[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5338-S5380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator, the question 
before the Senate is amendment No. 441 in the second degree to 
amendment No. 427. The Senator needs to ask unanimous consent for that 
to be set aside.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, shortly I think we will have some agreement on an 
amendment that I will offer. I thought what I might do is take 
advantage of this time to briefly summarize this for colleagues. I 
appreciate the hard work of the majority leader and the bipartisan 
spirit of this.
  Senior citizens face a confusing world of rules, conditions, 
exceptions, limitations, and even outright scams when choosing their 
supplemental health insurance and grappling with the Medicare system. 
Congress recognized the difficulty seniors face when it established a 
program, which is really a wonderful program. It is sort of the best 
example of grant money going a long way, and is called the Insurance 
Information Counseling and Assistance Grant Program in OBRA 1990. This 
was a recognition by the Congress that Medicare beneficiaries need 
help, not help through a Washington agency, but person-to-person help 
at a local level.
  All 50 States have established insurance counseling and assistance 
programs with the help of Federal grant dollars. As a result, these 
programs provide local volunteer based assistance to Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, this grant program is a perfect example of a small 
program--it is basically seed money--that has produced big results. Let 
me repeat that--a small program that has produced big results.
  Over 10,000 volunteers have been trained through the program, and 
over $14 million is saved each year for beneficiaries just by good 
counseling for senior citizens who have a difficult time.
  I remember that both my mom and dad had Parkinson's disease and, in 
the latter years of their lives, among their struggles was the struggle 
of just wading through some of the paperwork that they had to do, and 
some of the forms that they found bewildering.
  In my own State of Minnesota, 300 volunteers have been trained, and 
3,300 
[[Page S5339]] beneficiaries were assisted in 1994 alone--just in the 
State of Minnesota--and $867,000 was saved on their behalf.
  Mr. President, I just simply want to make the case that what we are 
trying to do here is restore $5.5 million that is part of the proposed 
rescissions. What we are working on now is what the offset will be.
  This is $5.5 million to be added on to what I think is now being 
spent, which is also about $5.5 million, which wil go a long way. 
Again, this is not a program centered in Washington, DC. This is a 
program that uses a small amount of Federal dollars that goes a long, 
long way. We train volunteers in each of our States, and I say to my 
colleagues that I know if you just talk to people in your State, 
especially senior citizens, you will find that there is a tremendous 
appreciation for the Insurance Information Counseling and Assistance 
Grant Program.
  So I am just trying to restore $5.5 million. We are now working on an 
offset. As soon as we have that offset--and I think it will be soon--it 
is my hope that my amendment will have unanimous support.
  Mr. President, I also want to say to my colleagues, the reason that I 
have been working on this amendment is, at least for me, one of the 
better reasons to be in the U.S. Senate--the need for this program 
comes directly from a lot of senior citizens in the State of Minnesota. 
People are really committed to this program. They feel it is not very 
expensive. I am just trying to get $5.5 million back in here to provide 
counseling assistance to seniors all across the country, and people 
tell me it is a huge help to them.
  I think this is a good example of public policy that is not overly 
centralized, Mr. President, and not overly bureaucratized. It takes 
place back in our States and local communities, and constitutes the 
best example of using a small amount of money to get a lot of 
volunteers to provide a lot of help to senior citizens working their 
way through these forms, and it is a wonderful consumer protection and 
prevention program against some of the scams that all too often, 
unfortunately, happen to seniors.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum. I hope soon we will have some 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside 
the pending amendment if we have one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 576 to Amendment No. 420

  (Purpose: To restore $614,000 proposed for rescission from the Weir 
Farm Historical Site, CT, and $700,000 proposed for rescission from the 
  Jefferson Expansion Memorial, IL, offset by rescissions of $700,000 
 from land acquisition for the Wayne National Forest, OH, and $690,000 
 from the Highway Trust Fund; and to prohibit the purchase of lands in 
               Washington County and Lawrence County, OH)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 576 to amendment No. 420.

  Mr. GORTON. 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 19, line 2, strike ``$11,297,000'' and insert: 
     ``$9,983,000''.
       On page 21, line 17, strike $3,020,000'' and insert: 
     ``$3,720,000''.
       On page 21, line 17, after ``rescinded'' insert ``and the 
     Chief of the Forest Service shall not exercise any option of 
     purchase or initiate any new purchases of land, with 
     obligated or unobligated funds, in Washington County, Ohio, 
     and Lawrence County, Ohio, during fiscal year 1995''.
       On page 44, line 77, insert the following:

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                          FEDERAL AID HIGHWAYS


                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the available contract authority balances under this 
     heading in Public Law 100-17, $690,074 are rescinded.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment includes five items, all of 
which apply within the general direction of the Interior Committee 
portions of this bill. They are at the request of individual Senators 
and have offsets there for relatively small projects. They have 
offsets. They have been cleared with the majority and minority parties.
  They include elements in Ohio, Illinois--that is one in which 
Missouri is interested--and Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Has the Senator from Washington sent the amendments to 
the desk? Are they at the desk?
  Mr. GORTON. They are.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, those amendments have been cleared on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 576) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Nevada 
is prepared to offer an amendment. I wonder if we might agree to a 30-
minute time agreement on the amendment?
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may respond, Senator Bumpers is the 
primary sponsor of this. I am trying to reach him. He will be here 
momentarily. I am certainly agreeable in principle to the time limit to 
accommodate the leader and move this along, but I am reluctant to agree 
to a specific time until I speak with him.
  Let me assure the leader I will try to ferret out the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas and will be in communication with the leader as 
soon as possible.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just want to give my colleagues a status 
report on where I think we are. I believe we are making progress, but I 
am not certain because I see some additional amendments that have been 
added, additional cost items, add-backs--about $60 million. Then the 
offset has been reduced by about $60 million. It is about $120 million 
that has sort of disappeared here without our knowledge on this side.
  We are perfectly willing to discuss these items or look at offsets 
that might be offered.
  $46 million for Job Corps; I do not know where that came from. That 
came out of the blue; never discussed it yesterday. TRIO, whatever TRIO 
is; immigration and education; substance abuse and mental health--all 
these things. There is already a great deal of money in the bill for 
all of these programs.
  Then the IRS offset disappeared. That was $50 million. Library is $10 
million; maybe one or two others.
  So we have sort of gone backwards on the deficit reduction and 
forwards on spending more money. Now, maybe in the overall mix of 
things, because this is about a $16 billion rescission package, we 
should not quarrel about $120 million. But I think there may be 
principle involved here, too.
  If we are going to negotiate, then we ought to negotiate and finish 
this bill, or finish it tomorrow. I am not going to stay here very much 
longer tonight if we are not making any more progress than we are. So 
we will come back tomorrow. But I hope before that decision is made we 
can come to some conclusion on where these amendments came from. Why 
were there not any offsets? Why did we lose some $60 million on the 
offset side, savings side? Then I think we would be prepared to reach 
some agreement.
   [[Page S5340]] I know the Senator from Nevada has an amendment. I 
know the Senator from Minnesota has an amendment. And I know there is a 
managers' amendment. Then I think there was one additional amendment. 
The Senator from Iowa has an amendment on CPB. I thought those were all 
of the amendments. Then we discovered there are four more amendments 
that have been added back without a vote or anything else. Then there 
were some taken out of the savings side without a vote or anything 
else.
  I just say to my colleagues on the other side. We want to be 
cooperative, but we cannot do business this way. I am prepared to see 
if we cannot work something out in the next 30 minutes. If not, we will 
recess for the evening and come back sometime tomorrow.
  Are we yet in a position to get a time agreement? We are never going 
to finish it unless some people are willing to give us some time 
agreements.
  Mr. FORD. Will the majority leader yield for just a moment?
  Mr. DOLE. Sure.
  Mr. FORD. We are doing our best to try to put things together. I 
understand the push. I understand getting out in 30 minutes and coming 
back tomorrow. But then you have a cloture petition filed. That ripens 
Saturday. So we are trying to put it together, and people understand 
that. The amendments that we have there, the new entrants, are the ones 
that are the amendments that basically have been agreed to. We have 
been trying to put--
  Mr. DOLE. On your side.
  Mr. FORD. On our side. We are trying to put it together where we can 
get that agreement. It becomes very difficult. We understand that there 
is no budget out here. We are trying to get rescissions in this year's 
allowances. That cuts off a lot of money for people that already 
started work. It does make it a little bit difficult.
  I wanted to assure the majority leader that we are working. We are 
sweating trying to agree to what he is offering here. I just wanted to 
assure him. There was not anyone else out here to take it up.
  Mr. DOLE. I am not quarreling with the Senator from Kentucky.
  I will give you one example. The Senator from Mississippi, Senator 
Cochran, has been following the Women, Infants, and Children program, 
WIC, very carefully. He is very sensitive to that program. So we are 
adding back $35 million, which he says we cannot spend, just cannot 
spend it. But you know we added it back. So I assume it will not be 
spent. So it is not really an add-on. I am certain there are other 
programs which are the same.
  But all I am suggesting is I think we are very, very close to getting 
this done, except for these new add-backs that I was not aware of, and 
then some of the deductions that have gone on that I was not aware of. 
So, hopefully, we can resolve those matters very quickly. And one way 
to do it quickly is to get Members to give us a time agreement.
  I wonder if we not in a position to get a time agreement on the 
Bryan-Bumpers amendment so we can move on to some other amendments and 
so we are not just wasting our time waiting for the Senator from 
Arkansas to give us permission to proceed. Is there another amendment 
that we can proceed to?
  Mr. BRYAN. I have just been informed that Senator Bumpers should be 
here momentarily. Once he gets here, I am can assure the leader that we 
are prepared to proceed and enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. HUTCHISON). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 
minutes equally divided on the Bryan-Bumpers amendment. In fact, we are 
prepared to give Senator Bryan 20 minutes as the proponent of the 
amendment and we will take 10 on this side.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the majority leader. That is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                 Amendment No. 461 to Amendment No. 420

    (Purpose: To eliminate funding for the market promotion program)

  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for Mr. Bumpers, for 
     himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 461 to 
     amendment No. 420.

  Mr. BRYAN. Madam 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:
       Strike lines 3-7 on page 4 of the Committee substitute, and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following: ``deleting 
     `$85,500,000' and by inserting `$0.'''

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I 
might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield for the purposes of parliamentary inquiry. Will 
that be on our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, the Senator can have 5 minutes; 10 in 
opposition, and take 5.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is quite satisfactory. So the agreement is that the 
Senator from California would have 5 minutes, and the Senator from----
  Mr. DOLE. Wherever.
  Mrs. BOXER. Wherever can have 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. Is that satisfactory to the Senator from California?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 minutes, Madam President.
  Madam President, this year Ralston-Purina will spend $13 million to 
advertise its Chex brand cereal, and Brown-Forman Corp. has budgeted 
$20 million to help sell California Cooler, and last year McDonald's 
spent $7.7 million in advertising in Singapore alone.
  The question arises, what do all of these companies have in common 
besides each having multimillion-dollar advertising budgets? The answer 
is that they are all recipients of taxpayer funds which is known as the 
Market Promotion Program. This program was started in 1986 to promote 
American agricultural produce.
  Let me just say a word by way of background. The amendment which the 
Senator from Arkansas and I have presently before the floor will zero 
out funding for this program for this year. Last year, the 
appropriators came up with $85 million for this Market Promotion 
Program, and in the legislation we are acting on this evening, they 
have increased the appropriation level to $110 million.
  In my view, this program, which I am going to describe very briefly 
in a moment, is corporate welfare. We have debated in this session of 
the Congress where we can make cuts in the budget. We have talked about 
Women, Infants, and Children and school nutrition programs. Everything 
seems to be on the table except the sacred cow of American agriculture, 
the Market Promotion Program.
  Very briefly, Madam President, the history of this program dates back 
a number of years. Currently, we are spending in the neighborhood of 
$3.5 billion in America on export promotion--$3.5 billion. Of that sum, 
$2.2 billion is set aside specifically for agricultural promotion.
  Now, to put this in context, 63 percent of all the money that we are 
spending for export promotion in America is devoted to agriculture. 
Agriculture represents about 10 percent of the foreign exports from 
America. So it is my view that is a disproportionate, indefensible 
amount. But let us put that aside for the moment. We can debate the 
merits or demerits of spending $2.2 billion in agricultural promotion. 
I am talking about the Market Promotion Program. This is a program 
which, as I have said, is corporate welfare. It is the equivalent of 
food stamps 
[[Page S5341]] for the largest corporations in America.
  The way this program works is that advertising budgets of some of the 
large corporations in America are supplemented by taxpayer moneys. Now, 
Conagra, a good company, makes the kind of products that are household 
names in America: Country Pride, Chung King, Wesson, Butterball, Swift, 
Peter Pan, Armour, Banquet, Swiss Miss. Since 1986, this company has 
received in taxpayer dollars $826,000. This company has, by 1994 
financial data, $462 million in net profits. The advertising budget is 
$200 million. The CEO receives compensation of $1.229 million annually. 
How in God's world do we justify, Madam President, spending taxpayer 
dollars to supplement this program? This is a company that is large; it 
is successful; and they can effectively handle their own advertising 
and promotion budget.
  Jack Daniels, a product that is familiar to many of us, $2.41 million 
is what they have received through the Market Promotion Program and its 
immediate predecessor, TEA [Targeted Export Assistance]. The 1994 
financial data: Net profits of $146 million, an advertising budget of 
$74 million, CEO compensation of $703,000.
  Again, Madam President, I suggest that it is indefensible to call 
upon the American taxpayer to subsidize a company of this size.
  McDonald's. Who among us does not enjoy a Big Mac? I know I do. But 
this is a company that has received, since 1986, $1.6 million, taxpayer 
dollars, all taxpayer money, to supplement a company that makes a net 
profit, according to the 1994 data, of $1.2 billion, that has an 
advertising budget of nearly $700 million, and CEO compensation of 
$1.78 million.
  In addition to this, it is not only American companies that receive 
it. Here is a list--not a complete list--of foreign companies that 
receive money from the American taxpayer.
  The point to be made is that at a time when we are making some very 
tough budget cuts--very tough budget cuts--we are talking about the 
most vulnerable in our society who have been asked to step forward, 
whether it is the WIC program, or whether it is school nutrition, or 
aid to our schools in terms of drug assistance.
  All of these programs have been hotly debated, but for some reason 
these agriculture programs are sacrosanct. It is time to eliminate 
these programs. First of all, they are indefensible in terms of 
taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize them. And secondly, there is a 
question as to its effectiveness.
  The General Accounting Office has done an evaluation, and they find a 
number of problems with this program. Number one, it is not clear 
whether the taxpayer dollars that are going into the advertising budget 
simply are being exchanged for advertising money that is already in the 
corporate budget.
  Secondly, there is no criteria as to who is eligible--big company, 
small company.
  Third, there is no criteria as to how long you stay in. Do you get in 
and stay forever?
  Now, there has been at least one reform that has been added that you 
have to get out in 5 years. But that is 5 years from 1994, and that 
means some of these companies have been in this program since its 
origin.
  There is no objective statistical data, absolutely none, to suggest 
or to prove that in fact these dollars have assisted our export 
promotion program. Madam President, I remind my colleagues that we are 
spending separate and apart for this one agricultural promotion $2.2 
billion. Now, you will recall agricultural exports represent 10 percent 
of the exports from America. We are spending 63 percent of a total of 
$3.5 billion that is being spent by the Federal Government on export 
promotion.
  There are other brand names that are household products. I think the 
American taxpayer is entitled to be absolutely outraged when you look 
at some of these companies, highly successful companies. I have no 
quarrel with the companies. My quarrel with them is the fact that 
American taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the corporate giants in 
America.
  Let me just give you some more information here. Welch's, marvelous 
fruit juice, and others, they have received since 1986 $5.8 million; 
Blue Diamond, these are the folks who are involved in nuts, $37 
million; Dole fresh fruit, $9 million. If the Pillsbury Doughboy looks 
a little chubby to you all, it is because the American taxpayer has 
been subsidizing his diet pretty heavily. Pillsbury, it says, received 
during this period of time $10 million.
  So my point, Madam President, is that if we are serious about cutting 
the deficit, if we are serious about making the hard choices, the tough 
cuts, we have to begin with programs like this. Corporate welfare ought 
to be on the line every bit as much as the other programs which have 
been targeted in this Congress either for elimination or reduction.
  Let me say this is not a liberal amendment nor a conservative 
amendment that my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Arkansas, and I offer. This is an amendment on which those who are to 
the political right in America, the Cato Institute, and those who are 
the moderates in America, the Political Aggressive Policy Institute, 
have taken a look at this program and both have reached the same 
conclusion: This is a program that ought to be eliminated.
  To conclude, Madam President, it is time to take these companies off 
the taxpayer dole. They are capable of fending for themselves. They 
have marvelous programs, sophisticated staffs. They pay their people 
top dollar in terms of their promotion programs. The American taxpayers 
ought not to be asked to spend their dollars to supplement these 
advertising accounts. The time for action is now.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to oppose the amendment by my friend and colleague from 
Nevada. We agree on many things. This is one on which we do not agree. 
To zero out a program like the Market Promotion Program, which we know 
is working--and, when my colleague says there is no statistical proof 
it is working, I have other reports than he does on that matter. But to 
cut a program that is working to increase our exports, when we are 
approaching the 21st century mark and exports are crucial to our 
economy--and promoting those exports is certainly crucial to that--I 
think it would be a very radical move.
  We have a budget that is coming up for review. We are going to look 
at this program in that budget review. After we do that--and I am on 
the Budget Committee--as my friend knows, we are going to take a real 
hard look at all of these things in the various authorizing committees 
and, of course, in the Appropriations Committee.
 But to take this move today to eliminate this program, I hope that we 
will not go along with it.

