[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4890-S4906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three amendments in 
succession, one from the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], one from 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], one from the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Boxer], each of these amendments--by the way, let me 
mention that the one for Mr. Kerrey is on the subject of Federal 
courthouses that are included 
[[Page S4891]] in the appropriations bill; Mr. Kyl's relates to the 
low-income energy assistance; the one for Senator Boxer is a transfer 
of funds from military to school education programs. I ask that there 
be a half-hour for each amendment, equally divided in the usual form, 
and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a motion to 
table, if a motion to table is made.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object. I am informed that we cannot 
have a unanimous-consent agreement on the time for the low-income 
energy assistance amendment of the Senator from Arizona. There is 
objection to that half-hour time agreement.
  Mr. HATFIELD. An hour?
  Mr. DODD. I am not prepared to say.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I amend the request to delete the request on behalf of 
the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at the conclusion of the two other 
amendments offered by the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from 
California, may we vote on both of those at the expiration of the hour, 
after both have been debated?
  Mr. HATFIELD. That is satisfactory.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator propound that request?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of the hour for 
the two amendments, the votes take place.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I want to move along. 
Maybe a vote is not necessary on this Senator's amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If votes are required, I ask unanimous consent that 
they be stacked at the end of the hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that the D'Amato amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 435 to Amendment No. 420

   (Purpose: Rescinding certain funds for GSA Federal buildings and 
                              courthouses)

  Mr. KERREY. 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 Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself and Mr. 
     Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 435 to amendment No. 
     420.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 51 of the bill, line 12, strike 
     everything through page 54, line 6, and insert in lieu 
     thereof, the following:


                    General Services Administration

                         Federal Buildings Fund

               Limitations on the Availability of Revenue

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Laws 101-136, 101-509. 102-27. 102-141, 103-123, 102-393. 
     103-329, $565,580,000 are rescinded from the following 
     projects in the following amounts:
       Arizona:
       Lukeville, Border Station, commercial lot expansion, 
     $1,219,000
       Phoenix, Federal building and U.S. Courthouse, $121,890,000
       San Luis, Border Station, primary lane expansion and 
     administrative office space, $3,496,000
       Sierra Vista, Arizona, U.S. Magistrates office, $1,000,000
       Tucson, Federal building-U.S. Courthouse, $70,000,000
       California:
       Menlo Park, United States Geological Survey, office 
     laboratory buildings, $980,000
       San Francisco, California, U.S. Court of Appeals annex, 
     $9,003,000
       District of Columbia:
       Army Corps of Engineers, headquarters, $25,000,000
       Central and West heating plants, $5,000,000
       General Service Administration, Southeast Federal Center, 
     headquarters, $25,000,000
       Southeast Federal Center, infrastructure, $58,000,000
       U.S. Secret Service, headquarters, $18,910,000
       Georgia:
       Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, site acquisition and 
     improvement $25,890,000
       Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, $14,110,000
       Florida:
       Tampa, U.S. Courthouse, $5,994,000
       Illinois:
       Chicago, Federal Center, $7,000,000
       Indiana:
       Hammond, U.S. Courthouse, $52,272,000
       Maryland:
       Avondale, DeLaSalle building, $16,671,000
       Massachusetts:
       Boston, U.S. Courthouse, $4,076,000
       Nebraska:
       Omaha, U.S. Courthouse, $5,000,000
       Nevada:
       Reno, Federal building.U.S. Courthouse, $1,465,000
       New Hampshire:
       Concord, Federal building.U.S. Courthouse, $3,519,000
       New Mexico:
       Santa Teresa, Border station, $4,004,000
       New York:
       Holtsville, New York, IRS Center, $19,183,000
       North Dakota:
       Fargo, U.S. Courthouse, $1,371,000
       Ohio:
       Youngstown, Federal building and U.S. Courthouse, site 
     acquisition and design, $4,574,000
       Steubenville, U.S. Courthouse, $2,280,000
       Oregon:
       Portland, U.S. Courthouse, $5,000,000
       Pennsylvania:
       Philadelphia, Veterans Administration, $1,276,000
       Rhode Island:
       Providence, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse, $7,740,000
       Tennessee:
       Greeneville, U.S. Courthouse, $2,936,000
       Texas:
       Corpus Christi, U.S. Courthouse, $6,446,000
       Ysleta, site acquisition and construction, $1,727,000
       U.S. Virgin Islands:
       St. Thomas, Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Courthouse Annex, 
     $2,184,000
       Washington:
       Seattle, U.S. Courthouse, $3,764,000
       Nationwide chlorofluorocarbons program, $12,300,000
       Nationwide energy program, $15,300,000''

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. 
I offered it in the full committee. It has been altered somewhat to add 
additional items. For my colleagues, what I am doing with this 
amendment is to rescind an additional $324.579 million from the 
courthouse projects.
  Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself and the 
Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], who has also been very actively 
involved for the past several years in trying to get the GSA to do some 
reviews of the courthouses that have been both authorized and 
appropriated.
  The GSA did what they call a ``time-out'' review and came back with 
$1.3 billion worth of savings. We have taken some but not all. To be 
clear, the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, the Senator from 
Alabama, Senator Shelby, points out quite accurately that we use the 
GSA's recommendations as a guideline. These are not hard and fast 
recommendations. These are not things that we always watch. Indeed, we 
have some things on our list in the rescission package that were not 
recommended by GSA already.
  Nonetheless, my colleagues who are considering this amendment really 
should ask themselves one question, and that is: What happens if this 
amendment passes? Will there be damage done to the Nation? Will there 
be children that get less food? Is day care involved? Is education 
involved? Is national defense involved? I mean, the argument really has 
to center on what happens if this amendment passes.
  Well, Mr. President, I am going to respectfully say that what happens 
is a number of projects are not going to be built. The list that I have 
includes a Phoenix, AZ, courthouse, $128.890 million; Tucson, AZ, $70 
million; Southeast Federal Center in the District of Columbia, $58 
million; an additional $26.272 million in Hammond, IN; in Holtsville, 
NY, an IRS Service Center for $19.183 million; in Corpus Christi, TX, 
$6.446 million; in Santa Teresa, NM, a border station, $4.004 million; 
Seattle, WA, $3.764 million; and in the spirit of fairness, $5 million 
from an Omaha, NE, courthouse; a Secret Service headquarters in DC. for 
$10 million. The total, Mr. President, is $324.579 million.
  Again, the simple question really has to be: What happens if this 
amendment passes? What happens is that these projects are not going to 
be built, or they will be scaled back.
  Mr. President, I hardly think those of us who are trying to find ways 
to cut spending, those of us who recognize 
[[Page S4892]] that we have to take tough action to get deficit 
reduction done, to get to a balanced budget, are explaining to various 
interest groups, educators, health care people, interest groups that 
come constantly into our offices saying, ``Why, why, why,''
  It seems to me that this is a relatively easy step for us to take and 
a relatively painless step, I must say, Mr. President. There will be no 
interest groups that will object. There will be no people that will 
say, gee, this is going to hurt us in some measurable or appreciable 
fashion. These are merely projects, Mr. President. I appreciate that 
they do have value. I am not arguing that they are without value. I 
merely argue that in this time when we are trying, in an unprecedented 
fashion, to achieve a bipartisan consensus to reduce this Nation's 
deficit to zero, this kind of action, this little list of additional 
cuts, is not only appropriate but quite reasonable.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the House rescinded $136,593,000 from 
buildings for which funds have been appropriated in the fund.
  A number of projects they included were inserted by the Senate, most, 
but not all have been authorized by the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee, but not the House Public Works Committee.
  The committee chose to rescind $241,011,000 from new construction and 
repair and alterations projects.
  Some of the projects the committee included have not been authorized 
by the Senate.
  Some are included because GSA has indicated savings as a result of 
last year's time out and review.
  Some have been canceled or delayed. We did not take all of the funds 
in some cases, nor did we take all of the projects GSA indicated where 
savings might be attained as a result of time out and review.
  We attempted to take Members concerns into account in making our 
decision.
  Our total cuts are significantly over the House and there will plenty 
of room to negotiate in conference.
  We might not agree, but this is a significant adjustment.
  I say to the Senate do not make it a political bidding war regarding 
projects.
  I have tried to be fair in this process as the Senator from Nebraska 
is aware. Should we follow the Senator from Nebraska and his process, 
in all fairness, should we not put all projects on the table. I have a 
list here which includes all of the new construction projects, repair 
and alteration projects, as well as, the time out and review savings 
the GSA has indicated can be saved.
  The project list is inclusive of projects where no construction has 
begun.
  I hope we will not get into this on the Senate floor.
  I believe a majority of my colleagues agrees with me as they did in 
the appropriations committee, so at the appropriate time I will move to 
table the Kerrey amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nebraska 
for offering this amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that I be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The amendment before us will make additional rescissions to a number 
of projects proposed to be funded from GSA's Federal buildings fund. 
These rescissions represent projects that have not gone through the GSA 
review process, are congressional Member requests, or represent savings 
identified through the GSA timeout and review process.
  Many of these projects are courthouse construction projects. And to 
be truthful, the savings identified in this amendment are probably only 
the tip of the iceberg. In fact, last year, when I chaired the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, we made substantial reductions 
in the authorizations of GSA projects. We cut $137 million from these 
projects. Unfortunately, there are some people who believe that this 
money is still available. I disagree with that view. But to make 
certain that the money cannot be spent we need this amendment. The 
Kerrey amendment will formally rescind that money.
  Mr. President, we have to get a handle on the courthouse construction 
program. I have talked to Federal judges in Montana about the need for 
restraint in building new courthouses. They agree that things have 
gotten out of control. The current process is a failure. There is far 
too much waste in this program. There is no prioritization of 
courthouse projects. In fact, the courts refuse to prioritize their 
projects. So we must prioritize. We must make the tough decisions. The 
amendment from the Senator from Nebraska makes such decisions.
  I would also note that the bill before us makes drastic cuts in 
important programs, such as child nutrition and education. So it makes 
sense that we also look at the federal courthouse construction program. 
We need to target projects that are unnecessary or lavish, or can be 
delayed. This amendment will do just that and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
quite correctly said that he has tried to be fair. He has been fair. We 
are with our subcommittee offering cuts in excess of what the House of 
Representatives had in their piece of legislation.
  Again, for those Members who try to figure out how to vote on this 
amendment, the question really still fails to answer what happens if 
this amendment passes. All that happens, Mr. President, is some 
projects that are proposed to be built will not be built, or they will 
be scaled back.
  I have had--as I am sure all have had to do--to justify spending in a 
variety of ways. One of the tests that I used with various groups and 
individuals who come forward and ask me to support one expenditure or 
another, is to try to calculate what a median family income pays in the 
way of tax.
  In my State, a median family income is about $35,000 a year. They 
have to work about 3 months to pay the Federal income taxes of roughly 
$7,500. That means that 43,740 Nebraska families have to work 3 months 
to generate the money I am requesting to take out.
  I do not offer that observation in some sort of grand fashion. I 
merely say this is a lot of money. I do not believe the Nation is going 
to suffer.
  Indeed, I say the Nation will not suffer at all with this additional 
rescission. I hope that my colleagues, rather than being concerned 
about whether or not a project in their home State is going to be cut, 
I hope that they will, in fact, vote based upon the observation that 
this Nation can afford to lay these projects aside.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHELBY. I will agree to yielding back my time. I believe we will 
vote later on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). All time is yielded back.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
                 amendment no. 436 to amendment no. 420

