[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senator from 
Maine [Mr. Cohen], is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the underlying 
committee amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2452

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for section 8 housing subsidies financed 
                           by pension funds)

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of myself and Senator Mack and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] for himself and Mr. Mack 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2452.

  Mr. COHEN. 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:

       Sec.   . On page 18, line 19, strike ``$10,600,000,000'' 
     and insert ``$10,250,000,000''.
       On page 20, line 8, strike all after the comma, and all 
     through line 11 before the semicolon.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, last year the Congress appropriated $100 
million for this demonstration project. In an attempt to encourage 
pension fund investments in what I believe to be traditionally high-
risk public housing projects. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development requested this set aside as a means of subsidizing pension 
fund investments in multifamily housing projects. Essentially this 
project transfers the risk from pension managers to taxpayers.
  It is my understanding, Mr. President, that to date, there has been 
no reporting back on the project from GAO, as was required in last 
year's bill. And I would repeat that again. It was required in last 
year's bill that GAO report back to us. There is no data available to 
bolster our confidence in expanding this demonstration project, yet 
this bill triples the funds appropriated for this experiment and 
further exposes the Federal Government to liability if the project goes 
sour.
  The decision to triple the funding--without any evaluation of the 
risk associated with this expansion--borders on recklessness in light 
of the serious policy implications of economically targeted 
investments.
  I do not think it comes as any surprise to anyone of us that cash-
strapped municipalities, States, and now even the Federal Government 
are looking to the assets of pension funds--totaling in the trillion of 
dollars--as an attractive resource of capital for a variety of 
projects. Many see this pot of money as a lucrative and untapped source 
of funding for infrastructure projects.
  I tell you I am very concerned, Mr. President, about the long-term 
implications of this growing use of public and private pension funds to 
meet political and social goals. First and foremost, I am concerned 
that Government-dictated investments such as this may not be in the 
best interest of the current and future retirees who are the 
beneficiaries of these pension funds.
  To illustrate, a 1983 study by Alicia Munnell, the current Assistant 
Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, found that public 
employee plans participating in targeted investments earned from 2 to 5 
percentage points less than funds without these investments. In 
testimony presented to the Joint Economic Committee last month, the 
chairman of the Cato Institute pointed to a 1993 study which found that 
``the greater the political influence on public-employee pension fund 
investment decisions, the lower the return.''
  At the same hearing, Olena Berg, Assistant Secrtary of Labor for 
Pension and Welfare Benefits even stated that ``we cannot deny there 
are risks associated with economically targeted investments [ETI's].'' 
She further acknowledged ``that there may be pressure to do these 
projects for reasons other than their attractiveness as investments.''
  I wonder if the architects of this demonstration project have paused 
to ask themselves why there are trillions of dollars of assets in 
pension funds. The strict fiduciary standards of ERISA have required 
pension fund investment managers and trustees to invest prudently and 
for the exclusive benefit of plan participants. This standard should 
not be compromised.
  The Clinton administration has never shied away from the fact that 
they view pension funds as a convenient source of public funding. In 
fact, in his book ``Putting People First,'' President Clinton proposed 
a $20 billion investment program funded by pension funds. The 
administration has been roundly criticized for this proposal.
  As David Sertner of AARP noted in a Washington Post article ``when 
you talk about using pension funds for broader social purposes, you 
create an inherent conflict between what is good for the retirees and 
what may be good for some social policy.'' Despite considerable 
opposition to the idea of using pension funds for Government spending 
the administration apparently has not abandoned its plans.
  In a letter just this week from HUD Secretary Cisneros to the Senate 
Banking Committee he praises the demonstration project for among other 
reasons, ``encouraging pension funds to invest some of their $4 
trillion in assets which make up one-third of all assets in America, 
back into the economy.''
  This statement is telling and revealing in several respects:
  First, where does Mr. Cisneros think pension funds are invested now? 
They are invested in the U.S. economy already. Pension funds are not 
stuffed in some bureaucratic mattress in Washington; they represent 
working assets in every town and city in America. Highjacking pension 
funds for Government spending will simply take money from where it is 
currently invested. There is no free lunch. Redirecting pension 
investments is a zero-sum game. Mr. Cisneros statement also confirms 
the worst fears of many that the administration has not abandoned its 
desires to tap pension funds.
  The fact that this bill triples funding for last year's so-called 
demonstration project before any evidence that this project works or 
could work shows quite clearly that those of us who saw last year's 
$100 million appropriations as the nose under the camel's tent were not 
overreacting.
  We have gone from $100 million to now over $300 million. We should 
also expect, that when this bill comes back from conference, we could 
be higher than we are right here in the Senate proposal.
  This bill and Mr. Cisneros' letter demonstrates beyond a reasonable 
doubt that we are moving quickly down the path of targeting pension 
funds for Federal spending.
  If we do not stop this dangerous course of action now, we will rue 
the day. And I assure you that we will be hearing from the thousands of 
pensioners in this country.
  There is already tremendous and understandable anxiety about the 
solvency of our Nation's pension system. As Mark Ugoretz of the leading 
association of large employer pension funds, The ERISA Industry 
Committee stated,

       We're very leery of it because pension funds are the last 
     big pot of money in the country, people are nervous about the 
     sanctity of pension funds.

  The pension system is already under assault. We ought not further 
undermine confidence in the system by looking wistfully or lustfully at 
pension funds as the way to bolster the Government's coffers.
  I would also suggest, Mr. President, that this program not only 
establishes a dangerous precedent in terms of Federal pension policy--
it sets an equally dangerous precedent in terms of Federal budget 
policy.
  I am very concerned that next we could even be asked to mandate that 
pension funds must invest in infrastructure. If we permit this new form 
of off-budget spending, we will have created a huge loophole on how to 
get around budget rules.
  Directing pension funds for public purposes would be yet another 
example of a long line of spend-now, pay-later policies that the 
Federal Government has regretfully adopted over the years. Using 
pension funds to finance public spending would seriously undermine the 
integrity of the spending caps established in the 1990 budget agreement 
and renewed last year. If such a breach is permitted on this 
appropriations bill, we will have opened the floodgates to another 
means of circumventing what little budget discipline that currently 
exists.
  Tim Fergusun of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote that ``Broader 
objectives for pension moneys other than simply maximum return are a 
bud always waiting for a political bloom.'' My concern, Mr. President, 
is that if we triple the appropriations for this program without first 
adequately evaluating the success of its first phase, this bud could 
grow into a beanstalk that reaches far beyond our fiscal control. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am taken aback by the statement made 
by my good friend from Maine, with whom I have served for many years in 
the Congress, first in the House of Representatives and then here in 
the Senate. I have known the Senator from Maine ordinarily to be very 
careful in his utterances and statements, and I do not find that in his 
statement today.
  Let me just mention two or three items. First of all, the Senator 
from Maine referred to Government-dictated investments. However, this 
program will be entirely voluntary. No pension fund will participate in 
this unless the fund makes the decision to do so.
  He then indicated that this program would strip fiduciary 
responsibilities of pension funds required under ERISA. The pension 
fund demonstration statute specifically requires that all ERISA 
standards apply to every pension fund investment made in this 
demonstration. The Secretary can further require all investments of the 
program to meet specific standards with respect to securitization and 
underwriting.
  I have read the Senator's books and I have never, even in his 
novels--I have to confess that I have not read his poems--but even in 
his novels, I do not find the kind of overstatement that I heard here. 
I believe the Senator referred to this program as one that would hijack 
pension funds.
  And then, finally, the Senator's argument is, ``Well, this is a 
slippery slope. The next thing that is going to happen is that you are 
going to be mandating that pension funds invest in social purposes.'' 
That is certainly not in this legislation.
  This legislation is voluntary. It requires the application of ERISA 
standards. There is certainly no hijacking of pension funds. I must 
say, I am somewhat taken aback and even disappointed by the Senator's 
kind of purple language.
  Congress enacted the Community Investment Demonstration as part of 
the legislation we passed in 1993. This gave to the Secretary of HUD 
the flexibility to test new approaches in addressing the need for 
affordable housing. What we are seeking to do is to leverage additional 
resources by entering into unique private-public partnerships.
  What is authorized is the use of project-based Section 8 assistance 
to encourage pension funds to invest in affordable housing. Section 8 
makes it possible to invest safely and profitably in affordable 
housing.
  In setting up this legislation, we carefully considered the concerns 
that the Senator has raised about the interests of pensioners. 
Obviously, it is an important concern. Indeed, first and foremost, the 
pension fund managers are under fiduciary responsibilities to address 
those very concerns and interests, and nothing in this legislation 
abridges or compromises those fiduciary responsibilities.
  Now the use of the Section 8 assistance is important with respect to 
the economics of the investments in affordable housing. Those 
subsidies, of course, provide a Federal guarantee for the rents on some 
of the units in the project--a maximum of 50 percent of the units in 
the project. The statute requires, as I have said, that no investment 
will be permitted unless it meets the requirements of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
  Furthermore, HUD has set up the demonstration to ensure that pension 
fund applicants or their partners have demonstrated experience in the 
development of affordable housing. It is all designed to ensure that 
the investors who undertake this are sophisticated and that they are 
protected under the legal requirements of ERISA. We also limit how much 
funding can go to a particular pension fund.
  The Secretary of HUD, Secretary Cisneros, has just announced the 
first six recipients of the pension fund demonstration funding. These 
recipients will finance affordable housing in 20 different States and 
over 100 different communities.
  I have here the list of those pension funds or real estate investment 
companies that are participating. Some of our largest pension funds, or 
retirement systems, are doing so. They are managed, of course, by 
highly sophisticated investment managers. Their decision to participate 
was entirely voluntary.
  Now, the Senator referred to a letter from Secretary Cisneros. I just 
want to quote a part of the letter that he did not quote. Secretary 
Cisneros writes:

       The pension program has attracted the interest of many 
     pension funds across the country. Just 30 days after the 
     Department began accepting applications for participation in 
     this program, requests for assistance have far exceeded the 
     funds available. We have received hundreds of phone calls 
     from pension fund representatives interested in participating 
     in this first funding round, and many of those who felt 
     unprepared to apply now inquired about the possibility of 
     applying in the future.