  The Marketing Promotion Program is an important tool in expanding 
markets for U.S. agricultural products from California to many other 
countries in the world.
  We talk today about redirecting farm spending away from price 
supports. I support that. I think we should move away from price 
supports. But we also should work toward expanding markets. I think it 
makes a lot of sense to do that.
  My friend from Nevada says there is no statistical data to show that 
the Marketing Promotion Program is working. I would like to call to his 
attention a U.S. Department of Agriculture study. They estimate that 
each marketing promotion dollar results in an increase in agricultural 
product exports of between $2 and $7.
  Madam President, that is a very good return on our money. Indeed, any 
business person would say if you put $1 in and it results in $2 of 
increased sales and even up to $7 in increased sales, that is a very 
sound program.
  And my colleague talks about large beneficiaries. Well, I think he is 
overlooking the number of small beneficiaries. We have seen much-needed 
assistance to commodity groups comprised of small farmers who are 
unable to break into those markets on their own. And I think that is a 
very important point.
  I have been to the fertile valleys of California. I have met with 
those small farmers. I have seen those family farms. And alone they do 
not have 
[[Page S5342]] much power. But they come together as cooperatives, and 
they work together as marketing groups, and with the Market Promotion 
Program they have been successful in breaking into the export markets.
  So I think it is fair to say to my friend that the small growers and 
the small farmers have benefited greatly. And that is one of the 
intentions of the program.
  I also want to point out to my friend that last year a task force of 
the U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council met for 2 days in 
Leesburg, Virginia. Their function was to review the role of the 
Marketing Promotion Program and other agricultural programs as part of 
our overall trade policy. The task force concluded that the purpose of 
the Marketing Promotion Program is to ``increase U.S. agricultural 
product exports.'' It also concluded that the increase in such exports 
helps to ``create and protect U.S. jobs, combat unfair trade practices, 
improve the U.S. trade balance, and improve farm income.''
  And I am directly quoting from that meeting.
  So I would say to my friend, although he has not found any 
documentation that this program works and it helps us and, in fact, is 
a wise investment, there are certainly other groups that have found 
that it is a wise investment. And it should be supported.
  I would like to say to my friend, in closing, that we should look at 
what other countries do. Sometimes we do not look at the fact that 
other countries push for their exports, push for their agricultural 
products, promote their products, and fight for their products. And 
what do we do sometimes? We walk away from a program like this and let 
our people twist in the wind.
  Madam President, I see my time is up.
  I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? If not, so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I will conclude here. I think that we would be making a big mistake, 
as we move toward this global marketplace, to walk away from the 
Marketing Promotion Program. Our competitors have programs that do far 
more for their agricultural products than we do. And there is a reason. 
They understand that exports are key to any country's success as an 
economic power.
  We do not have a level playing field out there. That is clear. So I 
hope that my friend would agree with me that there is no level playing 
field, and other countries are out there pushing hard for their 
products, helping their farmers to push exports. This is our only 
program that does that.
  I hope we will defeat his amendment.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10 minutes 39 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas whatever time he 
wishes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time remains for the proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 31 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I will yield myself such time as I may 
use, which I hope will be less than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. First of all, I want to thank my colleague and very good 
friend, Senator Bryan, of Nevada, for his unstinting efforts in this.
  In 1993, Congress directed GAO to prepare a report on the 
effectiveness of the Market Promotion Program. The report that came 
back was less than satisfactory. Subsequently, for Fiscal Year 1994, we 
cut MPP from $147.7 million to $100 million. In Fiscal Years 1991 and 
1992, the funding level had been at $200 million.
  Last year, as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture and Rural Development, I made every effort to eliminate 
this program. However, the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr. 
Gorton, was successful in reinstating the program, both in the 
committee and on the floor.
  Madam President, I do not see how we can go through the agony we have 
been going through in here in trying to cut spending, particularly in 
light of the fact that we are cutting spending for school lunches and 
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and for a host of other 
things which, in my opinion, have great merit and go right to the heart 
and soul of America. How we can cut spending for them and actually add 
nearly $25 million to the Market Promotion Program? It was at $85.5 
million for Fiscal Year 1995 and it now stands, by virtue of the bill 
now before the Senate, at $110 million.
  Senator Bryan and I now propose to eliminate the Market Promotion 
Program and apply the savings toward deficit reduction. We are not 
setting it aside for something else. I would love to take this and put 
it in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but we chose to offer 
this amendment and apply the $110 million for pure deficit reduction.
  I do not believe any member of this body should be able to keep a 
straight face and support some of the measures we are voting for when 
we cannot kill a program, like MPP, that is a pure subsidy for some of 
the biggest corporations in America and abroad. If we were solely 
promoting an industry, an industry-wide product or an agricultural 
product, as we do in the Export Enhancement Program, it might make a 
little sense. But we are promoting brand loyalty. With MPP, we are 
using federal funds to promote a large number of popular retail items 
that most of us know as household words. MPP funds have been used to 
promote McDonalds' products, Gallo Wines, and several popular items 
produced in my State which we can all easily identify in grocery stores 
across the Nation.
  Look down the list of the people who benefit from this--143 foreign 
firms. You inquire, what on Earth are we doing spending American 
taxpayers' money subsidizing foreign companies and promoting their 
brand loyalty? The answer: They use some American products. So if 
foreign companies that use our products want to advertise their brand 
and create a brand loyalty, we give them money, too.
  And, in addition to 143 foreign corporations, Madam President, over 
700 American corporations participate in this program just last year 
alone.
  I am not blaming them. When Uncle Sam throws a big trough full of 
money out and says, come and get it, if I were one of these 
corporations and I had a foreign presence, as most of them do, I would 
get up there and apply for it, too.
  Now, Madam President, I started off saying that the 1993 GAO report 
gave us reasons to question the validity of this program. More 
recently, another GAO report was prepared which I received in March of 
this year, just a couple of weeks ago.
  No Senator should vote on this amendment until they look at the March 
1995 GAO report.
  Here is what they say, and this is the meat of the whole argument:

       The Foreign Agricultural Service has no assurance that 
     marketing promotion funds are supporting additional 
     promotional activities rather than simply replacing company 
     industry funds.

  The GAO did not just reach that decision without substantial program 
review. They studied it, and they said there is no evidence that this 
money is going for additional promotional activities that the companies 
themselves would not spend if we torpedoed this program. You cannot 
find a more compelling reason to vote for anything around here than a 
GAO report offers findings such as this.
  If we were going to champion a program such as this--and I am not 
prepared to do that yet--it ought to be for small business, or 
companies new to market U.S. agricultural products abroad. Not big 
businesses that have been in the export business for years.
  So, Madam President, I hate to use the term corporate welfare because 
big corporations make a contribution to this country, although members 
of the national press have not hesitated to attach that label to some 
results of the Market Promotion Program. I am not blaming them for 
standing at the trough and getting this money. There are 716 domestic 
and 143 foreign firms that received MPP funds in Fiscal Year 1994, and 
some of these are among the largest commercial enterprises in the 
World. Look down the list. It is shocking.
   [[Page S5343]] Here is an opportunity to save $110 million, of which 
it can be argued that the farmers of this nation are only the indirect 
beneficiaries, if even that; $110 million in genuine deficit reduction, 
much of which will otherwise go to some of the most affluent companies 
we know.
  I listened to some Senators on the other side of the aisle 2 evenings 
ago talking about pork, talking about the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting being an outrageous waste of the taxpayers' money. Here is 
an opportunity for everybody to quit talking and making partisan 
points. We need to make better use of our limited federal resources. We 
should join hands and eliminate this funding and allow these large 
companies to float free and easy on their own and spend their own 
money.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time 
that the distinguished Senator from Nevada has.
  Mr. COCHRAN. What is the situation with the time? How much time 
remains on each side, allocated to individual Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators in opposition have 5 minutes; the 
proponents have 3 minutes 28 seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. How much time on our side is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 28 seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, let me, in the interest of moving this 
debate forward, just express my appreciation to the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas for his efforts and make just a couple of brief 
points, if I may.
  He made the observation, which is absolutely correct, that there are 
140 foreign companies. Here is a partial list of them right here. Some 
of the names you may know and some, frankly, I have never heard of, but 
140.
  To make the point that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was 
making, from 1986 to 1993, 20 percent--20 percent--of the budget for 
this program for branded advertising--that is the McDonald's and the 
rest of it--goes to foreign companies. Twenty percent, American 
taxpayer dollars. I do not know how you justify and how you support 
that.
  The other point that I would like to make is the GAO report that the 
distinguished Senator makes reference to has a very interesting piece 
of testimony, and that is, one of the recipients of the program was 
asked by the auditors, ``How did you all become involved in the 
program?''
  ``Well,'' she said, ``we got a phone call. They said, `Would you like 
to get some money?'''
  As the Senator from Arkansas said, I do not fault the company.
  She said, ``Tell me how.''
  ``Look, we are passing out money on this program called the Market 
Promotion Program,'' and, indeed, the company did. The company, 
Newman's Own, Paul Newman's food company. They just got a call which 
said, ``Look, would you like help for your advertising bills? We will 
reimburse you.''
  This was the testimony of A.E. Hotchner, from Newman's Own.
  ``We would be delighted to take it.'' As the Senator from Arkansas 
made the point, number one, it has not been established that it has 
accomplished its desired purpose. It is not effective. Is that not a 
prime reason to zero it out? And secondly, philosophically, I must say, 
Madam President, it sticks in my craw. Companies like this, and good 
companies--I am not maligning these companies--would get into the 
public trough and get this kind of taxpayer dollar when everybody in 
this Congress has talked a pretty good talk about reducing the deficit.
  This ought to be a no brainer. This is not a difficult decision. This 
is one in which we should say these companies ought to have the ability 
to fly on their own.
  I yield the floor and reserve any time I may have left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 seconds left.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first of all, let me say putting the 
sign of McDonald's on the floor of the Senate and suggesting this 
program is designed to subsidize McDonald's, or any other particular 
firm, is an outrageous distortion of this program.
  Let me read to you a memo written by the Poultry and Export Council 
about the McDonald's issue. It says in part:

       Yes, our Council has used MPP to help McDonalds sell more 
     American chicken--but not to promote McDonalds. The facts are 
     that McDonalds franchises in other countries are foreign 
     owned and operated. They are under no obligation to buy U.S. 
     poultry or eggs and can readily find lower priced (and lower 
     quality) product in Thailand, Malaysia or elsewhere.
       But by allowing McDonalds to apply for and receive matching 
     funds under MPP, requires their franchisees to be entirely 
     supplied with U.S. products. The point is, we are NOT 
     promoting McDonalds, we are getting McDonalds to advertise 
     U.S. chicken and eggs. And it has been quite effective. In 
     fact, the state of Arkansas has likely benefited more from 
     this activity than any other state.

  The point is this: The market promotion funds are made available 
almost 97 percent to non-profit and related U.S. trade associations, 
including state departments of agriculture. The National Cattlemen's 
Association says these funds have helped them break into the market in 
Japan, in Korea, and build market share.
  We have seen the funds used in other countries for the same purpose, 
to try to overcome barriers to U.S. trade. The program has helped 
farmers, it has created jobs in America, and it has benefited every 
community.
  I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to print a copy of a letter 
from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports in the Record, 
which shows a listing of all of the agriculture and farm commodity 
groups in America that benefit from this program because they can sell 
what they produce more effectively with this program's promotion money 
in overseas markets when they have to combat the unfair and competitive 
subsidies from other countries.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                              Coalition to Promote


                                    U.S. Agricultural Exports,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 1995.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: We are writing to urge your continued 
     strong support for maintaining and strengthening funding for 
     USDA's export programs, including the Market Promotion 
     Program, when the Senate takes up the FY 1995 supplemental 
     appropriation and rescissions package.
       As approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, the 
     package includes $24.5 million to restore funding for USDA's 
     Market Promotion Program to its authorized level of $110 
     million. Such an increase, we believe, sends a strong and 
     positive message that U.S. Policies and programs will remain 
     equally competitive with those of other countries as allowed 
     under the Uruguay Round GATT Agreement.
       For this reason, we are very concerned over possible 
     amendments to reduce or even eliminate funding for the entire 
     program when the package comes to the Senate floor. Such 
     action would be devastating to U.S. interests--especially in 
     the face of continued subsidized foreign competition.
       The GATT agreement, it should be emphasized, did not 
     eliminate export subsidies, it only reduced them. The 
     European Union (EU), which outspent the U.S. by 6 to 1 over 
     the last 5 years, will be able to more than maintain its 
     historical advantage. As export subsidies are reduced, they 
     and other competitors can be expected to redirect much of 
     those resources into other GATT allowable programs, including 
     market development and promotion, to maintain and expand 
     their share of the world market.
       In fact, the EU and other competitors, including Australia, 
     Canada and New Zealand, are moving aggressively with their 
     farmers and ranchers, and other exporters, in support of 
     market development and promotion efforts. According to USDA, 
     total expenditures for such activities are estimated at 
     nearly $500 million--well above similar expenditures by the 
     U.S. and are expected to increase.
       American agriculture is the most competitive in the world. 
     But, it is not enough to be economically competitive. U.S. 
     policies and programs also must be competitive. Many of us 
     supported the Uruguay Round agreement because of assurances 
     that U.S. policies and programs would continue to be 
     maintained and aggressively implemented to the full extent as 
     allowed under GATT and U.S. law. Without this commitment, 
     America's farmers and ranchers will be at a substantial 
     disadvantage in the new global trade environment.
       [[Page S5344]] U.S. agriculture exports, which are 
     projected to reach as high as $48.5 billion this year, 
     account for as much as one-third of total production. In 
     addition to helping strengthen farm income, exports are vital 
     to our nation's economic well-being as highlighted below:
       Jobs--Nearly one million Americans have jobs which are 
     dependent on agriculture exports. A 10 percent increase in 
     exports would help create as many as 100,000 jobs.
       Economic Growth--U.S. agriculture exports help generate 
     approximately $100 billion in economic activity and account 
     for $8 billion or more in federal tax revenues.
       Balance of Payments--U.S. agriculture exports result in a 
     positive trade balance of nearly $20 billion. Without 
     agriculture, the U.S. trade deficit would be even higher.
       Again, such economic benefits can only be maintained to the 
     extent that U.S. policies and programs remain competitive 
     with those of our foreign competitors. America's farmers and 
     ranchers, and others engaged in international trade, can not 
     and should not be required to compete alone against the 
     treasuries of foreign governments.
       USDA's Market Promotion Program has been and continues to 
     be an important element in our nation's trade strategy and in 
     helping U.S. agriculture build, maintain and expand export 
     markets in the face of continued subsidized foreign 
     competition. As a cost-share program, it has been extremely 
     cost effective with farmers and ranchers, along with other 
     participants, required to contribute as much as 50 percent of 
     their own resources in order to be eligible. It has also been 
     highly successful by any measure.
       For these reasons, we urge your continued strong support 
     and that you oppose any amendment which would reduce or 
     eliminate funding for this important program.
           Sincerely,
     Ag Processing, Inc.
     Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
     American Farm Bureau Federation.
     American Forest & Paper Assn.
     Amerian Hardwood Export Council.
     American Meat Institute.
     American Plywood Association.
     American Seed Trade Association.
     American Sheep Industry Assn.
     American Soybean Association.
     Blue Diamond Growers.
     California Avocado Commission.
     California Canning Peach Assn.
     California Kiwifruit Commission.
     California Pistachio Commission.
     California Prune Board.
     California Table Grape Commission.
     California Tomato Board.
     California Walnut Commission.
     Cherry Marketing Inst., Inc.
     Chocolate Manufacturers Association.
     Diamond Walnut Growers.
     Dole Fresh Fruit Company.
     Eastern Agricultural and Food Export Council Corp.
     Farmland Industries.
     Florida Citrus Mutual.
     Florida Citrus Packers.
     Florida Department of Citrus.
     Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
     Hop Growers of America.
     International American Supermarkets Corp.
     International Apple Institute.
     International Dairy Foods Association.
     Kentucky Distillers Association.
     Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council.
     National Dry Bean Council.
     National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
     National Cattlemen's Assn.
     National Confectioners Assn.
     National Corn Growers Assn.
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
     National Cotton Council.
     National Milk Producers Federation.
     National Peanut Council of America.
     National Pork Producers Council.
     National Potato Council.
     National Renderers Association.
     National Sunflower Association.
     National Wine Coalition.
     NORPAC Foods, Inc.
     North American Export Grain Association.
     Northwest Horticultural Council.
     Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
     Produce Marketing Association.
     Protein Grain Products International.
     Sioux Honey Association.
     Southern Forest Products Assn.
     Southern U.S. Trade Association.
     Sun-Diamond Growers of California.
     Sunkist Growers, Inc.
     Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California.
     Sunsweet Prune Growers.
     The Catfish Institute.
     The Popcorn Institute.
     Tree Fruit Reserve.
     Tree Top, Inc.
     Tri Valley Growers.
     United Egg Association.
     United Egg Producers.
     United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
     USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
     USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.
     USA Rice Federation.
     U.S. Feed Grains Council.
     U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
     U.S. Meat Export Federation.
     U.S. Wheat Associates.
     Vodka Producers of America.
     Washington Apple Commission.
     Western Pistachio Association.
     Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association.
     Wine Institute.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me give one example. The European 
Community this year is going to spend $89 million just promoting wine 
exports and subsidizing wine exports, a lot of that into the U.S. This 
entire program is $85.5 million, and the sponsors of this amendment are 
trying to knock out every dollar of it. We are not going to have any 
funds left to help combat the unfair and heavily subsidized trading 
practices of foreign countries if you take away this tool.
  I am hoping that we can increase the funding. It used to be $200 
million a year, and because of cuts in this and other programs, we had 
to downsize the program. It is now only $85.5 million, and they are 
trying to take away that.
  The President and the administration requested additional funds to 
help companies, to help farm groups and State departments of 
agriculture deal with these competitors, to increase their market 
share. The administration asked for an increase from $85.5 million to 
$110 million, and this committee recommended it, the Appropriations 
Committee agreed to it, and we ought to approve it.
  I am hoping the Senate will reject this amendment. I yield whatever 
time remains to the Senator from the State of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 1 minute 7 
seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a 
program that I have not often praised in the past. The Market Promotion 
Program (MPP) is designed to help U.S. agricultural producers develop 
export markets overseas.
  Most people do not associate Vermont with agricultural exports, but 
in fact the state exported almost 122 million agricultural products in 
1994. The food products industry is the fastest growing sector of the 
state's economy. And profitable value added products make up a good 
part of that total.
  In my state, the Market Promotion Program has fulfilled its potential 
to help small companies develop a niche in foreign markets. Thanks to 
the program Mexicans have discovered the joys of Vermont maple syrup, 
Canada is importing Vermont cheesecakes, Bermudans are drinking our 
cider and finding that they like it, and our friends in the United 
Kingdom are eating MacIntosh apples they never even knew Vermont 
produced.
   [[Page S5345]] Through MPP, the Vermont Department of Agriculture is 
introducing Vermont companies to new opportunities in Europe, Canada, 
Asia and Latin America. During the next year, Vermont companies will be 
participating in trade missions and export seminars in Hong Kong, 
Guangzhou, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. These opportunities would not be 
available to Vermont agriculture without the MPP.
  Unfortunately MPP dollars are not always as well spent. As Chairman 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I held oversight hearings on MPP 
that uncovered a number of problems with USDA's management of the 
program. And, in 1993 I worked for real reform of the program to 
correct the abuses that were reducing MPP to a massive corporate 
welfare program.
  The Market Promotion Program has come a long way from where it was 3 
years ago. The Clinton Administration has reformed the program to curb 
abuses and focus the program where it should always have been 
targeted--toward small businesses. MPP is far from perfect. We must 
continue to look for ways to put scarce dollars where they are needed 
the most. But eliminating the program is not the way to do it.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I find it simply incredible that almost 
the only suggestion for the reduction in funds that we get from Members 
who, by and large, have been voting to increase funds for all sorts of 
income transfer purposes is to take away funds that help the United 
States sell its agricultural products abroad.
  This program does more to benefit hard-working American farmers and 
food processors than almost any other program we have.
  It helps to deal with a terrible deficit in our trade balance, the 
largest this country has ever had. It is a more positive impact on what 
we do to produce money for our farmers, for the people who work for 
them, for those who process food, than practically any other program.
  By all means, we should not turn down the opportunity to help our 
economy become more and more competitive. We should reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, is there time left in opposition to the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from Nevada 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Let me just say in response to my friends on the other side of this 
proposition, I am not arguing with the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas that no agricultural promotion is defensible or justified.
  We are spending $2.2 billion--$2.2 billion--on agriculture promotion 
for exports aside from this program. What I am saying is this 
particular program that subsidizes the wealthiest corporations in 
America cannot be defended, particularly when we are spending $12.2 
billion, 63 percent of all the money spent for promotion around----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment offered 
by Senators Bryan and Bumpers and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 461 offered by the 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan]. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lott
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--37

     Abraham
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coverdell
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 461) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me advise my colleagues I think we may 
have an agreement here if we can have everybody's cooperation, and we 
may be able to finish this bill tonight and we may be able to finish 
all other business by voice votes including the defense supplemental, 
the district board, kiddie porn and whatever else might be remaining. 
So it would mean that my colleagues will be able to tend to other 
business tomorrow either here or somewhere else.


