this
moment, I will be glad to delay my own remarks.
Mrs. BOXER. I am waiting very patiently, I say to the Chairman. That
is fine.
Mr. BYRD. I have no problem waiting. Five minutes, would that help
the Senator?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that would be fine.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
recognized following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask the Chair advise me when I have
spoken for 5 minutes, if that would be all right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very sad to rise today to say to my
friend from Kansas, the distinguished Republican leader, that for him
to suggest that it is not an emergency when a structure such as the
Cypress structure has been down since that fateful day in 1989--and the
fact is we have certain rules in California, as well we should, which
is that we do not rebuild a structure in the same way it was before, if
in fact in doing so it would remain a danger and a hazard to the people
who use it.
Mr. President, I have a picture here from the New York Times that
shows the Cypress structure collapsing, the top deck, right onto the
bottom deck. Forty-two people were killed. And I would say as I
remember back to that day, that had there not been a World Series game
scheduled that night, there would have been far more people caught on
this freeway. Forty-two people are dead, and, yes, it is true it has
taken time to come up with a plan that is a safe and good plan.
The fact that we did not rush to rebuild a collapsed freeway in a way
that may have been wrong is to the credit of the State of California.
The new alignment of the Cypress Freeway section of Interstate 880
will improve safety and traffic congestion in the east bay region.
The distinguished Republican leader says, oh, they realigned it to
get a better view. I would like to inform my friend from Kansas--and I
think it is important that he know this--this freeway goes through one
of the poorest communities in Oakland. We are not talking about fancy
hillside homes here and fancy freeways. We are talking about a
community, a community that has suffered greatly since this Cypress
structure went down.
Yes, the environmental impact statement took 2 years. It is in the
law. And I really believe this amendment that the Republican leader
wishes to offer--perhaps it will have a point of order against it. I am
not certain of that--is detrimental to the very goal he says he shares
with the Senator from California, and I quote him. He does not want to
``interfere with the timely relief to Californians.''
Everyone says that. Everyone who comes to the floor to offer these
amendments says we do not want to interfere with timely relief. The
bottom line is, I assure my friend, that if there was a disaster in
Kansas, and in good faith and in good will the community came together,
the engineers came together, the experts came together, the political
leaders came together, both Democrats and Republicans, and it took them
a while to come up with the safest way to rebuild that structure so it
would not collapse again, I would be there supporting him with every
ounce of energy I have. And I have a lot of energy. And I would be
there by his side. I would not be standing up striking these dollars
from this bill.
I know that the Governor of our great State has discussed this with
the Republican leader, and he has asked him not to move forward with
this. I will say one thing. The Republican leader is steadfast. It did
not matter if a Republican elected official called him or a Democrat.
He feels it is wrong. But I would implore him to understand that this
is not a fancy community in the hills. These are poor people in a
devastated community. Commerce has been disrupted, the people's lives
disrupted, and it took time so that we would not rebuild this thing in
a way where it would collapse again. It is now a single-level
structure. It is safer. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to defeat
this amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. I wish to make it clear. I am not opposed. I am just saying
we pay for it. I know it is a word we throw around here a lot. But I
would like to read for the Record excerpts from an article--I did not
write this article--which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle of
July 19, 1993:
As Bay Area monuments go, the new Cypress structure in
Oakland won't be much to look at. . . but mile for mile the
2.2-mile concrete ribbon of freeway has turned into one of
the most expensive construction projects in Bay Area history.
With an estimated pricetag of $695 million--
It is going to go up to $1 billion--
which includes the cost of about 1 mile of ramps, the new
East Bay connector will cost as much as two Golden Gate
Bridges, five Candlestick Parks or six TransAmerica Pyramid
towers in 1993 dollars.
The new elevated Cypress roadway will cost about half of
what it cost to build the entire 800 miles of Interstate 5,
California's main north-south artery, which was started in
the late 1950's
The new Cypress will replace the deadly double-deck freeway
that collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, although
the route will be somewhat different.
At about $200 million per mile, the price of the new
freeway comes to nearly $500 per square foot. That's 200
times more expensive than a mile of I-5 roadway, and more
than three times as expensive as the standard per-foot cost
of building a skyscraper.
Despite the astronomical costs of the new roadway, few
people are complaining--perhaps because most of the money
comes from Washington and is far removed from local taxpayer'
pockets.
And besides, the project's millions of dollars in concrete,
tar and asphalt will mean a boon in business for a slew of
local building contractors in these recession-wracked times.
The new Cypress also includes a number of costly political
and engineering goodies.
For starters, Southern Pacific will get about 30 miles of
new track in return for agreeing to allow about 100 miles of
track to be remove from its Oakland yard.
The U.S. Postal Service will get a new $10 million parking
garage, and the Oakland Fire Department will get a new
station.
Plus, the project calls for relocating scores of utility
lines--including moving a mile-long stretch of giant East Bay
Municipal Utility District water pipes that are 26 feet below
ground.
And there may be more. In return for signing off on the
project, Oakland is demanding about $2.5 million to help
relocate about a dozen businesses in the freeway's path.
Engineers say a major chunk of the cost can be attributed
to having to build a largely elevated freeway, requiring the
latest in seismic reinforcement, with a complicated series of
interchanges.
What's more, engineers say, the construction must be done
without disrupting traffic on adjacent streets and freeways,
something that Bill Hein, a deputy at the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, says is like ``remodeling your
kitchen with your wife doing gourmet dinners out of there
every day.''
The project manager, Hilmer Forsen, said: ``I've worked for
Caltrans for 35 years * * * and this thing is so much bigger
and more complicated than anything I've run into.''
``It's a real animal.''
Preparation of the new roadway site is under way, with
major construction set to begin as early as January.
Completion of the project is slated for the last summer of
1997.
So again, despite all of this, despite the cost and all the other
political goodies, engineering goodies, the Senator from Kansas is not
trying to stand in the way of the amendment. All we have to do is pay
for it. I know it may seem strange to some that we ought to pay for
things. But we are not going to offset. I do not lower it down one bit.
I just pay for it. Get it through a regular supplemental. Get it
through a regular supplemental. That would be fine with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the Chair recognizes
the Senator from West Virginia.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is to recognize the Senator
from West Virginia.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. DOLE. I apologize. I did not know the Senator had reserved the
floor.
Mr. BYRD. I do not intend to make a matter out of it. If I felt
strongly about it, I would have called for regular order. I have no
problem with that. I have great respect for the present occupant of the
chair. He is a very gracious man. The Chair is supposed to enforce the
rights of Senators, and to enforce the order that has been entered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a very brief question?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I cannot continue to yield for very long
because we are going to start voting at 15 after 3 p.m. today. I have a
few things to say about some of the pending amendments because we are
going to vote on them back to back.
How long does the distinguished Senator from California want me to
yield at this time?
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator would yield 1\1/2\ minutes, I think I can
get my points in quickly.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I want the Chair to
pay attention to this request, if it is agreed to, I ask unanimous
consent that I be permitted to yield to the Senator from California for
not to exceed 2 minutes, and that I retain the right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. Regular order for the moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia. I will be most brief.
I need to respond to my friend from Kansas, the distinguished
Republican, leader and say to him that it is interesting that he read
an article that said this was more expensive than Interstate 5.
Interstate 5 collapsed. That is the point. Interstate 5 collapsed in
this last earthquake. We do not want to rebuild the Cypress Freeway the
way Interstate 5 was built. And I agree with what Senator Warner said
yesterday. If we go back and rebuild these structures exactly as they
were before they fell, we are wasting taxpayers' money.
In terms of paying for these things, let me say this: I agree with
the Senator. I look forward to a new system where we do have a trust
fund, where we are prepared for these dire emergencies. But to change
the rules in the middle of an emergency like this I think is wrong. It
is a wrong signal to people who have never really come to the
government for help before.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the Record a letter from the Port of Oakland; very important,
interested in commerce and business in support of rebuilding this
freeway. It is essential for economic growth and stability in the
region.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Port of Oakland,
October 5, 1993.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: The Port of Oakland supports and
appreciates your efforts to secure $315 million in emergency
funding in the Senate Transportation Appropriations bill for
the reconstruction of the Cypress Freeway, which was
destroyed in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
The Port of Oakland is situated at the hub of
transportation in Northern California for water, air, rail
and freeway routes. The ability of export cargo to easily
reach the Port is a cornerstone of our growth. We supported
the immediate rebuild of this vital transportation artery,
but understood and supported the extensive negotiations with
land owners and residents for the optimum routing. We
participated in the design and functional offramps to route
traffic away from populated areas and to centralize cargo
traffic.
It will be four years this month that the Port and the
region will have been without this critical connection. The
alternative routes are increasingly overburdened.
The Port of Oakland is the fourth largest containerport in
the U.S., and 19th in the world. Over 90% of the
containerized cargo moving under the Golden Gate is handled
at Oakland. We are strategically situated between the
bustling Pacific Rim and the industrial areas of America. The
four year continued disruption of the transportation arteries
leading to the Port has definitely had a negative impact on
the ability of the Port to provide world class service.
The Cypress Freeway needs to be reconstructed now. The
emergency funds necessary to accomplish this vital link
should be secured in the Senate Transportation Appropriations
bill now being considered.
We strongly support your efforts to end this four year
delay with the negative impacts for the Port, the City of
Oakland, and the region.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Roberts,
Executive Director.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is that the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the
amendment of Mr. Dole is not included in the list of amendments that
will be voted on back to back. There will be ample opportunity to talk
on the amendment later if any Senator wants to talk further on it.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished President pro
tempore. I know we are going to vote at 3:15 p.m. He wants to speak in
opposition. I have been tied up and unable to be at the floor until
now. I would like to ask him if I could have 3 minutes or so in order
to address the amendment. Then I know he will speak in opposition to
it. But it is one of the amendments we are voting on.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes, for not to exceed 3
minutes. I do not control the time. I yield for not to exceed 3 minutes
with my rights protected to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia.
amendment no. 1452
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator Bradley, Senator Feingold, Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Bumpers, and I and others join together in offering
an amendment, a rescission amendment, that cuts $43 billion over 5
years; $3 billion this year. We are looking for a way to fund what we
are about to spend. We offer that. But more importantly, what we have
offered to the Senate is an opportunity to register our votes for real
choices, for a set of choices that reflect what the American people
would really like to be spending their money on as opposed to being
forced to spend it by the continuation of programs that the President
has asked to have cut; that the National Academy of Sciences boards
have said are worthless; that most of the evaluations say are wasteful.
There are nine programs in our amendment that the President has
specifically asked us to cut and that he proposes in his budget be cut.
There are, in addition to that, programs that we suggest do not
reflect an appropriate judgment when you are choosing between things
that we ought to be doing versus things we would like to do or things
that need something by perhaps one single district in a State but are
not within the national priorities of the country.
If we are cutting low income energy assistance to people, as we are
being asked to, if he were cutting education funds in certain areas, if
we are cutting or do not have sufficient funds for drug treatment, if
he were struggling to find money for adequate prison construction or
cops in the street, how can we possibly void those choices in favor of
continuing programs that for instance fund a whole set of USDA field
offices that do not reflect the needs of the agricultural community of
this country?
I respectfully say to my colleagues, I cannot go into all of the
cuts. They are in front of everybody. We can make judgments about them.
But with this amendment there are no gimmicks, no tricks. We do not
double count. There is no accounting chicanery. We do not include
health care. We do not include the 252,000 people that we are going to
cut that are already spoken for the crime program.
We have a straight program for program cuts, cutting items that we
have spent months looking at and making judgments about based on the
best assessments of our budgeteers at CBO, the GAO, and of other
individual entities and agencies and individuals who have made
judgments about this budget.
I would respectfully suggest that each and every one of these systems
that we cut, or each would be one of these programs that we cut, is a
reflection of the best judgment of most of those looking hard at the
budget today.
And it underscores the great distinction: Do we need to be spending
this money? Should we be spending this money, or are there better
things that we ought to be putting this money to? I respectfully submit
to my colleagues that every one of these items withstands the test and
is an item that we do not need to be spending on and we would be far
better off cutting to reduce the deficit or to spend on those items we
ought to be cutting. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and yield
whatever time remains.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts would reduce the fiscal year 1994 budget for national
defense by nearly $4 billion.
Members ought to recall that Congress already reduced the Defense
Department budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each
year for the past 10 years Congress has cut the funds provided for
defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically.
The bill before the Senate already rescinds more than $900 million
from the Department of Defense reductions. That will tax the ability of
the Department of Defense to meet its base closure requirements.
Cutting another $4 billion is simply unwise and insupportable. I oppose
it, and I hope that the Senate will either vote the amendment down or
vote to table the amendment, whichever motion is voted on by the
Senate.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last night the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] offered an amendment designed to save over
$40 billion over the next 5 years. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that
amendment.
The amendment was the product of a lengthy and at times heated
discussion between a number of Senators. None of us, if acting on our
own, would have put every item in the amendment on our own personal
list of cuts. All of us, if acting on our own, would have added at
least a few more programs to the list. But we agreed to act together,
to find some common ground and use some common sense in a serious
effort to actually reduce the deficit.
We agreed to do a few other things as well: to avoid counting savings
which had already been claimed in other legislation and avoid taking
savings which need to be claimed to finance health care reform. We also
agreed that all our cuts would be real and specific, scored by the
Congressional Budget Office.
Some of the cuts were made because we believe the programs are no
longer justified or, in a few cases, have been so badly managed or
designed that they simply waste the money that the American people pay
in taxes. But many more cuts were made on a much difficult basis: the
programs, while justified and effective, simply were not high
priorities. In an age of $200 billion deficits and over $4 trillion
debt, we simply cannot afford to do all the things we want. We cannot
even afford to do all the things we ought to do. We can barely afford
to do all the things we need to do.
Mr. President, I have the pleasure of serving on the Appropriation
Committee and chairing the Transportation Subcommittee. I have some
sense of the number of requests that Senators make for programs and
projects. I have an even better sense of how our ability to meet those
requests is constrained. We have to set some priorities. We have to
make some decisions. We cannot continue to try to do everything.
The package that Senator Kerry and I and others have put together is,
we believe, balanced. It does not only cut Defense programs which have
become obsolete in the wake of the cold war; it also targets domestic
programs which no longer are justified.
Now, Mr. President, I know that it is easy to justify a vote against
this amendment because you do not agree that we ought to cut this
program or that one. But we have to make some on-balance judgements
here, Mr. President. We have to look at the whole instead of just a few
of the parts. That is what we have done in constructing this package.
And that, I hope, is what Members will do when they vote on it.
But let me close on this note, Mr. President. If this package
amendment is defeated, we will bring the individual pieces back when
the Senate considers the appropriation bills later this year. One way
or another, as a whole or in parts, we have to make additional cuts in
spending. The American people want it. Fiscal reality requires it. And
economic growth depends on it.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the Kerry amendment includes a $1
billion cut in fiscal year 1994 and $5 billion over the next 5 years
from intelligence activities.
President Clinton has pledged to reduce intelligence spending by $7
billion over the next 5 years. As chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, I fully support the President's commitment to further
reductions. In fact, I have lead the effort that has already reduced
intelligence spending in fiscal years' 1993 and 1994 by nearly $3.5
billion over President Bush and Clinton's budget requests.
Last year I was able to put the votes together in the Intelligence
Committee for a $1.2 billion reduction in fiscal year 1994 intelligence
spending. The Senate appropriaters cut an additional $100 million from
the President's intelligence request.
Senator Kerry supported my reduction in committee and offered no
amendment in the committee or on the floor to cut deeper.
I continue to believe today that last year's intelligence cut was as
deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-
war transition. I have continually told Jim Woolsey--I'm sure more than
he wants to hear--that the intelligence community must downsize and
reduce duplication and its infrastructure.
To his credit, Jim Woolsey is doing a good job to maintain a balance
between reducing the intelligence budget and maintaining adequate
capabilities to meet the community's critical role of supporting
policymakers and war fighters.
Overall, intelligence resources have been reduced in real terms more
than 13 percent compared with 1989 appropriations. In addition to
funding cuts, Congress has already levied an across-the-board personnel
cut of 17.5 percent in all intelligence agencies by 1997. The
administration has increased the personnel cut to 23 percent by 1999.
Yes, the world has changed. We no longer face the same sort of threat
to our survival that we faced during the cold war.
But the world remains a dangerous place and an uncertain place. We
continue to face challenges to our Nation's interests all around the
world. You have only to read the newspapers.
The recent developments in Russia demonstrate what a fragile
political situation still exists in that country.
There are still nuclear weapons out there which are targetted against
the United States and whose control we worry about. There are countries
not friendly to us which seem bent upon developing their own weapons of
mass destruction. We still face the possibility that U.S. military
forces might be deployed around the globe to accomplish a variety of
missions. We no longer seem immune from acts of terrorism in the United
States and the scourge of narcotics has hardly abated.
We have to stay ready. It makes no sense for us to close our eyes and
ears to developments around the world which could ultimately save U.S.
lives and resources.
The Intelligence Committee has taken a long hard look at what we are
spending on intelligence. We have attempted to strike a balance between
the need to reduce the deficit and the need to maintain an adequate
capability.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
Mr. BYRD. Under the order entered previously, does the Senate begin
voting at the hour of 3:15 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. Would the Chair kindly state the amendments that will be
voted on ad seriatim?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment will be amendment No.
1444, offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]; the second will
be amendment No. 1445, offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr.
Murkowski]; the third will be amendment No. 1452, offered by the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]; the fourth will be amendment
No. 1453, offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold]; the
fifth will be amendment No. 1454, offered by the Senator from Minnesota
[Mr. Durenberger]; the sixth will be amendment No. 1456, offered by the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, a point of order has been made and will be considered
at the time the amendment by Mr. Durenberger is reached on the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.
That will be the case under a previous order.
Mr. BYRD. In the event that points of order are made against other
amendments on the list, such points of order have not been waived by
virtue of the majority leader's request; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
amendment no. 1444
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is on the amendment by Mr. Brown.
Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee bill includes
$12.4 billion in requested funds to pay the cost of converting
thousands of computer tapes to a readable format. This expense is in
response to numerous Federal court orders and appellate decisions--
Armstrong versus Executive Office of the President.
The funds are fully paid for through a transfer from the Air Force
and a reduction in IRS tax system modernization. The funding is not
designated as an emergency. The Armstrong case originated in 1989 when
private citizens requested, through the Freedom of Information Act,
access to National Security Council e-mail, including Oliver North's,
as well as other EOP agencies. The court determined that the Executive
Office of the President had to maintain, preserve, and make accessible,
in a readable form, such e-mail back-up tapes.
This supplemental provides the resources to make the tape conversion
mandated by the court.
I have a more detailed history, which I ask unanimous consent to be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Supplemental Expenditures Associated With Resolution of Armstrong
versus Executive Office of the President (EOP)
In January 1989, a group of plaintiffs brought suit against
the Archivist and various EOP agencies--including the Office
of Administration and the National Security Council--alleging
that the defendants were improperly disposing of government
records contained on EOP electronic mail (``e-mail'')
systems.
Shortly thereafter, the Federal District Court entered an
order requiring the defendants to preserve backup tapes of
existing e-mail systems.
The government sought appellate review of certain aspects
of the district court's ruling. The appeal was still
unresolved at the end of the Bush Administration, and the
court once again ordered the preservation of backup tapes.
Pursuant to these orders thousands of backup tapes were
preserved.
In January 1993, the district court ruled that the
defendants' record keeping standards were ``arbitrary,''
``capricious'' and ``unreasonable.'' Related orders further
required that the EOP continue to preserve backup tapes for
its e-mail systems until defendants had disseminated
satisfactory ``guidance'' concerning e-mail records
management. The EOP agencies promulgated new guidance in May
1993, which again failed the district court's standards.
While the government appealed the district court's ruling to
the Court of Appeals, it was required to continue to maintain
backup tapes of e-mail messages.
In August 1993, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
definitively ruled that the EOP had failed to properly
provide for the management of its e-mail messages as
electronic records under the Federal Records Act. In order to
address some of the concerns identified by the courts, and in
an effort to resolve certain aspects of the litigation, the
government has pursued the following course of action:
1. The parties have entered into settlement negotiations in
an effort to arrive at mutually acceptable records keeping
guidance;
2. The Administration undertook to put in place an
electronic records management system that would ensure that
an accurate historical record of the e-mail associated with
the Clinton Administration is adequately preserved, managed
and available for public disclosure.
3. In light of the inadequate preservation of the e-mail
messages during the previous administrations, the EOP has
initiated the complex process of recapturing the voluminous
records that were preserved on systems backup tapes during
the pendency of the litigation. These systems backup tapes--
which in themselves are not capable of being preserved,
managed or read--require conversion and proper disposition by
the Archivist and the EOP agencies.
The Supplemental Appropriation requests funds for the
conversion of the thousands of accumulated backup tapes to
readable format in order to provide for proper disposition of
the records contained on those tapes. In addition, funds are
requested for the acquisition and installation or a records
management system sufficient to insure continued compliance
with the Federal Records Act and related legislation.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
With regard to the Brown amendment, which will be the first one that
is voted on, it deals with the amount appropriated for the White House.
That level is one in which President Clinton had recommended a 25-
percent cut.
As you know, and I think Members of this body are well aware, instead
of cutting the White House--it did not receive the 25-percent cut that
the President had talked about--as a matter of fact, there was an
increase in funds.
What is included in this bill right now is an additional increase of
$7 million. At least in this Senator's mind, it is not an emergency. It
does, indeed, relate, as has been mentioned on the floor, to the
Armstrong case. But that Armstrong case came down almost 2 years ago.
It came down in the spring of 1992. To suggest that it is sudden or
urgent or unexpected, I do not believe squares with the facts in the
case.
The reality is, this matter should be and is included, I believe, in
the normal appropriations. To suggest that, instead of a 25-percent
cut, you are not going to get any cut but an increase, to me, is the
height of irresponsibility.
vote on amendment no. 1444
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:15
having arrived, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1444,
offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mathews
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
So, the amendment (No. 1444) was rejected.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1445
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment
No. 1445 offered by the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, the pending Murkowski amendment addresses
the process by which Congress establishes mandatory ceilings on
appropriations bills and, thus, contains matters within the
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee under the standing order on the
referral of the budget process legislation.
As the underlying bill has not been reported by the Budget Committee,
I raise a point of order that the pending Murkowski amendment violates
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to waive the
Budget Act with respect to the Murkowski amendment No. 1445. The yeas
and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley],
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 37, and the nays are
58. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Chair, therefore, rules that the amendment contains subject
matter within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and was offered
to a bill that has not been reported by that committee. The point of
order is sustained, and the amendment is rejected.
vote on amendment 1452
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on amendment number
1452 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 75, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]
YEAS--20
Boren
Bumpers
Conrad
Dorgan
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Jeffords
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Metzenbaum
Pell
Pryor
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--75
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
So, the amendment (No. 1452) was rejected.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 1453
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment.
The issue before the Senate today is not whether we support our
troops. Of course we do. And of course we should provide funds to cover
the cost of these operations. All this amendment says is that we ought
not do it by adding $1.2 billion to the deficit; instead, we should
find the resources within the Pentagon's existing $260 billion budget
to pay the bills.
Mr. President, the real issue before the Senate today is whether the
Defense Department should be subject to the same fiscal rules and
constraints as all other agencies in the Federal Government. I believe
it should be.
The Defense Department should have anticipated that it would need to
pay these $1.2 billion in bills and budgeted accordingly. But it
didn't. It is unfair to ask the American taxpayers to excuse the
Pentagon's mistakes by adding another $1.2 billion to the deficit.
Mr. President, the criteria used by the Office of Management and
Budget to determine whether spending qualifies for an emergency
designation--and subsequently can be added to the deficit--are clear.
One is that the expenditure be sudden--quickly coming into being, not
building up over time. Another is that it be unforeseen--not
predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need.
The $1.2 billion in new spending included in this bill for the
Pentagon doesn't meet these criteria by any stretch of the imagination.
All of the military operations in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and in Iraq
were underway at the time Congress considered the budget last
September. We've been in Somalia for over a year. Operation Provide
Comfort for the Kurdish people living in Iraq has been underway for
nearly 3 years, having begun in April 1991, and we've been enforcing
the no-fly zone in southern Iraq since August 26, 1992. With respect to
Haiti, the Governors' Island Agreement was signed July 3, 1993. Under
that agreement, the U.N. and OAS agreed to monitor compliance, and
President Clinton agreed to send 350 engineers. On October 6, 1993, the
initial United States contingent landed in Haiti. Five days later, one
of our Navy ships transporting the bulk of the engineers was turned
around.
As you can see, all of these operations have been ongoing for some
time. They cannot be called sudden or unforeseen. That we would
ultimately need to pay bills should have been very predictable.
Mr. President, we need to bring order and consistency to the military
budget process. The Pentagon should not get in the habit of asking for
supplemental, new deficit spending to pay the bills for all oveseas
operations. Clearly, there will be times when we will have
unanticipated costs. But the Pentagon needs to do a better job
anticipating the costs for overseas operations. The Pentagon needs to
be subject to the same budgetary discipline as every other agency in
the Federal Government.
We fund the Department of Defense to ensure that our military will be
prepared to defend our interests should the Commander in Chief and the
Congress believe it is justified. Yet, our military budget planners
seem to act as if those funds are only designed to buy equipment and
train personnel--not use the equipment or deploy the people.
Mr. President, the United States humanitarian, peacekeeping, and
peace enforcing operations in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq are
worthy efforts. Our military is doing a superb job, and they deserve
our support. We need to ensure that our military personnel are
adequately trained for the challenges ahead. We need to guarantee that
our readiness will be top-notch. Continually asking the Congress to
provide supplemental funds to pay these bills is the wrong way to reach
these goals. The path to success in readiness is through sound
budgeting.
Mr. President, this amendment is fiscally responsible, it is good
public policy, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1453
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 76, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]
YEAS--19
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
DeConcini
Dorgan
Feingold
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatfield
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Sasser
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--76
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boren
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
So the amendment (No. 1453) was rejected.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 1454
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from West Virginia
is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I address the following remarks to the
amendment by Mr. Durenberger, in connection with which the Senate will
be voting soon. I hope the Senate will not support that amendment by
Mr. Durenberger. It is an attempt to set up a procedure whereby the
executive branch would reserve in the disaster relief fund an amount
they determine would be necessary to fund the average annual amount
expended for disaster relief during the preceding 5 years.
The problem with this approach is that it would supersede the present
process for handling emergencies that was negotiated after lengthy
discussions during the 1990 budget summit and is incorporated in the
budget of 1990. In so doing, the pending amendment would take away from
discretionary spending the amount that would be reserved in this newly
established trust fund. This would mean that we would have literally
billions of dollars less to spend on discretionary spending, including
defense, over the coming years if this amendment were agreed to. The
reason is that this amendment would separate out billions of dollars
that will be required for natural disasters and other emergencies and
not allow those funds to be used for any other purpose.
Whatever amounts were determined by the executive branch to go into
the disaster relief trust fund would be taken away from the
discretionary caps each year. As all Senators are aware, those caps are
extremely binding, extremely tight, extremely constrained. The
committee, agreeing by amendment in the markup of this, recognized that
disasters and other emergency funding needs have grown dramatically
over the past several years. It is for that reason that my amendment,
cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Hatfield, and Stevens, would establish
a bipartisan task force to examine the history of funding natural
disasters and make recommendations to the Senate prior to the convening
of the 104th Congress on better ways to provide these essential
appropriations in the future, without at the same time throwing our
deficit reduction goals out the window.
So I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. I intend to
make a point of order against it, and I hope the point of order will be
sustained.
The pending amendment would create a new trust fund and exclude the
outlays from that trust fund from being taken into account for the
purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Balanced Budget
Act, or Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Under section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act, it is not in order to consider an amendment
dealing with matters under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee
unless such an amendment is offered to a measure reported from that
committee. The pending bill was not reported from the Budget Committee
and therefore a point of order lies.
Mr. President, I shall now make the point of order, and I ask
unanimous consent that the Chair not rule on it until the Senate
reaches the amendment's place on the list previously entered under the
majority leader's order. I make the point of order against the
amendment for violating section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
vote in relation to amendment no. 1454
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Durenberger, I move to
waive the Budget Act for consideration of the Durenberger amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I do not believe the minority leader could be
heard. There will be order in the Chamber.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Durenberger, I move to waive the
Budget Act for consideration of the Durenberger amendment, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The question is on agreeing to
the motion of the Senator from Kansas to waive the Budget Act for the
consideration of amendment No. 1454.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 41, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeConcini
Dole
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hollings
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Lott
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Murkowski
Pressler
Roth
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--54
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no other Senators wishing to
vote, on this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 54.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The amendment contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Budget Committee that was offered to the bill which has not been
reported by that committee. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
Amendment No. 1456
Mr. BYRD. Senator McCain's amendment would take away from States over
$1.7 billion in funds provided through the ISTEA legislation and
another $488 million which has been provided to States through annual
appropriations. The $1.7 billion proposed for rescission is not within
the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. These are funds
provided over the life of the ISTEA legislation for specific projects
in all 50 States.
Senator McCain's amendment would pull the rug out from the States
that have been planning to use this money this year or in the near
future. In many cases, States have conducted the necessary
environmental impact statements, site planning preparation, and
preliminary engineering studies, and are ready to go to construction.
In other words, States have in many cases invested a significant
amount of either their own resources or Federal resources to be ready
to obligate the highway construction dollars. Many of the projects that
would lose money on the McCain amendment were planning to go to
construction as early as the upcoming spring construction season.
To withdraw this money at this time would not only be disruptive to a
State's construction plans but would waste the resources already
invested in these projects. States cannot immediately go to
construction when they receive Federal dollars for a project. There is
a long and complex permitting process that must be complied with, such
as holding public hearings and obtaining necessary permits, often to
comply with Federal regulations, and 2 years go by before a shovel can
be put into the ground.
Senator McCain's amendment assumes that these projects are not under
construction. In many cases what the Federal listing failed to
recognize was that the projects were under construction but had been
going forward using State funds. It also fails to recognize that, under
the Federal regulations, the State cannot obligate Federal highway
funds until all of the resources necessary to complete a usable segment
are in hand.
Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will not adopt the amendment. A
motion to table may be offered at the time, in which case I hope the
Senate will vote to table the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration list of the
ISTEA projects that are proposed for rescission, and the appropriated
projects that are proposed for rescission, and the total proposed
rescission for each State on the list.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated
State ISTA proposed proposed Total proposed
rescission rescission rescission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 21,166,624 .................. 21,166,624
American Samoa...................................... 1,030,400 .................. 1,030,400
Arizona............................................. 4,777,600 21,554,862 26,342,462
Arkansas............................................ 81,080,208 9,850,357 90,930,565
California.......................................... 132,475,367 13,030,000 145,505,267
Colorado............................................ 1,299,200 .................. 1,299,200
Connecticut......................................... 3,741,730 .................. 3,741,730
District of Columbia................................ 9,727,200 .................. 9,727,200
Florida............................................. 72,156,530 18,154,396 90,310,926
Georgia............................................. 27,494,435 7,997,401 35,491,836
Hawaii.............................................. 2,688,000 5,560,000 8,248,000
Idaho............................................... 22,207,997 .................. 22,207,997
Illinois............................................ 96,366,368 1,928,530 98,294,898
Indiana............................................. 37,706,930 31,168,897 68,875,877
Iowa................................................ 9,261,510 21,846,723 31,108,233
Kansas.............................................. 25,567,368 22,125,880 47,693,248
Kentucky............................................ 29,498,889 8,750,000 38,248,889
Louisiana........................................... 31,219,680 600,000 31,819,680
Maine............................................... 14,532,947 .................. 14,532,947
Maryland............................................ 4,256,000 25,966,667 30,222,667
Massachusetts....................................... 2,613,200 5,939,303 8,582,503
Michigan............................................ 27,916,809 8,023,000 35,939,809
Minnesota........................................... 45,866,498 .................. 45,866,498
Mississippi......................................... 11,851,649 3,220,000 15,071,649
Missouri............................................ 49,978,176 680,000 50,658,176
Montana............................................. 6,953,485 3,200,000 10,153,485
Nebraska............................................ 10,941,120 2,640,000 13,581,120
Nevada.............................................. 24,737,029 1,331,280 26,068,309
New Jersey.......................................... 36,621,726 36,566,872 73,188,598
New Mexico.......................................... 3,887,149 5,010,191 8,897,340
New York............................................ 119,571,386 53,286,509 172,857,895
North Carolina...................................... 9,838,400 .................. 9,838,400
North Dakota........................................ 5,394,780 .................. 5,394,730
N. Hampshire........................................ 9,235,133 6,656,413 15,891,546
Ohio................................................ 66,489,920 7,550,000 74,039,920
Oklahoma............................................ 11,083,520 6,722,367 17,805,887
Oregon.............................................. 11,558,400 3,488,333 15,046,733
Pennsylvania........................................ 319,843,651 38,892,158 358,735,809
Rhode Island........................................ 10,930,132 .................. 10,930,132
South Carolina...................................... .................. .................. ..................
South Dakota........................................ 1,612,800 3,295,000 1,908,800
Tennessee........................................... 29,925,884 .................. 29,925,884
Texas............................................... 68,536,170 16,610,125 85,146,295
Utah................................................ 3,110,660 11,400,000 14,510,660
Various............................................. 448,000 .................. 448,000
Vermont............................................. 7,570,400 729,413 8,299,813
Virgin Islands...................................... 4,154,800 .................. 4,154,800
Virginia............................................ 49,313,500 4,950,000 54,263,600
Washington.......................................... 6,095,648 .................. 6,095,648
West Virginia....................................... 132,032,597 71,850,996 203,833,593
Wisconsin........................................... 672,000 10,199,867 10,871,867
Wyoming............................................. 5,732,600 .................. 5,732,600
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 1,722,802,255 490,786,540 2,213,588,795
Less: Obligations anticipated through February 7,
1994............................................... (1,532,255) (2,338,985) (3,871,240)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 1,721,270,000 (488,447,555) 2,209,717,555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Amounts are unobligated balances as of January 10, 1994.
Mr. BYRD. I hope that Senators, in voting, will review this list so
that each Senator may see precisely how much moneys will be rescinded
from his State's projects before he votes.
wise rescission proposal
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. This amendment would
rescind highway demonstration projects which have not begun
construction. The list, submitted by President Clinton as part of the
1995 budget, totals over $2.2 billion.
Each dollar which is spent on a demonstration project is taken either
from deficit reduction or from a rational allocation process which
awards highway funds based on their merits.
This Nation has tremendous infrastructure needs, and our annual
transportation appropriations cannot come close to meeting those needs.
Fortunately, most Federal highway money is distributed according to a
thorough planning process by which States and metropolitan areas
prioritize their projects and proceed only with those that top the
priority list. In every State and community, high-priority projects go
unfunded for a lack of money.
Given these severe constraints, we simply cannot afford to divert
Federal funds to the pet projects of Members of Congress. Very few so-
called demonstration projects actually can justify the label of
demonstrating anything at all other than that one or more Member of
Congress was successful in inserting funding for them into a piece of
legislation.
Mr. President, I have an article from the February 6 Orlando Sentinel
which is an excellent analysis of this issue. The article, written by
Mr. Sean Holton, outlines the history of congressional transportation
earmarks and documents their rise in number throughout the last decade.
It is my hope that the epilog to the story will be the adoption of the
McCain amendment, rescinding funding for $2.2 billion in projects which
have yet even to begin construction.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Holton's article be
printed in the Record following my remarks and urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Orlando Sentinel, Feb. 6, 1994]
Special Highway Projects Bring Home the Bacon
(By Sean Holton)
Washington.--They are called ``highway demonstration
projects,'' but the main thing they demonstrate is the power
of the pork-barrel kings of Congress.
If you live near a place like Altoona, Pa., you might think
of these projects as manna from heaven. If you live someplace
else--Florida, say--you might call them highway robbery.
Since 1987, demonstration projects--intended to stimulate
innovative road building--have become a wildly popular way
for Congress to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars without
going through the regular highway program.
And this year, against the advice of their expert
accountants, lawmakers are preparing to spend still more.
The money used for demo projects amounts to less than 5
percent of the $20-billion-a-year federal highway program.
But transportation experts--including those at the General
Accounting Office--say this is money not well spent.
``In 1991 we found that about half of the demonstration
projects we reviewed did not appear on state or regional
transportation plans,'' GAO official Kenneth Mead told a
congressional committee last year. As such, the demo projects
leapfrogged what local transportation officers had set as
priorities.
The demo projects give individual lawmakers, generally the
most powerful ones, a chance to circumvent established road-
building priorities and channel money directly to pet
projects in their home states or districts.
The dealing is done out of the public eye, and the results
eventually wind up in the fine print of multiyear highway
bills and annual spending bills. Powerful lawmakers on
committees that control those bills either insert the demo
projects for themselves or in a horse trade with a colleague.
Florida, which has less clout than other states on key
congressional committees that dole out demo projects, has
suffered in the competition, to the tune of at least $143
million since 1991, according to a study by The Orlando
Sentinel.
``When you have a person--a member of the House or Senate--
with the seniority, then you are going to see some results,''
said Bill Taylor, who has lobbied in Washington for 23 years
on behalf of Florida's Transportation Department. ``We lost a
hell of a lot of seniority in the worst possible places.''
strings attached
Even the money that Florida has received comes with strings
attached.
The dollars are dedicated to many nonpriority projects such
as the ``Mosquito Creek Bridge'' near Chattahoochee, or the
Interstate 4 interchange near State Road 46A, approved at the
insistence of real estate developer Jeno Paulucci in 1987 to
benefit the exclusive Heathrow development. A construction
date has not been set.
Over the years, the line between demo projects ostensibly
intended to be truly innovative and those that are routine
has blurred. Now, the money may go for anything from ``paving
a gravel road to building a multilane highway,'' according to
the GAO.
``Some [demo projects] are probably questionable, and I'm
being charitable with that description,'' said Florida
Transportation Secretary Ben Watts. ``I think a lot of times
the only thing they demonstrate is that you can get a
demonstration project.''
How much money has been spent this way?
More than $12.3 billion since 1970, according to an
analysis of highway administration data by the Sentinel.
During that time, Congress has authorized 1,223 separate
expenditures for demo projects.
A closer look at the data shows just how huge the recent
increase in demo project authorizations has been.
Between 1970 and 1986, the country got by with only 78 demo
project authorizations by Congress. In the eight years since,
Congress has approved 1,145 more of these expenditures.
No one on Capitol Hill seems to have a good explanation for
the increase, except to say that doling out demo projects in
tight budget years has become a favorite way for legislative
leaders to buy loyalty and support from members.
The banner year came in 1991, when Congress larded a six-
year highway bill and an annual appropriations bill with 679
projects totalling $7.8 billion. Since then, Congress has
approved another 233 demo projects worth $978 million and has
put out the call for more requests from members this year.
Where does all that money go?
In 1991, $2.4 million went toward the Mosquito Creek
Bridge, a county road bridge planned to carry traffic over
a set of railroad tracks outside Chattahoochee in the
Florida Panhandle. The project isn't a national or even a
state priority, but it is in the district of Rep. Pete
Peterson, D-Marianna, a member of the House Appropriations
Committee.
Another 1991 ``demo project'' was $14.2 million for a
paint-job on the Chicago Skyway, a lightly traveled tollway
that the Chicago Tribune once dubbed ``the bag lady of
Chicago-area highways.''
But the lowly bag lady had a very powerful friend: Rep. Dan
Rostenkowski, D-Ill., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways
and Means Committee, who also wangled $35 million for
``various intermodal facilities'' at the Chicago Museum of
Science & Industry. The facilities turned out to be a parking
garage.
State transportation experts acknowledge that not all demo
projects are purely pork. Some are desperately needed, but
simply too expensive to pay for with regular federal highway
assistance.
Thus, Florida's transportation department is supporting a
project request for $185 million this year to replace the
Fuller Warren Bridge in Jacksonville, where Interstate 95
crosses the St. Johns River.
A turnabout for Maine
In most cases, though, the demo projects are dictionary
definition pork barrel; government appropriations for
political patronage, as for local improvements to please
legislators' constituents.
Consider, for example, this reversal of fortune for the
State of Maine during the period studied by the Sentinel:
Between 1970 and 1989, Maine pulled down just $24 million
in demo project money--making it 29th among all states. Then
in 1989 Maine Democrat George Mitchell became Senate Majority
Leader.
Two years later--in the 1991 highway bill--Maine jumped in
a single bound to 17th place in the Demo Project Sweepstakes,
with $187 million worth of bridge improvements.
But not even Mitchell's performance could top that of Rep.
Bud Shuster, R-Pa., who brought home nearly a half-billion
dollars in highway demo projects in 1991, according to the
highway department data.
Shuster, the ranking Republican on the House Public Works
and Transportation Committee which writes highway bills,
steered at least $454 million to his district in Altoona.
Were it a state unto itself, the district would have ranked
fourth in getting highway demo project dollars that year.
``These little piglets that have now become giant hogs,''
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said of demo projects in a 1991
speech on the Senate floor.
But being a politician, Graham is not above rounding up a
few hogs of his own.
On the day of that speech, he landed a $97.5 million demo
project to acquire right-of-way and begin construction on a
magnetic levitation train line from Orlando International
Airport to International Drive.
How Florida loses
Florida has garnered $445 million in demonstration projects
since 1970 and ranks sixth among all states in the period
studied by the Sentinel.
The biggest chunk of that money was $126 million in 1974
for replacing about three dozen decrepit bridges that carry
U.S. 1 over the sea to Key West--a project that, were it
built today, would cost many times as much, because of
inflation.
Since 1991, the state has received $218 million, putting it
10th among the states in demo dollars during that period.
But a look at the fine print, especially since 1991, shows
why Florida officials would just as soon do without demo
projects.
Over that three-year period, Congress has approved $8.7
billion worth of highway demo projects. Florida's $218
million represents about 2.5 percent of that total.
What if the same $8.7 billion had been put into the regular
highway fund instead and allotted according to the standard
formula for distributing federal highway dollars among
states? Under that scenario, Florida would have received
about 4.1 percent of the money--or $361 million.
