[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4761-S4776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1158, the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Assistance Act. The clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now has under consideration 
legislation to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency with an 
additional $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1995 and $4.8 billion for fiscal 
year 1996 for emergency disaster relief and to make savings in prior 
year appropriations through rescissions and other actions by a total of 
approximately $13.5 billion.
  The supplemental appropriation is recommended in response to the 
President's request of February 6, 1995. The President requested a FEMA 
supplemental of $6.7 billion for disaster relief efforts in California 
and 40 other States. The House has recommended a reduced amount of $5.3 
billion, all in fiscal year 1995 supplementals. Our Senate committee 
recommends $1.9 billion for fiscal year 1995, which is the amount most 
immediately required, and an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1996 
of the balance of the $4.8 billion. The committee makes this 
recommendation as a first step in establishing a new procedure for the 
provision of disaster relief.
  As noted in our committee report, Mr. President, funds appropriated 
for FEMA disaster relief have escalated sharply in recent years. 
Between 1990 and 1994, 195 disasters were declared by the President and 
nearly $15 billion was appropriated in emergency supplements for 
disaster relief. We should not abandon Federal disaster assistance for 
people and communities in need, but we cannot afford to continue this 
level of spending.
  Senators Bond and Mikulski are making a good start in the right 
direction, and they are to be commended. They are the chair and the 
ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on HUD and Independent 
Agencies, under which FEMA comes for its funding.
  Most of the attention given this measure has been directed at the 
rescissions we are recommending. I think there has been a considerable 
degree of overreaction to our proposals. We are not engaged in a barn-
burning exercise. In the main, the rescissions and other savings we 
recommend on the Senate side are reductions in the rate of increase, 
rather than a true cut.
  Let me underscore that. We read in the media, see on the television, 
and we hear from many voices that the House or the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has cut these funds; we are putting the poor 
out in the street; we are doing all these things because we have cut 
funds, making it appear as though we have excised the account dealing 
with that particular human need.
  We have also undertaken to take the unobligated balances which have 
languished for years after their initial appropriation. We call that 
the pipeline money and we have taken them as rescissions.
  So let us get our nomenclature clarified that the cuts are reducing 
the rate of growth. We are not, in effect, dislocating people or 
ignoring the needs of people.
  So what we bring to the Senate today, Mr. President, represents the 
committee's considered reevaluation of prior year funding levels, based 
on a renewed commitment to thoroughly scrutinize every spending 
proposal.
  This is not to say that scrutiny did not exist before. It did. But we 
should always be willing to take a second look, and that is what the 
Senate is doing.
  Some of those unobligated funds we found in the pipeline were 
unobligated transportation funds from 1982, 13 years ago. It was our 
feeling it was better to take those unobligated funds out of the 
pipeline for our rescissions and, at the same time, to recognize, as an 
example, low-income energy assistance for people of need in 
particularly cold weather.
  It is not unusual for us to do this type of thing. Our committee has 
recommended rescissions and the Congress has enacted rescissions in 
every year for the past 20 years. Rescissions are not an innovation of 
the Executive. Since the rescission process entered and the Budget Act 
was created--now that is 1974--Congress has enacted into law a grand 
total of $92,940,296,915 in rescissions in that period of time, which 
is $20 billion more than we have been asked to rescind by Presidents 
Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
  I want to focus on that again. In the parlance of today's 
communications, it is the Congress that is the big spenders; it is the 
Congress that has to be brought under control. And yet, at the same 
time, in this 20-year period, we have rescinded $20 billion more than 
these Presidents, five Presidents, have asked for.
  Nor is the size of the package we bring to the floor today 
unprecedented. In 1981, when I was first honored to be chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, we brought to the Senate a $15 billion 
rescission package. There may be others who find this a novel 
experience, but I do not.
   [[Page S4762]] Mr. President, I think we also have to recognize 
that, as noted in our report, we have amendments to offer today to 
change the committee's recommendations. We expect those and we welcome 
them. We welcome them up to a degree, not an unlimited welcome. Some 
will want to restore funding. Some will want to cut more. We will 
engage in those debates and invite those amendments. But I hope there 
will not be an effort to unduly delay this legislation.
  I believe we all share a desire to reduce Federal spending. We know 
very significant reductions are coming in fiscal year 1996 and the 
years beyond, and every dollar we are able to save today will make 
tomorrow's task easier. It is time we begin, and this is the beginning.
  To honor the request I have made to move this bill along 
expeditiously, I am very happy to say that two Senators, who are on the 
floor, have indicated that they will agree to a time limit; some more 
and some less. But, nevertheless, we are starting out right by trying 
to get time agreements and not to have open-ended affairs that can drag 
this bill on and on ad infinitum. So I wish to thank the Senators who 
have indicated they would consider a time agreement. When we get ready 
for those amendments, we hope to have that agreement.
  Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the ranking member of our 
Committee on Appropriations and former chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Byrd, of West Virginia, for any opening statement 
that he wishes to make.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee reported this emergency 
supplemental and rescission bill, S. 617, on Friday, March 24. The 
motion to report the bill also included the committee's authorization 
for the chairman to offer S. 617 as a complete substitute for the 
House-passed companion measure, H.R. 1158. This was an unusual, but by 
no means unique, action by the committee. In order to facilitate 
comparison of the differences between the committee substitute and H.R. 
1158, the committee report on S. 617, a copy of which is on each 
Senator's desk, contains comparisons between the committee's 
recommendations and the House-passed bill. The report to which I refer 
is Senate Report 104-17.
  As has been the practice in the past, I, as the ranking minority 
member, joined Chairman Hatfield during the markup in urging members of 
the committee to withhold controversial amendments, in order to 
expedite the markup of this emergency supplemental and rescission bill. 
That request was largely accommodated, but there were a number of 
concerns expressed about the bill by various members of the committee 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Among those concerns was the need to find a way to fund disaster 
assistance programs, such as the $6.7 billion appropriation for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] contained in the committee 
substitute. In his supplemental request, the President designated this 
$6.7 billion FEMA supplemental as an emergency appropriation under 
section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985. Senators will recall that under the terms of the 
1990 budget summit agreement, Presidents may designate discretionary 
appropriations as emergencies and, if Congress so designates in 
statute, such appropriations are, in effect, not charged against 
discretionary spending caps in any year.
  In this instance, President Clinton exercised his authority to
   designate the $6.7 billion FEMA request as an emergency requirement. 
The House chose to appropriate $5.4 billion for FEMA and to designate 
this amount as an emergency. However, the House-passed bill also 
contains rescissions and other reductions totaling $17.4 billion in 
budget authority. These rescissions are far in excess of what would be 
required to offset the cost of the FEMA supplemental.

  The Senate Appropriations Committee's substitute, as set forth in S. 
617, recommends an emergency appropriation of $1.9 billion for FEMA for 
fiscal year 1995, together with an additional $4.8 billion which would 
become available for fiscal year 1996. These funds would become 
available only after receipt of an official budget request for a 
specific amount of the $4.8 billion and only if such amount includes a 
designation as an emergency requirement.
  What we have attempted to do, then, is to provide the amount needed 
by FEMA for fiscal year 1995, namely $1.9 billion, and to establish a 
disaster relief emergency contingency fund into which $4.8 billion 
would be deposited for use in amounts which Congress and the President 
agree to in fiscal year 1996 and beyond.
  I am certain that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senators Bond and Mikulski, will talk further 
on this issue during the debate on the bill.
  The committee substitute also contains rescissions and other spending 
reductions totaling $13.5 billion, or approximately $4 billion less in 
rescissions than the House bill. The major differences in rescissions 
between the two bills are as follows:
  One, for the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, the House bill rescinds a total 
of $5.9 billion; the committee substitute recommends $3.05 billion, or 
$2.85 billion less in rescissions.
  For the VA-HUD Subcommittee, the House bill rescinds $9.3 billion; 
whereas the committee substitute proposes rescissions totaling $6.8 
billion, or $2.5 billion less than the House bill.
  For the Military Construction Subcommittee, the House bill contains 
no rescissions, but the committee substitute would rescind $231 million 
in military construction funding.
  For Transportation, the House bill recommends rescissions totaling a 
little over $700 million and the committee substitute recommends 
rescissions totaling $1.9 billion, or $1.2 billion more in cuts than 
the House bill.
  Mr. President, these are very difficult times for the portion of the 
Federal budget that is controllable by the Appropriations Committees; 
namely, discretionary spending. As noted on page 3 of the committee 
report accompanying S. 617, discretionary spending has decreased from 
14.4 percent of GDP in fiscal year 1968 to less than 7.7 percent of GDP 
in fiscal year 1995. This fact should be ample evidence to those who 
bemoan Federal deficits and the resulting massive increase in the 
national debt that discretionary spending--other than the Reagan 
defense buildup--has not caused the deficit increases. The additional 
$13.5 billion in discretionary spending cuts recommended in this bill 
are further evidence that, as painful as it is to cut Federal spending, 
the Appropriations Committee has always done its share, and more than 
its share.
  Nevertheless, I am certain there will be a number of amendments 
offered to this measure which will propose restoration of funds for 
many worthwhile programs. I shall withhold judgment on such amendments 
until I can determine their merits on a case-by-case basis and to see 
whether offsets are provided and whether the offsets are reasonable 
that are provided.
  Mr. President, in closing, I compliment the chairman, Senator 
Hatfield, for his leadership in bringing this measure to the Senate 
expeditiously, in order to allow the Senate to work its will on the 
issues that are raised in the bill, some of which, I fear, will be very 
troublesome to a number of my colleagues.
  I also thank the members of the staffs, the dedicated members of our 
staffs, both in the majority and in the minority, for their usual fine 
cooperation and excellent advice and dedicated effectiveness as they 
have worked so hard to help the chairman and myself and the members of 
the committee to bring this bill to the floor.
  I thank all subcommittee chairmen and all ranking members, Mr. 
President, for a job well done. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to express my deep appreciation 
to the ranking member of the full committee. As is traditional in our 
committee, we have worked in a very bipartisan spirit. It has been with 
the 
[[Page S4763]] support of the ranking member and members of that side, 
as well as our own Republican colleagues, that have made this product 
possible today.