                           Amendment No. 577

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Daschle, and others, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself and Mr. 
     Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 577.

  Mr. DOLE. 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 will be printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes 
for debate on the Dole amendment to be equally divided in the usual 
form and that no amendments be in order during the pendency of the 
Dole-Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. I am coming to the Senator's.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I further ask that the following amendments be the only 
remaining amendments in order and limited to the following time 
restraints where noted, all in the usual form. And I have been advised 
by Senator Levin he will not offer the one amendment--he does have an 
amendment that has been worked out; an amendment by Senator Wellstone 
relating to seniors; a managers' amendment, a Hatfield/Byrd amendment; 
and a Harkin handback for CPB, and on that there be an up-or-down vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
   [[Page S5346]] Mr. DOLE. Excuse me. I did not give times on those 
amendments: On Harkin, there will be 20 minutes equally divided; on the 
Wellstone amendment, 20 minutes equally divided; and the Hatfield/Byrd 
managers' amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an 
amendment for which I do not need more than 10 minutes which I intend 
to offer.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
distinguished majority leader, on my amendment, I had initially asked 
for 20 minutes on our side. I do not know how much time the other side 
will take. I need 20 minutes because I have at least two other people 
who want to speak on it. If I can just have 20 minutes, that is fine.
  Mr. DOLE. Twenty minutes and we will take 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Whatever. The amendment is not only CPB. It is also an 
add-back for the senior community appointment program.
  Mr. DOLE. What is the total of the amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. The total of the amendment is $40 million.
  Mr. DOLE. And it is offset?
  Mr. HARKIN. It is offset by the cut in Radio Free Europe. Some of the 
money goes to get CPB back up to the inflation increase, and then some 
of it goes for the senior community appointment program. The Senator 
did not mention it, and I wanted to make sure that it was in there.
  Mr. DOLE. So that will be 20 and 10, 20 minutes for Senator Harkin 
and 10 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine. My concern, when the unanimous consent was 
read, was that when I sent my amendment to the desk and it was also for 
somebody in the senior community appointment program, it would not be 
pulled out of order on this type of agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure where I 
stand, Mr. President.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, 
following the disposition of the above listed amendments, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the Hatfield substitute, to be followed by third 
reading and final passage of H.R. 1158, as amended, all without any 
intervention action or debate.
  But before the Chair rules on that, I think it is best to have a 
colloquy at this time with the distinguished Senator from New York with 
reference to the amendment on Mexico, which would be critical to 
winding up this package this evening, as I understand from the 
Democratic leader and others.
  So I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.
  I recognize the situation and the dilemma that the Senate finds 
itself in in confronting the necessity of moving forward with this 
bill. I recognize that we are moving up against a time deadline.
  Mr. President, I am going to say now that I am not going to pursue 
this amendment for two reasons. Number one, I do not want to be accused 
of scuttling a very difficult agreement that has been worked out, where 
other of my colleagues have stepped back, and insist that I be the only 
one that goes forward.
  Having said that, I want to indicate very clearly that this Senator 
is deeply troubled by the manner in which we are discharging our 
constitutional responsibility as it relates to Mexico and the attempt 
of this administration to help them.
  And I want to help. But this Senator wants to see to it that the 
dollars that we are committing are used appropriately. I think at the 
very least we are entitled to the kind of accountability that we would 
be if it were a foreign aid program and even more since it is a clear 
circumvention of the manner in which foreign loans should be made.
  To that extent, I suggest that the second-degree amendment which was 
offered by Senator Murkowski is absolutely, totally appropriate; that 
the legislative initiatives undertaken by Congressman Cox should be, 
without question, something that is carried out in terms of making 
information available to us as it relates to what preceded the crisis 
in Mexico before it became public and the collapse of the Mexican 
economy. What was our role and what has been our role since then? And 
what do we anticipate as we move along?
  Again, I will press this matter. I do not claim that the legislative 
initiative that I have undertaken should be adopted in its present 
form, but I do believe that when we are talking about sending billions 
of dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to a program that may or may not work--
and the administration has testified before the Banking Committee that 
it may not work--that we have an absolute obligation to know what is 
taking place and how it is administered, at the very least.
  I do not think that those who say this is without doubt within the 
administration's prerogative would deny us that. I believe that is 
giving tremendous latitude.
  When we come back from our recess, undoubtedly billions of dollars 
more of American moneys will have been placed into this program. The 
question as to whether or not we will ever have repayment is a very 
legitimate question. But how far do we go, in a very important but a 
very risky undertaking; how far do we go before we say, ``Wait, this 
may not be working''? Do we leave this just in the prerogative of the 
Secretary of the Treasury to determine if it is working, or should we 
not at the very least have that information?
  Mr. President, I tell the majority leader that I will move forward by 
way of legislation, if necessary, to at least obtain that information, 
obtain the facts. And, in addition thereto, if we find, and if I am not 
convinced, that the program is working or that there is a chance of us 
recovering moneys, I will then move by legislative action again to 
accomplish the things that I have said before on this floor and to cut 
off further dollars.
  By the time we come back, there is no doubt in my mind that we will 
have committed directly from the United States probably in the area of 
$10 billion or more. That is a lot of money. We are working on a 
rescission package to try to save money. We certainly, at the very 
least, are entitled to know that those dollars are being used wisely, 
appropriately, and that there is some chance of success, a bona fide 
chance of success. That is what troubles this Senator.
  So with that statement, I will say that I do want to accommodate my 
colleagues, but I also want them to know that there may be more 
legislation moving through this Senate, and I reserve the right, as all 
of us have that right, to move forward with this initiative. It will be 
at a time when there is legislation that may be critical, that the 
administration needs or that people are interested in. I will not move 
on a piece of legislation that is not critical and therefore be denied 
bringing this matter to a vote.
  At some point in time, it is my belief that this Congress and this 
Senate should be required to vote as to whether or not we should 
continue this program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending 
amendment, amendment No. 427.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 427) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have the agreement.
  I think I did ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of 
the above-listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the Hatfield 
substitute, to be followed by third reading and final passage of H.R. 
1158, as amended, without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
   [[Page S5347]] Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator 
from New York, I think he has raised a very important issue, and it is 
not going to go away. Sooner or later, Congress is going to have to 
become involved, because we are spending taxpayers' money. I think it 
is safe to say that Speaker Gingrich and I indicated early on that we 
wanted to support the administration, the President. That is what we 
said at that time, and that is what I would say at this time, but with 
one caveat: We should know precisely what is happening. And I think 
that is the thrust of the Senator's amendment. It is an important 
amendment.
  We have a responsibility. We are talking about $5 million here in one 
amendment we cannot agree on--$5 million. And you are talking about $5 
billion. So I just suggest it is important, and I hope that we do not 
lose sight of that.
  I thank the Senator for withdrawing the amendment. That will permit 
us to complete action on this bill, hopefully, tonight or tomorrow at 
some hour. I would like to do it tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent that all the votes that we order be stacked, 
in effect, so we could have all the votes and then final passage, and 
then see if we cannot get some agreement to do the rest of our business 
by voice vote, if there is no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I also ask unanimous consent that, if there is more than 
one vote, any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would also ask my colleagues, even though 
they have 20 minutes or 15 minutes, different time allotments, that I 
think we could save some time.
  I want to thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his 
cooperation throughout the day and throughout yesterday, and throughout 
part of the night last night.
  I believe we are within striking distance of concluding a bill that 
now totals about $16 billion in rescissions--$16 billion. This bill 
will go to conference and some of the issues that some people have 
concerns about will be raised again in the conference. Regardless of 
what your concern may be, if you think it is too much or too little, it 
can be raised in the conference.
  So I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation. I think we 
have made progress. I can tell you that the end is in sight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me also thank all of our colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in the effort that has 
been made to bring us to this point. It has been a long day. There have 
been a lot of people who have been responsible for bringing us to this 
point, and I want to publicly commend them and thank them for that 
effort.
  We still have some very big decisions to make on amendments that are 
going to be offered. I appreciate everyone's willingness to accommodate 
a debate on each one of these issues, but I do think that we are 
getting close, and I think that it is an agreement we can all support. 
Obviously, people are going to come down on either side of the issue 
when we come to final passage, but I think this accommodates Senators 
in a way that allows us to get to that point.
  So I think it is a good agreement, and I hope that we can work 
through the amendments and get to final passage sometime tonight. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                 Amendment No. 578 to Amendment No. 420

   (Purpose: To restore funds to the National Sea Grant's program on 
 research to control and prevent the spread of aquatic non-indigenous 
                                species)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk which has been 
cleared by both sides, reference to which was made by the majority 
leader in the UC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
     Simon, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 
     578 to amendment No. 420.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 9, line 16, strike ``$13,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,000,000''.
       On page 9, line 12, strike ``$37,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$35,600,000''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sending this to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Abraham, Senator Specter, Senator Glenn, Senator Kohl, 
Senator Santorum, Senator Simon, and Senator Moseley-Braun.
  This amendment will restore $2 million to the research program on the 
zebra mussel, which is a pest which has infested the Great Lakes and is 
now spreading through the tributaries from and to the Great Lakes.
  It is a very important program for the fresh water supply of this 
country. The reduction of $2 million will hurt the research program. 
Many, many States benefit by it, and the offset for the $2 million 
restoration comes from the NOAA construction money.
  I understand that this has been accepted on both sides.
  The $2 million rescission in the National Sea Grant Research Program 
will limit Federal, State, and university research to help stop the 
spread of the zerbra mussel, and other non-indigenous species.
  Fifteen States' programs would likely continue efforts to educate 
natural resource managers as to the devastating impacts of zebra 
mussels if this $2 million is restored. They will study these pests' 
life cycles to determine when and where they are most vulnerable to 
pesticides or nonchemical control. The States that received funds in 
fiscal year 1994 besides the Great Lakes States include California, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Texas, 
Connecticut, and Florida.
  This is not just a zebra mussels amendment. Sea Grant's Program is 
crucial. We need to keep cataloging the ways nuisance species 
reproduce. There are over 130 nonindigenous species in this country, 
two-thirds of which entered the country since 1959, when the St. 
Lawrence Seaway was opened.
  Some of my colleagues may be familiar with some of the most 
economically damaging exotic species that industries, municipal 
sewerage and drinking water facilities, boaters, farmers, et cetera 
have been forced to confront besides the zebra mussel, such as the 
water milfoil, the water flea, purple loosestrife, the round Gobi, and 
the ruffe.
  But, the zebra mussel invasion provides the most compelling reason to 
support research that will enable us to develop control methods and 
prevent infestation. The mussel has now spread to 20 States and 
continues to spread. Between July and September 1994, mussel densities 
on the southern Mississippi River increased from 10/sq meter to 40,000/
sq meter.
  A relatively new pest, the ruffe, is spreading throughout the far 
reaches of Lake Superior threatening commercial and recreational 
fisheries, and is heading toward Lake Erie's $800 plus million perch 
and walleye fishery.
  The sea grant performs high-quality, peer-reviewed science. It does 
not duplicate other nonindigenous programs conducted by other agencies.
  My bipartisan amendment would take an additional $2 million out of 
NOAA's construction account and restore it to NOAA's National Sea Grant 
Program for research on nonindigenous species.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues from the 
Great Lakes region, on their efforts to restore needed funding for Sea 
Grant's critical research on aquatic nuisance species.
  As the cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I have worked 
hard to protect and restore the economic and environmental health of 
the Great Lakes. This aquatic ecosystem is home to nearly 30 million 
Americans who depend on these waters as avenues of commerce, as sources 
of drinking 
[[Page S5348]] water, and as recreational playgrounds attracting 
millions of visitors. Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646) I sponsored in 1990, Sea 
Grant is authorized to conduct critical exotic species research which 
allows the Great Lakes to provide such a wide range of benefits.
  Exotic species cause severe economic and ecological damage along our 
Nation's marine coasts and freshwater systems. In a surprisingly short 
time, the zebra mussel has spread to 20 States taking a heavy toll on 
biodiversity of hosting systems and forcing private and municipal 
waterworks and powerplants to withstand increased and costly 
maintenance efforts. However, Sea Grant aquatic nuisance species 
research is not exclusively dedicated to the zebra mussel. The 
restoration of $2.0 million for Sea Grant's nonindigeous species 
funding continues research on the serious Eurasian ruffe problem in 
Lake Superior which threatens the region's $4 billion fishing industry.
  The increasing number of harmful nonindigenous species and their 
cumulative impacts continue to create growing economic and 
environmental burdens for the United States. Sea Grants research and 
outreach efforts complement other Federal programs and enable us to 
adopt a national approach toward stewardship of our natural resources. 
Reducing funding for the critical aquatic nuisance species research 
conducted by Sea Grant will curtail ongoing research which benefits the 
Great Lakes and the entire Nation.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct. This 
amendment has been accepted on this side.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added 
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 578) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                 Amendment No. 579 to Amendment No. 420

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Leahy, 
     Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 579 
     to amendment No. 420.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Insert after page 7, line 18:

                 International Broadcasting Operations


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading to the board 
     for international broadcasting in Public Law 103-317, 
     $40,500,000 are rescinded.
       On page 27, delete lines 4 through 12.
       On page 36, line 10, strike ``$26,360,000'' and insert 
     ``$17,791,000''.
       On page 36, line 12, strike ``$29,360,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,965,000''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 20 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, this amendment, offered on behalf of myself, Senator 
Hollings, Senator Leahy, Senator Reid, and Senator Kennedy, would 
rescind $40.5 million from the funding for the organization known as 
Radio Free Europe. Of that money, we would take $26 million and put it 
into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in America, and the other 
$14 million would go for the Senior Community Service Employment 
Program.
  Again, Mr. President, I point out that adding this money, this $26 
million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, still leaves the 
CPB at $29 million less than what was appropriated last year. This does 
not even bring it up to the fully appropriated level. It would allow 
for only an inflationary increase for CPB.
  But I want to point out very emphatically that this amendment does 
not even bring the Corporation for Public Broadcasting up to what was 
funded last year.
  It does take $40 million out of Radio Free Europe, and I think it 
reflects an important historical reality; namely, the cold war is over, 
and it is time we take some of these old relics of the cold war and we 
start defunding them.
  Mr. President, right now we have a lot of people who are opposing 
Federal funding for public radio and television in the United States. 
The same opponents who rail against U.S. contributions to public radio 
for Americans are willing to write, without question, a check of almost 
equal amount to fund public radio for Europeans to fight a war against 
an enemy that no longer exists. In short, sending U.S. taxpayer dollars 
abroad to fund public radio in Europe is OK, but using U.S. tax dollars 
to finance public radio and TV for Americans at home is not.
  Our amendment attempts to correct that injustice by restoring 
federally financed public radio for Americans and cutting a little from 
U.S. financed public radio for Europeans.
  I will also point out that this amendment, plus the $14 million that 
is in the agreement, provides for a $54 million total cut in Radio Free 
Europe. The Dole substitute, offered by the majority leader, had a $98 
million cut in Radio Free Europe. So I am not even advocating cutting 
as much from Radio Free Europe as the Senator from Kansas did in his 
first proposal. He proposed to cut $98 million out of it. We are only 
proposing to cut $54 million.
  Even with this cut in Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Europe's funding 
level will be $175 million. That is $100 million more than the $75 
million the administration requested for this program in fiscal year 
1996.
  I point out further that President Clinton, in February of 1993, 
proposed eliminating Radio Free Europe. He said the cold war is over; 
there is no use to keep funding RFE.
  Opponents of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are working to 
phase out public broadcasting at home and are willing to sustain that 
same service in Europe. Make no mistake about it, this is public 
broadcasting in Eastern Europe; it is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. But 
there are existing alternatives available to Eastern Europeans and 
Russians--CNN, FM radio, AM radio, in addition to the Voice of America.
  Mr. President, let me recite briefly the history of Radio Free 
Europe. It started 40 years ago as a covert operation of the CIA 
broadcasting shortwave signals behind the Iron Curtain. All three of 
these--Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Voice of America--played a 
tremendous role in bringing news and information to people in Communist 
countries. They all played a critical role in fighting and winning the 
cold war.
  I would never have suggested this kind of amendment if the cold war 
were still on, but the cold war is over. And yet our overburdened 
American taxpayers are still paying more than $200 million for Radio 
Free Europe--I have dubbed it ``Radio Expensive Europe''; it is not 
Radio Free Europe, it is ``Radio Expensive Europe''--plus another $100 
million for the Voice of America and another $2 million for the 
administrative costs for the Board of International Broadcasting.
  Mr. President, you will hear arguments against my amendment. They 
will claim that RFE provides independent broadcasting, and therefore 
performs a different role from the Voice of America. Who is kidding 
whom? Radio Free Europe, created by the Central Intelligence Agency--
the board that runs it is appointed by the President of the United 
States.
  Second, Radio Free Europe continues to be funded to this day solely 
by U.S. taxpayers. Why? Why not the Germans? Their mark, as we know 
lately, is a lot better than the U.S. dollar. Why do the Germans not 
come in and 
[[Page S5349]] pay a little bit? Why do they not pick up the tab? Or 
how about the French or the Norwegians or the Swedes or the Poles or 
the Italians? Why do they not come in and contribute?
  No, it is our U.S. taxpayers footing the whole bill for Radio Free 
Europe. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I want to make my feelings known. 
I think Radio Free Europe ought to be zeroed out. But I am not 
proposing to do that in this amendment. I am still leaving $175 million 
for RFE for Fiscal 1995. I think we ought to come back and zero it out, 
maybe next year, but we ought to use some of this money to at least 
provide an inflationary increase for public broadcasting here at home, 
and restore funding for the senior citizen community employment 
program.
  Mr. President, let me just talk a little bit more about the Senior 
Community Service Employment Program. As I said, the amendment I have 
offered takes $26 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
It still leaves it $29 million less than what we appropriated last 
year. And it takes $14 million and puts it into senior community 
service employment, the only work force program designed to help 
seniors, elderly, get jobs in community service.
  I suspect all Members have gone to a senior citizens center providing 
meal programs, and we know how much good this program does.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
the Washington Post of January 27, 1995, titled ``A Federal Program 
That Does It Right,'' and I also ask unanimous consent to insert a 
letter from the National Council of Senior Citizens in support of this 
program.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1995]