The difference represents a loss to Florida of $143 million
in potential federal highway aid.
Florida is not the only state in that situation: Under the
same analysis, California loses $317 million; Texas, $304
million; and Georgia, $135 million. In all, 34 states plus
the District of Columbia lose more than they gain because of
demonstration projects, according to the Sentinel study.
So which states are the big winners? Under the regular
distribution formula, Pennsylvania would get about 4.2
percent, or $371 million, of the demo project money. But
thanks to pork barons such as Bud Shuster, Pennsylvania has
instead received more than $1 billion in demo project dollars
since 1991.
Cross-index the other ``winning'' states with a
congressional directory, and you've got an all-star lineup of
Capitol Hill power brokers:
New York, $646 million net gain (Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (D) and Alfonse D'Amato, the ranking Republican on
the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on transportation).
West Virginia, $585 million net gain (Sen. Robert Byrd (D),
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Nick
Rahall (D), the new chairman of the Public Works subcommittee
on surface transportation).
Arkansas, $277 million net gain (former Rep. John P.
Hammerschmidt, Shuster's predecessor as ranking Republican on
the Public Works committee).
caution: pork ahead
More demo projects are in the pipeline this year as part of
legislation Congress is considering for designation of a new
National Highway System.
Officials of the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee refuse to say how many new requests for highway
demo projects they had received as of a Jan. 7 deadline.
``We're still tabulating,'' a committee aide said. ``And
even when we do, we're not releasing that number.''
But all indications are that lawmakers are hoping for a
bumper crop: The Florida delegation alone filed requests for
13 projects totalling $630 million and publicly released
those proposals last month.
Some demo project opponents such as Graham are counting on
President Clinton to call for transferring money from demo
projects to regular highway accounts when be submits his
budget to Congress on Monday.
``We're unlikely to have the self control to deal with this
problem,'' Graham said of Congress. ``It's going to take a
presidential hammer to the heads of these little piglets.''
Winners and Losers
Since 1991, Congress has authorized $8.8 billion worth of
highway demonstration projects. States with more political
pull in Congress grabbed much bigger shares of that pot than
they would have received had the same money been allotted
under the standard formula for distributing federal highway
dollars. High-growth states such as Florida, Texas and
California--which put in more money than they get back, even
under the standard formula--lost still more money because of
the demo projects.
The biggest winners:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Standard demo Dollars
formula project gained
(percent) share (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania...................... 4.2 12.0 680.8
New York.......................... 5.3 12.6 646.8
West Virginia..................... .9 7.6 585.2
Arkansas.......................... 1.1 4.3 277.5
Maine............................. .4 2.1 144.4
Illinois.......................... 3.4 4.9 131.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest losers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Standard demo Dollars
formula project lost
(percent) share (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts..................... 0.1 0.1 523.8
California........................ 9.3 5.8 317.3
Texas............................. 6.4 3.0 304.4
Ohio.............................. 3.6 2.0 144.5
Florida........................... 4.1 2.5 143.1
Georgia........................... 2.9 1.4 135.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Orlando Sentinel computer analysis of Federal Highway
Administration and U.S. General Accounting Office data.
vote on amendment no. 1456
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment
No. 1456 offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from
Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 72, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]
YEAS--23
Brown
Chafee
Coverdell
Dole
Faircloth
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Helms
Hollings
Kassebaum
Lieberman
Mack
McCain
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--72
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mathews
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
So the amendment (No. 1456) was rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the
table is agreed to.
Order of Procedure
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent in an effort to
expedite the procedures that we vitiate the request for the yeas and
nays on my amendment No. 1458.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
amendment no. 1456
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator wish a vote on his
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I can briefly comment on the results of
the last vote.
The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee was kind
enough to send around a list of the amounts of money in these so-called
demonstration projects which have been called by the General Accounting
Office ``highway demonstration project completion costs would greatly
exceed authorized Federal and State contributions. The State officials
are uncertain whether they will find the money.''
In the words of the President himself, ``It will eliminate funding
provided by annual appropriations acts for all unauthorized highway
demonstration projects that are not under construction.''
Mr. President, apparently we are afraid to make projects compete
based on merit.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate for once
during this long and hectic day?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not belabor the subject except to
say that this is the kind of thing that the American people in the
ballot booth have rejected time after time--billions, not millions, not
tens of millions, not hundreds of millions--billions of dollars,
billions of dollars, in projects that are unauthorized, that have no
competition associated with it, no scrutiny, no examination, but are
placed in appropriations bills directly related to virtues other than
merit.
I would like to tell this body I will continue to tell the people of
this country about this process. I will continue to fight for a line-
item veto. I will continue to urge the President of the United States
to bring forth rescissions on appropriations like these because the
American people deserve it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. These items were authorized. The ISTEA projects were
authorized and the appropriated projects were authorized.
So the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona is simply in error.
These projects constitute infrastructure. They represent jobs. They are
beneficial to the States and the Nation. They are good from the
standpoint of national defense.
Those Senators who voted against the Senator's amendment were voting
in the interests of the Nation and in the interest of their respective
States. I respect them for that.
I respect the Senator from Arizona for writing to the Appropriations
Committee on behalf of the Turquoise Trail Economic Development Highway
Project in Arizona. On September 30, 1991, the distinguished Senator
wrote to the Appropriations Committee as follows.
As you go to conference with the House on the FY '92
Transportation Appropriations bill, I respectfully urge you
to hold firm for the $3 million funding level recommended by
the Senate for the Turquoise Trail Economic Development
Highway Project.
I know you are aware of the critical need for
infrastructure.
That is what we are talking about. That is what Senator McCain was
referring to when he wrote to the Appropriations Committee. I respect
him for writing on behalf of the project that affects his constituents.
He said:
I know you are aware of the critical need for
infrastructure and economic development in Indian country,
and I especially appreciate the support you have given the
Turquoise Trail project in the past. Indian roads are
oftentimes gravel tracks or graded dirt paths which erode
with every rainfall. Business development and tourism are
hindered by these road conditions, and the economies of the
Indian tribes suffer as a result.
The Turquoise Trail is a joint effort of the Navajo and
Hopi Indian tribes. It is significant that these Indian
nations, which have been embroiled in a bitter land dispute,
are working so closely on this project to help overcome their
differences and improve the surrounding communities.
Again, I urge you to accept the Senate's recommended $3
million in funding for the Turquoise Trail, and I thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John McCain,
United States Senator.
Also, on May 1991, Mr. McCain wrote to Mr. Lautenberg, chairman of
the Appropriation Subcommittee on Transportation, as follows:
Dear Frank: The purpose of this letter is to request your
assistance in providing funds for a critical highway project
in Arizona which has a significant federal interest.
I do not blame the Senator for writing that letter. He was doing what
his constituents expect him to do.
For over three years, the State of Arizona, along with
Maricopa and Pinal Counties, the Ak-Chin and Gila River
Indian communities and the private sector through the
Maricopa Road Association, have been working to fund a four-
lane highway--the new Maricopa Road/State Route 347.
Maricopa County has contributed over $6.5 million, Pinal
County almost $14 million and the Arizona Department of
Transportation over $12.5 million toward the construction of
the roadway to date.
Unfortunately, despite this substantial cooperative effort,
there remains a funding gap on the lands of the Gila River
Indian Community to complete the project. The Pinal County
bond funds cannot be spent on the stretch across the
reservation and since the stretch is within another county,
Maricopa County funds cannot be spent there. Finally, the
ADOT has no additional monies to expend for this segment of
the project. Because the funds do not exist to complete the
stretch within the reservation, soon there will be an hour-
glass effect, where a four-lane road becomes two lanes
through the Gila River Indian Community and then back to four
lanes south of the reservation.
In order to enable this new highway to fully function as a
major regional transportation corridor, $8 million is needed
to complete the roadway to four lanes through the Gila River
Indian Community. The tribe fully supports this request and
needs the road expansion to assist in developing the tribal
economy--a significant federal interest.
I recognize the serious constraints within which the
committee is operating. I believe, however, that this is a
vital project worthy of the committee's support.
Thanks for the consideration. If I may provide you with any
additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
John McCain,
United States Senator.
Notice that the Senator wrote those letters because he felt it was
his responsibility to write on behalf of his constituents concerning a
matter affecting his State. I respect him for that.
But, Mr. President, if a Senator is going to criticize other Senators
because they likewise stand up for the interests of their States, their
constituents, and infrastructure projects that benefit the Nation, then
one should be careful not to ask for favors of the Appropriations
Committee on his own behalf.
I want to help the Senator when he has a project that we can help him
with. I am not criticizing him for doing what he thinks is best on
behalf of his constituents. Likewise, I accord that same courtesy to
other Senators whose States would have been adversely affected by the
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
I thought it would be good for the Senate to have this correspondence
called to the attention of the Senate, in view of the fact that the
Senator from Arizona is quick to criticize other Senators for trying to
do something for their own States. He is very considerate of the
taxpayers when it comes to infrastructure projects in other States, but
he supports such projects in his own State. I do not blame him for
supporting projects in his own State. But I think that if we are going
to be critical of the Appropriations Committee and of other Senators
for supporting road projects in their States, we should have some
hesitancy about writing to the Appropriations Committee and requesting
support for one's own State projects of the same nature.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the Senate voted this afternoon on
building a cheese factory on the Moon, I would no doubt vote against
it. But if the Senate decided, in its collective lack of wisdom, to
build a cheese factory on the Moon, I would want engineers from Texas
to design that cheese factory. I would want a construction company from
Texas, since we have the best construction companies in the world, to
build that cheese factory. If we were going to use milk from earthly
cows, I would want milk from Texas cows to be used to make the cheese
in the factory on the Moon, and I would want the celestial headquarters
for it in Texas. But am I for a cheese factory on the Moon? No.
The point is, if the Senate decides to build such a cheese factory,
every Member is obligated, once that decision is made, to try to see
that his State is to some degree a beneficiary, since his State or her
State is paying part of the cost.
It seems to me that the point of the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona was that the President had given us a way of saving money by
eliminating the demonstration grants. I remind my colleagues that $26
million of them were in the State of Arizona.
The point is, if we are going to have demonstration grants, if we are
going to move outside the merit selection process, if we in Congress
are going to decide where to spend the money based on our ability to
get projects in the bill, all of us are obligated to participate in
that activity.
But, Mr. President, going back to my analogy about the cheese factory
on the Moon, I see absolutely nothing inconsistent between being
against demonstration projects, but, if the Senate is going to fund
them, trying to see that demonstration projects are funded in someone's
State. If the Senator from Arizona had listed all of the States here
save one, and that had been Arizona, then I think one might raise a
question about his amendment.
But the fact that the Senator was going to cut $26 million from his
own State, believing that demonstration projects do not represent the
best way to make the decision, and that perhaps we should have a merit
selection process and that maybe we should break gridlock by supporting
our President, it seems to me that on that basis one can agree or
disagree with the Senator from Arizona, but one cannot say that there
is something inconsistent about the amendment that he has offered.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will not take very much time of the
Senate. But now I have to rise again, as I did earlier today. We are
now talking about cheese factories on the Moon. I want to bring us back
to the ground. This is what happened in the Los Angeles region now
about a month ago: Fires burning out of control; people thrown out of
bed; people losing their homes--and we cannot go back. In Los Angeles
City alone, 26,000 homes were red or yellow tagged.
I say to my friends: Please let us get back to the reason we are here
today--the emergency supplemental appropriations. Referring to this
picture, this is the way the faces of the emergency workers looked on
that day. For your information--and you may be interested--they are
digging people out of a house that crumbled. I know my colleagues would
rather not look at this. Obviously, they would not. And they are
fortunate that they can look away. But I have to tell you that these
emergency workers cannot forget the dead bodies that came out of this
home.
We will have time to debate ISTEA. We will have time to get into
these very important matters that Senators wish to raise. But I hope
that we will get back to the heart of what brings us here today and
pass this bill. And, yes, let us find better ways to pay for
emergencies, because whether they happen in Texas, whether they happen
in Arizona, whether they happen in Colorado, whether they happen in
California, or Kentucky, or New York, or West Virginia, we have to help
our fellow Americans.
Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will just have a comment or two about
the applicability of the pending appropriation for disasters which have
occurred in Pennsylvania, where there was an extraordinary earthquake
in Berks County, Reading, and where there have been very substantial
damages due to severe winter weather as specified in a letter from the
Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Casey, to the President, dated
February 2, 1994.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Governor Casey's disaster
declaration letter, copies of my letter to Senator Byrd and Senator
Hatfield, dated February 2, 1994, together with a copy of a letter
dated February 1, 1994, from the Berks County Emergency Management
Agency to Congressman Tim Holden be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Office of the Governor,
Harrisburg, PA, February 2, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Through: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Ms. Rita A.
Calvan, Director, Region III, Liberty Square Building
(Second Floor), 105 South Seventh Street, Philadelphia,
PA.
Dear Mr. President: On January 22 1994, I wrote to you in
regard to federal assistance to help address the effects of a
series of severe storms and earthquakes that caused
widespread damages in a number of counties in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the provisions of
Section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, and
implemented by 44 CFR Part 206.35, I request that you declare
an emergency for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania due to
damages from a series of severe storms that began on January
4, 1994, and continued through January 31, 1994. These storms
consisted of snow, rain, freezing rain and ice, coupled with
earthquakes and an energy crisis which included power
shortages and outages. These events created major threats to
public health and safety which resulted from inaccessibility
of roads due to extreme record cold, record snowfall and
extensive icing. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic grid system
experienced one week of voltage reductions and rolling
blackouts. Furthermore, earthquakes measuring 4.6, 4.0 and
2.9 on the Richter Scale took place on January 15, 1994, and
successive dates.
In response to the situation, I have taken appropriate
action under Commonwealth law by declaring a State Disaster
Emergency effective January 6, 1994, for the counties of
Fayette, Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland which I amended
on January 19, 1994, to include all other sixty-two (62)
counties of Pennsylvania.
Further, I directed the implementation of the State
Emergency Operations plan and authorized Commonwealth
agencies to take appropriate actions to assist affected
counties in restoring vital public utilities and
transportation systems as well as providing other assistance
as necessary to protect the public health and safety.
The amount and severity of the cumulative effect of the
weather systems required a massive governmental response. At
present, response and recovery efforts are still ongoing. I
have determined that the cumulative effect of this series of
storms and the earthquake are of such severity and magnitude
that effective response is beyond the capability of the State
and the affected county/local governments. The resources of
Pennsylvania's county/local governments and volunteer
organizations have been exceeded by the urgent requirements
imposed by these sequential periods of severe winter weather
and all possible state assistance has been provided.
Supplemental federal emergency assistance is necessary to
save lives, to protect property, public health and safety and
to lessen the threat of further disasters. I am specifically
requesting the full assistance available under 44 CFR Part
206 Paragraph 206.225 and 206.277 to include anti-skid
material costs and emergency repairs to public utilities/
facilities. I request this assistance be made available to
all eligible applicants in accordance with Paragraph 206.222,
specifically to include state/county/local governments, mass
transit authorities, municipal airports, municipal
authorities, schools, hospitals, and eligible private
nonprofit organizations.
The following state and local resources have been committed
or will be used to alleviate this emergency: all county
emergency management staffs, county and municipal road
maintenance and snow removal teams, individual county and
municipal sub-contractors, and individual county and
municipal emergency service agencies. The following state
agencies have committed resources and mobilized personnel:
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, the Pennsylvania
National Guard, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Aging,
Pennsylvania Department of Education, Pennsylvania Energy
Office, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Fish and Boat Commission, Public
Utility Commission, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission,
Pennsylvania State Police, Department of General Services,
Department of Corrections, Game Commission, and the State
System of Higher Education. A more detailed impact statement
is at Enclosure A.
I certify that for this emergency, state and local
contributions and expenditures will comply with all
applicable cost-sharing requirements of the Stafford Act.
Furthermore, I certify that the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania hereby agrees to:
1. Provide all lands, easements and right-of-way necessary
to accomplish the approved work without cost to the United
States;
2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to
the requested work, and to indemnify the federal government
against any claims arising from such work; and
3. Assist FEMA and applicable federal agencies in all
support and local jurisdictional matters.
I intend to designate Joseph L. LaFleur as the State
Coordinating Officer for this request. He will work with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and may provide further
information or justification on my behalf. I also intend to
designate Carl C. Kuehn to fill the position of Governor's
Authorized Representative and Karen L. Critchfield as an
alternate.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Casey,
Governor.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 2, 1994.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Robert: As the full Committee prepares to consider the
fiscal year 1994 Supplemental Appropriations bill for
emergency assistance for areas struck by recent natural
disasters, I urge the Committee's consideration of federal
assistance requested by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I recognize the magnitude of the disaster caused by the
January 17th earthquake in Southern California and fully
support the Committee's efforts to quickly address the
funding needs of that region. In so doing, I wish to bring to
the Committee's attention the significance of Pennsylvania's
recent disasters due to the very unusual occurrence of three
separate earthquakes on January 15, 1994 in Southeastern
Pennsylvania and the recent severe cold, record snowfall, and
extensive ice conditions throughout the Commonwealth.
Congressman Tim Holden of Pennsylvania's Sixth District and
I have met to discuss specific damages to his district as a
result of the earthquakes. I am advised that the earthquakes
measured 4.6, 4.0 and 2.9 on the Richter Scale, with the 4.6
earthquake the largest on record for the East Coast.
Congressman Holden informs me that recent estimates of the
damage total $2,645,100 for Berks County alone.
The severe weather during January caused serious, life
threatening problems across the entire Commonwealth. Record
snow in the southwest, central, and northeast regions of
Pennsylvania followed by heavy ice in the east paralyzed the
state for days. Further, record arctic cold coupled with wind
chill temperatures of 50 below zero forced rolling power
blackouts and voltage reductions for over 1.5 million across
the Commonwealth. Costs associated with the snow removal are
estimated at $60 million, which does not include the cost to
repair infrastructure damaged by the inclement weather.
As a result of the earthquakes and extreme winter storm
conditions during January, Pennsylvania recently announced
that efforts to respond to the needs of its citizens are
beyond the capability of the state and affected local
governments. Therefore, the Commonwealth has sought
supplemental federal assistance to save lives and protect
property from further disaster.
Accordingly, I urge your consideration of the emergency
situation facing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when
preparing the Senate's legislation for supplemental
appropriations for disaster assistance in fiscal year 1994.
Further, I support efforts to release emergency Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance funds to assist States experiencing
severe cold weather.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
____
Berks County Emergency
Management Agency,
Leesport, PA, February 1, 1994.
Hon. Timothy Holden,
6th District Pennsylvania, Longworth Building, Washington,
DC.
Attn: Thomas Gajewski.
Dear Congressman Holden: Enclosed are the estimated costs
for damages incurred as a result of the earthquakes on
January 5, 1994. These are only estimates and should not be
used in establishing final costs, since many final
assessments cannot be made until the snow/ice have
disappeared, and contractors/engineers are able to completely
inspect all dwellings, roadways, sewage systems, etc.
If you have any questions or if I can be of any further
service to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
John E. Loos,
Director.
Enclosure.
Municipal damage as reported:
Wyomissing Hills: Streets, sewer lines
$800,000-1,000,000.....................................................
Spring Township:..................................................
Replacement of Bridge #2....................................380,000
Road repairs.................................................60,000
Repairs to park pavillion.....................................1,000
Repairs to Sewage Treatment Plant............................87,200
Total.....................................................528,200
Lower Heidelberg Twp.: Road repair
3,500..................................................................
Total estimated municipal damage
$1,331,700-1,531,700.................................................
Residential damage as reported:
15 Homes moderate to severe damage--estimated cost
333,400................................................................
(Most of these homes assessed value would be approximately
125,000)...............................................................
173 Homes minor damage--estimated costs.......................980,000
Total estimated residential damage.......................1,313,400
Total estimated damage from earthquake...................2,645,100
attachment a
On January 24, 1994, I requested a State and local survey
of the effects on local, county and state agencies.
Preliminary assessments as of January 27 indicate severe
impacts as follows:
1. Based on information provided to-date, State Agency/
Department costs to respond to these situations are in excess
of $59,000,000. Of that total, approximately $11,000,000
exceeds budgeted funds, $5,000,000 of which is PennDot's
projected shortfall. PennDot also indicates that should the
winter season continue as during the last month their
projected shortfall could be as high as $30-50 million
dollars.
2. Attached are preliminary county totals on winter/ice/
snow budgets expenditures. Of the sixty-seven (67) counties,
thirteen (13) exceeded their budget by 125%. Of special
significance is the fact that most counties are on a calendar
fiscal year.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will get on with the
remaining amendments. There is a bad buildup of weather, and I do not
want to be one of those who spends the night in the Capitol. I would
like to go home and be with Lady Byrd and Billy Byrd, my little Maltese
terrier.
Does Mr. McConnell have an amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from West Virginia, it is my
understanding that Senator Dole's amendment was pending; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business now pending before the Senate is
amendment No. 1459 by Senator Dole.
Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding that there will be a short time
agreement on Senator Dole's amendment, and I have had an amendment we
have run by the Senator's staff. I suggested 15 minutes, which would
get us voting very shortly.
I am informed that it is OK with Senator Dole if I offer my amendment
now, if the Senator would like me to go ahead.
Mr. BYRD. Very well.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dole
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard from the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to respond to the statement just
made by the Senator from West Virginia concerning two letters that I
wrote in 1991, more than 3 years ago, on behalf of two Native American
tribes who are sovereign nations within the State of West Virginia,
geographically.
The fact is that it was on behalf of two Native American tribes,
actually three--Navajo, Hopi, and the Gila River Tribes. The fact that
I wrote a letter on behalf of an authorized project has very little
relation to $203 million in demonstration projects.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
Mr. BYRD. I will be happy for the Senator to have the last work. The
Senate has already made its decision and rejected his amendment.
He who the sword of heaven will bear
Should be as holy as severe.
Does the Senator from Kentucky wish to proceed?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will happy to go ahead if the
chairman would like me to.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dole amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 1461
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and
Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 1461.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
The Senate finds,
That, Investigative reports prepared by the Department of
State's Office of Inspector General (OIG) are protected by
the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the
Inspector General's Act;
That, investigative reports prepared by the State OIG are
not publicly releasable without review and redaction of
privacy protected information;
That, Congressional committees with legitimate oversight
responsibilities have in the past, and may continue to review
OIG reports while maintaining the reports confidential
status;
That, the OIG recently has concluded a report on whether
the contents of personnel files of Bush Administration
political appointees had been improperly released to the
public by the staff of the White House Liaison Office;
That, based on this report, the OIG forwarded a prosecutive
summary to the Department of Justice outlining criminal
violations of the Privacy Act;
That, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the
case; and,
That, the OIG re-opened the inquiry to reinterview key
witnesses associated with the search and disclosure of Bush
personnel files;
Therefore it is the sense of the Senate, That the Senate
has not been provided sufficient information to reach on
conclusion about the circumstances surrounding the disclosure
of protected Bush Administration files;
The entire report and related annex documents should be
made available to the appropriate Congressional offices with
legitimate oversight interests;
That the confidentiality of the report should be protected
by Congress unless and until the OIG conducts a review and
releases the report in accord with relevant statutes;
That the OIG should report in writing to the Majority
Leader and the Republican Leader clarifying why such
procedures were not observed in the release of the OIG report
entitled ``Special Inquiry into the Search and Retrieval of
William Clinton's Passport File.''
That the Attorney General should report in writing to the
Majority Leader and the Republican Leader the basis for
declining to prosecute the case.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me explain the amendment. We may
not need a time agreement. I will not need but a few moments to
describe it. I hope it will pass overwhelmingly.
My amendment deals with the question of the State Department file
search by this administration.
I am at a real disadvantage in that I can not discuss why I am so
disappointed in the report conducted by the inspector general on the
release of Bush appointee files.
That report is appropriately protected by the Privacy Act and unless
the IG decides to review, redact or release its contents I am not free
to discuss its scope or conclusions.
What I can say is when I was briefed, the IG told me directly that
``There was a clear case of criminal violation of the Privacy Act
provable beyond a reasonable doubt and proven in his report.''
After my briefing I learned that the IG felt obliged to reinterview
key witnesses under oath.
What this tells me is he was either not confident of his initial
conclusions which he had officially forwarded to Justice or he was not
confident of the previous statements under oath of the witnesses.
In either event, reinterviewing the same witnesses to hear the same
story did not and does not address the serious reservations I have
about the inquiry.
Without discussing the reports contents, I am concerned that the IG
appears to have failed to independently corroborate statements by key
senior officials.
He told me point blank that he accepted their sworn statements
without further investigation.
Now, I do not know how State's Office of Inspector General operates,
but we are a little more thorough in the Ethics Committee, as I know
most other committees are.
I do not think any of us fully understand the scope, basis or method
of the IG's investigation and given the inconsistencies we ought to
have access to the entire record.
That is precisely what I urge in this amendment--that the whole
record be made available and I might add protected in accordance with
the Privacy Act.
The second point in my amendment asks the IG to explain why it was
appropriate to release his entire report on the Clinton passport case
in advance of sending the matter to Justice, yet this time, the Privacy
Act prohibits its release.
Either it was inappropriate for him to release the report last time
or it is inappropriate to withhold the document this time.
I have asked that he establish the standard and reasoning behind his
decision in 1992.
Finally, I have asked the Attorney General to explain why Justice
declined to prosecute when the IG maintains that there was a provable
case of criminal wrong doing.
Short of a sound, legal explanation, we can only assume politics
played a part in this decision.
I want to point out that it is not for lack of trying that we do not
understand the basis for the Justice Department decision.
My office has repeatedly tried to contact the lawyer in congressional
relations at Justice who is responsible for answering questions on this
case but he has failed to return four phone calls.
While I think this issue is controversial, I do not think this
amendment is.
By any account, there has been a double standard in the handling of
these two cases.
By reviewing the full report, we may come to a better understanding
of why one was released and the other withheld.
And, there may be a perfectly sound legal reason why Justice declined
to prosecute.
I hope my colleagues will join me in seeking some straightforward
answers to these questions.
We have crafted this sense-of-the-Senate amendment in a rather
responsible fashion. I hope it will be approved by a very large vote.
I think it would be appropriate to have a rollcall vote on this
amendment, Mr. President. Therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is a sound amendment. The distinguished
Senator from Kentucky has led efforts to bring the facts of the
outrageous scandal to public attention. We cannot have a double
standard--one for Republican administrations and one for the Democrats.
Certain facts are clear: Nearly 200 files of Bush administration
political appointees were ransacked, and the contents of some files
leaked to the press--a textbook case of criminal violations of the
Privacy Act. In this case, it was not justice that was blind, it was
the Justice Department. For unknown reasons, the Justice Department
decided not to prosecute the individuals responsible for the
violations detailed in the inspector general's report.
The IG's report itself raises as many questions as it answers. I
cannot address those questions because the inspector general decided
not to release the full report. In a letter transmitting a copy of the
report to my staff, the IG's office wrote:
Although the report is unclassified, it is not publicly
releasable in its present form and may be entirely exempt
from release under provisions of the privacy and freedom of
information acts.
This seems to be a newfound dedication to laws protecting privacy on
the part of the inspector general. In November 1992, a 104-page report
on the alleged search of one passport file was released. No comment
about the Privacy Act. No comment about the Freedom of Information Act.
No comment about the effect on the lives of individuals named in the
report. Just a big press conference where the IG congratulated himself
on a job well done. Nobody noticed the IG himself was briefed on the
passport search 2 weeks before he decided to begin his investigation.
This amendment recognizes the need to protect elements of IG reports
but also that the Senate need more information on this case. Protecting
privacy should not be a partisan issue--Republicans' privacy matters as
much as Democrats'. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] is
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for just a
moment or two, first to support the amendment which was offered by
Senator McConnell. I think the reasons for the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution is to provide detailed information on the issue of the Bush
administration files has been well articulated.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the McConnell
amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if no one wants to speak on the McConnell
amendment, I know several of our colleagues are trying to leave. I had
2 minutes reserved on the Dole amendment. I believe it is pending, is
that not right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been temporarily set aside. The
amendment now is the McConnell amendment.
Mr. GRAMM. If no one wants to speak on the McConnell amendment, I can
save 2 minutes by going ahead and speaking on the Dole amendment, if no
one objects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator may speak on the Dole amendment.
Amendment No. 1459
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Senator Dole has offered an amendment that
tries to do something related to the California disaster relief that
every business and every American family in America has to do, and that
is when something bad happens, you have to adjust your spending plans
in order to deal with the problem that comes into existence.
All over America, when people's children fall down and break their
arms, people do not say, ``Well, this is a disaster and, therefore, we
don't have to pay our bills.'' They basically look at their budgets and
they decide, ``Well, I was going to replace that old refrigerator this
year, but I'm going to wait a year because we had this accident in our
household and Johnny was hurt.''
All over America, people have to set priorities. And yet every day in
the U.S. Senate, something happens and we say, ``Well, this is a
disaster and, therefore, we do not have to deal with the costs. We will
simply pass them along to the next generation.''
I am very strongly in favor of helping the people of California. When
we had hurricanes in Texas, we have been helped. When we had the
hurricanes in Florida and in South Carolina, we helped.
The debate is not about helping. The debate is about paying for the
help.
Senator Dole has offered an amendment. If I were writing the
amendment, I might pick other items to cut. I might have slightly
different priorities. But the point is, Senator Dole's amendment offers
us a way to help and to do it in a fiscally responsible manner so that
we are paying for the help and we are not driving up the deficit.
This one disaster declaration, if we do not pay for it, is going to
eliminate more net real cuts in spending than exist in the President's
budgets for 1993, 1994, and 1995 combined.
So the issue here is: Do we help by doing what every family and every
business in America would have to do if something similar happened to
them? Or are we going to do it in a way that says there is a disaster
and so, as a result, we do not have to pay our bills? We can simply go
out and borrow the money and in the process pass the debt on to
somebody else.
So I hope my colleagues who want to help California--and I do want to
help California--will support the Dole amendment. I intend to support
the disaster relief. We are going to provide it today.
Senator Dole has given us a way to pay for it. I hope we will take
that opportunity and that we will adopt the Dole amendment to help, to
be compassionate, but to do it in a fiscally responsible manner.
I think that is the relevant issue here. I hope Senators are
persuaded to support the Dole amendment.
Amendment No. 1461
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the pending amendment before the Senate
the amendment by Mr. Dole?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dole amendment has temporarily been set
aside.
The McConnell amendment No. 1461 is the pending business.
Mr. BYRD. I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Brown amendment No.
1458.
Does the Senator from West Virginia yield the floor?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Did I understand the Chair to say the regular order is the
amendment by Mr. Brown?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I thought we had a voice vote on that, did we not?
Mr. President, I ask that the Senate return to the amendment by Mr.
Dole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator repeat his request?
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the Senate return to the amendment
by Mr. Dole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 1459
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall make a point of order against this
amendment. I assume Mr. Dole would like to move to waive the Budget
Act, and I will protect him in that, if nobody is here I will move on
his behalf.
Mr. President, the pending amendment would delete the emergency
designations on all funds in title I of this bill. This would cause
$5.6 billion in budget authority and $1.237 billion in outlays to be
charged against the VA/HUD Subcommittee's discretionary allocation.
Offsets elsewhere in the bill for this subcommittee total $1.6 billion
in budget authority and $586 million in outlays. Combining the
emergency amounts with the offsets brings a total $4 billion in net new
budget authority and $561 million in net new outlays in this bill. By
striking the emergency designation, these amounts would be charged
against the VA/HUD Subcommittee's allocation.
Before consideration of this bill, the VA/HUD Subcommittee had only
$8 million in budget authority and no outlays remaining in its
allocation. Therefore, enactment of this amendment would cause the
subcommittee to breach its 602(b) allocation.
Mr. President, I therefore make such a point of order under section
602(c) of the Congressional Budget Act that the pending amendment would
breach the VA/HUD Subcommittee's allocation.
I ask the Chair not to rule until Mr. Dole or his designee has had an
opportunity to move to waive the Budget Act.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion to
waive?
Mr. BYRD. Vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a further debate?
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Oklahoma to waive section 602(b) of the Budget Act for the
consideration of the Dole amendment, No. 1459.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Packwood], are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Bennett
Bond
Boren
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As it pertains to a point of order raised by
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], the Chair would rule the
pending amendment violates sections 602(c) and 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The point is well taken and the
amendment falls.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending question before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The present business is amendment No. 1458
offered by the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BYRD. I wonder if we could ascertain whether or not there are
other amendments to be offered behind the amendment by Mr. McConnell.
Mr. DOLE. No.
Mr. BYRD. No more on the other side?
Mr. DOLE. No. Wait a minute.
Mr. BYRD. Are there any other amendments on this side of the aisle?
Very well. I am informed that there are--am I informed that there are
no more amendments requiring rollcall votes after the amendment by Mr.
McConnell?
Mr. DOLE. Just that and final passage.
Mr. BYRD. No more amendments?
Mr. DOLE. No.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
disposition of the amendment by Mr. McConnell, no more amendments will
be in order unless they are accepted on both sides and that the vote
then occur after passage of 10 minutes to ascertain if there are any
amendments that can be accepted between the two managers, the vote
occur on final passage with paragraph 4 of rule XII being waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think the majority leader has a proposal
with respect to a conference report on this measure if he would like to
make it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. I am not at this moment prepared to deal with the
schedule beyond passage of this pending bill because we have to wait
and get that cleared on both sides, in discussion with several
Senators. But Senators should be aware that there are now only two
remaining votes on this bill: Disposition of the McConnell amendment,
which will be further debated for a brief period, I understand; and
then final passage on the bill.
At that time, I will have had a chance to discuss the matter with the
distinguished Republican leader, the managers, and others, and will be
in a position to suggest a procedure for further handling of the matter
after final passage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to explain to
my colleagues where we are on this amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky. I will be very, very brief.
First of all, this is an amendment that has absolutely no linkage,
connection, nexus, or rationale for being part of an emergency
appropriations for an earthquake. If you live in California, and you
are waiting for the U.S. Senate to do something responsible, and to act
with the kind of speed that we ought to on this, you would ask why the
U.S. Senate is taking up a totally extraneous amendment. That is No. 1.
No. 2, the substance of the amendment, what the Senator from Kentucky
is asking us to state as a sense of the Senate, is not, in this
Senator's view, an accurate reflection of the facts.
This amendment states in its sense-of-the-Senate that the Senate has
not been provided sufficient information to reach a conclusion about
the circumstances surrounding the disclosure of protected Bush
administration files.
I would say to my colleagues that on the face of it, that is simply
not true. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Government
Operations Committee, and the House Republican Policy Committee, have
all been briefed by the IG personally. The IG has briefed the Senator
from Kentucky and his staff. The IG has offered to brief Senate staff
on both sides.
I hold in my hand the report of the investigation from the Office of
the Inspector General. This provides any Senator with the full ability
to make a determination which is absolutely contrary to what is set
forth in the amendment by the Senator.
Moreover, the IG has sent a copy of this report to Senator McConnell,
to Senator Helms, to Senator Dole, to Senator Brown, to myself, and to
Congressman Hamilton.
In addition, the IG will make this report fully available to the
public by tomorrow; positively before the end of the week.
Mr. President, this is an effort to play politics, to somehow shove
it to the administration, to simply come to the floor and play more
partisan politics on an issue in, frankly, an incorrect manner.
Fair is fair in the processes of the U.S. Senate. I do not think any
U.S. Senator should sign onto a sense of the Senate that does not
represent accurate facts.
The IG has been public. The IG will be public. The IG has made
information available to us. And this has absolutely nothing to do with
the earthquake or emergency assistance.
I urge my colleagues to reject it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator McConnell is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do not want to unduly delay this. We
are not under a time agreement.
I thought this was an amendment that would pass by 95 to nothing. I
cannot imagine what could be controversial about the amendment that the
Senator from Kentucky has offered, first with regard to relevancy. We
voted on other amendments that were not entirely germane to the
supplemental before us.
So I do not think that is an argument that ought to prevail in the
discussion. This is, after all, only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
that asks for three things: First, for the IG to provide the entire
report to Congress, stating its confidentiality would be protected; and
second, that the IG explain the standard for release of the Clinton
report, but why he withheld this particular report; and third, to ask
the Justice Department to explain why it declined to prosecute.
With specificity, regarding Senator Kerry's observations, we just
learned today for example that in addition to the report that some of
us have been provided, the confidential----
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. In addition to the public report, the confidential
report. This is a third report sent to the Justice Department, entirely
different from what some of us have had access to.
Second, in a meeting with the inspector general, when I asked to see
the annexes and determine who had been interviewed, I was told it could
not be made available. Yet, the House staff was told they could see it.
On the point the Senator made about full disclosure in the report, I
was wondering if Senator Kerry could tell us who has been interviewed.
We do not know who has been interviewed.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague that though we can spend a lot
of time going through each aspect of this and why it is different, the
issue is the information is in the report. The IG came and saw the
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I met with him. I am telling Senators, his explanation
was completely inadequate. That is what this is all about.
Mr. KERRY. I say to the distinguished Senator that the IG is making
the report fully public. The IG has made it clear he is willing to come
to any Senator and any Senate staff. The implication of this amendment
is that the IG is somehow shielding something or the process is
inadequate.
I say to my friend, I am not going to sign onto an amendment where
the underlying facts establish a case that does not exist.
For instance, the fourth paragraph says that the IG should report in
writing to the majority leader and the Republican leader clarifying why
such procedures would not be observed in this report, entitled
``Special Inquiry and the Search and Retrieval of William Clinton's
Passport File.''
As the Senator knows, I know why this is a different handling here.
There was a prosecutive summary because there was a potential initial
filing of wrongdoing. And they sent the file to the Justice Department
and the Justice Department insisted, because it was a matter of
criminal inquiry, that it be held confidential.
That is not a mystery to me, if the Senator is asking the Senate to
ratify some notion that this represents some different handling that is
somehow suspect. All I am saying to my friend is the information is
available, and it is inappropriate for the Senate to pass a sense of
the Senate that does not reflect the sense of the Senate.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I may say to the Senator from Massachusetts, the
two cases are indistinguishable on the point that he makes. Yet, when
President Clinton says files were allegedly searched and the report was
made public; when these files were allegedly searched, the reports were
not made public. There was a recommendation apparently for criminal
prosecution in both cases. So they are indistinguishable on that point,
as well.
In short, there is simply no rational objection to oppose this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution essentially trying to glean from the IG and
from the Justice Department with specificity why one case was handled
one way, when the files allegedly searched were of a prominent
American, and the case was handled in a different way when the files
were allegedly searched for people not so prominent.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Senate is
simply saying: Please provide us more of an explanation than you have
already.
With regard to the observation of the Senator from Massachusetts that
the IG's report was adequate, it was not adequate. I talked with him, I
spent an hour with him. I do not see any conceivable harm done by the
Senate adopting this sense-of-the-Senate resolution if it would really
like to know whether this matter was handled appropriately.
I cannot imagine why any Senator would oppose this resolution. I do
not see the need to prolong the debate. But we can if the Senator from
Massachusetts would like to.
Mr. KERRY. I do not want to prolong this either, particularly since
this is the last issue and colleagues want to leave, and we all
understand the impatience here. I respect that. But I do want the
Record to be accurate.
My colleague has just suggested to the Senate that there is no reason
for these cases to be treated differently, that there is somehow
something inappropriate or suspect in that. That is not accurate. I
want my colleagues to understand the facts here.
This case began as an administrative inquiry, with no immediate
evidence of wrongdoing. The violations or potential violations of law
were not discovered until the process of the administrative inquiry was
underway. At that time, a prosecutive summary was appropriately sent to
the Justice Department, and people were dismissed. In the case of
Acting Secretary Eagleburger, he personally intervened and made it
public because it occurred in the middle of the election. It was a
front-page issue at the time, and there was sufficient pressure and
visibility that he made a personal decision that it was important to
clear the air in that context, and so he made it public without any
administrative inquiry or criminal prosecution at the time.
So that is the distinction. In the current case, there were clear
violations of the law. So the assistant secretary for the
administration did what is appropriate. He sent it to the Justice
Department for appropriate action. To come in here now and suggest, as
this amendment does, that the administration has been less than
forthcoming, or that the administration has somehow not made
information availability, it may be the Senator's personal judgment
that he does not have enough information, but colleagues ought to see
this report, which will be made totally public. Why should the U.S.
Senate come here tonight, when we are trying to pass emergency aid for
California, and tie ourselves up to tell them to do something that they
are going to do? This is called wasted time, wasted action,
fundamentally for political purposes.
I respectfully suggest, unless my colleague wants to add something, I
am going to move to table.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the only one wasting time, I suggest,
is the Senator from Massachusetts, who is choosing to debate an issue
that I, frankly, am surprised is even in contention. The IG said he
forwarded the last case because of criminal violations. The difference
is he released his conclusions, in the first case, the Clinton passport
case, publicly before sending the report. In addition to that, the IG
in this particular instance has indicated that he recommended criminal
prosecution. I assume the Senate would like to know why the Justice
Department chose not to criminally prosecute.
In any event, I welcome the Senator's motion to table. It seems to me
the issue is clear: Do we think this case is over, or do we think the
explanation is inadequate?
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be
added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
For the information of the Senate, the pending business of the Senate
is the Brown amendment No. 1458.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am prepared to move to table the
amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, what is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Brown amendment No. 1458.
Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I believe a while ago Senator Brown
came to my desk and indicated he was not going to raise that amendment,
and then he moved to vitiate the yeas and nays on the amendment.
Whether or not it has been formally withdrawn, I do not know. But he
verbally indicated to me he was not going to pursue the amendment. I
will find out in the meantime.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment by Mr. Brown be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1461
Mr. BYRD. Is the pending amendment now before the Senate the
amendment by Mr. McConnell?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to table the pending amendment and
ask for the yeas and the nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles],
and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--39
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--6
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Nickles
Packwood
So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1461) was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was tabled.
Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, the Senator from Maine.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. MITCHELL. May we have order, Madam President? Madam President, if
I could have the attention of Senators?