 (Purpose: To delete the rescission of the funds appropriated for the 
    Department of Education for the Technology For Education of All 
 Students Program in the amount of $5,000,000 and for the Star Schools 
Program in the amount of $5,000,000; and to rescind $11,000,000 of the 
  funds available under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
            1995, for acquisition of two executive aircraft)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 436 to amendment No. 420.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 35, beginning on line 21, strike out 
     ``$15,200,000'' and all that follows through ``title III-B, 
     $5,000,000, and'', and inserting in lieu thereof ``$5,200,000 
     are rescinded as follows: from the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965,''
       On page 68, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
                       [[Page S4893]] CHAPTER XII

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY PROCUREMENT


                       aircraft procurement, army

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds available under this heading in title III of 
     Public Law 103-335, $11,000,000 are rescinded.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I were to give you $11 million to spend 
in a way to benefit the public interest, I think that you would give it 
a lot of thought, and I would hope one of the areas that would be 
considered would be education.
  Particularly if I said the choice is between spending that money to 
put computers in the classrooms across the country, to give 5,000 
students high-technology education, I think everyone would be 
interested, particularly if I said the only sacrifice that would have 
to be made is not to spend $11 million for executive airplanes designed 
primarily to transport high-ranking military officials from place to 
place. Aircraft that the military never even asked for.
  That is the transfer amendment that I have. We are talking about pork 
versus pupils here.
  I think that most people who had that choice would come down on the 
side of the children. That is the choice I have given to my colleagues. 
I hope that this amendment will be accepted and that we will not have a 
fight over it because I really think for anyone who listens to these 
arguments, it is clear that these airplanes are not needed and are not 
warranted. This money can be put to much better use.
  I also want to point out this chart that I have that shows where we 
are. It shows that the rescission bills considered by the Senate have 
slashed domestic spending, and only nicked military spending.
  We see here that, of the discretionary budget, military makes up 49 
percent; international, or foreign aid, 4 percent; and domestic 
spending, 47 percent.
  And look at this chart, which shows what we have cut in these 
rescissions bills. We have slashed domestic spending; 84 percent of all 
the rescissions have come from domestic spending. The military took a 
hit of 14 percent. And international took 2 percent.
  My amendment is not going to cure all of that. It is just a small, 
little, symbolic amendment, but I think it is very, very important.
  What my amendment does is restore the rescissions from the Star 
Schools Program and the Education Technology Program--$5 million each. 
Again, it would cut out those two aircraft--not requested by the 
military, I underscore--but approved by the Congress as an unrequested 
add-on last year.
  I think it is important to note that if you go around to the schools 
in your States you will find in many of the classrooms a reliance on 
chalk and the blackboard. Of course we will always have that. But we 
need to see more computers in those classrooms. We need to get those 
young people ready for the 21st century.
  The ratio of students to computers in the classroom is about 13 to 1. 
Almost two-thirds of the Nation's public schools do not have access to 
the internet.
  We here know. I am beginning to get a tremendous amount of 
information through the Internet. It is very exciting. I can have a 
dialog with my constituency. l
  It seems to me that anyone would agree that technology is the way of 
the future. Our children deserve those computers in the classroom. We 
have a chance to restore that money today. Instead of propelling our 
schools into the 21st century, what we do in this rescissions bill is 
steer them off the information superhighway. My amendment would 
completely restore funding for these important programs, and it does it 
in a very painless way.
  I am going to talk a little more about the success of these two 
programs, but before I do, I really want to talk about the aircraft in 
question which, again I repeat, were not requested for purchase by the 
Pentagon. What do the aircraft do? According to the House 
Appropriations Committee report the purpose of these aircraft is to 
``provide efficient transportation of key command and staff 
personnel.''
  I want to point out that in today's Washington Post, on the Federal 
page, is an article about what a mess the military transport situation 
is in. Thankfully, Senator Cohen is on top of the situation. We can 
save a lot of money in military transportation. We do not need to spend 
this money on these two aircraft. The Army can do without private 
planes for the top brass. These aircraft are not essential to any 
military mission.
  But computers are essential for the educational mission that we 
should be supporting. Again, Washington Post, Tuesday:

       Congress Protects Pork in Pentagon Spending. Budget Cutters 
     Spare '95 Defense Plan.

  These aircraft are specifically listed in this article as an example 
of defense pork.
  I ask unanimous consent the entire article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Congress Protects Pork in Pentagon Spending--Budget Cutters Spare 1995 
                              Defense Plan

                   (By Walter Pincus and Dan Morgan)

       Before Congress adjourned last year it passed a $243 
     billion defense appropriations bill containing dozens of 
     ``pork barrel'' projects for members' home states, as well as 
     numerous non-defense programs that could not get funded in 
     other spending bills.
       Among them were $5.4 million for Hawaii's Small Business 
     Development Center; $3.5 million for a Cook County, Ill., 
     military-style boot camp for youthful drug offenders; $10 
     million for a National Guard outreach program to help Los 
     Angeles youth; and $1.5 million to round up wild horses 
     wandering onto the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico--a 
     job once handled by the Bureau of Land Management.
       There was $15 million for developing an electric car, a 
     project that found a home in the defense bill in the late 
     1980s when money for energy appropriations grew tight.
       Now Congress, in its first round of serious budget cutting, 
     is slashing billions of dollars of previously approved 
     spending, for purposes ranging from public broadcasting to 
     housing AIDS patients.
       But the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill has left 
     untouched the projects listed above. The spending is part of 
     billions of dollars never sought by the Pentagon, but added 
     to the defense bill last fall at the behest of senators and 
     representatives from both parties.
       ``The insertion of these items has become an incredible art 
     form,'' said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee. He has compiled a list of 
     more than $6 billion in defense projects that he says 
     represent ``wasteful, earmarked, non-defense, or otherwise 
     low-priority programs.''
       Despite the GOP's seizure of control of Congress in the 
     1994 midterm elections, McCain said, refusal to cut these 
     programs suggests ``business as usual'' is continuing in 
     Congress.
       Republican leaders have given defense a comparatively 
     protected position as they go about the initial round of 
     budget cutting. A House-passed bill cuts $17.1 billion from 
     domestic programs, but nothing from the 1995 defense budget. 
     A toned-down Senate version, which trims $13.3 billion, also 
     exempts defense.
       In separate, supplemental legislation, the House and Senate 
     did propose defense cuts of $1.4 billon and $1.9 billion, 
     respectively, in allocating emergency funds to replenish 
     Pentagon coffers. The House cut $502 million from the 
     administration's technology reinvestment program, which helps 
     defense companies convert to civilian production.
       But almost all of the projects added by members last fall 
     to the 1995 defense budget have so far survived. A House-
     Senate conference on the recisions bill, scheduled to begin 
     Wednesday, will be the last chance to kill these ``add-ons'' 
     for fiscal 1995.
       Hawaii, the home state of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D), then 
     chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, 
     got more than the Small Business Center among the earmarked 
     projects. There was $56.4 million earmarked for the Pacific 
     Missile Range; $13 million for a high-performance computer 
     facility on Maui; $10 million to home port two transport 
     vessels in Pearl Harbor; and additional funds for Hawaii-
     based military medical facilities.
       A House-Senate report specifically stipulated that the Maui 
     facility be exempted from reductions that were being applied 
     to other such computer facilities.
       The $3.5 million for a drug offender's boot camp in Cook 
     County originated with a request by the sheriff to then-House 
     Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), 
     according to a congressional source.
       Rostenkowski arranged for language to be inserted in the 
     defense bill while it was before House-Senate conferees--
     after the measure had already been before the House and 
     Senate for a vote.
       The conferees directed ``that the Department of Defense 
     provide assistance to the county sheriff's office in the 
     planning of a military-style regime and curriculum at the 
     facility.''
       In a similar, if more traditional vein, then-Senate 
     Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R- 
     [[Page S4894]] Kan.) arranged to earmark $11 million in the 
     same defense bill for the Army to purchase additional 
     executive jet aircraft from a Kansas corporation that 
     produces Lear jets.
       ``It's like a disease,'' said McCain. ``It's never static. 
     It gets worse or you kill it.''
       McCain complained during a Senate floor debate March 16 
     that the current round of budget cuts ``does not rescind 
     Defense Department support [$15.4 million] for the Olympics 
     and other sporting events * * * does not touch congressional 
     add-ons for excess [National] Guard and Reserve equipment, 
     and does not rescind any of the nearly $1 billion in 
     congressionally added military construction projects, much 
     less funding for projects on bases slated for closure.''
       As budget rules have clamped ceilings on small, non-defense 
     appropriations bills, the annual defense appropriation bill 
     increasingly has been viewed as a bank of last resort for 
     programs and projects once handled in those smaller measures.
       For example, the Bureau of Land Management used to handle 
     the roundup of wild horses on the White Sands proving 
     grounds. The animals would be turned over to New Mexico 
     prisoners to be broken and sold. BLM discontinued the program 
     last year because it was too expensive, according to a 
     spokesman for Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.).
       Domenici, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, and New 
     Mexico Rep. Joe Skeen (R), a member of the House 
     Appropriations Committee, collabroated to get the $1.5 
     million put into last year's defense bill to pick up the 
     slack, the spokesman said.
       Domenici arranged to have $20 million added to the same 
     defense bill for an additional neutron accelerator project at 
     the Los Alamos Laboratory in his state, after money 
     appropriated in the energy spending bill ran out last year.
       ``There was no other place to go,'' said a congressional 
     aide.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last year I received a letter as did all 
of my colleagues, from two senior members of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator McCain and Senator Warner. In that letter these 
distinguished Senators eloquently argued for a strong national defense 
and offered an action program for congressional action this year.
  Predictably, I agreed with some of their arguments and disagreed with 
others. But one of their arguments struck me as particularly poignant. 
Let me read from their letter. They wrote that Congress must:

       . . . attack pork and wasteful programs. We need to 
     eliminate wasteful pork-barrel spending. This effort should 
     include legislative action to terminate the following 
     programs.

  Among the programs listed are these executive transport aircraft. 
These two Senators, my Republican friends, Senator Warner and Senator 
McCain wrote:

       Fiscal year 1995 savings of $11 million, rescind fiscal 
     year 1995 appropriation for executive jets.

  If that is not enough, let me read the words of Gen. Colin Powell, 
the highly respected former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In his 1993 
report on the roles and missions of the Armed Forces, General Powell 
wrote:

       The current inventory of operational aircraft built to 
     support a global war exceeds what is required for our 
     regionally oriented strategy. The current excess is 
     compounded by the fact that Congress continues to require the 
     services to purchase OSA aircraft, neither requested nor 
     needed.

  General Powell concludes his report with this recommendation:

       OSA aircraft are in excess of wartime needs and should be 
     reduced.