  Of course, what the demonstration does is, in response to the Federal 
commitment, attract additional funds for affordable housing. So you are 
leveraging the amount of money that is going into affordable housing. 
It does involve the use of Federal resources, obviously. There is an 
appropriation in this bill in order to do that. The use of those 
Federal resources, is then matched by the private investment undertaken 
by these funds. This significantly enhances the ability to address the 
affordable housing issue well beyond what could be achieved using the 
Federal funds directly, without endangering the pension funds.
  These pension fund managers have to make sure that investments meet 
ERISA standards and satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities. The 
Senator has raised the question, ``Where is this going to go?'' It is 
going to go right where it is. We are not mandating that pension funds 
participate.
  The Senator raised that possibility. I am against that possibility. I 
do not think that possibility would have any chance whatever of being 
adopted and I do not support it. You can raise it as a scarecrow to try 
to, in effect, taint this program. But that is not this program--that 
is not this program. This program is not about hijacking pension funds. 
This program is not about Government-dictated investments. This program 
is not about stripping ERISA and fiduciary responsibilities.
  This program is a terrific opportunity to get at the affordable 
housing issue--in effect, to maximize our resources--at the same time 
that it represents a prudent investment for the pension funds. And for 
the life of me, we ought to be welcoming this. We ought to perceive 
this as an important step--as an imaginative and innovative step 
forward. What in the world is wrong with a program that helps us to 
move against the affordable housing issue and at the same time 
protects, through its requirements, the safety of the pension 
investment funds? It seems to me it represents a very constructive line 
of thinking.
  The fiduciary's investment duties under ERISA are not affected. The 
demonstration will generate new construction and help to meet the 
affordable housing problem through the incentives in the program. The 
program represents a Federal outlay--there is no question. But the 
outlay will enable many funds to seriously consider this as a wise and 
prudent investment.
  So, I am very much opposed to this amendment. I really have 
difficulty understanding why it is here, because it seems to me we have 
a program in which the investments can earn competitive risk-adjusted 
rates of return. With this program, we have a way of boosting the 
economy, and we have a way of getting at our affordable housing 
problem.
  The demonstration is entirely voluntary on the part of the pension 
fund managers who have to make the prudent judgments. There is no 
compromising of those standards. If pension funds voluntarily decide to 
participate, and if they are required to adhere to prudent investment 
rules, and if we can get a significant additional expansion of activity 
addressing the affordable housing program, why should we not be for it? 
It seems to me there is every reason to be for this demonstration and I 
very much hope the Senate will reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose the Cohen-Mack 
amendment. The proponents of this amendment argue that we have 
appropriated too much money for this program.
  First, let me set some facts straight. No. 1 we cut the President's 
budget request for the program by $164 million, or 32 percent. We are 
also, in this legislation, $75 million less than what was proposed by 
the House.
  The Senator from Maine is correct, we did increase the funding in the 
appropriation, but I want the record to show we cut the President's 
request by 32 percent and we are also $75 million less than the House.
  What we followed was the authorization framework, which we anticipate 
will be passed in a matter of days. The authorizing framework provided 
in the bill $350 million. Less than 3 weeks ago the Banking Committee--
chaired by Senator Sarbanes who just spoke, with the ranking minority, 
Senator D'Amato--reported a bill to the full Senate with the same 
amount as proposed in the VA-HUD appropriations. So we are not trying 
to puff anything up.
  The other point I want to make is the language on this particular 
program in the VA-HUD bill says, ``up to $350 million.'' So we are 
providing flexibility so if a housing authorization gets enacted--and 
we believe that it will--less than $350 million can be spent. It can be 
adjusted downward but it cannot be adjusted upward. So we have that 
ceiling there.
  Second, in terms of the fiduciary requirements, the other Senator 
from Maryland, who chairs the Housing and Banking Committee, made the 
point that this program needs to follow all the fiduciary rules and 
make the same independent determinations based on factors such as 
prudence and diversification as would be done by any other pension 
funds.
  We have a letter spelling out that criteria from Olena Berg, who is 
the Assistant Secretary for Pensions at the U. S. Department of Labor.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of Labor,

                                                   August 1, 1994.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     Chair, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, 
         Appropriations Committee, Hart Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairperson Mikulski: I am writing in support of the 
     Community Investment Demonstration Program under section 6 of 
     Public Law No. 103-120, the ``HUD Demonstration Act of 
     1993,'' and the President's 1995 budget request to increase 
     the authorized and appropriated funding for this Program. The 
     Senate is currently considering an increased authorization 
     under the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations 
     bill.
       As the Assistant Secretary of Labor charged with 
     administration and enforcement of significant provisions of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 
     I am responsible for the protection of the retirement savings 
     of over 40 million private sector pension plan participants. 
     Generally, ERISA requires that private sector pension plan 
     managers and trustees invest plan assets prudently and for 
     the exclusive benefit of plan participants.
       This Program, which provides incentives for pension funds 
     to invest in affordable multifamily housing through the use 
     of targeted Section 8 subsidies, does not affect a 
     fiduciary's investment duties under ERISA. Each pension fund 
     or intermediary that participates in the Program does so 
     voluntarily. Moreover, before making any economically 
     targeted investment, the fiduciary must make the same 
     independent determination based on factors such as prudence 
     and diversification as must be made in connection with any 
     other investment by a pension fund.
       The Program is designed not only to expand the investment 
     opportunities available to pension funds, but it will also 
     generate the new construction and rehabilitation of 
     affordable multifamily housing that is critically needed in 
     our communities. These activities will also create 
     construction jobs, and further stimulate the kind of 
     meaningful economic growth the Department vigorously 
     promotes.
       Most pension funds do not invest in multifamily housing at 
     all; many will seriously consider doing so as a result of the 
     incentives of the Program and an increase in the Program's 
     subsidy. The Program will encourage pension fund investments 
     in affordable multifamily housing for American workers and 
     their families.
       Today, pension fund assets exceed $4 trillion and represent 
     more than 20 percent of all U.S. financial markets. The 
     capital allocation decisions of these funds have a dramatic 
     impact on the nation's economic vitality. Furthermore, in my 
     view, pension investments that can both earn competitive, 
     risk-adjusted rates of return and promote a healthier economy 
     over the long-term such as the Program, will especially serve 
     the interests of pension plan participants.
       Congress should be commended for showing leadership in the 
     creation of this project, and I urge you to continue the 
     Program. If you have any questions about my views relating to 
     the Program, or my agency's enforcement of ERISA, please let 
     me know.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that this 
     report is in accord with the program of the President.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Olena Berg.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Now, we acknowledge the validity of the concerns of 
both the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Maine that taxpayer 
dollars be used--but also pension funds be used--in a wise and prudent 
way. The Senator from Maine has an outstanding record on identifying 
issues related to waste, fraud, and abuse. And when he raises a 
question I think we need to look at the validity of that. Before we 
take action on the bill, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum 
so perhaps we can talk and arrive at some other type of resolution to 
this other than a straight up or down vote.
  Excuse me, I did not realize the Senator from Florida has joined us. 
I know he has been involved in Whitewater. Let me withhold my request 
until the Senator from Florida has his day--or 15 minutes--or whatever 
he chooses. Then I suggest we have a quorum call and see if there is 
another way of accommodating it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
withholding that request. I also express my appreciation to her for the 
work she has done on this bill. It is only that I feel so strongly 
about the direction of housing policy that I felt the need to offer, 
with Senator Cohen from Maine, this amendment.
  This is a demonstration program that was enacted less than 1 year 
ago, which has real problems in the way it is being implemented. First 
of all, it is not a competitively awarded program. Rather, the 
contracts are essentially being given out on a first-come first-served 
basis. That is not smart. We do not need to be giving this money to 
this program in this manner.
  We appropriated $100 million last October. The pension funds selected 
to participate were only announced on Monday of this week. HUD has a 
huge unobligated balance of $32.3 billion in prior fiscal year funding 
that it is carrying forward. They cannot handle the money they already 
have been given for existing programs. What makes us think that they 
will do a better job this year?
  The current appropriation more than triples the funding for this 
pilot program to give it an additional $350 million. The House, by the 
way, has already appropriated an additional $414 million. Many of us on 
the Banking Committee thought this would be a one-time-only 
appropriation. We wanted to take a careful look at this program and 
determine whether or not it was going to work well. The original 
legislation calls for a GAO report at the conclusion of the 
demonstration. With this funding, it looks as if there will never be a 
conclusion; therefore, never a GAO report and never really an analysis 
of the program.
  With this renewed emphasis on project-based assistance and long-term 
contracts, we take power away from the individual. We say to them that 
we would rather give the money to developers, not to tenants. That 
leaves the people who are in need of housing without a choice when 
their units are not maintained, and they can either leave the unit and 
lose the rental assistance or put up with substandard housing.
  We know from past experience that this is not the direction in which 
we want to go with our housing policy. The Congressional Research 
Service agrees that this is not a good idea, and I quote:

       The demonstration returns the basis of rental subsidies to 
     the projects, i.e., developers, and it takes away from the 
     targeted population of low-income housing.

  I suspect that each of us involved in this debate has taken the time 
to go out and visit public housing communities throughout our States. I 
can still see those faces of those people and the anger and frustration 
they feel at being locked into a project-based facility. They have no 
other resources and they are, in essence, being told they are going to 
stay in that unit because they do not have any other resources.
  If the resources were focused to the individual, when the developer 
failed to carry out his or her responsibility, the tenant, empowered 
with a voucher, as opposed to a project-based certificate, could say, 
``Fine, I will go find some other place to live.'' I think that is the 
kind of emphasis and kind of direction we ought to be giving to our 
housing program.
  Moreover, there is no reason to target pensions as a source of 
capital for investment in low-income housing. What makes their money 
any different than other sources of capital? What troubles me is that 
this is being seen as a model for a great deal of expansion into the 
realm of socially correct investment for pension funds. To me, that 
spells CRA for pension funds.
  Given that we are dealing with the safety and security of our 
retirees, I do not think this is wise, and neither does CRS. CRS writes 
that to the extent that scarce section 8 subsidies are earmarked for 
project-based rather than tenant-based use, it may be more useful to 
restrict them to specific types of projects than to specific types of 
funding, or funding sources.
  At a minimum, housing policy would benefit from an explicit 
discussion of the rationale that motivates the demonstration's use of 
project-based subsidies. I understand from HUD most of the applicants 
for the $100 million we have already appropriated are public employee 
pension funds. They are not subject to the strict guidelines of ERISA, 
which aim to protect the beneficiaries of those funds. To me, that 
raises the question of how advisable these investments really are.
  The point there, what concerns me, is that we are targeting this to 
pension funds. For years, there has been a hesitancy for lending 
institutions to involve themselves in long-term rental units. The 
reason they have done so is because of the risk that they believe is 
connected with that. It seems to me one could make the argument that a 
$100 million pilot project makes sense, to see whether it works or not. 
But to go from where we are today to a program that will probably be 
somewhere in the neighborhood of a half billion dollars by the time 
this appropriations bill works its way through the Congress is just the 
wrong thing to do.
  Nobody has truly assessed the risks that are related to this kind of 
an investment for a pension fund. You are talking about employees and 
companies who have set aside their resources for retirement. And it is 
interesting; as I understand it, I believe only five out of the six 
that have been approved for this $100 million--in fact, five out of the 
six are not covered by ERISA, which says that most of the pension 
funds, in essence, see this as a risk.
  So, Mr. President, I just urge my colleagues, I think this is a 
terrible mistake. I can spend time talking about where to put the 
money. I have some priorities that are of deep interest and concern to 
me. But the reality is that this is a bad idea, and even those who 
believe we ought to go forward, I believe, ought to stick with the 
pilot project.
  Let us see how it works. Let us get that report. Let us make a 
determination about its risk. Let us really get into the debate about 
how we can help the people who want help the most. Is it to go out and 
build more federally financed projects under these vouchers, these 
certificates? Is it reasonable that we ought to go in that direction, 
or should we spend the money in giving vouchers to the individual, 
empower that individual, give them the opportunity to make the choice? 
Why should we say that that ought to go to the developer?
  Again, I just stress to my colleagues, I can remember talking with 
the people in my hometown who lived in project-based facilities. They 
were desperate to get out. I suggest there is not a soul in this 
Senate, Member or staff, who would want to spend one night in some of 
those facilities, and those people have no option, no choice, no way to 
get out. I just think it is wrong for us to kind of steamroll another 
$350 million here for a project that has not been tested and was 
established as a pilot project to begin with.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President will the Senator from Maryland withhold a 
few moments? I want to make a couple of comments.
  Mr. President, the senior Senator from Maryland apparently was 
offended by my use of ``purple language.'' I might also say I am 
concerned about red ink.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COHEN. In just a moment.
  Mr. SARBANES. I was not offended; I was surprised.
  Mr. COHEN. Nothing is to be taken as a surprise any longer. In any 
event, I think the implication was that I was quoting something out of 
context from a letter from the Secretary of HUD.
  Mr. SARBANES. I did not make that implication.
  Mr. COHEN. I would like to submit the full letter for the Record, so 
there is no perception on my part to just quote a part of the letter in 
order to come to a different conclusion than is warranted. So I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Department of Housing