Under the agreement entered into a short time ago, we will vote in
just a very few minutes on final passage of this bill. As I have
previously stated publicly on several occasions, and I know all
Senators agree, we must complete final action on this legislation
before departing for the Lincoln Day recess. The House bill differs in
some respects from the Senate bill and consequently a conference
between the two bodies will be necessary.
Anticipating that we will pass this bill shortly, the conference will
begin first thing tomorrow morning. The Members of the conference have
been working, their staffs have been working to prepare for that
conference even as we consider the bill. And then the bill must go back
to the House before it returns to the Senate. The best and most
optimistic prospect is that we will get it in the Senate sometime
tomorrow evening. If any Senator desires a rollcall vote on the
conference report, that is, of course, the right of any one Senator,
and we will simply come back into session and all Senators will be
required to return--at least those who wish to cast their votes--and
pass the conference report.
If, however, it is agreeable to all Senators that we, Senator Dole
and I and the managers, be present and pass the conference report by
voice vote, then the rollcall vote we are about to take on final
passage of the bill will be the last rollcall vote until February 22
when we return from the Lincoln Day recess.
I would like to accommodate the large number of Senators who have
travel schedules and wish to depart following the next vote, but that
depends upon all of the Members of the Senate.
I do not want any misunderstanding. Any Senator has a right to ask
for a vote, and, if that is the case, we will have a vote either
tomorrow night or Saturday, or whenever we get this back from the House
of Representatives. That is a decision to be made by the Members of the
Senate.
So, first, I inquire of Senators, in terms of an immediate response,
if there is a Senator present who will insist upon a recorded vote on
adoption of the conference report and that Senator now expresses that
view, then we will go ahead and simply say that we will come back in
session tomorrow and we will have a rollcall vote tomorrow night,
Saturday, or whenever we do that.
If no Senator responds in that manner now, I want to give time for
those Senators not present on the floor to respond. I will then ask
that they communicate with either myself or Senator Dole in the time
between now and the 10 or 15 minutes or so that will elapse before we
vote on final passage of the bill itself.
So my first inquiry is directed to those Senators present on the
floor. Is there any Senator present on the floor who will insist upon a
recorded vote on the conference report on this legislation when it
returns to the Senate tomorrow evening or Saturday?
Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I say to my colleague, the manager,
and to the leader of the Senate, I have no desire to have a vote, but I
would like to be permitted to make an inquiry of the manager of the
bill, if I may do so at this time.
Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator certainly has that right.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I ask the manager of the bill, is he aware of the
fact that there is considerable controversy between the Senator from
New York, the Senator from Alaska and myself? There is an amendment
that was adopted to extend the statute of limitations with respect to
the RTC that is provided in the legislation. It was passed by a vote of
95 to 0. Do we have an assurance, or can we have an assurance, from the
manager of the bill that that amendment will, to the total of his
ability, remain in the conference report when it returns? I know that
you cannot speak for the House.
Mr. D'AMATO. If I might add to that inquiry--actually give some
information--I just----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the
Senator from New York?
Mr. METZENBAUM. I yield.
Mr. D'AMATO. I want to supplement and augment, and I join my
colleague from Ohio in his observation. I might point out that the
House voted 390 to 1 to instruct their conferees to accept that
amendment. Therefore, I think while some might say, ``What are you
worried about?'' there are those slips between the cup and the lip, and
I join in asking that, given the overwhelming support of 95 to 0 here
and 390 to 1, that we certainly make every effort to insist upon that
provision being kept in the bill.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, both the distinguished Senator from Ohio
[Mr. Metzenbaum] and the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr.
D'Amato] know that for them ``my affection hath an unknown bottom, like
the bay of Portugal.'' But I am not quite in a position to assure
something that I cannot deliver on. I will do my best. I cannot assure
them that I will prevail. I do not know what the circumstances will be
in the conference.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I have worked with the Senator from
West Virginia for about 19 years off and on--18 years I guess it is--
and I would say when he is determined that something will be in a bill,
whether it is on the floor of the Senate, in the Appropriations
Committee, or any other committee around here, he always gets his way.
If we have the kind of assurance that he will use all of his persuasive
powers and the power of his position and all the other facets that are
available to him to see that it remains, then it will indeed remain.
And may I ask whether we can get some assurance to that effect,
because I think there would be a keen sense of disappointment. It was a
matter of considerable controversy between the Senator from New York
and myself. It was resolved in this manner. It is a significant matter.
It involves the possibility of proceeding against officers and
directors of savings and loans that owe the Government hundreds of
millions of dollars, actually billions of dollars. So we do not take
the matter lightly.
I really would appreciate it if the Senator from West Virginia could
give us a little more fulsome statement than the previous response.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I just wanted to assure my
colleagues, as the majority leader was speaking and referred to the
Wellstone squeeze, that I have talked to the majority leader and, from
my point of view, if we are going to have a rollcall vote right now,
then I certainly would not call for a rollcall vote on the conference
report. It is one or the other.
So I just wish to state that to my colleagues, unless my colleagues
are disappointed, in which case we can do it another way.
Mr. DOLE. Which one do you prefer?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I prefer the vote tonight, I say to the
minority leader, instead of tomorrow.
Mr. MITCHELL. I say to the chairman, let us be clear, if Senators do
not now insist on a rollcall vote, there will not be one. The chairman
has said he will do his best to try. You have no guarantee. I am going
to be here. Senator Dole is going to be here. Senator Byrd is going to
be here. And Senator Hatfield is going to be here. So it has nothing to
do with conveniencing or inconveniencing us. I am not going to accept a
request tomorrow night from someone who says, ``Gee, I expected this to
be different; I thought maybe this would happen,'' so forth and so on.
That is the situation we are in, and Senators have to decide. It is the
chairman's response that he will do his best.
Madam President, I ask the managers to proceed. They did want to
permit a period of 10 minutes under the order for Senators who have
amendments that may be acceptable to both managers--the majority and
minority--to come forward with those amendments and then we proceed to
final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is advised that
the Brown amendment No. 1458 remains the pending business.
Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. And my understanding is that there will
be a voice vote defeating that amendment that will be forthcoming, and
then we will proceed to final passage on the bill.
In the interim, in these 10 minutes, if nobody comes up to me or
Senator Dole and says, ``I insist on a rollcall vote,'' I will make an
announcement one way or the other just prior to the vote and then
everybody has been on full notice as to the situation and everybody has
a right to exercise their rights in any manner each Senator deems
appropriate.
Mr. METZENBAUM. So there not be a misinterpretation of my position, I
do wish to explore the subject further with the manager of the bill
before I am prepared to sign off. If we have to come back, we will have
to come back.
Mr. BYRD. I regret that the Senator from Ohio feels he has to explore
the matter further with me. I cannot guarantee I will prevail in
conference. I do not know what the attitude of the House Members will
be. I have said that I will do the best I can.
Mr. METZENBAUM. If the Senator from West Virginia assures us he will
do the best he can that it will remain in, that is satisfactory.
Mr. BYRD. ``It is like a barber's chair that fits all buttocks.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. MITCHELL. I suggest we proceed to the disposition of the Brown
amendment. Following that, the managers can take the 10 minutes they
have suggested they will take to consider any other amendments. And
then, after that, prior to the vote, I will deal with the Republican
leader and make another announcement.
Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. As far as I am concerned, the 10 minutes have expired. And
I have in my hand several amendments which I am prepared to offer en
bloc as soon as we dispose of the amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL. Could we have a vote on the Brown amendment now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 1458 offered by the Senator from Colorado.
The amendment (No. 1458) was rejected.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was defeated.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Amendment Nos. 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, and 1467
Mr. BYRD. I send to the desk a number of amendments which have been
agreed to on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be
considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
on the table, and appropriate statements in explanation of the
amendments be included in the Record as though read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes
amendments numbered 1463 through 1467.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am advised there is one additional
amendment being cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments en bloc are
agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to as follows:
amendment no. 1463
Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1463 for Mr. Levin.
The amendment is as follows:
In the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:
SEC. . TRANSPORTATION GENERAL PROVISION. TO ESTABLISH AN
AUXILIARY FLIGHT SERVICE STATION.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is
directed to establish and operate an Auxiliary Flight Service
Station at Marquette, Michigan, no later than September 1,
1994, using available funds.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am offering an amendment to
direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
establish and operate an Auxiliary Flight Service Station at Marquette,
Michigan, no later than September 1, 1994, using available funds.
Madam President, this amendment requires no additional funding and is
simply instructing the FAA to establish an Auxiliary Flight Service
Station that it promised in 1991. We've been waiting since then for
this critical weather station and it has yet to be established.
The Marquette Flight Service Station was closed in December 1990. In
October 1991, the FAA announced that it would establish an Auxiliary
Flight Service Station [XFSS] at Marquette and 30 other sites. The
Marquette XFSS was scheduled to be established in August, 1992, but the
FAA did not meet the schedule and it was not established.
Marquette is unique because it is the only airport of the 30 promised
Auxiliary Flight Service Stations that has had its Flight Service
Station closed. Because of the surrounding mountainous terrain and the
frequent variations in weather due to this terrain and nearby Lake
Superior, this airport is considered difficult to fly in and out of.
This makes the establishment of the Auxiliary Flight Service Station in
Marquette an urgent matter.
I understand this amendment has been cleared, and I appreciate the
committee's cooperation.
amendment no. 1464
(Purpose: To provide an appropriation of $40 million ($20 million of
which is an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1995) to assure
continued NASA contract payments for the commercial mid-deck
augmentation module).
Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1464 for Mr. Bond.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 84, after line 9, insert the following new
paragraph:
For an additional amount for ``Research and development'',
$40,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall become available for
obligation on October 1, 1994: Provided, That these funds
shall be available for the commercial mid-deck augmentation
module, in addition to such amounts as may be subsequently
appropriated.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, the amendment would correct an oversight
in the bill before us.
In last year's conference report, we provided $45 million for the
commercial mid-deck augmentation module [CMAM], or spacehab, which was
a reduction of $21.5 million from the requested amount. In making the
cut, the conferees made clear that we were aware that the CMAM Program
could face difficult financial and technical adjustments due to the
lower funding level. To address that problem, we made clear that we
intended to provide additional funding in a supplemental appropriations
bill this year.
Let me quote directly from the conference report:
The conferees have agreed, therefore, after further
consultations with NASA, to include an advanced fiscal year
1995 appropriation of $40,000,000 in a 1994 supplemental
bill.
This amendment would simply fulfill that commitment.
I would point out that it is critical that we live up to our
commitments on this program. Spacehab is financed in large part by
private bank loans. As a result of the cut in last year's budget, those
loans had to be restructured, and the restructuring was undertaken
based on the language in the conference report. Failing to provide this
funding will not only drive the spacehab company into financial
difficulty and possible default, it would deprive the U.S. space
program of an important tool.
Spacehab, which provides additional experiment space in the unused
mid-deck portion of the shuttle, is flying today on the current shuttle
Discovery mission. By all reports, it is performing flawlessly as it
did in its maiden voyage last year.
Spacehab represents a valuable opportunity for NASA, because if can
provide the flexibility to carry additional experiments on the planned
shuttle flights on space station MIR as well as those that will support
the new space station.
Failing to appropriate this money would send the wrong signal to
private companies and to our international partners. It would basically
tell them that NASA is not a reliable partner. It would tell companies
that space is not a valid investment risk, and it would tell other
nations that they should rethink their contributions to the space
program. We must not make that mistake.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
amendment no. 1465
(Purpose; To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994)
Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1465 for Mr. Warner and Mr. Mack.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add:
Sec. . Subsection (b) of section 347 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law
103-160; 107 Stat. 1626) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``section 2774(a)(2)(A) of title 10,''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 5584(a)(2)(A) of
title 5,''; and
(2) by striking out ``section 2774(a)(2) of such title''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 5584(a)(2) of such
title''.
amendment no. 1466
Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1466 for Mr. Leahy.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 92, strike lines 19 through 22.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am offering an amendment which
addresses a crucial component of emergency relief efforts--the
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
TEFAP emergency foods are often the first line of defense when
disaster strikes.
And yet the rescission title of the committee reported bill cuts the
TEFAP by $30 million. Taking food away from California is a big
mistake.
John Healy, executive director of the California Emergency Foodlink,
sent me a letter saying:
We urge you to take note of the significant impact TEFAP
has on feeding hungry people and providing emergency relief
in every natural disaster suffered by Californians. When the
earthquake hit Los Angeles, the Department of Social Services
sent over 600,000 pounds of tuna, powdered milk, juice and
other badly needed food supplies from TEFAP stocks.
I was informed by USDA that, as of yesterday, a total of 900,000
pounds of TEFAP foods have been diverted for earthquake assistance.
After Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida and Louisiana these
emergency foods were provided by USDA immediately. After Hurricane Hugo
hit South Carolina, TEFAP commodities were shipped in.
This network of TEFAP food reserves is one of the first ways the
Federal Government can respond to an emergency.
TEFAP commodities are used by USDA in disasters because they are
ready to eat, prepackaged in family usable sizes, available in
warehouses, and higher in nutrient value--especially protein--than most
donated foods.
TEFAP food is especially crucial if grocery stores are destroyed in a
disaster. For example, large quantities of TEFAP foods went to Florida
after Hurricane Andrew because food could not be purchased in stores,
making both cash and food stamps worthless.
Hurricane damage in Florida required 650,000 pounds of TEFAP
commodities according to Foylen Bryant, the Florida TEFAP Director.
Given how important the TEFAP program is to emergency relief efforts,
it is outrageous that today's bill includes a provision cutting TEFAP
by $30 million. I cannot understand how such a cut can be justified
given the role the program has just played in this disaster, and how
important it has been in previous disasters.
In 1993, $160 million worth of food was distributed by TEFAP. Funding
in 1994 was cut in half, to $80 million, despite the President's budget
request of $209 million.
Now it is being suggested that we cut TEFAP further--after they have
already been allocated.
The TEFAP program stockpiles stores of ready-to-eat foods, ready to
be shipped out the moment a disaster hits in any area of our Nation.
Without those ready stores, a quick response of emergency food to a
disaster site is much more difficult.
Funding TEFAP will help maintain a national network of local food
shelves operated largely by volunteers.
TEFAP maintains distribution networks--at the local, State, and
national levels--so America can quickly respond to disasters. Funding
local food reserves will help maintain that network.
It is my view that USDA and local agencies should be able to respond
to any disaster where food is no longer available. TEFAP helps them do
just that.
My amendment stops the rescission of $30 million.
Let us keep this national network of emergency food relief. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment to stop the TEFAP rescission.
TEFAP proved its effectiveness in the aftermath of the California
earthquake. We should support, not cut, this vital emergency food
program.
TEFAP is a great program. Food stamps often run out well before the
end of the month, then needy families rely on TEFAP foods.
The elderly often prefer TEFAP to food stamps because of the welfare
stigma associated with food stamps. Food stamp processing can take up
to 30 days, but TEFAP is much faster. Verification of income is now
required for TEFAP but that can usually be completed in one day.
Congress imposed verification requirements to avoid providing benefits
to families that are not needy.
In a survey taken 2 years ago, Arkansas claimed they needed a 300-
percent increase in TEFAP commodities; 10 other States requested a
doubling of TEFAP assistance.
TEFAP provides bags of groceries to prevent hunger. Typically TEFAP
provides peanut butter, canned meats, canned tuna, and other higher
protein foods to low-income families.
In just the past 2 months I have received letters from low-income
families, community volunteers, and social service agencies in 14
different States. All are concerned with the drastic cuts in TEFAP this
year.
Michael Levenson, assistant director of commodity programs in the
State of Washington, called TEFAP ``an integral part of the State of
Washington's disaster recovery plan.''
The Mid Columbia Community Action Council in The Dalles, OR, told me
that ``TEFAP is critical to our efforts to assist people in crisis,''
and asked, ``Please restore funding to TEFAP.''
The Glen Cove Economic Opportunity Council, in Glen Cove, NY, had a
similar plea. They wrote: ``We urge you to restore funding to the TEFAP
program. TEFAP is of great importance to those who are in most need.''
A food bank in Cleveland, OH, said that ``TEFAP is essential to the
people we serve * * * we urge you to restore funding to the TEFAP
program.''
A recipient of TEFAP emergency food in the State of Colorado wrote to
tell me: ``[TEFAP] has saved me from going hungry many times. It would
really be a loss if it was stopped.''
And a community action agency in New Haven, CT, said that ``Cuts in
the TEFAP funding will mean that many of these families in need will be
sent away with nowhere else to go. * * * TEFAP is essential to our
caring for the hungry.''
Last summer, concerns with shortfalls in TEFAP commodities led me to
conduct a survey of all 50 States. States such as Arkansas and Missouri
told me that three to six times the current amount of commodities would
be necessary to meet the need in those States.
In light of this incredible need and the proven effectiveness of the
TEFAP program in getting food to those in need, I urge all my
colleagues to support my amendment restoring TEFAP funding. It is truly
an essential program in meeting the food needs of families in crisis.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate has
accepted the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from
Vermont which will add $30 million to a critical program which has been
slashed 80 percent over the last 7 years. TEFAP--the Emergency Food
Assistance Program--is a program that works. It uses surplus
commodities to provide groceries to Americans to prevent hunger. TEFAP
is distributed through a voluntary emergency food network comprised
mainly of churches, food banks, and community action agencies. It is a
life-saving program in times of national disasters as well as for
Americans needing assistance on a day-to-day basis.
After Hurricane Andrew, Florida required 650,000 pounds of TEFAP
commodities. For almost a month after Andrew, food stamps proved
worthless since food stores had been destroyed and transportation was
nearly impossible. After the Los Angeles earthquake, California
received 600,000 pounds of TEFAP commodities. It was a life-line for
Californians who otherwise would have gone hungry.
This country needs TEFAP. It is an essential program--and not only in
times of emergencies. It is the last stop for hungry people in America;
12 million low-income Americans depend on this program every day of
their lives.
TEFAP used to provide over $1 billion in agricultural commodities
each year. But since 1987 there have been major reductions in the
program. These reductions have come in the face of Hurricane Hugo,
Hurricane Andrew, 100-year floods in the Midwest, and now the Los
Angeles earthquake.
Chairman Leahy sent a questionnaire to all the States asking about
the need for more TEFAP commodities. The response was overwhelming:
Pennsylvania wanted a 100-percent increase, Minnesota a 100-percent
increase, New York a 50-percent increase, Florida a 100-percent
increase, Texas a 100-percent increase--and the list goes on.
We can add my State to that list. In Arizona, requests for emergency
food is at an all-time high. So far this year our food banks have
distributed 60 million pounds of food to more than 580,000 needy
people. However, cuts to the TEFAP Program have struck a major blow.
This year Arizona will distribute only half the amount of TEFAP food we
were able to distribute last year.
Madam President, TEFAP is literally a life-line for millions of
hungry people throughout America. It can be the only source of food in
times of emergencies. I am pleased that the Senate has come to the aid
of this program which time and again has proven to be a crucial source
of hope to countless Americans at a critical time in their lives.
amendment no. 1467
Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1467 for himself.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 98, line 19, strike ``$107,300,000'', and insert in
lieu thereof ``$97,300,000''.
On page 74, line 19 after the word ``amount'' insert the
following: for ``Resource Management''.
On page 75, line 24 after the word ``amount'' insert the
following: ``not to exceed $6,000,000''.
On page 75, beginning on line 24, strike beginning with the
word ``to'' through the word ``Secretary'' on page 75, line
25 (saving the comma).
On page 76, line 1 strike the word ``head'' and insert in
lieu thereof the word ``heading''.
On page 76, line 5 insert a comma after the word ``of''.
On page 76, line 6 strike the comma after the word
``flows''.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendments were agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, there is one other matter on which I
have had a continuing series of discussions with the Republican leader
throughout the day today. It concerns the nomination of Strobe Talbott
to be Deputy Secretary of State. That nomination has been reported by
the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it is my strong desire and hope
that we can complete action on that matter before the Senate departs
for the forthcoming recess.
As we all know, under the rules of the Senate, any one Senator or
group of Senators have the right to take certain steps which would not
enable us to do that. We would then be required to file cloture to
bring debate to a conclusion. The cloture motion would ripen at the
time we return from session and having the vote. I hope we do not have
to go through that.
I inquire of the Republican leader, who is present in the Chamber and
with whom I have had a series of private discussions, whether it will
be possible to proceed to vote on the nomination of Strobe Talbott to
be Deputy Secretary of State?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader, the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am constrained to object, but I think
with some agreement we can agree to take it up right after we come
back. I would indicate we will have approved today 72 nominations, we
will be prepared to deal with 72 nominations, but we cannot deal with
that one.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I appreciate the Republican leader's
cooperation on the large number of nominations that we hope to complete
action on today. I regret very much the decision not to permit a vote
on Strobe Talbott's nomination since under the rules the earliest we
could obtain a vote would be when we return, and that would be on
cloture to terminate debate on the matter. I will discuss with the
Republican leader how best we can set that matter up, and we will deal
with that before we leave this evening.
Now, more than ample time having passed since I raised the subject of
the vote on the conference report, with a large number, a clear
majority of the Senators being present, I now inquire again whether any
Senator will insist upon a recorded vote on the conference report on
the emergency appropriations bill on which we are now about to vote by
rollcall on final passage? And as we are all familiar with the
auctioneer's call going once, going--
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, we are trying to clear an
amendment here. I will not object if we can work out some solution to
an amendment on which, frankly, we have been working for the last
several hours.
I understand now the objection has been cleared, so therefore I will
not object.
Amendment No. 1468
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment that has
been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:.
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. Baucus,
proposes an amendment numbered 1468.
Mr. BYRD. And that further reading of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 50, strike all after the word ``available'' on line
14 through the word ``provided'' on line 18 and insert in
lieu thereof, the following: ``until expended: Provided, that
such assistance may be made available when the primary
beneficiary is agriculture or agribusiness regardless of
drainage size: Provided''.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to offer a word of
explanation about the amendment just offered by the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. This amendment would allow the
Soil Conservation Service to use the funds appropriated in this bill to
repair levees and other watershed projects, regardless of drainage
size. This would allow the SCS to provide needed assistance for levees
and other watershed protection facilities damaged during the Midwest
floods. The amendment also strikes the amendment adopted last evening,
amendment No. 1447, which would have seriously undermined the Corps of
Engineers Levee Rehabilitation Program and greatly weakened Federal
flood control and rehabilitation policy.
With this amendment, we can provide needed emergency relief while we
examine what the appropriate role of the Federal Government is with
regard to flood protection and control. The recent unfortunate spate of
major disasters has made the need to reexamine our disaster relief
policy all the more urgent.
I want to thank Senator Byrd and the members from the affected
States, Senators Harkin and Bond, for their work in helping craft this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1468) was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, no Senator having expressed an
intention to require a recorded vote on the conference report, we will
now then proceed to final passage of this bill, and this will be the
last vote, and the conference report----
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, before the gavel goes down for the last
time----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. I am going to attempt in less than 60 seconds to set the
record as I see it.
Some may disagree with it. After quite a period of time, through the
good offices of Senator Murkowski and Senator Metzenbaum, we have been
able to achieve the passage extending the statute of limitations to all
those thrift institutions on which the statute might otherwise run
before December 19, 1995. We have managed to accomplish that by a
recorded vote of 95 to nothing.
In the House of Representatives today, the conferees were instructed
390 to 1 to accept the Senate position.
Now, I do not want to keep our friends here, but I have to tell you
something. I know about a barber chair. It can accommodate all kinds of
people and sizes, as the manager of the bill has indicated. I am only
suggesting to you that it would be absolutely unacceptable, it seems to
me, to the American people, and to all of the Members of the House and
the Senate if there were to be an accommodation that somehow would see
this legislation not kept in the conference report.
Now, we can enter into little dalliances, et cetera, and I am not so
good at verse and never was, and I do not attempt to think that I can
keep up with any of my colleagues here, but I have to tell you
something. I would like to understand that we are going to keep this in
or not report one back. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to get
a better assurance than the Senator from Ohio or I have received to
date.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. D'AMATO. Best effort is not good enough for this Senator.
Mr. MITCHELL. Then, Madam President, the chairman has said he will
make his best effort. He cannot guarantee the result. If that is not
good enough, then let us right now say we will have a recorded vote on
the conference report. We will come back tomorrow night and vote. We
have now discussed this too long already. Let us make a decision right
now. If anybody wants a recorded vote on final passage, say so now.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. I have been around here quite a while, and I think, I say
to my friend from New York, the distinguished chairman of the committee
has indicated fairly strongly he will do the best he can. I have seen
him do the best he can before, and I have always lost.
So I would think the Senator would be in a very strong position when
he gives that message. And I hope that we can--everybody knows if it is
not in the conference report, it will be back here next week and we
will be voting on it almost daily. I do not think it is in anybody's
interest to drop it out now. I hope my colleague from New York would
accept that the chairman and the ranking Republican feel the same way.
Is that correct?
I know the Senator feels the same way. Is that correct?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I want to say that this effort to
extend the statute of limitations did not start just recently. It has
been going on for a couple of years. We have had a lot of votes on
that. A lot of people voted against it.
So we know that if it does not stay on this bill, which we all hope
it will, and I support, it is going to be back, and back again. And I
am going to support it every time. I hope all the others will support
it.
But let us be clear on this. We all understand what is happening here
with respect to the statute of limitations. We all understand what is
going on.
So the fact is, either you are now going to decide one way or the
other. We are going to have a vote or we are not. The chairman has said
what any person of common sense, prudence, and good judgment would say.
He is going to do the best he can. He cannot guarantee the result.
Nobody here could ever say anything other than that. We all understand
that. Who can make a guarantee that they cannot possibly be certain
that they can carry out? That, I think, ought to be good enough for
everybody. If it is not, let us have a vote.
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, given the emphatic nature of the
presentations, both by the minority leader and the majority leader, my
dear friend--and he is a good friend--and the assurance of our manager
of the bill that he will give his best effort, I will certainly not
call for a recorded vote.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, let us proceed to a vote.
I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, as the Senate continues consideration of
this emergency supplemental bill, I want to make some general
observations. While I will vote for this bill, I will do so with great
reluctance.
In the last 5 years, we were hit by a number of major disasters. The
Loma Prieta earthquake. Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. The L.A. riots in
1992 and the Midwest floods last summer. Most recently, the Los Angeles
area earthquake. The costs of these disasters have gone through the
roof.
Madam President, we hear a lot about the need to cut spending. That
need is real. And one way to do it is to reexamine our approach to
disaster funding.
I sympathize with the victims of the California earthquake. My own
State of Montana has experienced natural disasters--the harsh winters,
seemingly countless droughts and the devastating wildfires in the
Yellowstone region, for example. So I do not suggest that Californians
are not suffering tremendously because of this disaster. I am
suggesting, though, that we must find a better way to prepare and pay
for disasters.
Each year we appropriate disaster relief funds. But we never have
enough to cover the actual costs of a major disaster.
That is why we continue to find ourselves appropriating additional
funds on an emergency basis. We do not think ahead. Instead we wait,
then just take out our national credit card and run up the bill.
As was stated on the floor this morning, the Senate will soon begin
consideration of a balanced budget amendment. It is ironic that many--
though not all--of my colleagues who support a balanced budget
amendment are the same ones who clamor for Federal emergency assistance
following a disaster in their State.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot support unpaid for emergency
spending that contributes to the deficit and then support a
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.
Congress can balance the budget without such a constitutional
amendment. But only if we make tough choices. In fact, last month, the
Environment and Public Works Committee did just that. The committee
made over $137 million in cuts to public buildings projects. It was not
easy. It sure was not popular. But it was necessary.
The size of the check for emergency disaster relief is not the only
issue. There must be a more concerted effort to mitigate such tragedies
at the Federal, State and local levels.
We already have programs in place to minimize the loss of life and
property in natural disasters. We have flood insurance. We have
earthquake insurance and crop insurance. We have strengthened building
codes and seismic retrofitting. These are all good programs. But
application and enforcement is spotty or nonexistent.
Madam President, we all watched the Midwest floods this summer. We
all watched with sympathy and we helped out. Congress appropriated over
$5 billion to pay for the floods and the bill before us today
appropriates even more. But few people realize that many who live in
the 100-year flood plain do not carry flood insurance. That is
irresponsible.
If you choose to live in a flood plain, you should be required to
have the necessary insurance protection. Only about 25 percent of
property owners in the Midwest flood area were covered by flood
insurance. When the flood came, it did not matter. The Federal
Government came to the rescue to bail-out the residents who chose not
to carry insurance.
The same is true with earthquake insurance. A majority of homeowners
in the Los Angeles area did not carry earthquake insurance. As a
result, the Federal Government will again pay to rebuild these homes,
regardless of whether or not earthquake insurance was purchased.
What incentive is there to buy insurance, if you know the Federal
Government will pay when there is a natural disaster? No wonder
participation rates for these programs are so dismal.
I realize that it may not just be a case of irresponsibility on the
part of homeowners. If high deductibles or premiums make these
insurance policies prohibitive, Congress should take a hard look at
that as well.
Federal generosity has a limit, Madam President. We need to enforce
these programs so that property owners take personal responsibility for
their action or inaction.
But it is not just a Federal problem. I urge my colleagues to work
with State and local officials and make sure they understand that
short-term investments have long-term advantages. As the saying goes,
``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''. Many of us breathe
a sigh of relief when a disaster misses our State. But we are all in
this together as taxpayers.
By creating a task force to look into the costs associated with
disasters, the Majority Leader and the Speaker have also recognized
that this is an important issue that needs to be examined. I commend
them for their action and look forward to working with this task force
in the weeks ahead.
flood assistance
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise in support of this important
disaster assistance legislation. I commend the President and the
distinguished and skillful chairman of the Appropriations Committee for
assuring its prompt consideration.
This legislation appropriately responds to the tremendous destruction
caused by the major earthquake in southern California. People have lost
their homes, possessions, and jobs. The devastation included billions
in damage to roads, bridges, and other public buildings. We in the
Midwest know all too well what a disaster like this means and the need
for a quick and thorough response in order to recover economically and
emotionally from it.
I am also pleased that the legislation before us responds to
additional unmet needs caused by the great midwest floods this past
summer. I want to thank Chairman Byrd, President Clinton, and OMB
Director Panetta for their work to make this possible.
As Senator Byrd wisely noted when the flood supplemental
appropriations measure was considered last year, we did not at that
time understand the full impact of the disaster. Frankly, we still do
not have a final determination of the costs involved.
I have been continuing my efforts with Senate Bond and the other
Senators from the flood States to determine the needs that still must
be met.
On January 31, the President proposed $435.5 million in additional
assistance for the Midwest. This included $340.5 million for the Soil
Conservation Service to restore levees, stabilize soil around
structures and to accelerate some construction in watersheds. This work
is crucial if the flood areas are to have a chance of being properly
prepared for likely future flooding in the area. The ground is still
saturated, and many predict significant flooding this year. The SCS
funds will also be used to put land into the wetlands program. It is
cheaper to put some land into the program than to restore it or to
restore damaged levees: $25 million was provided through the ASCS to
help farmers restore their fields, and $70 million was provided for the
Corps of Engineers for the restoration of levees.
Also, on January 31, the flood task force made up of State government
officials in the affected States provided a partial list of $560
million of the most urgently needed assistance beyond the $435 million
requested by the President.
Recognizing the limits on Federal aid, Senators from the affected
States worked to scrub those requests. We met with Leon Panetta last
week with a considerably pared down list of requests. His staff
suggested further reductions after they worked with the Departments on
a needs assessment. The President then requested and I offered an
amendment in the appropriations markup to provide $250 million in
additional CDBG funds for the affected States. In addition, $50 million
was added to the ``unanticipated needs'' account. Those funds can be
used for the Midwest, for the earthquake area or for other disasters.
The $250 million in CDBG funds are to be allocated to the Midwest
flood will be used for a variety of purposes including: home
relocation, in some cases the relocation of whole communities; the
modification of sewer systems so they will not act as conduits for
flood water. We had whole neighborhoods safely behind levees that held.
But, the water came roaring out of the toilets and sinks causing great
damage, and the use of funds by local governments for levees and other
improvements that will reduce losses in future disasters.
Madam President, I urge quick adoption of this important legislation
so that the people of California and the Midwest can fully recover from
the natural disasters that have recently beset them.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, it has been said, ``Blessed are the
young, for they shall inherit the national debt.'' Today, every child
born in America inherits $17,000 in public debt. Today, the total
Federal income tax collected each year from west of the Mississippi
River does not even cover the interest paid on our debt burden. Today,
the Federal Government spends $3 for every $2 it collects. This is the
destructive legacy of a Congress without courage. Our budget deficit
represents a failure to lead, and that failure is felt in every city,
in every community, on every farm, and in every family.
We clearly need to restore fiscal integrity and economic soundness to
the budget process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Government
downsizing, performance, and accountability act of 1994, introduced
today by the Republican leader. This proposal offers real deficit
reduction through 50 commonsense recommendations from a range of
sources, including the Grace Commission and Vice President Gore's
National Performance Review.
Other proposals fall short of real deficit reduction because they
fail to reduce the caps on discretionary spending. Our plan cuts
Federal spending by more than $50 billion over 5 years and, by lowering
the caps, ensures that all of the non-defense savings goes to deficit
reduction. It prevents Congress from using its timeworn tactic of using
savings from one program to spend more on another, and it reduces the
deficit without raising taxes.
Our bill also protects the military from those who would raid its
budget to fund pet programs. By reinstating the defense firewall, this
plan enables President Clinton to keep the promise he made in his State
of the Union Speech not to cut defense spending any further than he
already has. The Defense budget has already been cut to the bone. We
must end the practice of compromising our national security to pay for
the policy enthusiasm of the moment.
Any attempts to reduce the deficit are incomplete without
institutional reform. The inclusion of the line item veto in this
package ensures that Congress would not be permitted to continue to
mortgage our children's future through pork-barrel spending. It would
shine the light of debate into the dark corners of the budget process.
This plan is about honoring people who pay their taxes, lead
productive lives and are tired of seeing Government waste their hard-
earned money. Washington can reduce the deficit without raising taxes;
this plan proves it.
Our national deficit is a burden on our children and our
grandchildren. This plan eases that burden through reasonable cuts and
meaningful savings. It is a chance for Congress to act on its ardent
rhetoric about deficit reduction.
funding for liheap in the supplemental appropriation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in the aftermath of the severe cold
wave last month in the Northeast, emergency aid through the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program is clearly needed.
The bill before us asks President Clinton to release $300 million of
the $600 million available in contingency funds for this program. The
bill also requests that the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services be permitted to target this funding to the States that
are most in need.
I strongly support both of these goals, and I commend Senator Byrd,
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Harkin, the
chairman of the Labor and Health and Human Services Subcommittee, for
their leadership on this provision. These Senators have been
instrumental in ensuring that the LIHEAP Program serves the needs of
low-income families. This emergency aid will ease the heavy burden of
one of the coldest winters in recent memory.
We need this $300 million emergency appropriation, and we need it as
soon as possible. Even before this winter began, the LIHEAP Program was
being shortchanged. In fiscal year 1985, $2.1 billion was appropriated
to LIHEAP. In fiscal year 1994, LIHEAP received only $1.4 billion, a
30-percent decrease.
In Massachusetts, only 27 percent of those eligible actually receive
LIHEAP's aid. Low-income families have had to choose between heating
their homes and feeding their children. In 1992, Boston City Hospital
released a 3-year study on seasonal changes in weight for low-income
children living in Boston. The study identified a relationship that
researchers called the heat or eat effect: The number of clinically
underweight children going to the hospital's emergency room increased
dramatically in the period immediately following the coldest month of
the winter. According to the study, ``parents know their children will
freeze to death before they starve to death.'' It is disgraceful to
force families to make such a choice when it is in our power to prevent
it.
Massachusetts is not alone in facing these urgent problems today. The
Coalition of Northeast Governors, representing the Northeast States
plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and the Association of
State LIHEAP Directors, which includes administrators from across the
country, have reported that many States will soon exhaust their LIHEAP
funds. The winter goes on, but funds to help the poor pay their energy
bills have dried up.
This emergency appropriation of $300 million will help the country's
poorest families make it through the winter. I commend the committee
for its action and I urge the Senate to approve it.
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
rescission provisions in title III of the Senate version of H.R. 3759.
On the one hand, I support cuts to offset spending. On the other hand,
I must voice strong objection to rescinding funds for the Landsat
satellite in the Department of Defense section of the package.
The administration's budget request for fiscal year 1995 contains no
funding for the Department of Defense Landsat operations. This does not
mean, however, that the administration no longer believes in the
important mission of the Landsat satellite to support global climate
change research and national security.
The President's National Science and Technology Council this week
adopted a proposal to construct, launch, and operate a Landsat 7
system. While not all details of this proposal have been completed, it
assumes a transfer of the Department of Defense fiscal year 1994
Landsat funds to NASA to cover a portion of the completion cost of
Landsat 7. After the launch of Landsat 7, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration would be responsible for the system's ground
operations, including data processing, distribution and archiving at
the EROS Data Center in Garretson, SD.
The Landsat program provides critical land remote sensing data for
earth science research and a variety of operational applications of
importance to national security as well as domestic and international
use.
We are in the unfortunate position of considering construction and
launch of Landsat 7 prematurely. Earlier this year, Landsat 6 was lost
upon launch. One earlier satellite, Landsat 5, continues to operate,
but it is beyond its expected lifetime. Data continuity becomes a
priority consideration with the loss of Landsat 6, and the limitations
of the older satellite. If Congress fails to commit to continuation of
this program, we run a real risk of being without land remote sensing
data.
NASA is in the middle of developing its Earth observing system data
information system, which depends on Landsat data. If we do not build
and launch Landsat 7, we will be in the position of trying to replicate
some form of the program within 5 years. The cost of trying to build a
new program will far exceed what we might spend to continue the current
Landsat program.
The other body assumes continuation of the Landsat program in its
companion to the measure we are considering today. I urge my colleagues
in the strongest possible terms to accept the other body's support of
Landsat in conference.
food donations program for selected groups
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I would like to ask my esteemed
colleague, Senator Bumpers, chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, to clarify a
point in the rescission package that may affect Indian tribes and needy
Indian people of our country. The House-passed bill and the Senate bill
contain rescissions directed at the Food Donations Program for Selected
Groups within the Agriculture Department's Food and Nutrition Service.
Can the chairman expand on the report language which indicates that
this rescission will not affect the availability of commodity foods
available to Indian reservations?
Mr. BUMPERS. I would be glad to clarify this point for the
distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. The funds which
are proposed to be rescinded in the Senate bill are, in fact, a portion
of the fiscal year 1993 appropriation that carried over to the current
fiscal year. The committee has been advised that these funds are not
needed to maintain the current program level. Senator Inouye can assure
the Indian tribal governments and Indian people who receive such
assistance that the rescission contained in this measure is not
intended to diminish the current level of commodity foods available to
them.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to engage in a brief
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, if he is available, on a matter in the
bill before us.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to discuss the bill with the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. The bill that the
Appropriations Committee reported makes tangible progress toward
responsible deficit reduction. However, I am concerned by one of the
rescissions proposed by the committee for the Federal Highway
Administration, the Monroe rail consolidation project.
The Monroe rail consolidation project has been included on the
committee's proposed rescission list. Yet, this project is ready for
construction and is important for Southeast Michigan. The criterion
that the committee appears to have used in determining if a project's
funding should be rescinded is whether or not a project still has
unobligated balance from before fiscal year 1991. These balances, in
and of themselves, provide no indication of the merit of a project.
The Monroe rail consolidation project is ready for construction and
is important for Southeast Michigan. The project is necessary for
economic and safety reasons. It will eliminate 25 public and private
crossings, substantially reducing preventable vehicle/train accidents.
Design and engineering is done. Work has been delayed only because the
overall costs were underestimated. I ask unanimous consent that a
description of the project prepared by the Michigan Department of
Transportation be printed in the Record following my remarks.
Madam President, I know that without an offset it would be difficult
to remedy this on the floor right now, but I would ask the Senator if
he would work in conference to preserve the unobligated balances for
this project.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senator bringing these facts to my
attention. I have no intention of pulling the rug out from under those
projects that are ready to go. I can assure the Senator from Michigan
that I will keep in mind his concerns and the information he has
provided as the conference committee considers the proposed
rescissions.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the subcommittee chairman for his assistance. I
hope that the conferees on the bill will be able to delete this project
from the rescissions list. Those unobligated fiscal year 1990 balances
may appear to be free game here in Washington, but the people in
Michigan are counting on them.
There being no objection, the description was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
Monroe Railroad Consolidation Project, Monroe County, MI
1. Identify the State or other qualified recipient
responsible for carrying out the project.
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be
responsible for administering federal, state and local public
funds used in the project; the City of Monroe and the
involved railroads, CN North America (CNNA) and Consolidated
Railroad Corporation (Conrail), will carry out the project.
2. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the
project, including the phase or phases proposed for funding.
The Monroe Railroad Consolidation Project scope consists of
consolidating three widely separated mainline tracks in a 7
mile long corridor passing through the City of Monroe into
one double track main. The objectives achieved by
consolidating these tracks are:
a. Increased grade crossing safety: The project would
eliminate 25 of the 31 grade crossings in the corridor.
b. Increased efficiency of the street system: Travel delays
on Monroe's street system caused by the movement of trains
through the 25 crossings to be closed will be eliminated.
c. Improved air quality: Elimination of automobile idling
time at grade crossings will reduce emissions.
d. Improved energy efficiency: The reduced automobile
idling time at grade crossings and more stable vehicle
operating speeds will reduce motor fuel consumption.
e. Enhanced land use/economic development opportunities:
The elimination of two railroad rights-of-way through the
city enhances the potential uses for adjacent parcels, and
enables consolidation of properties into marketable
opportunities for new enterprises and increased employment.
f. Improved residential neighborhood cohesiveness: The
neighborhoods severed by the rights-of-way to be eliminated
will be reconnected; dwellings now adjacent to the tracks
will become more desirable and livable, improving the quality
of housing stock in the area.
g. Improved economics for rail freight movement: The
railroad companies' costs of crossing and signal maintenance,
as well as liability exposure will be eliminated for the 25
crossings to be closed; mainline track maintenance costs will
be shared by two railroad companies.