  Yet, despite General Powell's recommendation, Congress voted to 
acquire two more of these aircraft. Our country does not need these 
planes. Colin Powell says we do not need these planes. Senator Warner 
says we do not need these plans. Senator McCain says we do not need 
these planes.
  We see articles where the transportation in the military is costing 
too much money. Yet we are taking away computers from the classroom, we 
are stopping the Star Schools Program. I cannot imagine why we would 
want to do this.
  I want to tell my colleagues in my time remaining about the Star 
Schools Program and the computers in the classroom. Since the Star 
Schools program began in 1988, more than 200,000 students and 30,000 
teachers have participated in projects in 48 States. The projects are 
designed to improve classroom instruction through distance education 
technologies. The $5 million rescission proposed in this bill would 
eliminate these high-technology education services from 5,000 students. 
And why? So that we can fly military top brass in brand new executive 
jets? I hope not.
  In my own State of California, the Los Angeles County Office of 
Education has provided live interactive math and science instruction 
via satellite to students in grades 4 through 7. This course is beamed 
into 766 classrooms in large school districts throughout the State of 
California and in 18 other States. It reaches an amazing 125,000 
students.
  Why do we want to hurt this program? We do not have to. Cut the 
planes for the military brass. They can find another way to travel and 
we can save this program. We can save computers in the classroom. Did 
you ever go into these classrooms where the kids have these computers? 
They are so interested in school, suddenly. I urge my colleagues to do 
that. Yet we are cutting computers out of the classroom, and we can 
restore those funds.
  In closing let me say this. This is a transfer amendment I hope 
everyone in the Senate will support. We are simply cutting two military 
aircraft to provide for luxury travel for the top military brass in 
exchange for putting computers into the schools and funding the Star 
Schools Program. I hope the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
and I can work this out. I hope we can be together on this.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, time 
to be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors to my amendment Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, Mr. 
Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  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.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I do not want to get into a long 
dissertation about a detailed problem of procedure. Once you start 
having to explain the process of procedure, you have one hand tied 
behind you. But I want to say to the Senator from California that what 
she is attempting to do certainly represents her perspective, her point 
of view and, I think, her priorities. I am not going to argue that 
point because we probably have a set of priorities.
  But let me tell you where we are at this moment in this, the defense 
supplemental, that has just been passed by the House and the Senate, 
which we were hoping to have resolved as of today.
  We are running into difficulties on this because we are insisting on 
the Senate side, where we came to the floor with a supplemental and we 
had every dollar of that supplemental increase for the defense offset 
so as not to create any additional deficit from the military accounts, 
from the defense accounts. We have been going through a historic 
argument about firewalls, transferring discretionary defense to 
nondefense discretionary programs, and vice versa.
  So we are holding tough right now with the House of Representatives 
that have offset their larger military supplemental with both military 
accounts and nondefense accounts in the discretionary programs.
  From that standpoint we right now are at a stalemate because the 
House wants to offset some of the defense increases with nondefense 
programs.
  So, consequently, from the standpoint of where we are in that 
particular problem, we cannot accept this amendment--I am now speaking 
as an appropriator--we cannot accept this 
[[Page S4895]] because we are, in a sense, contradicting our position 
that we have taken in the conference process.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator be willing to yield for 
just a moment? Because I know the Senator is going to move to table, I 
would like to make a minute's worth of comments before that motion is 
made.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the statement I have made just now, 
whether it is $10 million or $5 million or $20 million, is still the 
same basic issue; that is, we are taking military accounts and we are 
moving parts of those military accounts into nonmilitary programs.
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand. I ask, would the Senator yield? I was 
wondering if I could make a minute's worth of comments before the 
Senator moves to table my amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would be very happy to yield, and if the Senator 
needs time, I am happy to yield time for her closing comments.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much. I will close in just a 
minute.
  I understand exactly what the Senator is telling me. But I have to 
say to my friend that the average American watching this debate is not 
pursuaded by procedural arguments. The American people pay taxes and 
work awfully hard to pay them. They will be very disappointed to learn 
that there are two military aircraft to transport top brass that have 
been ordered by this Congress even though the Pentagon did not want 
them. Aircraft that have been called pork by Senator Warner, Senator 
McCain, the Washington Post, and others. Even Colin Powell has stated 
we have no need for these planes. Yet because of this procurement, we 
are taking computers out of the classrooms, we are hurting our 
children, I just think, regardless of the procedural arguments that I 
know my friend has made because he in his role must make that argument, 
I still believe that we should not table this amendment. I think the 
bottom line is whether you want pupils or you want pork. I hope that my 
colleagues will stand on the substance of the issue and not vote on the 
process.
  I thank my friend for being so generous with his time in helping me 
with my amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to comment on another part 
of the problem. Again, we are not in a position to solve some of these 
problems immediately, but I hope as far as the future is concerned, 
that we could get some very careful consideration by the 
administration. The problem is, we are dealing with a supplemental 
appropriations for the military, for the Defense Department, for 
matters relating to Bosnia, to Haiti, to North Korea, and to other such 
areas of the world.
 Some of our colleagues are saying to us but that is not truly a 
defense expenditure. It is being charged against the military in the 
way we budget our expenditures. But that is not truly a defense item. 
And why should the military bear the brunt of these more political 
foreign policy actions.

  And, of course, they have been conducted oftentimes with little or no 
consultation with the Congress. So what happens is those commitments 
are made. Those policies are executed. And all of a sudden we get the 
bill. No authorization. No action by the Congress.
  This has not happened just in this administration. It has happened 
over the years. But I do think that at one point in time we better 
start charging to the Defense Department those things that are 
exclusively national defense and take peacekeeping and humanitarian and 
all these other types of things that we are involved in and call them 
something else and charge them maybe to a broader base of accounts than 
in the Defense Department.
  I am not saying how it should be handled, but we are really in a 
hybrid situation of trying to pay in the military appropriation for 
those actions that are not strictly defense, a mission of our Defense 
Department. So I only add to the complexity of trying to separate these 
funds between military and nonmilitary discretionary.
  If the Senator has no further comments to make, I would now move to 
table the Boxer amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, let me ask the parliamentary 
situation. Unanimous consent was made on the basis of the two votes, 
one relating to the Kerrey amendment and now to the Boxer amendment, to 
be stacked and those rollcalls should occur in sequence?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question first will occur on amendment No. 
435, the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, and then on amendment 
No. 436, the amendment of the Senator from California.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Has the motion to table the Kerrey amendment been made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion has not yet been made.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now move to table the Kerrey 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  It appears that there is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 435. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] and the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] are absent due to a death in the 
family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] are necessarly absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Grams
     Kassebaum
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 435) was rejected.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 436

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote will now 
occur on the motion to table the Boxer amendment. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the 
Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] are absent due to a death in the 
family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 
[[Page S4896]] Conrad] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Grams
     Kassebaum
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 436) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 435 to Amendment No. 420

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Kerrey amendment.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                 Amendment No. 437 to Amendment No. 435

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe there is a second-degree 
amendment of Senator Shelby. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 437 to amendment No. 435.

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

       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Laws 101-136, 101-509, 102-27, 102-141, 103-123, 102-393, 
     103-329, $1,842,885,000 are rescinded from the following 
     projects in the following amounts:
       Alabama:
       Montgomery, U.S. Courthouse annex, $46,320,000
       Arkansas:
       Little Rock, Courthouse, $13,816,000
       Arizona:
       Bullhead City, FAA grant, $$2,200,000
       Lukeville, commercial lot expansion, $1,219,000
       Nogales, Border Patrol, headquarters, $2,998,000
       Phoenix, U.S. Federal Building, Courthouse, $121,890,000
       San Luis, primary lane expansion and administrative office 
     space, $3,496,000
       Sierra Vista, U.S. Magistrates office, $1,000,000
       Tucson, Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, $121,890,000
       California:
       Menlo Park, United State Geological Survey office 
     laboratory building, $6,868,000
       Sacramento, Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse, $142,902,000
       San Diego, Federal building-Courthouse, $3,379,000
       San Francisco, Lease purchase, $9,702,000
       San Francisco, U.S. Courthouse, $4,378,000
       San Francisco, U.S. Court of Appeals annex, $9,003,000
       San Pedro, Customhouse, $4,887,000
       Colorado:
       Denver, Federal building-Courthouse, $8,006,000
       District of Columbia:
       Central and West heating plants, $5,000,000
       Corps of Engineers, headquarters, $37,618,000
       General Services Administration, Southeast Federal Center, 
     headquarters, $25,000,000
       U.S. Secret Service, headquarters, $113,084,000
       Florida:
       Ft. Myers, U.S. Courthouse, $24,851,000
       Jacksonville, U.S. Courthouse, $10,633,000
       Tampa, U.S. Courthouse, $14,998,000
       Georgia:
       Albany, U.S. Courthouse, $12,101,000
       Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, site acquisition
        and improvement, $25,890,000
       Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, $14,110,000
       Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, Roybal Laboratory, 
     $47,000,000
       Savannah, U.S. Courthouse annex, $3,000,000
       Hawaii:
       Hilo, federal facilities consolidation, $12,000,000
       Illinois:
       Chicago, SSA DO, $2,167,000
       Chicago, Federal Center, $47,682,000
       Chicago, Dirksen building, $1,200,000
       Chicago, J.C. Kluczynski building, $13,414,000
       Indiana:
       Hammond, Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, $52,272,000
       Jeffersonville, Federal Center, $13,522,000
       Kentucky:
       Covington, U.S. Courthouse, $2,914,000
       London, U.S. Courthouse, $1,523,000
       Louisiana:
       Lafayette, U.S. Courthouse, $3,295,000
       Maryland:
       Avondale, DeLaSalle building, $16,671,000
       Bowie, Bureau of Census, $27,877,000
       Prince Georges/Montgomery Counties, FDA consolidation, 
     $284,650,000
       Woodlawn, SSA building, $17,292,000
       Massachusetts:
       Boston, U.S. Courthouse, $4,076,000
       Missouri:
       Cape Girardeau, U.S. Courthouse, $3,688,000
       Kansas City, U.S. Courthouse, $100,721,000
       Nebraska:
       Omaha, Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, $9,291,000
       Nevada:
       Las Vegas, U.S. Courthouse, $4,230,000
       Reno, Federal building--U.S. Courthouse, $1,465,000
       New Hampshire:
       Concord, Federal building--U.S. Courthouse, $3,519,000
       New Jersey:
       Newark, parking facility, $9,000,000
       Trenton, Clarkson Courthouse, $14,107,000
       New Mexico:
       Albuquerque, U.S. Courthouse, $47,459,000
       Santa Teresa, Border Station, $4,004,000
       New York:
       Brooklyn, U.S. Courthouse, $43,717,000
       Holtsville, IRS Center, $19,183,000
       Long Island, U.S. Courthouse, $27,198,000
       North Dakota:
       Fargo, Federal building-U.S. Courthouse, $20,105,000
       Pembina, Border Station, $93,000
       Ohio:
       Cleveland, Celebreeze Federal building, $10,972,000
       Cleveland, U.S. Courthouse, $28,246,000
       Steubenville, U.S. Courthouse, $2,820,000
       Youngstown, Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse, $4,574,000
       Oklahoma:
       Oklahoma City, Murrah Federal building, $5,290,000
       Oregon:
       Portland, U.S. Courthouse, $5,000,000
       Pennsylvania:
       Philadelphia, Byrne-Green Federal building-Courthouse, 
     $30,628,000
       Philadelphia, Nix Federal building-Courthouse, $13,814,000
       Philadelphia, Veterans Administration, $1,276,000
       Scranton, Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse, $9,969,000
       Rhode Island:
       Providence, Kennedy Plaza Federal Courthouse, $7,740,000
       South Carolina:
       Columbia, U.S. Courthouse annex, $592,000
       Tennessee:
       Greeneville, U.S. Courthouse, $2,936,000
       Texas:
       Austin, Veterans Administration annex, $1,028,000
       Brownsville, U.S. Courthouse, $4,339,000
       Corpus Christi, U.S. Courthouse, $6,446,000
       Laredo, Federal building-U.S. Courthouse, $5,986,000
       Lubbock, Federal building-Courthouse, $12,167,000
       Ysleta, site acquisition and construction, $1,727,000
       U.S. Virgin Islands:
       Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Courthouse, $2,184,000
       Virginia:
       Richmond, Courthouse annex, $12,509,000
       Washington:
       Blaine, Border Station, $4,472,000
       Point Roberts, Border Station, $698,000
       Seattle, U.S. Courthouse, $10,949,000
       Walla Walla, Corps of Engineers building, $2,800,000
       West Virginia:
       Beckley, Federal building-U.S. Courthouse, $33,097,000
       Martinsburg, IRS center, $4,494,000
       Wheeling, Federal building-U.S. Courthouse, $35,829,000
       Nationwide chlorofluorocarbons program, $12,300,000
       Nationwide energy program, $15,300,000
                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to have the attention of 
the Senate in order to get our schedule for the next few hours.
  Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous-consent agreement, 
[[Page S4897]] first of all to set aside the D'Amato amendment 
temporarily in order to take up other amendments. I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now propound a unanimous-consent 
agreement as follows: that the Shelby amendment in the second degree to 
the Kerrey amendment be given a half-hour time agreement; that the Kyl 
amendment which relates to low income energy assistance be given a 
half-hour, time to be equally divided; a Reid amendment--and may I 
inquire, again the subject I do not have?
  Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman that is to take money from the civilian 
nuclear waste fund and put it in the community, and the second is the 
same except to put it in rural health programs.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The two Reid amendments each be given 40 minutes 
equally divided; and that votes on all these amendments at the time of 
a rollcall, if necessary, begin at 9:30 p.m. So we would be stacking 
each of these amendments to be voted on if a rollcall is required.
  I ask that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to a 
motion to table.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to add an amendment, depending on the 
outcome of the Shelby amendment on that list.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to amend my request, on the contingency of 
how the Shelby amendment turns out, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain] be recognized for 10 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that time on the pending amendments prior to 
the motion to table be equally divided in the usual form and no second-
degree amendments be in order prior to a motion to table.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Just to clarify, I ask, Mr. President, whether or not at 
the expiration of this entire time we would then--the D'Amato amendment 
would be the pending business, at the conclusion of those rollcall 
votes beginning at 9:30? I pose that as a question, Mr. President.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am sorry?
  Mr. DODD. I was inquiring whether or not it is the Senator's 
intention at the conclusion of the rollcall votes if necessary, at 
9:30, that the pending business would then once again be the D'Amato 
amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.
  Let me make an amendment. I said 9:30. If we add up these times, if 
all is used--I am hoping some of the time might be yielded back--it 
would be about 9:40. So, may I get a little flexibility there--between 
9:30 and 9:45.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving again the right to object, 
understanding at the end of that we would begin the D'Amato amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Right back on the D'Amato amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I direct a question to the manager of the bill? At 
the conclusion of the voting are we through for the evening?
  Mr. HATFIELD. No. It depends on how many other amendments there are. 
We will continue. We will continue to do the business of the Senate and 
be ready for all amendments.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                 Amendment No. 437 to Amendment No. 435