                           Amendment No. 420

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 420.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I submit this amendment on behalf of the 
Committee on Appropriations, pursuant to a rollcall taken in the 
committee. This is a substitute for the House bill that we received on 
this particular subject.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on an 
amendment to be offered by Senator Mikulski, the ranking member, and 
Senator Bond, the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies, that there be 2 hours equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                 Amendment No. 421 to Amendment No. 420

             (Purpose: To propose a substitute for title I)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 421 to amendment No. 420.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this substitute 
which I feel greatly improves the manner in which Congress deals with 
the disaster assistance. I call it the Truth in Disaster Budgeting Act.
  Before I describe my amendment in the nature of a substitute, I would 
like to thank the chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee, Senator Bond, for all of the courtesies that have been 
afforded me, my staff, and other people on this side of the aisle.
  I believe that Senator Bond, in the approach he used, tried to do the 
best with the deck that was dealt him. But I do not think it was a 
great deck. We essentially feel like we are a couple of cards short.
  Mr. President, let me go through the principles of the bill, and I 
would like to amplify my remarks.
  First, what this amendment does is replaces title I and it offsets 
the earthquake relief aspects by applying a 1.7-percent across-the-
board cut to all discretionary spending, except VA medical care, 
nutrition programs, Social Security, Medicare administrative costs, and 
defense readiness. It also, as the second part, requires Congress to 
set up a rainy day fund.
  Let me explain where we are. The President has declared the need for 
a Federal emergency management supplemental to the tune of $6.7 billion 
to pay for the disasters that the United States of America has faced--
like in Northridge, CA, and the remaining aspects of Hurricane Andrew. 
That is the good news. The bad news is that Congress is being asked to 
pay for it out of one appropriations subcommittee, the subcommittee 
called VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. These are 25 different 
agencies.
  So essentially, one subcommittee within the U.S. Senate becomes the 
bank to fund disaster relief, and it is being done out of the 
rescission bill, when we do not have the money unless we take it from 
those programs that have already been appropriated.
  I disagree with the President in taking and funding emergency 
disaster relief out of one subcommittee. That is the reason I am 
offering my substitute. I believe that natural disasters, which are 
acts of nature, should be funded and all the Government should bear the 
burden and not just a few programs.
  Therefore, what my substitute does is replace the rescission 
contained in the bill with an across-the-board cut of 1.72 percent. 
This across-the-board cut will raise the $6.7 billion necessary to 
offset the cost of providing disaster assistance to complete the 
recovery efforts in Northridge, CA, and for previously declared 
disasters in 46 other States.
  My substitute also specifically exempts those four areas which I feel 
should not bear any more cuts. First, VA medical care. Promises made, 
promises cut. Let us not cut VA medical care. Second, it exempts 
defense readiness because I believe we need to be able to stand sentry 
and have our force structure ready.
  The other is that it exempts food and nutrition programs at the 
Department of Agriculture, like Meals on Wheels and school lunches. It 
also exempts the administrative costs related to Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Mr. President, though the President has declared this FEMA 
supplemental to be a disaster, under the rules of the Senate we do not 
have to pay for it. It would be off budget. I believe people on both 
sides of the aisle agree that it should be paid for, and I agree that 
it should be paid for. I also agree with the principle that my 
colleague, Senator Bond, is doing, which is to essentially establish a 
rainy day fund--only I want to establish this rainy day fund for rainy 
days, both literally and figuratively, prospectively out of this 
subcommittee.
  The reason I say that is the recent disasters like Hurricanes Hugo, 
Andrew, Iniki, floods in the Midwest, the Northridge earthquake, and 
the Loma Prieta earthquake, have proven a compelling need to reevaluate 
Federal disaster assistance policy. The first crucial step is to 
establish the rainy day fund so that we can respond and meet our 
responsibilities.
  What the Mikulski substitute does is to direct the appropriate 
authorizing committees to establish both the mechanism and the source 
of funding for a rainy day fund before the start of fiscal year 1996.
  I am offering this substitute because I have, as I said, two serious 
concerns with the bill reported to us: The bad precedent set by 
requiring that disaster assistance be offset by cuts in spending in 
other areas. Second, the dangerous precedent by taking all of these 
offsets or sources of funds from one subcommittee, VA, HUD, 
Appropriations Committee. VA, HUD is 25 different agencies. It funds 
all of veterans, all of housing, all of EPA, administrative expenses of 
FEMA, National Science Foundation, and even agencies like Arlington 
Cemetery.
  I believe that we should not be the bankroll. I am also concerned 
that it would come out of primarily HUD and EPA, National Service, and 
VA medical care.
  Mr. President, I am all for reducing the deficit, but what we must 
understand is that requiring offsets in discretionary spending to cover 
the cost of disaster assistance represents a fundamental change in 
Federal disaster policy. This was established with the enactment of 
discretionary budget caps and the pay-as-you-go and the balanced budget 
and emergency deficit control of 1985.
  This longstanding policy is based on the principle that natural 
disasters are unprecedented acts of nature, and nature cannot be 
accommodated in the standard appropriations process. By definition, 
these acts are extraordinary and catastrophic and beyond the scope of 
what we could normally confront in the annual battle with both the 
weather, elements, and the battle of the budget.
  Historically, since 1988, Congress has enacted seven major disaster 
supplementals, and they total $22.5 billion to aid virtually every 
State in the Union. The Appropriations Committee 
[[Page S4764]] never had to come up with offsets, and the Senate 
continually rejected amendments which called for offsets. It was funded 
off budget. Our guiding principle was to provide relief to those who 
desperately need it.
  Whether it was Hugo, the riots in Los Angeles, CA, flooding in 
Chicago, the terrible floods in Missouri, we never adopted offsets. 
Each of these was sudden, unforeseen, and funded outside of the budget 
caps.
  I do not want to argue that. I believe, along with my colleague, and 
I believe the majority of my colleagues, that we should pay for it. But 
I believe we should pay for it across the board and not out of the bank 
of one subcommittee.
  Mr. President, all of this is going to change if the offsets are the 
name of the game. I believe they should. But natural and national 
disasters should be a national responsibility. Therefore, that is why I 
establish this rainy day fund.
  The bill before us establishes a second precedent which is that the 
source of FEMA will be the VA, HUD. I think it is outrageous that one 
subcommittee needs to pay for what happened in California, Florida, 
Missouri, Maryland, or any other State. What is about to happen is a 
disaster for the appropriations. What do I mean?
  Well, first, out of that $6.7 billion, $4.6 billion will come from 
Housing and Urban Development, the one agency in our Federal Government 
that has primary responsibility for the needs of the elderly, children, 
disabled, and homeless. Also, $1.3 billion would be taken from EPA 
programs designed to assist States in complying with safe drinking 
water and wastewater treatment standards. It also will come from 
national service, veterans care, and the National Science Foundation.
  I know that the Senator from Missouri, in taking the money from HUD, 
tried to protect the most vulnerable--the homeless and the elderly--and 
I thank him for that. But still, it will take HUD's annual budget, 
which is over $26 billion, and this represents a 20-percent cut.
  The VA subcommittee cannot be either the bank or the will-call window 
for disaster relief. I believe it is bad policy. I also believe it is 
absolutely unfair. What happens the next time disaster strikes? Will we 
continue to take it from HUD? Will we eliminate the National Science 
Foundation? Will we just shut down a few hospitals out of VA? I do not 
know what will be done. What I do know, though, is that we anticipate 
more disasters. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the probability of 
earthquakes only escalating and that there is a 80 to 90 percent 
probability of another major earthquake in California within the next 
20 years.
  There is the strong probability of earthquakes in San Francisco and 
other areas. How are we going to pay for this? I believe we need a 
rainy day fund. I believe we need an earthquake fund. That is why I 
direct the authorizers to come up to deal with this.
  This amendment is about fundamental fairness. Who pays? Who pays for 
national disasters? Who pays for natural disasters? That is why I 
believe it should be borne by the entire Nation.
  So, Mr. President, what this amendment does is try to show that it is 
a new world order. We should not just fund things off budget and make 
out they do not exist, because we cannot keep racking up the deficit.
  But, at the same time, I believe that one subcommittee should not be 
the bankroller. That is why I offer what I originally called my 2 
percent solution. I was able to lower that, and it essentially now is a 
1.72-percent across-the-board cut, exempting VA medical care, nutrition 
programs, defense readiness and those administrative costs, and Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Mr. President, I could elaborate more on this. In the interest of 
moving in an expeditious way, I will yield the floor, yet reserve the 
time remaining for my side.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require. I ask 
unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order on this 
amendment prior to the motion to table, which I will make at the end of 
the expiration of the time or yielding back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to thank my ranking member, Senator 
Mikulski, and commend her.
  I have appreciated her courtesy and the continuing cooperation that 
we have had. I had the pleasure of serving on this committee when she 
was the chair. I have only recently found how large a job it was.
  She mentioned something about the hand we have been dealt. Both of 
us, as chair and ranking member, now have a very difficult hand to 
play.
  Senator Mikulski is extremely well informed and dedicated to the 
programs in this subcommittee. Her congressional role as an 
appropriator and an overseer she does with extreme skill and dedication 
and concern. I have the highest regard for her and her staff. We have 
worked together to try to obtain information on these programs, which 
has not been provided to members in a timely manner by the agencies, 
particularly by HUD.
  Having said that, I could not disagree more strongly with the 
amendment that the Senator has offered. As I indicated, I will, at the 
appropriate time, move to table the amendment because, No. 1, this 
amendment does nothing toward deficit reduction.
  The message I believe the people of America sent last November is 
that we have to get the deficit under control. That is No. 1. No. 2, 
and I think even more serious, is that this substitute for the measure 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee totally fails to address 
the vital need to stop the out-of-control commitments by the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development for future spending which this 
Congress and this budget cannot afford.
  That is why I think that this measure should be tabled. I will urge 
my colleagues to do so.
  Now, let me say something about the proposal of the VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies Subcommittee in the FEMA disaster relief 
supplemental and rescission bill.
  This chapter, our chapter, rescinds more than $6.8 billion and 
includes a supplemental for FEMA disaster relief of $1.9 billion for 
the current fiscal year and provides the balance of $6.7 billion 
requested as an advance appropriation for FEMA for fiscal year 1996. 
This will enable the Congress to monitor the utilization of the amount 
provided before further releases of the contingency appropriation for 
the next fiscal year.
  With respect to the rescissions, the subcommittee's total of $6.8 
billion is more than half of the rescissions contained in this bill. As 
my ranking member pointed out, this is a level that is almost double 
the subcommittee's proportionate share of total nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  However, the committee's recommendation is less than the House-passed 
total of $9.3 billion; it also substantially exceeds the President's 
request of only $648 million in rescissions.
  Mr. President, the committee's recommendation reflects the urgency of 
beginning the long and difficult task of curbing Federal spending. I am 
mindful that the Appropriations Committee has direct jurisdiction over 
only one-third of the Federal budget, which is discretionary spending.
  I certainly agree with those who point out that a balanced budget 
cannot be achieved in any way solely through cuts in discretionary 
spending. Let me be clear about that.
  There can also be no doubt that further reductions can and must be 
made in these activities if we are ever to erase our budget deficit, or 
hope to do so, and to stop passing on to our children and our 
grandchildren the burdens of the debt that we were too profligate to 
stop running up during our stewardship of the Federal Government and 
its resources.
  The formulation, the putting together of this large package of 
rescissions, has been difficult. The committee was limited in its 
recommendation to funds which have not been obligated and which are not 
constrained by concerns over disruption of important ongoing 
activities.
  Necessarily, we directed our focus toward rescissions which would not 
only curb expenditures in the short term, but which would yield the 
effect of redirecting programs and terminating 
[[Page S4765]] activities to yield further savings in future years.
  Finally, the committee's recommendations reflect our attempt to be as 
balanced and as fair as possible. No major agency within our 
jurisdiction was spared. Out of NASA, we took $150 million. Out of the 
National Science Foundation, we took $132 million. Out of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, we took $100 million.
  As noted, the largest reductions were taken in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, $4.6 billion; and in the Environmental 