A special Federal appropriation of $2.975 million received
in FY 1990 has been used to accomplish feasibility and
preliminary engineering studies. The remaining existing
funding will be used to finance preparation of the
Environmental Assessment, completion of final design, and a
small portion of the total cost of construction. New federal
funding is sought for the remaining construction costs.
3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid
funds?
The project is eligible for the use of Federal aid funds.
4. What is the total project cost and source of funds?
The total cost to complete the project is estimated (based
upon preliminary engineering) at $16,000,000. Sources of
funding are as follows:
Federal funds (80%)=12.8 million
Non-federal funds (20%)=3.2 million
Non-federal funds will be provided by Michigan Department
of Transportation, the two private railroad companies, and
affected local governments.
The federal share consists of the balance of the 1990
federal grant and the additional funding sought in this
request, as follows:
Original grant balance.......................................$2,775,000
Present grant request........................................10,025,000
__________
Total federal funds......................................12,800,000
5. Will there be private sector funding for a portion of
the project and, if so, how much private sector financing is
being made available for the project?
A portion of the 20 percent non-federal fund match will be
provided by the involved railroads.
6. Will the completion costs for the project exceed the
amounts requested for the project?
Estimates of completion costs based upon preliminary
engineering completed thus far indicate costs to be within
the amount requested.
7. Has early work, such a preliminary engineering and
environmental analysis been done on the project?
Preliminary engineering and Phase One Environmental Site
Assessment have been completed.
8. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the
project?
Preliminary engineering, by Envirodyne Engineers, was
completed and presented to local public officials and the
railroads in April, 1993. The proposed plans were generally
endorsed by all public and private entities affected. Concern
was raised by a neighborhood at the northern limit of the
project regarding the location of the crossover track near
their residences. Early in 1994, Envirodyne Engineers will be
retained to do further work to study alternative crossover
locations, and to prepare an Environmental Assessment in
compliance with federal requirements. Once Federal approval
is granted, final design will commence. The target year for
construction is 1995.
9. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State
transportation improvement plan(s), and if so, scheduled for
funding?
The project is included in the regional transportation
improvement program prepared by the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments, and therefore is included, by
reference, in the state transportation improvement program.
10. Is the project considered by State and/or regional
transportation officials as critical to their needs?
The project is seen as very important by local, state, and
federal officials.
11. Why have State and/or regional transportation officials
not given this project sufficient priority to obtain funding
through the normal ISTEA funding process?
State, regional, and local transportation officials have
identified the importance of this project. The department has
delayed the development of many needed projects due to
inadequate funding levels, from both federal authorizations
and state transportation revenues.
12. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely
to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
Public presentation of the preliminary engineering report
in April, 1993, generated a concern regarding location of the
northern crossover track. This concern will be addressed as
the project moves to final design. There is strong local
citizen support for the project. Environmental impacts, if
any, will be identified as a result of the Environmental
Assessment to be undertaken in 1994.
13. How will the project objectives be attained?
The project objectives will be attained through a project
steering committee consisting of representatives from each
affected local government, the two railroads, and
MDOT. The committee has functioned on an ad hoc basis
since before the first federal grant was obtained, and
accounts for the consensus already existing on the
consolidation plan for which preliminary engineering has been
completed.
Through the continuous communication afforded by the
steering committee, the complex technical, operational, and
staging aspects of the project will be effectively managed,
bringing about as smooth a transition as possible from
current operations to joint operations in one corridor.
14. Describe the economic, energy efficiency,
environmental, congestion mitigation and safety effects
associated with completion of the project.
See #2.
15. Will the project require an additional investment in
other infrastructure projects? If so, how will these projects
be funded?
This project is a complete project in and of itself.
However, its design would permit future rail consolidation
continuing from the north limits of this project in northern
Monroe County to the downriver area of metropolitan Detroit.
Funding for such future work is not being sought at this
time.
16. In lieu of the proposed project, what other
transportation strategies have been considered by State and
local transportation officials?
A 1989 feasibility study recommended a consolidation scheme
retaining two of the three track sets. A subsequent
consultant study performed by Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.
found that with proper design, utilization of only one rail
right-of-way through Monroe could provide a level of utility
to each railroad equal to that currently existing. (That
study indicated that such an approach would incur less than a
10 percent cost increase over the two-track approach while
allowing the closure of an additional eight area grade
crossings.) If the project under consideration is not
approved for federal funding, it is unlikely that any rail
consolidation (i.e., the elimination of main line rail
corridors) will be undertaken in the Monroe area.
17. Is the authorization requested an increase to a
previously authorized amount for this project, or would this
be the first authorization for this project? Has this project
previously received federal funding, commitments regarding
future federal funding (such as an LOI or Full Funding
Agreement), or appropriations?
This request is for the funding necessary in addition to
the original federal grant in 1990, to carry the project from
preliminary engineering through construction.
18. If Highway Trust Fund revenues are not made available
for the project, would you support general fund revenues for
it?
General fund revenues would be acceptable for the
advancement of this project.
northridge earthquake
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, damage caused by the Northridge
earthquake has severely impacted the movement of people and goods.
Until repairs and reconstruction of damaged facilities are completed,
California will need to implement, over time, the necessary
transportation management strategies to maximize the movement of people
and goods.
Transportation management strategies--including but not limited to
construction of detours and modifications to existing roads to increase
transportation capacities including development of High Occupancy
Vehicle facilities, motorist and public information systems, upgrading
and increasing transit services, including increased bus, rail and van
pooling services and implementation of an intermodal emergency
universal transit pass--are critical to providing alternative services
to those services that were lost with the damage to the transportation
system. Many of these activities are similar to activities implemented
following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a memorandum on April 20,
1989, providing guidance for Federal funding eligibility for traffic
management activities. That guidance provided that many of the
strategies being used would be eligible for normal Federal funding as
well as day-to-day operations for highway advisory radio and freeway
service patrols during highway construction.
H.R. 3759, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, does not
specifically address the issue of traffic management strategies under
the Emergency Relief Program. It is my understanding that these
transportation management activities for Emergency Relief Program
funding are eligible under the Emergency Relief Program to restore
essential traffic service until such time as repairs and reconstruction
of transportation facilities, damaged by the earthquake, are completed
and reopened to traffic. Is this the understanding of the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I agree with Senator Boxer's
assessment that activities to restore essential traffic services are
eligible activities under the Emergency Relief Program and I urge FHWA
to move quickly on this matter.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Chairman Lautenberg for this clarification and
his support.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I rise today to express my sympathies to
the people of southern California. The devastating earthquake which
shook the Los Angeles area last month has left many people dead or
injured and thousands of others homeless. I intend to support this
emergency supplemental which will provide desperately needed relief not
only to the victims of this tragic earthquake, but also to the victims
of the Midwest floods and the unusually bitter cold temperatures that
various regions of the country, including my home State of Main, have
experienced this winter.
I am extremely pleased that this legislation includes the directive
to President Clinton to release $300 million in emergency funds from
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. It is up to
President Clinton to declare an emergency and release these funds, but
I am confident that he will support our call for immediate action.
As we all know, the winter in many parts of the country, but
particularly in Maine and other parts of New England, has been
unusually cold and shows no signs of abating. In Maine, temperatures
have been well below freezing for many weeks.
Let me indicate just how dire the situation is for some of Maine's
residents. In Washington and Hancock Counties, among Maine's poorest
counties, the average LIHEAP benefit is now only $182 for the whole
winter, a reduction of $166 from last year's level. Benefits for many
households who heat with oil, kerosene or wood range from $48 to $120
for the entire winter. As you can imagine, this benefit level cannot
possibly assist the poor in meeting the energy costs they face as a
result of this relentless winter weather. Of those receiving benefits
in this area, 74 percent have incomes below 100 percent of the poverty
guidelines, with the remaining 26 percent with incomes between 101 and
150 percent of poverty guidelines.
It is critical that emergency fuel funds set aside in the fiscal year
1994 Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill be released
immediately in order to provide the assistance to these needy citizens.
It is for precisely this situation that emergency funds were allocated
by Congress in last year's appropriations bill, and I urge the
President to take the appropriate action and release the funds to needy
areas like Maine.
I also want to speak to the issue of how we fund disaster relief. The
Federal Government, in my view, has a responsibility to respond to
natural disasters which strike without warning and leave people
desperate for such basic necessities as food and shelter. Madam
President, my own State of Maine suffered the aftermaths of three
natural disasters in 1991 alone, causing substantial damage to public
roads and bridges and private property throughout the State. At the
same time, however, I firmly believe that we must begin to seriously
address the Federal budget deficit. The Federal Government has
been running deficits for more than two decades. The Congress and the
President continue to ask Americans to pay higher taxes in an effort to
tackle the deficit, but Americans want Congress and the President to
cut spending first.
Since 1988, Congress has approved six disaster relief supplemental
appropriations bills similar to the one we are considering today. While
no one disputes the need for this relief to the victims of natural
disasters, these measures have increased our Federal budget deficit by
more than $17 billion. The number of natural disasters nationwide has
increased in recent years and so has the cost of these disasters as is
evidenced by both Hurricane Andrew and the earthquake in California.
The early estimates for the California earthquake range between $15 and
$30 billion.
While I continue to believe that the Federal Government must provide
assistance to disaster victims in times of catastrophic disasters, and
do so expeditiously, I firmly believe that we must also face our fiscal
responsibilities. If we do not begin to address the deficit now, the
problem will only worsen for our children and our grandchildren. As a
result, I support the language in this legislation urging the creation
of a bipartisan task force to look at the issue of how to pay for
disaster relief in the future. During the Senate's debate on this
legislation, I also supported amendments to offset the cost of the bill
with spending cuts in other Federal programs and find an alternative
way to finance disaster assistance in the future. Unfortunately,
however, the Senate did not adopt these amendments.
In closing, Madam President, I again want to express my sympathies to
the residents of southern California as they begin the difficult
process of trying to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of what may
be the worst natural disaster this country has ever seen.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I strongly support this supplemental
appropriations bill to provide much-needed aid to the thousands of
victims of the Northridge, CA earthquake, and I commend the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for moving this legislation
so quickly.
All of America was gripped by the 6.6 earthquake that struck the San
Fernando Valley on the morning of January 17. We watched with horror
how people had lost their homes, their communities, and in 57
instances, their very lives, because of this act of nature. Now is the
time to get aid to those victims as rapidly as possible.
FEMA tells us that its disaster relief fund is very close to running
dry. That means that FEMA will have to withhold providing aid to all
disaster victims--not just in California but also victims in the
Midwest and other States which have had major disasters--until this
bill is signed into law.
Madam President, the Northridge quake is the costliest major natural
disaster in modern American history. This legislation will go a long
way to helping people recover from that tragedy.
The amounts provided in the VA-HUD chapter reflect the
administration's request.
FEMA: for FEMA disaster relief, the bill provides $4.7 billion. In
addition, the administration recently released $408 million in
contingency funds, for a total of over $5 billion.
These funds will provide for infrastructure repair, emergency
transportation requirements, individual and family grants, hazard
mitigation, and other disaster-related needs.
The bill also includes $15 million for a post-earthquake
investigation.
HUD: For HUD, the bill includes $825 million for various housing and
community development programs. For assisted housing account, the bill
provides $225 million. Of that, $200 million will be allocated for
section 8 housing rental subsidies for low-income families affected by
the southern California earthquake. This will help provide housing for
an estimated 10,000 families for up to 18 months. Most of the
assistance will be used to aid families whose annual earnings are at or
below 50 percent of the median income for the greater Los Angeles area.
An additional $25 million will be allocated for the modernization of
public housing projects damaged in the earthquake.
For the flexible subsidy fund, the bill provides $100 million. These
funds will provide money to replace or rehabilitate federal-insured
and/or -assisted multifamily housing projects damaged by the January
1994 earthquake in southern California. The Department's initial
estimate indicates that 68 of 151 projects located within the
earthquake zone, roughly 45 percent of Federally-insured and/or
assisted inventory, were affected by the quake.
The Committee has included bill language to increase the flexibility
of FHA programs for victims of the Southern California earthquake.
These provisions were not recommended by the House because of concerns
about the fact that they are legislative in nature.
And finally, for the CDBG program, the bill provides $500 million.
These funds will be disbursed to entitled communities, and the State of
California, for expenses resulting from immediate and long-term efforts
to recover from the January 1994 southern California earthquake. Up to
$75 million of those funds may be transferred to the HOME program for
expenses resulting from the earthquake.
VA: The bill provides $66.6 million for the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Together with $7 million in unspent disaster funds provided to
the Department in a fiscal year 1992 dire emergency supplemental
appropriations act, there will be $73.6 million available to VA.
These funds are needed for patient related expenses at six of
California's VA facilities, including Sepulveda and West Los Angeles.
There was extensive damage at the Sepulveda facility, requiring the
facility to be closed and all patients to be moved to other medical
facilities. The funds provided will pay for cleanup and minor repairs,
transporting patients, additional patient workload, contract personnel,
and other expenses.
In closing, Madam President, let me say that I am opposed to budget
offsets for this supplemental appropriation.
I do not think it is fair to make the victims of this tragedy wait
for aid while Congress haggles over budget cuts. We did not ask the
victims of Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, or Iniki to do that. We did not ask
those who suffered from Loma Prieta to do that. And last summer, when
floods affected nine different States in the Midwest, we did not do
that.
kerrey-graham amendment
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today I rise in support of the Kerrey
amendment. The amendment contains specific spending cuts that could
save the Government almost $95 billion over the next 5 years.
I will not speak for long today, Madam President. We have had enough
speeches about cutting spending. It is time for action.
We all like to talk specifically about our ideas for spending
Government money, but when it comes time to talk about reducing the
deficit, we suddenly get vague. We are all against the deficit--in
abstract. We are all against wasteful Government spending--if we do not
go into details about exactly what we mean by wasteful. But there
aren't many who want to stand up here and talk specifically about what
programs we would cut. I commend Senator Kerrey, and the bipartisan
groups of Senators who support this plan, for doing just that.
And not only is this amendment specific. It is also even-handed. It
cuts entitlements, defense, and domestic spending. No one group, State,
or interest bears the brunt of the deficit reduction in this package.
And because the cuts in this package are numerous and specific, there
are some items I support strongly, like the proposal to cut Senators'
pay by 5 percent. And there are some items I wish were not in the
package, like the reduction in Legal Services Corporation. But I
support the entire package because I understand--and I hope the entire
Senate understands--that we will not pass significant spending cuts
until we are all willing to accept some cuts that hurt.
In the past, Madam President, too often we treated Government
spending as if it were a reward for winning public office. We spent
taxpayer money as if it were our own. Now it is time to treat
Government spending as a responsibility of public office. We have to
start spending taxpayer money as if it belonged to the taxpayers who
worked hard for it.
I am glad the President has sent us a budget that brings the deficit
down--at least for the next 5 years. But we have got to do more. By the
year 2000, our deficit will still be over $200 billion, our debt will
have topped $6 trillion. Is this the legacy we want to leave to a new
generation? Is overwhelming debt piling up year after year a record we
can be proud of? No. The answer is no.
Now is the time to take action. Now is the time to start paying back
the trillions we have borrowed from future generations. Now is the time
to cut spending. I urge my colleagues to support the Kerrey amendment.
federal buildings fund
Mr. DeCONCINI. The language contained in the explanatory statement
accompanying this bill contained in title II, under the ``Federal
Buildings Fund'' heading, in no way supersedes or alters the actions
taken by the Environment and Public Works Committee with respect to the
disapproval of funds for certain GSA building projects made available
in the fiscal year 1994 Treasury Appropriations Act. For those projects
where fiscal year 1994 funds were appropriated but for which a
prospectus was not approved by the Environment and Public Works
Committee, the funds cannot be expended by the General Services
Administration in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 103-123,
until such authorization is approved.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an
explanatory statement of the recommendations of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on H.R. 3759 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Explanatory statement of the recommendations of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on H.R. 3759, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for
other purposes.
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 3759) making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other
purposes, reported the same to the Senate with an amendment,
and submits the following statement in explanation of its
recommendations.
Bill Highlights
Title I.--The Committee is recommending fiscal year 1994
emergency supplemental appropriations to cover emergency
expenses primarily arising from the consequences of the
January 17, 1994, earthquake in southern California. The
Committee recommendation totals $10,019,150,000 in budget
authority and $1,109,000,000 in loan authority, the same as
the President's request. These funds are broken down as
follows:
Committee bill, total appropriations.................\1\$10,019,150,000
Emergency appropriations................................(9,069,150,000)
Contingency appropriations................................(950,000,000)
Loan authority............................................1,109,000,000
\1\Includes subsidy appropriations of $254,750,000.
Major items in this bill include:
FEMA--disaster relief....................................$4,709,000,000
Small Business Administration (disaster loans)............1,109,000,000
Impact aid..................................................165,000,000
Student financial assistance.................................80,000,000
Federal-aid highways, emergency relief (trust fund).......1,265,000,000
Direct appropriations...................................(950,000,000)
Contingency appropriations..............................(400,000,000)
VA major construction projects...............................45,600,000
VA medical care..............................................21,000,000
HUD annual contribution for assisted housing................225,000,000
HUDflexiblesubsidyfund......................................100,000,000
Community development block grants..........................500,000,000
Unanticipated needs, contingency appropriations.............550,000,000
Department of Defense, humanitarian assistance............1,198,300,000
Department of Agriculture, Midwest flooding.................435,500,000
Federal-aid highways, Loma Prieta...........................315,000,000
Earthquake Situation
In the predawn of January 17, 1994, an earthquake shook
southern California causing massive upheaval to many homes,
infrastructure, and the nerves of the residents near the
epicenter at Northridge in Los Angeles County. Upon receiving
initial reports of the damage and destruction caused by the
quake the President made available previously appropriated
emergency contingency funds of $140,000,000 on January 19,
1994, so that help could begin to flow immediately. On
January 22, 1994, an additional $143,000,000 in previously
appropriated emergency contingency funds was made available
by the President.
After receiving reports from local, State officials as well
as members of his Cabinet the President made an initial
request for additional emergency Federal assistance totaling
$6,178,405,000 on January 26, 1994. After further reports
from the field and more recent estimates of the damage the
President forwarded a further request of $3,540,745,000 in
emergency aid on January 31, 1994. Of this request
$1,591,945,000 is for the additional expenses of the Los
Angeles earthquake; $1,198,300,000 is for unbudgeted and
unexpected Department of Defense humanitarian and
peacekeeping activities; $435,500,000 is for expenses related
to last summer's floods in the Midwest; and $315,000,000 is
for highway repairs resulting from the Loma Prieta
earthquake. Therefore, the Committee has considered requests
from the President which total $9,719,150,000.
Title II.--On February 7 and 8, 1994, the President
submitted fiscal year 1994 supplemental budget requests
totaling $1,579,698,000, of which $862,600,000 are for
mandatory items. The bill recommended to the Senate includes
discretionary appropriations of $115,714,000, a reduction of
$601,384,000 below the President's request. In addition to
the Committee has recommended the full amount requested by
the President for mandatory items.
Mandatory items include $698,000,000 for veterans
compensation and pensions; $103,200,000 for veterans
readjustment benefits; and $61,400,000 for advances to the
unemployment trust fund.
The discretionary items included represent salaries and
expense items in various agencies. These discretionary
appropriations are all accommodated within each
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation and are more than offset by
rescissions contained in title III.
Title III.--According to the General Accounting Office,
from the enactment of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 through September 20, 1993,
Presidents have proposed rescissions totaling
$69,629,034,690, of which $21,585,250,366 were agreed to by
Congress. In addition, over this same period, congressionally
initiated and enacted rescissions total $67,114,961,718.
Total rescissions that have been enacted over this period
(1974 through September 20, 1993) equal $88,700,212,085, or
$19,071,177,395 more spending cuts than have been requested
by Presidents.
On November 1, 1993, the President requested 37 rescissions
within the jurisdiction of eight subcommittees totaling
$1,946,122,724 in budget authority. On February 7, 1994, the
President submitted additional rescissions bringing the total
of the President's rescission requests to $3,172,183,170 for
fiscal year 1994.
The bill as reported recommends rescissions totaling
$3,442,677,882 in discretionary spending reductions,
$270,494,712 in greater cuts than requested by the President.
The bill as reported contains rescissions in the jurisdiction
of 12 subcommittees.
While approving, in whole or in part, a substantial amount
of rescissions requested, the Committee also recommends a
number of rescissions not requested by the President. In some
instances, these congressionally initiated rescissions are to
be derived from general categories of spending for various
agencies. These appropriations are not earmarked by the
Congress, but are administered by the various agencies under
authority delegated to them in appropriations acts. This
delegation of authority to the executive branch is necessary
because there are literally thousands of applicants for
grants for many Federal programs. Congress is in no position
to review and act upon these grant requests. Rather, the
authority to carefully screen applicants for Federal funds so
as to avoid wasteful and unnecessary spending and to approve
only those grants which are of national importance, rests
with the executive branch.
Emergency Designation
Pursuant to the President's request, the Committee
recommends language designating all disaster relief funds in
this bill as emergency requirements under the terms of the
1990 Budget Enforcement Act. Under this act, appropriations
that are designated as emergency requirements by both the
President and the Congress are counted as automatic increases
to the discretionary spending limits.
The emergency designations in this bill are consistent with
past special disaster relief appropriations--in 1993 to cover
the disaster costs caused by extensive flooding in the upper
Mississippi River area; and in 1992 to cover the costs caused
by other natural disasters, such as Hurricane Andrew,
Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Bob, the devastating fires in
Oakland, CA, and the State of Washington; the Northeastern
storm that ravaged the New England area; and agricultural
disasters such as the California freeze, the Red River
Valley, TX, floods, the Kansas drought, the Minnesota/Iowa
excessive rainfall, the Southeastern States drought, and the
Louisiana/Texas freeze.
In addition, the Congress made emergency appropriations in
1991 at the request of the President to meet over
$1,100,000,000 in international commitments and humanitarian
needs such as aid to Kurdish refugees and economic support
payments to the Governments of Turkey and Israel.
Prior to the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, special emergency
bills were enacted between 1980 and 1990 for large domestic
and international disasters such as the Loma Prieta
earthquake, Hurricane Hugo, the Mount St. Helen's volcanic
eruption, African famine relief, and Italian earthquakes.
These needs were all financed in a similar manner to this
bill.
The Committee also wishes to note that while circumstances
justify these expenditures, the Congress has had an excellent
overall record in controlling discretionary spending. In
total, over the first 4 years of the discretionary spending
limits the Congress has appropriated $36,954,000,000 less
than allowed under the statutory caps for discretionary
spending.
Total discretionary appropriations--budget authority compared to budget
caps
Fiscal year:
1991....................................................-$209,000,000
1992...................................................-7,649,000,000
1993..................................................-16,262,000,000
1994..................................................-12,834,000,000
________________
Total...............................................-36,954,000,000
TITLE I--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
Soil Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
1994 appropriation to date.................................$241,965,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................340,500,000
House allowance.............................................340,500,000
Committee recommendation....................................340,500,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends an additional $340,500,000 for the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program through the
``Watershed and flood prevention operations'' account. This
amount is the same as the House allowance and the budget
estimate.
These funds will provide additional assistance to areas
damaged by the Midwest floods, the southern California
earthquake, and other natural disasters to safeguard lives
and property. For the affected Midwestern States, funds would
be used to repair levees and other flood-retarding
structures, as well as to allow additional enrollments into
the Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program from willing
landowners. In California, funds would be used for erosion
control in areas affected by the recent fires.
In addition, bill language provides that not more than
$50,000,000 of this amount shall be made available where the
primary beneficiary is agriculture and agribusiness
regardless of drainage size.
The entire amount requested has been designated by the
President and is herein designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Emergency Conservation Program
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 supplemental estimate..................................$25,000,000
House allowance..............................................25,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................25,000,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Emergency
Conservation Program. This amount is the same as the House
allowance and the budget estimate.
These funds will provide additional cost-share assistance
to eligible producers for the repair of farmland damaged by
the 1993 flooding in the nine affected Midwestern States.
The entire amount requested has been designated by the
President and is herein designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Commodity Credit Corporation
The Committee concurs with House bill language to provide
that funds previously made available for disaster assistance
may be used for orchard and nursery crops affected by the
Midwest floods of 1993 and other natural disasters.
The Committee recommends bill language designating the use
of funds for these purposes an emergency and making the use
of funds for such purposes available only to the extent the
President designates such use an emergency under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The Committee recommends bill language allowing papayas to
be treated like other crops damaged by 1992 disasters, and
specifies that use of funds for this purpose is an emergency
requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCY
Small Business Administration
disaster loans program account
1994 appropriation to date..............................\1\$216,101,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................309,750,000
House allowance.............................................309,750,000
Committee recommendation....................................309,750,000
\1\Of this amount, $140,000,000 was provided as contingency
appropriations.
The Committee recommends an emergency appropriation of
$309,750,000 for the Small Business Administration's [SBA]
``Disaster Loans Program'' account. This is the same as the
level requested by the President and provided in the House
allowance. Of the funds recommended, $254,750,000 provides
credit subsidies for disaster loans and $55,000,000 supports
related administrative and processing expenses. Under current
OMB credit subsidy rates, the appropriation will support an
additional $1,109,000,000 in SBA disaster loans for
businesses and homeowners. In conjunction with existing
contingency appropriations which the administration recently
released, a total of $1,500,000,000 in SBA disaster loans
will be available to assist in the recovery from the Los
Angeles earthquake.
The Committee also has agreed to bill language proposed by
the House which amends section 24 of the Small Business Act
which authorizes the SBA natural resources or Tree Planting
Program. This amendment provides priority to applicants that
have been impacted by major disasters during the previous 3
years.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
The President requested emergency fiscal year 1994
supplemental appropriations in the amount of $1,198,300,000
for the Department of Defense. These funds are requested to
cover urgent, unbudgeted, and unforeseen expenses of the
Department's humanitarian relief and peacekeeping operations
in and around Somalia, Bosnia, Southwest Asia, and Haiti.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,198,300,000
in new budget authority for military personnel, operation and
maintenance, and procurement programs of the Department of
Defense. This amount is the same as that requested by the
President and provided by the House.
These funds will be used to cover only incremental costs
associated with ongoing humanitarian, peacekeeping, and peace
enforcing operations of the Department, in the amounts and
for the purposes listed below:
--Somalia.--$424,100,000 is provided to sustain United
States military operations in and around Somalia through
the planned departure date of March 31, 1994. Funds will
be made available to the Army, Navy, and Air Force for
combat pay, equipment operations and repair, equipment
purchases, and other logistics support.
--Bosnia.--$276,700,000 is recommended to cover the full
fiscal year 1994 costs of supply airdrops, hospital
operations, and other support activities associated with
United States humanitarian efforts in Bosnia. These funds
also will be used to support U.S. actions to enforce the
no-fly zone in this area.
--Southwest Asia.--$449,700,000 is recommended for ongoing
U.S. military peacekeeping activities in Southwest Asia.
Specifically, these funds will be made available to meet
the full fiscal year 1994 combat pay, operations, and
support costs of Operation Provide Comfort (relief
efforts for the Kurdish population living in northern
Iraq) and Operation Southern Watch (efforts to enforce
the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.)
--Haiti.--$47,800,000 is provided to cover unbudgeted
fiscal year 1994 incremental expenses of the Navy arising
from increased ship operations and flying hours by units
assigned to maritime interception operations around
Haiti.
Appropriating funds in the amount requested is necessary to
maintain the well being of our military forces. The expenses
associated with the operations described above were neither
anticipated nor provided for in the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense
Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-139). Thus, the Department
has been forced to redirect funds designated for planned
peacetime training activities, equipment maintenance, and
other programs in order to support these peacekeeping
operations. Without these funds, the ability of our forces to
maintain readiness certainly will be degraded. Moreover, the
Committee concurs with the House's assessment that these
expenses do fully satisfy the criteria used by the Office of
Management and Budget to designate spending provisions as
emergency in nature.
The specific details of the Committee's recommendations are
discussed below.
1994 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends supplemental appropriations
totaling $44,400,000 for military personnel pay and benefits
programs.
Military Personnel, Army
1994 appropriation to date..............................$21,296,177,000
1994 supplemental estimate....................................6,600,000
House allowance...............................................6,600,000
Committee recommendation......................................6,600,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $6,600,000 for
military personnel, Army to cover unanticipated combat pay
and other pay and benefit costs incurred from ongoing
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This is the same as
the amount requested and approved by the House.
Military Personnel, Navy
1994 appropriation to date..............................$18,330,950,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................19,400,000
House allowance..............................................19,400,000
Committee recommendation.....................................19,400,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $19,400,000 for
military personnel, Navy to cover unanticipated combat pay
and other pay and benefit costs incurred from ongoing
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This is the same as
the amount requested and approved by the House.
Military Personnel, Air Force
1994 appropriation to date..............................$15,823,030,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................18,400,000
House allowance..............................................18,400,000
Committee recommendation.....................................18,400,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $18,400,000 for
military personnel, Air Force to cover unanticipated combat
pay and other pay and benefit costs incurred from ongoing
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This is the same as
the amount requested and approved by the House.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Supplemental appropriations totaling $1,106,600,000 are
recommended for the Department's operation and maintenance
[O&M] accounts. These funds will be used to cover
unanticipated expenses of the Department's humanitarian and
peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Somalia, Southwest Asia, and
Haiti. Such expenses are being incurred by the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and special forces and include costs of equipment
operations and repair, transportation and communications
support, supply purchases, subsistence and other logistics
support. A table is provided below which identifies amounts
to be made available to the military services for specific
operations.
FISCAL YEAR 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL O&M APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest
Somalia Bosnia Asia Haiti Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M, Army........................................... 305,000 48,100 67,000 .......... 420,100
O&M, Navy........................................... 22,800 19,800 14,400 47,800 104,800
O&M, Air Force...................................... 33,000 198,700 328,400 .......... 560,100
O&M, Defensewide.................................... 10,100 1,400 10,100 .......... 21,600
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 370,900 268,000 419,900 47,800 1,106,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance, Army
1994 appropriation to date..............................$15,802,057,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................420,100,000
House allowance.............................................420,100,000
Committee recommendation....................................420,100,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $420,100,000 for
operation and maintenance, Army. This is the same as the
amount requested and approved by the House.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
1994 appropriation to date..............................$19,860,309,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................104,800,000
House allowance.............................................104,800,000
Committee recommendation....................................104,800,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $104,800,000 for
operation and maintenance, Navy. This is the same as the
amount requested and approved by the House.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
1994 appropriation to date..............................$19,093,805,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................560,100,000
House allowance.............................................560,100,000
Committee recommendation....................................560,100,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $560,100,000 for
operation and maintenance, Air Force. This is the same as the
amount requested and approved by the House.
Operation and Maintenance, Defensewide
1994appropriationtodate..................................$9,456,801,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................21,600,000
House allowance..............................................21,600,000
Committee recommendation.....................................21,600,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $21,600,000 for
operation and maintenance, Defensewide. This is the same as
the amount requested and approved by the House.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends funding for various procurement
programs in the total amount of $47,300,000. These funds will
be used to replace equipment destroyed in support of
operations and replenish items reserved for wartime.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
1994appropriationtodate..................................$1,320,886,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................20,300,000
House allowance..............................................20,300,000
Committee recommendation.....................................20,300,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $20,300,000 for
aircraft procurement, Army. This is the same as the amount
requested and approved by the House.
Other Procurement, Army
1994appropriationtodate..................................$2,892,766,000
1994 supplemental estimate......................................200,000
House allowance.................................................200,000
Committee recommendation........................................200,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $200,000 for
other procurement, Army. This is the same as the amount
requested and approved by the House.
Other Procurement, Navy
Aegis support equipment.--The fiscal year 1994
appropriation for Aegis support equipment included an
increase of $5,000,000 only for the continued purchases of
Navy standard AN/UYH-16 mass memory storage devices as
proposed by the House and a reduction of $5,000,000 in the
Aegis Support Equipment Program as proposed by the Senate.
The Committee directs the Navy to implement this allocation
of funds.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
AMRAAM missile.--For several years the conferees on the
Department of Defense appropriations bill have specifically
provided authority to procure as many AMRAAM missiles as
possible within the funds appropriated, provided it would be
shown that any additional missiles procured beyond the budget
estimate are needed to meet validated service requirements.
The Senate report on H.R. 3116, the Department of Defense
appropriation bill, 1994 (S. Rept. 103-153) specifically
stated ``The Committee recommends providing $469,329,000 for
the procurement of as many AMRAAM missiles in fiscal year
1994 as these funds will allow''.
It continues to be the intent of the Committee to encourage
missile unit cost savings and to achieve inventory
requirements in the most efficient manner. Because the Senate
language directing the Air Force to buy as many missiles as
appropriated funds would allow was not overturned in the
conference report or the fiscal year 1994 Defense
Appropriations Act, the Committee directs the Department of
Defense to comply with the Senate language provisions.
Other Procurement, Air Force
1994appropriationtodate..................................$7,637,250,000
1994supplementalestimate.....................................26,800,000
House allowance..............................................26,800,000
Committee recommendation.....................................26,800,000
The Committee recommends appropriations of $26,800,000 for
other procurement, Air Force. This is the same as the amount
requested and approved by the House.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Lightweight torpedo development.--The Fiscal Year 1994
Defense Appropriations Act provided $9,000,000 to ascertain
the feasibility of producing hybrid lightweight torpedoes.
Use of the funds was restricted until after the Navy reported
to the Committees on Appropriations on the programmatic
objectives, schedule, technical risks, and annual and total
program costs of the hybrid torpedo development program.
Additional information provided by the Navy supports the use
of $4,000,000 of the funds to perform the studies, analysis,
and risk assessment demonstrations in order to submit the
report to the Committees. The Committee approves the use of
up to $4,000,000 only for these purposes.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Space test program.--No funds were provided in the Fiscal
Year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act for space shuttle-
related and piggyback secondary payload experiments. The Air
Force has submitted additional information demonstrating the
military utility of accomplishing this work. Based on the
revised program plan, the Committee approves the
reallocation, from within existing program funds, of
$3,580,000 for the space shuttle work and $1,967,000 for the
piggyback experiments.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defensewide
Electric vehicles.--The Committee recommends the
reallocation of funds among the following projects:
$3,250,000 for the Los Angeles agile manufacturing project;
and $4,000,000 for the California Environmental Vehicle
Consortium [CEVCO] project.
general provisions
The Committee recommends striking section 302 of the House-
passed bill. Section 301 is retained. Section 303 of the
House-passed bill is retained and renumbered as section 302.
CHAPTER 4
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
1994 appropriation to date..................................$20,000,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................70,000,000
House allowance..............................................70,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................70,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 to
complete repairs to levees damaged in the disastrous floods
of 1993 as requested by the President and passed by the
House. The additional funding is required based on refined
estimates and unforeseen work which the Corps of Engineers
was not able to accurately identify at the time.
The entire amount requested has been designated by the
President as an emergency requirement pursuant to the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction Program
Safety of dams.--The Bureau of Reclamation has informed the
Committee that serious seepage caused by erosion has weakened
Ochoco Dam in Oregon. The Bureau has ordered emergency
repairs to prevent a catastrophic failure that could endanger
the lives and property of over 5,000 downstream residents.
Understanding that the repairs at Ochoco Dam are the highest
priority in the Safety of Dams Program, the Committee has
included a provision in the bill to waive the 60-day waiting
period before construction can begin. The Committee
understands the Bureau will use existing funds to begin this
work.
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommendation includes bill language
permitting the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
target $300,000,000 of existing Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program [LIHEAP] emergency funds among the States.
These funds are intended to help impoverished households cope
with extraordinary heating costs due to recent extreme cold
weather, which has been particularly severe in New England,
Mid-Atlantic, and Midwestern States.
These funds can only be made available if the President
submits a formal budget request to Congress designating the
entire amount of the request as an emergency defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has
notified Congress that the administration intends to utilize
this procedure to make available at least $100,000,000 due to
the recent severe cold weather and has requested bill
language to permit targeting of funds to impacted States. The
House-passed version of this emergency supplemental
appropriations legislation modifies the administration's bill
language request to increase the targeting authority to
$200,000,000. The President currently has authority to
release up to $600,000,000 in emergency LIHEAP funds, through
the nationwide statutory allocation formula.
The Committee notes that the regular LIHEAP appropriation
of $1,437,408,000 available for the current year serves less
than 25 percent of the eligible low-income population. While
the law permits assistance to households below 150 percent of
the poverty level, more than two-thirds of the funds serve
recipients earning less than $8,000, far below the poverty
threshold. Applications have been increasing rapidly,
severely straining existing funds which provide an average
benefit of only $200, a small fraction of heating costs.
The Committee concurs with the House in recommending bill
language to extend availability of the regular fiscal 1994
program funding through September 30, 1994, to cover the
current funding gap between the fiscal 1994 and 1995
appropriations.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
IMPACT AID
1994 appropriation to date.................................$798,208,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................165,000,000
House allowance.............................................165,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................165,000,000
The Committee recommends $165,000,000, the same as the
budget request and House allowance, for impact aid disaster
assistance under section 7 of Public Law 81-874. These funds
will be used for grants to help school districts meet
increased operating costs resulting from the January 1994
California earthquake and to compensate for reduced local
revenue directly related to the disaster.
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
1994appropriationtodate..................................$6,553,566,000
1994supplementalestimate.....................................80,000,000
House allowance..............................................80,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................80,000,000
The Committee recommends $80,000,000, the same as the
budget request and House allowance, for the Pell Grant
Program for increased costs associated with the January 1994
California earthquake. These funds will finance Pell grants
to partially meet additional financial needs of postsecondary
students during academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
In addition, the bill authorizes the Secretary to waive the
statutory requirements for the institutional allocation of
student aid provided under two of the campus-based student
aid programs--work study and Perkins loans. The waiver would
allow the Secretary to reallocate unused fiscal year 1993
appropriations under the two programs to institutions
enrolling students who have been adversely affected by the
earthquake and other disasters, including the Midwest floods
of 1993. Flexible reallocation authority already exists for
the third campus-based program, the Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant Program.
The Committee has also included bill language to extend the
availability of fiscal year 1992 funds that were reallocated
under the three campus-based student aid programs--Federal
work-study, Perkins loans, and Federal supplemental
opportunity grants. These funds will remain available to
institutions for use in award year 1994-95 to assist
individuals who have suffered financial harm as a result of
the Midwest floods of 1993.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
Federal-Aid Highways
(highway trust fund)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 supplemental esti mate..............................$1,665,000,000
House allowance...........................................1,665,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................1,665,000,000
The Committee recommends the full amount requested by the
administration for the Federal Highway Administration's
emergency relief program. Of the funds recommended,
$1,350,000,000 is to address those emergency highway needs
resulting from the southern California earthquake. In
addition to those funds, $315,000,000 is recommended for
highway needs resulting from the Loma Prieta earthquake.
The Committee has included the bill language submitted by
the administration, which allows California to exceed the
annual $100,000,000 emergency relief per State cap, and the
provision which sets the Federal share at 100 percent for
projects' costs on the Federal-aid highway system that are
incurred during the first 180 days from the date of the
earthquake.
For fiscal year 1994, the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, Public Law 102-240, provided a total of
$100,000,000 in contract authority for emergency relief
highway projects.
The Committee has included bill language which would
protect the Northridge earthquake relief effort from any
shortfalls in funding before enactment of the supplemental
appropriations by permitting reimbursement to the State
Department of Transportation for costs incurred before
additional emergency relief funds are provided by the
supplemental appropriations bill. This provision would ensure
uninterrupted repairs of damage to the freeway system.
The Committee has also included technical bill language
which allows funds already provided to the State of Hawaii to
be spent on emergency relief plans for the Island of Kauai,
which suffered the greatest damage from Hurricane Iniki.
Usually, planning funds are generally designated for
metropolitan planning organizations [MPO's]; but Kauai does
not have an MPO.
In the wake of the southern California earthquake, the
Committee is reminded of the significant cost savings
resulting from the seismic retrofitting of highway spans and
bridges. In addition, evidence suggests lives are saved as a
result of this retrofitting. The Secretary is directed to
provide to the Committees on Appropriations a priority
listing of the seismic retrofit needs of bridges and spans
along Interstate 5. The report is to be delivered no later
than June 1, 1994.
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Care
1994appropriationtodate.................................$15,622,452,000
1994supplementalestimate.....................................21,000,000
House allowance..............................................21,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................21,000,000
The Committee has recommended $21,000,000 for the
Department of Veterans Affairs ``Medical care'' account, as
requested. Together with $7,000,000 in unspent disaster funds
provided to the Department in a Fiscal Year 1992 Dire
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 102-
368), there will be $28,000,000 available in the ``Medical
care'' account for expenses related to the Northridge
earthquake.
These funds are needed for patient-related expenses at six
of California's VA facilities, including Sepulveda and west
Los Angeles. The Committee notes there was extensive damage
at the Sepulveda facility, requiring the facility to be
closed and all patients to be moved to other medical
facilities. The funds provided will pay for clean up and
minor repairs, transporting patients, additional patient
workload, contract personnel, and other expenses.
Bill language has been included, as requested, providing
that not to exceed $802,000 is available for transfer to the
``General operating expenses'' account, the ``Guaranty and
indemnity program'' account, and the ``Vocational
rehabilitation loans program'' account. These funds will
provide for additional vocational rehabilitation subsistence
loans, damage assessments for earthquake-damaged homes that
are guaranteed by VA loans, and benefits counselors and
psychologists at FEMA disaster assistance centers.
The Committee has also added language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Departmental Administration
Construction, Major Projects
1994appropriationtodate....................................$369,000,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate.................................45,600,000
House allowance..............................................45,600,000
Committee recommendation.....................................45,600,000
The Committee has provided the administration's request of
$45,600,000 for construction, major projects. These funds
will provide for restoration of numerous buildings, utility
repair, trash and hazardous material disposal, security
needs, damage assessment, and other disaster-related needs at
the Sepulveda and at the west Los Angeles VA medical centers.