                  A Federal Program That Does It Right

                             (By Judy Mann)

       Let's say you run a small company and you need a filing 
     clerk. A 67-year-old Latino woman applies for the job and so 
     does a newly minted high school graduate. Which one would you 
     hire?
       Precisely. And that's one of the reasons behind the Senior 
     Company Service Program, an organization that trains low-
     income people 55 and older and helps them find jobs. 
     Participants usually receive minimum wage for 20 hours of 
     training, and then they go to work, often in community 
     service jobs that help the elderly. Those subsidized jobs 
     often serve as bridges into permanent positions.
       By last June, the program had placed 27.3 percent of its 
     people in unsubsidized jobs such as bookkeeping in banks, 
     driving delivery vehicles, tutoring in schools and working as 
     health aides. That is a higher rate than the 25 percent job 
     placement rate in California's program for its welfare 
     parents.
       The Senior Community Service Program is the backbone for 
     most meals-on-wheels programs and for many day-care centers 
     in rural areas. an essential feature of the program is that 
     it matches seniors with the service needs of each community. 
     The program also works closely with businesses to ensure that 
     enrollees are getting indispensable job skills.
       The program is administered by the Department of Labor, 
     which contracts with national nonprofit organizations, such 
     as the National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC) and the 
     American Association of Retired Persons, to run them. About 
     70 percent of the enrollees are women, 56 percent are 65 or 
     older, a third have less than a high school education and 
     about 40 percent are members of a minority group--one of the 
     highest rates of minority participation for any domestic 
     program.
       Chris Oladipo, who runs the NCSC program in Prince George's 
     County, says it is particularly helpful as a bridge for older 
     immigrants who have trouble earning a living because of 
     language barriers.
       While most employment programs operate on the premise that 
     they get more for their money by concentrating on young 
     people, ``we look for the oldest and poorest people we can 
     find,'' says Andrea Wooten, president of Green Thumb Inc., 
     which trains 18,000 people a year.
       The programs have also played an important role in 
     retraining displaced workers, says Donald Davis, who directs 
     the programs run by the National Council on Aging. He tells 
     the story of a professional man in San Francisco who had 
     looked for a job for eight months after being laid off.
       ``We worked with him for three months. He is now heading up 
     a multilingual program and making $30,000 a year,'' Davis 
     says. ``Every study that's been done of this program says it 
     is one of the most effective ever developed by the federal 
     government.''
       In the three decades since the senior community service and 
     job training program has evolved, it has enjoyed strong 
     bipartisan support. But it is in danger of getting caught up 
     in the current rush to decentralize welfare programs and to 
     fund them through block grants to states, where various 
     programs are having to compete with each other for fewer 
     resources.
       David Affeldt, the former chief counsel with the U.S. 
     Senate Committee on Aging who developed legislation creating 
     the program, says it came about because block grant programs 
     historically have not served older workers well. He predicts 
     that, at a minimum, 15,000 to 20,000 older workers served 
     each year ``will get their pink slips'' if the program is 
     funded through block grants.
       ``One of the main problems that older workers have is that 
     they are not as visible or outspoken about their needs. . . 
     .The program has given these people hope and an opportunity 
     to help themselves while helping others, rather than be 
     dependent upon public assistance.''
       The Senior Community Service Program, also known as Title V 
     of the Older Americans Act, costs $410 million a year and is 
     supposed to serve about 67,000 people. ``We actually serve 
     over 100,000 people because we've used this program to get 
     people up and out,'' ``says Sheila Manheimer, of the NCSC.
       Half the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have 
     been elected since 1992, and many are riding a streamroller 
     called ``mandate for change'' without having a very good idea 
     of the territory they are rolling over. The Senior Community 
     Service Program serves the poorest of the elderly while 
     providing a wide variety of services that make our 
     communities livable. Far from a candidate for dismantling, 
     this is one federal program that everyone should look to as a 
     model of what works.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Council


                                           of Senior Citizens,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The National Council of Senior Citizens 
     (NCSC), in behalf of our five million affiliated members, 
     asks you to vote in support of Senator Harkin's amendment of 
     H.R. 1158, the 1995 Rescission bill. This amendment is 
     expected to come before the full Senate today and your 
     support would be appreciated by seniors and families 
     throughout the nation.
       This amendment would restore funding to many programs 
     important to the elderly, children and our communities, 
     including the Senior Community Service Employment Program 
     (SCSEP), the Child Care Block Grant, the Safe and Drug Free 
     Schools Program, Drug Courts and the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting.
       The Council is particularly concerned about the $14.4 
     million rescinded under H.R. 1158 from the Senior Community 
     Service Employment Program. The SCSEP designs needed 
     community service programs and provides subsidized training 
     and part-time employment which maximizes the productive 
     contributions of older persons in these community services. 
     Senator, please note that the $14.4 million rescinded under 
     H.R. 1158 would result in the loss of jobs for almost 3,000 
     low-income senior citizens now staffing community service 
     programs nationwide under Title V of the Older Americans Act.
       In a January 27 article in The Washington Post, which I 
     have attached, Judy Mann said it best when she said, ``Far 
     from a candidate for dismantling, this is one Federal program 
     that everyone should look to as a model of what works.'' 
     Every study has shown the SCSEP to be one of the most 
     effective programs ever developed by the Federal government.
       Again, please do right by the elderly, young and our 
     communities by supporting Senator Harkin's amendment 
     restoring funding to these critical programs. Short of the 
     changes included in Senator Harkin's amendment, the 
     Rescission bill does not merit support.
           Sincerely,
                                              Lawrence T. Smedley,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of the 10 minutes allotted 
yourself and another 10.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes or whatever more he needs to the 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Harkin and I are 
offering would partially restore cuts to public radio and television by 
reducing the appropriation for Radio Free Europe.
  Radio Free Europe [RFE] is a World War II program, designed to 
broadcast news to people living behind the Iron Curtain.
  News flash--The Iron Curtain has fallen.
  The Cold War is over. While the rest of the world is moving ahead 
with satellite communication and other technological advances, we are 
still using U.S. tax dollars to support broadcasts by shortwave radio.
  I find when I go on the internet, I can reach people in Eastern 
Europe. I think I can reach them quicker on internet than by shortwave 
radio on Radio Free Europe.
  I really cannot see, when we are cutting out our own public 
broadcasting, why we are paying for this in Germany.
  [[Page S5350]] We are shortchanging an American audience in deference 
to overseas listeners.
  Our amendment cuts $40.5 million from what U.S. taxpayer is currently 
paying to support Radio Free Europe. This will still leave $175 million 
for RFE.
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would receive $26 million of 
this savings.
  This is not a total restoration of the cuts in this bill for public 
television and radio--we understand that tough choices have to be made. 
This restoration will support CPB at the 1995 level with a small 
increase to compensate for inflation.
  Continuing public television and radio programs are especially 
important in rural areas where residents might not be able to afford or 
have access to cable programs.
  I hear from hundreds of Vermonters each week on how important Vermont 
ETV and Vermont Public Radio are to their lives. For some, it is the 
only news and educational programming they can get.
  We should not be diminishing this valuable national resource.
  The remaining savings from the RFE budget would restore cuts to the 
Community Service for Older Americans Program.
  The war against communism is over. We must focus our efforts on 
another battle that is still being waged here at home:
  Adoption of this amendment will send a clear signal that our priority 
is to support programs that will help educate and enrich the lives of 
Americans.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
to be included as an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is difficult to 
cover the ground in less than 2 minutes.
  Let me just make three points. First of all, I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the Senator from Vermont. Second of all, I 
would like to focus on the import of this amendment, which is to 
restore as much funding as possible for public television.
  I go back to just one gathering in Appleton, MN, in southwest 
Minnesota, where it is just crystal clear for anyone who wants to look 
at public TV that it is far from a ``sandbox for the rich.'' Public 
television is so important to the enrichment of lives of citizens in 
our country, both urban and rural, but I think especially in the rural 
communities it is vitally important.
  Second of all, the community service for older Americans program is a 
huge success. The way I define ``success'' is we are talking about low- 
and moderate-income elderly people who, number one--it is kind of a 
marriage--are able to have the dignity of being able to work; and 
number two, their work is this service of community, whether it be 
delivery of meals to homebound, whether it be taking care of children, 
whether it be recreational services.
  I remember in talking with citizens in Willmar, MN, we can get a 
wonderful feel for how important this program is on the basis of 
investment of really very few dollars.
  I want to make it clear that I am in full support of this amendment 
and proud to be an original cosponsor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the leader would yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment represents the 
complicated dilemmas that can be presented. Of course, I am in favor of 
senior citizens, and I also support public broadcasting. In fact, I 
contribute and have contributed to public broadcasting through the 
years.
  As chairman of the Commerce Committee this year I have discovered 
that public broadcasting could well become self-funding. I agree with 
Al Gore that we need to reinvent and privatize wherever possible.
  In talking to a lot of telecommunications people, I discovered that 
they plan to get into video dial TV and so forth, and I asked them 
where they are going to buy their programming? They would say from Arts 
and Entertainment, the History channel, or Learning channel. I said, 
``Why not buy it from public television or radio? They have all kinds 
of public programming.'' And they said, ``Well, they do not try to sell 
it.''
  I came up with a plan, along with some House leaders, and an 
agreement has been reached, or an informal agreement, with some of the 
leading people in public broadcasting to move towards self-funding.
  Where would the money come from? First of all, public broadcasting 
can digitize and sell a lot of their programming. There is a good 
market for that type of programming. They can sell it to the channels I 
mentioned as the History channel, the Learning channel, Arts and 
Entertainment. Nickelodeon is marketing a lot of children's programming 
in France where it is dubbed--educational children's programming. There 
is money to be made in this. Public television has taught that.
  Second of all, the spectrums that public broadcasting has throughout 
the country. Now we are finding that, with modern technology, we have 
extra spectrum. They can sell it or rent parts of their spectrum and 
make a great deal of money.
  Third of all, they have a lot of overlapping spectrum that can be 
sold or represented. For example, in the Washington, DC, area, many 
homes get two or three public television signals with the same 
programming or virtually the same programming. The taxpayers of the 
country need some relief.
  Fourth, the great bureaucracy that has grown inside the beltway here 
and the excessively high salaries that are paid to foundations that get 
grants directly from the corporation can be cut. There is great room 
for efficiency there.
  By the way, our States are not getting their fair share of the money. 
In fact, our State legislatures support most of the public broadcasting 
in this country as well as private contributors such as myself.
  Finally, public stations could make money by getting a bigger 
percentage of what is played on the free public platform. I have spoken 
out about this, and indeed I commend the board of directors of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting because they passed a resolution to 
start getting a bigger percentage of Barney and other programming that 
appear on the free public platform provided by the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Mr. President, the States are not getting their fair share. My little 
State of South Dakota, which is vast in geography but small in 
population, gets $1.7 million, but they have to send $1 million back 
immediately for programming, which they might be able to buy elsewhere 
at a better rate.
  The ``shields'' used by public broadcasting are children in rural 
areas. Let me say the State legislature in my State voted against a 
resolution to seek more funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting because it is such a charade they must go through.
  So, I believe strongly in lowering the deficit. I believe in less 
Government involvement. This is an opportunity, a plan has been 
developed, and they are working with a big investment bank in New York 
to privatize, to become self-funding.
  There is not a need for taxpayers money here. If we are going to 
transfer this money, we do not need to transfer it to the corporation. 
The House leaders reached an agreement to privatize, to work toward 
self-funding. I have outlined various sources of revenue the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get. I have not mentioned 
additional advertisement. They already have a great deal of 
advertising. They call it ``enhancements'' or something. That is fine.
  Even without further advertising they sit on a treasure trove of 
resources here. I recently wrote an article in the Washington Post 
outlining the five ways public broadcasting can get more revenue 
without any more advertising. They are sitting on a treasure trove of 
spectrum, of overlapping spectrum. Inside the beltway here their 
headquarters are bloated bureaucracies.
  The States are really not getting the money that they are supposed to 
be getting.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post 
article I mentioned printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.

[[Page S5351]]

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1995]

                       Reality-Based Broadcasting

                          (By Larry Pressler)

       ``Public broadcasting is under attack!'' ``Congress wants 
     to kill Big Bird!'' These and other alarmist cries have been 
     common in recent weeks. The problem is they are lies. That's 
     right, lies. I tried to conceive of a more polite way to say 
     it. I could not. With rare exceptions the press largely has 
     ignored the specifics of the position taken by members of 
     Congress seeking to reinvent public broadcasting.
       I have struggled to make my position clear. Yet the 
     misrepresentations continue. I am convinced many simply do 
     not care to report the facts--facts they do not find as 
     interesting as the scenarios they create. That is too bad. 
     The average American taxpayer would find the facts extremely 
     interesting.
       As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation, I am not seeking to destroy public 
     television and radio. I am a strong supporter of public 
     broadcasting, both in my home state of South Dakota and 
     nationally. Pull the plug? Absolutely not. Rather, my plan 
     would expand opportunities and save taxpayer dollars.
       Why do I seek change? Because times have changed. Today's 
     electronic media are vastly different from those of the 
     1960s, when the current system of federal subsidies for 
     public broadcasting was established. The old theory of 
     ``market failure'' for educational programming is completely 
     untenable in today's environment. Educational and cultural 
     programs can and do make profits when their quality is good 
     and marketing astute. The only money losers in today's 
     arrangement are the taxpayers.
       A Feb. 24 Post editorial stated it is time for the public 
     broadcasting industry to face reality. The issue no longer 
     should be whether federal subsidies for public broadcasting 
     will be cut. I could not agree more. Congress now is debating 
     when and how much. The House Appropriations subcommittee on 
     labor, health and human services already has cut the public 
     broadcasting budget. The House leadership promises more to 
     come. I fully expect the Senate to follow suit.
       Instead of crying over public cash, it would be more 
     prudent for public broadcasting executives to use their 
     talents and resources developing the numerous potential 
     sources of revenue available to replace the federal subsidy 
     rather than continuing to fan the flames of fear and 
     exaggeration. As captains of a major corporation, their 
     responsibilities should be clear. The Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR) and the 
     Public Broadcasting System (PBS) need to learn to stand on 
     their own feet.
       To help in that effort, I recently provided the chairman of 
     the board of CPB with a plan to end its dependency on federal 
     welfare in three years. Ideas to end CPB's addition to 
     taxpayer dollars include:


                           profits from sales

       CPB should renegotiate sales agreements and improve future 
     agreements to get a larger share of the sales of toys, books, 
     clothing and other products based on its programming. In 
     1990, Barney-related products retailed at $1 billion! Steps 
     have been taken by the CPB board to improve its share of such 
     sales. More should be done.


                    make the most of new technology

       Use of new compressed digitization technology would permit 
     existing noncommercial licensees to expand to four or five 
     channels where once they had only one. Public broadcasting 
     stations could rent, sell or make use of the additional 
     channels for other telecommunications and information 
     services.


                             end redundancy

       At least one-quarter of public television stations overlap 
     other public television stations' signal areas. Public radio 
     also suffers from the inefficiencies of redundancy. Ending 
     this overlap and selling the excess broadcast spectrum would 
     provide substantial revenues to public broadcasting.


