[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4907-S4919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page S4907]]

               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 12 minutes 5 
seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the Senator from New Mexico wants to speak and 
the Senator from Idaho wants to speak. May I ask how much time he would 
like? There are 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Craig wants 2 minutes. I will take the other 
10. I may not use it all.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to make that accommodation. The Senator 
from New Mexico has 10 minutes, and there are 2 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
10 minutes and the Senator from Idaho has 1 minute 31 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of that time, 
so the Chair might advise me, if you would.
  I was not here when my friend from Nevada argued this matter, but let 
me suggest to the U.S. Senate that this is not an issue tonight of 
whether we ought to spend money on programs to which the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada wants to add money.
  What we are talking about tonight is a very basic principle of 
fairness and equity to a large number of ratepayers, utility ratepayers 
across America, many in the State of the present occupant of the chair, 
Pennsylvania, some in almost every State in the East, because wherever 
there is nuclear power, there is a small percentage attached to their 
bills that goes into a nuclear waste fund.
  Mr. President, by law, that money is supposed to be used by the U.S. 
Government to make sure that we prepare and implement and open a 
nuclear waste repository as the final destination of the end of the 
nuclear fuel cycle, wherein waste will be put forever.
  Whether that was prudent or not is irrelevant. The truth of the 
matter is that millions of ratepayers have been putting the money in 
that account.
  The Congress of the United States decided that we needed to make sure 
that that money was spent properly. So we did not just set the trust 
fund out there and say, ``Have at it, Department of Energy, use it for 
nuclear waste disposal implementation program or plan.'' We said, 
``Let's appropriate what they need annually from that fund.''
  Frankly, the utilities are clamoring, they are coming to see me as 
chairman of this subcommittee saying, ``Don't appropriate the money 
anymore.'' They are saying, ``Make it an entitlement and let us and the 
Department of Energy spend it as we may.''
  We have refused as a Congress, and I can tell the Senate, I have 
stood there saying I will refuse to do that, I will raise a point of 
order under the Budget Act. We must control that money.
  Now plain and simple, we have appropriated money for the nuclear 
waste disposal activities in the State of Nevada. Senator Reid, a dear 
friend of mine, has resisted the nuclear waste disposal activities in 
his State. And if I were he, I would do that.
  But the point of it is, we do not even have enough money appropriated 
now to carry on the research and site characterization for which that 
fund was allocated and set up in trust. But because we have 
appropriated some of the money and it is appropriated for the year 
1995, along comes Senator Reid who would like very much, I assume, to 
tell the people in his State, and if I were he, I would do the same, I 
have taken some money away from that nasty activity that we do not want 
in our State anyway, but the Congress has said, that is the State, that 
is the site.
  Tonight, just a little bit, he would like to take $13 million of that 
appropriated money, and it is really kind of a unique appropriation 
because it could just as well have been left in trust and spent only 
for that purpose, but we decided to control it through appropriations.
  Now, why should the Senate of the United States, in a rescission 
bill, take money out of that trust fund that has been appropriated for 
that purpose and spend it on any program? I am not even going to debate 
whether the programs he wants to fund are good programs. I am not even 
going to debate whether they are good programs that he would like to 
add money to. Knowing the distinguished Senator, they are probably good 
programs that, somehow or another, he ought to find money for, if he 
thinks that money should be added to them. Maybe if he finds it 
someplace else, the Senate will vote for it.
  But I hope tonight we will not send a signal to the millions of 
utility users in America who paid a surtax, a little piece of their 
utility bill, and put it in a trust for nuclear waste disposal and all 
of a sudden find themselves tonight, in the U.S. Senate at 10 minutes 
of 9, and we are going to take $13 million of that fund and pay for 
some social programs that may be needed.
  It is the wrong thing to do, the wrong way to legislate. I regret to 
say that as much as I respect the senior Senator from Nevada, this 
really should not be something that we should ask the U.S. Senate to 
do. There ought to be a resounding ``no.'' That money is not for this. 
It was never intended for this. If you do not use it for nuclear waste 
disposal, set it there until you find a nuclear waste activity that you 
can use it for. We are spending billions of dollars to try to make the 
site the right one and use it properly, and we still do not know how 
much it is going to cost. Would we not look foolish if, in hindsight, 
we said all of that is true, but we tonight plucked $13 million out of 
it and put it into some social programs that somebody thinks we need?
  I yield the floor. Senator Craig wants to speak on the issue, and I 
welcome his remarks.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, stand in opposition to Senator 
Reid's amendment this evening. I think the Senator from New Mexico and 
the Senator from Alaska, who is chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, has outlined very clearly what this money is 
intended for, where it comes from, and the commitment of the U.S. 
Congress to the ratepayers of a variety of utilities around the 
country, that we would use this money in a responsible fashion to 
attempt to site and develop a permanent repository for high-level 
nuclear waste.
  I do not blame the Senator from Nevada for being concerned that the 
Congress of the United States chose Nevada--Federal land in the State 
of Nevada for that waste to be located on. This money is now going for 
the purpose of siting. But to pull it off into substance abuse would 
not only be an embarrassment for this Congress to all of the 
ratepayers, it would just flat be wrong.
  The citizens of my State have something at stake here. We have 
nuclear materials that would be destined for Yucca Mountain in Nevada 
if it were to become a permanent repository. But I tell you now, Mr. 
President, when we have the kind of money that the ratepayers of this 
country are now paying, in the billions of dollars, for the purpose of 
establishing a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, and 
to play games with it on the floor of the U.S. Senate is to break a 
commitment and to break a resolve that this country has to have to deal 
with nuclear waste in a responsible fashion for all of our people, not 
just for the States that have nuclear reactors generating nuclear 
electricity, and the repositories and the waste materials that are 
building up there. This is a national commitment. It ought to be 
directed to where it was dedicated, to the pledge of this Congress, and 
not sapped away, pulled away for the purpose of substance abuse. It 
makes no sense.
  I hope the Senate will oppose the Reid amendment.
  Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator from Nevada have, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 7 minutes 20 
seconds. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 47 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am glad he has 2 minutes, but how does 
that work?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico did not use his 
entire 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we would look foolish tonight if we in fact 
did not do this. All the money, the $393 million, is not all 
ratepayers' money. 
[[Page S4908]] Even if it were, it is appropriated dollars. We have the 
right as a Congress to do with those moneys what we want, or it would 
not be appropriated. The only games being played, I say, Mr. President, 
are with the utilities and these dollars. I have gone over very clearly 
and closely what this money would be used for. I think the fact that I 
went over the one program called HACES, where the Hispanic students' 
rate of dropout was lowered by 75 percent; their absenteeism, 73 
percent; their interest in higher education increased by 300 percent; 
satisfactory academic progress reported in 94 percent of the students.
  The fact of the matter is, these programs work. We should give this 
money to people who need it. We are talking about cutting nuclear waste 
money for the year 1995. They cannot spend all that money anyway. They 
increased it $130 million this year, a total of $393 million, almost a 
half a billion dollars. We are asking to take less than 3 percent of 
that money and put it into programs that save people's lives, save the 
family structure, help neighbors and friends, keep people out of 
prisons, out of welfare programs, help our educational system. This 
money will come back to us a thousandfold, if not more.
  These programs work. We talk about an investment of $85,000 in foster 
care costs. The family preservation program. These programs serve, as I 
indicated, families--42 families in Nevada--and 100 percent of these 
families lose their children if they do not comply with the program. We 
found that the program had a 90 percent success rate.
  So I say, Mr. President, I think if we should talk about the merits 
of what we are doing here tonight, not some abstract thing about the 
ratepayers and nuclear waste. They need the money. One of the biggest, 
most wasteful programs in the history of America is a program that 
started out to cost us $200 million and is now up to an estimated $7.4 
billion. We are talking about taking $14.7 million and giving it to a 
program that saves lives, lives of real human beings.
  These are not programs that some bureaucrat in Washington said, ``Let 
us see if they will work.'' I have given statistics to the U.S. Senate 
tonight to indicate why the programs have worked and how it is a 
terrible thing that this Congress is going to say these programs are 
gone. We are going to wipe out these programs.
  So I say, for this small amount of money, we would look foolish if we 
did not do it. And we would be playing games if we did not give needy 
people programs that save money. This is a taxpayers' relief amendment, 
Mr. President.
  I hope this will receive bipartisan support. This is not a partisan 
matter. This is a matter that relates to the welfare of people 
throughout the United States.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does Senator Reid have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 28 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much does the Senator from New Mexico have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 47 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will use a minute and a half of my 
time and ask that the remainder be reserved.
  There are 109 nuclear reactors in the United States--67 sites in 32 
States. By the year 2030, all these reactors will have completed their 
initial 40-year licenses. The total cumulative discharge from these 109 
reactors, some of which are shut down, will total 85,000 metric tons of 
radioactive waste. The trust fund that is set aside by the ratepayers 
who use that energy, that nuclear energy, is not taxpayers' money. Let 
me repeat. It is not taxpayers' money. It is trust funded to see if we 
can find a way to, in a safe manner, get rid of this nuclear waste, 
either for long periods of time, or permanently.
  It does not matter very much whether there is a social program that 
works well. I will attest that the programs he is alluding to are 
working better than the nuclear waste disposal programs. Anybody will 
say that. We are in the midst of trying to find out how to do it.
 To take $13 million out and say we have a good program going and take 
it from the ratepayers of Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New York, who 
have nuclear activities, is just not right.