Bill language has been included enabling the Department to
transfer such sums as may be necessary to the ``Medical
care'' and ``Construction, minor projects'' accounts, for
these disaster-related needs.
The Committee notes that this appropriation will not
provide for rebuilding the main facility (building No. 3) at
the Sepulveda VA Medical Center, which incurred major
structural damage and may require replacement. The Committee
understands that funds may be made available for this purpose
through the appropriation for unanticipated needs.
The Committee has added language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing
1994appropriationtodate..................................$9,312,900,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate................................225,000,000
House allowance.............................................225,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................225,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,000,000
for the ``Annual contributions for assisted housing''
account. This amount is the same as requested by the
administration on January 26, 1994, and its supplementary
request of February 1, 1994, and is the same as proposed by
the House. Of the amounts provided, $200,000,000 will be
allocated for section 8 housing rental subsidies for low-
income families affected by the southern California
earthquake. This will help provide housing for an estimated
10,000 families for up to 18 months. Most of the assistance
will be used to aid families whose annual earnings are at or
below 50 percent of the median income for the greater Los
Angeles area. An additional $25,000,000 will be allocated for
the modernization of public housing projects damaged in the
earthquake.
Of the amounts provided for rental assistance, $100,000,000
will be used to replenish funds already released for
earthquake relief from the Secretary's headquarters reserve.
An additional $100,000,000 will augment funds already
released.
The Committee has included bill language requested by the
administration and carried in recent disaster supplementals
that waives any statute or regulation in administering these
funds, except those provisions related to nondiscrimination
and fair housing, the environment, or labor standards. This
language will help provide the affected area with greater
flexibility in aiding earthquake victims.
The Committee has also added language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Flexible Subsidy Fund
1994 appropriation to date..................................$35,747,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................100,000,000
House allowance.............................................100,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................100,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the flexible subsidy fund. This amount is the same as
requested by the administration and that proposed by the
House.
These funds will provide money to replace or rehabilitate
federally insured and/or assisted multifamily housing
projects damaged by the January 1994 earthquake in southern
California. The Department's initial estimate indicates that
68 of 151 projects located within the earthquake zone,
roughly 45 percent of federally insured and/or assisted
inventory, were affected by the quake. These dwellings
service approximately 7,500 low- and moderate-income
families. Surveys reveal damage to these projects which
ranges from broken doors and cracked walls to structural
dislocation, serious enough to inhibit their continued use as
housing.
The Committee has included bill language requested by the
administration that waives any statute or regulation in
administering these funds, except those provisions related to
nondiscrimination and fair housing, the environment, or labor
standards. This language will help provide the affected area
with greater flexibility in aiding earthquake victims. The
Committee recognizes that subsequent authorization
legislation may augment the authority provided in this
language, but believes that it is necessary at this time to
expedite the use of these funds to aid the people of southern
California.
The Committee has added language, requested by the
Department in a February 8, 1994 letter to the Committee, to
permit section 8 and section 312 projects to be eligible to
receive assistance from this flexible subsidy appropriation.
The Committee has also added language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--General and Special Risk Program Account
The Committee has included bill language, requested by the
administration, to increase the flexibility of FHA programs
for victims of the southern California earthquake. These
changes in Federal law would apply only in those areas
covered by a Presidential disaster declaration, and only for
the period of time during which the Presidential disaster
declaration exists. These provisions were not recommended by
the House because of concerns about the fact that they are
legislative in nature. The Committee recognizes that
subsequent authorization legislation may augment or alter the
authority provided in this language. It believes, however,
that providing this authority now is necessary to guarantee
that homeowners in southern California have the chance to
utilize FHA initiatives to rebuild their homes. The
Department testified before the Committee on February 3,
1994, that they believed these FHA changes needed to be in
place as soon as possible, but no later than March 1, 1994,
if homeowners in southern California are to be able to use
them to obtain housing lost as a result of the recent
earthquake. To accommodate the urgent need for this
provision, but still provide the flexibility for the
appropriate legislative committees to act on this matter
later in the year, the Committee has included language that
would sunset the Department's authority to utilize these FHA
changes within 18 months after the date of enactment.
The language would include the following changes to current
law:
First, the Secretary would be given the discretion to
increase the maximum mortgage limit for FHA-insured mortgages
on single-family dwellings up to $203,150, the applicable
limit for conforming loans of the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
Such a change is needed to make FHA-insurance programs
accessible to disaster victims since the median price of an
existing house in the Los Angeles area is in excess of
$200,000.
Second, the Secretary would be permitted to provide FHA
insurance on loans that provide up to 100 percent financing
of condominiums in disaster areas. Current law restricts such
financing to single-family dwellings. This change is
necessitated because condominiums are typical in earthquake-
and hurricane-prone areas, and current law provides FHA
insurance on a portion of the amount of the loan for
condominiums.
Third, the Secretary would be given the discretion to
provide rehabilitation loan insurance for multifamily
dwellings under FHA's 203(k) program at an amount up to
$203,150, the applicable limit for conforming loans of the
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation. Section 203(k) assistance may be
used in connection with the purchase or refinance of a
property. Such a change is needed to make FHA-insurance
programs accessible to disaster victims since the median
price of an existing house in the Los Angeles area is in
excess of $200,000.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Grants
(Including Transfer of Funds)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$4,400,000,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate................................500,000,000
House allowance.............................................250,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................500,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000
for community development block grant activities, the same as
the administration request and the House allowance. Of these
funds, $250,000,000 will be disbursed to entitled
communities, and the State of California, for expenses
resulting from immediate and long-term efforts to recover
from the January 1994 southern California earthquake, and
$250,000,000 for activities connected with the 1993 Midwest
floods. Funds will be allocated among grantees in the
effected areas on the basis of damage estimates and recovery
needs once they become available. The additional $250,000,000
for victims of the Midwest floods was requested by the
administration as an emergency on February 8, 1994.
Language has been included that would permit the Secretary
to transfer up to $75,000,000 of these supplemental CDBG
funds to the HOME Program for expenses resulting from the
earthquake. Any such transfer is subject to the normal
reprogramming guidelines. The Committee has added this
additional $25,000,000 in transfers to the HOME Program at
the request of the Department, made in a February 8, 1994,
letter to the Committee. This change is based upon more
accurate estimates of the need for HOME funds in southern
California.
Language has also been included that makes clear that CDBG
funds may only be used for activities not covered by programs
of the Small Business Administration or which are not
eligible for reimbursement from FEMA.
While no final damage and recovery estimates are complete,
the proposed amount is based upon the best available
information to date. For example, in the city of Los Angeles'
assessment of the first 75 percent of affected buildings, it
found 45,319 damaged, and 11,000 homes determined to be
uninhabitable. The final number of uninhabitable dwellings is
expected to reach 15,000. Total damage in housing to the city
of Los Angeles is expected to be at least $1,582,865,000
based upon current estimates.
HUD has accelerated the obligation of regular fiscal year
1994 CDBG and HOME funds available to the areas affected by
the earthquake. These regular funds can be used for disaster
needs. These funds used for disaster-related activities would
be replenished subsequently with supplemental funds.
The Committee has included bill language requested by the
administration and carried in recent disaster supplementals
that waives any statute or regulation in administering these
funds, except those provisions related to nondiscrimination
and fair housing, the environment, or labor standards. This
language will help provide the affected area with greater
flexibility in aiding earthquake victims.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief
1994 appropriation to date.................................$292,000,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate..............................4,709,000,000
House allowance...........................................4,709,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................4,709,000,000
The Committee has provided $4,709,000,000 for FEMA disaster
relief. In addition, the Committee notes that $408,000,000 in
contingency funds have been released by the President, for a
total of $5,117,000,000.
These funds will provide for infrastructure repair,
emergency transportation requirements, individual and family
grants, hazard mitigation, and other disaster-related needs
following the devastation of the Northridge, CA, earthquake
of January 17, 1994. Thousands of homes, schools, businesses,
and other facilities have been damaged or destroyed, and the
situation has been exacerbated by numerous aftershocks.
The approximate breakdown of the disaster relief fund
request, including contingency funds, is as follows:
$1,430,000,000 will provide for the repair of public
buildings; $325,000,000 will provide for the repair of water
systems and other utilities; $315,000,000 will go to
repairing and restoring mass transit; $315,000,000 will
provide for emergency measures such as the costs of police,
fire, and shelter; $200,000,000 will provide for the repair
of local roads; $100,000,000 will provide for debris removal;
$100,000,000 will provide for law enforcement;
$1,339,000,000,000 will provide for human services and
individual assistance; $586,000,000 will provide for hazard
mitigation; $142,000,000 will provide for administration; and
$265,000,000 is available for additional unforeseen needs.
The Committee notes that demand for Federal financial
assistance has far exceeded earlier catastrophic disasters.
Applications for individual and family grants have already
surpassed 295,000, and are expected to grow to 350,000.
Following Hurricane Andrew, an earlier disaster of comparable
proportions, FEMA received approximately 200,000 applications
over a 6-month period. The Committee commends FEMA for the
speed with which it has delivered aid to southern
California's earthquake victims.
The Committee is concerned about the costs of natural
disasters, which have risen steadily over the past several
years. The Committee is particularly concerned about the
magnitude of uninsured losses because many homeowners who
accept the risk of residing in hazard-prone areas have chosen
not to purchase insurance for such hazards, especially floods
and earthquakes. The Committee directs FEMA to provide a
report within 6 months of enactment of this act recommending
options to provide incentives to homeowners to purchase
insurance for such hazards, and to improve the availability
and lower the cost of such insurance.
The Committee has added bill language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
The Committee urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency
not to exercise waivers of sections 13(c) and 3(e) of the
Federal Transit Act in the administration of transit-related
funding in this bill.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
1994 appropriation to date.................................$212,960,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................15,000,000
House allowance..............................................15,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................15,000,000
The Committee has provided $15,000,000 as requested for
emergency management planning and assistance. These funds are
required for a postearthquake investigation.
It is expected that expenditure of these funds by the
Director of FEMA will be in accordance with section 11 of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act, which established a
postearthquake investigations program in the U.S. Geological
Survey. Section 11 provides that the Survey should coordinate
with, and utilize, the Agency, the National Science
Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, as well as other Federal agencies and private
contractors as necessary.
The Committee has added bill language requested by the
administration that designates the entire amount as an
emergency, pursuant to the requirements in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CHAPTER 8
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Funds Appropriated to the President
Unanticipated Needs
1994 appropriation to date...................................$1,000,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................50,000,000
House allowance.............................................500,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................550,000,000
The Committee makes available $550,000,000 as requested by
the President for unanticipated needs arising from the
earthquake in southern California, the Midwest floods, and
other disasters. These funds are available to the President
for transfer to other departments and agencies for disaster-
related repairs and assistance programs. The funds provided
in this account are to give the President the flexibility
required to provide financial support to cover the costs of
disaster assistance programs for which estimates have not
been fully developed. The Committee believes that the funds
made available in this account should not be exclusive to the
California earthquake and should be available for other
disasters including the effects of last year's Midwest flood.
Examples of programs which may be eligible for funds through
this account are: emergency assistance grants to State and
local governments of the Department of Commerce; emergency
repairs to health and social services facilities of the
Department of Health and Human Services; emergency housing
and community development needs of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development; assistance to dislocated workers;
emergency legal services; and funds for the General Services
Administration to establish alternative Federal office space
through telecommuting centers and repair of Federal
buildings. The Committee expects the Office of Management and
Budget to provide quarterly reports on the obligation of
funds from this account.
The Committee recognizes that many historic structures have
been damaged as a result of the Northridge earthquake.
Restoring these structures to their preearthquake condition
is important to restoring the culture and history of the
region. The Committee recommends that a portion of the funds
made available out of the funds appropriated to the President
for unanticipated needs should be allocated to the National
Park Service to evaluate the damage to these historic
structures and to provide necessary repairs.
GENERAL PROVISION
The Committee concurs with the House in rejecting the
requested general provision to provide authority for the
General Services Administration to transfer funds between
Federal buildings fund accounts to meet emergency Federal
building repair requirements. The Committee notes that the
GSA currently has authority in law to transfer funds
available in Federal building fund accounts with prior
Committee approval, therefore, the requested general
provision is unnecessary.
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Extension Service
1994 appropriation to date.................................$434,582,000
1994 supplemental estimate....................................1,400,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation......................................1,400,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends an additional $1,400,000 for the
Extension Service as proposed by the President. These funds
would finance an integrated pest management project. The
funding would support applied research to find alternative
control methods for addressing the severe outbreak of a new
late blight fungus strain affecting potatoes.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
1994appropriationtodate....................................$867,339,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate................................(2,284,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommenda- tion..................................(2,284,000)
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends an additional $2,284,000 for the
Food and Drug Administration, as proposed by the President.
This proposal will adjust the amount of fees appropriated,
pursuant to section 736(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
International Organizations and Conferences
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
1994 appropriation to date.................................$401,607,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................670,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee has not recommended an additional
$670,000,000 for U.N. peacekeeping arrearages owed by the
United States. This supplemental was submitted with the
President's budget on February 7, 1994.
Providing these additional funds without a corresponding
reduction in budget authority and outlays under the Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee's jurisdiction would subject the bill to points
of order under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended. The Committee notes that the administration
considered $1,198,300,000 in Department of Defense
peacekeeping and peace enforcing appropriations to be
emergencies under the Budget Act, while the payment of U.N.
peacekeeping arrearages were required to be offset and did
not qualify for such treatment.
RELATED AGENCY
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Salaries and Expenses
1994 appropriation to date..................................$20,600,000
1994 supplemental estimate......................................875,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.........................................75,000
The Committee has provided an additional $75,000 for
salaries and expenses, as requested, to cover the mandatory
costs to comply with a court order and resolve the
requirements under the court case known as Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President. These funds will be used
to cover the costs of electronic records management
activities of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The Committee has not recommended the $875,000 requested by
the administration for general trade negotiations.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Management
(Including Transfer of Funds)
1994appropriationtodate....................................$484,313,000
1994 supplemental estimate (by transfer)....................(2,100,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation (by transfer)......................(2,100,000)
These funds are recommended, as proposed by the President,
to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to meet its
responsibilities under the Pacific Northwest forest plan. The
funds will be used to promulgate a special rule relating to
timber harvesting on non-Federal lands, permitted under
section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act. The objective of
this rule will be to ease restrictions on timber harvesting,
wherever possible, due to changed management practices on
Federal lands. Activities to be conducted in association with
this rulemaking effort include public hearings, information
outreach, and the preparation of a draft environmental impact
statement.
Construction
1994 appropriation to date..................................$73,565,000
1994 supplemental estimate (transfer out)..................(-4,000,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation (transfer out)....................(-4,000,000)
This supplemental request, reflected in the bill language
contained under the ``Land acquisition'' heading, would
provide a one-time transfer of $4,000,000 from construction
to land acquisition (of funds appropriated in the emergency
flood supplemental (Public Law 103-75)) to permit the
purchase, on a willing-seller basis, of lands affected by the
Midwest floods in lieu of dike or levee reconstruction. A
portion of these funds might be used for easements rather
than outright acquisition of lands.
Land Acquisition
1994 appropriation to date..................................$82,655,000
1994 supplemental estimate (by transfer)....................(4,000,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation (by transfer)......................(4,000,000)
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President, a
one-time transfer of $4,000,000 from construction to land
acquisition for the purchase, on a willing-seller basis, of
lands affected by the Midwest flooding of 1993, to (1) serve
as an alternative to the protection of these lands through
dike or levee reconstruction, or (2) increase floodplain
habitat to offset the effects of less intensive management of
Fish and Wildlife Service lands. The possibilities for
acquisitions or easements as compared to reconstruction were
not known at the time the Midwest flood supplemental (Public
Law 103-75) was passed during the summer of 1993.
National Park Service
Construction
1994 appropriation to date.................................$201,724,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................13,102,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................13,102,000
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President,
$13,102,000, to replenish construction funds transferred in
1993 to fund emergency repair and rehabilitation actions, as
a result of winter storm, flood, and hurricane damage at
various park units nationwide. Funds were transferred out of
the construction account by the Department using the
emergency authorities provided to the Secretary, which also
require that a supplemental be requested as soon as possible
thereafter, to replenish any budget authority transferred.
The Committee has included language, discussed under the
``Land acquisition'' heading, to provide for the transfer of
up to $6,000,000 in funds previously appropriated for project
modifications in the vicinity of Everglades National Park to
the ``Land acquisition'' account to be used for a
nonstructural solution to flood control in the area.
Land Acquisition
1994 appropriation to date..................................$95,250,000
1994 supplemental estimate....................................1,274,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation......................................1,274,000
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President,
$1,274,000 to replenish land acquisition funds transferred in
1993 to fund emergency repair and rehabilitation actions, as
a result of winter storm damage at various park units. Funds
were transferred from this account by the Department using
the emergency authorities provided to the Secretary, which
also require that a supplemental be requested as soon as
possible thereafter, to replenish any budget authority
transferred.
The Committee has modified language proposed by the
President, to allow for the transfer of up to $6,000,000 in
prior-year unobligated funds for the purpose of providing a
grant to the State of Florida, to pursue a nonstructural land
acquisition solution to flood control on lands adjacent to
the Everglades National Park.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Operation of Indian Programs
The Committee has included bill language proposed by the
President to provide that not to exceed $316,111,000 of funds
appropriated in the fiscal year 1994 Interior appropriations
bill (Public Law 103-138) are for school operations costs of
Bureau-funded schools and other education programs, which
shall become available for obligation on July 1, 1994, and
remain available for obligation until September 30, 1995. The
funding for these Indian education programs is provided about
1 year in advance of the actual school year, based on student
enrollment projections developed nearly 2 years in advance.
Thus, actual enrollment could be greater or less than the
estimates used in developing the budget. In the event actual
student enrollments are less than projected for the 1994-95
school year, the inclusion of this language change will allow
for the possible redirection of funds to other bureau
programs which might experience shortfalls during fiscal year
1994. The Committee expects the Bureau and the Department to
follow the normal reprogramming procedures should student
enrollment be lower than projected and any portion of these
funds be proposed for transfer to other program areas. This
requirement applies regardless of whether a shift is proposed
for education or noneducation purposes.
Construction
1994 appropriation to date.................................$166,979,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................12,363,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................12,363,000
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President,
$12,363,000 to replenish BIA construction projects from which
funds were transferred in 1993 using the Secretary's
emergency authorities to respond to emergency construction
and operations associated with flood damage in Arizona and
California and to the oilspill in Bethel, AK. The funds
transferred came from the facilities improvement and repair
program of the Bureau's education construction appropriation.
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to
Indians
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President,
bill language which would amend the fiscal year 1994 Interior
appropriations bill (Public Law 103-138) to permit the Bureau
of Indian Affairs to use a portion of the $3,000,000
appropriated for payments to trust account holders to
reimburse Indian trust fund account holders for losses to
their accounts due to differences between their initial
claims and amounts subsequently included in judgments or
settlement agreements approved by the Department of Justice.
Similar language was provided in fiscal year 1993.
Territorial and International Affairs
Compact of Free Association
1994 appropriation to date..................................$22,102,000
1994 supplemental estimate (transfer out)..................(-1,700,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation (transfer out)....................(-1,700,000)
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President, the
one-time transfer of $1,700,000 in funds unobligated since
their appropriation in 1986. The funds were provided
originally for various Federal services to Palau, including
reimbursement to the Department of Education for higher
education grants. The Department of Education has since begun
providing such grants, without reimbursement, to the U.S.
territories and freely associated States (for the duration of
their compacts), so these funds are no longer needed for this
purpose.
Office of the Secretary
Oilspill Emergency Fund
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 supplemental estimate (transfer out)...................(-$400,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation (transfer out)......................(-400,000)
The Committee recommends, as proposed by the President, the
one-time transfer of $400,000 in excess of needs of the
oilspill emergency program in fiscal year 1994.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Administrative Provisions
The Committee has included bill language, as proposed by
the President, and included by the House in H.R. 3759,
eliminating employment floors in several Department of Energy
programs. These floors were established originally in fiscal
year 1982 and have been modified several times since then.
Absent the statutory floors, the Committee expects the
Department to continue to provide adequate personnel
resources in support of the program funding levels
appropriated for energy conservation, fossil energy, clean
coal technology, and the strategic petroleum reserve.
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER FUNDS
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,899,900,000
1994 supplemental esti mate..................................61,400,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................61,400,000
An additional $61,400,000 in entitlement advances are
needed to finance benefits related to the extension of the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act (Public Law 103-6)
and the ``Federal unemployment benefits and allowance''
general funding appropriation account which finances the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the costs associated
with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
salaries and expenses
1994 appropriation to date.................................$282,018,000
1994 supplemental estimate...................................10,100,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................10,100,000
The Committee has included the supplemental request of
$10,100,000 for the new current population parallel survey.
The Committee is concerned that the Department planned to use
Employment and Training Administration moneys for BLS
activities without prior consultation and notification.
Therefore, the Committee advises that it expects prior
consultation and notification in advance of any similar
action.
Departmental Management
The Committee has deferred, without prejudice, supplemental
requests of $1,750,000 for Department of Labor
responsibilities under the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Of this amount, $1,000,000 is being requested for
U.S. contributions to the International Secretariat of the
Commission on Labor Cooperation, and $750,000 for the U.S.
National Administrative Office, the domestic agency
responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in the Labor
supplement to NAFTA.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
Program Management
The Committee has deferred, without prejudice, action on
the administration's $15,000,000 supplemental request to
establish the Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank, which
was authorized by the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act
of 1993.
The Committee encourages the administration, however, to
consider transmitting a reprogramming request to finance this
initiative within existing resources.
The administration has proposed offset savings of
$2,250,000 in the Department of Labor, and $37,500,000 in the
Department of Health and Human Services. The Committee has
addressed these proposals in title III of the bill.
CHAPTER 5
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Salaries, Officers, and Employees
Office of the Secretary
1994 appropriation to date..................................$11,715,000
1994 supplemental estimate......................................450,000
House allowance...................................................(\1\)
Committee recommendation........................................450,000
\1\Not considered.
These funds are necessary to provide for the compensation
and related costs of the Office of Senate Legal Counsel,
Employee/Management Relations. This office was established in
May 1993 at the direction of the joint Senate leadership to
represent, advise, and assist Senate employing offices in
employment matters. The Office of the Secretary absorbed the
fiscal 1993 costs of this office but, because no estimate for
the office was included in the fiscal 1994 budget, no funds
were provided in the fiscal 1994 appropriation act (Public
Law 103-69).
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
secretary of the senate
1994 appropriation to date...................................$1,366,500
1994 supplemental estimate......................................600,000
House allowance...................................................(\1\)
Committee recommendation........................................600,000
\1\Not considered.
These funds are necessary to provide for contract services
including the cost of outside counsel and other related
expertise for the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Employee/
Management Relations.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
operating expenses
The Committee does not concur in the President's request to
rescind excess funds appropriated under Public Law 102-368
for costs arising from the consequences of Hurricane Andrew
and Hurricane Iniki. Instead, the Committee proposes to make
these funds available for uncompensated Coast Guard operating
and acquisition costs arising from the consequences of the
Midwest floods. Specifically, the Coast Guard has been
required to lease temporary space for the relocation of Base
St. Louis and Group Upper Mississippi River. In addition, the
Coast Guard is now required to construct a new facility to
jointly house these two units. These construction costs were
not provided under Public Law 103-75, the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill for Midwest floods. As such,
the Committee has included bill language extending the
availability of funds provided for the Midwest floods for
these purposes, as well as making excess funds from
Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki available for these purposes.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
Consistent with the Committee's recommendation regarding
operating expenses cited above, the Committee does not concur
in the President's proposal to rescind excess funds initially
appropriated for the consequences of Hurricanes Andrew and
Iniki, and instead has made these funds available for the
purpose of uncompensated costs arising from the Midwest
floods.
Federal Railroad Administration
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
(supplemental appropriations)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 supplemental estimate..................................$10,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................10,000,000
The Committee has provided a supplemental appropriation of
$10,000,000 for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment
project, as requested by the Administration. The current
Pennsylvania Station in New York City, is the single most
heavily used intermodal transportation facility in the United
States. Roughly 500,000 people use the station each day in
the process of boarding and disembarking Amtrak trains and
utilizing local transit service (including service provided
by two of the Nation's largest commuter railroads). The
President's budget request for fiscal year 1995 envisions a
$100,000,000 total Federal investment toward an ambitious
project (currently budgeted at $315,000,000) to relocate the
central Amtrak station to the James A. Farley Post Office in
New York City. The U.S. Postal Services envisions vacating
the eastern portion of the Farley Building by the end of
1994. The administration expects that the cost of the
redevelopment project over and above the $100,000,000 Federal
investment will be provided by the city and State of New
York, as well as private investment.
The Committee has provided the $10,000,000 requested for
fiscal year 1994, which will be used for schematic design
work, asbestos abatement planning, and the preparation of a
preliminary environmental impact statement, as well as
structural remediation of the existing Pennsylvania Station
and the Farley Building. The Committee is concerned, however,
that several questions need to be addressed before
construction commences on this project. As such, the
Committee has included a provision in the bill prohibiting
funds provided for fiscal year 1994 to be used for
construction until the Secretary of Transportation has
certified in writing to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees that these questions have been satisfactorily
addressed. Specifically, these questions include: the
financing of safety deficiencies, as well as code compliance
deficiencies, including electrical, ventilation, and asbestos
abatement problems at the existing station; and the financing
of police, utilities, maintenance and lease costs at the
current station, once Amtrak has relocated to the Farley
Building; as well as the financing of significantly expanded
operating costs to the commuter railroads currently utilizing
Pennsylvania Station, once Amtrak vacates the building. The
Committee expects the Secretary to work with all affected
parties to seek a satisfactory agreement on these and other
issues, and report on such agreement to the Committee so it
can consider funding for project construction in fiscal year
1995.
Trust Fund Share of Next Generation Rail Technology Development
(supplemental appropriations)
(highway trust fund)
(limitation on obligations)
1994 appropriation to date.................................($3,500,000)
1994 supplemental estimate..................................(4,452,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................(4,452,000)
The Committee has provided a supplemental appropriation of
$4,452,000 for the trust fund share of next generation rail
technology development, as requested by the President. This
supplemental appropriation is made necessary due to the
Federal Railroad Administration inadvertently allowing funds
provided in fiscal year 1993 for this activity to lapse.
Funds will be made available as contracts to projects already
identified in 1993 by the Federal Railroad Administration.
CHAPTER 7
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Administration
Salaries and Expenses
(Including Transfer of Funds)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$24,850,000
1994 supplemental estimate....................................1,400,000
(By transfer)...........................................(6,000,000)
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation......................................1,030,000
(By transfer)...........................................(6,000,000)
The Committee has provided an additional $7,030,000 for
salaries and expenses to cover the costs of complying with
and resolving the requirements resulting from Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President. This amount is $370,000
less than requested and $7,030,000 above the House allowance.
These funds will be used to cover the costs of electronic
records management activities of the Office of
Administration. Of the amount provided, $6,000,000 shall be
derived by transfer from Department of Defense, ``Research,
development, test and evaluation, Air Force'' account.
National Security Council
Salaries and Expenses
1994 appropriation to date...................................$6,648,000
1994 supplemental estimate....................................5,650,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation......................................5,320,000
The Committee has provided an additional $5,320,000 for
salaries and expenses to cover the costs of complying with
and resolving the requirements resulting from Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President. This amount is $330,000
below the request and $5,320,000 above the House allowance.
These funds will be used to cover the costs of electronic
records management activities of the National Security
Council.
CHAPTER 8
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and Pensions
1994 appropriation to date..............................$16,828,446,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate................................698,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................698,000,000
The Committee has provided $698,000,000 for additional
compensation and pension costs. The additional costs in this
program are attributed to a number of unanticipated events.
First, there has been an increase in disability compensation
caseload, which will be 19,374 greater than originally
estimated, increasing cost by $101,900,000. The additional
caseload is attributed to the military downsizing as well as
the recent decision to provide compensation to veterans who
developed certain diseases following herbicide exposure. In
addition, average payments to veterans have increased by
$329,100,000 over the original estimate owing to higher
average degree of disability than previously anticipated. And
finally, a 2.6-percent cost-of-living adjustment, which
became effective December 1, 1993, will cost $267,000,000.
Readjustment Benefits
1994 appropriation to date.................................$947,400,000
1994 supplemental estimate..................................103,200,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................103,200,000
The Committee has provided $103,200,000 for readjustment
benefits. These funds are necessary to fund increased average
benefit payments for chapter 30 basic benefits and vocational
rehabilitation training, chapter 31. In addition, there has
been an increase of 4,774 trainees above the number
originally estimated.
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
(By transfer)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$68,500,000
1994 supplemental estimate.............................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation...............................................
(By transfer)...........................................(3,500,000)
The Committee has provided a transfer of $3,500,000 from
the ``Medical care'' account to the ``Medical administration
and miscellaneous operating expenses'' account in order to
prevent a reduction-in-force or furloughs within the Veterans
Health Administration central policy and management office
operations.
The Committee notes that while headquarters quality
assurance functions were transferred from the ``Medical
care'' account to the MAMOE account last year, the fiscal
year 1994 budget did not transfer the required resources,
owing to budget constraints. In addition, the Committee notes
that payroll costs have been significantly higher than
estimated. Therefore, the Committee believes the transfer of
funds is warranted.
The Committee notes its concern however, that despite the
MAMOE shortfall, the Veterans Health Administration recently
awarded a $500,000 contract, which was not included in the
fiscal year 1994 budget. This contract is providing support
to the Department in its efforts to plan for health care
reform. While the Committee supports this goal, it does not
believe the Department made a prudent decision to award the
contract prior to relief being provided to this account. VHA
is directed to manage its resources more judiciously in the
future.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing
The Committee has not included language proposed by the
administration that would legislate certain cost-saving
reforms in the subsidies paid to preserve federally
subsidized housing developments. This proposal is legislative
in nature and the Committee expects any action on it to be
addressed by the appropriate legislative committees.
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account
(limitation on guaranteed loans)
1994 appropriation to date..............................$64,564,000,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate.............................20,000,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.................................20,000,000,000
The Committee recommends increasing the guaranteed loan
limitation for the FHA mutual mortgage insurance fund [MMIF]
by $20,000,000,000 as proposed by the Administration. This is
necessary to satisfy expected demand for guaranteed loans
which have resulted from current homeowners and new
homebuyers seeking to take advantage of the continued low
interest rate environment. Higher loan levels would generate
increased collection of fees to help increase the MMI fund's
capital reserve. No subsidy appropriation is required because
the program has a negative subsidy rate under the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990.
FHA--General and Special Risk Program Account
(limitation on guaranteed loans)
1994 appropriation to date..............................$13,436,205,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate..............................2,000,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation..................................2,000,000,000
The Committee recommends increasing the guaranteed loan
limitation for the FHA general and special risk insurance
fund by $2,000,000,000 as proposed by the administration.
This is necessary to satisfy greater demand for single-family
condominium mortgage insurance caused largely by the surge in
mortgage refinancing. This increase would generate receipts
for the insurance fund by underwriting mortgages low in risk
relative to their premiums. No subsidy appropriation is
required because the program has a negative subsidy rate
under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Administrative Provision
The Committee has included an administrative provision that
is technical in nature. It permits the use of funds
previously appropriated as a special purpose grant to provide
assistance for two sugarcane mills in Hawaii to be used to
aid community-based and employee-support organizations in the
same community.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Executive Office of the President
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
1994 appropriation to date.....................................$375,000
1994 supplemental estimate......................................425,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee has not recommended an additional
appropriation for the Council on Environmental Quality and
Office of Environmental Quality. The administration's request
would provide for additional staffing for the office.
The Committee has not recommended additional funds for CEQ
because no justification has been provided to support the
additional staffing. In addition, no offset was proposed by
the administration to fund this additional appropriation.
The Committee notes that no funds were requested in the
original fiscal year 1994 budget, based on the
administration's decision to terminate this office. Despite
the lack of any official request from the administration, the
conferees on the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill
provided $375,000. Funds were provided in order to provide a
minimal staffing level at CEQ for compliance oversight for
the National Environmental Policy Act. The Committee
understands that authorization legislation to address future
NEPA compliance oversight is pending
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The Committee has included language requested by the
administration and recommended by the House that deletes a
provision in the regular fiscal year 1994 VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act that requires the
Office of Science and Technology Policy to reimburse other
agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel costs of
individuals detailed to it.
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Funds
In the fiscal year 1994 appropriation bill, the Committee
provided bill language providing up to $500,000,000 for waste
water treatment grants to areas with special needs, provided
that an authorization be enacted by May 31, 1994, when these
funds were to become available. The Committee has included
bill language, as requested by the administration, extending
this date to September 30, 1994, in order to provide
additional time to enact the requisite authorization
legislation.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Research and Development
The Committee has included two provisions requested by the
administration to expedite the restructured space station
program.
The first lifts the specific statutory limitation on funds
made available for the space station program included in
Public Law 103-124. This will permit NASA to cover any space
station termination costs from within all NASA research and
development funds in the event that the program is canceled
in fiscal year 1994 at a point in the year at which time
there is insufficient funds remaining from the $1,946,000,000
already appropriated for the space station to cover necessary
termination expenses. This step is necessary for the agency
to proceed with new contractual arrangements with the new
space station prime contractor. In providing NASA with this
statutory flexibility, however, the Committee wishes to make
clear that the cap contained in House Report 103-273 for
space station program activities, other than potential
termination costs, for fiscal year 1994 of $1,946,000,000
remains in place. No amounts above that level are to be spent
on the space stations activities unless approved through the
normal reprogramming process by the Committees on
Appropriations.
The second provision, which has been transmitted both on
November 1, 1993, and February 7, 1994, provides NASA with
greater flexibility to proceed to implement the United
States-Russia agreement on space cooperation signed by the
Vice President and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin that
was signed September 2, 1993. The language permits NASA to
spend up to $117,200,000 on cooperative activities between
the two countries. In approving increasing the amount
available for these activities, the Committee expects a
detailed description of all activities in connection with
this approval by February 15, 1994, including all specific
outyear costs associated with these activities.
Research and Program Management
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,635,508,000
1994 supplemental esti- mate.................................60,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................60,000,000
The Committee has included $60,000,000 in additional funds
for research and program management activities as requested
by the administration. No formal request was made before
House action on H.R. 3579 or H.R. 3511. These funds are to be
allocated as follows: $46,000,000 to fund the locality pay
adjustment for civil service employees that was effective in
January 1994; and $14,000,000 to fund personnel and
compensation benefits required to meet the costs of a higher
than anticipated work force. Without these funds, NASA
estimates an across-the-board furlough of 10 days for all
NASA employees.
National Service Initiative
Corporation for National and Community Service
The Committee has included bill language consistent with an
agreement between it and the Corporation for National and
Community Service to provide up to $3,000,000 in fiscal year
1994 to initiate a loan forgiveness demonstration program
authorized under section 428 of the Higher Education Act of
1965. The offset for this activity may be taken at the
Corporation's discretion, subject to the normal reprogramming
guidelines.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--TITLE II
The Committee has inserted a general provision authorizing
the Architect of the Capitol to transfer from the
appropriation account ``Senate Office Buildings'', to the
Senate appropriation account ``Settlements and awards
reserve'', funds necessary to pay for agreements or awards to
specific employees of the Architect, resulting from the
Governments Employees Rights Act of 1991.
The Committee has included bill language urging the
creation of a bipartisan task force on funding disaster
relief. This task force would be charged with developing
options and recommendations with regard to prospective
mechanisms for financing the provision of disaster assistance
and other emergencies in the future.
At present, discretionary funding for disaster assistance
and other emergency requirements is governed by the
provisions of section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. That
provision reads as follows:
If, for fiscal years 1991-95, appropriations for
discretionary accounts are enacted that the President
designates as emergency requirements and that the Congress so
designates in statute, the adjustment shall be the total of
such appropriations in discretionary accounts designated as
emergency requirements and the outlays flowing in all years
from such appropriations.
The effect of this provision is to exempt Presidentially
determined emergency spending from caps on discretionary
spending. It should be noted that a Presidential designation
is the sine qua non for such exemptions. The criteria for
defining emergencies for purposes of this provision were
specified by the Office of Management and Budget shortly
after the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act during
Director Richard Darman's tenure. Under this policy, to
qualify for designation a given appropriation must be
necessary (essential or vital, not merely useful or
beneficial) to meet requirements that are sudden (quickly
coming into being, not building up over time), urgent
(pressing and compelling, requiring immediate attention),
unforseen (not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming
need), and not permanent (temporary in duration).
Since fiscal year 1988, the Congress has enacted six major
disaster relief supplemental appropriation bills that have
provided $17,012,000,000 in budget authority for Federal
domestic disaster assistance. H.J. Res. 407, Public Law 101-
100, which was passed by the Senate on September 28, 1989, by
a vote of 100-0, contained $2,827,000,000 for the victims of
Hurricane Hugo in North and South Carolina, the Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico.
H.J. Res 423, Public Law 101-130, which was passed by the
Senate on October 25, 1989, by a vote of 97-1, contained
$2,682,000,000 for victims of the Loma Prieta earthquake in
northern California.
H.J. Res 157, Public Law 102-229, which was passed by the
Senate on November 27, 1989, by voice vote, contained
$943,000,000 for costs associated with Hurricane Bob.
H.R. 5132, Public Law 102-302, which was passed by the
Senate on May 21, 1992, by a vote of 61-36, contained
$995,000,000 for victims of the Los Angeles riots, and floods
in Chicago which resulted from the collapse of that city's
main water tunnel.
H.R. 5620, Public Law 102-368, which was passed by the
Senate on September 15, 1992, by a vote of 84-10, contained
$4,424,000,000 for the victims of Hurricanes Andrew and
Iniki, in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii, as well as those of
Typhoon Omar on the Territory of Guam.
H.R. 2667, Public Law 103-75, which was passed by the
Senate on August 4, 1993, by voice vote, contained
$5,141,000,000 for the victims of last summer's Midwest
floods.
Clearly the burgeoning costs of this emergency assistance
is in increasing tension with the tightening constraints on
discretionary spending under the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990 and the President's deficit reduction program as
incorporated in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993. The resolution of this problem, however, must be sought
in prospective systematic reforms based upon a thorough
analysis of all the issues involved. It is not to be found in
ill-considered ad hoc reductions in other important programs.
The task force called for in the Committee's language will
provide the institutional flexibility needed to conduct the
kind of comprehensive review that is required for the
development of rational policy in reconciling fiscal
constraint with the imperatives of dealing with unanticipated
domestic disasters and other emergencies.
The Committee has included a general provision in the bill
which relates to the establishment of an Office of the Under
Secretary for Enforcement within the Department of the
Treasury. Section 105 of Public Law 103-123 required the
Secretary of the Treasury to establish an Office of the Under
Secretary for Enforcement within the Department of the
Treasury by no later than February 15, 1994. The Committee is
advised that the Secretary plans to comply with this
provision and the Committee applauds that decision. The
general provision in this bill would make conforming changes
to title 31 of the United States Code to permit the President
to nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate, a
third Under Secretary of the Treasury. The provision further
amends 5 U.S.C. section 5314 to provide that the new Under
Secretary is paid at level III of the Executive Schedule, the
same rate of pay as that of Treasury's existing Under
Secretaries.
TITLE III--RESCINDING CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 1
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Economic Research Service
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$55,219,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-4,000,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $4,000,000 for the
Economic Research Service which takes into consideration the
original reduction proposed in the President's 1994 budget.
No rescission was proposed by the President.
Agricultural Research Service
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$692,469,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-16,233,000
House allowance..............................................-1,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no rescission for the Agricultural
Research Service. The President recommended a rescission of
$16,233,000.
buildings and facilities
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$32,743,000
1994 rescission request......................................-8,460,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no rescission for buildings and
facilities of the Agricultural Research Service. The
President recommended a rescission of $8,460,000.
Cooperative State Research Service
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$453,736,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-30,002,000
House allowance.............................................-14,279,000
Committee recommendation....................................-12,463,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $12,463,000 for
the Cooperative State Research Service. This amount is
$17,539,000 less than the President's request (R94-6). Of the
amount rescinded, $4,375,000 is a reduction to special
research grants, $6,729,000 is a reduction to competitive
research grants, and $1,359,000 is a reduction to grants
under Federal administration. Each special research grant,
each division within the Competitive Research Grants Program,
and each category under Federal administration, as specified
in House Report 103-212 is to be reduced by the same
proportionate amount, that is, 6 percent.
buildings and facilities
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$56,874,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-34,000,000
House allowance..............................................-2,897,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-2,897,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,897,000 for
buildings and facilities of the Cooperative State Research
Service, $31,103,000 less than the amount proposed by the
President (R94-7). A 6-percent reduction is recommended for
all facilities funded by the Fiscal Year 1994 Agriculture
Appropriations Act with the exception of those facilities
slated for completion as specified by House Report 103-212.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
salaries and expenses
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$730,842,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,167,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-12,167,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $12,167,000, the
same as the amount proposed by the President, for salaries
and expenses of the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (R94-8).
Agricultural Marketing Service
marketing services
1994 appropriation to date..................................$61,614,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance................................................-100,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no rescission in this account.
Soil Conservation Service
conservation operations
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$591,049,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,167,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-12,167,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $12,167,000, the
same as the amount proposed by the President, for
conservation operations of the Soil Conservation Service
(R94-9).
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$241,965,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-21,158,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends the rescission of $21,158,000 of
funds available for watershed and flood prevention. No
rescission was proposed by the President and the House made
no recommendation.