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendment, which is the second-degree 
amendment that I have offered, would basically say that all new 
construction projects under the General Services Administration, the 
Federal buildings fund, construction and repair projects, where no 
earth has been turned, no overt things have been done as far as repairs 
on the building as yet--in other words, nothing done--this would 
basically total 1.84 billion dollars' worth of projects in not every 
State but a lot of States in the Union, including my State of Alabama 
where we have a Federal courthouse ready to go with a $46 million 
projected cost--we have the list--would be knocked out of the 
appropriations bill. They would be gone.
  I will just list them basically.
  Montgomery, AL, courthouse, $46 million. That is the first one. 
Little Rock, AR, courthouse, $13 million; Bullhead City, AZ, FAA grant, 
$2,200,000; Nogales, AZ, Border Patrol headquarters, $2,998,000; 
Phoenix, AZ, courthouse, $121,890,000; Sierra Vista, AZ, magistrates 
office, $1 million; the Tucson, AZ, courthouse, $121.8 million; 
Sacramento, CA, courthouse, $142.9 million; San Francisco, CA, lease-
purchase $9 million; San Francisco, CA, courthouse, $4 million; the 
Washington, DC, U.S. Secret Service headquarters, $113 million; and the 
list goes on and on.
  We have included in there Prince Georges/Montgomery County, MD, FDA 
consolidation, $284 million.
  It says that we are going to save this money, at least temporarily, 
until GSA says we are ready to go. As I said, it is $1.842 billion.
  I think the Senator from Nebraska will join me in this amendment. But 
I will leave that up to him.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama.
  Having gained majority support for an amendment that added 
approximately $300 million to the rescissions package, this at least, 
it seems to me, will now decrease that by $1.8 billion. I believe that 
this is wise given the fact that we are going to be cutting, we are 
going to be taking up amendments immediately following this that have 
to do with low-income energy assistance and it will not be the last 
time that we visit a program where real people are going to have their 
lives affected in rather serious fashion. This, it seems to me, is 
setting our priorities straight.
  I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Alabama is offering 
it as a second-degree amendment, and I am pleased to urge my colleagues 
to support it strongly.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, apparently through an oversight, mistake, 
or some other reason, there are courthouses that did not meet any of 
the criteria set out by the Senator from Nebraska but nevertheless made 
the selected list that was the subject of the last amendment. One of 
those was in Hammond, IN, the Hammond courthouse. Selected criteria 
indicated that those on the list were not requested by the General 
Services Administration. The Hammond courthouse was requested by GSA. I 
quote from their report:

       The purpose and need determination, and the . . . building 
     project survey lead to the conclusion that a new Federal 
     building with expanded courtroom space is required to serve 
     Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana. It was also subject to the 
     timeout process another criteria projects were not supposed 
     to have met if they were on the list.

  I quote again:

       Judicial requirements for Hammond have actually grown since 
     the initial timeout review. Savings to be identified from 
     application of value engineering techniques during the 
     construction phase of this project will permit us to satisfy 
     these additional requirements without requesting any 
     additional funds.

  That was stated in a letter from the GSA Administrator Roger Johnson.
  The amendment purported to target projects that the agencies did not 
request or need. However, as I just pointed out, this particular 
project and others, such as an Arizona project which the Senator from 
Arizona pointed out to me, did not meet any of the criteria set forth 
by the Senator from Nebraska but were included on the list. I do not 
know why they were included on the list. I do not know if it was a 
mistake. But I know there were other projects that did meet the 
criteria but were not included on the list.
  I am not going to speculate why they were not on the list. 
Nevertheless, because the motion to table was not agreed to, which 
would have given us an opportunity to construct an accurate list, we 
now have an amendment before us which will rescind funding for all 
projects in which construction has not started. That I would suggest 
[[Page S4898]] would save a considerable amount of money.
  The Senator from Alabama has read some of those courthouses, frankly, 
many of which met the criteria outlined by the Senator from Nebraska 
but somehow were not on the list. It is a little bit puzzling to this 
Senator how projects that did not meet the criteria to be rescinded 
outlined by the Senator from Nebraska made the list but projects that 
did meet the criteria were not on the list.
  This amendment offered by Senator Shelby is about fairness. The 
Senator from Nebraska's capricious standards were not applied uniformly 
and singled out particular projects that did not even meet the 
standards set forth. If Senator Kerrey's purpose is to save taxpayer 
dollars, which is a commendable purpose, then everything should be on 
the table as it is in Senator Shelby's amendment. Then we are talking 
about big money. I will just read a few of the several that would 
really save the taxpayers money.
  The courthouse project in Sacramento, CA, $142.9 million, Wheeling, 
WV, courthouse, $35.8 million; Brooklyn, NY, $43.7 million; Fargo, ND, 
$20.1 million; and the list goes on. In fact, there are a number of 
courthouses included in the current amendment that have not even been 
authorized. We are going to take them all now. We are just going to 
sweep the whole bundle as long as construction has not started.
  We are going to take the whole bundle. I regret that those projects 
which GSA has approved, which GSA subjected to time out and review 
process, which GSA has certified are legitimate projects, are going to 
be included in this amendment. But if we are going to include those, 
then for sure we are going to include every project equitably. Quite 
frankly, if the Senator from Nebraska's criteria was actually followed 
in the list he submitted then it would have been a good amendment. But 
it is not right or fair for the Senator from Nebraska to claim that all 
the projects on the list met the criteria because they did not.
  And again I wish to say it is a mystery as to why some courthouses in 
California, North Dakota, West Virginia, and other States were not on 
that list when they clearly met the criteria established for rescission 
outlined by the Senator from Nebraska, and others that clearly did not 
meet that criteria were on the list. I will leave to the speculation of 
others why those were on the list. I regret that. But now everybody is 
in. We can save a ton of money--$1.842 billion. So let us go ahead and 
do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I take the point that the distinguished 
Senator from Indiana makes. To be clear on this, the GSA timeout review 
process was completed in 1993 and then modified after for a variety of 
reasons. It is one criterion. In my Dear Colleague letter I listed 
four, and even there, I must say, at some point you do become 
arbitrary.
  The distinguished Senator from Alabama in offering his own arguments 
against the underlying amendment indicated as much is the case. It is 
absolutely the case. At some point we do try to make good judgments 
based upon what we think is fair. And obviously, if it hits us, it does 
not quite sound fair. I understand that.
  We try, I would say to my friend from Indiana, to be fair. And as I 
said earlier, I am quite pleased that instead of $300 million, we now 
have before us $1.8 billion. The question must fall to all of us with 
this second-degree amendment. What happens to the country if this $1.8 
billion is not spent.
  In comparison to other things that we are going to be considering not 
only in this rescission package but later on in the budget resolution 
when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico finishes his work, I 
suspect that we are going to look back upon this as a rather small item 
in comparison and say that it was good policy the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama rose and put another $1.5 billion on the table.
  So I hope my colleagues will when the time comes support the 
amendment of the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I just want to remind my colleagues that 
initially in the committee we had cut approximately $75 million perhaps 
more than the House. We thought in the committee, as I said earlier, 
that we were trying to be fair in the process. I thought the earlier 
amendment, the Kerrey amendment was selective and aimed at selected 
projects. So I thought only to be fair is to take everything including 
my own courthouse in Montgomery, AL. And if the Senate, Mr. President, 
wants spending cuts in Federal buildings which affects just about every 
State, then they can go with the $1.8 billion cut the Shelby amendment 
offers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of projects 
that I alluded to earlier, ``General Services Administration Federal 
Buildings Fund Construction and Repair Projects,'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
General Services Administration Federal Buildings Fund Construction and 
                            Repair Projects