                                         and Urban Development

                                   Washington, DC. August 1, 1994.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban 
         Affairs, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I am pleased to inform you that tomorrow 
     HUD will be announcing the selection of pension funds to 
     participate in the Section 8 Community Investment 
     Demonstration. The following are the selected pension funds 
     and the amount of project-based rental assistance setaside 
     they are approved to receive:
       Board of Pensions and Retirement of the City of 
     Phiadelphia, in partnership with the Redevelopment Authority 
     of the City of Philadelphia--$10 million.
       California Public Employees Retirement System--$10 million.
       Fund for Affordable Housing, based on Boston, MA--$10 
     million.
       NYC Comptroller's Office, representing the New York City 
     Employees' Retirement System, the New York City Police 
     Pension Fund, and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City 
     of New York--$10 million.
       Equitable Real Estate Investment Management, Inc. 
     representing the California Community Mortgage Fund (composed 
     of CalPERS, the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Fund, and 
     possibly other California-backed funds) and the Community 
     Works Fund (composed of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
     Authority Retirement Fund, the St. Louis Carpenters Fund, and 
     possibly other Taft-Hartley funds)--$10 million.
       AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust--$50 million.


     attached are fact sheets that detail the recipients' proposals

       This program has attracted the interest of many pension 
     funds across the country. Just 30 days after the Department 
     began accepting applications for participation in this 
     program, requests for rental assistance far exceeded the $100 
     million in funds available. We have received hundreds of 
     phone calls from pension fund representatives interested in 
     participating in this first funding round and many of those 
     who felt unprepared to apply now inquired about the 
     possibility of applying in the future.
       As you may know, this initiative is beneficial to the 
     American economy for a number of reasons. [For one, the 
     demonstration has fostered the formation of public-private 
     partnerships that are bringing new sources of capital to meet 
     the significant need for housing in this nation. Second, this 
     initiative leverages federal resources to attract private 
     dollars to investment in affordable housing for low- and 
     moderate-income Americans. Third, it encourages pension funds 
     to invest some of their $4 trillion in assets--which make up 
     one-third of all assets in America--back into the U.S. 
     economy.]
       Thank you for supporting this program.
           Sincerely,
                                                Henry G. Cisneros,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, there was 
certainly not that implication.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. President, I am not sure whether this is a good or bad program. I 
am in the ironic situation where I support section 8 housing; it has 
worked very well in the State of Maine. This may, in fact, be a valid 
way of creating more opportunities in the housing market.
  I have several, however, with this appropriation. First this 
demonstration project required the GAO to file a report analyzing its 
prospects. There has been no review of how the contracts were awarded. 
As my friend from Florida pointed out, none were awarded on a 
competitive basis, but on a first-come-first-served basis.
  Second, many of these contracts are, in fact, public pension funds 
which are not subject to ERISA. With this in mind, Mr. President, the 
question I have is, why are we going from $100 million to $350-million-
plus in 1 year without having some kind of an outside analysis as to 
the validity of the projects?
  Finally, I will say, if these investments really make sense, the 
pension programs, be they private or public, could invest in them now. 
They can invest in them right now, subject to the standards set up by 
ERISA for the private programs. Why are they not doing that? 
Presumably, because there is some risk involved.
  Why do we need to add a taxpayer subsidy to these managers to 
encourage them to go into this project? I think if they make sense on 
their own merits, they would invest in them. But, obviously, they are 
not. So now we have the taxpayers being asked to come up with $300-
million-plus to, in effect, subsidize the investment. While admittedly 
there are some protections in here for the pensioners under this 
legislation, I do not believe we should expand this program without a 
full understanding of all the risk.
  But I might point out that the legislation says, ``The mortgages 
secured by the housing assisted under this demonstration shall meet 
such standards regarding financing and securitization as the Secretary 
may establish.'' It does not say he ``must'' establish, but he ``may'' 
establish.
  Second, not all of these pensions are subject to ERISA. As Senator 
Mack has pointed out, most of these are public pension plans which are 
not subject to the standard.
  So I just think that we are moving awfully quickly, and it may be a 
good idea. It may be a good idea. But we are moving from 1 year, we are 
tripling the funding here, and I think it makes sense to at least 
adhere to last year's level until we have more information about the 
viability of this particular project.
  I would yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ford). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to answer the Senator from Maine 
because he raised some important questions.
  First of all, I will concede up front that if you do not have the 
section 8 involvement from the Federal Government, you will not get the 
investment in affordable housing. Affordable housing is a tough thing 
to do in terms of its economics. So on that basis, standing alone, the 
pension fund would not invest in affordable housing.
  The question then becomes, since the Federal Government wants to do 
affordable housing, if the Federal Government provides a certain amount 
of contribution to achieve the affordable housing, does the section 8 
assistance change the economics of the project in a way which meets the 
requirements of the pension fund? That is what this demonstration will 
do. The pension fund is not investing in a risky enterprise. The 
pension fund is investing in an enterprise which makes economic sense 
because of the Federal contribution to it.
  Then you say, ``Well, there is Federal money going into it.'' But if 
we are trying to build affordable housing, this is a way to get more 
affordable housing for the amount of the Federal investment without 
endangering the pension funds in any way.
  Now, it is true that some of the initial recipients are State 
retirement systems. They, of course, are governed by State 
requirements, which in some instances are stricter than ERISA 
requirements. I would point out to my colleague that one of the funds 
to get an initial grant is the California Public Employees Retirement 
System--the most successful retirement system in the nation, public or 
private. CALPERS is regarded as a model with respect to investment 
plans.
  Now, when HUD proposed the expansion of the program, one of the 
problems was--and it is a reasonable question--why are you back now? 
The Banking Committee reported out an authorization bill, as my 
distinguished colleague from Maryland has indicated, which increased 
the authorization to $350 million. That bill came out of the Banking 
Committee on a 15-to-3 bipartisan vote, although the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, who is proposing this amendment, was opposed to 
the legislation. The overwhelming majority of the committee supported 
that legislation which is now pending on the calendar.
  Now, at the time we considered last year's proposal, the questions 
were: Will pension funds take an interest in this program? Will the 
pension funds analyze it and reach the conclusion that it makes 
economic sense, meets their fiduciary responsibilities and represents a 
prudent investment of the funds that they are required to manage? So 
one of the concerns with the demonstration was that we would set it out 
there and no one would come calling. After all, as I indicated earlier, 
the funds have to make a voluntary judgment. They have to conform to 
their fiduciary responsibilities.
  Now, what has happened, as the Secretary has indicated in his letter, 
is that the program has attracted the interest of many pension funds 
across the country. He has now indicated that pension funds have 
expressed an interest far in excess of the available funds. It seems to 
me this is an opportunity to move forward in a very positive and 
constructive way with adequate protection for the pension funds and 
with an opportunity to get affordable housing for our people. I very 
much hope the Senate will reject the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator moving to table the amendment?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to table the Cohen-Mack 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. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment.
  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 Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--43

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heflin
     Lott
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2452) was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from New 
Hampshire has an amendment, and we are ready to begin the debate if he 
is ready. If not, we can take a few minutes for a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that the Senator wishes to have 
other issues that he wishes to bring up on the bill. I wonder if the 
Senator from New Hampshire would enter into a time agreement of perhaps 
20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. SMITH. On this particular amendment?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, on this particular amendment.
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from New Hampshire will be glad to do that. 
Unless others wish to speak, and I have no indication that anyone does, 
10 minutes on my side is more than ample.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That would be acceptable. I know of no one. I think 
others are at policy conferences and will be listening to this on TV.
  Mr. SMITH. I would say 20 minutes between the two sides. I will not 
use all of that.


                       Time Limitation Agreement

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Smith motion to 
recommit be limited to 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that there be no other 
amendments to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 10 minutes.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit which I send to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] moves to 
     recommit H.R. 4624 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the bill to the Senate, within 3 days 
     (not counting any day in which the Senate is not in session) 
     with an amendment reducing the total appropriation provided 
     therein to a sum not greater than the fiscal year 1994 level.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that is exactly along the same 
vein as several others that I have offered on all the appropriations 
bills as they have come before the Senate.
  My intention here is to try to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues and to the American people that there is no way that we can 
reduce the deficit and the debt in the United States of America if we 
are not willing to at least draw the line on appropriations bills. 
There are 13 of them, 13 appropriations bills, and this is the fifth 
one that is now over last year's appropriations.
  I do not see how we can realistically look at where the national debt 
is going, which is now $4.7 trillion. The deficits are in the $200 
billion range. And yet here we are with another appropriation bill, 
this one about $1.4 billion over last year.
  We cannot balance the budget by limiting the growth of these 
appropriations bills. I know that. All of my colleagues know that. But 
we have to start someplace.
  I remember the debate on the balanced budget amendment in which some 
of my colleagues who took the opposite position said, look, we do not 
need a balanced budget amendment. All we have to do is balance the 
budget. All we have to do is just exercise fiscal restraint when 
matters come before us. Of course, that is true. But we do not.
  Let us talk specifics: The amount of the Senate bill is 
$89,750,637,061. The amount that was enacted in fiscal 1994 is 
$88,313,837,932. You subtract A from B and you get $1,436,799,129. That 
is the increase, $1.4 billion-plus in this appropriations bill over 
last year.
  How in the world can we balance the budget, or even talk about 
balancing the budget, if we are not willing to take a stand on these 
appropriations bills?
  We hear it time and time again, Mr. President. There is always a good 
reason to increase spending. There is always a thousand different 
things the money can be spent for. Nobody ever wants to cut the budget 
around here. I am trying to get the wake-up call. Hey, it is me again--
Smith--standing up before the Senate. You know what? You cannot reduce 
the debt, you cannot reduce the deficit unless you are willing to draw 
the line on spending. I am trying to get the message out.
  Let me tell what happened. When the legislative branch appropriation 
bill came before the Senate it was $91 million over. I lost.
  The Treasury-postal bill was $1 billion over. I brought that to the 
attention of my colleagues in the Senate. I lost.
  The transportation bill was $740 million over budget. I brought that 
to the attention of my colleagues here on the Senate floor. We debated 
it. I lost.
  We came to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. That one 
was $4.1 billion over fiscal 1994. I brought that to the attention of 
my colleagues here on the floor of the Senate in debate, and I lost.
  Now, here we come again with this one, the VA-HUD agency 
appropriations of $1.4 billion.
  Let us add them up: $91 million, $1 billion, $740 million, $4.1 
billion, $1.4 billion, total $7.4 billion.
  So far, with the appropriations bills that have been before this 
body, we now have five of them that are over budget to the tune of $7.4 
billion collectively.
  All this talk about cutting spending is falling on deaf ears, because 
we are not cutting spending. Anybody out there in America who thinks 
U.S. Senate is cutting spending is simply dreaming, because the Senate 
is not cutting spending. They have increased it $7.4 billion just on 
these appropriations bills.
  Now some say, well, you know that is a little unfair. We cannot 
balance the budget just dealing with these appropriations bills. But as 
I said before, you have to be willing to draw the line. You have to be 
willing to set the example. You have to be willing to say here is what 
we have control over, right here. This is discretionary spending. This 
is not entitlements.
  It is a joke to hear people talk about reforming entitlements. Who in 
the world is going to reform entitlements, and have the courage to do 
it, if you cannot even vote to cut $91 million out of the legislative 
branch appropriations bill, which is what funds us here in the 
Congress. God forbid, we could take a few bucks out of what we spend in 
our own legislative appropriations. They have all gone down, $7.4 
billion in total.
  You know what is interesting about it, as I conclude this debate. 
What is interesting about this is, this is not $7.4 billion sitting up 
there somewhere in a fund and we are just going to spend it out, and 
spend it, pass it around. This is borrowed money. As you may recall, we 
have a debt of $4.7 trillion. We have a deficit. So we are borrowing 
money. This is not sitting up there in the fund.
  How much does it cost to borrow that $7.4 billion that in the last 
month or so the Senate of the United States has spent more than it did 
last year? How much--$555 million in interest alone on what we are 
borrowing. That is just the interest. So you now have a half billion 
dollars more in interest on that borrowed money. And yet time after 
time, vote after vote, we bring this matter to the attention of the 
Senate, and we lose.
  Then Senators go back home and say the first thing we have to do is 
cut spending. I tell you folks, cutting spending is my No. 1 priority.
  Look at the votes; look at the votes and see who has the No. 1 
priority of cutting spending around here. The most votes I got on any 
of these proposals was 38. I do not know how that happened because most 
of them were a lot less.
  So, the bottom line is, every Senator ought to ask himself or herself 
one question before voting, and this is it: Should Federal spending on 
the VA- HUD and independent agencies be increased by last year's level 
and, furthermore, should it be increased to the tune of $1.4 
billion? And are you willing to borrow that $1.4 billion at 7.5 percent 
interest and add that to the total of the other appropriations bills 
that I have already outlined and already have been defeated on?