Farmers Home Administration
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,114,729,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-15,654,000
House allowance.............................................-35,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-15,654,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $15,654,000 in
rural housing loan subsidies, the same as the rescission
request. Of this amount, $1,515,000 is for section 502 low-
income housing loans, $12,443,000 is for section 515 rental
housing loans, $1,204,000 is for section 504 housing repair
loans, and $483,000 is for section 514 farm labor housing
loans. This rescission reflects the fact that the subsidy
budget authority appropriated for fiscal year 1994 is in
excess of amounts necessary to fund estimated loan levels
included in the appropriations act due to the reestimate of
subsidy rates for the first quarter of fiscal year 1994.
According to the President, even after this rescission, total
rural housing loan obligations should be greater than those
estimated in the 1994 appropriations act. The Committee notes
that loan levels specified in the appropriations act,
pursuant to section 721 of that act, are considered
estimates, not limitations. The Committee expects the maximum
amount of loans to be obligated in all loan accounts within
the confines of the subsidy authority.
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$473,589,000
1994 rescission request......................................-5,094,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-5,094,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends the rescission of $5,094,000 in
loan subsidies for credit sales of acquired property through
the ``Agricultural credit insurance fund program'' account.
This rescission reflects the fact that the subsidy budget
authority appropriated for 1994 is in excess of amounts
necessary to fund estimated loan levels included in the
appropriations act due to the reestimate of subsidy rates for
the first quarter of 1994. According to the President, even
after this rescission, total farm loan obligations should be
greater than those estimated in the 1994 appropriations act.
However, credit sales of acquired property would be decreased
by $31,000,000 resulting in a program level of $92,783,000,
which would still exceed the expected program level of
$80,000,000.
rural housing voucher program
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$25,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-25,000,000
committee recommendations
Due to budgetary constraints and the need to make further
budget cuts at this time, the Committee recommends that the
total amount provided for the Rural Housing Voucher Program
be rescinded and that this new program not be started this
fiscal year.
rural development loan fund program account
(rescission)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Subsidy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 appropriation to date.............. $100,000,000 $56,000,000
1994 rescission request................. .............. ..............
House allowance......................... -35,714,000 -20,000,000
Committee recommendation................ .............. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends no rescission for this account.
rural water and waste disposal grants
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$500,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance.............................................-25,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no rescission for this account.
salaries and expenses
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$35,552,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,167,000
House allowance.............................................-12,167,000
Committee recommendation....................................-12,167,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $12,167,000, the
same as the amount proposed by the President, for salaries
and expenses of the Farmers Home Administration (R94-10).
Rural Electrification Administration
rural electrification and telephone loans program account
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$112,398,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,133,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-6,610,000
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,222,000 in
subsidy authority for the rural telephone 5 percent direct
loans. This rescission will reduce the loan level by
approximately $25,000,000. The President requested a
rescission of $6,445,000 for a corresponding reduction of
$50,000,000 in loan authority (R94-11). The Committee does
not concur with the President's request to rescind an
additional $2,300,000 for direct telephone loans. In
addition, the Committee recommends the rescission of
$3,388,000 for direct electric loans as proposed by the
President. This rescission reflects the fact that the subsidy
budget authority appropriated for 1994 is in excess of
amounts necessary to fund estimated loan levels included in
the appropriations act due to the reestimate of subsidy rates
for the first quarter of 1994. According to the President,
even after this rescission, total direct electric loan
obligations should be greater than those estimated in the
1994 appropriations act.
Food and Nutrition Service
commodity supplemental food program
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$104,500,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,600,000
House allowance.............................................-12,600,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-6,100,000
committee recommendations
For the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Committee recommends a rescission of $6,100,000, $6,500,000
below the amount proposed by the President (R94-12). In the
past, the Committee has directed that unused funds be used to
expand elderly caseloads and approve applications for
additional CSFP sites. Priority should be given to projects
that make best use of available funds. The Department has
received requests to expand caseloads as well as new site
requests for the women and children as well as the elderly
programs. However, the Committee is disappointed that the
Department has not granted expansions to the full extent
possible. Therefore, a lower rescission is provided to meet
current needs and to expand the program as directed.
food donations program for selected groups
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$218,641,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance..............................................-6,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-5,200,000
committee recommendations
For the food donations programs, the Committee recommends a
rescission of $5,200,000 for the food distribution program on
Indian reservations. These funds were carried over into
fiscal year 1994 and are not needed to maintain the current
program level.
the emergency food assistance program
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$120,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-30,000,000
committee recommendations
For the Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP], the
Committee recommends a rescission of $30,000,000. Of this
amount, $10,000,000 is a reduction to storage and intrastate
distribution expenses and $20,000,000 is a reduction to the
cost of commodity purchases.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program was established in
1983 as the temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program both
to reduce our surplus commodities held in CCC and feed low-
income people. Some $50,000,000 was appropriated annually
from 1983 to 1988 to cover States' costs of storage and
distribution of donated commodities. The program was
successful and our surplus commodities were reduced. The
Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 provided for the continuation
of the program and mandated that USDA purchase commodities
for the program.
The Committee has a long history of providing assistance to
low-income individuals through a variety of programs, and it
continues to do so. The difficult fiscal constraints faced by
this Committee and the country have forced us to reevaluate
programs and shift funding to those that provide the greatest
benefit to the most needy and are more cost effective. The
Committee believes the increased funding in Public Law 103-
111 for fiscal year 1994 for the following programs better
targets the nutritional needs of these individuals.
Congress increased funding for commodity purchases for soup
kitchens. Commodities in this program are distributed to
established feeding operations and are used to provide hot
meals to needy homeless and low-income persons. In cases
where the State's allocation of commodities cannot be used by
these organizations, the commodities are made available to
food banks for distribution.
Congress also increased funding for the Elderly Feeding
Program. This program prepares meals which are served in
senior citizen centers or delivered to the home-bound
elderly. These meals focus on nutrition and the promotion of
better health, and targets a growing low-income population.
Funding was also increased for the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program [CSFP]. This program provides a monthly food
package to certified low-income participants. The commodities
in the package are specific to the health and nutritional
requirements of the participant. Like the WIC Program, CSFP
also has a nutrition education component.
Finally, Congress increased funding for the special
supplemental food program for women, infants, and children
[WIC]. It received the largest single increase in Public Law
103-111 and is considered the highest priority feeding
program.
Public Law 480
Title I Program Account
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$349,425,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-35,400,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-35,400,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends the rescission of $35,400,000 in
subsidy costs for title I of Public Law 480 as proposed by
the President. Under this title, USDA provides concession
loans (30 year terms, 7 year grace, 2 to 3 percent interest)
to developing countries that have agricultural market
development potential. The proposal would reduce a portion of
the subsidy costs available to support title I loans.
Grant Account--(Title I Ocean Freight Differential, Title II and Title
III)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,147,580,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-49,600,000
House allowance.............................................-20,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-49,600,000
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends the rescission of $49,600,000 in
the Public Law 480 grant account, as proposed by the
President. Of this amount $4,600,000 is for ocean freight
differential under title I and $45,000,000 is for title III
grants.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research and Facilities
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,694,753,000
1994 rescission request......................................-6,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not recommend rescission of $6,000,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
operating account as proposed by the administration. The
Committee recommends that such savings be more appropriately
applied to other Commerce accounts.
Construction
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$109,703,000
1994 rescission request......................................-4,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not recommend rescinding $4,000,000 from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
``Construction'' appropriation account as proposed by the
administration. Environmental compliance, facility
construction and renovation, and real property maintenance
requirements for the agency are far in excess of current
appropriation levels, and a rescission of existing funds
makes little sense.
International Trade Administration
Operations and Administration
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$248,590,000
1994 rescission request......................................-2,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-2,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,000,000 from
the ITA ``Operations and administration'' account, the same
as the President's rescission request (R94-15). The Committee
recommends that these funds be rescinded from prior year
carryover funds which ITA had intended to use for computer
software, trade initiatives, and trade policy information
studies.
Export Administration
Operations and Maintenance
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$34,747,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,000,000 from
the Export Administration's ``Operations and maintenance''
account. The administration in ``A Vision of Change for
America'' noted that the Export Administration's workload has
declined and that the agency's budget should be reduced. Both
the House and Senate accordingly approved the President's
budget request and policy change. However, the Committee has
learned that the Export Administration carried over
$3,500,000 in funds from fiscal year 1993 which nullifies the
programmatic reduction and policy change proposed and
highlighted by the administration. Accordingly, the Committee
recommends a rescission of $3,000,000.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority Business Development
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$42,100,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.......................................-500,000
Public Law 103-121 included $500,000 for a grant to the
Catawba Indian Tribe in South Carolina for business and
economic development and planning. The Committee recommends
rescission of these funds.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Information Infrastructure Grants
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$26,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-4,254,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $4,254,000 from
NTIA's Information Infrastructure Grant Program. This
appropriation account supports an entirely new administration
program which was recommended for funding of $31,000,000 in
the Senate version of the fiscal year 1994 Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill. In recognition of the administration's desire to reduce
appropriations as evidenced by transmittal of rescissions,
the Committee believes that the funding level originally
proposed in the House version of the fiscal year 1994 bill,
$21,746,000, represents a sufficient level of funding for
this new program.
Economic Development Administration
Economic Development Revolving Fund
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation...................................-$20,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $20,000,000 from
balances in the EDA economic development revolving fund.
These funds are excess to projected liabilities in the fund.
THE JUDICIARY
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Defender Services
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$280,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,000,000 from
defender services, the same amount recommended by the House
of Representatives in H.R. 3400. The projected carryover of
unobligated funds in this account from fiscal year 1993
assumed in the conference agreement on the Fiscal Year 1994
Appropriations Act was $18,000,000. The Committee understands
the actual carryover is $21,000,000 and recommends a
rescission of these unanticipated carryover balances.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,704,589,000
1994 rescission request........................................-600,000
Committee recommendation.......................................-600,000
As proposed by the President (R94-28), the Committee
recommends the rescission of $600,000 from diplomatic and
consular programs. This amount reflects the estimated savings
to be achieved through the implementation of the Vice
President's ``National Performance Review'' proposal to
reduce the number of overseas missions with U.S. Marine Corps
Guard detachments.
BUYING POWER MAINTENANCE
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 rescission request.....................................-$8,800,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-8,800,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,800,000 from
balances in the Department of State buying power maintenance
fund as proposed by the President (R94-51). The recovery of
the U.S. dollar overseas in selected countries reduces fiscal
year 1994 demands on the buying power maintenance fund. The
House of Representatives recommended a rescission of
$8,800,000 in H.R. 3400.
RELATED AGENCIES
Board for International Broadcasting
Israel Relay Station
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 rescission request.....................................-$1,700,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-1,700,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,700,000 as
proposed by the President (R94-65). This rescission is from
remaining prior year appropriations which were provided for
construction of a shortwave radio facility in Israel. This
project has been canceled and $180,000,000 was rescinded
during fiscal year 1993. The House of Representatives also
proposed rescinding this additional $1,700,000 in H.R. 3400.
Small Business Administration
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$258,900,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-13,100,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-4,100,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $4,100,000,
instead of $13,100,000 as proposed by the President (R94-34).
The House and Senate conferees provided $8,000,000 above
either the House or Senate versions of H.R. 2519 for staffing
and general support of the Small Business Administration
during fiscal year 1994. Further, in fiscal year 1993, the
SBA identified and reprogrammed $4,000,000 in excess funds
for relocation and realignment of agency functions. The
Committee-recommended rescission eliminates one-half of the
additional funds provided to the Administrator of SBA for
general support and agency operations.
State Justice Institute
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$13,550,000
1994 rescission request......................................-6,775,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,000,000 from
the State Justice Institute. The rescission would reduce
Federal funding of the Institute but not terminate the
program in the second half of 1994 as proposed by the
President (R94-35).
Among its activities, the Institute funds grants to study
criminal justice programs, supports demonstration projects,
sponsors conferences, and provides technical assistance.
While these activities serve a useful purpose and benefit the
State criminal justice system, the Committee notes that the
need to reduce the deficit requires the reduction of Federal
funding for some programs. Additionally, the Committee notes
that other Federal grant programs, including those of the
Department of Justice, can be used to support State criminal
justice systems.
U.S. Information Agency
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$730,000,000
1994 rescission request......................................-3,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,000,000
As proposed by the President (R94-36), the Committee
recommends the rescission of $3,000,000 from the U.S.
Information Agency ``Salaries and expenses'' account. This
amount reflects the estimated savings to be achieved by the
U.S. Information Agency through implementation of the Vice
President's ``National Performance Review'' proposal to
restructure its organization and field structure and public
diplomacy activities.
North/South Center
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...................................$8,700,000
1994 rescission request......................................-8,700,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-8,700,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,700,000 from
the North/South Center at the University of Miami as proposed
by the President (R94-37).
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
The Committee recommends rescissions totaling $305,300,000.
With the exception of the specific rescissions recommended in
this section of the report, the Committee directs that none
of the proposed funding adjustments modify in any way the
allocations, guidance, and directions contained in its report
on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994, and in
the conference report and joint explanatory statement of the
committee of conference on that act. Details of the
Committee's recommendations are provided below.
PROCUREMENT
Missile Procurement, Army
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,094,009,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-48,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
TOW II missile.--The Committee recommends no rescission of
funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 1994 for the TOW II
missile program as proposed by the President (R94-44).
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$5,694,420,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-51,700,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
SH-60 helicopters.--The Committee recommends no rescission
of funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 1994 for the SH-
60 helicopter program as proposed by the President (R94-45).
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$4,183,775,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-50,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
committee recommendations
LHD-7 amphibious assault ship.--The Committee recommends no
rescission of funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 1994
for advance procurement of the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship
as proposed by the President (R94-46).
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$6,002,953,499
1994 rescission request....................................-105,600,000
Committee recommendation....................................-12,800,000
committee recommendations
Advanced tactical airborne reconnaissance system.--The
Committee recommends a rescission of $12,800,000 for the
advanced tactical airborne reconnaissance system [ATARS], as
proposed by the President (R94-47). The ATARS program was
terminated and the funds are no longer required.
C-135 modifications.--The Committee recommends no
rescission for C-135 modifications as proposed by the
President (R94-47).
Other Procurement, Air Force
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$7,588,968,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-27,500,000
committee recommendations
Mobility command and control.--The Committee recommends a
rescission of $27,500,000 of the funds appropriated in fiscal
year 1994 for mobility command and control equipment. These
funds are no longer required to meet mission requirements.
Procurement, Defensewide
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,803,639,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation...................................-104,500,000
committee recommendations
Landsat-7.--The Committee recommends a rescission of
$104,500,000 of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 1994
for the Landsat-7 program. These funds have become excess as
a result of the President's decision to cancel the Landsat-7
program in fiscal year 1995.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..............................$12,978,924,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-50,000,000
committee recommendations
Milstar satellite communications system.--The Committee
recommends rescission of $50,000,000 from fiscal year 1993
funds for the Milstar satellite communications system.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defensewide
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$8,760,050,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-50,000,000
Committee recommendation...................................-110,500,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $110,500,000. This
amount is $60,500,000 more than proposed for rescission by
the President (R94-48).
committee recommendations
Theater missile defense.--The Committee proposes rescission
of $26,000,000 designated by BMDO for the LEAP technology
demonstration program and the sea-based wide area program.
Advanced research projects agency space programs.--The
President's request to rescind $50,000,000 appropriated for
ARPA space programs is approved by the Committee (R94-48).
Land remote sensing satellite system.--The Committee
proposes rescission of $34,500,000 allocated for the
development of the high resolution multispectral imager
[HRMSI] within the Landsat 7 program.
CHAPTER 4
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General Investigations
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$207,540,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-24,970,000
Committee recommendation....................................-24,970,000
The Committee recommends rescinding $24,970,000, the same
amount requested (R94-23). Funds provided under this heading
are used for the collection and study of basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood control, shore
protection, and related projects; restudy of authorized
projects; miscellaneous investigations; and when authorized
by law, surveys and detailed studies and plans and
specifications of projects prior to construction.
The Corps is directed to carry out the projects, programs,
and directives contained in Public Law 103-126 and the
conference report accompanying that act.
Construction, General
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,400,875,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-97,319,000
Committee recommendation....................................-97,319,000
This account provides for the construction by the Army
Corps of Engineers of river and harbor, flood control, shore
protection, and related projects authorized by law.
The Committee recommendation would rescind $97,319,000 of
appropriated funds. This is the same as the amount requested
(R94-24).
The Corps is directed to carry out the projects, programs,
and directives contained in Public Law 103-126 and the
conference report accompanying that act.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction Program
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$464,423,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-16,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-40,000,000
An amount of $40,000,000 in unobligated funding carried
forward into fiscal year 1994 in the construction program of
the Bureau of Reclamation is recommended for rescission. This
is $24,000,000 more than the amount requested in rescission
proposal R43-27.
The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to carry out the
projects, programs, and directives contained in Public Law
103-126 and the conference report accompanying that act.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Supply, Research, and Development
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$3,223,910,000
1994 rescission request....................................-107,300,000
Committee recommendation...................................-107,300,000
The administration has proposed to rescind $97,300,000 in
the ``Energy supply, research, and development activities''
account (R94-25). The Committee agrees with the total amount
of the rescission but directs that the reduction shall be
taken as a general reduction, applied to each program
equally, so as not to eliminate or disproportionately reduce
any program, project, or activity in the ``Energy supply,
research, and development activities'' account as included in
the reports accompanying Public Law 103-126.
R94-49 would eliminate funding for the superconducting
magnetic energy storage [SMES] program, for which funds were
added in fiscal year 1994 in the energy storage activities
within the solar and renewable energy program. The SMES
program would continue technology efforts previously funded
within the Defense Nuclear Agency to develop SMES as part of
a DOD star wars directed-energy weapon system. DOD has not
requested funds for the SMES activity in recent years. The
program is presented as a dual-use technology with defense
and utility applications. However, the President and the
Department of Energy believe the current program has no
commercially viable prospects in the utility industry.
Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..............................\1\$177,092,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-42,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-42,000,000
\1\Net appropriation for fiscal year 1994.
The administration has proposed to rescind $42,000,000 as a
result of curtailing the atomic vapor laser isotope
separation project (R94-25). The Committee agrees that this
rescission should be funded from prior-year balances
available in the ``Uranium supply and enrichment activities''
account.
RELATED AGENCY
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
1994 appropriation to date.................................$520,900,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-12,700,000
Committee recommendation....................................-12,700,000
This appropriation funds the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[NRC] ``Salaries and expenses'' account. This account
provides for reactor safety and safeguards regulation;
reactor special and independent reviews, investigations, and
enforcement; reactor safety research; nuclear material and
low-level waste safety and safeguards regulation; and high-
level nuclear waste regulations.
This proposed rescission reflects savings in the various
projects due to actions being taken by the Commission to
stream-line the agency and to reduce the cost of operations.
The ability of the Commission to accomplish its mission
successfully would not be affected by this rescission
proposal.
CHAPTER 5
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
International Financial Institutions
contribution to the african development fund
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$135,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-2,700,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,700,000 from
fiscal year 1994 funds made available to the President for
the United States contribution to the sixth replenishment of
the African Development Fund. The rescission would result in
funding for the United States contribution to the African
Development Fund at the level contained in the House-passed
version of H.R. 2295. The President has not proposed
rescission of these funds.
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
Agency for International Development
development assistance fund
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$811,900,000
1994 rescission request....................................-160,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-40,879,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $40,879,000 from
unexpended or unobligated funds made available for the
Development Assistance Fund [DAF] for fiscal year 1994 and
prior years. The level provided for the DAF in the fiscal
1994 Foreign Operations, Export Assistance and Related
Programs Act (Public Law 103-87) already represents a
reduction from fiscal 1993 of $225,580,000, a cut of nearly
22 percent. The Committee believes rescission of an
additional $160,000,000 in the DAF would cause serious damage
to important programs in Central and Latin America and other
areas. Therefore, the Committee recommends a rescission of
$40,879,000. The President has proposed a rescission of
$160,000,000.
operating expenses of the agency for international development for
reform and downsizing
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...................................$3,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,000,000 from
fiscal year 1994 funds made available to the Agency for
International Development in a special appropriation for
operating expenses to meet the costs of implementation of the
recommendations of the report of the ``National Performance
Review.'' The Committee recommends that implementation of the
AID reform portions of the ``National Performance Review'' be
funded out of the regular AID ``Operating expenses'' account
for fiscal 1994. The President has not proposed a rescission
of these funds.
assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,212,820,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation...................................-145,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $145,000,000 from
the unexpended or unobligated balances of funds made
available in fiscal year 1994 and prior years for assistance
to the new independent states of the former Soviet Union
[NIS]. In fiscal 1994 and prior years more than
$3,000,000,000 has been made available for assistance to the
NIS. In order to find the funds for the NIS, the Committee
has had to recommend substantial cuts in other programs. If
further reductions in foreign assistance beyond the
$800,000,000 cut already provided in Public Law 103-87 are
required, the Committee believes the NIS program should
contribute a share. The President has not proposed a
rescission of these funds.
Economic Support Fund
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,364,562,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-90,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-32,700,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $32,700,000 from
funds made available from 1987 through 1994 for the Economic
Support Fund, $57,300,000 less than requested by the
President. This proposed rescission, together with the
$203,000,000 of ESF rescinded in Public Law 103-87, would
make the fiscal 1994 and prior years' rescissions of ESF
total $235,700,000. The Committee's intent in reducing the
President's proposed ESF rescission is to ensure that some
ESF funds remain available for Central and South American
programs. The Committee intends that this rescission will not
be taken from the Camp David countries, because of the
sensitivity of the peace process. The President proposed a
rescission of $90,000,000.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
foreign military financing program
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$3,149,279,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-65,562,000
Committee recommendation....................................-91,283,000
The Committee recommends rescissions of $91,283,000 from
funds made available to the President for the Foreign
Military Financing Program for fiscal 1994 and prior years.
Of this amount, $65,562,000 is to come from funds made
available in fiscal 1993 and prior years, as proposed by the
President, and $25,721,000 is to come from unearmarked funds
made available for fiscal 1994. The effect of the proposed
rescission is to reduce fiscal 1994 foreign military
financing grants to the level in H.R. 2295 as passed by the
Senate. The President had proposed a rescission of
$65,562,000 from fiscal 1993 and prior years only.
military assistance
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 rescission request.......................................-$438,000
Committee recommendation.......................................-438,000
The Committee recommends rescissions of $438,000 from funds
made available to the President for Military Assistance in
Public Law 102-391 and prior years. The President had
proposed a rescission of $438,000.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
construction and anadromous fish
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$73,565,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance..............................................-3,874,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-3,874,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $3,874,000 for
unobligated funds associated with completion of the Umbarger
Dam modifications at the Buffalo Lake National Wildlife
Refuge, TX. These funds are available for rescission since
the project has been completed at a lower cost than
originally estimated.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Biomass Energy Development
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.............................................
1994 rescission request....................................-$16,275,000
House allowance.............................................-16,275,000
Committee recommendation....................................-16,275,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $16,275,000 for
unobligated balances in the ``Biomass energy development''
account. This amount is excess to the needs of the program
which is responsible for administering loan guarantees and
assets from alcohol fuel plants, and is derived from previous
appropriations and revenues credited to the account.
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION
Administrative Cost Reductions
The Committee recommends a rescission of $50,000,000 from
amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1994 for salaries and
expenses and administrative costs of the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. An amount of
$4,000,000 would be rescinded from the Department of Labor,
$37,500,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services,
and $8,500,000 from the Department of Education. The Social
Security Administration would be exempted from any reductions
in salaries and expenses and administrative costs other than
the automation initiative.
The amounts recommended for rescission represent
approximately 25 percent of the increases provided over
fiscal year 1993 for this purpose. The Committee believes
that these reductions can be achieved without causing undue
hardship in the executive branch, although it realizes that
certain economies and sacrifices will have to be made.
The Committee intends that the reductions be distributed to
each appropriation account proportionate to the increase that
it received over 1993 for salaries and expenses and
administrative costs, as reflected in the individual agency
budget justifications. In those cases where appropriations
are lower in 1994 than in 1993, no reductions should be
taken.
This mechanism shall apply to all relevant accounts with
the exception of the National Institutes of Health. With
regard to the NIH, the Committee recommends that the
reductions in administrative costs by Institute shall be
determined by the NIH Director in order to best protect its
research programs. The reductions by Institute should be done
in consultation with the Appropriations Committees, and the
NIH shall notify the Committees of its reductions, prior to
implementation. This discretion shall not reduce the National
Institute of Health's share of the total administrative cost
reductions of the Department of Health and Human Services.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Social Security Administration
Supplemental Security Income
limitation on administrative expenses
The Committee recommends a rescission of $80,000,000 from
the automation initiative for which $300,000,000 was provided
in the Fiscal Year 1994 Appropriations Act under the
``Limitation on administrative expenses'' account. The
remaining $220,000,000 for the first year of this initiative
will fund approximately one-fifth of the total cost of this
5-year automation project for which the President requested a
total of $1,125,000,000.
In addition, $10,909,000 is rescinded in the ``Supplemental
security income'' [SSI] account, which is the amount that
would have been reimbursed to the trust funds for the SSI
Program share of the $80,000,000 that is proposed for
rescission in the ``Limitation on administrative expenses''
account. Therefore, the net proposed rescission is
$80,000,000, of which $10,909,000 is derived from the SSI
account.
CHAPTER 8
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
(rescission)
The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,500,000 from
the appropriation account ``Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
of the Senate''. This represents savings in fiscal 1992 funds
from completed projects that came in under budget.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(RESCISSION)
The Committee concurs with the House in rescissions
totaling $2,985,000 from various accounts in the House of
Representatives. In keeping with the longstanding tradition
of comity between the Houses on matters pertaining solely to
one House, the Committee makes no judgment of the House
action.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Capitol Buildings and Grounds
capitol buildings
(rescission)
The Committee has deleted the rescission of $1,000,000 in
fiscal year 1993 budget authority and $2,000,000 in fiscal
year 1994 budget authority for installation of energy
efficient lighting devices in the Capitol complex. Section
122 of Public Law 103-110, the Military Construction
Appropriations Act of 1994, authorized the transfer of a
parcel of approximately 100 acres at Fort Meade, MD, to the
Architect of the Capitol to serve as the site for a long-term
storage facility for the legislative branch. The Committee
directs the Architect to apply these funds to the costs of
maintaining and converting the property and facilities at
Fort Meade for this purpose.
The $3,000,000 rescinded by the House will not be required
for the energy efficient lighting program.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
(rescission)
The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,000,000 in
funds available to the Library of Congress under the fiscal
year 1994 appropriations act (Public Law 103-69). The Library
participated in a retirement-incentive program in fiscal year
1994 during which 234 Library employees paid from
appropriated funds in this bill retired. The Librarian is
directed to take the rescission amounts from any net savings
resulting from this retirement program.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$430,815,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House recommendation.........................................-1,300,000
Committee recommendation.......................................-650,000
The Committee reduces the House recommendation to $650,000
for the General Accounting Office. The reductions to GAO's
budget over the past 2 years in combination with the
retirement incentives authorized in Public Law 103-69 (the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994) will cut GAO's
work force by at least 450 full-time equivalent positions.
This rescission will result in cuts to travel and
miscellaneous expenses associated with the positions
eliminated.
CHAPTER 9
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
The Committee recommends rescission of $601,224,000 from
Public Law 103-110, the Military Construction Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 1994. This is the same amount recommended
for rescission by the administration. The Committee notes
that the Congress previously approved rescissions totaling
$277,595,000 when Public Law 103-110 was enacted. The
Committee also notes that the Congress reduced the budget
request for the fiscal year 1994 Military Construction
Appropriations Act by $729,227,000, a reduction of 7 percent
from the total administration budget request.
The Committee does not approve the following rescissions
recommended by the administration:
R94-16 Military construction, Army........................-$116,134,000
R94-17 Military construction, Air Force.....................-85,094,000
R94-18 Military construction, Army Reserve..................-19,807,000
R94-19 Military construction, Naval Reserve..................-4,438,000
R94-20 Military construction, Air Force Reserve.............-18,759,000
R94-21 Military construction, Army National Guard..........-251,854,000
R94-22 Military construction, Air National Guard...........-105,138,000
The administration recommended lump-sum rescissions, which,
if approved by the Congress would allow the Department of
Defense to determine the specific projects which would be
canceled. The administration's recommendations, therefore,
place in jeopardy projects which have specifically been
approved in House and Senate authorization and appropriations
bills. These projects were also approved by the
administration when the President signed into law the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1994. Future military construction rescission requests
submitted by the administration should not be in a lump-sum
format but should be line item specific, detailing each
specific project recommended for rescission.
The Committee has approved the following rescission:
Base Realignment and Closure, Part III
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,144,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
Committee recommendation...................................-601,224,000
The Committee has approved a rescission totaling
$601,224,000 for the ``Base realignment and closure'' [BRAC]
account, part III. This account is a lump-sum appropriation
which provides funds to close and realign military bases.
Fiscal year 1994 is the first year BRAC, part III has been
funded. The rescission approved by the Committee leaves
$542,776,000 appropriated to the account for fiscal year
1994. The Committee notes that the first year funding for
BRAC, part I was $500,000,000 and first year funding for
BRAC, part II was $331,700,000. Therefore, the amount which
remains for part III exceeds the first year funding rate of
the prior two base closure and realignment accounts. The
Committee is also concerned with the excessively slow
obligation rate in the base closure accounts. As the
Committee pointed out in its report accompanying H.R. 2446,
almost $2,000,000,000 previously appropriated for base
closures has yet to be obligated by the military services.
CHAPTER 10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Payments to Air Carriers
(airport and airways trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$33,423,077
1994 rescission request.....................................-10,067,000
House allowance.............................................-10,068,243
Committee recommendation....................................-10,067,000
The Committee is recommending the rescission of unobligated
balances of contract authority for the essential air services
program. The rescission does not affect the provision of
services allowed under Public Law 103-122.
rental payments
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$149,605,000
1994 rescission request......................................-1,781,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation.....................................-1,781,000
The Committee has included, as requested, a rescission of
$1,781,000 of funds for rental payments by the Office of the
Secretary. This rescission reflects revised requirements for
GSA space rental and related services.
Coast Guard
operating expenses
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,586,770,000
1994 rescission request......................................-5,000,000
House allowance..............................................-5,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur in the President's request to
rescind excess funds appropriated under Public Law 102-368
for costs arising from the consequences of Hurricane Andrew
and Hurricane Iniki.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
1994 appropriation to date.................................$327,500,000
1994 rescission request......................................-2,000,000
House allowance..............................................-2,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
Consistent with the Committee's recommendation regarding
operating expenses cited above, the Committee does not concur
in the President's proposal to rescind excess funds initially
appropriated for the consequences of Hurricanes Andrew and
Iniki.
Federal Aviation Administration
operations
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$4,580,518,000
1994 rescission request......................................-2,750,000
House allowance................................................-750,000
Committee recommendation.....................................-2,750,000
The Administration has proposed the rescission of
$2,750,000 from the Federal Aviation Administration's
``Operations'' account. The Committee concurs with the
Administration's request. The Administration, in its
rescission message R94-29, stated that this proposal is
consistent with the Vice President's ``National Performance
Review'' proposal.
Funding of $2,000,000 would be rescinded from the mid-
America aviation resource consortium, which is a private air
traffic controller training program; and $750,000 is
rescinded from the vocational technical grants program.
facilities and equipment
(airport and airways trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,120,104,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-40,257,111
House allowance.............................................-29,451,111
Committee recommendation....................................-65,205,300
The administration has proposed the rescission of
$40,257,111 in funding previously provided for the airway
science curriculum grant program. Under the administration's
proposal, the following funds would be rescinded.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Fiscal year available apropriated Unobligated Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985-89............................... $35,795 $2,305 ........................................
----------------
.............. 1,425 Florida Memorial College.
.............. 880 Unearmarked.
1991.................................. 10,000 1,899 Do.
================
1992.................................. 20,000 9,777 ........................................
----------------
.............. 3,000 Daniel Webster College, NH.
.............. 250 Middle Tennessee State University.
.............. 3,000 Southern University, LA.
.............. 3,527 Unearmarked.
================
1993.................................. 30,000 28,275 ........................................
----------------
.............. 175 Central Washington State University.
.............. 4,500 Dowling College, NY.
.............. 10,000 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
.............. 2,235 Henderson State University, AR.
.............. 556 Middle Tennessee State University.
.............. 1,925 Southern University, LA.
.............. 6,884 University of Alaska.
----------------
Total unobligated balance....... .............. 40,257 As of September 30, 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has proposed the rescission of $65,205,300.
The money proposed for rescission includes funding provided
as early as fiscal year 1985 and as late as fiscal year 1992.
The Committee recommends the rescission of the following
amounts from the following programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program available Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airway science grants................ 1985-89 $2,305,000
Interim support plan................. 1990 13,911,000
System engineering support........... ...do 746,000
Center lease......................... ...do 113,000
Traffic control simulators........... ...do 2,519,000
Test and evaluation.................. ...do 1,440,000
Part-task trainers................... ...do 2,534,000
TCAS II system....................... ...do 438,000
B-727 retrofit....................... ...do 217,000
Center lease......................... ...do 98,000
Engineering support.................. ...do 330,000
Interim support plan................. 1991 20,000,000
B-727 upgrade........................ ...do 581,000
CV-580 upgrade....................... ...do 3,200,000
Airway science grants................ ...do 1,899,000
Do................................... 1992 3,527,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's suggestion is based on the quarterly
accounts obligation status report that FAA submits to the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The Committee
recognizes that some adjustment to the above projects might
be necessary and directs the FAA to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a list of programs with
dollar amounts on how it will meet the target of a
$65,205,300 rescission in the ``facilities and equipment''
account.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(rescission)
(airport and airways trust fund)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,690,000,000
1994 rescission request....................................-488,200,000
House allowance............................................-488,200,000
Committee recommendation...................................-488,200,000
The Committee recommends the rescission of $488,200,000 of
unobligated contract authority of the airport improvement
grant program. This proposal would rescind a portion of the
unobligated contract authority that is not available for
obligation due to limitations on obligation in annual
appropriations acts.
Federal Highway Administration
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$156,362,000
1994 rescission request....................................-174,968,734
House allowance.............................................-85,774,222
Committee recommendation....................................-35,696,647
The administration would rescind all unobligated
appropriated funds for unauthorized highway demonstration
projects that the Federal Highway Administration reports are
not under construction (R94-32a).
The Committee proposes the rescission of unobligated
appropriated balances of highway projects that are listed
below. In addition, the Committee recommends the rescission
of the contract authority of highway projects that was
provided pursuant to provisions of the Surface Transportation
and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, and
unobligated balances of the bridges on Federal dams program.
Under the Committee's proposal, funds for the following
projects would be rescinded:
Title Amount
Bridges on Federal dams......................................$9,478,139
Hillsboro Bridge, Illinois......................................378,530
U.S. 20 realignment, Iowa.....................................1,756,709
Des Moines Inner Loop, Iowa...................................2,792,000
I-70 and 110th St. improvements, Kansas.......................3,446,600
Center Street extension, Massachusetts........................3,360,000
Blackstone River bikeway, Massachusetts.........................212,032
Rail consolidation, Michigan..................................2,735,000
I-20/Norrell Rd. interchange, Mississippi.....................1,620,000
Railroad overpass, New Mexico.................................1,363,391
Irondequoit Bay outlet bridge, New York.......................4,249,893
Texarkana Rd., Texas..........................................1,379,960
Relocation of U.S. 35, West Virginia............................406,920
STURA of 1987.................................................2,517,473
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$42,500,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-20,000,000
The advanced acquisition of rights-of-way program was
established by section 110(a) of the Federal-aid Highway Act
of 1956. Section 7 of Public Law 90-495, the Highway Act of
1968, established the revolving fund feature. The Committee
recommends the rescission of $20,000,000 of revolving fund
balances.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$174,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance..............................................-7,056,000
Committee recommendation...................................-219,750,000
The Committee recommends the rescission of contract
authority totaling $219,750,000 for Highway Traffic Safety
Grants under the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Rescinded funds will be derived from the following
programs:
Section 408 alcohol safety incentive grants..................$6,493,000
Section 209 safety, education, and information grants........11,000,000
Section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants.........24,000,000
Section 402 State and community highway safety grants.......178,257,000
The levels proposed for rescission represent unobligated
contract authority which is not available for obligation in
fiscal year 1994.
Federal Railroad Administration
Railroad Research and Development
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date..................................$37,613,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-17,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-17,000,000
The Committee concurs in the President's request to rescind
$17,000,000 from funds appropriated for fiscal year 1994 for
research and analysis in the area of high-speed magnetically
levitated ground transportation [maglev]. Shortly after the
enactment of the fiscal year 1994 transportation
appropriations act, the National Maglev Initiative [NMI], a
cooperative effort of the Federal Railroad Administration,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Energy,
completed its report on the technical and market feasibility
of maglev. As a result, the Administration recognizes a need
of not more than $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 for continued
study of maglev issues and the initiation of a market
feasibility of high-speed ground transportation, as called
for in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
[ISTEA].
Federal Transit Administration
Discretionary Grants
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,785,000,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-50,537,525
House allowance.............................................-40,478,975
Committee recommendation.......................................-808,935
The administration has proposed the rescission of any
unobligated funds made available for fiscal year 1991 or
earlier under section 3 of the Federal Transit Act, as
amended (R94-31). Under the Committee's proposal, the
following project would lose previously appropriated funds:
Project Amount
Buffalo, NY, Naval Park Station................................$808,935
CHAPTER 11
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Internal Revenue Service
Information Systems
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$1,485,917,000
1994 supplemental estimate.............................................
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................(6,400,000)
The Committee has recommended a rescission of $6,400,000 in
information systems activities of the Internal Revenue
Service. The Committee is advised that IRS has achieved
savings in procurement contracts for new automated data
processing systems and these savings will be applied to the
supplemental costs of ADP requirements for the Executive
Office of the President.
RELATED AGENCY
General Services Administration
Federal Buildings Fund
(Limitations on Availability of Revenue)
(Rescission)
The Committee has recommended the rescission of
$127,691,000 in obligational authority from many Federal
building projects under the control of the General Services
Administration [GSA]. This amount is the same as that
recommended by the President for rescission in the General
Services Administration's Federal buildings fund for fiscal
year 1994.
However, the Committee has rejected the administration's
proposal to make rescissions in programs, projects and
activities funded in the Fiscal Year 1994 Appropriations Act.
Instead, the Committee recommends the rescission of a
specific amount of funds by project for a series of
construction and repair and alterations projects funded in
fiscal year 1994 and previous fiscal years. These savings are
the result of the ``Time-Out and Review'' of projects
initiated and conducted by GSA in 1994. In many cases, the
savings are minimal and should have no impact on the quality
of the buildings or original construction or repair
objective. GSA indicates that savings can be achieved in many
projects by adopting a value-engineering concept.
Specifically, the Committee recommends the rescission of
funds for the following projects in the following amounts:
Alabama: Montgomery, U.S. courthouse.........................$5,000,000
Arizona:
Naco, U.S. border station......................................74,000
Sierra Vista, U.S. Magistrates Office.......................1,000,000
California:
Calexico, U.S. border station.................................900,000
Menlo Park, U.S. Geological Survey Office and laboratory build783,000
Sacramento, U.S. courthouse and Federal building............3,391,000
Tecate, U.S. border station...................................165,000
District of Columbia:
Army Corps of Engineers, headquarters building.............11,309,000
Federal Office Building 6..................................11,100,000
Federal Bureau of Investigation field office................5,679,000
White House remote delivery and vehicle maintenance facility5,382,000
U.S. Secret Service headquarters...........................23,274,000
Florida:
Lakeland, Federal building..................................4,400,000
Tampa, U.S. courthouse......................................7,472,000
Iowa: Burlington, parking facility............................2,400,000
Massachusetts: Boston, U.S. courthouse........................4,076,000
Maryland:
Bowie, Bureau of Census, computer center......................660,000
New Carrollton, IRS........................................30,100,000
Minnesota: Minneapolis, Federal building and U.S. courthouse..4,197,000
New Hampshire: Concord, U.S. courthouse.........................867,000
Nevada: Reno, Federal building and U.S. courthouse..............875,000
New Jersey: Newark, Federal building, 20 Washington Plaza.......327,000
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Veterans Affairs Federal Building.1,276,000
Tennessee: Knoxville, U.S. courthouse...........................800,000
U.S. Virgin Islands: Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. courthouse
and annex...................................................2,184,000
GSA Federal Buildings
The Committee has recommended rescissions within the
Federal buildings fund totaling $127,691,000, the same amount
as requested by the President. However, the President
requested a lump sum rescission without specific reference to
individual projects. In a January 27, 1994, report to the
Congress, the General Accounting Office noted that section
1012 of the Impoundment Control Act requires the President to
report proposed rescissions to the Congress in a special
message that provides detailed information concerning the
basis and effect of the rescission, including: ``any account,
department, or establishment of the Government to which such
budget authority is available for obligation, and the
specific project or governmental functions involved * * *''.
Therefore, the Committee has recommended project specific
reductions, commensurate with the recommendation made by the
General Services Administration in its time out and review
process.
The Committee directs that all Federal building projects
funded in the 1994 Treasury, Postal Service and General
Government Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-123, with the
exception of those affected by the proposed rescission in
this bill, proceed immediately at the funding levels
provided.
CHAPTER 12
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Departmental Administration
Construction, Major Projects
1994 appropriation to date.................................$369,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance.............................................-26,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur with the House rescission of
$26,000,000 from the working reserve of the ``Construction,
major projects'' account. This rescission would virtually
deplete the construction working reserve.
The Committee notes that in the fiscal year 1994
appropriation, the working reserve was reduced by
approximately $93,000,000. The additional rescission proposed
by the House may pose serious problems in managing the
construction program. Funds in the working reserve may be
required for construction contingencies, unforeseen site
conditions, or other variables that could impact project
costs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Grants (HOPE
Grants)
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$109,190,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-66,000,000
House allowance.............................................-66,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-50,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $50,000,000 in
funds appropriated for homeownership and opportunity for
people everywhere grants. The reduction should be taken
subject to the normal reprogramming guidelines. The House and
the administration recommended specific cuts in the HOPE 1
and HOPE 2 programs. None of the funds should be taken from
funds provided under this account in Public Law 103-124 for
Youthbuild.