Protection Agency, from which $1.4 billion was taken--not because of a 
policy of determination against these activities, but simply because of 
the fact that these two agencies have the largest unobligated balances 
which can be rescinded and which will curb future year expenditure 
growth.
  Now, a number of these reductions are painful. I have discussed these 
with officials in the administration who wonder why we are making these 
cuts.
  I have had calls especially with respect to termination of new 
initiatives, such as the Community Development Financial Institutions 
Program and halting previously planned expansions, such as National 
Service or AmeriCorps. I also know that many of my colleagues would 
rather not deal with reductions in popular programs such as VA medical 
care, no matter how modest.
  However, Mr. President, let me be clear: If we are going to cut, we 
have to cut something. There is nothing in this budget that was put in 
because people did not like it. Everything that was put in here was put 
in last year or in the years before because somebody argued 
successfully that it was a good idea. We cannot cut spending without 
cutting things that have some support.
  Frankly, with the budget crisis that we face, one of the things we 
have had to do is put a hold on new commitments. Given the state of our 
budget deficit and the tremendous debt that we have driven up, a debt 
which will hit $5 trillion and require Congress to raise the debt 
ceiling before the summer is over, we have to start making some cuts no 
matter how difficult they are.
  It is clear we must make reductions now or face even greater cuts and 
dislocations in the future under a very constrained allocation for 
discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, two additional concerns have been raised over the 
general approach of this supplemental and rescission measure. The first 
relates to the prevailing sentiment that all supplementals, even 
emergencies which are or can be procedurally outside the caps, should 
be offset by reductions in other discretionary spending. I accept and 
support this greater standard of budgetary discipline because we need 
to do it. It is a necessary step toward balancing our budget.
  But we should be mindful that this revision in our current budgetary 
practice demands a reappraisal of how subcommittee allocations are 
treated, since the bulk of emergency supplementals are provided for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, which just happens to fall within 
the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
  The fact that we have to increase appropriations for FEMA, in my view 
should not mean that in the future we have to make cuts from very 
important programs in HUD, VA, NASA, and other agencies which are 
disproportional to the cuts taken by other domestic discretionary 
programs.
  There is no way that our subcommittee can, in the future, be expected 
to pay for supplemental emergency requests for FEMA disaster relief. 
The number of Presidential-declared disasters and the amount of funding 
for such emergencies have been dramatically rising in recent years. A 
total of $14.8 billion has been appropriated in the last 5 years.
  The pending supplemental bill carries the request of $6.7 billion, 
which is almost 10 percent of the entire discretionary allocation of 
the subcommittee. We cannot be expected to offset such massive requests 
without dramatic impacts on other ongoing activities within our 
jurisdiction in future budgets.
  These are national disasters. My ranking member has pointed out the 
scope of these disasters. If they are paid for, resources should be 
identified on a Federalwide basis, not just by one subcommittee which 
happens to have FEMA within its jurisdiction. Matching such 
supplementals with rescissions within the subcommittee should not and 
cannot be a precedent for how such needs will be addressed in the 
future.
  Let me move to the second point, which is more complicated but has an 
equally clear answer. That is the concern that we are rescinding too 
much from HUD. The answer is simply ``no,'' we are not. Some have 
questioned why HUD is being cut more than $4.6 billion, or two-thirds 
of the total rescission of $6.9 billion for the subcommittee. The 
answer is simple. The cut is roughly proportionate to the Department's 
available budgetary resources. Although HUD received new appropriations 
for fiscal year 1995, that is the current spending year we are in, of 
$25.7 billion, HUD represents about 39 percent of the funding for our 
four major agencies--almost $2 out of every $5--it also carried into 
this fiscal year $35 billion in unobligated prior year balances. In 
fact, it carried more money in unobligated balances than we 
appropriated for this year. We could have the anomaly, even if we wiped 
out all new authority for HUD, that HUD could spend more than its 
current year appropriation because of the unobligated balances. In 
other words, HUD has more than double its current fiscal year 
appropriation available in budgetary resources when you include the 
massive amount of unspent, unobligated HUD funding.
  Simple mathematics do not tell the whole story. We have to cut HUD. 
We have to stop spending new dollars. The chairman of the committee, 
the distinguished Senator from Oregon, made the point very clearly. 
When we say ``cut'' in this context, we are not talking about throwing 
people out of housing or imposing burdens on people now being served. 
We are talking about cutting new commitments, additional spending 
requests, commitments that could be extremely expensive over time and 
are not now undertaken.
  We have to begin now, if there is any hope of surviving the very 
constrained freeze minus future for discretionary funds that we expect 
to see throughout the appropriations committee and even in our 
subcommittee.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently analyzed the HUD reinvention 
blueprint and discovered that the cost of HUD-subsidized housing will 
increase by over 50 percent under the President's plan over the next 5 
years.
  Let me point out that currently, this year, we are spending $26.4 
billion. That is how much we are spending this year. The Congressional 
Budget Office--which as we will all recall, the President in 1993 said 
is the independent scorekeeper, the objective scorekeeper to whom we 
must turn for the most honest, most accurate estimates of spending--
took a look at the information HUD provided at the time of the budget 
submission. There have been subsequent discussions and submissions, but 
based on what HUD, through OMB and the President, presented to us, HUD 
spending would increase to $28 billion next year, $30.7 billion the 
following, then $33.8, then $38.9 billion; by the year 2000, HUD-
assisted housing would be $39.9 billion--50 percent more than we are 
spending this year. And, also, incidentally, the total of all these 
five red bars would come to about $39 billion. So we would be adding 
$39 billion to the national debt over 5 years, according to CBO's 
estimate.
  Unless we act now to curb the spiraling growth in outlays, we are 
going to have to make some very draconian cuts in the near future and 
be in a position where we cannot honor commitments made to those in 
public and assisted housing.
  As I have indicated, I have had meetings with the Secretary of HUD 
and the Director of OMB. We have gone over many of these questions. 
They have promised us additional details, which we have not yet had an 
opportunity to see and analyze. They have said they will meet with the 
Congressional Budget Office to explain and perhaps even suggest 
revisions. But let me point out, even under the President's own budget 
submission, the President asked for HUD to be increased by $20 billion 
in budget authority over the next 5 years 
[[Page S4766]] and by $14 billion in outlays. The President is asking 
us, at a time when we know that discretionary spending must be kept 
under control, to increase outlays, to increase actual spending, by his 
own numbers, by $14 billion.
  I suggest there is no way we can do that. I suggest we are faced with 
a difficult--but a simple--solution, and that is turn off the pipeline 
of new subsidized units. That is the fundamental focus of the 
committee's recommendations for this rescission bill. We are also 
recommending a portion of the funds rescinded by the House be restored, 
and that we redirect resources to another urgent priority; namely, the 
restoring of budgetary sanity to this out-of-control department. We say 
go ahead with the programs to demolish the failed housing developments 
and put the rest on a sound footing to survive the competition and the 
subsidy reductions coming down the pike.
  Some of my colleagues have said we do not need to deal with severely 
distressed public housing. This is one area where I believe I agree 
very strongly with the Secretary of HUD. There is no greater problem in 
many of our communities than the uninhabitable, often vacant, 
thoroughly unlivable, large public housing units in many of our 
metropolitan areas today. Too many of them have become havens for 
crime, for drugs, and violence. They are not only not a safe place to 
raise a family, they are a great danger to the neighbors who live in 
the vicinity and they are tremendous blots on the landscape of our 
major metropolitan areas.
  To me, this is an investment in the future which must be made now if 
we are to stop some of the spread of blight that has been generated by 
poorly maintained and poorly conceived projects of the past.
  Amid all the debate over the future of HUD, it is important to keep 
in mind that over 4.8 million families receive Federal housing 
assistance, and over half of them are elderly or disabled. It is also 
important to note that such housing assistance is expensive.
  As I said, $26 billion in current year fiscal year 1995 outlays and 
current costs are rising. In fact, with the long-term contractual 
commitments previously made by HUD the Government is currently 
obligated to pay over $187 billion over the life of these contracts, 
some stretching out 40 years.
  Many of my colleagues have approached me to express grave concern 
over some of the battles of the press releases in the State 
demonstrations characterizing those of us who wish to cut HUD's new 
commitments as being ready to throw people who are getting assisted 
housing out on the street, having no concern for the people who are 
assisted by HUD. I am told that C-SPAN carried a program this weekend 
that featured HUD officials but it also featured special interest 
groups and local officials who want to spend as if there was no 
tomorrow, who think that we cannot spend enough money on HUD and its 
programs to satisfy them.
  Frankly, let us be clear that we are sensitive to and very concerned 
about the obligations and the undertakings of HUD. That is why we want 
to make sure that they do the job properly. It is I think not helpful 
for those who would be advocates for the programs of HUD to make the 
kinds of irresponsible charges that some local officials have made. 
That does not advance the level of discussion. That does not assist in 
helping us formulate responsible programs given the long-term nature of 
the obligations and commitments. Halting the budgetary growth of the 
Department can only be accomplished with a focused, determined, 
multiyear effort. Unless we begin now with this bill we will lock 
ourselves into another multibillion-dollar chunk of long-term budget 
obligations.
  This is only a first step, one of many in which we will go beyond the 
limited fixes in cuts that can be accomplished in a rescission bill. We 
have to enact through the authorizing committee major reform 
legislation later this year.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Appropriations 
Committee, my colleagues on the authorizing committee and other 
interested Members in this body in formulating a responsible program. 
But we are not going to be able to adopt a responsible program if we 
allow the budget to continue to spin out of control to run up 
obligations and commitments now that will cost us billions of dollars 
we do not have in the future. Only if we put a tourniquet on the 
bleeding and stop the new commitments can we make sure that our 
restorative work, our surgery and our treatment of the patient, a very 
sick patient of HUD, can be successful.
  I will ask my colleagues to join me in a motion to table. But for the 
moment, I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 47 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that there are others who wish to 
speak. While we are waiting for them to come, I want to comment on the 
comments of my colleague, the Senator from Missouri.
  First, the Senator said that the Mikulski substitute does nothing for 
deficit reduction. I respectfully disagree with that because you see 
under the rules of the 1985 Budget Act, disasters, if declared by the 
President as an emergency, do not have to be paid for. President 
Clinton declared these disasters in the FEMA supplemental an emergency. 
So, therefore, under the rules of the Budget Act, they could be placed 
on the discretionary spending. Yes. Added to the deficit but it will 
not count against the appropriation.
  My bill maintains the President's declaration of an emergency and a 
disaster. But in the interest of deficit reduction we are willing to 
pay for it. Therefore, this $6.7 billion does not go off into some 
limbo and yet add to the deficit. It will be both through my substitute 
a pay-as-you-go. It will be a one-time only pay-as-you-go through this 
across the board with the prospective establishment of a rainy day 
fund.
  So you see. I believe that the Mikulski substitute which is a pay-as-
you-go substitute does reduce the deficit by $6.7 billion. There is a 
great deal of debate about what this rescission money will be used for. 
Is it going to be used for deficit reduction or is it going to be used 
for tax cuts to be offered by the other party? There are those of us 
who support deficit reduction and, therefore, know that if that is the 
point of the rescission package we will look for elements to do the 
deficit reduction, but here is a whole other substantial school of 
thought within this institution led by the Senator from West Virginia, 
Senator Robert Byrd, who says ``yes'' to deficit reduction but ``no'' 
for the savings to be done on tax cuts. I will not debate the points 
that Senator Byrd wishes to bring to the body's attention later this 
afternoon. He will do it in his own usual eloquent, persuasive way. But 
I believe the Mikulski substitute does, because we are doing pay-as-
you-go not by putting it off budget but with $6.7 billion for deficit 
reduction.
  Do I go as far as the House? No. Do I go as far as the Hatfield-Bond 
legislation? The answer is no. The House went to $17 billion. The 
efforts by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator 
Hatfield, and the subcommittee, Senator Bond, goes to $13 billion. But 
when I knew I was going to try to deal with this problem by an across-
the-board cut, I did not want to gouge other subcommittees by paying--
for the fact that we do not have a mechanism for a rainy day fund. So I 
kept it under what I called the Mikulski 12.2-percent solution. Sure. I 
could have come up with more rescissions to do an across-the-board. But 
I did not want to gouge the criminal justice system. I did not want to 
gouge Labor, HHS. I did not want to gouge the important funding that 
needs to go on in defense.