New construction projects where design, site acquisition and 
    construction awards (construction not begun) have not been 
    awarded:                                                  Thousands
  Montgomery, AL Courthouse.....................................$46,320
  Little Rock, AR Courthouse.....................................13,816
  Bullhead City, AZ FAA Grant.....................................2,200
  Nogales, AZ Border Patrol HQ....................................2,998
  Phoenix, AZ Courthouse........................................121,890
  Sierra Vista, AZ Magistrates....................................1,000
  Tucson, AZ Courthouse..........................................80,974
  Sacramento, CA Courthouse.....................................142,902
  San Francisco, CA Lease/Purchase................................9,702
  San Francisco, CA Courthouse....................................4,378
  Washington, DC, USSS HQ.......................................113,084
  Washington, DC, Corps of Eng HQ................................37,618
  Ft. Myers, FL, Courthouse......................................25,851
  Jacksonville, FL Courthouse....................................10,633
  Albany, GA Courthouse..........................................12,101
  Atlanta, GA CDC Laboratory.....................................47,000
  Atlanta, GA CDC Mercer office bldg.............................40,000
  Savannah, GA Courthouse.........................................3,000
  Hilo, HA facility consolidation................................12,000
  Chicago, SSA offices............................................2,167
  Hammond, IN Courthouse.........................................52,272
  Covington, KY Courthouse........................................2,914
  London, KY Courthouse...........................................1,523
  Lafayette, LA Courthouse........................................3,295
  Bowie, MD Census building......................................27,877
  PG/Montgomery Counties, MD FDA cons...........................284,650
  Cape Girardeau, MO Courthouse...................................3,688
  Kansas City, MO Courthouse....................................100,721
  Omaha, NE Courthouse............................................9,291
  Newark, NJ Parking facility.....................................9,000
  Albuquerque, NM Courthouse.....................................47,459
  Las Vegas, NV Courthouse........................................4,230
  Brooklyn, NY Courthouse........................................43,717
  Long Island, NY Courthouse.....................................27,198
  Fargo, ND Courthouse...........................................20,105
  Pembina, ND Border Station........................................ 93
  Cleveland, OH Courthouse.......................................28,246
  Steubenville, OH Courthouse.....................................2,820
  Youngstown, OH Courthouse.......................................4,574
  Scranton, PA Courthouse.........................................9,969
  Columbia, SC Courthouse annex.....................................592
  Greeneville, TN Courthouse......................................2,936
  Austin, TX VA annex.............................................1,028
  Brownsville, TX Courthouse......................................4,339
  Corpus Christi, TX Courthouse...................................6,446
  Laredo, TX Courthouse...........................................5,986
  Highgate Springs, VT Border Station.............................7,085
  Blaine, WA, Border Station......................................4,472
  Point Roberts, WA Border Station..................................698
  Seattle, WA Courthouse.........................................10,949
  Beckley, WV Courthouse.........................................33,097
  Martinsburg, WV IRS Center......................................4,494
  Wheeling, WV Courthouse........................................35,829
                                                             __________
                                                              1,531,227
Repair and alteration projects where contracts have not been let:
  San Diego, CA FB/CH.............................................3,379
  San Pedro, CA Customhouse.......................................4,887
  Menlo Park, CA USGS office......................................6,868
  Denver, CO FB/CH................................................8,006
  Chicago, IL Federal Center.....................................47,682
  Chicago, IL Dirksen building....................................1,200
  Chicago, J.C. Kluczynski building..............................13,414
  Jeffersonville, IN Federal Center..............................13,522
  Avondale, MD DeLaSalle building................................16,674
  Woodlawn, MD SSA building......................................17,292
  Trenton, NJ Clarkson CH........................................14,107
  Holtsville, NY IRS Center......................................19,183
  Cleveland, OH Celebreeze FB....................................10,972
  Oklahoma City, OK Murrah FB.....................................5,290
  Philadelphia, PA Byrne-Green FB/CH.............................30,628
  Philadelphia, PA Nix FB/CH.....................................13,814
  Providence, RI FB/PO............................................7,740
  Lubbock, TX FB/CH..............................................12,167
  El Paso, TX Ysleta Border Station...............................7,292
  Richmond, VA Courthouse annex..................................12,509
  Walla Walla, WA Corps of Eng. bldg..............................2,800
                                                             __________
                                                                269,426
Savings identified by the General Services Administration's timeout 
    and review:
  Lukeville, AZ Border Station....................................1,219
  San Luis, AZ Border Station.....................................3,496
  San Francisco, CA Court of Appeals..............................9,003
  [[Page S4899]] Washington, DC central/west heating..............5,000
  Tampa, FL CH....................................................5,994
  Boston, MA CH...................................................4,076
  Reno, NV CH.....................................................1,465
  Concord, NH CH..................................................3,519
  Portland, OR CH.................................................5,000
  Philadelphia, PA VA.............................................2,800
                                                             __________
                                                                 40,048
This project has been canceled:
  Charlotte Amalie, US VI CH......................................2,184
                                                             __________

      Total...................................................1,842,885
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. SHELBY. We will yield our time back.
  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 Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 434

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 434, 
which I will advise my colleagues I do not intend to call up, but in 
order to have a time agreement on this amendment which will enable us 
to discuss it for a period of a half an hour we have agreed not to call 
for a vote at the conclusion of the discussion.
  It is too bad, Mr. President, because to some extent it seems we are 
on the horns of a dilemma when we seek to add more rescissions to the 
list of those that have been recommended by the committee. This 
amendment, No. 434, would conform the rescission of the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, the so-called LIHEAP, to that of the House 
of Representatives.
  Some of my colleagues, on the one hand, said we cannot afford to have 
a vote on this and win it because, if we do, the President will then 
veto the bill and we will not get any rescissions; it will not be $17 
billion; it will not be $13 billion; it will not be anything. And other 
colleagues say we cannot afford to have a vote on this amendment 
because if we do and it is defeated, then we will not be able to argue 
in the conference that we should rescind more money because the 
amendment will have been defeated on the floor of the Senate.
  I think it is important, however, that these issues be discussed 
because during the debate on the balanced budget amendment which 
occurred for over 5 weeks we heard over and over again from opponents 
of the balanced budget amendment that we did not need a constitutional 
requirement to force us to balance the budget.
  We were elected to make the hard decisions, but we are not making the 
hard decisions. This is a hard decision, but in a moment I am going to 
read some material to my colleagues which I think will demonstrate that 
it really is not that hard. We can rescind more money from this 
program. And in a moment I will explain the reasons why.
  Too often the argument is made, on the one hand, that we were elected 
to make the hard decisions and then when the hard decisions are placed 
before us, our colleagues are not ready to make those hard decisions.
  And so we are going to discuss this for a half an hour right now. We 
will not have a vote on it, but we will eventually have a vote on it 
because we are going to have to determine whether it is the House level 
of rescission or the Senate level of rescission that will prevail. Mr. 
President, on this I support the House level of rescission.
  Let us talk just a little bit about what this program is. The Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, provides utility 
assistance for poor families in America as a result of the energy 
crisis of the late 1970's and early 1980's. It was initiated in 1981 to 
temporarily supplement existing cash assistance programs to help low-
income individuals pay for what were then escalating home fuel costs 
resulting from the energy crisis.
  An interesting thing happened. Since the program's creation, real 
energy prices have declined to pre-1980 levels and according to the 
CBO's February 1995 report ``Reducing Deficit Spending and Revenue 
Options,'' real prices of household fuels have declined 22 percent. So 
those real low prices mean that it is time to reconsider this program.
  It is also interesting that in the CBO report 26 States transferred 
up to 10 percent of their LIHEAP funds during the 1993 period to 
supplement spending for five other social and community services block 
grant programs and 10 percent is the maximum that they can transfer 
under this program. So the transfers indicate that at least some States 
believe that spending for energy assistance does not have as high a 
priority as other spending. As I said, it is time to reconsider this 
program.
  Now, is this just the position of a conservative Republican from 
Arizona? No. Let me read to you from the budget of the President of the 
United States, William Clinton, last year.
  The President is requesting $730 million. That is half as much as is 
requested in this year's budget. Here is what the President said: We 
had to eliminate or refocus many programs including LIHEAP. Why? Well, 
several factors influenced our decision, he says:

       1. LIHEAP began as a response to the severe energy crisis 
     in the early 1970's and early 1980's which caused quantum 
     increases in energy prices. Since then, energy prices and the 
     percentage of income spent by low-income households on home 
     energy decreased substantially.
       What began as a program--

  And I continue to quote here from the President's budget. This is 
President Clinton's budget requesting a reduction in funds last year.

       What began as a program focused on easing the energy crisis 
     has evolved into a very narrowly focused income supplement 
     program which provides average benefits of less than $200, 
     does not target well those low-income households with 
     exceptionally high energy costs in relation to income, and 
     which does little to help assisted households achieve 
     independence from the program.

  I am quoting from President Clinton's budget, indicating why this 
program should have been cut last year.

       The administration has made major improvements [he says] in 
     the Nation's basic income supplement programs, increasing the 
     earned income tax credit for the working poor, expanding the 
     Food Stamps Program and reforming the welfare system. These 
     changes reduce the need for peripheral income supplement 
     programs such as LIHEAP.

  And the President concluded:

       Considering these factors, we concluded that the time had 
     come to refocus LIHEAP on the energy needs of low-income 
     families and to shift away from income supplementation and 
     dependency.