  If you are, then vote ``no'' against Smith; do not vote to recommit 
the bill.
  I want to point out, I am not asking the managers to cut any specific 
programs. I think the Senator from Maryland understands that. I am not 
singling out any program. I am willing to work with her or anyone else 
to see to it that we do this in a fair and equitable manner.
  But the point is, should we increase spending over last year to the 
tune of $1.4 billion? I say we should not, because we ought to set the 
example and say that we are willing to deal with these appropriations 
bills in an honest way.
  My motion is simple. It sends the bill back, sends it to the 
Appropriations Committee, with instructions that they report a bill 
that does not exceed last year's spending. No conditions. You work it 
out. If I can help, I am more than happy to do it.
  Again, Mr. President, I am sending the same message that I have sent 
in the past, trying to bring to the attention of my colleagues and to 
the American people that it is impossible to cut spending if do you not 
vote to cut spending. It is impossible to bring down the deficit and 
the debt if you are not willing to stop spending or to reduce spending. 
Figure it out. Think of your own situation at home. If you spend more 
than you take in, how long can you do it in your household, and so 
forth?
  So, Mr. President, at this point, I yield back any time that I may 
have remaining or yield it to my friend on the other side if she wishes 
it.
  At this point, 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before I comment on the impact of the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire--this is a process 
question--I know the Senator from New Hampshire wants a recorded vote 
on his motion to recommit; am I correct?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is anticipated that after we dispose of the 
Senator's amendment, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], 
wishes to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the issue of 
violence in abortion clinics, a topic that I know the Senator is keenly 
interested in.
  I wonder if we could have a time agreement on that and then do the 
two votes stacked back to back, because there are Senators, I know, who 
are off the Hill. If the Senator wants to go ahead, that is OK with me, 
too.
  Mr. SMITH. Let me see if I understand. Is the Senator expecting a 
vote on the abortion clinic amendment of Senator Lautenberg?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from New Jersey has advised me he, too, 
seeks the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SMITH. So the intent would be to have my vote----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That we complete the debate on this and we set it aside 
with time designated for the vote; we then move to the Lautenberg 
debate; and then after the Lautenberg debate, we have both those back 
to back.
  Mr. SMITH. That would obviously be a convenience to our colleagues, 
and I do not object to that.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that, upon the 
conclusion of the debate on the Smith amendment, it be laid aside and 
that debate be undertaken on the Lautenberg amendment relating to 
violence at abortion clinics. How much time would the Senator want?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would say 20 minutes, equally 
divided, would be sufficient.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, would 30 minutes 
equally divided be acceptable?
  Mr. SMITH. Thirty minutes on the Lautenberg amendment? I have no 
indication from any Member.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SMITH. I will check on that, and I will get back to the Senator.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me move ahead with my debate. I think we are now 
just ironing out the details. I think we understand the framework. It 
is just the matter of the time.
  Mr. SMITH. There is one Senator who may wish to speak on this. I need 
to check with him.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes; and I, too, wish to speak on that subject.
  I will now return to debating or discussing the impact of the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  What I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention is the impact 
of recommitting this bill.
  No. 1, VA pension funds would go from a 500,000 backlog claims to 
over 1 million because the staffing and technological improvements 
would not occur.
  No. 2, I want to be sure that everyone understands that these are 
service-connected vets who are forced to wait as long as 6 months for 
claims to be adjudicated. VA staffing would be cut by 400 people. VA 
would have to cut back more than 800,000 outpatient visits and 36,000 
inpatient visits, again because of its impact on staffing and the 
ability to use technological innovation to expedite workload.
  In the area of the environment, EPA wastewater construction would be 
cut $1 billion. It would mean a loss in construction jobs but, also, 
further deterioration of our Nation's water supply. Today, there is a 
$100 billion backlog of wastewater construction needs. One of the most 
significant number of requests that this Senator receives in terms of 
special earmarks or report language is in the area of wastewater 
construction because of the significant backlog. When we do wastewater 
construction, we do two things. We generate real jobs in the 
construction industry and, at the same time, we are dealing with 
wastewater and therefore improving our environment.
  Also, EPA would not be able to fund things like climate change, the 
environmental technology initiative, and also begin to get a discipline 
on runaway contractor spending and be able to deal more effectively 
with waste and abuse and even fraud in these areas.
  For the National Science Foundation, it would be forced to cut senior 
researchers, assistance to graduate students, and, even more 
importantly, it would mean that over 4,000 teachers would not be 
retrained in terms of being able to be far more effective in the 
classroom to teach science and math.
  For Federal Emergency Management, it would cut State grants, meaning 
States and local governments would not get needed assistance to train 
and prepare for hurricanes, earthquakes, and other disasters where 
Americans are at risk.
  As you know, we have tried to make substantial gains, despite the 
stonewalling of the FEMA administration, in moving it to a risk-base 
strategy. For homeless programs, HUD would be cut $300 million, meaning 
100,000 homeless would be denied shelter.
  Forty thousand families who are on the waiting list for public 
housing would not get into public housing, and the maintenance of 
public housing would further deteriorate.
  The Presiding Officer, a prosecutor, a former DA, knows that often 
our public housing has become incubators for drug dealers. Our 
legislation makes important anticrime and security 
improvements. Finally, there would be cuts in affordable home units due 
to cutting the home program.

  I think my colleagues get the picture. In my bill are public 
investments. There are public investments in housing, in cleaning up 
the environment, in making America safe in the area of emergencies that 
affect it, and also it keeps our promises to veterans. We have not just 
galloped ahead in a cavalier way with our spending. We faced a very 
tough allocation through the 602(b). I acknowledge the validity of the 
concerns of the Senator from New Hampshire to get a handle on 
Government spending, but I do think that a motion to recommit back to 
last year's funding levels would be misguided.
  When a vote is taken on this amendment, I hope that it would be 
defeated.
  Now, if there are no other Senators who wish to speak on this 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside and 
that a vote occur after the debate on the Lautenberg amendment on 
abortion violence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time 
is yielded back by the Senator from Maryland. The amendment is set 
aside, and the Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be laid aside so we can take up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of 
the bill and appreciate her enabling us to get to this at this point.


                           Amendment No. 2453

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate condemning the murder of a 
 doctor and escort serving a reproductive health clinic in Pensacola, 
FL, and urging the administration to take steps to protect persons who 
   work at, and women who wish to use the services of, such clinics)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. Packwood, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. DeConcini, and 
     Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2453,

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 91, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 518. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the murders of a doctor, his escort, and the wounding 
     of another escort outside a reproductive health clinic in 
     Pensacola, Florida, on July 29, 1994, were reprehensible acts 
     of violence and terrorism;
       (2) the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
     should undertake all enforcement and investigative activities 
     under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and any 
     other applicable laws, that are necessary to ensure the 
     safety of women seeking reproductive health services, their 
     doctors, and escorts and clinic workers and to demonstrate to 
     future potential perpetrators of such violence that these 
     laws will be strongly enforced nationwide;
       (3) The Attorney General should utilize the full extent of 
     her authority to provide adequate protection to women 
     obtaining reproductive health serives, their doctors, and 
     escorts and clinic workers; and
       (4) all investigative and law enforcement activities 
     undertaken by the Government in accordance with this section 
     should be conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with 
     the first amendment to the Constitution.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on July 29 two men were killed, shot 
to death, while on their way to work. One was John Bayard Britton, a 
69-year-old physician. The other, James Herman Barrett, was a 74-year-
old retired Air Force lieutenant colonel whose mission that morning was 
to try to make sure Dr. Britton got to work safely.
  Every morning, before he went to work, Dr. Britton put on a 
bulletproof vest. Every morning, Dr. Britton had an escort whose job it 
was to protect him as he went to work. Dr. Britton did not practice 
medicine in some far off, war torn country. No, Dr. Britton wore a 
bulletproof vest and had an escort, and feared for his life because he 
worked in Pensacola, FL, and because he performed abortions.
  The man charged with the brutal and senseless murders of Dr. Britton 
and Colonel Barrett is Paul Hill, a local leader of a radical 
antiabortion group known as Defensive Action. Mr. Hill and his views 
were well-known. He had circulated letters among radical anti-abortion 
groups espousing his personal philosophy that killing doctors who 
perform abortions was justifiable.
  Mr. President, like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure 
in this country. There is no reason for women who seek this procedure 
to be harassed.
  They have been protected by decisions made by the Supreme Court. 
Other courts have moved the demonstrators further from the facilities 
they visit so that they can be free to come and go in a lawful manner 
as they do. There is no reason for doctors who provide legal abortion 
services to be threatened. But they are, routinely, day and night. And 
their families are harassed. And there was no reason for Dr. Britton to 
be shot down, but he was. He was because Paul Hill and others like him 
do not respect the laws of of our country.
  Mr. President, Colonel Barrett's wife, June Barrett, was also shot 
that day. By God's grace, she was only wounded. I have not met Mrs. 
Barrett, but by her words and deeds I know her to be a courageous and 
strong woman.
  I have seen her interviewed. I have read her statements.
  Mrs. Barrett has vowed that she will return to work as an abortion 
clinic escort. She has said:

       My husband died for the cause of a woman's right to choose 
     * * *. I'm not going to sit back in a corner and not do 
     anything. Somebody's got to stand.