  So that is why my amendment is so modest. It is 1.7 percent. It is 
absolutely modest. I say to my colleagues, I do not like across-the-
board cuts either. Hopefully we can do this with line-item evaluations. 
It is natural disaster funding that should be borne by the Nation doing 
this across-the-board cut.
  I can comment on other aspects of it. But I note that the 
distinguished chairman, ranking minority of the authorizing committee, 
Senator Sarbanes, is on the floor. He is interrupting his other 
important work to be here.
   [[Page S4767]] So I will yield the floor and yield to Senator 
Sarbanes such time as he might consume to elaborate on this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 41 minutes and 67 seconds.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield me 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator such time as he may consume.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
amendment that has been offered by my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland, the substitute amendment to the supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  First of all, traditionally we have considered disaster relief 
measures as an emergency supplemental and handled that way, if I am 
correct. I believe that is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. The last six or seven disaster supplementals over the 
last few years have all been handled in that fashion, I believe.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. They total $22 billion. They have been 
funded off budget as prescribed by law as the President declares it an 
emergency disaster.
  Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, the President declared this 
supplemental request an emergency disaster.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The President has declared it an emergency disaster and 
therefore follows the same procedure under the law.
  Mr. SARBANES. What is happening is that there is a move afoot to, in 
effect, cover the amounts needed for the disaster relief.
  Now, I have obviously some questions about this decision on the basis 
of past practice, but let me pass beyond that issue and simply address 
the manner in which disaster spending is being covered in the proposed 
supplemental appropriations bill before us. A very heavy proportion of 
the disaster spending amount in the supplemental is being taken out of 
the allocation to the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in which the 
FEMA funding is located.
  Now, it is my understanding that more is coming out of that 
subcommittee than the cost of the disaster relief that is before us. 
So, in effect, this particular subcommittee, which by chance has 
jurisdiction over FEMA, is absorbing the entire additional amount given 
to FEMA for disaster relief out of the allocations for the other 
agencies under its jurisdiction.
  This just does not make sense. It leads to great inequities that a 
disproportionate burden is borne by the other agencies within the 
jurisdiction of that subcommittee.
  I am particularly concerned because I have a responsibility with 
respect to the authorization of housing programs. The housing 
department finds itself within that grouping of agencies that are 
covered by the arbitrary differentiations that are made within the 
Appropriations Committee.
  If there is anything that calls for the kind of approach that the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland has taken, it is handling disaster 
relief. Obviously, if you are going to cut other programs to pay for 
disaster assistance, the burden of these cuts ought to be borne across 
the board. There is no rationale, no logical or rational reason, why 
paying for the disaster relief ought to come out of those few agencies 
that happen to be grouped with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
for purposes of handling an appropriations bill.
  Providing for disaster relief must be done; I support this 
supplemental for disaster relief. In fact, I would support doing it as 
an emergency the way the President submitted it to the Congress. If, in 
effect, the cost of the disaster is going to be covered by diminishing 
other accounts--and we are talking about the very fiscal year in which 
we find ourselves--I do not think that the disaster spending ought to 
be covered out of those agencies that are grouped within this 
particular Appropriations subcommittee. That is illogical, not logical, 
and that is inequitable, not equitable.
  The amendment that has been put before us would recognize that 
national disasters are a national responsibility. It would avoid 
setting a precedent, that you are going to pay for disasters out of the 
accounts of this particular subcommittee. With the bill before us, you 
are going to establish a precedent that makes this particular 
subcommittee the window to which you go for all future disaster relief. 
What is the logic in that? We could just as easily put FEMA over into 
the Defense Subcommittee. We could combine FEMA with emergency 
preparedness which covers not only disaster relief, but other 
emergencies. At one point, FEMA's prime responsibility was to address 
questions of how we would react to a nuclear attack. So maybe FEMA 
should be put in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and then, if 
you followed the principle that is being used here, when we have a 
national disaster, we would pay for it entirely out of the defense 
budget.
  I am not arguing that should be done. I am only making that point to 
illustrate the lack of logic of what has been done in the supplemental 
appropriations bill that is before us. This is not the way to handle 
the funding of disasters. I very much hope the amendment of the Senator 
from Maryland--which I think provides a much more equitable way of 
paying for disasters--passes. This amendment is an across-the-board cut 
with respect to all agencies and departments. It is a much more 
sensible way to go about this at this time. An across-the-board cut may 
not be the best way to pay for disasters in the future. I know the 
Senator from Maryland has pushed the notion of providing an 
anticipatory mechanism to meet future disasters. Under that approach 
you would set up a fund and appropriate to it in anticipation of future 
disasters since it is fairly reasonable to hypothesize that there will 
be natural disasters at some time. Natural disasters do occur on a 
periodic basis, and we need to address them. An advanced funding 
mechanism would be a better way of doing it.
  However, that is not now before us. Confronted with the problem that 
we have, I think this amendment makes a great deal of sense and is 
certainly a far preferable approach than the one contained in the 
legislation that is now pending.
  Therefore, I very strongly support Senator Mikulski's substitute 
amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for speaking in behalf of this 
amendment. He makes excellent points, particularly the consequences to 
the housing programs and the compelling needs we have to meet. I thank 
him for interrupting his schedule.
  How much time would the Senator from California like to have?
  Mrs. BOXER. Seven minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the distinguished Senator from California, 
who has faced her share of earthquakes and slides and really knows what 
these issues are, 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I thank her for her 
leadership in giving this Senate a really fine alternative to the bill 
that is before us. I certainly want to associate myself with Senator 
Sarbanes' remarks, and I will try not to repeat them but to be very 
specific on why I feel the Mikulski substitute is so preferable to the 
committee-reported bill.
  First of all, why are we here? We are here on this bill because we 
have had disasters in this Nation, certainly in California more than 
our fair share, that required payments to the local governments, the 
local people. We have buildings that need to be repaired from 
earthquakes. We have buildings that need to be repaired from floods. 
This is happening not only in California but across this great Nation. 
We have predictions, as the Senator from Maryland said, for other 
disasters, and I wish to make a point to my colleague, Senator 
Mikulski, of which perhaps she is not aware.
  If I might make a point to the Senator on this issue of the future 
projections of disasters, what is very interesting is that the USGS has 
looked at the earthquake situation and not only do they predict a 
terrible earthquake in California sometime in the future, but they also 
talk about a devastating earthquake in Seattle and one in the 
midsection of the country from the Tennessee fault.
   [[Page S4768]] So I stand here as a Californian, but I also say to 
my friend that other areas in this Nation are very apt to be visited by 
these crises. I wonder if she was aware of that study.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am aware of the study. We spoke about 
the work being done by the Geological Survey of the Department of the 
Interior that is trying to develop sophisticated methods for earthquake 
prediction. They are predicting future--within the next decade or so--
severe earthquakes on the west coast but possibly in the Midwest 
itself. I might add, you never know when an earthquake is going to hit. 
As the Senator knows, the State of Maryland is not an earthquake State. 
We are more a hurricane State.
  Yet we had earthquakes in a small county in the Baltimore 
metropolitan area. It was shocking. Fortunately, we had no major loss 
of property and no loss of life.
  So, yes, we have to be ready to stand centrally on the whole issue of 
earthquakes, but we do need that rainy day fund.
  I thank the Senator for reiterating the report.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is so key here, because when 
someone who is an expert says that this country is going to be visited 
by floods and earthquakes and other disasters, we cannot just throw up 
our hands.
  Why are we doing this particular bill at this particular time? 
Clearly, the President asked for $6.7 billion. The U.S. Senate has 
decided to go beyond that and cut out $13 billion--$6.7 for FEMA, the 
added extra billions just because they wanted to cut more.
  I point out, as Senator Mikulski has, that since 1988, Congress has 
enacted seven major disaster bills and none has been offset. This has 
been done over earthquakes and floods and storms across this Nation, 
with Republican Presidents as well as Democratic. I suggest to my 
colleagues, this is not a partisan issue.
  We need to be ready for these disasters. So I support that part of 
the bill to be ready for the disasters. But, on the other hand, I have 
to say to my friends, we should make this a clean bill. We should give 
the President the money that he needs to meet these disasters and then 
have another bill that looks at rescissions and not hold these 
communities hostage.
  Let me explain what I mean.
  What we are doing, for the first time in history, is going beyond 
what even the President has asked and cutting all these other programs. 
I know a lot of my colleagues are thrilled to do it. They are thrilled 
to do it. But I want to point out what it does to California.
  It hurts my people. And I hear, ``Well, wait a minute, Senator. You 
are the ones who have all these disasters.'' That is true, and we need 
that FEMA money.
  But you should see what these cuts do to the people of California, to 
the children, to the children of California-- taking computers that 
were going into classrooms. They are not going to be able to put them 
there. Rescinding the summer jobs program for our kids, which is so 
important.
  I visited some of these young people who had the benefit of these 
jobs. What a way to slash and burn, using as an excuse, you know, the 
FEMA requests.
  The House bill was even worse. I compliment my friends. They made 
this a little bit better. But it still hurts. It hurts business. It 
hurts jobs.
  Let me tell you, the Community Development Financial Institutions 
Fund program account, this gives credit to businesses to expand, to 
create jobs. Cut severely. EDA creates jobs. We are looking at a cut in 
California here and across the Nation. The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, these are funds that help our manufacturers. 
It is very successful. It is cut. It is going to be hurt. And that is 
going to hurt my State's economy.
  Slashing funds from the Base Alignment and Closure Commission, needed 
desperately to clean up these bases, to move them into productivity. 
Cut, slashed, and burned.
  EPA, safe drinking water. Some people do not like it. They say it 
goes too far. Well, let me tell you what is going to happen here. We 
are going to have big problems in my State. In L.A., in Lake County, in 
San Diego, water cleanup. We need to clean up the water. People need to 
be able to drink the water. This bill slashes that program.
  Agriculture: $1.5 million cut from the new USDA salinity research 
lab. And all farmers know that controlling that salt water incursion is 
very important to them. That is going to hurt our farmers.
  Interior: We know that some of our threatened species will not be 
listed. Again, some people here hate this Endangered Species Act. They 
want to see it destroyed. Well, do not back-door it by doing these 
kinds of cuts. Let us have the debate. Let us find out where the 
American people are on saving the bald eagle. I will take you on in 
that fight any day. But, no, it sneaks in this bill back-door.
  There is a $35 million cut from solar and renewable energy research. 
That makes a lot of sense. The biggest cause of our trade deficit is 
imported oil. Why do we want to hurt these alternative energy programs? 
Again, if you want to debate it, let us bring it on to the floor. But 
this is done in a back-door approach.
  I told you about education--$6 million in Federal funds lost to my 
State to be used for innovative programs emphasizing math and reading.
  How about a cut in title I funds for educating our most disadvantaged 
kids? Mr. President, 8,500 California students are going to suffer from 
this cut.
  How about this one: Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program for drug 
prevention. I cannot believe that Senators want to cut that program. 
Everyone stands up here and says, ``Drugs, they are a curse on our 
society.'' It is in here, a $100 million cut from that program. My 
State loses $10 million. Ninety-seven percent of all school districts 
in California benefit from this program, keeping drugs away from kids 
by teaching them. I do not get it. I do not get where that makes sense 
for this great Nation.
  Sixty-nine million dollars for teacher training under the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program--Eisenhower, a great Republican 
President who understood the need for math and science. As a matter of 
fact, it was Eisenhower who wrote the Defense Education Act. And do you 
know what he said, a military man? ``You can have all the bombers you 
want. If you do not have smart kids who can read and can write and can 
do math, this country will never be the greatest country on Earth.'' 
Well, they are slashing and burning from that program too.
  I told you about computers in the classroom. I know many of us go 
around to schools. These computers open up the eyes of these children. 
Oh, we are cutting that program, too, $5 million for education 
technology programs. We are going to lose $500,000 in our State. That 