The Committee notes that the HOPE Program contains an
unobligated balance of funds from fiscal years 1993 and
before of approximately $173,000,000, an amount greater than
the entire appropriation for the program in the original
fiscal year 1994. Even after the rescission, the Department
will have more than $232,000,000 for awards under the HOPE
Program.
Given the Department's decision to phase out this program,
the Committee believes it preferable to rescind a portion of
these funds, rather than other higher priority housing
programs which have a substantial backlog of need.
Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$9,312,900,000
1994 rescission request....................................-180,000,000
House allowance.............................................-25,000,000
Committee recommendation...................................-325,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $325,000,000 from
the ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'' account.
Funds would be taken from funds appropriated for preservation
subsidies on units whose owners are eligible to prepay on
HUD-insured mortgages.
The Committee has taken this step because the Department
has $496,000,000 in unobligated preservation funds that were
carried over from fiscal year 1993 into fiscal year 1994.
This means that approximately 83 percent of the fiscal year
1993 appropriation was neither obligated or committed. As a
result, even with this rescission, the Department will still
have funds available for preservation activities in fiscal
year 1994 equal to what was appropriated in the Department's
regular appropriations bill.
The Committee wishes to note its concern over the slow pace
of HUD's obligation of preservation funds. Large annual
carryover of preservation funds is becoming a regular
occurrence. Given the limited amounts of budget authority
already available for discretionary spending, it makes little
sense for the Department to receive new appropriations for a
program that has not obligated the vast majority of the
previous year's funding. Through this rescission, the
Committee hopes to provide an incentive for the Department to
obligate preservation funds more quickly in the future.
The Committee has denied the two proposed rescissions
requested by the administration in the ``Annual
contributions'' account: $130,000,000 from public housing
modernization, and $50,000,000 from lead-based paint
abatement grants. Both programs are used to tackle perhaps
the most serious public health hazard faced by children in
the United States today: blood poisoning from the harmful
effects of lead paint and lead paint dusts. In addition,
modernization funds are used for a host of reconstruction and
security measures that are needed to combat crime in housing
authorities in rural and urban communities throughout the
United States.
As the Committee noted in Senate Report 103-137, the vast
majority of public housing modernization funds are now
obligated by housing authorities within the period expected
in the program's authorization--the first 3\1/2\ years after
their award by HUD to local housing authorities. The
administration's estimate of the backlog of unspent
modernization funds is based upon flawed analysis. The
overwhelming number of instances of unspent funds is due to
inertia by the Department itself, a situation which the new
Secretary is desperately trying to remedy.
HUD estimates that the backlog of public housing
modernization needs runs in excess of $20,000,000,000. The
estimated cost of abating lead from federally assisted
nonpublic housing is in excess of $100,000,000,000.
Therefore, the Committee believes that the administration's
proposed assisted housing rescissions would be harmful in
tackling these nagging housing, public health, and public
safety problems.
The Committee has not included the reduction of $25,000,000
proposed by the House from section 8 contract amendments. It
is unclear at this time if the Department will need these
funds to meet current section 8 contractual commitments in
fiscal year 1994.
Assistance for the Renewal of Expiring Section 8 Contracts
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$4,558,106,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance.............................................-20,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur with the recommendation to
rescind $20,000,000 from the ``Assistance for the renewal of
expiring section 8 contracts'' account. No rescission in this
account was proposed. Since this account was cut in House
Report 103-273 by more than $1,000,000,000 below the budget
request, the Committee does not believe it should be a source
of further reductions at this time.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Funds
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$2,477,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance.............................................-22,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur with the House in rescinding
$22,000,000 from the ``Water infrastructure/State revolving
funds'' account. The Committee notes that the amount provided
for this activity in fiscal year 1994 represented a decrease
of $73,000,000 below the fiscal year 1993 level. In addition,
the need for waste water treatment construction exceeds
$100,000,000,000 nationwide. Finally, the Committee notes
that a rescission of $22,000,000 would result in the loss of
approximately 1,250 construction-related jobs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$212,960,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance..............................................-2,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur with the House in rescinding
$2,000,000 from FEMA emergency management planning and
assistance. The Committee notes that the amount provided for
this account in fiscal year 1994 represented a decrease of
$40,000,000 below the fiscal year 1993 budget and $10,000,000
below the original budget fiscal year 1994 estimate.
Additional reductions to this account could inhibit the
agency's reorganization and ability to respond effectively to
disasters.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Research and Development
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$7,529,300,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-88,000,000
House allowance.............................................-25,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-63,000,000
The Committee recommends a rescission of $63,000,000 from
funds in the ``Research and development'' account. This
reduction is needed to offset a portion of the amount
provided for a pay supplemental in title II of this bill. The
reduction should be taken, in agreement between the Committee
and NASA, as follows:
-$7,000,000 from space station, with $5,000,000 of this
amount through delaying the centrifuge procurement.
-$12,000,000 from space transportation capability
development, with a $2,000,000 general reduction and
$10,000,000 from the single-engine centaur.
-$6,200,000 from physics and astronomy, with $2,000,000 as
a general reduction and $4,200,000 through applying a
portion of the fee recovery from the settlement on the
Hubble Space Telescope.
-$5,800,000 from life and microgravity sciences as a
general reduction.
-$1,000,000 from the mission to planet Earth.
-$7,000,000 from aeronautics as a general reduction.
-$5,000,000 from advanced studies on space communications.
-$19,000,000 as a general reduction.
The Committee notes that all reductions are taken subject
to the normal reprogramming guidelines. None of the funds are
to be taken from high-priority areas identified in House
Report 103-273 or Senate Report 103-137.
Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date...............................$4,853,500,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-32,000,000
House allowance........................................................
Committee recommendation....................................-32,000,000
The Committee recommends the rescission of $32,000,000 from
space flight, control, and data communications activities.
These reductions are needed to offset a portion of the amount
provided for a pay supplemental in title II of this bill. The
reduction should be taken, in agreement between the Committee
and NASA, as follows:
-$20,000,000 from shuttle operations, including $10,000,000
as a general reduction and $10,000,000 from research
operations support.
-$10,000,000 from launch services and expendable launch
vehicle upgrades.
-$2,000,000 from space communications.
The Committee notes that all reductions are taken subject
to the normal reprogramming guidelines. None of the funds are
to be taken from high-priority areas identified in House
Report 103-273 or Senate Report 103-137.
Construction of Facilities
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$517,700,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-25,000,000
House allowance.............................................-25,000,000
Committee recommendation....................................-25,000,000
The Committee proposes a rescission of $25,000,000 from
activities in the ``Construction of facilities'' account.
This amount should be taken as a general reduction, subject
to the normal reprogramming guidelines.
National Science Foundation
Academic Research Infrastructure
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$110,000,000
1994 rescission request.....................................-10,000,000
House allowance.............................................-10,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee does not concur with the House in
recommending a rescission of $10,000,000 in academic research
infrastructure activities. The current backlog in repair and
renovation needs of scientific facilities at America's
colleges and universities is between $6,000,000,000 and
$8,000,000,000. As a result, the Committee believes the NSF's
modest program to help address this problem, particularly at
institutions that do not normally have access to large
amounts of Federal research funds, should be preserved.
National Service Initiative
Corporation for National and Community Service
(Rescission)
1994 appropriation to date.................................$370,000,000
1994 rescission request................................................
House allowance..............................................-5,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................................
The Committee has not agreed to the recommendation of the
House to rescind $5,000,000 of the amounts made available for
the national service program. This reduction was not
requested and is premature since the national service
initiative as envisioned by the last year's authorization is
only now beginning.
GENERAL PROVISION
The Committee has reinserted as a general provision, bill
language included in the House rescission of funds for the
installation of energy efficient lighting devices in the
Capitol complex which the Committee bill deletes. This
language will bring the Architect of the Capitol under the
authority granted heads of agencies in section 155 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, regarding energy savings
performance contracts.
Energy savings companies [ESCO] are companies that agree to
finance the cost of retrofitting facilities with more energy
efficient lighting and return for a share of the projected
savings.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
[Amounts in dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Doc. No. Department or Supplemental House allowance Senate Committee --------------------------------
activity estimate recommendation Supplemental House
estimate allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
Watershed and flood prevention
operations.................... 340,500,000 340,500,000 340,500,000 .................... ....................
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Emergency conservation program. 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 1: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 365,500,000 365,500,000 365,500,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 2
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Disaster loans program account:
103-199
Direct loans subsidy....... 254,750,000 254,750,000 254,750,000 .................... ....................
103-199
(Limitation on direct4
loans).................... (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) .................... ....................
103-199
Administrative expenses.... 55,000,000 55,000,000 55,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 2: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 309,750,000 309,750,000 309,750,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
Military Personnel
Military personnel, Army....... 6,600,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 .................... ....................
Military personnel, Navy....... 19,400,000 19,400,000 19,400,000 .................... ....................
Military personnel, Air Force.. 18,400,000 18,400,000 18,400,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, military personnel 44,400,000 44,400,000 44,400,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance, Army 420,100,000 420,100,000 420,100,000 .................... ....................
Operation and maintenance, Navy 104,800,000 104,800,000 104,800,000 .................... ....................
Operation and maintenance, Air
Force......................... 560,100,000 560,100,000 560,100,000 .................... ....................
Operation and maintenance,
Defense-wide.................. 21,600,000 21,600,000 21,600,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, operation and
maintenance............. 1,106,600,000 1,106,600,000 1,106,600,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Procurement
Aircraft procurement, Army..... 20,300,000 20,300,000 20,300,000 .................... ....................
Other procurement Army......... 200,000 200,000 200,000 .................... ....................
Other procurement, Air Force... 26,800,000 26,800,000 26,800,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, procurement....... 47,300,000 47,300,000 47,300,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 3: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 1,198,300,000 1,198,300,000 1,198,300,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Flood control and coastal4
emergencies................... 70,000,000 70,000,000 70,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Impact aid..................... 165,000,000 165,000,000 165,000,000 .................... ....................
Student financial assistance... 80,000,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 5: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 245,000,000 245,000,000 245,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Federal-aid highways (highway
trust fund):
103-199
Emergency relief program... 1,265,000,000 1,265,000,000 1,265,000,000 .................... ....................
Contingency103-199
appropriations........ 400,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 6:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 1,665,000,000 1,665,000,000 1,665,000,000 .................... ....................
*COM001*Appro
priations... (1,265,000,000) (1,265,000,000) (1,265,000,000) .................... ....................
Contingency
appropriatio
ns.......... (400,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical care................... 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 .................... ....................
Departmental Administration
Construction, major projects... 45,600,000 45,600,000 45,600,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Veterans Affairs........ 66,600,000 66,600,000 66,600,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
103-199
Annual contributions for04
assisted housing.............. 225,000,000 225,000,000 225,000,000 .................... ....................
Flexible subsidy fund.......... 100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, housing programs.. 325,000,000 325,000,000 325,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Community Planning and
Development
103-199
Community development grants... 500,000,000 250,000,000 500,000,000 .................... +250,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Housing and Urban
Development............. 825,000,000 575,000,000 825,000,000 .................... +250,000,000
==================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
103-199
Disaster relief................ 4,709,000,000 4,709,000,000 4,709,000,000 .................... ....................
Emergency management planning
and assistance................ 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Emergency
Management Agency....... 4,724,000,000 4,724,000,000 4,724,000,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 7: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 5,615,600,000 5,365,600,000 5,615,600,000 .................... +250,000,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 8
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
103-199
103-204
Unanticipated needs 103-
(contingency appropriations).. 550,000,000 500,000,000 550,000,000 .................... +50,000,000
==================================================================================================
Total, title I:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 10,019,150,000 9,719,150,000 10,019,150,000 .................... +300,000,000
Appropriations... (9,069,150,000) (8,819,150,000) (9,069,150,000) .................... (+250,000,000)
Contingency
appropriations.. (950,000,000) (900,000,000) (950,000,000) .................... (+50,000,000)
(Limitation on direct
loans).............. (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
(by transfer)................. .................... (10,068,000) .................... .................... (-10,068,000)
Extension Service.............. 1,400,000 .................... 1,400,000 .................... +1,400,000
Rural Development
Administration
Salaries and expenses (by-
transfer)..................... .................... (4,493,000) .................... .................... (-4,493,000)
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses.......... (2,284,000) .................... (2,284,000) .................... (+2,284,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 1:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 1,400,000 .................... 1,400,000 .................... +1,400,000
(By transfer)........ .................... (14,561,000) .................... .................... (-14,561,000)
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Contributions for international
peacekeeping activities....... 670,000,000 .................... .................... -670,000,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
RELATED AGENCY
Office of the United States
Trade Representative
103-180
Salaries and expenses.......... 875,000 .................... 75,000 -800,000 +75,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 2: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 670,875,000 .................... 75,000 -670,800,000 +75,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
Resource management (by180
transfer)..................... (2,100,000) .................... (2,100,000) .................... (+2,100,000)
Land acquisition (by transfer). (4,000,000) .................... (4,000,000) .................... (+4,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
National Park Service
Construction................... 13,102,000 .................... 13,102,000 .................... +13,102,000
Land acquisition and State
assistance.................... 1,274,000 .................... 1,274,000 .................... +1,274,000
(By transfer).............. (6,000,000) .................... (6,000,000) .................... (+6,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Park
Service................. 14,376,000 .................... 14,376,000 .................... +14,376,000
==================================================================================================
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Construction................... 12,363,000 .................... 12,363,000 .................... +12,363,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 3:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 26,739,000 .................... 26,739,000 .................... +26,739,000
(By transfer)........ (12,100,000) .................... (12,100,000) .................... (+12,100,000)
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Advances to the unemployment
trust fund.................... 61,400,000 .................... 61,400,000 .................... +61,400,000
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Salaries and expenses.......... 10,100,000 .................... 10,100,000 .................... +10,100,000
Departmental Management
Salaries and expenses.......... -2,250,000 .................... .................... +2,250,000 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Labor................... 69,250,000 .................... 71,500,000 +2,250,000 +71,500,000
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Salaries and expenses.......... 15,000,000 .................... .................... -15,000,000 ....................
Health Care Financing
Administration
Program management............. -37,500,000 .................... .................... +37,500,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 4: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 46,750,000 .................... 71,500,000 +24,750,000 +71,500,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 5
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Salaries, Officers and
Employees
Office of the Secretary........ 450,000 .................... 450,000 .................... +450,000
Contingent Expenses of the
Senate
Secretary of the Senate........ 600,000 .................... 600,000 .................... +600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 5: New
budget (obligational)
authority............... 1,050,000 .................... 1,050,000 .................... +1,050,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Penn Station redevelopment
project....................... 10,000,000 .................... 10,000,000 .................... +10,000,000
High-speed ground 103-180
transportation (limitation on
obligations).................. (4,452,000) .................... (4,452,000) .................... (+4,452,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Transportation.......... 10,000,000 .................... 10,000,000 .................... +10,000,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 6:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 10,000,000 .................... 10,000,000 .................... +10,000,000
(Limitation on
obligations)........ (4,452,000) .................... (4,452,000) .................... (+4,452,000)
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 7
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
National Security Council...... 5,650,000 .................... 5,320,000 -330,000 +5,320,000
Office of Administration....... 1,400,000 .................... 1,030,000 -370,000 +1,030,000
(By transfer).............. (6,000,000) .................... (6,000,000) .................... (+6,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 7:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 7,050,000 .................... 6,350,000 -700,000 +6,350,000
(By transfer)........ (6,000,000) .................... (6,000,000) .................... (+6,000,000)
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 8
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits
Administration
Compensation and pensions...... 698,000,000 .................... 698,000,000 .................... +698,000,000
Readjustment benefits.......... 103,200,000 .................... 103,200,000 .................... +103,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits
Administration.......... 801,200,000 .................... 801,200,000 .................... +801,200,000
==================================================================================================
Veterans Health Administration
Medical administration and
miscellaneous operating
expenses (by transfer)........ .................... .................... (3,500,000) (+3,500,000) (+3,500,000)
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Annual contributions for58
assisted housing.............. -45,791,000 .................... .................... +45,791,000 ....................
Federal Housing Administration:
FHA--Mutual mortgage3-
insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed
loans).................... (20,000,000,000) .................... (20,000,000,000) .................... (+20,000,000,000)
FHA--General and special
risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed
loans).................... (2,000,000,000) .................... (2,000,000,000) .................... (+2,000,000,000)
==================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Executive Office of the
President
Council on the Environmental
Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality......... 425,000 .................... .................... -425,000 ....................
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Research and program management 60,000,000 .................... 60,000,000 .................... +60,000,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 8:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 815,834,000 .................... 861,200,000 +45,366,000 +861,200,000
(By transfer)........ .................... .................... (3,500,000) (+3,500,000) (+3,500,000)
(Limitation on
guaranteed loans)... (22,000,000,000) .................... (22,000,000,000) .................... (+22,000,000,000)
==================================================================================================
Total, title II:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 1,579,698,000 .................... 978,314,000 -601,384,000 +978,314,000
(By transfer)........ (18,100,000) (14,561,000) (21,600,000) (+3,500,000) (+7,039,000)
(Limitation on
guaranteed loans)... (22,000,000,000) .................... (22,000,000,000) .................... (+22,000,000,000)
(Limitation on
obligations)........ (4,452,000) .................... (4,452,000) .................... (+4,452,000)
==================================================================================================
TITLE III--RESCINDING CERTAIN
BUDGET AUTHORITY PROPOSED TO BE
RESCINDED IN SPECIAL MESSAGES
TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BY
THE PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 1,
1993, AND FEBRUARY 7, 1994
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Economic Research Service...... .................... .................... -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000
Agricultural Research Service.. -16,233,000 .................... .................... +16,233,000 ....................
Human Nutrition Information
Service................... .................... -1,000,000 .................... .................... +1,000,000
Buildings and facilities... -8,460,000 .................... .................... +8,460,000 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural
Research Service........ -24,693,000 -1,000,000 -4,000,000 +20,693,000 -3,000,000
==================================================================================================
Cooperative State Research
Service....................... -30,002,000 -14,279,000 -12,463,000 +17,539,000 +1,816,000
Buildings and facilities... -34,000,000 -2,897,000 -2,897,000 +31,103,000 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State
Research Service........ -64,002,000 -17,176,000 -15,360,000 +48,642,000 +1,816,000
==================================================================================================
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing services............. .................... -100,000 .................... .................... +100,000
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Salaries and expenses.......... -12,167,000 .................... -12,167,000 .................... -12,167,000
==================================================================================================
Soil Conservation Service
Conservation operations........ -12,167,000 .................... -12,167,000 .................... -12,167,000
Watershed and flood prevention
operations.................... .................... .................... -21,158,000 -21,158,000 -21,158,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Soil Conservation
Service................. -12,167,000 .................... -33,325,000 -21,158,000 -33,325,000
==================================================================================================
Farmers Home Administration
Rural Housing Insurance Fund
Program account:
Single-family, low-income
housing (sec. 502):
(Loan authorization):
Direct................ .................... (-174,825,000) .................... .................... (+174,825,000)
Loan subsidy: Direct... -1,515,000 -35,000,000 -1,515,000 .................... +33,485,000
Rental housing (sec. 515):
Loan subsidy.............. -12,443,000 .................... -12,443,000 .................... -12,443,000
Housing repair (sec. 504):
Loan subsidy.............. -1,204,000 .................... -1,204,000 .................... -1,204,000
Farm labor (sec. 514): Loan
subsidy................... -483,000 .................... -483,000 .................... -483,000
Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund Program account: Credit
sales of acquired property
loan subsidy.................. -5,094,000 .................... -5,094,000 .................... -5,094,000
Rural Development Loan Fund
Program account:
(Loan authorization)....... .................... (-35,715,000) .................... .................... (+35,715,000)
Loan subsidy............... .................... -20,000,000 .................... .................... +20,000,000
Rural housing voucher program.. .................... .................... -25,000,000 -25,000,000 -25,000,000
Rural water and waste disposal
grants........................ .................... -25,000,000 .................... .................... +25,000,000
Salaries and expenses.......... -12,167,000 -12,167,000 -12,167,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farmers Home
Administration.......... -32,906,000 -92,167,000 -57,906,000 -25,000,000 +34,261,000
==================================================================================================
Rural Electrification
Administration
Rural Electrification and
Telephone Loans Program
account:
Direct loans (telephone):
(Loan authorization)... (-50,000,000) .................... (-25,000,000) (+25,000,000) (-25,000,000)
103-157
Loan subsidy........... -8,745,000 .................... -3,222,000 +5,523,000 -3,222,000
Direct loans (electric):
Loan subsidy.............. -3,388,000 .................... -3,388,000 .................... -3,388,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural
Electrification and
Telephone Loans Program. -12,133,000 .................... -6,610,000 +5,523,000 -6,610,000
==================================================================================================
Food and Nutrition Service
Commodity supplemental food
program....................... -12,600,000 -12,600,000 -6,100,000 +6,500,000 +6,500,000
Food donations programs for
selected groups: Needy family
program....................... .................... -6,000,000 -5,200,000 -5,200,000 +800,000
The emergency food assistance
program....................... .................... .................... -10,000,000 -10,000,000 -10,000,000
Commodity purchases--TEFAP. .................... .................... -20,000,000 -20,000,000 -20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition
Service................. -12,600,000 -18,600,000 -41,300,000 -28,700,000 -22,700,000
==================================================================================================
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED
PROGRAMS
Public Law 480 Program account:
Title I--Credit sales:
Ocean freight differential -4,600,000 .................... -4,600,000 .................... -4,600,000
Title III--Commodity
grants:
Program level.......... (-45,000,000) (-20,000,000) (-45,000,000) .................... (-25,000,000)
Appropriation.......... -45,000,000 -20,000,000 -45,000,000 .................... -25,000,000
Loan subsidies............. -35,400,000 .................... -35,400,000 .................... -35,400,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 1:
Rescissions.......... -255,668,000 -149,043,000 -255,668,000 .................... -106,625,000
(Loan authorization). (-50,000,000) (-210,540,000) (-25,000,000) (+25,000,000) (+185,540,000)
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Operations, research, and7
facilities.................... -6,000,000 .................... .................... +6,000,000 ....................
Construction................... -4,000,000 -3,000,000 .................... +4,000,000 +3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration.......... -10,000,000 -3,000,000 .................... +10,000,000 +3,000,000
==================================================================================================
International Trade
Administration
Operations and administration.. -2,000,000 .................... -2,000,000 .................... -2,000,000
Export Administration
Operations and administration.. .................... .................... -3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000
Minority Business Development
Agency
Minority business development.. .................... .................... -500,000 -500,000 -500,000
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
Information infrastructure
grants........................ .................... .................... -4,254,000 -4,254,000 -4,254,000
Economic Development
Administration
Economic development revolving
fund.......................... .................... -29,000,000 -20,000,000 -20,000,000 +9,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Commerce................ -12,000,000 -32,000,000 -29,754,000 -17,754,000 +2,246,000
==================================================================================================
THE JUDICIARY
Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services
Defender services.............. .................... -3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign
Affairs
Diplomatic and consular157
programs...................... -600,000 .................... -600,000 .................... -600,000
Buying power maintenance....... -8,800,000 -8,800,000 -8,800,000 .................... ....................
New diplomatic posts........... .................... -1,000,000 .................... .................... +1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
State................... -9,400,000 -9,800,000 -9,400,000 .................... +400,000
==================================================================================================
RELATED AGENCIES
Board for International
Broadcasting
Israel Relay Station........... -1,700,000 -1,700,000 -1,700,000 .................... ....................
Small Business Administration
Salaries and expenses.......... -13,100,000 .................... -4,100,000 +9,000,000 -4,100,000
State Justice Institute
Salaries and expenses.......... -6,775,000 .................... -3,000,000 +3,775,000 -3,000,000
==================================================================================================
United States Information
Agency
Salaries and expenses.......... -3,000,000 -1,177,000 -3,000,000 .................... -1,823,000
Educational and cultural--
exchange programs............. .................... -850,000 .................... .................... +850,000
Radio construction............. .................... -2,000,000 .................... .................... +2,000,000
North/South Center............. -8,700,000 .................... -8,700,000 .................... -8,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, United States
Information Agency...... -11,700,000 -4,027,000 -11,700,000 .................... -7,673,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 2:
Rescissions............. -54,675,000 -50,527,000 -62,654,000 -7,979,000 -12,127,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
Procurement
Missile procurement, Army...... -48,000,000 .................... .................... +48,000,000 ....................
Aircraft procurement, Navy..... -51,700,000 .................... .................... +51,700,000 ....................
Shipbuilding and conversion,
Navy.......................... -50,000,000 .................... .................... +50,000,000 ....................
Aircraft procurement, Air Force -105,600,000 .................... -12,800,000 +92,800,000 -12,800,000
Other procurement, Air Force... .................... .................... -27,500,000 -27,500,000 -27,500,000
Procurement, Defense-wide...... .................... .................... -104,500,000 -104,500,000 -104,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, procurement....... -255,300,000 .................... -144,800,000 +110,500,000 -144,800,000
==================================================================================================
Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation
Research, development, test and
evaluation, Air Force......... .................... .................... -50,000,000 -50,000,000 -50,000,000
Research, development, test and
evaluation, Defense-wide...... -50,000,000 .................... -110,500,000 -60,500,000 -110,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, research,
development, test and
evaluation.............. -50,000,000 .................... -160,500,000 -110,500,000 -160,500,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 3:
Rescissions............. -305,300,000 .................... -305,300,000 .................... -305,300,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General investigations......... -24,970,000 -24,970,000 -24,970,000 .................... ....................
Construction, general.......... -97,319,000 -97,319,000 -97,319,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Defense--Civil.......... -122,289,000 -122,289,000 -122,289,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction program........... -16,000,000 -16,000,000 -40,000,000 -24,000,000 -24,000,000
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
103-157
Energy supply, research and
development activities........ -107,300,000 -97,300,000 -107,300,000 .................... -10,000,000
Uranium supply and enrichment
activities.................... -42,000,000 -42,000,000 -42,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Energy.................. -149,300,000 -139,300,000 -149,300,000 .................... -10,000,000
==================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Salaries and expenses.......... -12,700,000 .................... -12,700,000 .................... -12,700,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 4:
Rescissions............. -300,289,000 -277,589,000 -324,289,000 -24,000,000 -46,700,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 5
MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC
ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
International Financial
Institutions
Contribution to the
International Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development:
Paid-in capital............ .................... -27,910,500 .................... .................... +27,910,500
(Limitation on callable
capital).................. .................... (-902,439,500) .................... .................... (+902,439,500)
Contribution to the Inter-
American Development Bank:
Inter-regional paid-in
capital................... .................... -16,063,134 .................... .................... +16,063,134
(Limitation on callable
capital).................. .................... (-626,407,732) .................... .................... (+626,407,732)
Contribution to the Asian
Development Bank:
Paid-in capital............ .................... -13,026,366 .................... .................... +13,026,366
(Limitation on callable
capital).................. .................... (-95,438,437) .................... .................... (+95,438,437)
Contribution to the African
Development Fund.............. .................... .................... -2,700,000 -2,700,000 -2,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, contribution for
multilateral economic
assistance.............. .................... (-1,681,285,669) (-2,700,000) (-2,700,000) (+1,678,585,669)
Rescissions.......... .................... -57,000,000 -2,700,000 -2,700,000 +54,300,000
(Limitation on
callable capital)... .................... (-1,624,285,669) .................... .................... (+1,624,285,669)
==================================================================================================
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Agency for International
Development
Development assistance fund.... -160,000,000 -160,000,000 -40,879,000 +119,121,000 +119,121,000
Reform and downsizing.......... .................... .................... -3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000
Economic support fund.......... -90,000,000 -90,000,000 -32,700,000 +57,300,000 +57,300,000
Assistance to former republics
of the Soviet Union........... .................... .................... -145,000,000 -145,000,000 -145,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agency for
International
Development............. -250,000,000 -250,000,000 -221,579,000 +28,421,000 +28,421,000
==================================================================================================
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Foreign Military Financing
Program:
103-157
Grants..................... -65,562,000 -66,000,000 -91,283,000 -25,721,000 -25,283,000
Military assistance........ -438,000 .................... -438,000 .................... -438,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 5:
Rescissions............. -316,000,000 -373,000,000 -316,000,000 .................... +57,000,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
Construction and anadromous
fish.......................... .................... -3,874,000 -3,874,000 -3,874,000 ....................
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Biomass energy development..... -16,275,000 -16,275,000 -16,275,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 6:
Rescissions............. -16,275,000 -20,149,000 -20,149,000 -3,874,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -4,000,000 -4,000,000 -4,000,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -37,500,000 -37,500,000 -37,500,000 ....................
Social Security Administration
Supplemental security income
program....................... .................... -10,909,000 -10,909,000 -10,909,000 ....................
Limitation on administrative
expenses: Trust funds......... .................... (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Health and Human
Services................ .................... -48,409,000 -48,409,000 -48,409,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Departmental Management:--
Program administration........ .................... -8,500,000 -8,500,000 -8,500,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 7:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... .................... -60,909,000 -60,909,000 -60,909,000 ....................
Rescissions...... .................... (-60,909,000) (-60,909,000) (-60,909,000) ....................
(Limitation on trust
funds).............. .................... (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 8
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Contingent Expenses of the
Senate
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
of the Senate................. .................... .................... -1,500,000 -1,500,000 -1,500,000
==================================================================================================
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Salaries and Expenses
House Leadership Offices
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -253,000 -253,000 -253,000 ....................
Committee on the Budget
(Studies)
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -4,000 -4,000 -4,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Allowances and Expenses
Official expenses of Members... .................... -1,004,000 -1,004,000 -1,004,000 ....................
Supplies, materials, ---
administrative costs and
Federal tort claims........... .................... -125,000 -125,000 -125,000 ....................
Office equipment............... .................... -364,000 -364,000 -364,000 ....................
Stenographic reporting of-
committee hearings............ .................... -67,000 -67,000 -67,000 ....................
Government contributions....... .................... -16,000 -16,000 -16,000 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, allowances and
expenses................ .................... -1,576,000 -1,576,000 -1,576,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Committee on Appropriations
(Studies and Investigations)
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -595,000 -595,000 -595,000 ....................
Standing Committees, Special
and Select
Salaries and expenses.......... .................... -378,000 -378,000 -378,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Salaries, Officers and
Employees
Office of the Postmaster....... .................... -19,000 -19,000 -19,000 ....................
Office of the Historian........ .................... -26,000 -26,000 -26,000 ....................
House Democratic Steering-
Committee and Caucus.......... .................... -73,000 -73,000 -73,000 ....................
House Republican Conference.... .................... -61,000 -61,000 -61,000 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, salaries, officers
and employees........... .................... -179,000 -179,000 -179,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
Total, House of
Representatives......... .................... -2,985,000 -2,985,000 -2,985,000 ....................
==================================================================================================
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Capitol Buildings and Grounds
Capitol buildings.............. .................... -3,000,000 .................... .................... +3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, congressional
operations.............. .................... -3,000,000 .................... .................... +3,000,000
==================================================================================================
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Library of Congress............ .................... -900,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 -100,000
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
General Accounting Office...... .................... -1,300,000 -650,000 -650,000 +650,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 8:
Rescissions............. .................... -8,185,000 -6,135,000 -6,135,000 +2,050,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 9
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
Military Construction
Military construction, Army.... -116,134,000 -22,319,000 .................... +116,134,000 +22,319,000
Military construction, Navy.... .................... -13,969,000 .................... .................... +13,969,000
Military construction, Air
Force......................... -85,094,000 -24,787,000 .................... +85,094,000 +24,787,000
Military construction, ---
Defensewide................... .................... -13,663,000 .................... .................... +13,663,000
Military construction, Army
National Guard................ -251,854,000 -7,568,000 .................... +251,854,000 +7,568,000
Military construction, Air
National Guard................ -105,138,000 -6,187,000 .................... +105,138,000 +6,187,000
Military construction, Army
Reserve....................... -19,807,000 -2,551,000 .................... +19,807,000 +2,551,000
Military construction, Naval
Reserve....................... -4,438,000 -626,000 .................... +4,438,000 +626,000
Military construction, Air
Force Reserve................. -18,759,000 -1,862,000 .................... +18,759,000 +1,862,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, military
construction............ -601,224,000 -93,532,000 .................... +601,224,000 +93,532,000
==================================================================================================
North Atlantic Treaty ---
Organization Infrastructure... .................... -70,000,000 .................... .................... +70,000,000
Base realignment and closure
account, part III............. .................... -437,692,000 -601,224,000 -601,224,000 -163,532,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 9:
Rescissions............. -601,224,000 -601,224,000 -601,224,000 .................... ....................
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
103-
Payments to air carriers--
(airport and airway trust
fund)......................... -10,067,000 -10,068,243 -10,067,000 .................... +1,243
Rental payments................ -1,781,000 .................... -1,781,000 .................... -1,781,000
Coast Guard
Operating expenses............. -5,000,000 -5,000,000 .................... +5,000,000 +5,000,000
Acquisition, construction, and
improvements.................. -2,000,000 -2,000,000 .................... +2,000,000 +2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard....... -7,000,000 -7,000,000 .................... +7,000,000 +7,000,000
==================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations..................... -2,750,000 -750,000 -2,750,000 .................... -2,000,000
Facilities and equipment57
(airport and airway trust
fund)......................... -40,257,111 -29,451,111 -65,205,300 -24,948,189 -35,754,189
Grants-in-aid for airports
(airport and airway trust
fund)......................... -488,200,000 -488,200,000 -488,200,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation
Administration.......... -531,207,111 -518,401,111 -556,155,300 -24,948,189 -37,754,189
==================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration
103-157
Federal-aid highways (highway
trust fund)................... -174,968,734 -85,774,222 -35,696,647 +139,272,087 +50,077,575
Right-of-way revolving fund
(highway trust fund).......... .................... .................... -20,000,000 -20,000,000 -20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway
Administration.......... -174,968,734 -85,774,222 -55,696,647 +119,272,087 +30,077,575
==================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Operations and research........ .................... -7,056,000 .................... .................... +7,056,000
Highway traffic safety grants
(highway trust fund).......... .................... .................... -219,750,000 -219,750,000 -219,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration.......... .................... -7,056,000 -219,750,000 -219,750,000 -212,694,000
==================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration
Railroad research and 103-
development................... -17,000,000 .................... -17,000,000 .................... -17,000,000
Federal Transit Administration
Discretionary grants (highway
trust fund)................... -52,037,325 -40,478,975 -808,935 +51,228,390 +39,670,040
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 10:
Rescissions............. -794,061,170 -668,778,551 -861,258,882 -67,197,712 -192,480,331
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 11
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Information systems............ .................... .................... -6,400,000 -6,400,000 -6,400,000
==================================================================================================
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
103-157
Federal Buildings Fund:03-
Construction.................. -127,691,000 -126,022,000 -127,691,000 .................... -1,669,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 11:
Rescissions............. -127,691,000 -126,022,000 -134,091,000 -6,400,000 -8,069,000
==================================================================================================
CHAPTER 12
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Departmental Administration
Construction, major projects... .................... -26,000,000 .................... .................... +26,000,000
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Homeownership and opportunity
for people everywhere grants
(HOPE grants)................. -66,000,000 -66,000,000 -50,000,000 +16,000,000 +16,000,000
Annual contributions for57
assisted housing.............. -180,000,000 -25,000,000 -325,000,000 -145,000,000 -300,000,000
Assistance for the renewal of
expiring section 8 subsidy
contracts..................... .................... -20,000,000 .................... .................... +20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Housing and Urban
Development............. -246,000,000 -111,000,000 -375,000,000 -129,000,000 -264,000,000
==================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
Water infrastructure/State
revolving funds............... .................... -22,000,000 .................... .................... +22,000,000
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Emergency management planning
and assistance................ .................... -2,000,000 .................... .................... +2,000,000
==================================================================================================
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Research and development....... -88,000,000 -25,000,000 -63,000,000 +25,000,000 -38,000,000
Space flight, control, and data
communications................ -32,000,000 .................... -32,000,000 .................... -32,000,000
Construction of facilities..... -25,000,000 -25,000,000 -25,000,000 .................... ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National
Aeronautics and Space
Administration.......... -145,000,000 -50,000,000 -120,000,000 +25,000,000 -70,000,000
==================================================================================================
National Science Foundation
Academic research 103-
infrastructure................ -10,000,000 -10,000,000 .................... +10,000,000 +10,000,000
National Service Initiative
Corporation for national and
community service............. .................... -5,000,000 .................... .................... +5,000,000
==================================================================================================
Total, chapter 12:
Rescissions............. -401,000,000 -226,000,000 -495,000,000 -94,000,000 -269,000,000
==================================================================================================
Total, title III:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... -3,172,183,170 -2,561,426,551 -3,442,677,882 -270,494,712 -881,251,331
Rescissions...... -3,172,183,170 -2,561,426,551 -3,442,677,882 -270,494,712 -881,251,331
(Limitation on trust
funds).............. .................... (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) ....................
(Loan authorization). (-50,000,000) (-210,540,000) (-25,000,000) (+25,000,000) (+185,540,000)
==================================================================================================
Grand total, all titles:
New budget
(obligational)
authority........... 8,426,664,830 7,157,723,449 7,554,786,118 -871,878,712 +397,062,669
Appropriations... (10,648,848,000) (8,819,150,000) (10,047,464,000) (-601,384,000) (+1,228,314,000)
Contingency
appropriations.. (950,000,000) (900,000,000) (950,000,000) .................... (+50,000,000)
Rescissions...... (-3,172,183,170) (-2,561,426,551) (-3,442,677,882) (-270,494,712) (-881,251,331)
(By transfer)........ (18,100,000) (14,561,000) (21,600,000) (+3,500,000) (+7,039,000)
(Limitation on direct
loans).............. (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) (1,109,000,000) .................... ....................
(Limitation on
guaranteed loans)... (22,000,000,000) .................... (22,000,000,000) .................... (+22,000,000,000)
(Limitation on
obligations)........ (4,452,000) .................... (4,452,000) .................... (+4,452,000)
(Limitation on trust
funds).............. .................... (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) (-80,000,000) ....................
(Loan authorization). (-50,000,000) (-210,540,000) (-25,000,000) (+25,000,000) (+185,540,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Danforth], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood]
are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--10
Brown
Faircloth
Feingold
Gregg
Helms
Kohl
Nickles
Pressler
Smith
Wallop
NOT VOTING--5
Bradley
Danforth
Durenberger
Hutchison
Packwood
So, the bill (H.R. 3759), as amended, was passed.
H.R. 3759
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 3759) entitled ``An Act making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,
and for other purposes'', do pass with the following
amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
watershed and flood prevention operations
For an additional amount for ``Watershed and flood
prevention operations'' to repair damage to the waterways and
watersheds resulting from the Midwest floods and California
fires of 1993 and other natural disasters, and for other
purposes, $340,500,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such assistance may be made available when the
primary beneficiary is agriculture or agribusiness regardless
of drainage size: Provided further, That such amounts are
designated by Congress as emergency requirements pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further,
That if the Secretary determines that the cost of land and
levee restoration exceeds the fair market value of an
affected cropland, the Secretary may use sufficient amounts
from funds provided under this heading to accept bids from
willing sellers to enroll such cropland inundated by the
Midwest floods of 1993 in any of the affected States in the
Wetlands Reserve Program, authorized by subchapter C of
chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837).
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
emergency conservation program
For an additional amount for ``Emergency conservation
program'' for expenses resulting from the Midwest floods and
California fires of 1993 and other natural disasters,
$25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Funds made available in Public Law 103-75 for the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be available to fund the costs of
replanting, reseeding, or repairing damage to commercial
trees and seedlings, including orchard and nursery inventory
as a result of the Midwest Floods of 1993 or other natural
disasters: Provided, That the use of these funds for these
purposes is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that such use shall be
available only to the extent the President designates such
use an emergency requirement pursuant to such Act.
The second proviso of the matter under the heading
``disaster assistance'' under the heading ``Commodity Credit
Corporation'' of chapter I of the Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-50; 107 Stat. 241) is amended by
inserting before the colon at the end the following: ``,
including payments to producers for the 1993, 1994, and 1995
crops of papaya if (1) the papaya would have been harvested
if the papaya plants had not been destroyed, and (2) the
papaya plants would not have produced fruit for a lifetime
total of more than 3 crop years based on normal cultivation
practices''. Payments under this paragraph shall be made only
to the extent that claims for the payments are filed not
later than the date that is 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act: Provided, That the use of funds for
this purpose is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that such use shall be
available only to the extent the President designates such
use an emergency requirement pursuant to such Act.
Funds made available in Public Law 103-75 for the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be made available to fund crop loss
disaster assistance as under the provisions of Public Law
101-624 for 1993 losses of nursery stock and inventory being
grown for commercial sale, if such stock or inventory would
mormally have been sold in 1993, 1994 or 1995: Provided, That
the use of these funds for these purposes is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that
such use shall be available only to the extent the President
designates such use an emergency requirement pursuant to such
Act.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCY
Small Business Administration
disaster loans program account
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters, $309,750,000, to remain available until
expended, of which up to $55,000,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriations for ``Salaries and
expenses'' for associated administrative expenses: Provided,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
administrative provision
Section 24 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 651) is
amended in subsection (a) by striking the period at the end
thereof and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``,
and shall give priority to a proposal to restore an area
determined to be a major disaster by the President on a date
not more than three years prior to the fiscal year for which
the application is made.''.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$6,600,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$19,400,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $18,400,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $420,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $104,800,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $560,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $21,600,000: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'', $20,300,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$200,000, to remain available for obligation until September
30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $26,800,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CHAPTER 3
Sec. 301. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357 and 22 U.S.C.
2390), reimbursements received from the United Nations for
expenses of the Department of Defense charged to the
appropriations provided by this Act shall be deposited to the
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.