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 109 new nuclear reactors do not make up the 
importance of one human life. We are dealing with real people, 
families, children, friends, neighbors, aunts, uncles, children, 
tragedies like the loss to Carol O'Connor we read about in the 
newspaper today.
  Rehabilitation programs, some of them work. We have programs that 
really work. Nuclear waste disposal is not going to be affected as a 
result of this. We are taking a pittance into real programs. We should 
continue to do that, Mr. President. We are talking about equity and 
fairness for ratepayers.
  We live in a world of polls. I bet we could take a poll of the money 
that is in this fund, and most of it is in from ratepayers, and that 
money, if we ask the ratepayers whether they would have the money 
digging a hole in Nevada or saving one kid, I guarantee how the poll 
would turn out.
  I submit to this body that this is a vote for equity and fairness. We 
are rescinding $14.7 million that goes into saving lives, making 
streets safer, and in the long run and short run saving this country 
1,000 times what we invest with $14.7 million in lower cost for 
education, lower cost for welfare, lower cost for law enforcement.
  We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like 
to remind my colleagues that the U.S. Government has made a solemn 
compact with customers of these utilities.
  As the Senator from New Mexico said, and he was absolutely correct, 
it is not the taxpayers, it is the recipients who participated through 
their utility bills, and they pay into this nuclear waste fund.
  The Federal Government must use these moneys only for the purpose of 
taking care of nuclear waste. That is a trust that was entered into. It 
is up to the Government and this body to honor that trust.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a vote for the Reid amendment is a vote 
to say that the 32 States which have accumulated high-level nuclear 
waste are not concerned about how we will take care of that. We are 
just going to take $13 million that ought to be used ultimately for 
them, those 32 States, and spend it on two social programs that may or 
may not be working, but seem to not be the issue before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Reid has 1 minute 54 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will talk about the equity. I hope this 
does not become a partisan issue. The people being served by the 
substance abuse programs are not Democrats and Republicans. They are 
people who are, many times, causing significant problems throughout 
their neighborhoods, throughout the States. If these programs are cut, 
it will be more crime, more welfare dependence, and more problems with 
our educational system.
  The Ridge House Program, as I indicated, tracked reincarceration for 
individuals and found the program had a recidivism rate of 22 percent 
after 3 years. That is as much as 400 percent lower than people not in 
this program.
  This is a program where we should not rescind the money. We should 
restore the money that was appropriated last year because it is good 
for people. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Reid amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the voting sequence will occur at a later 
time.
  Under the previous order the Senator from Nevada is recognized to 
offer an amendment.


                 Amendment No. 439 to Amendment No. 420

   (Purpose: To restore $3,750,000 of the amount available for rural 
health research and $1,875,000 of the amount available for rural health 
                            outreach grants)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, he 
should be aware I have another amendment where I am going to go after 
the same money, and the Senator should be aware we might be able to cut 
down the time because the argument is basically the same as to a 
different subject.
  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  [[Page S4909]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], proposes an amendment 
     numbered 439 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, $5,625,000 are rescinded.
       On page 28, line 7, strike ``, $42,071,000 are rescinded'' 
     and insert ``for programs other than the rural health 
     research program and the rural health outreach grant program, 
     $36,446,000 are rescinded''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, again, this calls for removing money from 
the Civilian Nuclear Waste Fund and placing it in rural health outreach 
programs. This, Mr. President, is $5.6 million.
  Now, Mr. President, rural health outreach grants, what are they? Let 
me give an example of three we have in Nevada. Mount Grant General 
Hospital, Hawthorne, NV, Mr. President, is located in one of the most 
remote areas of the United States. Hawthorne, NV, was selected in the 
late 1920's after there was a huge explosion in a military ammunition 
depot in the eastern part of the United States. Hawthorne, NV, was 
selected because it was such a remote area.
  Hawthorne, NV, to say the least, is remote. From the late 1920's 
until today there has been ammunition stored there. To fly over 
Hawthorne, NV, today, you would see hundreds and hundreds of these 
mounds and in each of them is explosives, ammunition.
  It was the largest naval ammunition depot in the world. There was a 
decision made by the military to join all ammunition storage to the 
Army, and as a result of that it was no longer the largest ammunition 
depot in the military, but it is still real big, in a very sparsely 
populated part of the State of Nevada.
  Part of these rural health outreach grants went to a consortium made 
up of a county hospital, a local Indian tribe, the Walker River 
Indians, and a senior citizens center to provide health promotion 
information to a county where there are about 6,000 Nevadans.
  Though funded for less than a year, Mr. President, this program has 
provided seven programs throughout Mineral County on topics including 
sexually transmitted diseases, nutrition, pharmaceutical inquiry and 
health screening for senior citizens. Native Americans and other rural 
Nevadans have benefited from this program. This program will ultimately 
provide transportation services and adult day care where none now is 
currently available. Really an important program.
  Why? Because it is a program, again, Mr. President, in part of the 
rural America that will save money. If we can, through education, teach 
people about disease and what happens with disease, and keep people--
especially senior citizens--out of long-term care, we save lots of 
money. That is what this program is about.
  Owyhee Emergency Medical Service. Mr. President, Owyhee, NV, the name 
came as a result of a group of trappers that went up in that area in 
the early part of the last century. They never came back. They were 
trappers from Hawaii. And Owyhee is a derivation from Hawaii. We have 
Owyhee River, Owyhee Indians. It is a very remote area.
  It is so remote, Mr. President, that I was the first U.S. Senator to 
go to Owyhee. They remembered a couple of Nevada U.S. Senators getting 
within 25 miles, near of a reservoir, but I was the first to go there 
last September. It is a wonderful place, right off the Idaho border.
  What we have in this very remote part of Nevada is a consortium of 
native American Indians and an Air Force base in the neighboring State 
of Idaho and a sheriff's department. It was designed to improve 
emergency medical services to a regional community which crosses State 
lines.
  Emergency services are vital to this area, as you have about 100 
miles of very mountainous roads from the nearest frontier care center 
and over 400 miles to the nearest tertiary level trauma center.
  These are programs that really help. These are what the rural health 
outreach programs are. In Nevada, we have three programs.
  The State of Nevada is an unusual State in the sense that about 70 
percent of the people live in the Las Vegas area. It is a huge State, 
the seventh-largest State in the Union, but we have the most sparsely 
populated part of the United States but for Alaska in the northwestern 
part of the State. It is the most sparsely populated part of the United 
States except for Alaska.
  In Las Vegas and Reno we have very up-to-date modern medical 
facilities, including ambulance service. But in these rural areas it is 
much like other parts of America. We have volunteer crews that serve in 
these rural areas. Mostly they are trained at the basic emergency 
medical technician level, and they ride most of the time outdated and 
marginally equipped ambulances and are typically hundreds of miles from 
even a rural or frontier basic level hospital. Remember, frontier is 
even more remote than rural, by definition.
  Mr. President, 13 of Nevada's 17 counties are identified as health 
profession shortage areas.
  Most people do not realize that Pennsylvania is a very rural State. A 
lot of places in Pennsylvania are remote. Most people, when they think 
of Pennsylvania, they think of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But 
Pennsylvania is a very rural State, much like Nevada in many instances. 
And rural Pennsylvania needs these Rural Health Outreach Grants that I 
guarantee are serving people very well and saving money for the people 
of the State of Pennsylvania, saving money for the taxpayers in 
Pennsylvania, and certainly taxpayers all over the country. Our miles 
may be a little longer in Nevada than Pennsylvania, but the problems 
are the same.
  Mr. President, 25 percent of the people in America live in rural 
areas. They live in these areas and they need a mechanism to access 
primary health care, emergency care, and hospital systems. And the 
reason I think it is so vital we understand that these programs save 
lives is let us take, for example, one of the matters that would be 
covered in this nonrescission that I hope would occur that deals with 
rural health research funds, including rural telemedicine grants.
  Rural telemedicine is not something that is abstract. What it means 
is someone in Battle Mountain, NV, could, through a television hookup 
at a health center in this rural community, be in contact with the 
Washoe County Medical Center, a first-rate medical center in Reno, NV. 
And a physician in Reno could be talking to a patient in Battle 
Mountain and watching that patient on television with a rural doctor 
present, and describing where they hurt, what the symptoms are. And 
that expert in Reno very likely could help that rural physician 
identify the problem. Or, if, after having gone through this procedure, 
separated by hundreds of miles, the physician in the major medical 
center says, I think you better bring him in, bring her in.
  The fact is, this is going on in Pennsylvania. It is going on in New 
Mexico. It is going on in places all over America. If we do not put 
these moneys back that have been rescinded, these programs are going to 
be terminated. It will suspend or terminate the completion of 
telemedicine projects underway all across the Nation.
  These are relatively new programs and these programs are not fluff. 
These are not programs, again, that some bureaucrat in Washington 
dreamed up. These are programs where there have been pilot projects in 
effect prior to our appropriating these moneys. We know they work and 
we know they save money. Again, if we can keep someone out of the 
hospital or long-term care settings we save money--Medicare, Medicaid, 
and private dollars. So we need to reestablish the Rural Health 
Outreach Grants that have been rescinded. Taking these moneys from the 
Civilian Nuclear Waste Fund is not going to affect the ratepayers. It 
is not going to affect the progress at Yucca Mountain at all. The other 
program was about 3 percent; this is about 1 percent of nuclear waste 
moneys for this year.
  [[Page S4910]] So I hope my colleagues would understand, again, that 
the program I wish to have the money restored to is a program that 
deals with people, with flesh and bones. The only thing, they do not 
live in the big cities. And we need in this modern era to allow them to 
be part of what is happening throughout urban America. They can do that 
with telemedicine and some of these other outreach programs.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes, 
the Senator from Nevada has 9 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator 
Murkowski, wants 2 minutes. I will not use all of my time, I say to the 
Senator. If he could consider using less than all of his time, I will 
yield back some of mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again I must rise in opposition to the 
Reid amendment for the same reason prevailing on the previous Reid 
amendment. While the Senator from Nevada makes a very appealing case 
for the utilization of these funds, I must remind him again that there 
is a principle here, an underlying principle of trust, and that trust 
must be honored.
  Mr. President, what we are talking about here again is a solemn 
compact, with the customers of these nuclear utilities who have paid 
amounts into the waste fund, that the Federal Government will use these 
moneys only for the purpose of taking care of nuclear waste.
  We cannot meet other obligations, regardless of how worthy they might 
be. Diverting those funds is simply not fair to the customers of those 
utilities nor is diverting those funds fair to Americans everywhere.
  This nuclear waste must be disposed of. It will not just go away. 
Without these moneys, the nuclear waste simply will not be cleaned up. 
It is an obligation we all have.
  Mr. President, what the Senator from Nevada is proposing is making 
everyone else in America pay for the cleanup of nuclear waste that is 
basically already paid for one time by the ratepayers.
  Further, there have been no hearings on this matter. We really do not 
understand the impact of the Senator's amendment other than it would 
void a portion of the funds that have been paid in by well-meaning 
ratepayers, based on the trust and confidence they have in the Federal 
Government to keep its word.
  I am very concerned the Senator's amendment will do grave harm to the 
cleanup and the disposal of nuclear waste.
  I yield back my time remaining to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the ratepayers of the United States have 
paid over $8 billion into a trust fund. The money is supposed to be 
used to take care of nuclear waste. We have already spent substantial 
amounts, much of it in the State of Nevada, trying to prove up a site 
for permanent storage, that is the forever storage. There is now $5.5 
billion in the trust fund.
  Let me draw a couple of analogies for Senators. We appropriate for 
the administrative costs of Social Security from the Social Security 
trust fund. So now we have an appropriation bill for the 1995 year, and 
it has $542 million for the administrative costs of Social Security 
from the trust fund, paid in by workers and employers in America. 
Somebody comes to the floor and says, ``I have an amendment. There is a 
whole bunch of social programs we would like to take care of, so let us 
take part of this $542 million trust fund that we allocated to 
administer and manage Social Security and let us spend it for one of 
these two good programs that the Senator has in mind.''
  What would happen? First of all, I do not think anyone would do it 
because it is Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. President, this trust fund is owned by millions, just like Social 
Security, of ratepayers who are paying higher utility bills because 
they expect the money to be used to dispose of nuclear waste.
  Mr. President, we appropriate highway user funds. So people pay 
gasoline taxes into a trust fund for highways. Then we have to 
appropriate to take care of the contract obligations. Would anyone come 
to the floor, and, as part of a rescissions package say, ``There is a 
lot of money in this trust fund for highways collected from the 
gasoline tax; there is a little more than we know how to use for the 
highways, so let us spend it for one of these two programs that the 
Senator has in mind?'' Actually, this trust fund that I am speaking of 
is a better case on spending trust funds improperly than either of the 
two that I have given you.
  The Senator in combination would ask us tonight to take $20.325 
million heretofore appropriated from this trust fund being used to 
proceed in as orderly a manner as we can put together for nuclear waste 
activities and spend it on two or three programs that the Senator can 
rightfully stand up and say, if you took the money out of there, it 
would do some good.
  My final observation is this is about $5.5 billion left in this trust 
fund. Friends, we could just all figure out each year when we put this 
money into an appropriations mode, some social or welfare or citizen 
need, and we could come to the floor and say, I want to move it from 
that appropriation to this appropriation, and then give us a nice 
interesting litany and discourse on how well the program money would be 
used for these programs.
  I choose tonight not to discuss the programs. Rural health care, no. 
We ought to try things. Perhaps that is what the Senator wants to do. 
And a few other programs. There are a lot of things we ought to spend 
money on. But we do not have the money, and certainly we do not have 
the money in the Nuclear Waste Fund to spend for this when it is 
already committed. We may not even have enough money in that trust 
fund.
  Incidentally, Mr. President, we may have to go back to these 
ratepayers and say we have used your money, and we need some more. Will 
it not be nice to say, by the way, one evening in the Senate, we took 
$20 million away and spent it for something else?
  I do not need any more time. I am prepared to yield back, and I do 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond, I recognize the time is 
arriving to 9:30. I would like to meet that deadline.
  Mr. President, Senators tonight are acting as a court of fairness. 
What is the fair thing to do? We have talked about ratepayers. Let us 
talk about taxpayers. This $5.5 billion that is in this fund, we are 
talking about with this amendment taking $5.5 million and giving it to 
programs that benefit America, 25 percent of the people who live in 
places all over the country similar to the chairman of this committee--
Alaska, Nevada. We think of those States as rural. But other States all 
over America --New York--have rural areas. We need to help rural 
Americans regarding their health care.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee raises a good point. 
What if people come here and want to spend $5.5 billion in some other 
program? I was very careful in selecting the programs where I am asking 
that the rescissions not take place. I could have picked WIC, Head 
Start, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, AmeriCorps, very large amounts. But 
I chose these very small extremely beneficial programs.
  We tonight should be concerned about taxpayers, not ratepayers. We 
should be concerned about doing something that is going to save this 
country large amounts of money. And all the money that is wasted with 
the DOE, they will not even know this is gone, $130 million additional 
moneys the year, 1995, a total of almost $400 million. This is money 
that we should not have rescinded.
  I ask my colleagues to understand the importance of these programs--
again, I repeat--to real persons, men and women and children who have 
done nothing wrong. They live in rural America. They need to be made 
modern. That is what we are doing with these rural health outreach 
programs.