  Mr. President, LIHEAP is a very good example of what has happened so 
often with the Federal budget. A crisis develops at some point in our 
history which causes us to implement a Federal program which extracts 
taxpayer dollars from all over the country and focuses it on a limited 
segment of our population. We vote to do that because at the time it 
appears to us that there is a group in need and we want to assist them. 
But over time the original need for that program, the original 
rationale for it disappears or is substantially reduced. Sometimes 
people cannot even remember why it was put into effect.
  We remember why this was put into effect. Because there was a severe 
crisis at the time. That crisis is gone.
  The authority for what I just said is no less than the President of 
the United States, President Clinton, who, last year in his budget 
submission, said we can cut this program in half. Now, nothing has 
changed between last year and this year. As a matter of fact, the area 
of the Northeast has improved its economy. So there are fewer people 
that would require the assistance.
  But still we have people from all over the United States and, in 
particular, the Northeast part of the country saying that this is an 
absolute necessity for the people who are their constituents, they 
cannot get along without it.
  Mr. President, there is a billboard in my community. It has a nice 
picture of Uncle Sam painted on it, and it says: ``Remember, he's your 
uncle, not your dad.''
  We have to stop relying on the Federal Government to do so many 
things for us. Yes, there are a lot of things that would be nice if we 
had the money for them. But as we learned during the debate on the 
balanced budget amendment, it is time to begin setting priorities. And 
when the President of the United States, a previous supporter of the 
program, says it ought to be cut in half because the need for it has 
been substantially reduced because the original problem--the energy 
crisis--is now gone, should we not in the House and in the Senate be 
willing to follow that advice, make the tough decision, 
[[Page S4900]] set the priority and reduce the spending on the program?
  The House of Representatives was willing to do so, but in the Senate, 
apparently that is not the case.
  So, Mr. President, it seems to me that I could not talk to the folks 
in my State about reducing Federal spending and then stand by silent as 
we adopt this rescission package in the Senate without speaking to this 
program.
  When the conference committee between the House and Senate meets, I 
am hopeful that a larger rescission will be accepted. I am willing, as 
I said, not to force this to a vote here and upset the applecart and 
cause the President to veto the entire rescission package, if he were 
to do that, because it is important that we get even $13 billion 
rescinded, although $17 billion would be a better number. But I think 
the American people need to start focusing on this.
  I go back to what I said originally when those who opposed the 
balanced budget amendment said, ``You send us back here to make the 
tough choices and we will do it,'' as we find oftentimes, they are not 
willing to, and the main reason is because they can always argue that 
poor people benefit from the program. That is always the case. But that 
does not justify every bit of spending, because it is hard-working 
Americans who get up early in the morning, send their kids off to 
school, work hard all day long, come home tired and pay plenty of taxes 
so that programs like this can continue.
  It is not mean spirited to say enough is enough. They need to be able 
to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend as they see fit.
  So I think it is time we do reexamine this program. I submit that the 
House rescission number is a better number, and I urge my colleagues in 
the conference to support that number. I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment, 
which would affect funding for the Low-Income Heating Assistance 
Program [LIHEAP].
  When the United States balances $400 billion of corporate tax 
benefits against a cut taken exclusively from the most disadvantaged, 
it violates the average American's sense of fairness.
  I also rise to oppose the other body's Appropriations Committee's 
vote to rescind $1.4 billion from LIHEAP's fiscal year 1996 budget as 
part of the Contract with America. That would eliminate complete 
appropriation for LIHEAP, which gives home heating grants to low-income 
Americans. The program serves 5.6 million households nationwise, 30 
percent of the home eligible to receive LIHEAP support.
  Mr. President, in Massachusetts and other regional cold-weather 
States, energy prices continue to rise along with the increase in 
poverty. Many of the people who rely on LIHEAP have jobs, but simply 
can't make enough to get by when the temperature drops and the bills 
come in.
  In Massachusetts, 143,000 households receive LIHEAP funding. If the 
program is eliminated, Massachusetts stands to lose $54 million for 
fiscal year 1995.
  Eliminating LIHEAP could be a death sentence for some Massachusetts 
families, for the elderly, and for children who may be forced to choose 
between heat and food or medicine. No one should have to make that kind 
of choice.
  That is why I and 35 senators from both parties have sent a letter to 
Senator Mark Hatfield, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
urging restoration of LIHEAP funds in the rescission package.
  LIHEAP is a block grant administered by State and local governments, 
and is one of the most cost-effective and efficient Federal subsidy 
programs. Seventy percent of LIHEAP recipients do not receive other 
government relief, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children or 
food stamps, but rely on this aid to supplement their monthly income 
during the winter months.
  Mr. President, I would like to close by offering the following 
graphic illustration of the importance of this issue.
  The December before last, a fire burned down a small apartment 
building in the Mount Pleasant region of DC, burning to death two 
little girls, Amber and Asia Spencer, ages 6 and 5. Neighbors recalled 
Amber's last words--``Please, please, help us.'' The girls were killed 
by a fire when one of the candles that was used to heat their apartment 
fell over. The electricity had been turned off two months earlier when 
the girl's guardian--their grandmother--could not afford to pay the 
heating bill.
  Every winter children across the country are killed or jeopardized by 
fires caused by desperate attempts to keep warm or to lighten darkened 
homes. Mr. President, this country cannot abide this sad state of 
affairs. We can and we must do better--not worse--by the children and 
families who need the bare necessities to survive.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know there are other colleagues on 
the floor who wish to speak on this, and we have had some prior 
discussion with the Senator from Arizona. I think we have an agreement 
on how to proceed. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with 
the Senator from Arizona.
  Let me just make a couple of points. The first point is that I think 
that sometimes the profound mistake we make on the floor of the Senate 
is that there just are no people and no faces behind the statistics. I 
met at home with Alida Larson, and there were a number of other low-
income citizens from Minnesota--understand full well, Minnesota is a 
cold-weather State--and each of them told their stories.
  In my State of Minnesota, there are around 330,000 low-income people 
who really depend upon this small amount of support averaging about 
$330 a year which for them quite often can be the difference between 
being able to stay in their home or not.
  Mr. President, 110,000 households, 30 percent of which the head of 
household is elderly, 40 percent of which households have a child, over 
50 percent of which have someone working but working at low wages, 40 
percent of whom after a year no longer receive this.
  In the State of Minnesota, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program is not an income supplement. It is a survival supplement. For 
many, many families without this assistance, it is the choice between 
heat or eat.
  My colleague says, ``Well, the cost of energy has gone down.'' I say 
to my colleague, we have seen a dramatic increase in poverty in the 
United States of America. We are talking about elderly people, we are 
talking about families with wage earners but low wages, we are talking 
about children. And in the State of Minnesota, there is tremendous 
support for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--tremendous 
support.
  I think that my colleague will find that Senators from the Northeast 
and Midwest, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, feel very 
strongly about this.
  Mr. President, finally, because I am going to stay within 5 minutes 
or less, as to the choices that we need to make, yes, let us move 
forward on deficit reduction and, yes, let us move forward to balancing 
the budget.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually would be willing to except that I only have 
about 2 minutes before I have to literally leave the Chamber, but I 
will go ahead real quick.
  Mr. SPECTER. The question is how much time he will take. There are 
quite a few speakers on this side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague came in, I made it clear I was 
going to stay within 5 minutes or so because I know there are other 
colleagues who wish to speak.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely.
  Mr. President, by way of conclusion, if we are going to be talking 
about cuts, look to subsidies for oil companies, look to subsidies for 
pharmaceutical companies, look to all sorts of deductions and loopholes 
and dodges that affect large corporations and large financial 
institutions in America.
  For God's sake, Mr. President, let us not cut a program that for 
many, many Americans in the cold-weather States is not an income 
supplement but a survival supplement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  [[Page S4901]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield me 1 
minute?
  Mr. KYL. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague from 
Arizona for his amendment. If we were to eliminate this program for the 
years 1996 through 2000, we would save $10 billion in budget authority 
and $7 billion in outlays. If we adopted the Senator's amendment, we 
would save $1.3 billion. I think that would be a step in the right 
direction.
  This program was not created to be a welfare program, and I think our 
colleague from Arizona is exactly right, if we want to cut spending, 
this would be an excellent example.
  I compliment him for his amendment. I urge it be adopted. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have a time agreement. How much time 
does the Senator wish?
  Mr. KOHL. Three minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Can he settle for 2?
  Mr. KOHL. All right.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment which 
completely eliminates the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. 
This program helps low-income elderly, the disabled, and working poor 
to cover a portion of the heating of their homes.
  Mr. President, the bill we are considering today is a disaster relief 
bill. It is about helping people fight back against the wrath of 
nature, whether it be floods, earthquakes or other natural emergencies. 
When disaster strikes, Americans band together to help those who are 
down on their luck and to afford everyday necessities.
  Heat, food and shelter are everyday necessities, Mr. President. Low-
income families and the elderly who must confront bitter cold weather 
year in and year out are no less deserving of compassion than victims 
of a flood or earthquake.
  The House made the unfortunate decision to eliminate or kill LIHEAP. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the direction of the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon and the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, wisely rejected this cut. Home energy costs consume an 
unreasonably high portion of resources for those with limited incomes, 
particularly during harsh winters.
  My colleague from Arizona is fortunate to come from a warm-weather 
State. In fact, many people from my own State of Wisconsin retired to 
his fine State because of the very appealing weather. Unfortunately, 
not everyone can afford to leave their homes to avoid the cold. Often, 
low-income families and the elderly are forced to choose between food, 
medicine or heat.
  Mr. President, this is a choice that no one should have to make in 
our country. Although we must cut Federal spending and we must control 
our deficit, it should not be done at the expense of people's health 
and safety.
  We must preserve LIHEAP and reject the House cut.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment.
  Thank you.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask my colleague from Vermont how much time he needs.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Two minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the Senator from Arizona. It may well be that we should take another 
look at this program, but this is no place to do it. There may be 
States like Arizona and Oklahoma and others that may be willing to give 
up whatever they get under LIHEAP because they do not have the needs of 
some of the other areas of the country.
  In my State of Vermont, this is a critical program. Over the last 3 
years, energy prices have gone up in Vermont by 21 percent. At the same 
time, LIHEAP funding has gone down by $300 million.
  The average family who receives LIHEAP assistance spends over 18 
percent of its income on energy. This is three times the energy burden 
for median-income families. I would expect a lot less for those in 
Arizona and Oklahoma. Fifty-five percent of all LIHEAP homes include at 
least one child under the age of 18 and 43 percent include a senior 
citizen. Both figures are far above the national average. Without 
LIHEAP assistance, many recipients could not afford to pay their 
heating bills in the winter and many would be forced to choose between 
heat and food.
  Rescinding LIHEAP will also force energy providers in Vermont, and 
many other areas, many of whom are small unregulated businesses, to 
choose between not getting paid for the energy they provide and cutting 
off their neediest customers.
  LIHEAP is well run and administered by State and local governments 
who keep administrative costs at about 8 percent, far below the 
average, so the money is getting to those who need it. It has strong 
bipartisan support from Senators in my region and all around the 
country.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Connecticut desire?
  Mr. DODD. I would like 1\1/2\ or 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Let me commend our colleague from Pennsylvania who, I 
gather, led the charge in the Appropriations Committee for the 
restoration of these funds. I commend him, Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Wellstone, and others, who have spoken out on this issue.
  Mr. President, in the committee report, House Appropriations 
concludes that this program is no longer needed. There are 60,000 in my 
State each winter who depend upon this source of assistance, not just 
as a casual need, but a serious one.
  In fact, in anticipation of the study that the energy prices have 
dropped and it is no longer needed, I asked the Congressional Research 
Service to complete a study on energy prices and LIHEAP appropriations. 
They found that actually there would need to be an increase if you 
tracked energy price fluctuations over the last few years. This year, 
we budgeted $1.130 billion, which is far below what they tell us you 
would actually need. Dr. Deborah Frank, a pediatrician at Boston 
University, tracked over many years malnutrition among children 
following significant periods of cold in the Northeast and discovered 
that after those periods of very low temperatures, actually 
malnutrition in children went up because of parents making the tough 
choice of heat over food.
  So this issue has been critically important to major parts of the 
country. I sincerely hope the amendment is rejected. This goes far 
beyond what most of us recognize as a valuable safety net for many in 
the country.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maine, how much 
time does he wish?
  Mr. COHEN. Could I have a minute and a half and then yield 30 seconds 
to my colleague from Maine?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. The senior Senator from Maine has 90 seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you.
  Mr. President, we hear a lot of talk about a beltway mentality, but 
it seems to me that this amendment reflects a Sunbelt mentality. I do 
not know how many people have spent any time in the Northeast during 
the winter months, but we have at least 5 months of the year during 
which the average temperature is below freezing. In many months it is 
not just subfreezing, it is subzero. When you get to northern Maine, we 
are talking about 20 or 30 below zero many days.
  We have a lot of poor people in our State. There are some 62,000 
people who are beneficiaries of this particular program. Many of them 
are elderly. Forty or 45 percent of those that receive LIHEAP benefits 
around the country are elderly. So we are putting people who have an 
income of approximately 
[[Page S4902]] $8,000, whose energy bills consume almost 18 percent of 
their income, and we are now saying cut the program out, prices are low 
enough that they can afford it.
  But they cannot afford it. This is a small program compared to some 
others that are provided to the citizens of this country. I know it may 
be nice to live in a warm climate. It has been mild here in Washington, 
as I am sure it is in the West. In the Northeast, and throughout the 
industrial belt, it is very cold.
  I submit to my colleagues that it would be a terrible tragedy to cut 
this program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield a minute and a half to the Senator from Maine, 
[Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. I certainly want to be on record in 
support of this most important program to so many people in my State, 
and certainly in the Northeast.
  I was part of an effort back in 1980 in the House of Representatives 
to create this program. Yes, it was in response, originally, to a 
crisis. That is not unusual for the number of programs that are created 
in the U.S. Congress. But Congress intended it to be a long-term 
program, because it was serving the poorest of the poor. It is a means-
tested program. It serves a number of people. Yet, it only serves 25 
percent of those individuals who are actually eligible to receive 
benefits under this program.
  This program, in real terms, has been reduced by 50 percent since 
1985--50 percent. I know the Senator from Arizona was referring to the 
President's budget last year of $700 million, and that even the 
President was recommending a 50 percent reduction. He recommended that 
reduction because he wanted to remove the Southern States from that 
program. In fact, in 1994, the President recommended a supplemental 
increase for the low-income fuel assistance program of more than $300 
million, which I think demonstrates the President's commitment to this 
program. But who does this program serve? Of the roughly 5.6 million 
households that receive low-income fuel assistance, more than two-
thirds have annual incomes of less than $8,000. More than one-half have 
had incomes below $6,000. Thirty percent of these recipients are poor, 
elderly people, and 20 percent are disabled.
  In my home State, 74 percent of these recipients are elderly people 
on fixed incomes. We are supporting people who need to have the 
benefits of this very valuable program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, those who may be watching on C-SPAN 2 may 
be wondering why so little time is allocated here. This has been an 
effort by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to air the subject, 
but it is not going to be brought to a vote. Were it to be brought to a 
vote, there would be substantially more time allocated for this very 
important debate.
  The Senators who have come to the floor have spoken for very limited 
periods of time and have done so to register their passionate concern 
about this issue. As chairman of the subcommittee which had 
jurisdiction over this issue and brought it to the floor, we have very 
carefully considered the totality of the package, and the Senate has 
met the House figure--the House figure totaling $17.3 billion, and the 
Senate figure is in excess of $13 billion. But the difference is 
accommodated by deferring the expenditures on FEMA, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  Our subcommittee and the full committee determined that this funding 
should remain in LIHEAP because of its importance. The statistics have 
already been cited and I shall not repeat them. But the overwhelming 
majority of people have annual incomes of less than $8,000, or even 
$6,000. And regarding the choice of many elderly for either heating or 
eating, when there are emergency measures taken on alternative 
makeshift heating and lighting devices, an enormous number of deaths 
result--11 people, mostly children, in Philadelphia in a 5-month 
period, from August 1992 to January 1993. While we do not have 
nationwide figures, they would be enormous.
  This is one of the most urgent programs in the Federal budget. It 
exemplifies what I have said. While I am committed and I think the 
Congress is committed on consensus to balancing the budget by the year 
2002, it has to be done with a scalpel and not a meat ax.
  This is a very, very, important program. Were there a longer period 
of time, I think we would have heard many Senators coming to the floor. 
Some 35 have signed a letter.
  Mr. President, I note my colleague from Pennsylvania on the floor. I 
would ask how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I ask unanimous consent that my colleague be 
permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for yielding time to me. I wanted 
to echo his remarks. This is a very important program for a lot of 
people in my area of the country, and in Pennsylvania particularly.
  This is a program that, frankly, has not been funded to the levels 
that really are going to meet the needs of the people in the 
communities who are low income, who are not able to keep the houses 
warm at night.
  I can say from having visited homes that have enjoyed the energy 
assistance program, enjoyed the benefits, that it provides that degree 
of safety and comfort that the houses will be warm on these cold winter 
nights that we have had up in our area of the country.
  I congratulate the Senator for his great work on defending this 
program, because it is a regional program in a sense. It is a program 
that disproportionately benefits one area, the area that has colder 
temperatures. As a result, it is always on the chopping block, but is a 
program that meets very vital needs in providing people basic shelter 
and warm comfort during the very cold winter days.
  I congratulate the Senator for his great work on this project. I look 
forward to continuing support of this program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I ask unanimous 
consent that certain documents be included in the Record which lend 
some factual support--certainly not an exhaustive statement--but some 
factual support that should be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material is ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Arguments To Maintain LIHEAP Funding