  Mr. President, we in this great body have to stand. We have to do all 
that is within our power, the power of the Federal Government, to 
ensure that our doctors do not fear for their lives because they are 
willing to perform legal medical procedures. We need to do all that is 
within our power to ensure that the women of this country have access 
to legal medical procedures without fear of harassment and personal 
violence.
  Mr. President, earlier this year President Clinton signed the Freedom 
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or what is known as FACE. This bill 
made it a Federal crime to block, obstruct, or intimidate a woman 
seeking reproductive health services or a doctor trying to perform 
them. But it is clear that this law will not be enough to protect 
doctors and the women of our country.
  That is why I applaud Attorney General Reno's decision, announced 
Monday, to take preemptive action across the country by posting U.S. 
Marshals outside of clinics that have been threatened.
  Mr. President, I also compliment her decision to investigate whether 
RICO statutes apply to militant antiabortion groups.
  Finally, I was pleased to read in this morning's New York Times that 
the FBI is now actively investigating whether or not there is a 
conspiracy among antiabortion militants to inflict violence upon 
doctors who provide abortion services.
  We have seen the television pictures of people who hold up signs 
saying that the killing is justified; that this is the way to defend 
these unborn children. No persons can take the law into their own hands 
and claim to be law abiding citizens. Violence against abortion 
providers and women seeking abortion services is on the rise.
  Unfortunately, the coldblooded killing of Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett 
was not an isolated incident. Violence against abortion providers and 
women seeking abortion services is on the rise. Since 1984, there have 
been over 1,500 acts of violence near abortion clinics. Furthermore, 
there have been 146 arson attempts or bombings of abortion clinics 
since 1982.
  Mr. President, let me summarize the amendment for my colleagues.
  It condemns the murders of Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett.
  It urges the Justice Department, the FBI, and the BATF to undertake 
all enforcement and investigative activities necessary under the FACE 
law to prevent further abortion clinic violence.
  It urges the Attorney General to use whatever authority she has to 
protect women and doctors who are visiting or working in abortion 
clinics. And finally, it states that all such actions shall be 
consistent with the first amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. President, let us send a signal to all women, doctors, escorts, 
and health care workers in these clinics across the country that their 
rights to obtain and perform legal medical procedures and the ability 
to do so safely will be protected.
  I hope that my colleagues will support the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Maryland.


              Tribute to Retired Lt Col. James H. Barrett

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lautenberg 
amendment. I think any decent American finds violence repugnant, and 
regardless of how one feels about the abortion issue, I know people of 
good will who truly support life find what happened in Pensacola to be 
repugnant.
  As a Senator from Maryland, I pay particular tribute to retired Air 
Force Lt. Col. James Barrett. He was from Maryland. He lost his life 
while serving others.
  Colonel Barrett was tragically killed on that day of July 29, 1994, 
outside of something called the Pensacola Ladies Clinic while escorting 
Dr. John Britton--who was also killed--to work the clinic.
  Dr. Britton was killed, Colonel Barrett was killed, and Colonel 
Barrett's wife was injured. Colonel Barrett and Dr. Britton are the 
latest victims in a long history of escalating violence at women's 
health clinics. I am deeply disturbed by this violence and am saddened 
by the tragedy in Pensacola. The fact that Colonel Barrett was needed 
to escort a doctor to provide services at a women's health clinic is, 
in itself, tragic. But the deaths of Colonel Barrett and Dr. Britton 
make this tragic situation even more horrific.
  I would like to put a human face on the headline. Colonel Barrett was 
a Marylander, and I would like to quote from an obituary written by Liz 
Atwood of the Baltimore Sun. She starts her article by saying:

       Retired Air Force Lt. Col. James H. Barrett helped people.
       He helped revive the Retired Officers Association chapter 
     in Annapolis. He drove voters to the polls on Election Day. 
     He gave advice to young people interested in college. If 
     someone needed help, he would lend a hand.
       When he died Friday in Pensacola, FL, Mr. Barrett was still 
     helping--escorting a doctor into an abortion clinic.

  An Annapolis printer said, ``He loved to help people. If a woman 
needed help, he would help, and that's what he died for.''
  Mr. Barrett was 74 years old. He was born in Annapolis, the son of a 
local printer. He went to local high schools and a local college and 
the University of Maryland. In 1939, he joined the U.S. military. He 
was a navigator during World War II and he fought in Korea and Vietnam. 
His military assignments took him throughout the world.
  When he retired from the Air Force in 1969, he came back home to 
Maryland. He taught math and science at George Fox Middle School 
between 1976 and 1982.
  When his first wife died, he found comfort in friends and he helped 
revive the Annapolis Chapter of the Retired Officers Association. 
There, the lovely day he met June--June Griffith Allison, a widow who 
retired with the rank of captain of the U.S. Public Health Service 
Corps; she was a nurse--the night they were both elected, that is where 
they met. They fell in love and, as Paul Harvey said, you know the rest 
of the story.

       In 1992, the Barretts moved to Pensacola seeking warmer 
     weather.

  They attended the Pensacola Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Church 
and did considerable volunteer work.

       For the past 17 months, they had served as escorts at the 
     Ladies Center which provides gynecological services. Once a 
     month, they would greet Dr. Britton at the airport and drive 
     him to the clinic.
       Mr. Barrett had last visited Annapolis in May. At that 
     time, he talked with his brother about the escort work at the 
     clinic * * * he thought it was dangerous.
       His brother said: ``I don't think I fully realized the risk 
     * * * but he did.''

  So on Friday, Mr. Barrett was driving a pickup truck taking Dr. 
Britton to the Ladies Center, with Mrs. Barrett riding in the back seat 
of the cab. A gunman opened fire with a shotgun, killing Mr. Barrett, 
killing Dr. Britton, and Mrs. Barrett, a nurse in the Public Health 
Service Corps, retired, was wounded in the arm.
  Well, Barrett is dead, the doctor is dead, and Mrs. Barrett will 
always carry those permanent wounds.

       The family has planned a private funeral.

  But while the family plans a private funeral, there should be a 
public outcry that in the United States of America, where we differ on 
these issues, we should resolve them in an area of nonviolence. I 
believe that nonviolence should be the norm of the day.
  His wife suggested memorial donations be made to the Unitarian 
Universalist Fellowship Church and to the Ladies Clinic. And I believe 
a memorial would be for us to adopt the Lautenberg amendment. I will be 
supporting it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                    Amendment No. 2453, As Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I modify the amendment with some word 
changes, and I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:

       On page 91, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 518. It is sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the murders of a doctor, his escort, and the wounding 
     of another escort outside a reproductive health clinic in 
     Pensacola, Florida, on July 29, 1994, were reprehensible acts 
     of violence and terrorism;
       (2) the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
     should undertake all enforcement and investigative activities 
     under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and any 
     other applicable laws, that are necessary to ensure the 
     safety of women seeking to enter reproductive health clinics, 
     their doctors, and escorts and clinic workers and to 
     demonstrate to future potential perpetrators of such violence 
     that these laws will be strongly enforced nationwide.
       (3) The Attorney General should utilize the full extent of 
     her authority to provide adequate protection to women seeking 
     to enter reproductive health clinics, their doctors, and 
     escorts and clinic workers; and
       (4) all investigative and law enforcement activities 
     undertaken by the Government in accordance with this section 
     should be conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with 
     the first amendment to the Constitution.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Mikulski, be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an 
article that appeared in this morning's New York Times talking about 
the FBI and its evaluation that a conspiracy might exist in terms of 
clinic violence be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 1994]

          FBI Undertakes Conspiracy Inquiry in Clinic Violence

                          (By David Johnston)

       Washington, August 3.--Setting aside a longstanding 
     reluctance to involve itself in cases of abortion-related 
     violence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun a 
     broad inquiry into accusations that the use of force against 
     women's clinics and their doctors is the work of a conspiracy 
     by anti-abortion militants.
       A confidential teletype sent to all 56 F.B.I. field offices 
     on Saturday evening, one day after the fatal shooting of a 
     doctor and his security escort outside an abortion clinic in 
     Pensacola, Fla., said the bureau had information, 
     ``volunteered'' by abortion rights groups, indicating that 
     about half a dozen anti-abortion militants might be posing 
     ``a conspiracy that endeavors to achieve political or social 
     change through activities that involve force or violence.''
       The teletype listed well-known anti-abortion figures 
     including the Rev. David C. Trosch, Michael Bray, C. Roy 
     McMillan, Matthew Trewhella, David Crane and Donald Spitz. 
     All of them signed the ``justifiable homicide'' declaration, 
     which circulated recently among anti-abortion militants, that 
     supported killing doctors who perform abortions.
       In a telephone interview from Mobile, Ala., Father Trosch, 
     a Roman Catholic priest whom the church has suspended because 
     of his advocacy of lethal force against abortion doctors, 
     denied any conspiracy.
       ``The pro-aborts have been presenting this view since the 
     killing of Dr. Gunn,'' said Father Trosch, referring to Dr. 
     David Gunn, an abortion provider who was shot to death 
     outside another Pensacola clinic in March 1993. ``There is 
     absolutely no conspiracy by anyone. I'm sure of it.''


                      pressure from justice dept.

       The teletype set off the first full Government inquiry of 
     accusations by abortion rights leaders that a campaign of 
     terror is under way at the nation's abortion clinics, a 
     campaign that these advocates say the authorities have failed 
     to deal with.
       The inquiry was brought on by pressure from the Justice 
     Department, the F.B.I.'s parent, whose senior leaders, 
     including Attorney General Janet Reno, are unequivocal 
     supporters of abortion rights.
       On Friday about 5 P.M., less that 10 hours after the 
     killing of Dr. John B. Britton and his security escort, James 
     H. Barrett, outside the Pensacola Ladies Center, Ms. Reno 
     spoke with Louis J. Freeh, the F.B.I. Director. Mr. Freeh 
     then set the investigation in motion, said one law-
     enforcement official, who maintained that despite misgivings 
     of some F.B.I. officials, the Director had been eager to take 
     on this high-profile inquiry important to the Clinton 
     Administration.
       In a series of intensive discussions that continued into 
     Saturday, Federal agents met with representatives of 
     abortions rights groups like the Feminist Majority, the 
     National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and the 
     National Abortion Federation. Drawing on those groups' years 
     of encounters with anti-abortion demonstrators, the agents 
     compiled a profile of violence to guide their inquiry.
       ``We believe there is a nationwide conspiracy,'' Kim A. 
     Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organization 
     for Women, said in an interview today. ``The Justice 
     Department and the F.B.I. do not have a handle on it yet. 
     They don't know the extent of the problem.''