[[Page S4911]]

                           amendment no. 429

  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to 
speak in support of the Gorton emergency salvage amendment and in 
opposition to the substitute amendment proposed by the junior Senator 
from Washington.
  We have heard a lot of talk today about how these are the people's 
forests. These forests are a national treasure. We must maintain these 
forests for our future generations.We must not be allowed to destroy 
them. Mr. President, I could not agree more. But by maintaining the 
status quo--and by that I mean the continued lack of any management 
activity--we are doing just that. We are now destroying our forests as 
we sit idly by and do nothing.
  I do not believe the average citizen would approve of the state of 
deterioration of our forests. For example, the eastside forests of 
Oregon and Washington alone have lost 135,000 acres of forest to 
insects or disease. Another 543,000 acres are imperiled by insects and 
disease if not treated aggressively. These are Forest Service figures. 
And these figures do not include the threat of loss due to wildfire, 
which is an ever-increasing reality.
  Mr. President, in the first 3 months of 1995, four more Oregon mills 
have closed and two more have given their 60-day notice to employees. 
These are mills that rely on timber from Federal lands, and without 
that supply, they just can't make it. I could quote statistic after 
statistic about how many people are directly and indirectly affected by 
these closures. But these people are more than statistics. They are 
real people. They have families to feed and clothe. Kids to send to 
college. Car payments. House payments. Braces and medical bills. They 
are people like you and me who are being displaced from good jobs for 
no good or rational reason.
  In many cases the mill is the backbone of the community--if the mill 
closes, the entire town is affected. In many cases the Federal forest 
land that once provided raw material for these mills is literally 
within walking distance of the mill. These people have personally 
watched these forests get sick and die because of misguided Federal 
policy. They have urged Federal land management agencies, in vain, to 
do something about the deteriorating conditions. These are people who 
have fought the rampaging forest fires that creep ever closer to their 
homes and towns. These are frustrated people who don't understand why 
their government will not let them salvage dead and dying timber to 
keep their mills and the forests alive. And I share their frustration.
  The forest health problem in Oregon has reached a crisis state. There 
are hundreds of thousands of acres of dead and dying trees, surrounded 
by huge fuel loads on the forest floor, just waiting to be ignited. 
Congress can no longer stand idly by, fiddling while our forests burn. 
We are one errant match--or one random lightning strike--away from a 
catastrophic conflagration that would blacken hillsides in parts of my 
State for as far as the eye can see. We can remove this dead material, 
provide some small measure of hope to our timber families, and start 
returning or forests to their green and healthy state.
  Too many family-wage jobs have been clearcut and replanted with 
minimum-wage jobs. The time has come for an aggressive salvage program 
that will give our forests--and our people--hope. I believe the people 
of this country want vital, healthy forests. I strongly urge a vote to 
table this amendment.
                           amendment no. 429