Sec. 302. Funds appropriated in this chapter shall only be
obligated and expended to fund the incremental and associated
costs of the Department of Defense incurred in connection
with the ongoing United States operations relating to
Somalia; the ongoing United States humanitarian airdrops,
hospital operations, and enforcement of the no-fly zone
relating to Bosnia; the ongoing United States operations
relating to Southwest Asia; and the ongoing United States
operations supporting the maritime interception operations
relating to Haiti.
CHAPTER 4
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
For an additional amount for ``Flood control and coastal
emergencies'', $70,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
The prohibition against obligating funds for construction
until sixty days from the date the Secretary transmits a
report to the Congress in accordance with section 5 of the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is
waived for the Crooked River Project, Ochoco Dam, Oregon, to
allow for an earlier start of emergency repair work.
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
low-income home energy assistance
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-112 and designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, subject to the terms and conditions specified in
Public Law 103-112, $300,000,000, if designated by the
President as an emergency, may be allotted by the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services, as she
determines is appropriate, to any one or more of the
jurisdictions funded under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, to meet emergency needs.
The second paragraph under this heading in Public Law 102-
394 is amended as follows: strike ``June 30, 1994'' and
insert ``September 30, 1994''.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
impact aid
For carrying out disaster assistance activities resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters as authorized under section 7 of Public Law
81-874, $165,000,000, to remain available through September
30, 1995: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
student financial assistance
For an additional amount for ``Student financial
assistance'' for payment of awards made under title IV, part
A, subpart 1 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$80,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 1995:
Provided, That notwithstanding sections 442(e) and 462(j) of
such Act, the Secretary may reallocate, for use in award year
1994-1995 only, any excess funds returned to the Secretary of
Education under the Federal Work-Study or Federal Perkins
Loan programs from award year 1993-1994 to assist individuals
who suffered financial harm from the January 1994 earthquake
in Southern California and other disasters: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended: Provided further, That fiscal year 1992
Federal Work-Study and Federal Perkins Loan funds that were
reallocated to institutions for use in award year 1993-1994,
pursuant to Public Law 103-75, and fiscal year 1992 Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant funds that were
reallocated to institutions by the Secretary for use in award
year 1993-1994, pursuant to section 413D(e) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, to assist individuals who
suffered financial harm as a result of the Midwest floods of
1993 shall remain available for use in award year 1994-1995
by institutions that received such reallocations.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Federal-Aid Highways
emergency relief program
(highway trust fund)
For the Emergency Fund authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125 to cover
expenses arising from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California and other disasters, $950,000,000; and in addition
$400,000,000, which shall be available only to the extent an
official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress, all to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided
further, That the limitation on obligations per State in 23
U.S.C. 125(b) shall not apply to projects relating to such
earthquake: Provided further, That notwithstanding 23 U.S.C.
120(e), the Federal share for any project on the Federal-aid
highway system related to such earthquake shall be 100
percent for the costs incurred in the 180 day period
beginning on the date of the earthquake: Provided further,
That project costs incurred prior to implementation of this
bill and subsequent to the January 17, 1994, Northridge
Earthquake, that are funded from other than Federal Emergency
Relief funds that were otherwise eligible for Emergency
Relief funding, are approved for Emergency Relief funds and
such costs regardless of initial funding sources are to be
reimbursed with Emergency Relief funds: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
made available by the Dire Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public Law 102-368) under ``Federal
Highway Administration, Metropolitan Planning (Highway Trust
Fund),'' $337,000 of the funds received by Hawaii shall be
made available by the State of Hawaii directly to the County
of Kauai, Hawaii, for conducting comprehensive reviews of
transportation infrastructure needs incurred in connection
with Hurricane Iniki, and, these funds shall remain available
until expended.
In addition, for emergency expenses resulting from the Loma
Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989, as authorized by 23
U.S.C. 125, $315,000,000, to be derived from the Highway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such amount is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California,
$21,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $802,000 is available for transfer to General
Operating Expenses, the Guaranty and Indemnity Program
Account, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program
Account: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
construction, major projects
For an additional amount for ``Construction, major
projects'' for emergency expenses resulting from the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California and other disasters,
$45,600,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as may be necessary may be transferred to the
``Medical care'' and ``Construction, minor projects''
accounts: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
annual contributions for assisted housing
For an additional amount under this head, $225,000,000, to
remain available until December 31, 1995, of which
$200,000,000 shall be for rental assistance under the section
8 existing housing certificate program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) and
the housing voucher program under section 8(o) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), and
$25,000,000 shall be for the modernization of existing public
housing projects pursuant to section 14 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437l): Provided, That these
funds shall be used first to replenish amounts used from the
headquarters reserve established pursuant by section
213(d)(4)(A) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, for assistance to victims of the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California: Provided further,
That any amounts remaining after the headquarters reserve has
been replenished shall be available under such programs for
additional assistance to victims of the earthquake referred
to above: Provided further, That in administering these
funds, the Secretary may waive or specify alternative
requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for the requirements relating to fair
housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor
standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds and would not
be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute or
regulation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
flexible subsidy fund
For emergency assistance to owners of eligible multifamily
housing projects damaged by the January 1994 earthquake in
Southern California who are either insured or formerly
insured under the National Housing Act, as amended, or
otherwise eligible for assistance under section 201(c) of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a), in the program of assistance
for troubled multifamily housing projects under the Housing
and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as amended,
$100,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That assistance to an owner of a multifamily
housing project assisted, but not insured under the National
Housing Act, may be made if the project owner and the
mortgagee have provided or agreed to provide assistance to
the project in a manner as determined by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development: Provided further, That
assistance is for the repair of damage or the recovery of
losses directly attributable to the Southern California
earthquake of 1994: Provided further, That in administering
these funds, the Secretary may waive, or specify alternative
requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for statutory requirements relating to
fair housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and
labor standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds, and would
not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute
or regulation: Provided further, That after assisting
economically viable FHA insured projects, to the extent funds
remain available the Secretary may provide assistance to
economically viable projects assisted with a loan made under
section 312 of the National Housing Act of 1964 and projects
assisted under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 but not insured under the National Housing Act: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--General and Special Risk Program Account
For higher mortgage limits and improved access to mortgage
insurance for victims of the January 1994 earthquake in
Southern California and other disasters, title II of the
National Housing Act, as amended, is further amended, as
follows:
(1) In section 203(h), by--
(A) striking out ``section 102(2) and 401 of the Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'' and inserting ``Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'';
and
(B) adding the following new sentence at the end thereof:
``In any case in which the single family residence to be
insured under this subsection is within a jurisdiction in
which the President has declared a major disaster to have
occurred, the Secretary is authorized, for a temporary period
not to exceed 18 months from the date of such Presidential
declaration, to enter into agreements to insure a mortgage
which involves a principal obligation of up to 100 percent of
the dollar limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for single
family residence, and not in excess of 100 percent of the
appraised value.''.
(2) In section 203(k), by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(6) The Secretary is authorized, for a temporary period
not to exceed 18 months from the date on which the President
has declared a major disaster to have occurred, to enter into
agreements to insure a rehabilitation loan under this
subsection which involves a principal obligation of up to 100
percent of the dollar limitation determined under section
305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act
for a residence of the applicable size, if such loan is
secured by a structure and property that are within a
jurisdiction in which the President has declared such
disaster, pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, and if such loan otherwise
conforms to the loan-to-value ratio and other requirements of
this subsection.''.
(3) In section 234(c), by inserting after ``203(b)(2)'' in
the third sentence the phrase: ``or pursuant to section
203(h) under the conditions described in section 203(h)''.
Eligibility for loans made under the authority granted by
the preceding paragraph shall be limited to persons whose
principal residence was damaged or destroyed as a result of a
Presidentially declared major disaster event: Provided, That
the provisions under this heading shall be effective only for
the 18 month period following the date of enactment of this
Act.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
For an additional amount for ``Community development
grants'', as authorized under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, for emergency expenses
resulting from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California or the Midwest Floods of 1993, $500,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1996 for all activities
eligible under such title I except those activities
reimbursable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or available through the Small Business Administration
(SBA): Provided, That from this amount, the Secretary may
transfer up to $75,000,000 to the ``HOME investment
partnerships program'', as authorized under title II of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended
(Public Law 101-625), to remain available until expended, as
an additional amount for such emergency expenses for all
activities eligible under such title II except activities
reimbursable by FEMA or available through SBA: Provided
further, That the recipients of amounts under this
appropriation, including the foregoing transfer (if any),
shall use such amounts first to replenish amounts previously
obligated under their Community Development Block Grant or
HOME programs, respectively, in connection with the Southern
California earthquake of January 1994: Provided further, That
in administering these funds, the Secretary may waive, or
specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any
statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in
connection with the obligation by the Secretary or any use by
the recipient of these funds, except for statutory
requirements relating to fair housing and nondiscrimination,
the environment, and labor standards, upon finding that such
waiver is required to facilitate the obligation and use of
such funds, and would not be inconsistent with the overall
purpose of the statute or regulation: Provided further, That
with respect to funds made available by this head that are
proposed to be used by recipients affected by the Midwest
floods of 1993 for the purpose of hazard mitigation through
flood plain real property acquisition or relocation, the
Secretary shall secure assurances from grantees that such
activities will be subject to the requirements of sections 3
and 4 of the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act
of 1993 (Public Law 103-181, 107 Stat. 2054-2056): Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for the
January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and other
disasters, $4,709,000,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
emergency management planning and assistance
For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance'', to carry out activities under the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to study the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California in order to enhance seismic safety throughout the
United States: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CHAPTER 8
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
Unanticipated Needs
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California, the
Midwest Floods and other disasters, $550,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to any authorized Federal governmental activity
to meet the requirements of such disasters: Provided further,
That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent
that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount,
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided further,
That the President's request shall specifically identify
programs, projects and activities to be funded and no funds
shall be available for 15 days after the submission of the
request: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1994''.
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Extension Service
For an additional amount for ``Extension Service,''
$1,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995, of
which up to $750,000 may be transferred to the Cooperative
State Research Service.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'' from
fees collected pursuant to section 736 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, not to exceed $2,284,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That fees derived from
applications received during fiscal year 1994 shall be
credited to the appropriation current in the year in which
fees are collected and subject to the fiscal year 1994
limitation.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCY
Office of the United States Trade Representative
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for salaries and expenses,
$75,000, to remain available until expended, for electronic
records management activities to comply with Armstrong
against Executive Office of the President.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
resource management
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Resource Management'' to
carry out the Forest Plan in the Pacific Northwest,
$2,100,000, of which $400,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the ``Oil spill emergency fund'' and $1,700,000 shall be
derived by transfer from the ``Compact of Free Association''.
land acquisition
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Land acquisition'' for the
acquisition of land or interests in land, from willing
sellers, in the Midwest area flooded in 1993, $4,000,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived by transfer
from amounts appropriated to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service under the heading ``Construction'' in Public
Law 103-75, to be used for nonstructural measures to meet
flood damage control and fish and wildlife habitat
restoration objectives.
National Park Service
construction
For an additional amount for ``Construction,'' to replenish
funds used for emergency actions related to storm damaged
facilities within National Park System areas, $13,102,000, to
remain available until expended.
land acquisition and state assistance
For an additional amount for ``Land acquisition and state
assistance,'' $1,274,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended,
to replenish funds used for emergency actions related to
storm damaged facilities within National Park System areas;
and in addition, an additional amount not to exceed
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be derived
by transfer from balances under the heading ``Construction,''
for project modifications authorized by section 104 of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of
1989, to be available for Federal assistance to the State of
Florida for acquisition of lands or interests therein
adjacent to, or affecting the restoration of, natural water
flows to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
operation of Indian programs
The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 103-138 is
amended by inserting the words ``not to exceed'' before the
amount ``$316,111,000''.
construction
For an additional amount for ``Construction,'' $12,363,000,
to remain available until expended.
indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
Indians
The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 103-138 is
amended by adding the following before the last period: ``,
and (3) to reimburse Indian trust fund account holders for
loss(es) to their respective accounts where the claim for
said loss(es) has been reduced to a judgment or settlement
agreement approved by the Department of Justice''.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
administrative provisions, department of energy
Section 303 of Public Law 97-257, as amended, is repealed.
The seventh proviso under the head ``Clean Coal
Technology'' in Public Law 101-512, and the seventh proviso
under the head ``Clean Coal Technology'' in Public Law 102-
154, both concerning Federal employment, are repealed.
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds
For an additional amount for ``Advances to the unemployment
trust fund and other funds,'' $61,400,000, to remain
available until September 30, 1995.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'' for
the current population parallel survey, $10,100,000:
Provided, That an amount equal to the amount obligated in the
``Training and employment services'' account for this purpose
upon the date of enactment of this Act shall be transferred
from this account and merged into the ``Training and
employment services'' account.
CHAPTER 5
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Salaries, Officers and Employees
For an additional amount for ``Office of the Secretary'',
$450,000.
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
secretary of the senate
For an additional amount for expenses of the ``Office of
the Secretary of the Senate'', $600,000.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
operating expenses
Of funds provided under this heading under Public Law 103-
75, $4,000,000 shall, in combination with funds made
available under this heading under Public Law 102-368, be
made available for operating, acquisition, construction, and
improvement costs associated with the Midwest floods, and
shall remain available until expended.
acquisition, construction, and improvements
Of the funds made available under this heading under Public
Law 102-368, $2,000,000 shall be made available for costs
associated with the Midwest floods, and shall remain
available until expended.
Federal Railroad Administration
pennsylvania station redevelopment project
For grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended, for
engineering and design activities to enable the James A.
Farley Post Office in New York City to be used as a train
station and commercial center: Provided, That the Secretary
may retain from these funds such amounts as the Secretary
shall deem appropriate to undertake the environmental and
historic preservation analyses associated with this project:
Provided further, That no funds provided under this head
shall be available for construction until the Secretary
submits a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations regarding the financing of necessary
improvements to the existing Pennsylvania Station and the
financing of the operating and capital costs accruing to the
commuter rail authorities operating in said station as a
result of this redevelopment project.
trust fund share of next generation rail technology development
(highway trust fund)
The obligation limitation for the ``High-Speed Ground
Transportation'' program in Public Law 103-122 is amended by
deleting ``$3,500,000'' and inserting ``$7,952,000''.
General Provision
Section 310(c)(3) of the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, is amended by--
(a) inserting ``6005,'' after ``6001,''; and
(b) inserting ``: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under section 6005
of Public Law 102-240 shall be subject to the obligation
limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway-safety
construction programs under the head `Federal-Aid Highways'
in this Act'' after ``section 104(a) of title 23, United
States Code''.
CHAPTER 7
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for salaries and expenses for the
costs of electronic communications records management
activities for compliance with and resolution of Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President, $7,030,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $6,000,000 shall be
derived by transfer from Department of Defense, ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force.''
National Security Council
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for salaries and expenses for the
costs of electronic communications records management
activities for compliance with and resolution of Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President, $5,320,000, to remain
available until expended.
CHAPTER 8
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions
For an additional amount for ``Compensation and pensions,''
$698,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Readjustment benefits
For an additional amount for ``Readjustment benefits,''
$103,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
(By transfer)
For an additional amount for ``Medical administration and
miscellaneous operating expenses'', $3,500,000, to be derived
by transfer from amounts appropriated under the head
``Medical care'' in Public Law 103-124.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account
During fiscal year 1994, the limitation on commitments to
guarantee loans to carry out the purposes of section 203(b)
of the National Housing Act, as amended, is increased by an
additional loan principal of not to exceed $20,000,000,000.
FHA--General and special risk program account
The limitation on commitments during fiscal year 1994 to
guarantee loans authorized by sections 238 and 519 of the
National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3(b) and
1735c(f), is increased by an additional loan principal, any
part of which is to be guaranteed, of not to exceed
$2,000,000,000.
Administrative Provisions
Of the $260,000,000 earmarked in Public Law 102-389, in the
14th proviso under the head Annual Contributions for Assisted
Housing, for special purpose grants (106 Stat. 1571, 1584),
$1,300,000 made available for continued assistance to two
sugarcane mills on the Hilo-Hamakua Coast of Hawaii shall
also be available to community-based and employee-support
organizations along the Hamakua Coast, to address social and
economic needs in such area.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
Water infrastructure state revolving funds
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-124, the $500,000,000 earmarked to not become
available until May 31, 1994, shall instead not become
available until September 30, 1994.
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The proviso under this heading in Public Law 103-124 is
repealed.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
For an additional amount for ``Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'', $300,000.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Research and development
For an additional amount for ``Research and development'',
$40,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall become available for
obligation on October 1, 1994: Provided, That these funds
shall be available for the commercial mid-deck augmentation
module, in addition to such amounts as may be subsequently
appropriated.
The second proviso under this heading in Public Law 103-124
is amended to read as follows: ``Provided further, That of
the funds provided under this heading, for the redesigned
Space Station, (1) not to exceed $160,000,000 shall be for
termination costs connected only with Space Station Freedom
contracts, (2) not to exceed $172,000,000 shall be for space
station operations and utilization capability development,
and (3) not to exceed $99,000,000 shall be for supporting
development:''.
The fifth and sixth provisos under this heading in Public
Law 103-124 are deleted and the fourth proviso thereunder is
amended to read: ``Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, not to exceed $117,200,000
shall be available for activities to support cooperative
space ventures between the United States and the Republic of
Russia outlined in the joint agreement of September 2,
1993:''.
Research and program management
For an additional amount for ``Research and program
management,'' $60,000,000.
National Service Initiative
Corporation for National and Community Service
From the amounts appropriated to the Corporation for
National and Community Service in Public Law 103-124, up to
$3,000,000 may be made available for a demonstration program
for Stafford Loan Forgiveness authorized under section 428 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. (a) Section 1205(a)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1993 is amended by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``and amounts transferred by the
Architect of the Capitol from funds appropriated to the
Architect''.
(b) Section 1205(b) of such Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``and payments'' and inserting ``,
payments''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and payments pursuant to Senate Resolution
139, 103d Congress, agreed to August 4, 1993''.
(c) Section 1205 of such Act is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) In case of an award under section 307 of Public Law
102-166, a payment pursuant to an agreement under section 310
of such Public Law, or a payment pursuant to Senate
Resolution 139, 103d Congress, agreed to August 4, 1993, to
an employee described in section 301(c)(1)(B) of such Public
Law, to an applicant for a position described in section
301(c)(1)(C) of such Public Law that is to be occupied by
such an employee, or to an individual described in section
301(c)(1)(D) of such Public Law who was formerly such an
employee, the Architect of the Capitol, at the direction of
the Secretary of the Senate, shall transfer to the account
established by subsection (a), from funds that are
appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol under the
heading `Capitol Buildings and Grounds' under the subheading
`senate office buildings' and that are otherwise available
for obligation at the time the award is ordered or the
agreement is entered into, an amount sufficient to pay such
award or make such payment.''.
(d) The amendments made by this section shall be effective
on and after October 1, 1992.
Sec. 2002. (a) The Senate finds that--
(1) historically it is the policy of the Federal Government
to provide financial and other assistance to the victims of
natural disasters;
(2) since fiscal year 1988, the Congress has enacted 6
major disaster relief supplemental appropriations Acts
providing a total of $17,012,000,000 in budget authority for
Federal disaster assistance for domestic disasters;
(3) the provision of Federal disaster assistance reflects
the traditions and values of the American people who have
always been willing to provide help to those who have been
victimized by catastrophic events and forces beyond their
control;
(4) the unprecedented growth in the cost of disaster
assistance needs to be reconciled with the restraints imposed
on discretionary spending and with the deficit reduction
goals of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, under which significant
progress is being made in reducing the Federal deficit; and
(5) a prospective policy should be developed for
anticipating and funding disaster needs and other emergencies
in keeping with continuing fiscal constraints on the Federal
Government.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) there should be established in the Senate a Bipartisan
Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief; and
(2) the Task Force should--
(A) consult with the Senate committees with jurisdiction
over disaster relief programs;
(B) compile information on the history of Federal disaster
relief and recovery funding;
(C) evaluate the types and amounts of Federal financial
assistance provided to individuals, State and local
governments, and nonprofit organizations after disasters
strike, as well as relevant insurance coverage and loss
experience;
(D) consider the relationship between funding disaster
relief and complying with the deficit control requirements of
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, and other deficit control
provisions enacted prior to 1990; and
(E) report its findings, options, and recommendations to
the Senate with regard to the consideration of future
disaster assistance funding requests prior to the convening
of the 104th Congress.
Sec. 2003. (a) Amendment to Title 31.--Section 301(d) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``an
Under Secretary for Enforcement,'' after ``2 Under
Secretaries,''.
(b) Amendment to Title 5.--Section 5314 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of the
Treasury (or Counselor).'' and striking ``Under Secretary of
the Treasury for Monetary Affairs.'' and inserting in lieu
thereof, ``Under Secretaries of the Treasury (3).''.
Sec. 2004. Of the funds made available for the purpose of
defraying expenses for the automation of fingerprint
identification services under the heading ``salaries and
expenses'' under the heading ``Federal Bureau of
Investigation'' in title I of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-121), $20,000,000
shall be available (to remain available until expended) to
hire 500 employees to carry out the automation of fingerprint
identification services without regard to any employment
ceiling imposed by the President or by law.
TITLE III--RESCINDING CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Economic Research Service
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $4,000,000 are rescinded.
Cooperative State Research Service
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $12,463,000 are rescinded, including $4,375,000
of contracts and grants for agricultural research under the
Act of August 4, 1965, as amended; $6,729,000 for competitive
research grants under section 2(b) of the Act of August 4,
1965; and $1,359,000 for necessary expenses of Cooperative
State Research Service activities.
buildings and facilities
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $2,897,000 are rescinded.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Salaries and Expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $12,167,000 are rescinded.
Soil Conservation Service
conservation operations
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $12,167,000 are rescinded.
watershed and flood prevention operations
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $21,158,000 are rescinded.
Farmers Home Administration
Agricultural credit insurance fund program account
Of the amounts provided under this heading for the cost of
credit sales of acquired property direct loans in Public Law
103-111, $5,094,000 are rescinded.
Rural housing insurance fund program account
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-111, the following amounts are rescinded: for the cost of
low-income housing section 502 direct loans, $1,515,000; for
the cost of section 515 rental housing loans, $12,443,000;
for the cost of section 504 housing repair loans, $1,204,000;
for the cost of section 514 farm labor housing loans,
$483,000.
rural housing voucher program
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $25,000,000 are rescinded.
Salaries and Expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $12,167,000 are rescinded.
Rural Electrification Administration
Rural Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account
(rescission)
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-111, the following amounts are rescinded: for the cost of
5 percent rural electrification direct loans, $3,388,000; for
the cost of 5 percent rural telephone direct loans,
$3,222,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-341, $6,100,000 are rescinded.
Food Donations Program for Selected Groups
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111, $5,200,000 are rescinded.
Public Law 480 Program Account
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111 for title III, $45,000,000 are rescinded, and of
the amounts made available for ocean freight differential
costs, $4,600,000 are rescinded.
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-111 for the cost of direct credit agreements,
including the cost of modifying credit agreements,
$35,400,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Operations and Administration
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading, $2,000,000
are rescinded.
Export Administration
Operations and Administration
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading, $3,000,000
are rescinded.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority Business Development
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available for the Catawba Indian Tribe in
Public Law 103-121, $500,000 are rescinded.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Information Infrastructure Grants
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-121, $4,254,000 are rescinded.
Economic Development Administration
Economic Development Revolving Fund
(Rescission)
From unobligated balances available under this heading,
$20,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-121, $600,000 are rescinded.
Buying power maintenance
(rescission)
Of the balances in the Buying power maintenance account,
$8,800,000 are rescinded.
THE JUDICIARY
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
defender services
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-121, $3,000,000 are rescinded.
RELATED AGENCIES
Board for International Broadcasting
israel radio relay station
(rescission)
Of the balances available under this heading, $1,700,000
are rescinded.
Small Business Administration
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-121, $4,100,000 are rescinded.
State Justice Institute
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading, $3,000,000
are rescinded.
United States Information Agency
Salaries and Expenses
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading, $3,000,000
are rescinded.
north/south center
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading, $8,700,000
are rescinded.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-396, $12,800,000 are rescinded.
Other Procurement, Air Force
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $27,500,000 are rescinded.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $104,500,000 are rescinded.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-396, $50,000,000 are rescinded.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $110,500,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 4
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General Investigations
(Rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-377 and prior years Energy and Water Development
Acts, $24,970,000 are rescinded.
Construction, General
(Rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-377 and prior years Energy and Water Development
Acts, $97,319,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Construction Program
(Rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Laws 102-27, 102-368, 102-377 and prior years Energy and
Water Development Acts, $40,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Supply Research and Development Activities
(rescissions)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-126, $97,300,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the
reduction shall be taken as a general reduction, applied to
each program equally, so as not to eliminate or
disproportionately reduce any program, project or activity in
the Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities
account as included in the reports accompanying Public Law
103-126.
Of the funds made available under this heading for
superconducting magnetic energy storage in Public Law 103-
126, $10,000,000 are rescinded.
Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities
(RESCISSION)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-377 and prior years' Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Acts, $42,000,000 are rescinded.
RELATED AGENCY
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-126, $12,700,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 5
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
International Financial Institutions
CONTRIBUTION TO THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87, for the United States contribution to the sixth
replenishment of the African Development Fund, $2,700,000 are
rescinded.
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
Agency for International Development
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND
(RESCISSION)
Of the unexpended or unobligated balances of funds
(including earmarked funds) made available for fiscal year
1994 and prior fiscal years to carry out the provisions of
sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, $40,879,000 are rescinded.
OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87, for expenses related to the implementation of the
recommendations of the Report of the National Performance
Review, $3,000,000 are rescinded.
ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
(RESCISSION)
Of the unexpended or unobligated balances of funds made
available under this heading and title VI of Public Law 103-
87, and prior Acts making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs, for
assistance for the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union, $145,000,000 are rescinded.
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE
Economic Support Fund
(RESCISSION)
Of the unexpended or unobligated balances of funds
(including earmarked funds) made available for fiscal years
1987 through 1994 to carry out the provisions of chapter 4 of
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $32,700,000
are rescinded.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM
(RESCISSIONS)
Of the funds made available under this heading (including
earmarked funds) in Public Law 102-391 and prior
appropriations acts, for grants to carry out the provisions
of section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $65,562,000 are
rescinded.
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87, for grants to carry out the provisions of section
23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $25,721,000 are rescinded:
Provided, That such rescission shall be derived only from
nonearmarked amounts.
Military assistance
(rescission)
Of the funds made available (including earmarked funds)
under this heading in Public Law 102-391 and prior
appropriations acts, $438,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
CONSTRUCTION and anadromous fish
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 100-446 and Public Law 102-154, $3,874,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Biomass Energy Development
(rescission)
Of the funds available under this heading, $16,275,000 are
rescinded.
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
(Rescission)
Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 103-112 for
salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the
Department of Labor, $4,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
(rescission)
Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 103-112 for
salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the
Department of Health and Human Services (except the Social
Security Administration), $37,500,000 are rescinded.
Social Security Administration
Supplemental Security Income Program
(rescission)
Of the amounts appropriated in the first paragraph under
this heading in Public Law 103-112, $10,909,000 are
rescinded.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-112 to invest in a state-of-the-art computing
network, $80,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Departmental Management
program administration
(rescission)
Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 103-112 for
salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the
Department of Education, $8,500,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 8
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
SENATE
Contingent Expenses of the Senate
(rescission)
Of the funds made available for the Senate under the
heading ``Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate'' in
Public Law 102-90, $1,500,000 are rescinded.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Salaries and Expenses
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 101-520, $633,000 are rescinded in the amounts specified
for the following headings and accounts:
``allowances and expenses'', $633,000, as follows:
``Official Expenses of Members'', $128,000; ``supplies,
materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims'',
$125,000; ``net expenses of purchase, lease and maintenance
of office equipment'', $364,000; and ``Government
contributions to employees' life insurance fund, retirement
funds, Social Security fund, Medicare fund, health benefits
fund, and worker's and unemployment compensation'', $16,000.
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-90, $2,352,000 are rescinded in the amounts specified
for the following headings and accounts:
``house leadership offices'', $253,000;
``committee on the budget (studies)'', $4,000;
``standing committees, special and select'', $378,000;
``allowances and expenses'', $943,000, as follows:
``Official Expenses of Members'', $876,000; and
``stenographic reporting of committee hearings'', $67,000;
``committee on appropriations (studies and investigations)'', $595,000;
``salaries, officers and employees'', $179,000, as follows:
``Office of the Postmaster'', $19,000; ``for salaries and
expenses of the Office of the Historian'', $26,000; ``the
House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the
Democratic Caucus'', $73,000; and ``the House Republican
Conference'', $61,000.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-69, $1,000,000 are rescinded.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-69, $650,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 9
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-110, $601,224,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
payments to air carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the funds available for programs authorized under
section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended
(49 U.S.C. 1389), $10,067,000 are rescinded.
rental payments
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-122, $1,781,000 are rescinded.
Federal Aviation Administration
operations
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-122, $2,750,000 are rescinded.
facilities and equipment
(airport and airways trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the available balances under this heading, $65,205,300
are rescinded.
grants-in-aid for airports
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances authorized under section 14 of
Public Law 91-258 as amended, $488,200,000 are rescinded.
Federal Highway Administration
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the funds made available for specific highway projects,
$23,701,035 are rescinded: Provided, That of the amounts made
available for Federal-aid highways pursuant to provisions of
the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance
Act of 1987, $2,517,473 are rescinded: Provided further, That
of the authority made available for bridges on Federal dams
pursuant to section 320 of title 23, United States Code,
$9,478,139 are rescinded: Provided further, That this
rescission shall not apply to any emergency relief project
under section 125 of title 23, United States Code.
right-of-way revolving fund
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances authorized under section 108 of
title 23, United States Code, and section 7 of Public Law 90-
495, $20,000,000 are rescinded.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
highway traffic safety grants
(highway trust fund)
(rescission)
Of the funds available for programs authorized under 153,
402, and 408 of title 23, United States Code, and section 209
of Public Law 95-599, as amended, $219,750,000 are rescinded.
Federal Railroad Administration
railroad research and development
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-122, $17,000,000 are rescinded.
Federal Transit Administration
discretionary grants
(rescission)
(highway trust fund)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 99-190, $808,935 are rescinded.
CHAPTER 11
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
information systems
(rescission)
Of the amount made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-123, $6,400,000 are rescinded.
RELATED AGENCY
General Services Administration
federal buildings fund
(limitations on availability of revenue)
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-123, the Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1994, and from available unobligated balances from previous
appropriations acts, $127,691,000 are rescinded for the
following projects in the following amounts:
Alabama:
Montgomery, U.S. Courthouse, $5,000,000.
Arizona:
Naco, U.S. Border Station, $74,000.
Sierra Vista, U.S. Magistrates Office, $1,000,000:
Provided, That up to $1,000,000 shall be made available for
such project from funds made available in Public Law 103-123
for non-prospectus construction projects.
California:
Calexico, U.S. Border Station, $900,000.
Menlo Park, U.S. Geological Survey Office and Laboratory
Buildings, $783,000.
Sacramento, U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building,
$3,391,000.
Tecate, U.S. Border Station, $165,000.
District of Columbia:
Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters Building,
$11,309,000.
Federal Office Building No. 6, $11,100,000.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Field Office, $5,679,000.
White House remote delivery and vehicle maintenance
facility, $5,382,000.
U.S. Secret Service, Headquarters, $23,274,000.
Florida:
Lakeland, Federal Building, $4,400,000.
Tampa, U.S. Courthouse, $7,472,000.
Iowa:
Burlington, Parking Facility, $2,400,000.
Massachusetts:
Boston, U.S. Courthouse, $4,076,000.
Maryland:
Bowie, Bureau of Census, Computer Center, $660,000.
New Carrollton, Internal Revenue Service, $30,100,000.
Minnesota:
Minneapolis, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,
$4,197,000.
New Hampshire:
Concord, U.S. Courthouse, $867,000.
Nevada:
Reno, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $875,000.
New Jersey:
Newark, Federal Building, 20 Washington Plaza, $327,000.
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia, Veterans Affairs Federal Building,
$1,276,000.
Tennessee:
Knoxville, U.S. Courthouse, $800,000.
United States Virgin Islands:
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Courthouse and Annex,
$2,184,000.
CHAPTER 12
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Grants (HOPE
Grants)
(Rescission)
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-124, an additional $50,000,000 are rescinded.
Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing
(Rescission)
Of the amounts earmarked under this heading in Public Law
103-124, $325,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the
$541,000,000 earmarked in the sixth proviso under this
heading shall be reduced accordingly.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
salaries and expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-124, $770,000 are rescinded.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Research and development
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-124, $63,000,000 are rescinded.
Space flight, control, and data communications
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-124, $32,000,000 are rescinded.
Construction of facilities
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-124, $25,000,000 are rescinded.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. The Architect of the Capitol shall be considered
the agency for the purposes of the election in section
801(b)(2)(B) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act
and the head of the agency for purposes of subsection
(b)(2)(C) of such section.
prohibition of benefits for individuals not lawfully within the united
states
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide any benefit or assistance to any
individual in the United States when it is known to a Federal
entity or official to which the funds are made available
that--
(1) the individual is not lawfully within the United
States;
(2) the direct Federal assistance or benefit to be provided
is other than search and rescue; emergency medical care;
emergency mass care; emergency shelter; clearance of roads
and construction of temporary bridges necessary to the
performance of emergency tasks and essential community
services; warning of further risks or hazards; dissemination
of public information and assistance regarding health and
safety measures; the provision of food, water, medicine, and
other essential needs, including movement of supplies or
persons; and reduction of immediate threats to life, property
and public health and safety;
(3) temporary housing assistance provided in this Act may
be made available to individuals and families for a period of
up to 90 days without regard to the requirements of
subsection (4);
(4) immediately upon the enactment of this Act, other than
for the purposes set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this
section, any Federal entity or official who makes available
funds under this Act shall take reasonable steps to determine
whether any individual or company seeking to obtain such
funds is lawfully within the United States; and
(5) the implementation of this section shall not require
the publication or implementation of any intervening
regulations.
Sec. 404. (a) Study by Comptroller General.--The
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
study regarding Federal laws, unfunded Federal mandates, and
other Federal regulatory requirements, that may prevent or
impair the ability of State and local authorities to rebuild
expeditiously the areas devastated by the January 1994
earthquake in Southern California. In conducting the study,
the Comptroller General shall consult with State and local
officials of California.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Congress a report setting forth findings and
recommendations as a result of the study conducted under
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(1) an identification of the specific Federal laws,
unfunded Federal mandates, and other Federal regulatory
requirements, referred to in subsection (a);
(2) an analysis of the manner in which such laws, mandates,
and other requirements may prevent or impair the ability of
State and local authorities to rebuild expeditiously the
areas devastated by the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California; and
(3) recommended forms of, and appropriate time periods for,
relief from such laws, mandates, and other requirements.
Sec. 405. In the case of any equipment or product that may
be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided using funds made available in this Act, it is the
sense of the Congress that entities receiving the assistance
should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
made equipment and products, and that notice of this
provision be given to each recipient of assistance covered
under this Act.
SEC. 406. EXTENSION OF RTC CIVIL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Section 21A(b)(14)(C) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12
U.S.C. 1441a(b)(14)(C)) is amended by striking clause (i) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``(i) the period beginning on the date the claim accrues
(as determined pursuant to section 11(d)(14)(B) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act) and ending on December 31,
1995 or ending on the date of the termination of the
Corporation pursuant to section 21A(m)(1), whichever is
later; or''.
SEC. 407. REPEALS.
Except for subsection (b) of section 3508, sections 3508
and 3509 of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act are repealed effective
October 30, 1992.
Sec. 408. It is the sense of the Congress that the
Department of Defense should proceed with construction of a
new facility for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
at Forest Glen, Maryland, not later than 45 days after
enactment of this Act.
Sec. 409. (a) Section 223(d)(4) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by inserting the following
after the first sentence: ``If an individual engages in a
criminal activity to support substance abuse, any proceeds
derived from such activity shall demonstrate such
individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful
activity.''.
(b) Section 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)(D)) is amended by inserting the following
after the first sentence: ``If an individual engages in a
criminal activity to support substance abuse, any proceeds
derived from such activity shall demonstrate such
individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful
activity.''.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall apply to
disability determinations conducted on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 410. TRANSPORTATION GENERAL PROVISION TO ESTABLISH AN
AUXILIARY FLIGHT SERVICE STATION.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is
directed to establish and operate an Auxiliary Flight Service
Station at Marquette, Michigan, no later than September 1,
1994, using available funds.
Sec. 411. Subsection (b) of section 347 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 (Public Law
103-160; 107 Stat. 1626) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``section 2774(a)(2)(A) of title 10,''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 5584(a)(2)(A) of
title 5,''; and
(2) by striking out ``section 2774(a)(2) of such title''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 5584(a)(2) of such
title''.
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 3759, and the Chair is
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sasser, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Bumpers, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl,
Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr.
Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Burns conferees on
the part of the Senate.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, for the information of conferees, the
conference on the supplemental appropriations bill will convene in the
morning at 10 o'clock in room SC-5.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will not take much time of the Senate.
I just feel it is a moment for me to say thank you, on behalf of
Senator Feinstein and myself, to every single Member of this Senate who
voted for that emergency supplemental appropriation. I know many of my
colleagues wanted certain amendments to be agreed to. I know many tried
to get them passed. I know many did not even offer them because they
saw the hour was growing late and they could tell from the Senators
from California that our people were getting a little nervous as they
watched us debate on other matters.
Senator Feinstein would be here herself saying thank you but she is
at the moment speaking with the Governor, and I am sure the Governor is
most grateful for this bipartisan action, as is Mayor Riordan of Los
Angeles, and the mayors from all the areas in southern California.
The people of California have an indomitable spirit, as do the people
all across this great country. But sometimes our spirit is tested and,
when you see you cannot get back into your home, and you wonder if you
ever will be able to, and you watch this debate, you hope we will help.
Your spirit surely drags when you worry that we will not reach the
point that we send this over to the conference.
We reached that point. We had some tough debates. A couple of times I
brought out some pictures from the earthquake to try to remind us why
we were really debating this. I can only say, from the bottom of my
heart, this means a whole lot to us. I think we are going to rebuild
southern California. We are going to get back on our feet. We are going
to help now to add to this economic recovery which has eluded us thus
far.
Again, I say to my friends from both sides of the aisle how much this
vote means to me and to Senator Feinstein and to all the people, the 31
million people, of California.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to join with my
colleague, Senator Boxer, in saying thank you to my colleagues. I
particularly would like to thank Senator Byrd for the excellent way in
which he protected the State of California in this supplemental
appropriation. I think it puts us on the road to recovery. It is a
major step forward and, in a State with a budget that is deeply
troubled, there is no way the State of California, and there is no way
the people of the State, could have handled this problem.
What the earthquake does point out to me, particularly, is the fact
that only 25 percent of the people who own homes had earthquake
insurance. When asked why, the reason that came back was, ``Well, the
premiums are so high and the deductible is so high, we did not think it
was worthwhile for us to get earthquake insurance.''
I think what this points out is the real need for Federal
legislation, perhaps as an amendment to Senator Inouye's bill, that
will provide Federal incentives for private insurance to be provided in
a national pool to people in disaster-prone areas.
There certainly is going to be no end to hurricanes, floods, and
earthquakes. If you add up the sum total of what was spent on this
since I have been here, almost $10 billion in this supplemental, the
Loma Prieta supplemental of almost $4 billion, the supplemental for the
floods, you see very fast that it is the amount, just about, of the
stimulus package that went down. So, in essence, we stimulate by
providing emergency disaster relief. To me that does not seem to make
very good sense.
So I think there is a very real need for us to work on a plan. I
would like to be part of it, to work on a plan that, in essence, is
going to be able to provide some lower deductible and lower premium for
earthquake, disaster, flood, or hurricane insurance to people who need
it throughout America.
But for tonight at least, California can take this first healing
step, let the contracts that are necessary, and FEMA can itself have
the funds not only to fund the Midwest with the $600 million that is in
this supplemental, but also the State of California.
It was a long day. It was a trying day for those of us from the
State, but it was a day that eventually produced a result.
Madam President, I would like to thank you, I would like to thank all
my colleagues for their vote in the affirmative. It is greatly
appreciated by the people of our State. Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). The Republican leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, could I proceed as if in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may proceed.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, media reports this evening indicate that the
cease-fire in Sarajevo has already been broken--that heavy artillery
shells and machinegun fire struck the city only hours after the U.N.-
brokered ceasefire had gone into effect.
We will be waiting and watching to see whether and how the United
Nations and NATO respond to this attack if it is verified. We will be
watching to see if the pattern of international inaction has truly been
broken. The time for talking is over.
As I stated earlier today, I support NATO's long overdue decision to
launch air strikes in the event that the Bosnian Serbs do not withdraw
their heavy weapons within 10 days, or if the shelling of Sarajevo
continues. I am pleased that the President has finally moved the
alliance forward even in this limited way. And I hope that this time
NATO will follow through on its threats.
However, it seems to me that NATO air strikes would receive greater
support here at home if the U.S. Congress is formally on board with the
President's decision. That can best be achieved if the Congress
discusses the matter and passes a resolution supporting this course of
action.
This is not just a matter of getting the Congress on board, it is a
matter of getting the American people on board--explaining what our
interests are and how this NATO action advances those interests. Recent
opinion polls suggest that public support--which appears to narrowly
favor NATO action--will be greater if Congress supports this action.
Indeed, our experience during the Gulf war was that the support of
the American people for Desert Storm dramatically increased after
Congress passed an authorizing resolution.
But, another benefit of seeking congressional approval is the
opportunity for all Members of Congress to make their views known. Not
everyone in the Senate shares my views--although I do believe that a
majority of my colleagues do support the President's decision.
And those who do not share that view or share the President's view
certainly should have an opportunity to express their views.
I talked to the distinguished Senator from Arizona and the
distinguished Senator from Georgia who both have very strong
reservations about this course of action. We are not going to have the
opportunity unless there is a request and authorization for a
resolution of approval of the President's plan to have that debate.
____________________