                      Reluctance Within the Bureau

       Not withstanding what was said to be Director Freeh's 
     eagerness to take it on, the investigation was an 
     uncomfortable step for many of the bureau's senior managers. 
     Even as the most militant elements of the anti-abortion 
     movement grew more violent, these officials had been wary of 
     involving the bureau, for fear that it would somehow be drawn 
     into the broader ideological clash between mainstream anti-
     abortion groups and abortion rights advocates.
       Some of these officials feel that the line between 
     legitimate political activity and criminality can be blurred, 
     particularly in hindsight. They could never be certain, they 
     say, that a future Administration that opposed abortion 
     rights would not accuse them of improper conduct, and could 
     never be sure that their current superiors would back them if 
     they inadvertently overstepped the line.
       Some top managers at the F.B.I. now were junior agents back 
     in the late 1960's and 1970's who watched as the bureau was 
     nearly ripped apart over disclosures that agents had 
     illegally subverted antiwar and civil rights advocates. More 
     recently, in the mid-1980's, the bureau was rocked by similar 
     disclosures involving its antiterrorism inquiries into the 
     Committee in Solidarity With the People of El Salavador, an 
     organization sympathetic to leftist Salavadoran insurgents.
       The current investigation is being conducted under the 
     Attorney General's domestic terrorism guidelines, which 
     authorize the use of investigative techniques like 
     survellances and interviews but limit the use of intrusive 
     undercover tactics like wiretapping and property searches.
       The F.B.I.'s legal basis for pursuing such an investigation 
     was strengthened by the enactment of a law in May that makes 
     it a Federal crime to block access to an abortion clinic or 
     to use force or threats against employees or patients there.
       Law-enforcement officials said today they are investigating 
     whether Paul J. Hill, the suspect in Friday's shootings, can 
     be prosecuted under the new law. This investigation is a 
     departure from the usual Federal practice of waiting until a 
     local prosecution is completed before deciding whether to 
     bring Federal charges.
       No decision has been made on whether to charge Mr. Hill 
     with a Federal offense, which carries possible life 
     imprisonment, the officials said. But some Federal 
     prosecutors are pressing to go ahead before local authorities 
     as a demonstration of the new Federal law. A Federal 
     prosecution would not preclude a trial on state charges.
       Ms. Reno had promised after the killing of Dr. Gunn to 
     launch an inquiry into whether the law-enforcement 
     authorities could use Federal criminal conspiracy statutes, 
     like those used against the Mafia, in cases involving anti-
     abortion extremists. She was said by law-enforcement 
     officials to be disturbed to learn after Friday's shootings 
     at how little had actually been done.
       Federal authorities had Mr. Hill under investigation for 
     violating the new law. Justice Department officials have not 
     fully explained why Federal prosecutors in Florida and their 
     superiors in Washington dropped the case for lack of 
     evidence.
       The F.B.I.'s teletype adopted a careful tone. ``The 
     inquiry,'' the message said, ``will be of short duration and 
     will be confined solely to obtaining information necessary to 
     making an informed judgment as to whether a full 
     investigation is warranted.''
       The teletype, sent from the bureau's Washington field 
     office, emphasized that the inquiry was to be a ``measured 
     review'' of the most militant anti-abortion activists. It was 
     sent to the personal attention of all special agents in 
     charge of F.B.I. field offices, advising them of the 90-day 
     preliminary inquiry, a precursor to a full-fledged criminal 
     conspiracy investigation.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to just mention another article 
that appeared in the New York Times on the 30th of July. This was right 
after the doctor and his escort was murdered. It talks about a meeting 
held in Chicago by 100 antiabortion leaders meeting at a Chicago hotel 
to plan their future.

       But their weekend gathering . . . quickly turned into a 
     heated 2-day debate on a chilling question that has split 
     their ranks: Is the killing of doctors who perform abortions 
     morally justified?

  One of the people who went to this meeting who is listed here as 
Reverend Flip Benham, the director of Operation Rescue National, a 
group that once represented the most extreme end of the antiabortion 
spectrum, said:

       I think what he's saying is heresy, it's sin, it's murder, 
     it's wrong, and it solves nothing, only makes things worse. 
     But I was in the minority.

  I ask unanimous consent that that article from the New York Times 
also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 30, 1994]

         A Cause Worth Killing For? Debate Splits Abortion Foes

                            (By Tamar Lewin)

       Exactly three months ago, nearly 100 anti-abortion leaders 
     met at a Chicago hotel to plan their future.
       But their weekend gathering at the Radisson Lincolnwood 
     Hotel quickly turned into a heated two-day debate on a 
     chilling question that has split their ranks: Is the killing 
     of doctors who perform abortions morally justified?
       Paul J. Hill, the former minister charged yesterday with 
     shooting a doctor and two others at a Pensacola, Fla., 
     clinic, did not say much at the Chicago conference.
       But by all accounts, his presence there--and his yearlong 
     crusade for the proposition that killing doctors who perform 
     abortions is justifiable homicide, mandated by the Bible--
     dominated the meeting. The issue has been a divisive one 
     within the anti-abortion movement ever since the fatal 
     shooting last year of Dr. David Gunn outside the other 
     Pensacola clinic.
       ``I went to Chicago because I had to confront Paul Hill,'' 
     said the Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue 
     National, a group that once represented the most extreme end 
     of the anti-abortion spectrum. ``I think what he's saying is 
     heresy, it's sin, it's murder, it's wrong, and it solves 
     nothing, only makes things worse. But I think I was in the 
     minority.''
       Rick Blinn, a spokesman for Operation Rescue who was also 
     at the meeting, said that Mr. Hill had handed out his 
     position papers liberally and had tried, in informal 
     conversations with those who disagreed with him, to use the 
     Bible to defend his position.
       Even the formal agenda of the meeting reflected the debate 
     over killing: one item listed for discussion was ``Violence 
     and Nonviolence: How to Work With Disagreement,'' and another 
     was ``Focus Team on Marginal Killers.''
       Many at the Chicago meeting said they had thought the 
     debate was purely theoretical.
       ``The discussion of killing was abstract, almost 
     theological,'' said the Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests United 
     for Life. ``No one was at any time talking about any kind of 
     action.''
       However, abortion rights groups said yesterday that it was 
     at best disingenuous for those who engage in fiery rhetoric 
     about ``baby killers'' and ``the abortion Holocaust'' to 
     express surprise when their rhetoric leads to violence.
       ``Opponents of choice who call physicians `baby killers' 
     one day have no credibility the next when they issue polite 
     statements of regret after physicians and escorts have been 
     gunned down in cold blood,'' said the statement issued 
     yesterday by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights 
     Action League.
       And some of those who had been at the Chicago meeting were 
     hardly ringing in their condemnation of yesterday's killings, 
     reserving most of their outrage for those who interfere with 
     abortion protests.
       ``This may be the start of the new civil war everyone has 
     been talking about,'' said Don Treshman, the director of 
     Rescue America, who was at the Chicago meeting. ``As a result 
     of the Clinton Administration's oppressive efforts to stop 
     even peaceful pro-life activities, I fear there will be more 
     bombings and shootings. Up to now, the killings have been on 
     one side with 30 million dead babies and hundreds of dead and 
     maimed mothers. On the other side, there are two dead 
     doctors. Maybe the balance is going to start to shift.''
       While several of those who were present at the Chicago 
     meeting said they were distressed by the widespread 
     acceptance of the idea that it might be justifiable to kill 
     those who perform abortions, none of those interviewed would 
     identify the individuals or groups that had taken that 
     position most strongly.
       And in the wake of yesterday's shootings, most seemed eager 
     to distance themselves from such thinking.
       ``I went to the meeting hoping we could agree on nonviolent 
     actions all of us could support,'' said Joseph Scheidler, 
     director of the Pro-Life Action League. ``But early on, we 
     hit the item on `Violence and Nonviolence: How to Work With 
     Disagreement,' and that became the issue for the rest of the 
     weekend. I was surprised at how much support there was for 
     Paul Hill. I had always boasted that we don't fight among 
     ourselves in the pro-life movement, but this was very 
     divisive.''


                           A Persistent Issue

       The issue of violence and civil disobedience in the service 
     of stopping abortions has been touchy for years.
       Leaders of some mainstream anti-abortion groups have always 
     been quick to condemn unlawful actions, stressing their 
     commitment to opposing abortion through the political process 
     and their distance from groups such as Operation Rescue, 
     which have frequently violated the law.
       Yesterday's shootings brought a new outpouring of 
     statements denouncing violence. And the leaders of Operation 
     Rescue National and the Pro-Life Action League said yesterday 
     that they had argued with Mr. Hill, before, during and after 
     the Chicago meeting, that killing doctors is not justifiable.
       But while many anti-abortion leaders sought yesterday to 
     portray Mr. Hill as a lone extremist, with no following, it 
     had been apparent even before the Chicago meeting that Mr. 
     Hill had some significant support.


                        hill's sudden prominence

       Last month, Mr. Hill circulated a petition declaring the 
     justice of using force to defend ``innocent human life.''
       ``Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born 
     child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child,'' 
     the petition said.
       Most of the anti-abortion leaders said they first heard of 
     Mr. Hill, who established an organization called Defensive 
     Action, only after the shooting of Dr. Gunn last year.
       Mr. Hill thrust himself into the limelight through the 
     force of his statements in support of Michael Griffin, 32, 
     the man convicted of the shooting.
       ``The first time I ever laid eyes on him,'' said Mr. 
     Benham, the Operation Rescue National official, ``I was in 
     jail in Dallas, and he came on `Donahue' saying we should 
     kill all the abortionists.''

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as usual, the Senator from Maryland, 
the manager of the bill, has a unique way of expressing things that 
arrests all of our attention. She speaks the truth and she speaks it 
with a degree of eloquence and certainly that makes her a spokeswoman 
for all of us at times, and I am so proud to serve with Senator 
Mikulski.
  When you think about this man out there trying to perform his duty 
under his oath, the Hippocratic oath, under the law as represented by 
the Constitution, to protect the privacy of people, and to be murdered 
in the full bloom of life, as he wore his bullet-proof vest--the shots 
apparently penetrated the vest--because he knew he was in danger, he 
was in many ways a heroic man. He decided to do his duty as he had 
sworn to do under oath, regardless of the dangers that he personally 
faced.
  So what we see, Mr. President, is the fact that even under the law 
someone performing a function that is protected by law could not 
complete it. And, boy, if anything is brought to our attention, it is 
that we cannot abide lawlessness, no matter how zealous, no matter how 
righteous those who try to intimidate, influence, assault or even kill 
are wont to do.
  So, Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be immediately 
considered, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? In the opinion 
of the Chair, there is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, there is no objection to the amendment on 
our side. I would say to my colleague that those of us who are prolife 
feel very strongly about protecting the rights of the unborn, and we 
also feel very strongly about protecting the rights of those who are 
born. Certainly a senseless murder like that is uncalled for, and we 
certainly do support the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll,
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know that the Senator from New Hampshire has two 
additional amendments that he wishes to offer and, from his 
perspective, achieve more fiscal control on the bill.
  I wonder if the Senator from New Hampshire would agree to making a 
unanimous consent--or I could--that we debate both of his amendments 
and then have four votes stacked back to back: his motion to recommit, 
the Lautenberg amendment, and then, if he wishes a rollcall on his two 
other reallocation amendments, that we do it all at one time. And then, 
I believe, if there would be no other amendments, we could begin to 
move to wrap up the bill.
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from New Hampshire has no objection to that 
unanimous consent request, and no one that I know of on our side has 
objection to it. I would anticipate from the interest of our colleagues 
from my side of the debate on each of the amendments, approximately 15 
minutes, maybe 20 minutes maximum on each, for my side, unless there 
are others who wish to speak.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I bring to the attention of the Senator from New 
Hampshire that it is 1:15. We could begin the votes at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. SMITH. Unless somebody engages me in debate and takes more time. 
The presentation I would have would not be more than 45 minutes on 
both.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator prefer an informal agreement?
  Mr. SMITH. I would prefer informal, but the presentation would be----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I prefer informality, with the understanding the votes 
would occur in a stacked fashion once we have completed the debate on 
the two amendments.
  Mr. SMITH. I have no objection.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And Senators will be so informed.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


          Committee Amendment on page 22, lines 18 through 25

  Mr. SMITH. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending committee amendment be set aside and that the Senate 
consider the committee amendment on page 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.