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator 
Gorton's timber salvage provision to this rescission bill, and in 
support of Senator Murray's alternative language.
  The language currently in the bill mandates the expeditious sale of 
salvage timber without concern for the cost to the Federal Treasury, 
without concern for market demand, without concern for sound 
environmental practices, and without concern for citizen and judicial 
involvement.
  This is old fashioned politics. It is a giveaway which will enrich 
one industry and impoverish a Nation of its natural resources.
  Mr. President, at a time when we are trying to reinvent government, 
this is not the way to do business. Senator Gorton's provision would 
result in a dramatic change in the Federal Government's approach to 
timber management and sale--without appropriate review by the Senate 
and the public.
  The language approved by the committee is an assault on our Nation's 
natural resources, an assault on sound science, an assault on existing 
laws, and an assault on the Senate's legislative process.
  The existing provision assumes that there is a forest health crisis 
due to insects, disease, and fires. The timber industry feels that 
salvaging the diseased and dying trees is crucial to forest health. 
Others feel that much of what salvage logging would remove is actually 
crucial to the forest ecosystem. Obviously, this is a scientific matter 
that should best be left to the experts, or to comprehensive, fair 
hearings in committees--certainly not fast-track fixes on a rescission 
bill.
  The language in Senator Gorton's provision suspends virtually every 
major environmental law, including, but not limited to, the Forest and 
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act; the Federal Land Policy 
Management Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; the National 
Forest Management Act; the Endangered Species Act, and the Multiple-Use 
Sustained Yield Act.
  This is not sound policy and could be disastrous to our Nation's 
forests.
  That is why I support Senator Murray's amendment to the bill. Senator 
Murray's proposal is a balanced approach to this contentious issue. It 
expedites sales of timber salvage, which should satisfy the timber 
interests. But at the same time it respects existing law, excludes 
Federal lands that should not be touched, limits the definition of 
salvage sale, and allows for citizen and judicial involvement.
  In all honesty, I would prefer a bill with no provision addressing 
timber salvage. This bill is not the place for such a provision, 
particularly one that will result in a steep cost to the Federal 
Treasury.
  I commend the junior Member from Washington for stepping into a 
leadership role, and developing a sound compromise to this very 
difficult issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague 
Senator Gorton's efforts to expedite timber salvage in the amendment to 
H.R. 1158, the bill now before us. I would also like to comment on the 
provisions of the amendment referring to the Endangered Species Act.
  The timely and efficient salvage of burned timber is of great concern 
to me and to my home State of Idaho. The catastrophic forest fires that 
swept across the West last summer cost our Nation much in terms of 
lives, property, habitat, and economic resources.
  Idaho suffered the greatest timber loss of any State--over 1.5 
billion board feet--enough timber to build over 137,000 homes, and to 
provide jobs for up to 35,000 people.
  The timber damaged in those fires has a limited 2 year window of 
opportunity for harvest, before the value of that wood is lost, and 
those economic resources are lost as well.
  Yet some groups are already announcing their intent to appeal, even 
before most of the salvage sales have been proposed. This is despite 
the need for quick action, and despite the fact that the Forest Service 
has already determined that the majority of the fire-damaged areas will 
not be harvested. This has been done to address habitat, water quality 
and other important environmental concerns.
  Two National Forests in Idaho were hardest hit by the fires--the 
Payette and the Boise National Forest. On the Payette, less than 10 
percent of the burned timber is being considered for salvage. And on 
the Boise, they are considering less than half.
  As I noted, most of these sales are still in the proposal stages. But 
one, the Boise River fire recovery effort, has been available for 
appeal for a week. Already, the Forest Service has received one appeal. 
Keep in mind that the window for appeals will run until May 1 for the 
Boise River recovery sale, and most appeals will not be submitted until 
closer to the deadline.
  [[Page S4912]] We're running into delays from all sides, and I am 
glad to support my colleagues' efforts to expedite the process.
  As part of those efforts, the salvage sales amendment requires 
preparation of a single document that combines an environmental 
assessment under the National Environmental Protection Act with a 
biological evaluation under the Endangered Species Act.
  At another point in the timber salvage amendment there is language 
that states production of a biological evaluation shall be deemed to 
satisfy all applicable Federal laws, including the requirements of the 
ESA.
  Mr. President, I have seen a number of bills have been introduced in 
this Congress that attempt to modify the ESA in particular ways. I am 
not convinced that in every case they fully address the complex 
problems of the ESA.
  Further, I am concerned that they may have other, unintended 
consequences than just the consequences they seem to affect on the 
surface.
  I hope that this amendment will have the intended effect of allowing 
the salvage timber to be cut in a timely manner, and that the forests 
of Idaho will be protected from fuel load buildup. I certainly hope 
that we can accomplish the very necessary salvage timber harvest, and 
that we can then proceed to the very important matter of reforming the 
ESA.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise against the amendment to strike 
the Gorton salvage amendment. This amendment is an essential response 
to an emergency forest health situation on our Federal forests as 
evidenced by last year's fire season. Our committee has held oversight 
in this area, and has recognized the severity of the problem. I 
recommend we support the Gorton amendment as an appropriate emergency 
response to the problem.
  As I listen to critics of this amendment, I have come to conclude 
that they must be discussing some other provision than the one offered 
by Senator Gorton.
  First, they say that the Gorton amendment mandates increased salvage 
timber sales. The Gorton amendment does not mandate timber sales, it 
provides the administration with additional flexibility to sell salvage 
sales to the extent feasible. I trust the administration to properly 
utilize the flexibility. Opponents of the Gorton amendment apparently 
don't trust this administration. I can't tell whether they don't want 
to rehabilitate burned forests, or whether they need individual sale 
sign-off from Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and--maybe even--Vice President Gore to trust the 
administration.
  Second, they say that the Gorton amendment suspends all environmental 
laws. The Gorton amendment expedites existing administrative procedures 
under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and other measures. If the agencies successfully follow the 
expedited procedures, their performance is deemed adequate to comply 
with existing environmental and natural resources statues. These 
expedited procedures are essential if we are to appropriately respond 
to the forest health emergency we face.
  Third, they say that the Gorton amendment eliminates judicial review. 
Well it does not. The amendment provides an expedited form of judicial 
review that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous 
litigation.
  Fourth, they say that the Forest Service cannot meet the salvage 
targets. Well the amendment does not have any targets. I wish it did. 
Today, the Forest Service is working on its capability statement on the 
House version of this amendment. There are strong indications that, 
with the expedited procedures of the House bill--matched in pertinent 
part in the Gorton amendment--the Agency can meet the House targets and 
still comply with the substantive requirements of existing 
environmental and natural resources law.
  Fifth, they say that this amendment will cost the Treasury. This is 
false. The Gorton amendment has received a positive score from the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Sixth, they say that the amendment may disrupt and actually reduce 
timber sales. If that were true, I would expect them to strongly 
support the Gorton amendment. But it is not. The Gorton amendment 
contains protective language to assure that potential environmental 
litigants cannot disrupt other agency functions due to this amendment.
  I have been generally perplexed by the misconceptions that accompany 
the attacks on this amendment. But today I know why this may be the 
case. Yesterday Senator Gorton and Congressman Charles Taylor, along 
with Senator Craig--the author of S. 391, a measure directed at another 
aspect of this problem--offered to meet with a group of activists 
opposed to both the Gorton amendment and S. 391. Together, they cleared 
time on their calendars at 9 a.m. But they found the activists were 
more interested in preparing for their 9:30 a.m. press conference than 
meeting with the authors of the three provisions that they proceeded to 
lambast. That sort of interest group behavior cannot be tolerated if we 
are to continue to have informed debates in this body.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment, against the 
amendment to strike, and against any other modifying amendments.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from South Dakota which will allow ranchers and 
their livestock to stay on U.S. Forest Service land until the National 
Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] process is complete.
  On December 31, 1995, roughly 4,500 grazing permits in the western 
United States will expire. Approximately 140 of those permits are in my 
home State of Arizona. As part of the renewal process the Forest 
Service has embarked upon a new policy of requiring NEPA compliance for 
individual permits.
  While we all agree that grazing should be done in an environmentally 
sensitive manner that protects the resources of our national forests, I 
am troubled by the very real possibility that the Forest Service will 
not complete the individual NEPA analyses in time to reissue the 
grazing permits.
  If the permits are allowed to expire, ranchers and their cattle will 
be forced off of Forest Service land. This would be economically 
devastating to ranchers in many Western States where the only available 
grazing lands are those held by the Forest Service.
  As currently proposed, this new policy will have a serious economic 
impact on permit holders, and will yield very little, if any, positive 
benefits for the environment. It serves no purpose to arbitrarily 
remove a rancher only to find out that their activities were not having 
an adverse impact on the environment.
  This type of draconian action serves neither the interest of the 
environment, the rancher, nor the communities which rely on ranching 
revenues for their tax base. The amendment offered by Senator Pressler 
will ensure that the Forest Service cannot evict ranchers and their 
livestock from grazing allotments merely because the agency has not 
completed all the NEPA documentation.
  It is my understanding that compliance with NEPA is required only for 
major Federal actions and, until recently, the Forest Service did not 
consider the renewal of single grazing permits to be a major Federal 
action. Additionally, the Forest Service already conducts an 
environmental analysis of ranching activities during consideration of 
forest management plans.
  Mr. President, serious questions have been raised about the Forest 
Service's legal requirement to proceed with this additional 
environmental analysis. There are no Federal court cases requiring the 
Forest Service to complete either an environmental impact statement 
[EIS] or an environmental assessment [EA] prior to the issuance of a 
grazing authorization or term permit. Courts have held, however, that 
grazing should continue during the period of time that the NEPA process 
is being completed.
  Along with my colleagues from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I wrote to the 
Department of Agriculture asking the Department to review its new 
reissuance policy and determine if the permits could be extended until 
the NEPA process is complete. While we have not received a response to 
this letter, it is my understanding that the Forest 
[[Page S4913]] Service has made it clear they are unable to extend the 
permits under current law.
  It appears that this new process for addressing the reissuance of 
grazing permits is unnecessarily disruptive to those involved and does 
nothing to further the Forest Service obligation to promote fairness 
and proper management of public lands. For these reasons, I believe 
that the Forest Service should extend the expiring permits pending 
completion of the NEPA studies.
  Mr. President, I support the Senator's amendment and I hope the 
Senate conferees will work to retain it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to 
articulate in this rescission bill policy relating to timber salvage 
sales. It is my hope that the Senate will send a clear message to the 
Forest Service that considerably more timber salvage needs to be 
harvested in the forthcoming year.
  As many of my colleagues know, the timber harvest on national forests 
has declined considerably during the last few years. In some cases, 
this has been due to problems encountered in the Pacific Northwest, as 
the logging practices of the 1980's led to inevitable clashes between 
the timber industry and environmental organizations, and the conflict 