       A cut to LIHEAP funding will have a significant impact on 
     current recipients who already have difficulty in meeting 
     their energy bills, many having to choose between fuel and 
     food.
       Elimination of the program could be devastating, since it 
     brings potentially life-saving heat to nearly 6 million poor 
     families, or roughly 15 million individuals; about 30 percent 
     of the recipients are elderly, and 20 percent are disabled.
       Over 70% of LIHEAP recipients have annual incomes of less 
     than $8000; more than half have annual incomes of less than 
     $6000. Energy costs consume nearly 20% of these meager 
     incomes.
       25% of LIHEAP recipients receive no other federal 
     assistance.
       LIHEAP was able to serve less than 25% of eligible 
     households in fiscal year 1994.
       The average LIHEAP benefit is only about $200.
       Each winter, there are cases of children dying from the use 
     of dangerous alternative heating sources, like candles.
       Contrary to some claims, low income households do not face 
     appreciably reduced energy costs compared to the 1970's and 
     early 1980's.
       Energy prices for natural gas and electricity are just as 
     high today as they were in the 1970's, even in constant 
     dollars.
       50% of LIHEAP recipients heat with natural gas.
       Increased competition among utilities has intensified cost-
     cutting, making it unlikely they would absorb LIHEAP costs 
     that could put them at a competitive disadvantage. If LIHEAP 
     were abolished, we could expect a major increase in 
     households losing utility services, and increased 
     homelessness.
       This program has already suffered large cuts; current 
     funding is $781 million, or 37 percent, below its 1985 level.


                            funding history

       1985--$2,100,000,000.
       1986--$2,010,000,000.
       1987--$1,825,000,000.
       1988--$1,532,000,000.
       1989--$1,383,000,000.
       [[Page S4903]] 1990--$1,443,000,000.
       1991--$1,610,000,000.
       1992--$1,500,000,000.
       1993--$1,346,000,000.
       1994--$1,437,000,000.
       1995--$1,319,204,000.
       1996--$1,319,204,000.

  Mr. KYL. In my 48 remaining seconds, let me say, ``I told you so.''
  I said at the beginning that Members would come running out of their 
offices to come to the floor and pronounce themselves four square in 
front of this program, because this is critical. We can cut others but 
we cannot cut this one. That is exactly what is wrong with this 
process. Every one of them is critical. We have got to start somewhere.
  Mr. President, I started where President Clinton started last year 
when he said we can cut it in half, that it was time to shift away from 
this program.
  By the way, it is not just Sunbelt mentality. Even in my State people 
receive funds for weather-stripping and air conditioning support, just 
to show how ridiculous the program has gotten.
  We could all use the help, of course, but we have to start somewhere. 
I just ask this question, Mr. President, if we are not ready to start 
with this one, we are not ready to start with the other ones we voted 
down today, where are we willing to start to cut this $1 trillion 
budget deficit? We have to start somewhere.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Let me respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona.
  We have made very substantial cuts in this program. And when he says 
that this is an illustration of, if we do not cut here, where are we 
going to cut, our job is to establish priorities. That is our 
responsibility.
  The Appropriations Committee met its responsibility and we cut other 
less-important programs. So we agree with the Senator from Arizona that 
the budget has to be cut, the budget has to be balanced, the deficit 
has to be cut, that it is a matter of priorities.
  I think when all of the Senators came running to the floor here to 
speak for the enormous amount of 90 seconds, they did so because of 
their very deep concern for the program and this is a priority item 
which ought to stay. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Kyl amendment, which would 
eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  Over 6 million people received aid with heating costs under the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program last year.
  In Massachusetts, LIHEAP served 143,000 households in 1994. It 
provided especially needed relief in the winter of 1993-94, which was 
extremely harsh.
  Seventy-two percent of the families receiving LIHEAP have incomes 
below $8,000. These families spend an extremely burdensome 18 percent 
of their incomes on energy costs, compared to the average middle-class 
family, which spends only 4 percent.
  Nearly half of the households receiving heating assistance are 
comprised of elderly or handicapped individuals.
  Researchers at Boston City Hospital have documented the ``heat or eat 
effect''--higher utility bills during the coldest months force low-
income families to spend less money on food. The result is increased 
malnutrition among children.
  The study found that almost twice as many low-weight and 
undernourished children were admitted to the Boston City Hospital 
emergency room immediately following the coldest month of the winter. 
Low-income families should not have to choose between heating and 
eating.
  But the poor elderly will be at the greatest risk if LIHEAP is 
terminated, because they are the most vulnerable to hypothermia. In 
fact, older Americans accounted for more than half of all hypothermia 
deaths in 1991.
  In addition, elderly households are 28 percent more likely than all 
households to live in homes built before 1940. These homes tend to be 
less energy efficient than newer homes, placing the elderly at greater 
risk.
  Many low-income elderly who have trouble paying their energy bills 
substitute alternative heating devices--such as room heaters, 
fireplaces, and wood burning stoves--for central heating. Between 1986 
and 1990, heating equipment was the second leading cause of fire deaths 
among the elderly. In fact, the elderly were 2 to 12 times more likely 
to die in a heating related fire than adults under 65.
  LIHEAP is not only vital for low-income Americans, it also benefits 
communities as well. As Robert Coard, president of Action for Boston 
Community Development, wrote in a Boston Globe editorial last month, 
that LIHEAP--

       * * * employs large numbers of community people who may 
     have trouble finding work in industries requiring 
     sophisticated high-technology skills. Many are multilingual--
     a major asset for this program. The oil vendors who work with 
     the program include many mom-and-pop businesses that depend 
     on fuel assistance to survive. The dollars spent go right 
     back into the economy.

  The winter of 1993-94 was especially harsh. In January, the 
temperature in Boston averaged 20.6 degrees. At the same time, the 
price of oil rose to meet the increased demand for heating assistance.
  If Senate Republicans are serious about helping the elderly, they 
will preserve funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
and stop raiding the wallets--or in this case the furnaces--of those 
who need help the most.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Kyl amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. We could go 
back and forth, and we have Senators standing here who have been 
standing here the whole time to bring up their amendments. I will not 
object to 1 minute, but after that----
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 30 seconds. I just wanted to close the debate 
that I began, if I could.
  Reasonable people will differ. The House of Representatives trimmed 
us by $1.3 billion. It seems to me that they represent all regions of 
the country just as much as Senators do.
  I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who speaks in here. But I do 
doubt the Congress' commitment if we cannot start with a program like 
this. And I hope that when the conference meets, we will rescind more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the Senator from Nevada is recognized to offer an amendment.


                 Amendment No. 438 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To restore $14,700,000 of the amount available for substance 
                          abuse block grants)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 438 to amendment No. 
     420.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:


                      nuclear waste disposal fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-316, $14,700,000 are rescinded.
       On page 28, strike lines 18 through 23.