                            switch channels

       Moving public television stations from costly VHF channels 
     to less costly UHF channels in certain markets would provide 
     a substantial source of new revenue.


                  team with other information services

       CPB could increase commercial arrangements in the computer 
     software market and with on-line services.
       These are only a few of the ways in which the CPB could 
     reinvent itself into a self-sufficient corporation for the 
     '90s and, indeed, for the next century. Ending federal 
     dependency does not end public broadcasting. Today's subsidy 
     amounts to only 14 percent of the industry's spending! 
     Indeed, my current plan asks the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting to end its dependency on federal welfare in 
     three years--that's one year more than what current proposals 
     would give welfare recipients to get off federal assistance.
       It would be tragic if the public broadcasting industry 
     ignores its responsibilities when the federal budget is in 
     crisis. It also would be tragic if the industry spurns 
     exciting opportunities in new markets and technologies. 
     Perhaps most tragic of all, however, would be continued 
     retrenchment from public broadcasting executives crying, ``It 
     can't be done.'' It can be done. It should be done.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. PRESSLER. So, let me conclude by saying that it may well be that 
moneys could be transferred from here to there, but they do not need to 
be transferred anymore for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The 
committee level and the House level gives them more than they need.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my chairman.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes; 5 minutes and 8 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains for the opponents of the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time was there originally?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have 5 minutes left. Will the Senator from Delaware 
take 2\1/2\?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make it real quick. First of all, I 
think the characterization of my friend from Iowa is bizarre. It makes 
it sound like this is a CIA plot that is still underway. It is one of 
the most noble undertakings that the Western World has ever engaged in. 
If you ask any people in Eastern Europe, from Lech Walesa to Vaclav 
Havel to Boris Yeltsin, and others, who in fact were there before the 
Wall came down, they credit Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty more 
than any single thing.
  Number two, is it still needed? It is needed now. There is an enemy. 
The enemy is called censorship, and if you wonder whether or not it is 
true, some of us met this week with Mr. Gusinsky, the fellow who has 
the media empire in Russia now who is criticizing the present 
President. They are threatening to take down the television stations. 
They are taking down the radio and television access to the news for 
the people everywhere from Slovakia through Russia.
  The third thing is this notion it is no longer needed. Mr. President, 
25 million people still listen to it on a regular basis in Eastern 
Europe and Russia. Anyone who thinks democracy has taken root and the 
free market system is in place in those areas, I respectfully suggest 
they take another close look. And the notion that they can watch CNN--I 
would say to my friends, CNN is in English; it can be censored. It, in 
fact, can be impacted upon. And CNN communicates international news, 
not what is happening within those countries--as RFE/RL does. What we 
are doing is fully emasculating the ability of Radio Free Europe or 
Radio Liberty to continue to function.
  I am a supporter, an unabashed supporter of public television. I 
believe it should be more than it is now. But this is like having the 
hearing impaired steal from the physically impaired, from those who are 
unable to walk. They are pitting two very important functions of 
government against one another. But we should not undermine Radio Free 
Europe and Radio Liberty.
  Again, those who think democracy is secure in those areas, please 
stand and raise your hands and tell me that censorship is still not the 
single biggest enemy of the prospect for freedom to flourish and 
democracy to flourish in Eastern and Central Europe.
  Let me give a few more examples. In Russia, we have heard about the 
media courageously reporting on the war in Chechnya.
  But that does not mean that Russia is now blessed with completely 
free media.
  Last year, the State Duma in Russia adopted a new media law which 
requires that State-owned media must inform the public of activities of 
the President, Government, and Parliament within 24 hours after any 
noteworthy event.
  And although the State Department reports that ``print media [in 
Russia] functioned largely unhindered,'' this optimistic picture is 
clouded by the situation in many provinces:

       Regional political authorities [in Russia] resorted to 
     various devices to close down critical newspapers.

  Last winter and spring, during the parliamentary campaign in 
Kazakhstan, a television station went off the air for several days when 
local authorities, upset by broadcasts critical of the mayor of the 
capital, shut off electricity to the station.
  [[Page S5352]] In Slovakia, as the Washington Post reported last 
Tuesday, the newly elected Government has increasingly pressured--and 
at times forced--television, radio, and newspapers to accept wholesale 
changes or drop programs.
  In my view, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are as important 
today as they were during the past 40 years.
  Because the establishment of free and independent media in the region 
has been a slow process, RFE/RL today have a dual role: To provide a 
model of how independent media should function in a free society, and 
to keep honest those who seek to reestablish repression and to silence 
the press.
  This function is not one conceived in the abstract; the practical 
reality lies in the public response: The people of the region continue 
to tune in to RFE/RL.
  In nearly every country in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union, the listenership of RFE/RL today equals or exceeds that of the 
Voice of America.
  It also exceeds the audience of the British Broadcasting 
Corporation's World Service.
  All told, some 25 million people in the region listen to RFE/RL on a 
regular basis.
  Surveys conducted last fall of leading citizens in the region found 
that an average of nearly 75 percent supported the continuation of 
western radio broadcasts.
  Equally important, every leader of the new democracies in the region 
continues to urge that these radios remain open.
  Let me quote from a letter from Czech President Vaclav Havel to 
President Clinton:

       [RFE broadcasts] remain important to the development of 
     independent journalism and democracy in our country.

  The Presidents of the three Baltic States expressed a similar view:

       These broadcasts [are] an integral part of the continuing 
     development of [our] democratic institutions.

  These are not leaders whose budgets benefit from RFE/RL--these are 
leaders who recognize that RFE/RL still make a contribution to the 
establishment of democracy.
  This year, the administration proposes to spend $100 million on the 
so-called ``Warsaw Initiative,'' a program to assist the new 
democracies of Eastern Europe to modernize their militaries.
  I would argue that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are as 
important as this military assistance in helping to secure the 
democratic foundation in the former East bloc.
  Yet I predict that hardly anyone around here will blink an eye when 
the Congress votes on the $100 million ``Warsaw Initiative.''


                      rfe/rl is cutting its budget

  I agree with the Senator's belief that we need to reduce our 
international broadcasting budget.
  We are doing just that.
  The State Department authorization bill, enacted last year, provides 
for the consolidation of all U.S. international broadcasting.
  The plan will reduce operations at both RFE/RL and the Voice of 
America. By next October, VOA and REF/RL will have reduced their 
combined broadcast hours to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union 
by 32 percent.
  RFE/RL will reduce its budget by 67 percent--from $220 million to $75 
million annually by fiscal 1996.
  In terms of employees, RFE/RL will be cut by a similar amount--from 
1,600 in September, 1993 to about 420 in fiscal 1996.
  The research arm of RFE/RL has already been privatized: Its 
operations have been taken over by the open media society--a project 
funded by the philanthropist George Soros.
  The new institute will undertake the restoration and preservation of 
the invaluable archives owned by RFE/RL--40 years of material that 
trace the dark era of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
  This is a project for which no Federal funds were available. But 
because of this public-private partnership, that important objective 
will be realized.
  The changes that I have enumerated will produce $400 million in 
savings over the period from 1994 to 1997. All this is not a one-time 
phenomenon--it is a permanent structural change.
  In addition, Congress has directed RFE/RL to begin an effort to 
privatize the radios--that is, that the funding should be assumed by 
the private sector by the end of the decade.
  The radios are taking that directive seriously. Their ongoing move to 
Prague is a critical part of the effort to prepare for privatization.
  Let everyone understand what this amendment will do--it will 
emasculate Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
  The fiscal year 1995 budget for the radios is $229 million. That 
includes $103.5 million for one-time downsizing costs.
  Nearly $67 million of those costs are mandated by German labor laws.
  Restrictive German labor laws require RFE/RL to pay severance and 
other benefits to the hundreds of employees who will be laid off--laws 
that RFE/RL, as a private corporation operating in Germany, must comply 
with. It is undisputed that RFE/RL, Inc. is subject to German labor 
laws.
  A recent case, decided in February in the D.C. Circuit (Mahoney v. 
RFE/RL, Inc.), made clear that as a corporation with its principal 
place of business in Munich, RFE/RL would violate the laws of Germany 
if the corporation breached its collective bargaining agreements.
               this will stop an important move to prague

  In short, the effect of this amendment would be to place a dagger in 
the heart of the radios--at a moment when they are in the midst of a 
move from Munich to Prague, where they are preparing for the eventual 
privatization of RFE/RL.
  This would break faith with a decision that the President and 
Congress jointly made last year.
  Last January, the Senate voted to consolidate RFE/RL and the Voice of 
America.
  Last summer, the President sent a reprogramming to Congress which 
provided for the move of the headquarters of RFE/RL from Munich to 
Prague.
  I do not recall any of my colleagues objecting at that time to the 
continuation of RFE/RL.
  But now the move to Prague is in motion. Four language services are 
now being produced in Prague: Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, and the 
South Slav service.
  RFE/RL plans to be out of Munich by June 10.
  Because Munich is one of the most expensive cities in Europe, the 
move will achieve important savings. Per capita personnel costs will be 
reduced by one-third.
  The President of the Czech Republic, President Havel, made an 
extremely generous offer to allow the radios to use the former 
Czechoslovak Federal Parliament Building for a nominal fee of one Czech 
crown per day--or 12 dollars per year.
  The President of the United States accepted that offer last summer. 
This amendment would obviously undercut that commitment.
  That is why the Clinton administration is strongly opposed to the 
Harkin amendment, as stated in the letter I read earlier from Joe 
Duffey, director of the U.S. Information Agency.


                   rfe/rl and voa are not duplicative

  It is not true that RFE/RL duplicates the Voice of America.
  The two radios have different missions. The Voice of America's is 
mandated to tell America's story.
  By contrast, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radios provide news 
and information about local events within the recipient countries.
  In this manner, RFE/RL act as home service or surrogate radios in the 
absence of fully free and independent media in the emerging democracies 
of the Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
  As a result of the broadcast consolidation, the amount of overlapping 
broadcasts--that is, broadcasts by both RFE/RL and the VOA in the same 
language at the same time--was reduced from 24 hours to zero.
  It is ludicrous to suggest that the cable news network now suffices 
for the countries of the former Soviet Empire.
  In most countries, there are only two ways to obtain CNN--by staying 
in an expensive hotel or to buy a satellite dish.
  I do not have any data on how many such dishes are available, but I 
cannot believe they are widespread.
  More important, the news of CNN is in English, and it is 
international news. The news on Radio Free Europe 
[[Page S5353]] and Radio Liberty is in the vernacular--the local 
language; and it focuses mainly on local news.
  Do not take my word for it that these broadcasts are still needed. 
Listen to the results of a survey conducted last fall in the region.
  A poll of decisionmakers in each country--government, military, 
media, and economic leaders--clearly demonstrates this point.
  When the proposition was put to them that Western radio is needed 
despite the new media freedom, some 75 percent of those polled 
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
  I sympathize with my friend from Iowa about the choice we face in 
this bill.
  I am in favor of restoring the cuts to the corporation for public 
broadcasting--but not at the expense of one of the most valuable 
instruments in American foreign policy.
  The last point I will make is the administration is opposed to the 
amendment of my friend from Iowa. And I hope I have done this within 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. Much as I would 
like to see additional funding for public broadcasting, the 
subcommittee of which I am the chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health, Human Resources and Education, has made a very careful 
allocation and has in fact reduced considerably the rescission by the 
House of Representatives for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The House 
wanted to cut public broadcasting by $47 million. We limited the 
rescission to $26,360,000 for fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1997, 
the House of Representatives wanted to cut public broadcasting by $94 
million, and our subcommittee limited that rescission to $29,360,000, 
leaving public broadcasting at its current rate of $285,640,000.
  That is fairly complicated arithmetic, but what it boils down to is 
on the current mark, there has been substantial consideration given to 
public broadcasting. The responses which the committee has heard from 
those who are interested in public broadcasting is a sigh of relief 
that their funding has been maintained at its present level.
  I would like to see more funding for public broadcasting. But in 
setting this mark we feel there has been a realistic and appropriate 
balancing of priorities.
  When the Senator from Iowa talks about employment for older Americans 
and would like to add funding there, of course it would be fine to add 
$14 million additionally to the $396 million recommended by the 
committee. But here again, the Appropriations Committee has made a very 
careful balancing of priorities. It is possible to pick apart the 
appropriations bill in a thousand ways and to take accounts which sound 
wonderful, like older Americans or public broadcasting, and take them 
from accounts like Radio Free Europe which makes a great sound bite or 
looks complicated when the Sunday papers reprint the vote. But this has 
been very, very carefully worked out.
  Senator Biden has made as good an argument as you can make in 2\1/2\ 
minutes. I am sorry he is not on the floor to compliment him, because 
it is seldom that Senator Biden makes that good an argument in 2\1/2\ 
minutes. Usually it is longer and proportionately it may not justify 
the additional time. I wish he were here to reply to that.
  It is with some reluctance that I oppose my colleague, Senator 
Harkin, who serves as ranking member on the subcommittee. We have 
worked together for a very, very long period of time. But as the 
allocations now stand, there is an appropriate allocation and balancing 
of priorities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend this 
debate for 10 minutes, to be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the time is extended for an additional 10 minutes--
  Mr. HATFIELD. And I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would want to reserve time until I hear from Senator 
Harkin and reply, if I may.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the 10 minutes has been agreed to, 5 on 
a side?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor and will reply to whatever additional 
arguments remain.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Specter's argument on the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting is we are not hurting the 
corporation nor public broadcasting as much as the House is. That is 
not a very good argument.
  Let me point out one thing. This body, I am pleased to say, 
unanimously supported me in an effort to have an exemption to the 
antitrust laws so that the television industry could get together on 
the question of violence. The evidence is overwhelming.
  The Presiding Officer is a physician. The American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of 
Mental Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, all have 
issued studies saying that television violence that glorifies violence 
adds to violence in our society.
  I am pleased to report to this body, thanks to your efforts and to 
voluntary efforts in the industry, broadcast television has reduced 
violence appreciably. Cable has moved very, very modestly. But one 
network and one network alone provides violence-free television for the 
children of America, and that is public broadcasting.
  I think we have to put our vote where our mouth is on this. I think 
we have to encourage the only network in this Nation that provides 
violence-free television for our children. There is one children's 
program, for example, that is broadcast in this country which is 
produced in two versions. One is the violent version for the United 
States of America, and the other is the nonviolent version for all the 
other countries in the world. When the Christian Science Monitor asked 
the producer why, she said, ``Well, the United States people demand 
violence, and we get no complaints. We cannot sell it in other 
countries with the violence in it.''
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is doing a superb job of 
giving us violence-free television for our children, and we ought to be 
supporting it and supporting them strongly.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment. If I am not 
already, I want to be added.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes and 39 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Iowa 
for yielding to me. I congratulate him on trying to maintain a 
semblance of culture, decency, and civility in this Nation.
  The Senator from Illinois spoke just before I did. He spoke about the 
fact that our children, by the time they graduate from high school, 
will have seen 18,000 murders, to say nothing of the other unspeakable 
violence they are going to see on network television. We have grappled 
in the Senate with how to control children's exposure to violence in 
light of the free speech provisions of the first amendment, and nobody 
has been able to come up with a workable solution.
  I was speaking with a Senator's wife about a week ago and she said, 
``You know, Dale, we don't subscribe to cable at our house. We have a 
12-year-old son. We do not want him exposed to MTV.'' I tell you, there 
are an amazing number of people in this country who deplore what their 
children are watching on television, and some of them are opting, as 
she does, not to purchase cable television.
  Mr. President, you can be assured that this is not the final 
definitive debate on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is 
an assault in the U.S. Congress on public broadcasting. With Newt 
Gingrich leading the charge, the Republicans in Congress 
[[Page S5354]] have decided to take dead aim at Big Bird, rather than 
deal with the problems that really cause harm to our society.
  Mr. President, we have heard the argument: ``CPB can be privatized; 
let them do as everybody else does.'' Let me ask you about the 
magnificent, unprecedented series on the Civil War which was so 
poignant. 14 percent of Americans tuned in to see it. I promise you, 
most Americans were in tears watching, but above all, learning about 
the most defining moment in American history--13 hours on public 
broadcasting. Can you imagine watching that series on one of the 
commercial networks and being interrupted every 5 minutes with a car 
being dropped on top of a mountain top, or a Budweiser beer commercial?
  I cannot believe that the Harkin amendment is even being challenged. 
If the Senator from Iowa prevails on his amendment, there will be $175 
million left in the Radio Free Europe account. That is $100 million 
more than the President requested. In addition, even if the Senator 
from Iowa prevails, we will still be $29 million short of what public 
broadcasting was supposed to get.
  Mr. President, how many times during the balanced budget amendment 
debate did you hear the argument, ``Senator, how can you vote against 
the balanced budget amendment? Eighty percent of the people of this 
country favor it. You are going against the wishes of the people.''
  So, for the Senators here who are prepared to vote against the 
amendment of the Senator from Iowa, let me remind you that between 65 
percent and 70 percent of the people of this country do not want the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be cut. Is it for dilettantes? 
The statistics show that the average salary of the people of this 
country who watch opera is $40,000 a year. Where else could they see 
Pavarotti, Kiri Te Kanawa, all of the magnificent voices; are they to 
be silenced? Are we going to say to the American people that other 
countries of the world are willing to spend up to $38 per household for 
the very same thing the American people are paying $1.09 for?
  It is troubling to hear the assaults on things like the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio--I never move my 
radio off NPR. When I get in the car in the morning, that is what is 
on; and when I go home at night, that is what is on, because I want to 
know what is going on in the world and I do not want all those 
commercials interrupting it. I want a definitive, honest-to-goodness, 
analysis of what is happening all over the world. I wonder what the 
opponents of the Harkin amendment listen to in order to get their news.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes on this side.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my 
colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on this amendment. I thank 
them for their support.
  Second, I want to again thank and congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Specter, for doing a truly outstanding job in getting the provisions 
through our Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee that he has 
done in this bill. Having been in his position, I know it is a tough 
job, a thankless job. I want to commend him for all the work he has 
done. He has done a good job. I support him in that effort.
  I point out, however, that in this case, Radio Free Europe is not in 
our subcommittee. So I am not hanging that on his head. It is funded in 
another subcommittee. Senator Specter and our subcommittee does not 
fund Radio Free Europe.
  Mr. President, I also want to say--and I do not have the time to do 
this. The compensation package that was agreed upon for the employees 
of Radio Free Europe because they are now moving to Prague, 
Czechoslovakia, you ought to read it. Let me read a couple of its 
provisions.
  Employees having children shall receive a one-time payment in the 
following amount: One month of gross salary, but in no event more than 
deutsche mark 10,000--that is $7,500 in U.S. dollars--for every 
dependent child aged no more than 27. How about that?
  Employees terminated effective as of July 30, 1994, shall receive in 
respective school fees for the children to go to school 10,000 deutsche 
marks per child. So they can go to school. That is $7,500 a year.
  What is going on here? This is criminal. Talk about a golden 
parachute. And at the same time, we are saying we are going to cut 
broadcasting for Big Bird and for our kids in this country. What 
nonsense.
  My friend from Delaware talks about censorship. If that is going to 
be our guiding light, let us start Radio Free Asia, Radio Free South 
Africa, Radio Free South America.
  Mr. BIDEN. We have.
  Mr. HARKIN. Censorship can rear its ugly head anywhere, anywhere--in 
Uruguay and Paraguay, in Chile and Argentina, in any country in Africa. 
But what we have is the Voice of America. Now, he talked about Lech 
Walesa. I have some statements from other people I will put in the 
Record telling about the Voice of America, the present Prime Minister 
of Albania saying it was the Voice of America that brought them 
through, not Radio Free Europe.
  Second, Mr. President, here is a list--I ask unanimous consent to put 
these in the Record--of every country in Eastern Europe and all of the 
radio and TV stations they already have that are operating. I ask 
unanimous consent to put that in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Ukraine: Russian TV programming is widely viewed.
       Belarus: European music stations and BBC TV programs have 
     been on air since last year.
       Latvia: 6 commercial stations broadcasting most of day.
       Lithuania: Recent formation of an association of 
     independent TV and radio stations. TV programs broadcast; 
     also several TV and radio stations broadcasting in Polish.
       Hungary: VOA and BBC rebroadcast on Kossuth, FM, a state 
     radio network.
       Poland: RWE, Inc. broadcasts on Polish Program 4, a 
     nationwide mediumwave network; BBC and VOA rebroadcast 
     locally on both MW and FM. A National Broadcasting Council 
     has issued 3 private national licenses in addition to 115 
     local licenses. The first national private TV license was 
     recently awarded to Polsat over competing bids involving 
     well-established foreign firms such as Time Warner Inc., 
     Bertelsmann AG, and Reuters.
       Czech Republic: VOA and BBC broadcast on FM networks in 
     locations throughout the country; 2 public radio networks. 
     Many of the independent stations with music and news often 
     broadcast 24 hours a day.
       Slovakia: Slovak Radio broadcasts despite financial 
     problems BBC broadcasts on FM networks throughout the 
     country.
       Bulgaria: Numerous local independent radio stations operate 
     in Sofia and other major cities. VOA, BBC, Deutsche Welle and 
     Radio France International broadcast on FM in Sofia; VOA and 
     BBC in cities outside.
       Romania: Romania Radio, with 3 national networks all due to 
     go on FM in the near future, is a less controversial 
     institution than state TV. Numerous local independent radio 
     stations operate in Bucharest and other major cities. VOA, 
     BBC, Radio France International and DW are currently being 
     rebroadcast on FM in Bucharest; BBC and DW also broadcast on 
     FM in other cities.
       Azerbaijan: Iran and Turkey supply television and radio 
     programs to Azerbaijan; radio and TV cooperation between Iran 
     and Azerbaijan is expanding.
       Georgia: ``Free Georgia'' radio reportedly has been set up 
     in Mingrelia by Gamsakhurdia supporters. Western and Turkish 
     TV is available in Tbilisi.
       Kazakhstan: TV broadcasts from Russia. Almaty is home to 
     several independent radio stations. Print media are diverse. 
     BBC and VOA broadcast, but only in Russia.
       Tajikistan: An opposition radio, ``Free Tajikistan,'' has 
     begun broadcasting 90 minutes a day. BBC and VOA broadcast in 
     Russian.
       Uzbekistan: Voice of Iran and radio Saudi Arabia transmit 
     to Uzbekistan in Uzbek; other regional broadcasters can be 
     heard in Persian or Turkish. VOA broadcasts; BBC plans to 
     begin broadcasting in Uzbeck in later 1994.