was thrown into the Federal court system, which halted much of the 
timber activity in that region. Ultimately, through the development by 
the Clinton administration of a legally defensible compromise, some 
light is now evident at the end of the tunnel.
  Nonetheless, progress has not been as rapid as the timber industry 
would have liked. And that is understandable. The pipeline of timber 
sales in the Pacific Northwest largely dried up during this period of 
litigation, and it has been slow to recover. Simultaneously, drought, 
insects and disease have taken a toll on other forests, resulting in 
considerable dead and dying timber and the associated fire danger 
throughout the west. The frequency and intensity of forest fires 
experienced last year were grim testament to the unacceptable situation 
that now exists.
  And, at the same time, the Forest Service's timber program budget has 
shrunk, reducing its ability to harvest this timber in a timely 
fashion. On many national forests, the actual harvest levels are well 
below the levels that have been determined by the Forest Service to be 
sustainable.
  We now are faced with developing and instituting an appropriate 
remedy. Serious steps should be taken to identify salvage timber and 
harvest it in an expedited fashion. By doing so, we can at least 
attempt to mitigate fire damage and begin to provide needed relief to 
timber-dependent communities.
  Without question, the Gorton amendment to the rescission bill would 
move more timber and expedite the salvage program. My concern is that 
the Gorton amendment, in its understandable preoccupation with 
encouraging greater timber sales, would waive environmental laws. Given 
the large amount of timber that could be harvested under this 
amendment, and the possible affects of this harvesting on fish and 
wildlife habitat, I am uncomfortable with the wholesale waiver of 
environmental statutes.
  In some cases, these laws have hindered the ability of the Forest 
Service to implement a responsible timber program. Congress is actively 
taking steps through the committees of jurisdiction to address these 
circumstances.
  Senator Craig has introduced legislation to establish a more 
deliberate and timely process for dealing with forest health problems. 
I am working with him to move this bill through the appropriate 
committees and to the floor this year, so that we can begin to address 
forest health in a systematic, deliberate, thorough and effective 
manner. In addition, Senator Kempthorne intends to produce legislation 
to reform the Endangered Species Act.
  I would not be surprised if both of these bills are enacted during 
this session of Congress.
  I believe that enactment of authorizing legislation is the 
appropriate way to change the scope or applicability of environmental 
laws--not ad hoc amendment of this rescission bill. Therefore, I 
support the amendment offered by Senator Murray which, among other 
things, will expedite timber sales by streamlining the appeals process 
and by limiting consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to 30 days.
  Under the Murray amendment, salvage sales cannot be held up solely 
because the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 
Service claims that they do not have adequate information. Also, a 
presumption is established that timber sales offered under Option Nine 
in the Pacific Northwest meet all environmental requirements.
  These measures should significantly improve the availability of 
timber in that region and throughout the country. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this amendment and hope that, if we adopt it today, it will 
be included in the final bill that is sent to the President for 
enactment into law.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate-reported 
version of the Emergency Disaster Supplemental Appropriations and 
rescission bill for fiscal year 1995.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for his efforts to move this bill expeditiously for Senate 
consideration.
  The Senate substitute provides emergency disaster assistance totaling 
$6.7 billion as requested by the President to assist the victims of the 
Northridge earthquake in California and natural disasters in 40 other 
States.
  The bill provides $1.9 billion to be available for the remainder of 
fiscal year 1995, and $4.8 billion as a ``contingency'' appropriation, 
which can be obligated by the President beginning in fiscal year 1996 
with specific notification of the Congress.
  The bill provides $27 million in non-emergency program supplementals 
requested by the President, which can be accommodated within the 
overall cap on discretionary spending.
  Finally, the bill includes rescissions totaling $13.1 billion in 
budget authority and $1.2 billion in outlay savings for fiscal year 
1995 to offset the costs of the disaster aid and provide further 
deficit reduction as the Congress seeks to move toward a balanced 
Federal budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill and put a ``mini 
downpayment'' on the significant deficit reduction that will be 
required to balance the budget and begin to alleviate the burden of 
debt we are leaving to our children and our children's children.
  The fact that the Senate and House are paying for the supplemental 
spending for defense programs and disaster assistance is to be 
commended. It will prevent some $15 billion from being added to the 
Federal deficit, and puts the Congress on the right path toward a 
balanced budget.
  The administration has indicated in its communications on this bill 
that it remains committed to deficit reduction. However, the 
administration then proceeds to object to most of the savings included 
in these bills.
  In many cases, the rescissions are from programs proposed for 
reduction or termination by the President, are from unobligated 
balances that will not realistically be spent, or reduce significant 
increases provided for programs at a time when the overall budget is 
constrained.
  The administration also focused on its commitment to deficit 
reduction in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget submission, but 
made no proposals whatsoever to deal with escalating spending on 
entitlement programs, and claimed phony savings in discretionary 
programs under the methodology OMB used to calculate the spending caps.
  Now is the time for Congress to embark on a serious journey to get 
its fiscal house in order. This bill is but a first step on what will 
be a long and difficult, but necessary, journey.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the 
Record at this point two tables showing the relationship of this bill 
to the section 602 allocations to the Appropriations Committee and to 
the current level which displays congressional action to date for 
fiscal year 1995.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                                                                
[[Page S4914]]
                    STATUS OF S. 617, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RECESSIONS; SENATE-REPORTED                    
                             [Fiscal year 1995; in millions of dollars, CBO scoring]                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Senate    Total comp
                     Subcommittee                       Current   S. 617b   Subcommittee    602(b)        to    
                                                        statusa                 total     allocation  allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture-RD:                                                                                                 
    BA...............................................    58,117       -189      57,927       58,118         -191
    OT...............................................    50,330       -104      50,226       50,330         -104
Commerce-Justice:c                                                                                              
    BA...............................................    26,873       -264      26,608       26,903         -295
    OT...............................................    25,429       -108      25,321       25,429         -108
Defense:                                                                                                        
    BA...............................................   243,628  .........     243,628      243,630           -2
    OT...............................................   250,661  .........     250,661      250,713          -52
District of Columbia:                                                                                           
    BA...............................................       712  .........         712          720           -8
    OT...............................................       714  .........         714          722           -8
Energy-Water:                                                                                                   
    BA...............................................    20,493       -332      20,161       20,493         -332
    OT...............................................    20,884       -166      20,717       20,888         -171
Foreign Operations:                                                                                             
    BA...............................................    13,679       -100      13,579       13,830         -251
    OT...............................................    13,780        -11      13,770       13,780          -10
Interior:                                                                                                       
    BA...............................................    13,578       -312      13,267       13,582         -315
    OT...............................................    13,970       -137      13,832       13,970         -138
Labor-HHS:d                                                                                                     
    BA...............................................   266,170     -2,906     263,264      266,170       -2,906
    OT...............................................   265,730       -352     265,378      265,731         -353
Legislative Branch:                                                                                             
    BA...............................................     2,459        -26       2,434        2,460          -26
    OT...............................................     2,472        -18       2,454        2,472          -18
Military Construction:                                                                                          
    BA...............................................     8,836       -231       8,605        8,837         -232
    OT...............................................     8,525        -38       8,488        8,554          -66
Transportation:                                                                                                 
    BA...............................................    14,265     -1,671      12.593       14,275       -1,682
    OT...............................................    37,087        -36      37,050       37,087          -37
Treasury-Postal:e                                                                                               
    BA...............................................    23,589       -248      23,342       23,757         -415
    OT...............................................    24,221        -17      24,204       24,261          -57
VA-HUD:                                                                                                         
    BA...............................................    90,256     -6,819      83,437       90,257       -6,820
    OT...............................................    92,438       -174      92,264       92,439         -175
Reserve:                                                                                                        
    BA...............................................  ........  .........  ............      2,311       -2,311
    OT...............................................  ........  .........  ............          1           -1
Total Appropriations:f                                                                                          
    BA...............................................   782,655    -13,097     769,558      785,343      -15,785
    OT...............................................   806,241     -1,162     805,079      806,377       -1,298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIn accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $1,394 million in budget authority  
  and $6,466 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President   
  and the Congress, and $877 million in budget authority and $935 million in outlays for emergencies that would 
  be available only upon an official budget request from the President designating the entire amount as an      
  emergency requirement.                                                                                        
bIn accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $1,838 million in budget authority  
  and $335 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and 
  the Congress in this bill.                                                                                    
cOf the amounts remaining under the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $28.1 million in budget  
  authority and $6.2 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
dOf the amounts remaining under the Labor-HHS Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $11.1 million in budget         
  authority and $2.6 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
eOf the amounts remaining under the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $1.3 million in budget    
  authority and $0.1 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
fOf the amounts remaining under the Appropriations Committee's 602(a) allocation, $30.5 million in budget       
  authority and $8.9 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding; Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, March 27, 1995.            