Amendment No. 2454 to Committee Amendment on Page 22, lines 18 through 
                                   25

 (Purpose: To redistribute $135,000,000 from special purpose grants to 
                  community development block grants)

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the pending 
committee amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment offered by 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself and 
     Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2454 to the 
     committee amendment on page 22, lines 18 through 25.

  Mr. SMITH. 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 22, line 21, strike ``That'' and all that follows 
     through the period on line 25 and insert the following: 
     ``That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $130,000,000 shall be used for grants to States and units of 
     general local government and for related expenses, not 
     otherwise provided for, necessary for carrying out a 
     community development grants program as authorized by title I 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.''.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this amendment does not impact the overall 
cost of the bill. We had our presentation on that portion of the bill a 
few moments ago with my amendment to recommit to bring the bill back in 
line with last year's expenditures. This is a redistribution amendment. 
It does not take, add, or delete one penny from the bill. But I would 
encourage my colleagues to pay very careful attention to the points 
that I wish to make in the presentation of this amendment.
  The committee-reported amendment--that is what is before you without 
my amendment--would earmark $135 million for 102 special purpose 
grants. We have heard debate on earmarking many, many times on the 
floor. My colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, has certainly spent a 
great deal of time trying to bring this to the attention of our 
colleagues. But earmarking is a very unfair process, and I am about to 
demonstrate just how unfair it is to many of my colleagues in other 
States. This is a situation now where the amendment that I am offering 
would eliminate the earmarks--not the money. It would eliminate the 
earmark and transfer funding to the community development block grants, 
and that is a program that benefits every State. I emphasize the words 
``every State.''
  Under the Community Development Block Grant Program, there is a very 
complicated formula, and in that formula the dollars are sent out to 
the various States on the basis of that formula, and every State shares 
in that money.
  Now, what we have here is $135 million in this bill which is 
specifically earmarked, specifically earmarked to certain States. So, 
essentially, this is earmarked versus formula. It is money for some 
States versus money for all States. And I suppose you can say if you 
are one of the ``some States'' that is involved in getting the money, 
it is OK.
  I would encourage you to listen carefully to what I am going to say 
because you still may be getting less money than you should be getting. 
It is an issue of fairness. That is all it is. Is it fair for a small, 
select group of people on the Appropriations Committee to take a pool 
of money, $135 million, basically saying they use the formula but not 
using the formula--because, if you use the formula, all States share, 
but what they are doing is allocating this money to some States. Is 
that fair? Is it fair for a small group of people to sit in a room 
someplace and take $135 million and give it specifically to certain 
States to the exclusion of others? I say it is not fair. I say it is 
extremely unfair. It is unfair to the people who reside in the States 
that get absolutely nothing and are just as entitled to it under the 
community development block grant formula as anyone else.
  They are just as entitled to it as the recipient States. So let me 
read the committee report language accompanying this bill that explains 
the rationale for these earmarked projects. I am going to quote.

       These items are targeted to address compelling local 
     examples of important national needs in housing, and 
     community, and economic development. Provisions included 
     generally fall within one of the broad criteria established 
     for eligibility under the Community Development Block Grant 
     Program; meet the needs of low- and moderate-income persons; 
     aid in elimination of urban slum or plight; or address 
     pressing community development needs.

  So I would think that explanation begs a very simple question. If the 
community development block grant criteria are being used by the 
appropriators to select the grants, these 102, why not just put the 
money into the Community Development Block Grant Program and let the 
States decide how to use the money? That is the way it is supposed to 
work.
  There is nothing, in my opinion, that is more onerous and more 
obnoxious--I cannot think of a better word--in this whole process 
around here than earmarking, because it is unfair. It is unfair because 
a select few take a pool of money and give it to a certain State or a 
certain locality. I am not questioning the individual projects selected 
by the committee. I am not questioning the projects. They very well may 
be worthwhile. I am not saying they are not; probably they are. But I 
am questioning the process, Mr. President, because the process is 
wrong.
  If an earmark is given to a community in, say, California, say, Los 
Angeles, and it was not done on a fair formula, what about Jefferson 
City, MO, or some other community; Detroit, MI, some other city 
somewhere else? What is the criteria?
  The point is there is a criteria but we are not using it. The 
criteria is a very precise formula under the Community Development 
Block Grant Program that should be followed, but it is not being 
followed.
  Let me tell you what happens in this particular example. We now have 
$135 million of money in a pool. We have 102 projects. Three States--
West Virginia, New York, and Oregon--get one-third of the money. Three 
States get one-third of the money.
  You do not have to be a genius to look at the makeup of the 
Appropriations Committee, see who is on the Appropriations Committee, 
and understand why these three States get one-third of the money--West 
Virginia, New York, and Oregon.
  Fifteen States receive no money--zip, not a dime. Is that fair?
  Are people in a slum in Oregon or West Virginia or New York better, 
any better, than people in a slum in Detroit or Washington, DC, or Los 
Angeles? I do not think so. I do not think that is what we are trying 
to do here with the Community Development Block Grant Program. But that 
is what earmarking does. That is exactly what earmarking does.
  It is power, raw power in the hands of a select few; no votes, no 
public decisions. These projects just simply appear, and, if I have a 
powerful Senator or a powerful Congressman somewhere, we get the money. 
Never mind about anybody else. This is a sacred cow around here.
  I will hear about this. I will hear about it because I am taking on 
the system here, as others have done. I am not the only one. Somebody 
has to take it on because it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
  Let me tell you how badly people get burned. You might want to 
listen, as I am going to mention your State. I am going to go through 
every State. I am going to take my colleagues' time to run through 
every State because I want people to understand just how onerous this 
really is.
  I said 3 States get one-third of the money, and 15 States get 
nothing.
  Thirty States would receive more money under my amendment than they 
would under the committee-reported bill. I am going to outline exactly 
what States they are. You might say, ``Well, here it is again. Smith is 
mad. His State did not get enough money,'' or something else. That is 
not the point. That is totally irrelevant. It is not the point.
  There is $135 million in the bill. It is supposed to go to help these 
people in need, and it ought to be done fairly, it ought to be 
equitable, and it is not because of the raw political power of a select 
few who sit on this Appropriations Committee that have all this power. 
They ignore the system, ignore the grants, ignore the community 
development block grant formula. They say they use it. But they do not, 
and they allocate the money wherever they feel like it.
  There are innocent people who deserve help who get nothing, 
absolutely nothing. Do you think that is fair? If you think that is 
fair, then vote against me. But have the courage to stand up to these 
people and expose this for what it is. It is hurting people. That is 
what it is doing. It is hurting needy people. Who is it hurting?
  Let us take the State of Alabama. It will sound like a political 
convention here as I call the names.
  Alabama: Alabama gets nothing under the Senate bill. It gets 
$2,050,000 under my formula. So if there are poor people in Alabama who 
feel like they are just as poor as somebody else in New York or Oregon 
or West Virginia, you ought to be angry, because under my amendment you 
would get $2 million more.
  Arizona: Arizona is going to get $1.5 million more. They get nothing 
under the current formula, absolutely nothing. The poor people in 
Arizona in any slum or run-down housing area in Arizona get nothing 
under the committee bill. One point five million dollars--this is not a 
gift. This is a fair formula. This is the way it is supposed to be 
done. This is the way the law is written, that this community 
development block grant formula is supposed to be administered. That is 
the way it is supposed to be done.
  That is not the way it is being done because $135 million sits there.
  Arkansas: They get $35,000 under the committee. They get $1.9 million 
under my allocation.
  California: Here is an interesting situation. California, $4.5 
million under the committee bill; $14.6 million under my formula, which 
is not my formula, it is the community development block grant formula 
the way it is supposed to be administered; $14 million.
  Why is that? Very simple. There are a lot of people in California. 
There are more people in California than any other State. There are 
more people in California than there are in West Virginia by a large 
margin.
  Do you want to hear what West Virginia gets? Let us drop down to West 
Virginia. West Virginia under the Senate bill, $19 million in these 
set-aside grants in West Virginia. And California gets $4.5 million.
  So the people in West Virginia who are poor, live in slums, they need 
the money more than the people in California who are poor and live in 
slums.
  That is what is wrong with this place. It is wrong. Have the courage 
to stand up and say it is wrong. I am not cutting a dime out of this 
bill. I am redistributing the money the way it should be done in a fair 
manner. Stand up and say it is wrong. Colorado, zero under the bill, 
$1.3 million under my formula; Delaware, zero under the Senate bill, 
$260,000 under my bill; Florida, $3.7 million versus $5.4 million; 
Georgia, zero under the Senate bill, $2.7 million under my formula; 
Idaho, from zero to $350,000; Illinois, $2.7 million to $7.2 million; 
Indiana, $500,000 to $2.6 million; Kentucky, zero to $1.9 million; 
Michigan, zero to $5.4 million; Minnesota, zero to $2.2 million; 
Mississippi, zero to $2.2 million. Are there any poor people in 
Mississippi out there that might like a little help? You get zip under 
this bill. Missouri would go from $1.6 million to $2.8 million.