goes a long way.
  You know, if there is any consensus around this place, I would have 
hoped it would have been around the children.
  There is a $42 million cut from Head Start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator for an additional minute to wrap up.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. We have cuts in Head Start. We have cuts in child care. 
We have cuts in national service--national service. Again, I urge my 
colleagues, go speak to those volunteers from AmeriCorps. And my friend 
Senator Mikulski was so instrumental in that. I cannot believe we are 
cutting that program, because it was working out there. I have so many 
personal stories I could tell about AmeriCorps.
  I met a young man who was shot in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. 
An Americorps volunteer visited him in the hospital every single day, 
got him on the right path, got him back to school. And we are going to 
cut AmeriCorps.
  So let me just say, in closing, I thank my friend, Senator Mikulski, 
for giving us a chance to substitute spending cuts that are fairly done 
across the board, that do not hurt the children, that do not hurt the 
businesses, that do not hurt jobs, that do not hurt the environment. I 
cannot tell the Senator how pleased I am to support her in this 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
   [[Page S4769]] Let me just follow up on some of the points so 
eloquently made by my good friend from California. She was kind enough 
to invoke the memory of President Eisenhower. You have to have a pretty 
good memory, because after World War II, I believe that was probably 
about the last time we balanced a budget around here and stopped 
running a deficit that adds to the debts of our children.
  She has made a very strong argument for every spending dollar that we 
have. She said it is all being spent just properly and we can take an 
even cut across the board. Frankly, I hope that we have come beyond 
that point where we can say that the only way to cut is to 
cut across the board. We have seen examples in recent years 
of how various agencies can look at programs and 
make cuts to programs that are not working or that have been 
overappropriated.
  The current administration calls it Reinventing Government. The 
current administration has asked that we cut $5 billion from NASA, not 
across the board, not across from everything. They are asking the 
Administrator, and I believe we are going to support him, to take a 
look at where cuts can be made, not across the board, not off of 
everything, but combined activities, combined areas where cuts can best 
be made because we cannot keep spending like money is going out of 
style or our dollar will go out of style.
  Our friend from California mentioned taking computers away from 
children. Computers are very important for children, but I have been in 
schools where I have seen rows and rows of computers sitting on empty 
desks with no children in front of them.
  I cannot address all of the cuts made in other parts of the bill, and 
I will rely on my colleagues who serve on those subcommittees to talk 
about those, but let me talk about the cuts in EPA. We have cut money 
that was funded for a program that was not authorized last year. We 
have left in the safe drinking water funds for EPA the amount of money 
that the administration has requested for next year on the hope that we 
will reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act and be able to spend that 
money. We are not cutting jobs, we are cutting money that cannot be 
spent.
  My colleagues talked about the hurt, what a tremendous hurt is being 
imposed by cutting off some of the Federal spending. Let me tell you 
about the hurt that is going to be inflicted on our country and on 
future generations if we continue to build this deficit. We have a 
commitment to spend far more than we are taking in and, unfortunately, 
we have no leadership from the President in cutting that spending. He 
raised taxes and promised to cut spending, and his budget projections 
show our spending increasing $366 billion over the next 5 years. He 
would add $1 trillion to the national debt.
  What about the hurt of that $1 trillion added on to almost $5 
trillion that we have now? That is a tremendous burden for future 
generations to carry, and we have seen what happened to our neighbor to 
the south when they spent more money than they had. The international 
market said the peso is weak. They did not get their economic house in 
order, and there is a crisis in Mexico.
  What has happened in Mexico to the peso could happen in the United 
States to the dollar. The dollar has fallen against the value of the 
yen, lost almost a third of its value because the international markets 
think we are not getting serious about cutting spending.
  We are cutting spending here to get our house in order, and we are 
also trying to fund supplemental emergency appropriations for 
disasters. Disaster spending over recent years has been about $19 
billion. I am pleased that we heard about how important it is to 
California, because you know how much of that went to California? Mr. 
President, $11 billion. Sixty percent of the money that we have spent 
on disasters has gone to California--$11 billion.
  We are stepping up to the table to meet the needs of our friends and 
neighbors in California, as this body stepped up to help the people in 
the State of Missouri and the Midwest when we were struck by floods. 
But when we make those cuts, Mr. President, I suggest that the only 
responsible way to make cuts is to eliminate low-priority items, to 
eliminate money that is not being spent or that does not need to be 
spent or, as we are doing in this bill, to cut spending that we cannot 
afford for the future.
  That is why I believe that all these wonderful arguments do not hold 
any water when you look at the cuts that are made in the portion of the 
bill before us today; that is HUD, VA, and independent agencies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes 24 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I know we are awaiting to 
hear from the leadership their advice on the hot line as to when they 
wish to establish the vote. I believe the vote will occur sometime 
within the next half an hour.
  While we are waiting for that, I know one other Senator wishes to 
speak.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski 
amendment.
  I am concerned that the programs of the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee are taking an inordinate cut in the rescission package 
before us. If we are to pay for disasters, and not declare these as 
emergencies, then the spending for these should come from a broader 
base of programs. The Mikulski amendment's 1.72-percent cut is an 
appropriate way to spread the cost of natural disasters.
  The amendment would exempt important accounts from the cut. This 
across-the-board cut would not hit administrative costs for Social 
Security and Medicare. It would not cut defense readiness. It would not 
cut veterans medical care. It would not hurt the food and nutrition 
programs.
  I am particularly concerned about the rescission package because the 
brunt of the cuts will fall on the programs of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. This bill before us would cut $4.6 
billion from HUD's programs. This cut represents 18 percent of HUD's 
1995 appropriation and 35 percent of this entire rescission package.
  This cut would injure important HUD programs like public housing 
modernization, an important pension fund demonstration, and section 8 
vouchers that help us meet the housing needs of the poorest of the 
poor. All of these programs are serving to help us with reforming HUD. 
Modernization is critical for fixing up public housing, the pension 
fund demonstration is helping us dispose of the HUD-owned inventory, 
and the vouchers are important tools in helping us solve the problems 
of mixing the elderly and the young mentally disabled in public housing 
as well as helping us relocate people when we tear down the older, 
dilapidated stock.
  I also urge the Members to look at the situation that these specific 
cuts will set up for next year. Many are sighing a sigh of relief that 
the cuts in the Senate bill were not as draconian as the House cuts, 
but by taking these resources away today, the programs in the VA-HUD 
subcommittee will be under even greater pressure next year--these 
include not only HUD and EPA, but also NASA and veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we debate this substitute, I want to, 
again, say that there are two issues that the Senator from Missouri and 
I absolutely agree on. First, that we need to reform HUD, and the 
other, that FEMA must have a rainy day fund.
  If I can just comment on the need to reform HUD, the Senator from 
Missouri is absolutely right about the need to organizationally reform 
HUD and then to deal with the conflicting and confusing budget 
information we receive that is demonstrated on the Senator's charts 
presented by CBO.
  First, what my colleagues might be interested to know is that I was 
one of the ones to talk about reforming HUD before the Cisneros plan 
came in. When I chaired the subcommittee, I actually commissioned a 
report by the National Association of Public Administrators to identify 
what are the areas to do that. I am happy that the Senator from 
Missouri and his very competent staff have also picked up on that.
  In essence, what they said was that HUD was an organizational 
disaster. They have over 240 different programs, sometimes serving such 
a narrow need 
[[Page S4770]] that it becomes dysfunctional from a managerial 
standpoint. HUD has been crippled not by us trying only to meet 
compelling human needs, but HUD has been crippled by the passion of 
both Members of the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle to 
pursue trophies: ``Let's come up with a program for this. The new 
trophy is new programs.'' A line item for this, a line item program for 
that.
  So I look forward to working with the authorizing committees, as well 
as my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, to move HUD from these 
240 different programs often with their own bureaucracy to six programs 
and that needs to be done in an orderly, methodical, prudent way.
  Then there is the second issue about the question about the so-called 
CBO scoring and about OMB.
  Mr. President, in the interest of time, I will not go through these 
detailed commentaries that I have received from the Office of 
Management and Budget. But there is a great deal of difference between 
what the assumptions are by the Congressional Budget Office and by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  They use technocratic words and I believe I like to use diner 
vocabulary. Essentially, from the diner's standpoint, we need to get 
OMB and CBO to resolve their assumptions. The Senator is right, there 
is absolute confusion over what we need to pay for, what we need to pay 
for in the future and whether there is a train wreck.
  So I do not dispute the nature of his argument, nor am I here to 
defend OMB against CBO. Believe me, I am going to let those people with 
green eyeshades and bifocals far better calibrated than mine to get 
into a room and actually advise the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee and myself as to what are the real assumptions, so that we 
can come up with a real appropriation.
  However, at the request of Dr. Rivlin, I will put into the Record her 
concerns about the differences between CBO and OMB.
  What I am concerned about, though, is the $4 billion cut. While we 
understand that the prospective aspects are troubling, two programs are 
cut: $835 million for modernization of public housing, though it does 
leave $2.5 billion in this account; $90 million for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction.
  Mr. President, I have been concerned for some time that HUD itself, 
in many cities, is the biggest slum landlord in that town. It often has 
lead paint that has been there for a number of years, and we do know 
that lead paint and flaking of lead paint does have negative health 
damages. Also, we know that much of the public housing is obsolete and 
is very much in need of modernization if it is going to be fit for 
duty. Those two items, I believe, would give one cause and concern 
about that.
  The other areas that I am concerned about is the issue of national 
service. I have often been teased and called the mother of national 
service, and I honor that because, you see, national service is not 
just one more Government program. Many might think that, but it was 
meant to be a new social movement. It was designed to deal with certain 
issues before us. No. 1, that for many college students, their first 
mortgage, their first debt, is their student loans. Many of our young 
people are loaned $10,000, $15,000, $20,000. Also, we are faced with 
the declining ethic of voluntarism in our society, and also such 
compelling need that we cannot meet it all by more Government programs.
  So, therefore, what national service is--and it was a bipartisan 
effort that passed it; and, yes, President Clinton amplified it--it 
enables young people to volunteer and work in the service of the United 
States of America, primarily working in nonprofits, to pay off student 
debt, but also to make a sweat equity investment in the United States 
of America.
  Last year, we funded it for $200 million. I believe over 20,000 
volunteers are now working. It is the first year that the program is 
fully operational. I am concerned that the cut in national service 
will, No. 1, devastate the program and, No. 2, be a deterrent for 
volunteers, community service people, even applying because they think 
the money will not be there.
  This is not some Great Society program. This is not a handout or 
another Government gimmick and social engineering. It is about 
instilling the habits of the heart in our young people, making sure 
that they help and volunteer, getting lots of benefit out of their 
volunteer community service. I really like the fact that it is 
primarily in nonprofits and not in big bureaucracies and that we now do 
not know the full impact of helping these young people learn these 
habits of the heart. Because like with the Peace Corps, long after they 
left volunteer service in a foreign country, they came home and kept 
that spirit of voluntarism right here and made important contributions 
in the private sector in philanthropic work. I am concerned about the 
cuts in national service. I could elaborate, but I believe the time is 
short.
  I am going to yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time 
and see if the leadership has decided that they would like to vote.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think there has been agreement on both 
sides that the vote occur at 1:15 p.m. today. I have just a few 
comments. I do not believe there are any further speakers on this side. 
I had a few comments, and after that I will be prepared, if my 
distinguished ranking member is, to yield the remainder of the time, 
ask for the yeas and nays, and ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
held at 1:15.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object. I will not object to the 
consent. I have been notified that Senator Baucus of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee wanted to speak between 1 and 1:10. So if I 
could not yield back all of my time and reserve the right, should he be 