  FY 1995 CURRENT LEVEL, S. 617, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS 
                                  BILL                                  
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current level (as of March 24, 1995)a.............    1,236.5    1,217.2
S.617, Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions, as                       
 reported by the Senateb..........................      -13.1       -1.2
Adjustment to conform mandatory items with Budget                       
 Resolution assumptions...........................        (*)        (*)
                                                   ---------------------
      Total current level.........................    1,223.4    1,216.0
Revised on-budget aggregatesc.....................    1,238.7    1,217.6
                                                   ---------------------
Amount over (+)/under (-) budget aggregates.......      -15.4       -1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding;                    
*Less than $50 million.                                                 
aIn accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, the total does not      
  include $1,394 million in budget authority and $6,466 million in      
  outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such  
  by the President and the Congress, and $877 million in budget         
  authority and $935 million in outlays for emergencies that would be   
  available only upon an official budget request from the President     
  designating the entire amount requested as an emergency requirement.  
bIn accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not     
  include $1,838 million in budget authority and $335 million in outlays
  in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the   
  President and the Congress in this bill.                              
cReflects revised allocation under section 9(g) of H. Con. Res. 64 for  
  the Deficit-Neutral reserve fund.                                     
                                                                        
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 03/29/95.                               

 endangered species act listings and critical habitat designations

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier this month, while considering the 
Department of Defense supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate 
adopted an amendment that was offered by the Senator from Texas. 
Senator Hutchison's amendment will rescind $1.5 million from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's account for Endangered Species Act listings 
and critical habitat designations. That bill is currently before a 
House-Senate conference committee. At the moment, I have not heard 
whether the conferees have agreed to accept the Senate position and 
include the Hutchison amendment in the final DOD supplemental bill.
  The bill we are considering today includes a provision to rescind 
funds from the same account as the original amendment by Senator 
Hutchison. It is my understanding that the intention of the managers of 
the bill is to rescind these funds in either the DOD bill or in this 
one, but not to rescind the funds in both bills. In fact, on page 32 of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee Report it states: ``The issue of a 
revised funding level for Endangered Species Act programs will be 
considered by the Committee in the context of conference actions on 
both this bill and the Department of Defense supplemental.'' Would the 
Senator from Washington confirm my understanding and would he please 
explain the meaning of this report language?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to set the 
record straight on this. It is not my intention to include a rescission 
from the endangered species listing program in two separate rescission 
bills. When it becomes clear that the Hutchison amendment will be 
accepted by the DOD conference committee, I plan to offer an amendment 
to eliminate the rescission from the listing account that is included 
in this bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am pleased to hear the Senator's response and I thank 
him for his cooperation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send, along 
with Senator D'Amato, a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 427, 
and ask that it be taken up at the appropriate time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I, before that activity, move to 
table the Reid amendment that is immediately pending and ask for the 
yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could the 
Senator from Alaska repeat what the unanimous consent request is?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Simply to submit a second-degree amendment to 
amendment No. 427 and ask that it be taken up at the appropriate time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not serve on the Banking Committee. 
There are two, three, four Republicans on the floor, five, all my 
friends. I know that they are not going to take advantage of anyone. 
But I just cannot do that because I do not understand the banking issue 
before this body.
  I will object.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is simply a second degree to the D'Amato 
amendment which is the pending business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator D'Amato is not here. I object, if the Senator 
is not here. Did Senator D'Amato approve?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator D'Amato is joining me.
  Mr. REID. I join my friend from New Mexico in objecting.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I get the yeas and nays on the Reid amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 437

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 437 offered by the Senator from 
Alabama [Mr. Shelby].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 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. Conrad], and the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 15, as follows:
              [[Page S4915]] [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--15

     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Grams
     Kassebaum
  So the amendment (No. 437) was agreed to.
                 Vote on Amendment No. 435, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 435, as 
amended, by the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. Kerrey].
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 435), as amended, was agreed to.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 438

  The PRESIDING OFFICER Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on a motion to table amendment No. 438 offered by the Senator from 
Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 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. Conrad], and the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--17

     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Grams
     Kassebaum
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 438) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
rollcall on the Reid amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if we could have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senate will be in order.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 439

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question then occurs on the motion to lay 
on the table amendment 439, offered by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid].
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 439) was agreed to.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
Democratic leader--as I understand it, he would prefer to have no more 
votes this evening. Is there any way we could reach some agreement on 
bringing this matter to conclusion? Otherwise, I am tempted to take the 
bill down.
  But I can say we are not going to send any other supplemental to the 
President until we deal with this one. So if they are waiting for the 
defense supplemental, it is not going to happen. I think what we have 
here is just a lot of amendments coming by the bucketsful from that 
side. Certainly it is everybody's right. But we thought we could finish 
this bill in 2 days. Apparently we cannot.
  I have asked the distinguished Democratic leader if it would serve 
any purpose to stay here any further tonight?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I guess I would remind our colleagues the 
reason we are here at 10:15 is we spent the entire day working on an 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York, on an amendment that 
had nothing to do with the supplemental. I am sure the bulk of the 
amendments thus far have been offered in good faith by Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I would be prepared to lay down the amendment that we have been 
talking about now for a couple of days tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
We could have a good debate on it. I think we could narrow the list, as 
we have been able to do in the past, to try to come up with a list that 
we could dispose of in due course. But certainly I would be prepared to 
work out a time agreement on the amendment tomorrow and continue our 
work.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Democratic leader would like to 
start, what, 10 o'clock? Is that what he indicated?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct, start at 10 o'clock. We could get a 
time agreement. I know people are going to want to make travel 
schedules tomorrow, but we could finish perhaps at 2 o'clock in the 
afternoon.
  Mr. DOLE. I also understand the managers of the bill would like to 
stay tonight if any amendments can be accepted. Are there amendments 
that could be accepted tonight, I might ask the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Leader, I do not have a list 
of the amendments that are floating around. We have a number, a few 
amendments here that we can accept, to move ahead and do that. But I do 
not have a list from the minority side, nor from the majority side, on 
what amendments are intended to be offered.
  Mr. DOLE. Is there anyone willing to debate an amendment tonight and 
have the vote tomorrow at, say, 9:45, before we start on the major 
amendment by the Democratic leader?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I will be delighted.
  Mr. DOLE. Your effort has been noted.
  Are there any volunteers? We might be able to do that. I think the 
managers--I think Senator Hatfield had hoped we would stay all night 
and finish the bill, but I do not believe that is possible after 
visiting with the Democrat leader. But it may be possible for someone 
to lay down an amendment--on either side of the aisle? Are there any 
amendments on either side of the aisle we can lay down and have a vote 
on, say tomorrow at 9:45 in the morning?
  [[Page S4916]] Mr. HATFIELD. Would the majority leader and minority 
leader at least let us try to stay in all night and finish it?
  Mr. DASCHLE. No, we could not do that.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I feel fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. If someone were to stay tonight and offer an amendment for 
a vote in the morning, would that obviate a vote subsequent to that? Or 
would there still be a vote later in the afternoon?
  Mr. DOLE. There would be a vote hopefully not too late in the 
afternoon, hopefully 1:30 or 2.
  I do not like getting everybody over to vote with the Sergeant at 
Arms. I think that is a waste of time and punishes people who may not 
be here for some good reason. I know on our side there are a couple of 
people here who had deaths in the family.
  But if there was some amendment we could lay down tonight and vote on 
in the morning? If not, we will just wait and take up the leader's 
amendment at 10 a.m.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Leader, could you yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is there any way between the minority leader and the 
chairman of the committee that we could find out how many amendments 
there really are?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Sure. We can work on that. We have been.
  Mr. DOLE. We will work on that overnight and bring it up in the 
morning.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes then this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the amendment of the 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. SIMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Would it be in order on the floor of the Senate to mention 
that our colleague, Senator Bob Graham, became a grandfather of 
triplets this evening?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois may speak on any 
subject he wishes. The Senator has done just that.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the D'Amato 
amendment be temporarily laid aside in order to take up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 440

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for Mr. Hollings, 
     for himself and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     440.

  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:
       On page 8 of the substitute amendment strike line 1 through 
     line 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:


                         general administration

                          working capital fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading in 
     Public Law 103-317, $5,000,000 are rescinded.