  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Delaware says the administration is 
opposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
   [[Page S5355]] Mr. HARKIN. I will take 30 more seconds. Here is the 
OMB pass-back budget 1994:

       Presidential decisions. The pass-back includes some 
     specific policy issues that were personally reviewed and 
     decided by the President and cannot be changed. BIB, RFE, RL 
     will be terminated in 1995, capital assets will be 
     transferred to and merged with USIA.

  So if this is something new, then the President obviously has changed 
his mind. But the President made a decision to personally zero it out.
  I would also point out that even in this fiscal year the President 
asked for $75 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. And this is $100 million more than the President asked 
for.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield me 
2 minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I do not say this with any rancor, but it is clear the 
Senator from Iowa is correct; he is uninformed on this issue. The 
reason he is uninformed on the issue, Radio Free Europe or Radio 
Liberty, the administration is not opposed.
  I will submit the letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent it 
be put in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      U.S. Information Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 1995.
     Hon. Joseph Biden,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Joe: It is my understanding that the Senate may take 
     up an amendment that would rescind major funding for the 
     operations of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. We appreciate 
     your past and continuing support for RFE/RL and hope you will 
     join the Administration and me in opposing this amendment.
       As you know, we are currently in the process of shutting 
     down RFE/RL in Munich and moving the newly configured 
     operation to Prague. We have managed to get major components 
     of the operation off the government budget and all of those 
     involved in this effort have proceeded in good faith on the 
     basis of reductions agreed to last year. The budget is being 
     drastically reduced.
       The operation will be overhauled under the leadership of 
     Kevin Klose, President of RFE/RL, and a new Board of 
     Directors, chaired by David Burke, former Vice President of 
     ABC News. We have, however, let go more than a thousand long-
     time employees in Germany and must meet major obligations 
     (legal obligations) there for German Government mandated 
     separation costs, pension and health costs, etc. A cut in 
     this year's budget of the one-time expense set aside for this 
     purpose will break faith with those who have moved ahead with 
     creativity and no little courage to help reinvent this old 
     institution and make it serve a new purpose in a new time. It 
     will also create a monumental management disaster in Munich 
     and Prague, which will cause operations to come to an abrupt 
     halt and create obligations and penalties for the U.S. 
     Government beyond the savings sought by the amendment's 
     sponsors.
       I stand ready to met you in the Senate Lounge at any time 
     to talk with you about this, as does Mort Halperin, who can 
     express President Clinton's and the National Security 
     Council's strong opposition to the proposed amendment.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Joseph Duffey,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. BIDEN. Let me clarify this for the Senator. At the beginning of 
this administration, the President proposed terminating RFE/RL. That 
decision was reversed in the spring of 1993. And that summer, the 
President proposed consolidating all U.S. sponsored international 
broadcasts. Congress accepted it. And we ordered budget cuts. We cut 
the costs. The reason it is $175 million, $100 million more that the 
request for Fiscal 1996, is that it costs more--in the current fiscal 
year--to reduce the size of the radios. That is what it cost under 
German law to reduce the operation. We are bound under German law. When 
we lay off people and fire people under German law, we are required to 
pay this severance pay. That is the reason why it is more money this 
year and drops to $75 million next year.
  Thirdly, I point out to my friend from Iowa, he did vote for and we 
did vote for Radio Free Asia. We authorized the establishment of a new 
service last year, and began appropriating money last year. We did it 
because there is censorship in China and the other communist countries 
in Asia; because there is a gerontocracy in Beijing that does not let 
people express their points of view. We did do that. So he is ahead of 
himself without even realizing it. We did in fact vote and have voted 
to guarantee that where there is censorship in the world, we will be 
involved to the extent that we can.
  So, Mr. President, if we do not send troops, and we are not going to 
send money, and we are not going to send information, and we are not 
going to send access to the truth, what the heck are we going to do? I 
resent the fact that this is being pitted against public television. 
The reason public television is cut is not because of Radio Free 
Europe. When we reach the point----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired..
  Mr. BIDEN. When you reach the point your time has expired, you sit 
down.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 9 seconds remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much for the opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute thirty-two seconds. But the Senator 
from Iowa yielded back his time.
  Mr. HARKIN. No, the Senator did not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thought the Senator did.
  In that event, 1 minute 32 seconds remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  When the argument is made by the Senator from Arkansas that there is 
an assault on public broadcasting, I would remind him that the major 
assault is on the deficit, and as chairman of the subcommittee we 
looked at $5.9 billion of rescissions by the House, and we reduced that 
to $3.05 billion, and asked public broadcasting to take a fair share, 
leaving them with the same amount they had last year. And that has 
received the comments of gratitude that they are able to function 
without the larger cuts recommended by the House.
  The amendment is an attractive one, obviously, when they move into 
community service with older Americans, but that account already has 
$410 million. So the $14 additional million, while making this 
amendment look attractive, really is not very significant in the 
overall picture.
  The distinguished Senator from Delaware has spoken about Radio Free 
Europe, but I think the point has not been made that the $229 million 
is being reduced next year to $75 million, and $7 million has been 
added this year for consolidation and wind-down purposes.
  My colleague from Iowa, who was chairman and is now ranking member, 
worked with me over these sheets, and I can understand his interest in 
wanting more money for public broadcasting. And I understand the 
Senator from Illinois, who has done outstanding work to try to combat 
violence on television. But this is a fair allocation, and if we are 
going to reach a balanced budget----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  If we are to reach the balanced budget by the year 2002, there is 
going to have to be a fair share reduction on many items which we would 
like to have. And I think it is a fair submission that the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting is able to tighten its belt and do the job 
within the parameter of the existing budget, so additional funds should 
not be added at the expense of another worthwhile account.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator give me 5 seconds?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would like to point out that in the Dole-Daschle 
compromise we are cutting the international broadcasting account by $35 
million. The Senator from Iowa proposes to cut $40 million from RFE/RL 
in addition to what we are about to cut.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 30 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
   [[Page S5356]] Mr. HARKIN. First of all, let us face it. The Voice 
of America is broadcasting all over the world, in China, in Europe. The 
Prime Minister of Albania said it was the Voice of America, not Radio 
Free Europe that they listened to, plus we have BBC, German. These 
countries all have other broadcasts. So it is just a question of 
choices.
  This is deficit neutral. This does not increase the deficit. But the 
choice is just this. Are we going to privatize the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting or are we going to privatize Radio Free Europe? 
Will we have a compensation package for the Germans that I just 
mentioned or will we have jobs for our senior citizens here in America?
  I would also point out, Mr. President, that the Dole substitute had a 
$98 million cut in Radio Free Europe, much more than what we are asking 
for here in ours.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I would point out again, this amendment 
provides $26 million more for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
It also provides $14 million for the senior community service 
employment program.
  I ask unanimous consent to put at the end of my remarks some 
supporting documents regarding the senior community service employment 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. So, again, Mr. President, the choice is clear. Are we 
going to spend our taxpayers' dollars for Radio Free Europe when the 
Voice of America is already broadcasting? Or are we going to bring that 
money here and make sure we have public broadcasting and jobs for our 
seniors?
                               Exhibit 1

                      Examples of VOA Programming


                                general

       They do news broadcasts (in English and native languages), 
     descriptions of US foreign policy, pieces on popular US 
     culture, information about studying in America, English 
     lessons including Special English broadcasts in slow English, 
     and editorials (which are criticized for being one-sided and 
     potentially damaging the credibility of VOA.)
       You can think of VOA as the public relations arm of the US 
     Government for foreign publics.


                               specifics

       During China's 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations and 
     massacre, VOA correspondents broadcast in real time back to 
     China eye-witness accounts of the massacre, and gave public 
     exposure in China to the demonstrators demands for democracy 
     and openness--information that Chinese authorities were 
     censoring.
       During the Gulf War, VOA stepped up broadcasts in Iraq and 
     throughout the Middle East in English and Arabic to counter 
     misinformation by Sadaam Hussein, and explain US goals and 
     achievements in the world.
       VOA reports on the Middle East peace process from the US 
     perspective so that Arab populations, who live in countries 
     where press is often censored, will hear additional views.
       President Clinton broadcast an appeal for calm and non-
     violence to Burundi in February 1995 just as ethnic violence 
     a la Rwanda is heating up between Tutsi and Hutu extremists: 
     in this case the President is using VOA to circumvent 
     hostilities without resorting to force or sanctions.
       The Prime Minister of Albania, Dr. Alexander Meksi, praised 
     VOA for its role during 5 decades of totalitarianism and 
     during the 1990-1991 revolutions:
       ``On Voice of America we heard about the revolution in 
     Eastern Europe as well as about internal developments in our 
     own country. The role of the radio station was vital in the 
     democratization of Albania. Through interviews that VOA 
     conducted with prominent personalities in Albania we heard 
     the first public criticism of the communist regime from 
     within Albania.''
       VOA correspondents were in Mogadishu to report on the US 
     feeding mission, getting out information about where the US 
     Marines were, what they are doing, and where feeding centers 
     were.
       When the Congress voted to lift the trade embargo against 
     Vietnam, Vietnamese heard it on VOA along with appeals for 
     continued cooperation on POW-MIAs--which well reflected US 
     policy.
       VOA broadcasts to Tibet news about international efforts 
     for their struggles that China authorities would not allow. 
     The Dalai Lama can address his people on Tibet on VOA.
       English classes in the English Corner throughout the world. 
     It's a language lesson everyday on radio.
       VOA also feeds its broadcasts to local FM stations to 
     expand distribution
                                                                    ____

                    10 Good Reasons to Support SCSEP

       The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) 
     authorized under Title V of the Older Americans Act should be 
     preserved and expanded for the following reasons:
       1. The SCSEP is our country's only workforce development 
     program designed to maximize the productive contributions of 
     a rapidly growing older population through training, 
     retraining, and community service. History has taught us that 
     mainstream employment and training programs like JTPA and 
     CETA are not successful in serving older workers. A targeted 
     approach is needed.
       2. The SCSEP is primarily operated by private, non-profit 
     national aging organizations that are customer-focused, 
     mission driven, and experienced in serving older, low-income 
     people. These nonprofits work in close partnership with the 
     Governors, Department of Labor, aging network, and employment 
     and training system, actively participating in One Stop 
     Service initiatives designed to streamline and integrate 
     services.
       3. The SCSEP is a critical part of the Older Americans Act, 
     balancing the dual goals of community service and employment 
     and training for low-income seniors. Many nutrition programs 
     and other services for seniors are dependent on labor 
     provided by the SCSEP.
       4. The SCSEP has consistently exceeded all goals 
     established by Congress and the Department of Labor, 
     surpassing the 20% placement goal for the past six years and 
     achieving a record 135% of goal in FY 1993-94. Virtually all 
     appropriated funds are spent each grant year, in stark 
     contrast to similar programs.
       5. The SCSEP provides a positive return on taxpayer 
     investment. One study found that the program returns at least 
     $1.47 for every dollar invested by empowering individuals to 
     become self-sufficient and productive members of their 
     communities.
       6. The SCSEP is a means tested program, serving Americans 
     age 55+ with income at or below 125% of the poverty level, or 
     $9,200 for a family of one. The program serves less than 1% 
     of those who are eligible; long waiting lists are common in 
     most areas of the country.
       7. The SCSEP serves the oldest and poorest in our society 
     and those most in need: 39% of enrollees are minorities--the 
     highest minority participation rate of any Older Americans 
     Act program; 72% are female; 32% are age 70 and older; 81% 
     are age 60 and older; 41% do not have a high school 
     education; and 9% have disabilities.
       8. The SCSEP ensures national responsiveness to local needs 
     by directly involving participants in meeting critical human 
     needs in their communities, from child and elder care to 
     public safety and environmental preservation. The SCSEP has 
     been a major contributor to national disaster relief efforts, 
     most recently resulting from floods in the midwest, 
     hurricanes in the southeast, and the California earthquakes 
     and riots.
       9. The SCSEP has demonstrated high standards of performance 
     and fiscal accountability unique to government programs. Less 
     than 15% of funding is spent on administrative costs--one of 
     the lowest rates among federal programs and despite a unit 
     cost that has not been adjusted for increased administrative 
     expenses since 1981.
       10. The SCSEP historically has enjoyed strong public 
     support because it is based on the principles of personal 
     responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community. 
     In addition, the program is extremely popular among 
     participants, host agencies, employers, communities, and the 
     membership of our nation's largest aging organizations.
                                                                    ____

                        [From Green Thumb, Inc.]

                       Iowa SCSEP Case Histories

       Donald Huntley of Boone county came to a Green Thumb pre-
     app day last spring out of desperation. He had worked for 
     many years at a large turkey manufacturing plant that had 
     gone out of business. HIs annual income for a family of two 
     at the time was $1,380. Don had very good skills and life 
     experiences and a wonderful personality. He began his 
     assignment in June with the Iowa 4-H Education Center. Prior 
     to his orientation his Area Supervisor, Denise Juhl, told him 
     that this was a chance to prove to the agency that they 
     couldn't live without him. Don told her, ``consider it 
     done''. On January 1, 1992, Don became a permanent full-time 
     employee of the Iowa 4-H Education Center. His beginning 
     salary will be $18,400 with full benefits--an increase of 
     more than 13 times his salary when he enrolled in June! Way 
     to go, Don--we knew you could do it!
       Jerry Burgett, a once very successful business owner and 
     entrepreneur, found himself physically disabled and as a 
     result lost his business. He had been a concrete sawer, which 
     took an extreme amount of physical activity. At age 55 he 
     experienced major back surgery and was unable to lift more 
     than five pounds. He became homeless, living with different 
     relatives. His life learned working skills were no longer of 
     value to him. At the intake and assessment, he indicated that 
     he wanted to learn computers and word processing. He was dual 
     enrolled in Green Thumb and JTPA to begin an eight week 
     course in computers and word processing. At the completion of 
     his course, he finished with a perfect attendance and top 
     scores in his class. Jerry began working for a local 
     greenhouse firm the day he finished classes. He is in charge 
     of a city wide satellite greenhouse system. He insures each 
     satellite is staffed and ready for business each day. Jerry 
     credits his new job to his recently acquired training. He now 
     has a small apartment and rediscovered self esteem and self 
     worth.
   [[Page S5357]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has been a lively debate. I think 
all of the issues have been aired. I think the accounts as they 
currently stand express appropriate priorities as best we can determine 
them, and I move to table the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order under the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there was an agreement on an 
up-down vote. I was not present at that time. I withdraw the motion to 
table.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all yea and nay 
votes will be stacked. We are ready for other amendments.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair the list of 
the amendments that were incorporated in the unanimous consent 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Wellstone seniors' amendment, the 
Hatfield-Byrd managers' amendment, the Harkin add-back for Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, so as far as the process of those 
needing to be disposed of, we have the Wellstone amendment and the 
managers' wrap-up amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have resolved the Wellstone 
amendment. We are now putting that together with the managers' wrap-up. 
Therefore, I believe that would complete the business at this point as 
far as amendments are concerned; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator from Oregon yield for a moment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I withdraw the request for a quorum call.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to thank Senator Hatfield 
for his graciousness in our negotiations. I wanted to say to the 
Senator and to my colleagues that this program, the insurance 
information counseling and assistance grant program, again, is a 
program that we have in every single State, with seniors receiving 
assistance from trained volunteers in dealing with all the Medicare 
forms and the Medigap policies to provide really good protection for 
people. It is a program, with very little by way of money, that has 
gone a long ways. I thank my colleague from Oregon for all of his help.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. FORD. The only amendment left now will be the managers' 
amendment. When will that amendment be prepared to be offered and how 
much time will it take for that amendment, could I ask the good 
Senator?
  Mr. HATFIELD. My estimate at this point is that we are in the process 
of putting that together and of alerting our colleagues who are 
involved.
  I notice Senator McCain is here. He will have an amendment in that 
wrap-up. Senator Wellstone will have one. Senator Jeffords will have 
one.
  In each case, Mr. President, I say to the Democratic whip, each of 
these amendments that are in the wrap-up are totally offset amendments. 
So they do not add to the deficit. And they have been cleared on both 
sides. We should have that within the next few minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I was not objecting 
to that amendment. I understand it is basically agreed to and it has 
complete offsets, so most people are satisfied with it.
  The only thing I was trying to do is figure out how much longer it 
would be and when you think the votes will be occurring.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to make about a 4-minute statement.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, at this point, I 
would say it should all be wrapped up, as far as the managers' 
amendment, in about 15 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman very much.