here, I am in absolute agreement to having the vote at 1:15.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 
1:15 I be recognized to offer a motion to table and that after the yeas 
and nays are granted, there be a vote at 1:15 on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my ranking member for accommodating me. This is a 
very important amendment because it does go to the philosophy of the 
approach that was taken in the Appropriations Committee. The ranking 
member has offered a different approach.
  I just want to touch very briefly on a couple of things she mentioned 
so that my colleagues will understand what we are doing.
  We took $90 million out of lead paint. Why did we do something like 
that? Are we not concerned about lead paint? You bet we are concerned 
about lead paint. There is an ongoing $10 million study of the best way 
to establish standards for removing lead paint. Yes, we need to get 
lead paint out, but we are not going to spend that $90 million until we 
know the best way to do it. I ask the distinguished occupant of the 
chair if he remembers the tremendous amount of money we spent and 
wasted on removing asbestos because we acted first, without thinking 
about it and without planning and getting the best scientific 
information? Yes, we took $90 million out, but it is $90 million that 
we cannot spend.
  Modernization for public housing. Yes, we recommended taking $836 
million out of the modernization fund, about 20 percent--a little more 
than that--and it would still leave over $3 billion. We also proposed 
to do something also to let local housing authorities do the 
modernization without playing ``mother may I'' with HUD.
  HUD is an agency that cannot manage itself, and it has not done a 
good job of managing the decisions of local public housing authorities. 
I will be proposing in the authorizing committee a bill to change the 
way we do this and to say that unless the public housing authority 
fails on the basic standards that we set, the PHMAP standards we set 
several years ago, we are going to let them exercise their discretion 
in how to utilize funds made available. We believe that even with $836 
million less, they can do a far better job if HUD is off their backs.
  My distinguished ranking member has mentioned the national service, 
or AmeriCorps, a program very near and dear to her heart. Let me say 
that we have cut almost in half the proposed rescissions proposed by 
the House. The House wanted to slash it deeply. In our 
[[Page S4771]] committee, we are asking that the funding be kept level 
so we can find out if the program works. Yes, they are spending money 
right now. They have hired people. We would allow them to continue 
throughout this year. But I think before we go charging down the road 
and say we can have a 40- or 50-percent increase, actually in the year 
beginning with the school year, we ought to find out if it works. I 
have had people call me and tell me about one or two instances where 
very good things were done. I like to encourage volunteers. There have 
been instances where the National Service Corps volunteers have worked 
with true volunteers, not people being paid, but people who are really 
volunteers.
  I like the concept of VISTA, because VISTA enabled us to provide 
resources to organize volunteers. I believe in voluntarism. We have 
literally hundreds of millions of people who are volunteers every year, 
and not because they are paid in a program that provides over $25,000 a 
year, more than the median wage. That is not a volunteer, that is a 
public employment job.
  I have heard other questions raised and suggestions that maybe 
AmeriCorps, national service corps is not working well. I suggest that 
we not throw a lot more money at it until we see if it works. That is 
why we are willing in the measure before us that was passed out of the 
Appropriations Committee, to let the program continue throughout this 
year, so we can find out how it works and to see whether the 
supporters, my ranking member, or the skeptics, myself and others, are 
right and make the decisions then.
  That is the philosophy, Mr. President, that we followed, trying to 
cut things where spending was not critical, trying to stop commitments 
for new spending that will bankrupt America in the future. That is our 
philosophy.
  I also want to mention that I have had discussions with the ranking 
member. We are working on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to set up a 
rainy day fund or a California disaster fund, and to encourage a study 
of the way we do it, to begin to set aside money to start reforms in 
FEMA.
  I believe that this is the road we must go. A report was prepared by 
the task force which the Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, and I 
chaired last session, to report on the confused and conflicting means 
that the Federal Government has gone about assisting in disasters.
  Is it really assistance or have we thrown a lot of money out the 
door? We need to take a hard look at that disaster assistance approach 
and make sure that the money we spend on disasters is well spent.
  There is no question about the outpouring of concern and sympathy in 
this body when a severe disaster strikes. And FEMA has gotten much 
better. They get the dollars out the door very quickly.
  First, we need to look and make sure the dollars are going where they 
actually do some good and are not wasted; and, second, we need to keep 
our control on the Federal budget to make sure we do so in a 
responsible way.
  I think something like the rainy day fund that my colleague from 
Maryland has suggested is a good idea, so we would set aside a set 
amount of money each year. We do not know where the disasters will 
strike. We do not know whether it is a flood, hurricane, tornado, or an 
earthquake. Earthquakes are not just located in California. Earthquakes 
can hit the east coast. Earthquakes have occurred, of a very 
significant magnitude, in my home State of Missouri in the Midwest.
  There are many, many, types of disasters each year. They are 
different kinds, and we know $1 to $2 billion will be spent. Maybe we 
ought to have a separate line in the budget, a 14th department that is 
disasters, and set it aside. It could be appropriated so that it comes, 
not from this one subcommittee's jurisdiction, but from across the 
board.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Maryland and other 
colleagues as we attempt to reform FEMA to make sure the money is spent 
well and within the budget constraints.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Mikulski amendment which 
would replace the rescissions in the supplemental appropriations bill 
with a 1.72-percent across-the-board reduction of domestic spending to 
pay for the $6.7 billion in emergency disaster relief activities to 
deal with the 1994 earthquake in California.
  The legislation before the Senate cuts too deeply into necessary 
programs, particularly those affecting children and low-income 
families. We should and must be prepared to pay for emergency 
operations of the Federal Government during such natural disasters as 
the earthquake, and the numerous hurricanes, floods, fires, and other 
disasters which like this one have national scope. Also, we should and 
must be prepared to reduce the size of government and to continue the 
budget discipline necessary to reduce the size of the Federal budget 
and to continue the 3 consecutive years of reduction in the Federal 
deficit. However, this should not be used as an excuse for a hard-
hearted and mean reduction of programs which affect the Nation's least 
fortunate and most vulnerable citizens, especially children, programs 
which the American people approve of.
  I do not believe that most Americans want a cut in Head Start, 
education reform, the National Service College Scholarship Program--
AmeriCorps, safe and drug-free school programs, the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program, the Childcare Block Grant Program, title I programs 
to improve reading, writing, and math skills for educationally 
disadvantaged kids, impact aid, the TRIO Program for first generation 
college students, and the safe drinking water revolving fund.
  Nearly 650,000 low-income children, including more than 30,000 in 
Michigan participate in Head Start which has been shown to increase the 
likelihood of healthy development, improved educational achievement and 
to be related to decreased involvement in criminal activity in later 
years. Over 600,000 young men and women will lose the opportunity for 
summer jobs, and 17,000 young Americans working to give something back 
to their communities through the national service AmeriCorps Program 
while receiving some assistance toward obtaining a college education 
will lose that chance.
  The disproportionate and unfair impact of this legislation on the 
least fortunate among us is made all the worse by the indication that 
the majority in the Congress intends to use the funds to pay for a tax 
cut targeted to benefit the most well off. The $189 billion tax cut 
proposed in the Contract With America according to a Department of the 
Treasury analysis would provide more than 51 percent of its benefits to 
the wealthiest 12 percent of families.
  The Mikulski amendment would also maintain funding for important 
projects already announced and underway, such as the EPA center in Bay 
City, MI, and the Job Corps Center in Flint, the CIESIN facility in 
Saginaw, and Sea Grant zebra mussel research.
  Many important projects such as those are caught up in this 
rescission bill, despite the fact that they are of proven value and 
have already obtained strong community support and are underway.
  The Milukski amendment would pay for disaster relief which under the 
law and the President's emergency designation need not be paid for by 
reductions in other spending. By paying for the relief, the deficit 
will be reduced. The Mikulski amendment does this in a more equitable 
way by effecting domestic spending broadly rather than targeted on 
education, children, and housing programs.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Mikulski's amendment to replace the emergency spending and rescission 
bill the Senate is now considering with a more equitable across-the-
board cut. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD and 
Independent Agencies is responsible for the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's budget--but it is not and cannot be held 
responsible for bankrolling disaster assistance.
  About half of the cuts in both the House and Senate rescission bills 
come from programs under the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD Subcommittee. 
Veterans and lower income Americans should not be asked to foot the 
bill for California's earthquakes or flooding in the Midwest. The 
burden of paying for these costly disasters should be shared among all 
Federal programs--not just 
[[Page S4772]] those under the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
  While I support the Mikulski amendment, I would have preferred that 
the Pentagon chip in. Senator Mikulski's across-the-board cut goes a 
long way toward bringing some equity to the proposed cuts. Including 
defense in those cuts would go even further.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Reducing appropriations accounts across the board as proposed in the 
amendment would have the effect of freezing in place the spending 
priorities established in the previous Congress by the former majority 
party. We must begin the process of reordering some of the budget 
priorities established in the last Congress. Unless we do so, it will 
be virtually impossible to control spiraling Federal spending in fiscal 
year 1996 and beyond.
  I am especially concerned that we get a handle on the looming budget 
crisis at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For example, 
cutting spending across the board wouldn't do a thing to help us to 
begin controlling now future obligations to renew expiring section 8 
contracts. These obligations will reach $20 billion annually by the 
year 2000.
  This rescission package takes a reasonable approach to the HUD 
budget, which had been among the fastest growing in the Federal 
Government over the past few years. We target the HUD rescissions to 
new obligations and commitments, such as section 8 incremental 
assistance. No one currently receiving assistance should lose that 
assistance as a result of the rescission of this funding.
  But if we fail to rein in new obligations now, it is likely that down 
the road--in a year or two--we may be faced with the reality of not 
renewing section 8 contracts or recapturing turnover section 8 units as 
they become available because we will not have the money to do it. That 
would truly represent a reduction in the housing assistance we now 
provide to 2.8 million families receiving section 8.
  As a rule, I would agree that all budget accounts should share 
equally in meeting national disaster needs. However, at this point, 
there is merit in achieving the reductions in other ways that will 
reduce our future obligations.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from Maryland 
for her leadership on this and many other issues.
  The Senator, as usual, raises arguments which are, substantively and 
institutionally, absolutely correct. Simply stated, the HUD-VA 
Subcommittee programs--for housing, veterans, and the environment--
should not be singled out to pay for emergencies which under law are to 
be considered emergency spending. As my colleagues know, the President 
has declared the catastrophes being funded in this supplemental 
appropriation as emergency in nature, and thus eligible for funding 
outside of the discretionary caps.
  Since the Appropriations Committee refused to handle this emergency 
funding in that normal way, the VA-HUD Subcommittee was forced to 
drastically reduce fiscal year 1995 funding for housing programs by 
more than $4.6 billion, environmental funding in excess of $1.4 
billion, national service $210 million, veterans programs $100 million, 
and NASA by $150 million. There is no rational explanation for such 
large reductions in already appropriated funds solely from these 
accounts.
  As a reasonable alternative, the Senator from Maryland now seeks to 
impose an across-the-board cut of 1.72 percent in all discretionary 
funding except for veterans' medical care and a few other accounts. 
While I do have reservations in general about across-the-board 
percentage reductions and their meat-ax approach, in this case, the 
medicine is totally justified.
  The committee bill would pay for this emergency funding by reducing 
housing, veterans, and environmental programs. There is simply no logic 
to doing this and not at the same time, equally distributing the 
funding reductions to other accounts. We will look back on this day and 
regret this action.
  I do believe that we need to continue to attack the deficit 
aggressively, and so I continue to seek every reasonable opportunity to 
do that.
  At the same time, I will oppose the motion to table the Mikulski 
amendment because of my very strong opposition to forcing multibillion-
dollar--and what must be called draconian--cuts on housing and 
environmental needs. This is a dangerous precedent that we set by 
insisting that unforeseeable, catastrophic events must be paid for 
solely by reductions in a very few accounts--most notably veterans, 
housing, the environment, NASA, and national service.