                            legal activities

                         asset forfeiture fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $5,000,000 are rescinded.


                       office of justice programs

                              drug courts

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in title 
     VIII of Public Law 103-317, $17,100,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, This amendment, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Biden, would restore some of the funding in the Department of 
Justice's Drug Court Program. The House-passed bill and the committee-
reported bill both rescind $27.1 million from drug courts. My amendment 
reduces the rescission to $17.1 million, and allows $10.0 million for 
the program this year.
  Last week Attorney General Janet Reno sent me a letter expressing her 
strong support for the Drug Court Program and her desire to have this 
funding restored. I ask unanimous consent that her letter, in its 
entirety, appear in the Record.
  This Drug Court Program is funded through the violent crime trust 
fund. We already cut all discretionary programs last year to make 
offsets for this program and other crime bill programs. But, now here 
we are considering a bill that eliminates funding for a crime 
reduction, antidrug program--and here I am proposing yet additional 
offsets to pay for the program a second time.
  Mr. President, Members might wonder why the House is trying to 
eliminate this program. Why? Because drug courts always was a Senate-
sponsored program. It was included in the Senate version of the crime 
bill and was supported on a bipartisan basis. And, frankly, I don't 
understand why the Appropriations Committee would want to concur in 
their rescission.
  Mr. President, we have a crime problem in this country caused by 
drugs. Just 2 weeks ago, DEA Administrator Constantine testified before 
the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee about the rise in drug-
related crime. More than half of those arrested who enter the criminal 
justice system have some level of substance abuse problems. Our 
criminal justice system functions like a revolving door in which drug 
offenders continue to pass through.
  Drug courts are designed to specifically deal with this inherent 
problem in our criminal justice system. Drug courts employ the coercive 
power of the court to subject nonviolent offenders to the kind of 
intensive supervision that can break the cycle of substance abuse and 
crime that infects too many communities in this country.
  These drug courts require mandatory periodic drug testing, mandated 
substance abuse treatment for each program participant, and graduated 
sanctions for participants who fail to show satisfactory progress in 
their assigned treatment regimens.
  All this is under the direct supervision of drug court judges. I 
believe many Members met with these judges in the last few weeks, two 
drug court judges were in my office recently to speak on behalf of this 
program. Both Judge Jeffrey Tauber of Oakland, CA, and Judge Steven 
Ryan of Las Cruces, NM, stressed that drug courts are not a 
``Washington knows best program.'' It is a locally determined program, 
every drug court is different and unique.
  Mr. President, I think we now have one of the best Attorney Generals 
we've ever had, and I have known a lot of them. She's tough and 
understands law enforcement. Janet Reno came up through the ranks. She 
really believes in this Drug Court Program and knows from her 
experience in Dade County, FL, that it works. My amendment lets her 
prove the program's worth and get it off the ground.
  The amendment's offsets are simple.
  The amendment proposes rescinding $5 million of the unobligated 
balances in the Justice Department's working capital fund. This account 
funds ADP equipment, accounting systems, administrative support, and 
law enforcement related equipment. I know justice has various things 
they want to reprogram dollars for; saving the drug court program is a 
high priority. The only reason these balances are in the fund is 
because of language the Congress put in the bill 3 years ago that 
enabled Justice to recapture expiring balances.
  Second, the amendment proposes a rescission of $5 million
   from unobligated balances in the Justice assets forfeiture fund. 
These funds are excess to annual requirements and were not expected to 
be spent in the current year. It will not impact any State or local law 
enforcement participation in the assets forfeiture program.

  So, what we are trying to do in this amendment is to strike a 
balance--to make minor reductions in two Justice accounts--to save at 
least $10 million for drug courts. We should give Attorney General Reno 
a chance to prove this program's worth instead of simply 
[[Page S4917]] concurring with the House-proposed rescission. Our 
amendment is fully offset. I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent 
a letter from Attorney General Reno be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1995.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Departments of 
         Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related 
         Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: As you know today the Full Committee 
     will consider H.R. 1158, a bill that among other things would 
     rescind funding for certain programs established in the 
     Violent Crime Control and law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCA). 
     Included in this bill is a rescission of $27,170,000 for the 
     Drug Court Grant Program.
       I am writing to register my strong objection to this 
     rescission, which would eliminate funding to help implement a 
     proven cost-effective approach of integrated services and 
     sanctions which I have witnessed first hand to be successful 
     in combatting drug-related crime. The Drug Court Grant 
     Program can help ensure certainty and immediacy of punishment 
     for non-violent arrestees with drug problems who might 
     otherwise go both unpunished and unsupervised. They are an 
     essential element of a comprehensive and fiscally responsible 
     approach to improve the criminal justice system.
       The House action--the rescission of more than 95 percent of 
     the appropriation for the current fiscal year--is devastating 
     to this Administration's drug-fighting efforts. It also 
     represents a serious setback for communities around this 
     country working to improve public safety by breaking the 
     powerful connection between substance abuse and crime.


                               trust fund

       At the outset, I would like to comment on how this 
     rescission affects the integrity of the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund.
       Both the Drug Court program and the Trust Fund were 
     included in S. 1607, the Senate crime bill from last 
     Congress, which passed the Senate on November 19, 1993 by the 
     overwhelming vote of 95 to 4.
       The concept of the Trust Fund was to offset the cost of 
     crime-fighting initiatives--such as Drug Courts--with the 
     savings accumulated from reducing the Federal workforce. The 
     Trust Fund was the result of a true bipartisan effort because 
     the Senate had concluded--as a body--that crime-fighting 
     programs should be paid for and protected from other spending 
     programs.
       Rescinding the funding for the Drug Court Program will set 
     a precedent that the Trust Fund can be raided at any time for 
     any other spending program.


            drug courts are an important crime-fighting tool

       We know that more than half of those arrested enter the 
     criminal justice system with some substance abuse problem. We 
     also know that too frequently, the current criminal justice 
     system functions like a revolving door through which 
     substance-abusing offenders pass without being required to 
     deal with the drug abuse that is inextricably tied to their 
     criminal behavior. Seeking to capitalize on that knowledge, 
     the VCCA established the Drug Court Grant Program.
       Drug courts employ a court's coercive power to subject non-
     violent offenders to the kind of intensive supervision that 
     can break the cycle of substance abuse and crime that 
     inflicts suffering in too many communities in this country.
       Title V of the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 authorizes the Department of Justice to make 
     discretionary grants to support drug court programs that 
     involve continuing judicial supervision over offenders. 
     Violent offenders are excluded from this program.
       States, state courts, local courts, units of local 
     government and tribal governments are eligible to apply for 
     drug court program funding. Programs that receive Crime Act 
     funding will subject substance abusing, non-violent offenders 
     to intensive court supervised intervention that provides the 
     mix of services and sanctions necessary to coerce abstinence 
     and force criminals to alter their behavior.
       To achieve those goals, funded programs must include the 
     research identified key elements of success: mandatory 
     periodic drug testing; mandated substance abuse treatment for 
     each program participant; and graduated sanctions for 
     participants who fail to show satisfactory progress in their 
     assigned treatment regimens.
       This initiative will support locally tailored approaches--
     it is not a ``Washington knows best'' program. No single drug 
     court model can effectively break the cycle of substance 
     abuse and crime in every community. Thus, this program will 
     support local determinations about how to structure funded
      drug court programs, while ensuring that statutorily-
     required bedrock principles are in place.


                        the facts on drug courts

       The facts are clear that drug courts work. According to a 
     National Institute of Justice-sponsored evaluation, 
     participants in the Dade County, Florida drug court program--
     one that I witnessed first-hand--showed substantially lower 
     rates for rearrest than non-participating defendants. Even 
     those drug court participants who did re-offend, did so after 
     significantly longer periods than non-participating 
     offenders.
       Studies of the drug court programs in Portland, Oregon, 
     Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois, have also shown 
     lower rates of recidivism for program participants. The 
     California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) 
     showed that substance abuse treatment reduced participants' 
     involvement in criminal activity by 43.3 percent.
       Encouraged by these positive law enforcement results, 
     prosecutors, judges, public defenders, law enforcement 
     officials, and treatment professionals in jurisdictions 
     around the country are embracing this concept and moving 
     forward to implement treatment drug court.
       Twenty-nine drug courts have been fully operational for at 
     least 6 months. Another 31 drug courts have been either 
     recently launched or are under development.


                     moving in the right direction

       Since the Crime Bill became law, the Office of Justice 
     Programs (OJP) in the Department of Justice has moved forward 
     aggressively to implement this initiative. OJP had created a 
     Drug Court Program Office to administer the program. OJP has 
     published proposed Drug Court Regulations and is currently 
     responding to comments submitted in response to that 
     publication. In addition, OJP has disseminated Program 
     Guidelines and Application Information regarding the Drug 
     Court Program.
       Jurisdictions around the country are poised to move forward 
     with planning for drug courts. That more than 600 people 
     attended the January conference of the National Association 
     of Drug Court Professionals demonstrates the burgeoning 
     support for this program nationwide. In light of that 
     widespread support and interest, the Office of Justice 
     Programs intends to make up to 100 small ($35,000 each) 
     planning grants to eligible jurisdictions. This small sum, 
     dedicated as it is to planning, will help jurisdictions lay 
     the ground work for effective drug courts that work to break 
     the cycle of substance abuse and crime.
       Many jurisdictions, inspired by the common sense appeal of 
     the treatment drug court concept, have already engaged in 
     significant drug court planning. For those locales, OJP will 
     make available up to 13 grant awards (no more than 10 for up 
     to $1 million and no more than 3 of up to $2 million) for 
     those jurisdictions to complete their planning processes and 
     move into full implementation.
       In addition, there are some 35 treatment drug courts 
     currently in operation around the country. These 
     jurisdictions are pleased with the results they have achieved 
     thus far, but would seek Federal support to improve, enhance, 
     or expand their efforts. OJP will make available up to 20 
     grants, of no more than $1 million, to existing drug courts 
     so that they can more effectively work to attack the linkage 
     between substance abuse and criminal behavior in their 
     communities.
       OJP also intends to develop the capacity to provide a broad 
     range of training and technical assistance nationwide. While 
     this assistance will focus on jurisdictions that receive OJP 
     Drug Court grants, the intention is to develop the capacity 
     to provide assistance beyond those jurisdictions which 
     receive grant awards.
       The House-passed rescission action eviscerates the 
     Department's ability to move forward to help make drug 
     courts--an important crime fighting tool--available to our 
     nation's states and localities.