                     Amendment No. 578, as Modified

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will now make a unanimous consent 
request to make a technical correction. We had cleared the Levin 
amendment No. 578, but I ask unanimous consent to correct a drafting 
error by modifying it with the language that I now send to the desk.
  What we are doing is we are, on page 9, line 12, striking one figure, 
$37 million, and putting in $25 million; and one figure $35 million and 
putting in $23 million. This does not change the basic content of the 
amendment. It was inaccurately drafted.
  I ask that it be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 578), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 9, line 16, strike ``$13,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,000,000''.
       On page 9, line 12, strike ``$25,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$23,100,000''.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, that will appear in our wrap-up package 
now that it is corrected. It is easier to correct it now than correct 
it down the line. That is why I took the time to do that at this point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I will be 
brief. But I would like to make some comments on the compromise 
amendment that has been so long in its gestation period today and 
yesterday.
  I want to start out by thanking the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and all those Members of the Senate who have worked to 
produce a good substitute rescission bill. I give them credit. I am 
only sorry we had not been able to do more.
  Over the last week, freshman Senators have led a noble fight, in my 
view, to add new cuts to these bills. The amendment originally proposed 
by my freshman colleagues would have called for cuts in the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, AmeriCorps $206 million, IRS, Foreign 
Operations, Youth Build, and many other cuts that would have totaled 
$1.3 billion. Obviously, they sought to have that amendment passed. 
They were unable to do so for a variety of reasons which are not worth 
going into now.
  But I really want to comment, Mr. President, about the difference 
that those freshmen bring to this body, which is the message of 
November 8, which is that we have to make tough decisions. We have to 
make difficult cuts in the budget and we have to do so because we have 
an obligation to the American people to balance the budget. Mr. 
President, we are not going to do that with this compromise amendment.
  I especially thank Senator Santorum. I thank Senator Ashcroft, who is 
in the chair. I thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and many 
others who played such an important role in their efforts and came here 
to succeed and maybe will succeed next time. Those cuts that they 
proposed were difficult decisions. They alienated substantial 
constituencies in all of their States. But the fact is, we needed to 
enact those cuts and many more.
  I have to say, Mr. President, I am a little bit disspirited because, 
if we cannot enact these cuts, I wonder what is going to happen when we 
take up budget reconciliation and we have to consider some really 
important and difficult reductions in the Federal budget. I am not 
positive we will have the courage to do so, particularly in light of 
the rejection of the so-called freshmen amendment.
  I point out, in the compromise amendment, there are some good 
programs. I think they are very nice to have these programs. These add-
backs 
[[Page S5358]] all have nice-sounding names to them, like TRIO and 
substance abuse and mental health and Goals 2000 and school-to-work, et 
cetera, et cetera. But Mr. President, the question is where the role of 
Government ends and our obligation to the American people to balance 
the budget begins.
  I am particularly pained by the so-called offsets that are in this 
amendment, because the majority of the offsets, about $1.2 billion of 
the $1.6 billion, are contained in two so-called offsets. One is for 
the HUD section 8 project reserves and the other is for airport 
improvement. Both of those funds will have to be replenished within the 
next 6 months.
  So the fact is what we have done is add back $834 million and really 
only subtract from that around a couple hundred million. So the offsets 
are illusory. The offsets are not meaningful.
  And it was interesting that Radio Free Europe and foreign operations 
were two of the major so-called savings in offsets, neither of which 
have any domestic constituencies. The other one that I see here was 
Federal administration and travel, which is always a convenient one. If 
anyone believes that there will be a $337 million reduction in Federal 
administration and travel that is unspecified, I would say they have 
more optimism about the Federal bureaucracy's reactions to the mandates 
of Congress than I have seen in the past.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I did not ask for unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are under controlled time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry for taking so much time.
  I believe it is important for us to recognize the effort that was 
made by the freshman Senators. I think it is disappointing that they 
did not succeed. I urge them to continue in their efforts, because I 
think they best reflect the views, aspirations, and hopes of the 
American people, as expressed on November 8.
  I am disappointed in this so-called compromise. I hope that in the 
future we will not agree to such compromises again.
  Mr. President, I had yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 579

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for the Harkin amendment to 
transfer $40.5 million from the Board for International Broadcasting 
and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and the seniors community service program because I 
believe they are higher national priorities than overseas broadcasting 
is.
  Last year I led the fight to reduce RFE/RL's budget from $220 to $75 
million--by two-thirds--and to slash their outrageous management perks 
because I believe that RFE/RL is a cold war relic, which also suffered 
from terribly sloppy fiscal management in the past. I do have some 
concerns about this formula, however,
  During the debate on consolidation last year, we discovered that 
because of contractual obligations that the BIB never should have 
entered into on behalf of the U.S. Government, we have to spend some 
money this year in order to cap RFE/RL at $75 million next year. It 
seems to make little sense, but I have done the math many times, and 
unfortunately, concluded that these sums are necessary if we are to 
downsize. It actually demonstrates how this organization ran amok for 
years under the guise of national security interests. In any case, I am 
concerned that if BIB funds are rescinded this year, we may not be able 
to reduce fully to $75 million next year.
  At the same time, I think CPB is a far better investment that so-
called surrogate broadcasting--particularly when we already have radio 
services to the transitioning democracies through the Voice of America. 
I am carefully monitoring RFE/RL's budgeting and expenditures. If their 
request exceeds $75 million next year, I will be the first to propose 
their termination.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support the amendment to reduce 
funding for Radio Free Europe and to restore $40.5 million for programs 
cut in this bill before us. Specifically, this amendment would restore: 
$26 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; $14.4 million 
for the Community Services Program for Older Americans.
  Mr. President, for many years, I have been a supporter of the 
continued operation of Radio Free Europe. Every year as chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I supported the Board for International 
Broadcasting's appropriations. But, now I look at this rescission bill 
and I look at the reductions that are proposed for programs like the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, programs to prevent the use of illegal 
narcotics, and programs that serve the elderly and children--all 
programs that serve Americans here at home--and I can no longer support 
the appropriations for the radios. Programs for Americans here at home 
should and must have a higher priority.
  I have listened to the attacks on the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, on support for National Public Radio and Public 
Television. The other side has argued that taxpayer funds should not be 
used to support public radio and television. I disagree. Public radio 
and television are among the finest investments made by this 
Government. They are an investment in the education of our people. But, 
if the other side is arguing against taxpayer support for public radio 
for Americans, how can they justify taxpayer support for Radio Free 
Europe. And, in this bill that the Appropriations Committee reported 
they have even proposed supplemental funding for Radio Free Europe 
while they are proposing rescissions in the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. That simply doesn't make sense.
  One of President Clinton's first reinventing government proposals was 
to phase out Radio Free Europe and to consolidate it with the Voice of 
America. This country spends over $320 million per year for the Voice 
of America's operations and facilities, and almost $230 million per 
year for Radio Free Europe.
  We did not phase-out Radio Free Europe. They conducted an impressive 
lobbying campaign to continue their existence, and the administration 
backed down. It agreed to reduce the Radios, but not to end their 
operation.
  But, times are changing. The world has changed. The cold war has 
ended. Many of the nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union had developed their own media and radio stations, and without 
jamming, they now had access to the BBC, CNN, Sky Television, and other 
Western media. Just last week the Washington Post carried an article 
discussing Russia since the fall of communism. While the article 
bemoaned the outbreak of organized crime, it also noted that Russia has 
developed a vigorous, and free mass media.
  And, as everyone can see from this rescission bill, times have 
changed here at home too. We have before us a $13 billion rescission 
bill. We are cutting programs that Americans rely on.
  Mr. President, in the budget game, in the appropriations business, we 
are continually involved in a process of setting priorities--of 
determining what is more important than something else. And, when I 
look at the programs that Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, and Senator 
Reid have suggested in this amendment, for this Senator, there is no 
contest. They clearly are higher priority than continuing radio 
stations for Europe.
  There is no one in this room that does not think the Older Americans 
Act Community Service Employment Program has been a success. The 
average participant is a 68-year-old woman who has just lost her 
husband and has little or no work history outside the home. There are 
both elderly men and elderly women in the program, but this is the 
typical situation. All of the participants are low income by 
definition.

[[Page S5359]]

  This program provides a grant to nonprofit organizations to train 
participants and to place them in jobs. Initially, the program supports 
them at the minimum wage. For those who have good work skills, it moves 
them into full-time, unsubsidized employment. For the others, it 
provides either formal or on-the-job training to prepare for 
employment.
  n any case, the work done by these seniors in libraries, home health 
agencies, child care centers, and other public, nonprofit, and private 
jobs is an absolute boon to the community and to the taxpayer. It would 
be pennywise and pound foolish to send these low-income senior citizens 
to the welfare line instead of letting them do work that is needed for 
the minimum wage.
  Furthermore, we are talking in committee about getting people off of 
welfare and into work, and here on the Senate floor we are cutting a 
program that does just that.
  Mr. President, 16,000 elderly people are being supported at the 
minimum wage nationwide through the Community Service Employment for 
Older Americans Program. There are 900 in South Carolina alone, and we 
will cut 106 if this amendment fails. The dignity of these elderly 
people is certainly more important than overextending our past 
commitment to taxpayer-funded European radio.
  Mr. President, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and Senator Snowe have proposed a major reorganization of 
our international affairs agencies. They are, at this time, considering 
major reductions in international affairs agencies. Their proposed 
organization chart for the reinvented Department of State includes an 
``America Desk.'' Well, it is clear to me that time has run out for 
Radio Free Europe, and we could well help their reorganization effort 
at this time. Clearly, Radio Free Europe no longer can pass the 
``America Desk'' review.
  I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, and Reid for bringing this 
amendment to the Senate. Phasing out Radio Free Europe is a tough 
decision to make. But, it is far preferable to the other reductions 
that have been proposed in this rescission bill.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
pending amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa.
  Let me first state that I fully understand the valid impulses that 
give rise to an amendment such as this. It takes money from Radio Free 
Europe, and puts it into a small number of other domestic spending 
categories, some of them bringing benefits to children and to the 
elderly.
  The point being made is clear. It is one that we always hear whenever 
we go to our town meetings. If a Senator such as myself stands up to 
describe the vast increases in direct transfer payments to American 
citizens--from the young worker to the older retiree--increases which 
indeed have driven our deficit to near extremity, one always hears the 
same old refrain in response: ``What are you going to do about foreign 
aid? What about Congressional perks?''
  Of course, spending on those two items amounts to less than 1 percent 
of the budget. But as long as some of it is still there, one can always 
gain a few more political points by taking a little bit more out of 
international spending, and spending a little bit more on the domestic 
side.
  Now, I come to this issue from an unusual stance, which I would hope 
the Senator from Iowa appreciates. Unlike some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side, I fully support public broadcasting. I think it is 
especially valuable in a rural State such as my own, where we simply do 
not have the market power to make available to our citizens all of the 
best that commercial programming has to offer in a cost-effective way.
  But despite my general support for public broadcasting, I oppose this 
amendment. It would take $40.5 million out of Radio Free Europe in 
order to make it available for other domestic programs.
  The first point I would make is that there has been a series of 
amendments here from the other side of the aisle, each of them designed 
to score big political brownie points by giving more money to children, 
to the poor, to the elderly. They're trying to make the crude charge 
stick, that somehow Republicans are wreaking havoc upon all these 
programs.
  It is a war of symbolism, and it is being waged by various feints, 
jabs and deceptions. I would say to my colleagues over there on that 
side that I believe this tactic is getting quite worn and tired. The 
press, believe it or not, is beginning to figure this one out. They did 
fall a bit for the school lunch sophistry, buying the notion that we 
were snatching the food out of children's mouths, simply by giving the 
States more control over that program. But increasingly they are 
starting to understand what is a cut and what is a slower rate of 
increase. That's what we are proposing with all domestic and welfare 
spending generally--and if the American public can't figure that one 
simple gem of logic out, then they are, all of them, going straight to 
the poorhouse themselves.
  So that's what gives rise to these partisan amendments. And of 
course, if you want to get some money for the ragged and downtrodden, 
there is no more politically popular place to get it than something 
that smacks of the evil term ``foreign aid''--as in Radio Free Europe.
  I would say that the U.S. is still getting a very fine return on its 
investment in Radio Free Europe. One thing
 that the collapse of the Berlin Wall has shown to us is the power that 
Radio Free Europe had in beaming a message of hope and freedom to those 
striving for democracy. It is said by some that, now that the wall has 
come down, RFE has outlived its usefulness. But we have seen eloquent 
testimony that this is not the case.

  Indeed, Radio Free Europe has moved its base of operations precisely 
because President Havel of the Czech Republic offered them various 
forms of subsidy assistance if only they would relocate in Prague. 
That's what he personally feels about Radio Free Europe's usefulness in 
the post-Cold War World. If the charge was to be made that Radio Free 
Europe was too expensive, then the people of Central Europe were 
willing to chip in their own bucks and give some help in order to 
enable it to stay.
  Radio Free Europe has kept its operation up-to-date and relevant. It 
remains a tremendous source of reliable information on many subjects of 
international import, often giving more timely and profound coverage of 
events that the commercial news services. They have managed to stay 
ahead of the game in a number of areas of particular movement and 
importance in recent years--reports on the evolution of ethnic tensions 
as well as burgeoning controversies in economic and military matters. 
They provide translations of articles in major international 
newspapers, and academic analysis of events that cannot always be found 
in commercial papers and broadcasts.
  In a budget in which we devote less than 1 percent of our resources 
to trying to affect the course of events beyond our borders in a way 
that is beneficial to us, it seems to me to be very pennywise and pound 
foolish, to take yet another whack at something which is so inexpensive 
to the taxpayer--indeed becoming less expensive as a result of the 
recent decision to move--simply to make the sudden, cynical political 
point that the loyal advocates of the amendment stand for more spending 
for the downtrodden.
  So I regret to say to the Senator from Iowa that I cannot support his 
amendment. I would say to him and to the rest of this chamber that if 
we are squeezing funding for the programs that he has attempted to 
provide for here, it is not spending on Radio Free Europe that has 
caused the difficulty. Come the year 2013, unless we do something about 
entitlement spending, we not only will not have money for Radio Free 
Europe, but for national defense, highways, prisons--turn them all 
loose--upkeep of the national parks--nothing. So we should turn the 
spotlight onto the spending that got us here and we'll be looking for 
the Senator's vote, otherwise we won't be able to fund any of the 
programs that the Senator from Iowa or anyone else cares about.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take one or two moments at 
this time, prior to the time that we are going to have a final vote on 
this issue 
[[Page S5360]] on the rescissions, to, first of all, express my own 
deep personal appreciation for the leadership of Senator Daschle, on 
our side, over the course of this debate and his perseverance in 
pursuing the restoration of extremely important funding that had been 
cut in the areas which were targeted on children and on education. 
There is close to a billion dollars which has been returned to this 
measure as a direct result of his strong commitment and work over these 
past days.
  Many of us were prepared to have extended debate on priorities, which 
I think the rescission issue basically brings forward, to try and 
reflect in this body what we think are the real priorities of the 
American people with regard to children and with regard to education.
  We know that over this year and in the future, we are going to have 
to be much sharper in prioritizing this country's expenditures. Funding 
in and of itself is not necessarily the answer to all of our problems, 
but it is a pretty clear reflection of a nation's priorities.
 This is particularly true when we are talking about a number of the 
different items that were included in the measure which was supported 
by Senator Daschle and others, including some Members from the other 
side of the aisle.

  I am speaking about the restoration of the funds at Head Start, 
Chapter 1, and the day care programs, which are so important for 
working families, particularly working mothers, and are an 
indispensable part of our planning if we are trying to be serious about 
welfare reform. I should also note the return of the funding on the 
Goals 2000, which will help some 1,300 schools to move ahead in terms 
of enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment.
  Those were extremely important programs. Other important measures 
that were restored include the School-to-Work Program, which will 
provide additional opportunities for the 70 percent of the young people 
that do not go on to college and are facing dead-end jobs when they get 
out of high school.
  Because of the School-to-Work Program that was passed last year and 
strongly supported with the leadership of President Clinton, we were 
able to work through a partnership with public and private sectors to 
try to offer a greater opportunity for young people. That, I think, is 
important.
  I know that Senator Kassebaum is working through the restructuring 
and reorganizing of our youth training programs, and the role of the 
School-to-Work Program may very well be--I believe will be--the center 
focus of reform of youth training. It will also help in redesigning the 
outreach to the some 400,000 young people who drop out of school every 
year. With this program and some of the other efforts, these dropouts 
may be brought back into the educational system.
  Finally, I want to mention the restoration of funding for the 
national service program. While we have had some debate and discussion 
on that measure, I wish we had had the chance to go into greater detail 
on the extraordinary contributions that so many of the young people in 
this country are involved in through community service.
  If there was really a failing during the period of the 1980's, and we 
all have our list of shortcomings in national policy, I think one of 
the important areas was the failure to offer a vehicle and an avenue 
for young people, particularly, to give something back to their 
community in the form of voluntary service. We didn't give them an 
opportunity to repay what the community has done for them.
  Under the leadership of President Clinton, we have seen service 
programs growing, not only in the AmeriCorps programs, but the other 
programs which are creating an opportunity for service while students 
are in school, from kindergarten through high schools. In my State of 
Massachusetts, enormously impressive programs are taking place.
  I was talking recently to the service learning director of the 
community service programs, and she mentioned that Massachusetts is one 
of the top States in taking advantage of the service learning programs.
  We could go on about other programs restored--the TRIO program--and 
about some that were not, such as the technology programs, which are so 
important in making sure young people are going to be able to get the 
best in terms of new technology, and not only technology but training 
programs in the use of these technologies. All of these are enormously 
important.
  We are going to have debates on these measures as to funding levels 
in the future. But we want to make very clear in this body and to the 
country that there are going to be a number of Members that will stand 
for the children, stand for education, stand for investing in the 
future of this country by doing all that we can to strengthen the 
support for the youngest and the most vulnerable. We will support 
children in the Head Start programs and support strengthening our 
education system. Another issue we will watch closely will be aid to 
college students. We must ensure that young people that are taking 
advantage of the student loan programs, work study programs, and other 
higher education programs which have been targeted by Republicans over 
in the House of Representatives are not hurt by Republican cuts. We 
must make sure the Republicans bent on eliminating these programs are 
not going to be successful.
  I believe that there is a bipartisan coalition for education. 
Perhaps, had we had more votes on education it would have been 
reflected in the course of this debate, but I believe it is there. It 
will be tested over the period of these future months.
  I do think in this early skirmish that it is very clear that even 
though the funding levels are not what I would certainly like to see in 
these areas, the areas nonetheless where there has been the greatest 
restorations have been in children and in education. I think that that 
is what the American people would want. I know that these are what we 
will want as we go through the process of prioritizing this Nation's 
needs. We will keep them on the front burner.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, by my calculation, we should be voting by 
now. Could I be advised why we are still talking?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We still have another amendment to be offered, 
the managers' amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Is anybody entitled to time on the managers' amendment, or 
are the managers entitled to time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of 15 minutes remaining on 
the managers' amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. I just say to my colleagues, if they want to stay here all 
night, that is fine. But we are going to come back in the morning if we 
cannot close this down in about 5 minutes.
  It is about 10 o'clock. Most everybody is here tomorrow, and we will 
come back if we cannot conclude this, come back tomorrow morning. If 
everybody needs to talk, let them talk and we will come back and vote 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. President, why can we not proceed to vote on the Harkin 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent provided that the votes 
would be stacked.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 579

  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to vote on the 
Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Harkin amendment No. 579. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been requested, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     [[Page S5361]] Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 579) was rejected.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent to make a technical correction 
to an amendment previously offered by Senator Gorton and adopted by the 
Senate. It is a technical correction because the amendment is flawed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will 
suspend until the Senate is in order.
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.