                   ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION FACILITY

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would unfairly rescind 
building and facilities money that was finally committed 2 years ago to 
the Environmental Simulation Facility at the University of Wyoming. 
Years ago, the Wyoming Legislature resolved to assist the University of 
Wyoming in matching the Federal grant of $9.2 million. This amendment 
would rescind $1.1 million, a most vital part of the commitment made by 
Congress to this important environmental project.
  The laboratory, which is now in the final planning stages, would 
provide research in surface and groundwater contamination caused by 
agricultural chemicals. It will give us a testing facility in which we 
can control key environmental conditions and apply serious 
environmental management techniques to evaluate their effectiveness and 
cost. As we work to bring about increased efficiency in our 
agricultural conservation efforts--this facility will be of high 
national importance and value.
  But the issue here is not whether this is a ``worthy'' project, but 
rather that the University of Wyoming and the State legislature have 
fully supported this proposal through its planning stages and now that 
we are nearly ready to break ground, Congress is considering pulling 
the plug and chucking all the time and money already spent down the 
drain. I would urge that you carefully consider the investments and 
commitments that have previously been made and vote against this 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Mikulski 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time does the Senator desire? A vote is set at 
1:15.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 2 or 3 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. President, the amendment by the Senator from Maryland makes 
sense. It is a commonsense amendment.
  The Senator's amendment would spread the pain of the cuts across all 
areas of the government to pay for the recent natural disasters. Under 
the present system, all of the cuts needed to pay for these disasters 
must come from her Appropriations subcommittee--that is, the VA, HUD 
Subcommittee. That is not fair. It does not make sense to cut programs 
in this subcommittee over $6 billion to pay for these disasters.
  Mr. President, I strongly agree that we should pay for these disaster 
supplementals. We should make cuts in spending to pay for them and not 
add to the deficit. We have to pay for them and we should pay for them. 
But, again, these cuts should not come only from the programs in this 
subcommittee.
  So the amendment before us would spread these cuts across all 
programs. It would spread these cuts evenly.
  Mr. President, I would like to briefly talk about the underlying 
amendment. I do not agree with many of the cuts proposed in the 
underlying amendment. Some programs would be dramatically cut. For 
example, the safe drinking water revolving loan funds that States and 
communities really need, or clean water funds for sewage 
[[Page S4773]] and waste treatment projects that States and communities 
rely on.
  Mr. President, we just passed an unfunded mandates bill. An unfunded 
mandates bill that said we are not going to add new mandates if we do 
not have the funds.
  The result of the cuts proposed in the underlying amendment would 
result in a sort of defunded mandate. We will unfund mandates that 
exist. That is, we will take money away and dramatically cut safe 
drinking water revolving loan funds and waste water treatment projects.
  I disagree with that. Mr. President, it seems we are not looking at 
the policy reasons for these cuts. Sometimes I think we make cuts 
simply to say we did so.
  Mr. President, I have noticed that our actions around here are 
entirely budget driven with no thought to the policy considerations. We 
need to find ways to reduce spending and reduce the deficit. But we 
need to do it wisely. Let us stop and think before we act. Let us think 
about the implications of our actions.
  Mr. President, I want to stress again that the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Maryland is an effort to reduce the budget deficit and 
cut spending but spread the pain around. Everybody has to be part of 
this effort to pay for these disasters.
  Mr. President, our national motto is ``e pluribus unum,'' one out of 
many. We are all Americans, we are all in this together. We all have to 
find solutions together. That is what the people who elected us want us 
to do--be reasonable. Not partisan; not do just what the Republicans 
want to do; not do just what the Democrats want to do--but think. We 
need to exercise common sense.
  Most people in my State of Montana do not care whether a candidate is 
Republican or Democrat. They vote for the person--the right person. 
That is what the people want us to do. I strongly urge Senators to 
consider the commonsense nature of the Mikulski amendment. I urge they 
support the able Senator from Maryland and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his 
remarks. I thank him for his support of this amendment. He has had a 
very difficult job, trying to bring the authorizing legislation to the 
floor. I know there were many roadblocks placed in the way of his 
excellent skills, in both content and parliamentary procedure. So I 
thank him for this support and upholding of the principle.
  Mr. President, I have no further remarks on the content of this 
legislation. I think one could see the very nature of this debate is we 
could disagree on content, on precedent, and yet at the same time 
maintain great civility. I hope the Senate learned a lot in listening 
to the exchanges here and, of course, I hope my view prevails. But I 
would like, again, to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the 
courtesies. We have a long row to hoe to the next fiscal year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member for her kind 
comments. We have a lot more battles to work on. We are working 
together on many things. I would conclude by pointing out some of the 
differences in our approaches.
  As I said, the Senator from Maryland would cut across the board, cut 
across the board. Her proposal, as best we can calculate it, would take 
another $2.589--almost $6.2 billion in budget authority from defense 
and $1.243 billion, or $1,243,000,000 out of outlays for defense.
  We are working right now on a defense supplemental which is vitally 
needed if we are not to deprive our fighting men and women of the 
support, the ongoing assistance, that they need. This would be a 
disaster. We cannot take more out of defense than we just did in the 
defense supplemental that is pending in conference right now.
  My good friend from Montana said it makes no sense; our proposal is 
not policy driven. Unfortunately, he is talking about something that is 
not before us because we have based the recommendations in this measure 
brought from the Appropriations Committee on policy. He was not able to 
get safe drinking water authorized for the last 2 years. The money has 
not been used. What we are rescinding is safe drinking water money that 
is not even authorized. We have left in the $500 million that the 
administration requests for next year, in hopes we finally can get safe 
drinking water reauthorized. I strongly support the reauthorization. 
There is no sense in leaving money which cannot be spent because there 
is no authorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri is recognized for the purposes of making a motion.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment before us.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 421, offered by the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 32, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 421) to the 
amendment (No. 420) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, I would like to propound a 
unanimous-consent time agreement for the Wellstone amendment which will 
be now offered by the Senator from Minnesota, a 20-minute time 
agreement to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee.


                 Amendment No. 422 to Amendment No. 420

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 422 to amendment No. 420:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new title:

              TITLE   --IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON CHILDREN

     SEC.    1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President; and I thank the clerk for 
reading the amendment. It is very simple and straightforward.
   [[Page S4774]] Mr. President, since I have had this amendment on the 
floor, I believe we have had four votes, and this will be the fifth 
vote. The last vote, I believe, received 47 or 48 votes for the 
amendment. This is my effort to just make a personal, from-the-heart 
appeal to my colleagues. I want to give it context.
  I do not think I will need more than 20 minutes because I have spoken 
about this amendment before, except for the fact that I think I can 
bring it up to date with some more evidence which is based upon what 
has happened in the House of Representatives, which is why I believe 
people in the country are looking for the U.S. Senate to really go on 
record to give them some assurance about what we are going to do and 
not do here.
  Again, this amendment says:

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not 
     enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number 
     of children who are hungry or homeless.

  Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator may 
proceed
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, yesterday, the Children's Defense Fund issued their 
annual report, ``The State of America's Children Yearbook, 1995.''
  And, by the way, I say to my colleagues, there is a quote on the 
front of this report that captures the spirit of this amendment.

       Dear Lord, be good to me. The sea is so wide and my boat is 
     so small.