  Some of my colleagues who are looking at these numbers might say, ``I 
get $1.6 million in Missouri. What is wrong with that?'' Nothing, 
except that you could get $2.8 million if it was done fairly.
  New Hampshire, zero to $410,000; North Carolina, zero to $2.4 
million; Ohio, $1.5 million to $6.3 million; Oklahoma, $1.1 million to 
$1.2 million; Pennsylvania, $3.6 million to $8.5 million; Rhode Island, 
zero to $630,000; South Carolina, zero to $1.4 million; Tennessee, $1 
million to $2 million; Texas, $1 million to $9 million. Are there any 
poor people in Texas that might like a little help? Utah, $700,000 to 
$750,000; Virginia, $1.6 million to $2.2 million; Wisconsin, $700,000 
to $2.4 million; Wyoming, zero to $160,000.
  West Virginia, under the formula, gets $19 million, but under my 
allocation, it would get $1 million. That is the way it should be, 
because West Virginia has a lot less people than some of these other 
States. It is not right. Yet, it goes on in here time after time after 
time. I have heard so many speeches in this place about helping poor 
people, people in need, people who needing housing; helping people get 
a start. Yes, if you are in West Virginia or New York or Oregon, you 
can get a start. You are not going to get a start if you are in one of 
these other States, because you will not get any money.
  There are two Senators from every State, we all know that. We do not 
need a civics lesson here. There are 60 Senators who gain for their 
States by my amendment. If this amendment goes down, then those 60 
Senators, or those who voted against it from those 60, cost their 
States whatever amount of money I read. That is the truth.
  So let us find out whether they have the courage to stand up and take 
on the appropriators, these all-powerful appropriators that run 
roughshod over the rest of us and the American people around here. This 
is a harsh speech; I know it is harsh, and it should be harsh. People 
need to know what is going on around here. This is wrong. People are 
being hurt by this stuff. This is not a matter of cutting money out of 
a bill. It is a matter of providing money to people in need. It is not 
right. It is unfair.
  I know there are times when Senators are required to put the 
interests of their States aside for a greater interest, and that should 
be the case at times. National interests should take precedence. That 
happens. But this is not such a time. This is not such a time when you 
have to put national interests above the States. There is no national 
interest at stake here. Zero. This is a matter of fairness. Should 
these three States get one-third of $135 million? Or should that money 
be distributed among all 50 States?
  The question is whether or not you put the interests of the 
Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate ahead of the financial 
interests of your State and, furthermore, the very poor and the very 
needy people who need basic housing and help in your State. That is the 
issue. Do you put those needy people above the Appropriations Committee 
of the U.S. Senate? If you do, then you should vote for my amendment. 
If you feel the Appropriations Committee is more important, then vote 
against it. After all, I know you have to deal with them every day. 
They can cut your money tomorrow, can they not? That is the bottom 
line. Boy, they can make us pay for speaking up because they control 
all those dollars.
  Let me tell you something, folks. If we take them on, we can win, 
because there are more of us than there are of them.
  That is what this amendment is all about--fairness. Out of $135 
million in these grants, we have in the State of Oregon, $10.4 million; 
and in the State of West Virginia, $19 million; and in the State of New 
York $15 million. So we are looking at almost $45 million that could be 
redistributed, along with the other money, in a fairer and more 
equitable way.
  So that is the amendment. It is very simple. Do you want to try to 
help poor, needy people who need housing and other help, who are living 
in rundown conditions? Do you want to help them as much in Texas as in 
New York? Or as much in South Carolina as in Oregon? As much in 
California as you do in West Virginia? If you do, then take on the 
appropriators, just once--one time. Take them on. Say they are wrong 
and show them with a vote that we are sick of it. Just one time I would 
like to see it happen around here. Just once we might be able to change 
things for the better.
  Mr. President, I think I have made the point. I will have the list of 
all the States down in the well. I want to say again that I have seen 
this happen a hundred times, where people pass out stuff and say, 
``This vote is better for your State; therefore, you should vote for 
it.'' That might be the case here with 60 Senators for 30 States; that 
is true. But it is not one of those cases where it is simply a matter 
of pulling more money. It is a case where you earned it and it is 
yours; it is your fair share based on the way the formula should work.
  Do not put the Appropriations Committee ahead of the interests of the 
people in your State, especially the interests of people who 
desperately need this help.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to the 
Senator from New Hampshire. First, I am one of those ``powerful'' 
appropriators that supposedly meet in the back room to do these kinds 
of things. Boy, do I wish we were powerful. I wish we were really 
powerful so that we could meet the compelling needs of the United 
States of America.
  We on the Appropriations Committee are continually facing enormous 
requests and backlogged projects that would meet real needs in 
communities. We found this year, in my subcommittee alone, I have 1,100 
projects that total $96 billion--that is ``b'' as in Barbara, not ``m'' 
as in Mikulski.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire talks about these 102 
projects, this $135 million. He needs to hear about the other $95.9 
billion that we turned down. I got 1,100 requests for these nine items 
and when you added them all up, they came to $96 billion. That is more 
than my total appropriation to fund all of veterans health care, the 
environmental programs, the other programs that I know are of keen 
interest to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  We both like community development block grant money because it 
acknowledges the needs of primarily urban States like my own as well as 
rural States as his.
  So the Senator needs to know we turn down many of these individual 
projects.
  Yes, in fact, we do fund at $135 million, 102 individual projects in 
37 States.
  But what I would like to say further is that when we talk about this, 
we need to know that we have provided funds for certain of these 
projects, and they are of merit. They are of great merit. First of all, 
they meet the criteria for community development projects. We just do 
not make these up. They come from Senators. They come from Senators 
often at the request of their own State. We insist that they meet the 
criteria for community development block grant projects. They must 
either benefit low- or moderate-income persons, they must eliminate 
either slums or blight, and they must address other pressing community 
development needs.
  Now, in this year's appropriation, the subcommittee has increased 
community development block grant money by $200 million. That is 
separate from the $135 million that the Senator from New Hampshire 
raises an objection to. So, $200 million has been added that will be 
distributed on a formula basis. That means we have addressed the needs 
of those 50 States that the Senator has expressed great concern about.
  We selected these projects based on the criteria of community 
development block grants, and our question was, why can you not get 
this out of your local community? What we found is that often those 
projects did not have local political connections. We act when CDBG 
money goes to the local community. They are in some kind of value-free 
atmosphere where everybody lines up with the League of Women Voters on 
the one side, and I am a lady of the league. I appreciate that. All of 
this merit based kind of like NIH grant come out of the city council.
  Mr. President, let us talk about the local community. The Senator 
from Maryland got to be a member of the Baltimore City Council because 
she beat two political machines. Why did I even run for political 
office in the first place 20 years ago willing to duke it out with the 
political machines when my own family warned me that it would have dire 
consequences? I said because there were too many people who knocked on 
the doors of city hall and could not get in, and I wanted to run for 
political office to open the doors for those who have been left out or 
pushed out. So let us not talk about how evenhanded local communities 
are. Most are and some are not.
  And then there are these projects that cannot meet that need, and 
then there are others where the need is so great that even when they 
get the formula money, there is a special project of compelling human 
needs.
  So this is what we have done. It had to meet the criteria. We asked 
the Senators why. They did not have local political connections or 
because they could not dot every ``i'' and semicolon to be able to move 
their project or maybe they have special needs which cannot be easily 
pushed through the regular CDBG process or because there was a backlog. 
So, yes, we did do it.
  Let me tell you where some of these projects are. First of all, in 
Kansas, we fund the Hardspring School for children with disabilities. 
That means we do $600,000 to the city of Wichita, so little children 
who primarily have cystic fibrosis and other disabilities will be able 
to have this facility enhanced.
  We talk about how in St. Louis, MO, there is capital cost to the 
Faith House for at-risk children. There is also money for child care 
for facilities at Hope House.
  I worked with the Senator from Missouri, who is on the Appropriations 
Committee, because we believe that there needed to be special 
opportunities for children who would be able with some help to move 
into at-risk housing and then be able to transient to foster care. 
These were children who live in the vilest of circumstances and readily 
could not make it and had to be taken from their parents but could not 
readily move into foster care.
  So we worked on these projects. We just do not make them up, and we 
do not give them out on the basis of goodies.
  If you look at the States that did get these projects, many do not 
have members of the Appropriations Committee on them at all. We know 
that there are several of those projects that we funded that do not 
have either members on the subcommittee or do not have the members on 
the full committee.
  Kansas would be one. Illinois would be another.
  So I could go on about it. I understand what the Senator is saying. 
But these 102 projects in 37 different States each meet the community 
development criteria. They meet the community development criteria. We 
turned down $95 billion worth of requests. We think we have done a good 
job, and I would hope that we would defeat the Smith amendment on 
reallocating these because there are an awful lot of people. Many of 
these relate to either economic development or they help primarily 
children or generate jobs, for example, in the job corps project.
  So I would hope that we would defeat the Smith amendment on this 
area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire. I appreciate his courage in 
talking about this issue and, I strongly support the concept of an 
orderly and rational fashion for deciding which projects are approved 
and which are not approved in the appropriations process.
  I would also like to express my strong support for the enforcement of 
the Appropriations Committee abiding by the actions of the authorizing 
committees.
  Now, I do not take any exception to the remarks of the Senator from 
Maryland when she says that these projects are worthwhile, that they 
create jobs, that they do good. There is not a doubt in my mind that 
many of these projects are good and worthwhile.
  The question that I and the Senator from New Hampshire have is, are 
they more worthwhile than other projects and has an orderly process 
been undertaken to fund them on the basis of merit and need? Not that 
the projects themselves are not worthwhile. I am convinced that this is 
the question the American people are asking.
  I would say to the Senator from Maryland, 13 percent of the American 
people in a poll taken last week believe that the Congress of the 
United States will do the right thing some of the time--some of the 
time. And frankly, I would say to the Senator from Maryland I have not 
met any of that 13 percent. Perhaps they are staff members and blood 
relatives of Members of this body.
  But the point that the Senator from New Hampshire and I are trying to 
make is that Federal funds should be distributed fairly and used for 
the highest priorities. When the military construction appropriations 
conference report comes before this body for final approval, I will 
point out that some 62 percent of those projects went to States that 
happen to have, by coincidence, members on the MilCon Appropriation 
Subcommittee. In the earmarking on the transportation appropriations 
bill you will find that some 60 to 70 percent--I have not got the exact 
numbers--of those earmarks went--guess what?--to the districts and 
States of those members of those Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. President, it is more than coincidental that year after year it 
seems by the statistics that the funds are not equitably distributed on 
the basis of need.
  I am not seeking additional money for the State of Arizona, but I can 
tell you this. It enrages my constituents when they send more money to 
Washington, DC, in the form of their hard-earned tax dollars than comes 
back to their State; and that there is a predominance of earmarks, 
through the appropriations process, that are centered in just a few 
States and happen to relate to the membership of those committees.
  One small example and I will stop, I say, Mr. President, because this 
debate goes on and, it will go on for years. We are making progress, 
but our progress is filled with disappointments.
  Example: Thanks to the help of Senator Glenn and others, we were able 
to get the Senate Armed Services Committee, to adopt a set of criteria 
which must be adhered to in order for a military construction project 
to be approved by the Committee. That was adopted and in the Armed 
Services authorization bill. Thanks to a vote on the Senate floor, we 
got the same criteria put into the MilCon appropriations bill.
  I deeply regret to tell you, Mr. President, that the House 
authorization committee refuses to agree with these criteria and, that 
the Milcon appropriations committee dropped them in conference, Mr. 
President.
  In other words, the MilCon appropriations committee refuses to abide 
by a set of criteria which in the view of every observer is a fair and 
honest assessment and a process that spending requests need to go 
through before these projects are approved has been rejected.
  Mr. President, I suggest that we made progress. I would like to thank 
especially the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the chairman of the 
committee who helped us on that. But it also indicates we have a great 
deal of distance to go before we can institute throughout this body, 
especially where military funds are concerned, a fair and equitable 
process.
  I know that we are supposed to have a vote in a very short period of 
time, but I would encourage the Senator from Maryland to look at some 
of the criteria that we are trying to set up, at some of the ways that 
we are trying to assure the American people, only 13 percent of whom 
think we do the right thing, so we can assure them that their tax 
dollars are equitably and fairly distributed that they work so hard to 
send to us to spend in Washington, DC.
  I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Alaska, with whom I have had 
many vociferous and energetic disagreements, but for whom I have the 
utmost respect, and who would like to speak on this as well.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Arizona, but I am on a 
different mission.

                          ____________________