  Mr. REID. I further ask, Mr. President, there is about 3 minutes 
extra on this time block. I ask unanimous consent that the time equally 
divided for the first amendment I will offer, instead of 40 minutes be 
about 43 minutes, 44 minutes, whatever is left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The time will be 43 minutes equally divided between the two sides.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment is very direct and to the 
point. This year, the money for developing a permanent repository for 
the disposal of civilian nuclear waste has increased by $130 million, 
to where it is now almost $400 million to dig a hole in the 
[[Page S4904]] ground in Nevada. $400 million for 1 year. They have not 
spent all that money, of course. They cannot spend all the money, of 
course.
  What this amendment says is, ``Let's take part of that money and put 
it in a program that I think is extremely important.'' This, Mr. 
President, would take the money from the nuclear waste, $14.7 million, 
and replenish the money that was deleted from a program that benefits 
every person in this body--every Senator in this body and every Member 
of the House of Representatives.
  It is a substance abuse block grant. Let me, Mr. President, talk a 
little bit about what the substance abuse block grant does, and then I 
ask my colleagues whether the money should be spent for these purposes 
or whether the money should be spent for digging a hole in the ground 
and spending $400 million in the State of Nevada.
  Mr. President, I am not saying they should not spend money. They will 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars. I am taking only $14.7 million 
from almost $400 million. That is what I am doing, replenishing a 
program that is tremendous.
  I am going to talk about some of the benefits of the substance abuse 
block grant money in the little State of Nevada. Little in the sense 
that there are not many people there.
  However, Mr. President, the program in the State of Nevada funds 26 
community-based nonprofit agencies. In 1994, approximately 7,000 
individuals received treatment ranging from detoxification to long-term 
residential care.
  An additional 9,000-plus individuals were served in civil protective 
custody programs. An estimated 2,000 individuals will be placed on 
treatment waiting lists because they simply do not have rooms for them 
during the year. Those waiting at any point, 37 percent of them will 
have been waiting for far over a month.
  What we need to keep in mind is that substance abuse treatment money 
that I am going to talk about, Mr. President, is money that is spent. 
We will save untold millions of dollars in spending these moneys.
  It saves lives, restores hope. In Nevada, substance abuse is a 
primary factor in 55 percent of child abuse investigations. Over half 
of the child abuse investigations, when they are investigated, we find 
are a result of some kind of substance abuse.
  Mr. President, I am talking about Nevada. There are programs like 
this all over the country. The Family Preservation Program funded by 
the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse accepts 42 families.
  Mr. President, 100 percent of these families would lose their 
children due to abuse or neglect, unless a parent is willing to 
participate in the intensive day program.
  The reason I mention this is that we know that it costs about $40,000 
a year on an average to keep a kid in a reformatory--$40,000 a year. 
This whole program in the State of Nevada costs $85,000. If we keep two 
kids out of prison, out of a reformatory, we have made the nut, so to 
speak. And then it is gravy for the remaining 42 families. And some of 
these families, of course, have more than one child. Thus foster 
placement is not necessary.
  First, let me say this. I have said the parents have to be willing to 
participate. If they do not participate in the program the kids are 
taken from them. This program has a 90 percent success rate 1 year 
after treatment. That is tremendous. In other words, foster placement 
is not necessary in 90 percent of the families who go through intensive 
treatment. Those of us who know about foster care, we know it is a lot 
better than nothing but it is not as good as a parent. That is what 
this program does, is allow parents to maintain contact with their 
children. This $85,000 investment of treatment averts $2 million in 
foster care money alone--foster care costs.
  Mr. President, I ask if the Chair would advise the Senator from 
Nevada when he has 5 minutes remaining on this amendment.
  Mr. President, another successful initiative is something we have in 
Reno, NV, called Ridge House, a program for ex-felons. Ridge House 
tracked reincarceration for individuals in the program they serve, and 
found the program has a recidivism rate of 22 percent--not in a 1-year 
period. We usually hit our good statistics the first year. After 3 
years, a 22 percent return rate, so to speak. The average is about 80 
percent. This program is 400 percent better than if we did nothing.
  This is significant because again we are talking about a 3-year 
program. It is not the first year--things are usually pretty good the 
first year. It is a 3-year program with a little over 20 percent 
recidivism rate when nationally it is almost 80 percent. The success of 
this program means that 78 percent of the ex-felons served have not re-
offended, have jobs, and are contributing members of society 3 years 
after treatment.
  In 1993 the Ridge House served 32 individuals at a cost--listen to 
this--of $945 an ex-felon served. The annual budget of these 32 
individuals would not keep a person in prison for a year.
  A study at Saint Mary's, which is a Catholic hospital, a wonderful 
facility in Reno--they did a chemical dependency program study. They 
evaluated their health care situation for the year before and the year 
after treatment. These statistics are staggering. And we have to 
determine tonight whether we are better spending the money digging a 
hole or putting it in programs that save lives and protect families. 
The study showed that emergency room visits were reduced by 62 percent 
for people who were in the program, and health care costs were reduced 
by 73 percent. This demonstrates that other health care costs are 
reduced when treatment is available and accessible.
  Moreover, results of a pilot outcome study conducted by the 
University of Nevada Institute For Applied Research found a significant 
reduction for those presently awaiting charges, trial, or sentencing 3 
months after discharge from treatment compared to before treatment. So 
what we are saying is that those people who are part of the program do 
a lot better by a significant number. The study also found that the 
average net income doubled when comparing pretreatment to 3 months 
after discharge.
  These programs and these studies show one of the most important 
elements of substance abuse is treatment, especially within the context 
of this debate. Mr. President, I voted happily last year to spend $11 
billion for new police officers; $11 billion for new prisons, prison 
facilities. I am talking here about restoring some of the money that is 
being rescinded for programs that will not keep people in jail. We will 
not have to hire new police officers. All we are talking about is not 
digging a hole in the ground quite as deep, maybe--in fact if they 
spend the money, although it has been proven it is one of the most 
wasteful programs in the history of America. We are taking $14.5 
million approximately out of a $400 million program to restore these 
moneys.
  Another important function of the substance abuse block grant is the 
prevention program it funds. The Nevada Bureau of Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse funds 100 sites around the State, including programs that would 
not exist any other way in rural Nevada. These programs serve in excess 
of 10,000 people. Nevada has adopted a risk and resiliency framework 
which emphasizes funding programs which reduce the risk factors 
associated with alcohol and other drugs, and programs which strengthen 
the resiliency or protective factors.
  One of the most successful preventive programs is something called 
HACES, which stands for Hispanics Assisting the Community with 
Excellence for Students. Mr. President, listen to this. This program 
works only with high-risk Hispanic students and includes Saturday 
workshops along with community work. Students can only participate on 
Saturdays if they have missed no school during the week. Parental 
involvement is required.
  What were the results? Staggering. Compared to a control group, 
school absenteeism was reduced by 73 percent and the dropout rate was 
75 percent lower. One of the largest dropout rates of any ethnic group 
in America is that of Hispanics. All over the country, it is a fact. In 
this program we have a 75 percent lower dropout rate. How can anybody 
not vote for this?
  Satisfactory academic progress occurred in 94 percent of the 
students, and student interest in higher education increased by 300 
percent.
  Perhaps one of the best side effects of the program for these young 
people, 
[[Page S4905]] though, is something we could not measure in statistics. 
I cannot tell you what we know it does to self-confidence, what it does 
to self-esteem. The total program cost is equal to half of what it 
costs on average in our country to keep an inmate in prison, about 
$15,000.
  So how can we afford to cut funding to these successful and what I 
believe are essential programs? The impact of drug interdiction efforts 
on the rate of substance abuse in our country can be debated at great 
length. I believe in interdiction. I believe in prison. I believe in 
more judges. I believe in more police officers. And I voted 
accordingly. But let us do something about some of these preventive 
programs.
  I have given statistics from the State of Nevada. Multiply these with 
the State of Kentucky, the State of Delaware, the State of 
Pennsylvania. They are staggering. I invite attention to those.
  The program we are taking money from is a program we can afford to 
cut down by a fraction of a percent. From approximately $400 million 
that we have in that fund for this year, 1995, we want to take $14 
million from it. That does not sound out of line to me, especially when 
we keep in mind the budget from which I want to restore these $14.5 
million was increased by $130 million.
  So, this is not going to cripple the Yucca Mountain Project. It will 
not delay a solution to interim waste storage. This is prudent 
management of the taxpayers' money.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in that it does not 
appear at this stage that anyone is here to debate this--and I am sure 
they will show up--but I ask in fairness to me that I reserve my time 
and that the time toll against the other side on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me make this suggestion, if I may. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum and it be charged to the opposition.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. I should have done that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time of the quorum call 
will be counted against the Republican time.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I see no Senators seeking recognition.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say, through you, to the Senator 
from West Virginia, the order now is that the time running under the 
quorum has been charged to the other side. I ask that continue during 
the remarks.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I make inquiry?
  Mr. BYRD. Either that or I could ask unanimous consent that it not be 
charged against anyone.
  Mr. REID. We have a time certain on a vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time is 
running and being charged against our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes 6 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would like to reserve some time to speak against 
the Reid amendment. I would like to accommodate the senior Senator from 
West Virginia as well. I wonder how much time he would intend to take. 
I have no objection to splitting the time. But if it going to come off 
our side, then I would ask for some consideration.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not want to discommode either side. I 
could delay until another day to do the speech. I wanted to speak with 
reference to Mr. Heflin's retirement. I thought in view of the fact 
that nothing was transpiring I might be able to use that time. But it 
really is all right with me if Senators prefer that I not do that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, I, too, would enjoy hearing a little 
reference to Senator Heflin very much. Perhaps, if I may inquire again. 
There is no time on the other side on this amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 7 minutes 39 
seconds.
  Mr. REID. I had 9 minutes a little while ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been running.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the senior Senator from West Virginia will 
allow me to speak against the amendment. As chairman of the Energy 
Committee I take the opportunity to do so, and I would be happy to 
yield the remaining time to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am very sensitive to the concerns of the Senator 
from Nevada about the issue of nuclear waste policy. However, I must 
rise in opposition to the amendment because I honestly feel a trust is 
about to be broken if indeed funds that have been collected by 
America's nuclear utility system for the benefit of a specific purpose 
of establishing a repository for this Nation's nuclear waste are used 
for a purpose other than intended.
  It is my understanding that the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nevada does just that, that $14,700,000 of funds that were collected by 
the utilities from the ratepayers are to be used for a purpose other 
than that which is intended. In 1982 when Congress adopted the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, it required the Department of Energy to build a 
repository that could accept spent fuel from commercial nuclear 
reactors at a repository by the year 1998. Unfortunately, that 
commitment has not been made nor directed by Congress. However, the DOE 
entered into contracts with the Nation's nuclear utilities under which 
the Department collected a fee of one-tenth of 1 percent per kilowatt-
hour on electricity generated by nuclear energy in return for a 
commitment to accept waste beginning in 1998.
  If the Reid amendment passes today, that commitment will be broken. 
The fee is collected by utilities from their ratepayers in their 
monthly bills and it is placed in a special Nuclear Waste Fund in the 
Treasury. The fund receives over $\1/2\ billion per year from 
collections and $300 million per year in interest on the unobligated 
balance. At this time the fund has a balance of $4.9 billion.
  The Department of Energy has acknowledged that they will be unable to 
meet their obligations to begin accepting waste in 1998. For this 
reason, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is considering 
legislation to restructure the nuclear waste program so that the 
Government will not have to default on its contractual obligations to 
the American people.
  I cannot now tell you exactly what that form of nuclear waste 
disposal program will take and what it will consist of. However, I know 
for a fact that it will be very expensive. The Nuclear Waste Fund was 
collected from the Nation's ratepayers for the specific purpose of 
disposing of spent nuclear fuel. It cannot be allowed to be used for 
any other purpose, and that specifically is what the Reid amendment 
will do.
  So I must stand in opposition to the amendment.
  I see no further Senator wishing to speak. I would accommodate the 
senior Senator from West Virginia, and yield the remaining time that we 
have on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding the remaining time to 
the Senator from West Virginia?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have been advised that there is a Senator from this 
side who wants to be heard on this issue, the senior Senator from New 
Mexico. So I must advise my friend from West Virginia that I must 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I understand.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak on another 
matter and that the time not be charged to anybody; that I speak out of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  [[Page S4906]] Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and, of 
course, I will not object, I am wondering how long the Senator intends 
to speak, approximately?
  Mr. BYRD. I do not think I will go beyond 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  

                          ____________________