                       House Action on H.R. 1158

       Finally, the House Appropriations Committee Report 
     accompanying H.R. 1158 stated that the Drug Court rescission 
     ``simply conforms the appropriation to the most recent House 
     action.'' The reference to the last House action is the 
     passage of H.R. 728 last month, which eliminated the 
     authorization for the Drug Court Program.
       As you know, since the Senate has yet to act upon any 
     revisions to the Crime Law, the House's rationale for 
     eliminating Fiscal Year 1995 funding for the Drug Court 
     Program is inapplicable to the Senate.
       During consideration of any revisions to the Crime Law in 
     the Senate this Congress, the Administration will be working 
     very hard to preserve the authorization for the Drug Court 
     program and we expect bipartisan support in this effort.
       Since the Senate is yet to act upon any authorization 
     revisions to the Crime Law, I believe that a rescission of 
     the Drug Court Fiscal Year 1995 funding should not be 
     included in any Senate action on H.R. 1158.
       This Administration is strongly committed to streamlining 
     government and reducing the deficit. However, it is also 
     committed to an issue that is so important to each and every 
     American--the fight against crime. The proposed rescission of 
     the Drug Court Program from the VCCA Trust Fund will greatly 
     thwart our efforts to fight crime. It sends the wrong message 
     to the American public. We should be moving forward not 
     backward from the gains we made last year.
       I appreciate your consideration of my views.
           Sincerely,
                                 ______

                                                       Janet Reno.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment that has 
been accepted by both sides. The 
[[Page S4918]] amendment restores $10 million in crime law trust fund 
dollars that would be rescinded by the legislation now before the 
Senate.
  My amendment restores $10 million of the $27 million rescinded from 
the Drug Courts Program. And, let me be clear, all of this $10 million 
is offset by cuts of $10 million in Justice Department funds that will 
not diminish law enforcement. They are funds that both the subcommittee 
chairman and ranking member have agreed to rescind because they will 
not adversely impact Justice Department operations.
  This amendment is necessary for two key reasons:
  First, we must stick to the promise we made in the violent crime 
reduction trust fund--we have already cut Federal bureaucrats to pay 
for the crime law, so the $30.2 billion crime law does not increase the 
deficit.
  Second, unless we restore this $10 million more than 5,000 drug 
offenders who are today released on probation will not be tested for 
drugs, will not be supervised, and will not be punished until many more 
American citizens have been the victim of a crime, because without drug 
testing, about the only way any offender is kicked off probation and 
into jail is to get caught committing another crime--in other words, 
after there is yet another victim.
  And as I mentioned, my amendment identifies $10 million in offsetting 
cuts so my amendment does not change the overall deficit cutting of 
this bill. This amendment simply takes a step to help preserve the 
integrity of the Drug Court Program.
  Let me review just some of the facts that point out just how great 
the need is to add real teeth to our probation system.
  Nationwide, about 3 million offenders are released on probation. Of 
these 3 million, about half, 1.4 million, of these offenders are drug 
abusers. And, of these 1.4 million offenders, only about 800,000 
receive some drug testing and/or drug treatment.
  That all means that nationwide we have about 600,000 offenders, out 
on probation who are drug-abusers and who are not tested for drugs, not 
treated for their addiction, and barely supervised by our overwhelmed 
probation officers.
  In fact, in the Nation's largest States, probation officers' 
caseloads range from 90 to 100 offenders per officer; to 240 offenders 
per officer. Even at the 100-offender level, that means that in an 
average 40 hour week, a probation officer could spend about 20 minutes 
on each offender under his or her authority. At the higher levels, 
probation officers have less than 10 minutes every week to make sure 
that each offender is staying on the straight and narrow.
  Plainly, few of these offenders are being supervised the way they 
should.
  Unless these offenders face certain punishment, with the chance of 
treatment to beat their addiction, they will be the violent offenders 
of tomorrow.
  Unless we monitor these offenders on probation, they are probably 
continuing to take drugs, as well as committing crimes for which they 
have not yet been arrested. Drug testing means that these offenders 
will no longer get a free ride on probation.
  And that is the only choice these intensive drug testing and 
treatment, and certain punishment programs ask us to make. Instead of 
these offenders walking around the streets, unmonitored, they will have 
to check in every day or so and confirm that they have not been using 
drugs through a drug test or suffer the consequences.
  While all of us might wish that these offenders were all behind bars, 
I do not believe we have that choice. We all know that we can't build 
cells fast enough--even if we could afford to build 3 million new 
prison cells at a cost of at least $150 billion and that is based on a 
conservative construction cost estimate of $50,000 per cell.
  Let me also point out that these are not programs for violent 
offenders. These are cost-effective programs that combine the concepts 
of prevention plus responsibility to reach those offenders whose minor 
crimes have just brought them into the criminal justice system.
  The language in the Senate-passed bill specifically exempted violent 
offenders from participation in these intensive drug testing programs. 
And, the language in the crime law goes even further--adding language 
that prevents any offender who has ever been convicted of a violent 
offense from participating in the drug courts.
  The results of the Drug Court Program in Attorney General Reno's 
hometown are impressive:
  From June 1989 to December 1991, 1,740 offenders successfully 
graduated from the program--and only 3 percent have been rearrested.
  In addition, about 1,500 offenders failed out of the Drug Court 
Program--however, the strength of the drug testing program means that 
these offenders who should not be released on probation were identified 
early and sent to jail--where they belong.
  Before the Drug Court Program, was instituted, the re-arrest rate for 
these offenders was 33 percent.
  And the program is saving money--money that can be redirected to 
incarcerating and treating violent, career criminals. In Miami, it 
costs $17,000 a year to keep an offender in the county jail. That same 
offender can get the benefits of the drug court at a price of about 
$2,000 a year.
  The results from many other jurisdictions are similarly impressive:
  In my home State of Delaware, Judge Richard Gebelein wrote to tell me 
that in just the first 8 months of operation the Delaware drug court 
had put:

       Over 250 people who would have been placed on probation 
     with little or no supervision have been placed in a [drug 
     court] program where they are tightly controlled and 
     monitored. We have increased public safety through this 
     program.

  In Coos County, OR, the rate of positive drug tests dropped from more 
than 40 percent to less than 10 percent after the probation department 
subjected offenders to a tough program of drug treatment and drug 
testing.
  In Michigan, some judges have instituted a drug testing program which 
imposes progressively harsher sanctions with each failure. Most 
offenders--no matter how serious their addiction--seem to learn 
quickly: Of 200 offenders in the program, only 28 have failed.
  An Oakland, CA, Drug Court Program with regular drug testing found 
that the re-arrest rate was reduced by 45 percent when the program went 
into effect. And, based on this figure, the program estimated that 
participants spent--in total--35,000 fewer days in custody because they 
were not re-arrested. The bottom line: Alemeda County generated more 
than $2 million in savings from the unused prison space.
  I would like to thank Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee Chairman Gramm for his assistance on this important 
matter. I am happy that we could reach agreement and I am sure that 
Senator Gramm will continue to work on this important program when this 
bill reaches--as I believe it will--a conference with the House of 
Representatives. Senator Gramm was a key player when the Senate 
developed the crime law trust fund, so I know that he shares my support 
for this key funding mechanism.
  I would also thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator 
Hollings, for his efforts and assistance to preserve at least a portion 
of the drug court funding, and uphold the integrity of the trust fund.
  Appropriations Chairman Senator Hatfield also has my appreciation for 
his support of the Drug Court Program.
  Finally, I would express my personal gratitude to ranking member 
Senator Byrd  for agreeing to this amendment. As my colleagues in the 
Senate know, the violent crime reduction trust fund that fully funded 
the $30.2 billion crime law without adding to the deficit was the 
product of the hard work and incredible creativity of Senator Byrd. I 
will do everything I can to maintain the integrity of the trust fund, 
but I would just acknowledge that there would be no trust fund for 
which to fight were it not for Senator Byrd.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, again, I note that the ranking member of 
this committee is on the floor, Senator Hollings. It has been cleared 
on both sides.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 440) was agreed to.
  [[Page S4919]] Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the 
vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                           Amendment No. 427

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry? What is the 
pending business? Are we on D'Amato?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question occurs on the D'Amato 
amendment number 427.


                 Amendment No. 441 to Amendment No. 427

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no objection, I would like to send a 
second-degree amendment in behalf of myself, Senator D'Amato, to amend 
amendment No. 427 and ask it be taken up at the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] for himself and Mr. 
     D'Amato proposes an amendment numbered 441 to amendment 
     numbered 427.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:
       At the end of line 10 of page 2, prior to the period insert 
     the following:
       ``, Provided, That as the bearer bonds issued by the 
     Government of Mexico are redeemed with monies provided by the 
     Government of the United States, the Government of the United 
     States first be provided with the names and addresses of 
     those redeeming such bonds''.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________