  Mr. President, yesterday I went over these statistics. In my State of 
Minnesota, Minnesota's children at risk, 1989 to 1991, 60,615 children 
lacked health insurance. There were 27,462 reported cases of child 
abuse and neglect, 1992; 116 young men died by violence, 1991; 48 
children were killed by guns, 1992; only 71.4 percent of 2-year-olds 
were fully immunized, 1990: 35 percent of the fourth grade public 
school students lacked basic reading proficiency, 1992.
  Mr. President, I am absolutely convinced that the ultimate indictment 
of what we have been doing during the decade of the 1980's and, on 
present course, part of the decade of the 1990's, is the ways in which 
we have abandoned children in this Nation, not invested in children, 
and devalued the work of adults that work with children.
  In this report, ``The State of America's Children Yearbook, 1995,'' 
some key facts on hunger speak directly to this amendment.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 30 cities found that 
emergency food requests from families with children increased by an 
average of 14 percent between 1993 and 1994. Emergency food requests 
from families with children increased by an average of 14 percent 
between 1993 and 1994. A record level of 14.2 million children received 
food stamp benefits in 1993, up 51 percent from 1989.
  Please remember, Mr. President, we are now moving toward about one 
out of every four children being poor in America. Every 30 seconds, a 
child is born into poverty in our country, and one out of every two 
children of color are poor in the United States of America.
  The Women, Infants, and Children Programs provided nutrition 
assistance to 6.5 million women, infants, and children in 1994, only 65 
percent of those who are eligible.
  Here we have a program, Mr. President, if we are going to talk about 
hunger and malnutrition, that makes sure that women who are expecting 
children have a good diet. It is a program that makes sure that 
children at birth, infants, have adequate nutrition, and only 65 
percent of the women and children who are eligible are receiving this 
assistance right now.
  That is why I want the U.S. Senate to go on record that surely we 
will not take any action that will increase the number of hungry or 
homelessness among children in America.
  At least 2.1 million children were served by the Summer Food Service 
Program in 1994, less than 9 percent of those who participated in the 
School Lunch Program.
  Mr. President, on homelessness, one in four people reported as 
homeless is a child younger than 18. One in four people reported as 
homeless is a child younger than 18. Nearly half of poor households pay 
more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. An estimated 1.2 
million families are on waiting lists for public housing and claims of 
discrimination against families with children account for 23 percent of 
all housing discrimination complaints.
  I bring this amendment to the floor of the Senate for the fifth time 
with a sense of history in the making right now. Mr. President, I want 
to give it in context.
  Last week in the House of Representatives--and let me just read, if I 
may, from some major newspaper stories about what was done in the House 
of Representatives in the name of welfare reform.
  The Washington Post, Saturday, March 25, 1995. Introduction: ``It 
was, perhaps, an unfortunate choice of images.'' Representative--I will 
not use his name on the floor of the Senate--from Florida ``held up a 
sign on the House floor yesterday bearing the admonition `Don't Feed 
the Alligators'--wise advice in his State, he said, because ``if left 
in their natural state, alligators can take care of themselves.''

       Welfare worked the same way, he explained, because 
     ``unnatural feeding and artificial care create dependency.
       ``Now people are not alligators,'' he added, ``but I submit 
     that with our current handout, nonwork welfare system we've 
     upset the natural order.''

  Mr. President, from the Philadelphia Inquirer, ``Debate in House Gets 
Emotional and Nasty.'' And here, right at the side bar, ``Those 
receiving welfare were likened to animals.''
  Mr. President, let us be clear who we are talking about when we are 
talking about welfare families, the AFDC Program. We are talking about 
women and children--sometimes men, but in the main, single parents and 
children. Likening women and children to animals is pretty vicious. In 
fact, I think there is no place for it.
  But, Mr. President, this was the harsh rhetoric that led to some very 
frightening cuts.
  And I would again cite another source, authoritative source, lest 
anybody think this amendment is just symbolic. The Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities estimates that this welfare reform bill would provide 
$2.3 billion less for the School Lunch Program than under current law. 
That would mean that 2 million children would lose their school lunch 
in the year 2000. For Minnesota alone, 7,280 children could lose their 
child care by the year 2000.
  By the way, I have met, I say to my colleague from Oregon, with child 
care providers. I had a very dramatic meeting, heartfelt testimony. 
They were saying to me, ``Senator, don't cut into this nutrition 
assistance because if we do not get that kind of funding, if we do not 
get that kind of funding, we are not going to be able to make sure 
these children have adequate nutrition.''
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. First all, I associate myself with the Senator's 
comments relating to priorities for children.
  But, I say to the Senator, there is no rescission relating to any of 
those subjects in this bill that we now have under consideration. In 
fact, you will find in this bill that we have restored programs such as 
the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that had a rescission.
  So I think if you go through this bill, this argument, this debate, 
this issue would be more appropriately raised on a vehicle in which 
such action is proposed, but not on this vehicle.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oregon that 
I appreciate his remarks. Let me make a couple of points.
  I am fully aware of the fine work he has done. Let me tell you, I 
also had dramatic meetings with people back in Minnesota who were 
terrified about the zeroing out of LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. They, and I, are very appreciative for what the 
Senator has done. I appreciate some of the fine work he has done. That 
is why I am actually referencing this amendment based upon what was 
done in the House of Representatives last week.
   [[Page S4775]] I have offered this sense-of-the-Senate amendment on 
any number of different vehicles because I fear the worst is yet to 
come, and I am trying to get us, the U.S. Senate, to provide some 
reassurance to the Nation by going on record that we do not intend to 
take action that will create more hunger and homelessness. This is not 
meant to be a direct critique or criticism of this rescissions package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe it was 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will yield time to the Senator to 
conclude his subject.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I will also say to my 
colleague, there will be, as we go along this week, maybe this week, 
some alternatives and discussion about some of the specific 
rescissions. But this amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, is 
an amendment to which I am very committed.
  I am taking a look at what has happened in the House of 
Representatives. I believe that really all eyes of the Nation are on 
the U.S. Senate. I think it is our responsibility to make sure that 
what we do as we move toward deficit reduction, as we move toward the 
goal of balancing the budget, though I have always argued that 2002 is 
an unrealistic date. I have never heard anybody, especially once you 
take Social Security and put it aside, talk about how you really could 
take $1.7 trillion out of this economy over 6 or 7 years without an 
enormous contraction and without inflicting widespread pain across a 
broad section of the population.
  But I believe in the goal of balancing the budget. I certainly think 
we have to do better on deficit reduction. But what I am saying today, 
I say to my colleague from Oregon--a Senator I admire and respect and 
whose vote I hope to get on this--as I look at what is happening in the 
House of Representatives, as I analyze where these cuts are taking 
place, I see a tremendous amount of meanness and harshness, and there 
is tremendous concern in the country.
  So when I read the Children's Defense Fund report, No. 1, about the 
state of children, when I see Minnesota children at risk, when I have 
come to know my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, and 
believe that is not what we are about but it is, in fact, worsening the 
situation of children in America, when I then see some of the action 
that has taken place in the House of Representatives and I look at the 
economic analysis of that action, I realize full well that if there 
ever was a time that people in the United States of America are looking 
to the U.S. Senate for balance, it is now.
  If there was ever a time that people in the United States of America 
are looking to the U.S. Senate to make sure the Congress does not go 
too far, it is now. If there ever was a time that people in the United 
States of America are looking for some reassurance that, in the name of 
deficit reduction, in the name of reducing debt for our children today, 
who will be adults in the future, we do not savage children now, it is 
now. That is the why of this amendment.
  I say to my colleague that as I look at the proposed cuts coming out 
of the House of Representatives, I ask the basic question, which is a 
question near and dear to people in this country, and it has to do with 
fairness.
  I said this the other day. There is a budget deficit, but there now 
is a spiritual deficit. Who decided that we were going to cut into 
nutrition programs for children but we are not going to cut subsidies 
for oil companies?
  Who decided that we were going to eliminate benefits or dramatically 
reduce benefits for disabled children? I am now meeting with their 
families from Minnesota, and they are terrified. I do not want anybody 
in the Senate to say I have tried to frighten people. People are 
calling me and people are terrified on the basis of what they read.
  Who decided to cut into support for disabled children in this country 
but not to cut subsidies for pharmaceutical companies?
  Who decided to cut into educational programs for children but not to 
cut into subsidies for coal companies?
  I will say it one more time, some people are very generous with the 
suffering of others.
  So I say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, this is the fifth time that I have brought this sense-of-
the-Senate amendment to the floor. When I brought this amendment to the 
floor at the beginning of the Congress, there were colleagues who said 
this is just symbolic.
  Each time I have brought this amendment to the floor of the Senate, I 
have referred to the House of Representatives. This does not directly 
reference the work of the Senator from Oregon in this rescissions bill. 
I have some concerns about some of the housing cuts, to be sure. But I 
understand the job that you have done, and I respect what you have 
done. But this is an amendment that fits in with what is going on in 
this Congress.
  I say to my colleagues, my colleague from Oregon and my colleague 
from Mississippi, both of whom I respect, that I really believe that 
people are looking to us for balance. People are really looking to the 
U.S. Senate to make sure we do not go too far. People are really 
looking to the U.S. Senate to make sure that this does not become a 
mean season on children.
  People are looking for reassurance. I have tried to get a majority 
vote. I made a promise to myself, I made a promise to my colleagues, I 
made a promise to children's advocates, I made a promise to children 
that I will keep bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate to 
have votes.
  I will conclude by reading this one more time:

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not 
     enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number 
     of children who are hungry or homeless.

  I do not know why we cannot support that. The last time, Mr. 
President, there were a number of my colleagues from the other side who 
supported this amendment. It is my fervent hope that today I can get a 
majority vote. I think it would be a wonderful message. I think it 
would be reassuring to people in the country.
  I have no ``hidden agenda.'' I just feel strongly about what these 
statistics mean in personal terms. I just feel strongly that part of 
what we are doing in this Congress is going in the wrong direction. I 
just feel strongly that if there is going to be deficit reduction and 
we are going to move toward balancing the budget, we ought not go the 
path of least political resistance.
  You have been a leader, I say this to the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, on these issues. This is no lecture aimed 
at you. You are somebody who I look up to. But my concern is that what 
is going to happen, Mr. President, is that when it gets down to where 
these cuts take place, we are going to go the path of least political 
resistance. That is to say, all too often the cuts are going to be 
aimed disproportionately at those citizens who are least able to 
tighten their belts. But the reason they are going to be aimed 
disproportionately at citizens least able to tighten their belts, 
starting with children--I can also include the elderly and also include 
other citizens--is because they do not have the political clout. They 
are not considered to be the heavy hitters. They are not considered to 
be the players. They are not the big campaign contributors. They are 
all too often invisible. They are all too often faceless. They are all 
too often voiceless.
  But there is a lot of goodness in this country, and there is a lot of 
goodness in this Chamber. I think that if the U.S. Senate goes on 
record just supporting the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I have 
offered today, it will be a positive, unifying vote for this Nation.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has less than 1 
minute.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S4776]] Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
for 2 minutes to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I understand the thrust of the amendment 
of the Senator, and I do not think anybody can disagree with the 
essence of it. It is a sense of the Senate, or a sense of the Congress. 
Let me also indicate, Mr. President, I think the message that the 
Senator wants to send to the public is that we have stated an action in 
this bill, for we have not in this bill rescissions relating to the 
subject matter of children. Therefore, I think we can say that this is 
a powerful statement the Congress is sending to the people as well.
  I want to just indicate two or three items as an example of the focus 
the Senate Appropriations Committee put on the rescissions. First, the 
rescissions were basically in the unobligated funds. Second, we were 
not only concerned about children and young people. We have in this a 
far, far different document than the rescissions on student aid, as it 
relates to the elderly and the needs of the elderly and low-income 
energy assistance.
  I think this document represents a very powerful statement to the 
public of this country that we have put a focus upon people's needs, 
and that we have shown the compassion, the concerns, for people's needs 
in this particular document.
  At the same time, we have reduced our spending for this particular 
fiscal year by $13.5 billion.
  So I am ready to accept the amendment offered by the Senator as a 
sense of the Congress and take it to conference.
  I thank the Senator for his compassion and for his passionate plea on 
behalf of this. I think it certainly is in concert and certainly 
represents the work of the Appropriations Committee in focusing upon 
people's needs--not just children, but the elderly and other people, as 
well.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
may have another minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, actually, what I would like to do is I would like to 
get to this vote. But first I would like to suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee. I have been at 
this a long time with this amendment, and I am very, very pleased with 
this result.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 422) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________