                Amendments Nos. 580 through 592, en bloc

  Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, I would like to have the attention 
of the body.
  Mr. President, this is the last act for this bill except final 
passage, and this is referred to as a managers' wrap-up. What we have 
done is incorporate into this one action amendments that have been 
agreed to on both sides. If there is any additional money, it is fully 
offset. So it is totally deficit neutral. And instead of having them 
offered one at a time, we are offering them en bloc. Let me enumerate 
them because those of you who have such amendments make certain that we 
have incorporated them. The following list: Hatfield has three, 
Lautenberg, Burns, McCain, Jeffords, Pell, Kennedy, Akaka, Kempthorne, 
Inouye, and Wellstone.
  Now, that is our listing of all of the amendments that have been 
agreed to, cleared.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
considered and agreed to en bloc and that motions to reconsider votes 
by which these amendments were agreed to be laid upon the table en bloc 
and any statements with regard to the amendments be placed in the 
Record at the appropriate place. And I yield to the ranking member of 
the committee.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not 
object, these amendments have been cleared on this side and they are 
fully offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], proposes amendments 
     numbered 580 through 592, en bloc.

  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 580

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for himself and Mr. Byrd.)
       On page 26, line 12, reduce the sum named by 
     ``200,000,000''.
       On page 26, line 20, reduce the sum named by 
     ``$200,000,000''.
       On page 27, line 21, strike ``$3,221,397,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$3,201,397,000''.


                           amendment no. 581

       In Amendment number 437 to Amendment 435 strike the 
     following:
       ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Laws 101-136, 101-509, 102-27, 102-141, 102-393, 103-123, 
     103-329, $1,842,885,000 are rescinded from the following 
     projects in the following amounts:''
     and insert in lieu, thereof:
       ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Laws 101-136, 101-509, 102-27, 102-141, 102-393, 103-123, 
     103-329, $1,894,840,000 are rescinded from the following 
     projects in the following amounts:''
     and strike:
       ``Tucson, Federal building, U.S. Courthouse, $121,890,000''
     and insert in lieu thereof:
       ``Tucson, Federal building, U.S. Courthouse, $80,974,000''.
                           amendment no. 582

       On page 44 line 16 insert:
     ``: Provided further, Of the available contract authority 
     balances under this hearing in Public Law 97-424, $13,340,000 
     are rescinded; and of the available balances under this 
     heading in Public Law 100-17, $126,608,000 are rescinded.''


                           amendment no. 583

    (Purpose: To restore funding for the purchase of buses and the 
construction of bus-related facilities as authorized under section 3 of 
                        the Federal Transit Act)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Lautenberg.)
       On page 43, line 17, strike the numeral and insert 
     ``$1,318,000,000.''
       On page 46, strike all beginning on line 6 through the end 
     of line 11.
                           amendment no. 584

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Burns.)
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (a) Schedule for NEPA Compliance--Each National Forest 
     System unit shall establish an adhere to a schedule for the 
     completion of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments 
     within the National Forest System unit for which NEPA 
     analysis is needed. The schedule shall provide that not more 
     than 20 percent of the allotments shall undergo NEPA analysis 
     and decisions through Fiscal Year 96.
       (b) * * * other law, term grazing permits which expire or 
     are waived before the NEPA analysis and decision pursuant to 
     the schedule developed by individual Forest Service System 
     units, shall be issued on the same terms and conditions and 
     for the full term of the expired or waived permit. Upon 
     completion of the scheduled NEPA analysis and decision for 
     the allotment, the terms and conditions of existing grazing 
     permits may be modified or re-issued, if necessary to conform 
     to such NEPA analysis.
       (c) Expired Permits--This section shall only apply to 
     permits which were not extended or replaced with a new term 
     grazing permit solely because the analysis required by NEPA 
     and other applicable laws has not been completed and also 
     shall include permits that expired in 1994 and 1995 before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 585

   (Purpose: To address issues of equity in rehiring former Federal 
                               employees)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. McCain.)
       In title II--General Provisions, SEC. 2001 Timber Sales, 
     add the following to the end of subsection (6) SALE 
     PREPARATION: The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, and the Secretary of the relevant Department, 
     shall provide a summary report to the governmental affairs 
     committees of the House and Senate regarding the number of 
     incentive payment recipients who were rehired, their terms of 
     reemployment, their job classifications, and an explanation, 
     in the judgment of the agencies, of how such reemployment 
     without repayment of the incentive payments received is 
     consistent with the original waiver provision of P.L. 103-
     226.
       This report shall not be conducted in a manner that would 
     delay the rehiring of any former employees under this Act, or 
     effect the normal confidentiality of federal employees.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments 
to describe the intent of the amendment I have offered today to S. 619. 
It addresses my concerns about the rehiring of former Federal employees 
who received a voluntary separation incentive payment to leave the 
Federal service, but now will be rehired under the provisions of this 
bill.
  Under the terms of the ``Federal Workforce Restructuring Act''--
popularly known as the buyout bill--Federal employees could receive an 
incentive payment as high as $25,000 if they voluntarily agreed to 
leave their agency. These buyouts will help achieve a reduction in the 
Federal work force of approximately 275,000 employees, which will 
significantly reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy and save 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  After receiving such a buyout, the Federal employee would be barred 
from rejoining the Federal work force for 5 years. A special waiver 
provision afforded former employees with unique capabilities to be 
rehired by a Federal agency if no other qualified individual was 
available.
  I supported this legislation, and am pleased that it has already 
helped reduce the Federal work force by some 30,000 employees. I am 
concerned, however, by one provision of the recissions bill before us 
today that would allow individuals who received a buyout payment to be 
rehired without having to either repay their buyout, or meet the terms 
of the existing waiver provision.
  Mr. President, I recognize the need for highly qualified individuals 
to be brought back to Federal service with 
[[Page S5362]] the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to 
assist with new timber harvests. They must be brought back quickly, and 
are likely to be reemployed for a fairly short period of time.
  I do believe, however, that the agencies rehiring these individuals 
should advise the Congress on the extent of former Federal employees 
who received a buyout and have been rehired. We have a responsibility 
to ensure that the spirit of the buyout legislation is not abrogated by 
this new rehiring authority. Furthermore, it would be wise for the 
Congress to monitor that the taxpayers investment in this buyout 
program is not improperly utilized.
  My amendment is intended to allow the Congress to fulfill these 
obligations. It would require OPM and the relevant Federal Department 
to advise the Governmental Affairs Committees of the House and Senate 
their use of the rehiring authority established in S. 619. More 
importantly, it will require these agencies to explain how rehiring 
buyout recipients without a repayment of their separation incentive 
award is consistent with the original waiver provision of Public Law 
103-226.
  This requirement will provide the Congress with some idea of not only 
how many former Federal employees who received a taxpayer funded buyout 
have been rehired, but also whether their reemployment truly meets the 
congressional requirement of highly skilled individuals, and a shortage 
of similarly talented candidates. I do not want to see the expedited 
rehiring authority established in this bill to be used in such a manner 
that undermines the merits and purpose of the cash awards given to 
individuals.
  I think it is important that we treat rehired Federal employees 
fairly in this regard, but we also need to ensure that taxpayers are 
protected due to the fact that they have paid for the cash buyouts that 
have been awarded. After all, these voluntary separation payments are 
intended to downsize the bureaucracy, and save taxpayers money. 
Individuals should not be able to take advantage of large buyout 
bonuses and then reenter the Federal service except under very special 
circumstances.
  This amendment will help the Congress evaluate this rehiring program 
as it proceeds, without hindering the Forest Service or the BLM in 
their legitimate efforts to bring skilled individuals back into their 
work force on a short-term basis.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton, Senator Hatfield, and 
Senator Byrd for their assistance and acceptance of this amendment.
                           amendment no. 586

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield for Mr. Jeffords.)
       On page 14, line 12 strike $81,500,000 and insert 
     ``$71,500,000''.
       On page 13, strike the figure on line 24 and insert 
     ``$60,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 587

  (Purpose: To provide continued funding for the national center for 
                   research in vocational education)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield for Mr. Pell.)
       On page 33, line 9, strike ``$236,417,000'' and insert 
     ``$242,417,000''.
       On page 33, line 14, strike ``$8,900,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,900,000''.
       On page 34, line 4, strike ``$60,566,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,566,000''.
       On page 34, line 7, strike ``$8,891,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,891,000''.
                           Amendment No. 588

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Kennedy.)
       On page 36 after line 5, insert:

                       ``PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.


                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333, $4,424,000 are rescinded.''
       On page 34, line 18, Strike $57,783,000 and insert in lieu 
     ``$53,359,000''.
       On Page 35, line 2, strike $6,424,000, and insert in lieu 
     of ``$2,000,000''.


                           Amendment No. 589

(Purpose: To restore certain funding for the demonstration partnership 
   program which is administered by the Office of Community Services 
          within the Administration for Children and Families)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Akaka.)
       On page 31, strike line 9 and insert the following: 
     ``Public Law 103-333, $10,988,000 are rescinded.''.
       On page 31, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333 and reserved by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     674(a)(1) of the Community Services Block Grant Act, 
     $1,900,000 are rescinded.''
       On page 32, line 5, strike $2,918,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,018,000''.
                           amendment no. 590

   (Purpose: To make an appropriation for the Advisory Commission on 
 Intergovernmental Relations and to increase the rescission amount for 
                   diplomatic and consular programs)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Kempthorne.)
       On page 11, line 19, strike ``$2,000,000 are rescinded.'' 
     and insert the following: $2,500,000 are rescinded.


           advisory commission on intergovernmental relations

       For the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 
     for purposes of section 306 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), $500,000.


                           amendment no. 591

(Purpose: To strike the provision that prohibits the application of the 
  Davis-Bacon Act to any contract associated with the construction of 
       facilities for the National Museum of the American Indian)

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Inouye.)
       In chapter V of title I, under the heading ``construction'' 
     under the heading ``Smithsonian Institution'' under the 
     heading ``OTHER RELATED AGENCIES'' strike ``: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act shall not apply to any 
     contract associated with the consideration of facilities for 
     the National Museum of the American Indian.''.


                           amendment no. 592

       (Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Wellstone)
       On page 29, line 16, strike ``$2,185,935,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof $2,191,435,000''.

  At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     administrative expenses & travel shall further be reduced by 
     $5,500,000.
  So the amendments (No. 580 through 592) were agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Market promotion

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage at the 
provision in this rescission bill that would increase funding for the 
Market Promotion Program by $25 million in fiscal year 1995. A 
provision that would increase subsidies for major corporations, at the 
same time that we are cutting billions from programs that are vital to 
our Nation's children.
  My opposition to the Market Promotion Program is long-standing. I do 
not believe that the U.S. Government should be spending $100 million a 
year to subsidize overseas advertising by large corporations.
  In recent years, the Market Promotion Program has used taxpayer money 
to subsidizes such corporations as McDonalds, Miller Beer, Sun Maid 
Raisins, and General Mills: hardly struggling corporations in need of 
Government largesse.
  It would be a travesty for the Senate to increase spending on this 
wasteful program while we are considering billions of dollars in cuts 
from far more important programs in the fiscal year 1995 budget.
  How can we cut housing assistance for low-income families and seniors 
while we increase subsidies for large corporations?
  How can the U.S. Senate cut the Head Start Program, the Youth 
Training program, the National Service Program, the Safe and Drug Free 
School Zones program, Child Care, Education, and so many other programs 
that benefit our Nation's children and families, help hard-working 
Americans, and prevent drug abuse and crime? How can we cut all those 
programs and then turn around and increase funding for multinational 
corporations?
  Mr. President, this is wrong. Dead wrong. The market promotion 
program should not be increased. It should be eliminated. If we can cut 
funding for child nutrition programs and elderly housing, we certainly 
can ask billion-dollar multinational corporations to do their fair 
share as well.
  I recently introduced legislation that would eliminate the Market 
Promotion Program and several other wasteful subsidy programs operated 
by the Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that the Senate has an 
opportunity today to cut some real waste out of the Federal budget.
   [[Page S5363]] I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join 
with me in supporting the Bumpers-Bryan amendment.
         funding for the united nations population fund [unfpa]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm my full support 
for U.S. funding for the U.N. Population Fund [UNFPA]. President 
Clinton resumed funding for the Population Fund last year after a 7 
year suspension during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Last year, 
Congress appropriated $40 million for the fund, and $50 million was 
appropriated for 1995. Unfortunately--and I think unwisely--the House 
rescinded $25 million of the funding in its emergency supplemental and 
rescissions bill.
  With Senator Hatfield's couragous support, the Senate did not rescind 
any money for the fund in its bill. I am most appreciative of my fine 
colleagues, Senator Hatfield and his efforts and longstanding support 
for international population stabilization activities including the 
UNFPA.
  I do understand that funding for all programs across the board needs 
to be reduced if we are to properly fund this supplemental bill. 
However, I do not want to see population programs unfairly targeted for 
larger reductions than other foreign assistance programs. Reducing the 
Population Fund's money by one-half is surely an unreasonable reduction 
in funding.
  This huge reduction in funding will surely send exactly the wrong 
message to the rest of the developed nations across the world. Last 
year, the United States was seen as the world's leader on population 
and development assistance at the International Conference on 
Population and Development in Cairo. I was a congressional delegate at 
the Conference aid I came away very much impressed with the leadership 
and direction displayed by Vice President Gore and the assistance given 
him by our former colleague, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth in 
guiding the Conference and its delegates in developing a consensus 
document on a broad-range of short- and long-term recommendations 
concerning maternal and child health care, strengthening family 
planning programs, the promotion of educational opportunities for girls 
and women, and improving the status and rights of women across the 
world.
  We surely do not want to lose our moral leadership role and 
relinquish any momentum by abandoning or severely weakening our 
financial commitment to population and development assistance. The 
United States needs to continue its global efforts to achieve 
responsible and sustainable population levels, and to back up that 
leadership with specific commitments to population planning activities.
  That is why it is so very important that we show our support by 
funding the U.N. Population Fund. The fund is supported entirely by 
voluntary contributions, not by the U.N. regular budget. There were 101 
donors to the fund in 1993, most of which were developing nations. 
Japan and the United States are the leading contributors to the fund 
with the Nordic countries not lagging far behind. UNFPA assistance goes 
to over 140 countries and territories across the world. It would 
certainly be a real shame if the United States were to back away from 
its commitment to the world's largest source of material assistance for 
population programs.
  Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Wyoming 
in expressing my strong support for the United Nations Population Fund 
(UNFPA). There are many challenges to be faced in the next century with 
regard to global population growth, and international programs such as 
UNFPA are critical to the world's population and development assistance 
efforts.
  UNFPA, which receives funds from some 101 donor nations, has had a 
somewhat tumultuous history in the US over the past decade. Indeed, 
UNFPA funding was suspended altogether during both the Reagan and the 
Bush Administrations.
  Under the Clinton Administration, modest funding for UNFPA has 
resumed. However, of the $50 million appropriated for UNFPA in Fiscal 
Year 1995, $25 million--or one-half--was rescinded by the House of 
Representatives in its Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions Bill.
  Let me emphasize that in these difficult budgetary times, U.S. 
federal spending, including U.S. contributions to international foreign 
assistance programs such as UNFPA, need to be adjusted accordingly. 
However, in this process we must ensure that programs are not unfairly 
targeted for disproportionate funding reductions. Moreover, I believe 
it is important in this instance to continue the U.S. leadership role 
that was demonstrated at the 1994 International Conference on 
Population and Development in Cairo.
  For these reasons, I believe that a 50 percent cut in funding for 
UNFPA is excessive, and thus unwise. I was pleased, therefore, to find 
that the Senate rescissions package does not cut the U.S. allocation 
for UNFPA. I particularly want to commend and thank the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, for recognizing the 
importance of this international effort.
  UNFPA will continue only if member nations continue to provide it 
with support. I believe that the United States has a clear interest in 
the success of UNFPA and similar population and development assistance 
efforts, and I join with Senator Simpson and my other colleagues in 
urging the Senate to maintain U.S. support.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to take final 
action on H.R. 1158, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to 
the provisions of the bill and the Dole-Daschle amendment making 
rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs. Along with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senators Simpson, Chafee, Simon, and others, 
I believe a direct and substantial benefit flows to the United States 
from our modest investment in sustainable development and population 
efforts. I am pleased the Senate bill rejects specific cuts to these 
vital programs and instead attempts to minimize harm to on-going, cost-
effective foreign assistance programs.
  Mr. President, I disagree with certain provisions of the bill before 
us. Nonetheless, I want to commend the distinguished Chairman and 
Ranking Democrat of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators 
Hatfield and Byrd, and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Democrat 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senators 
McConnell and Leahy, for their very commendable effort to make 
equitable rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs.
  It is significant that the cuts recommended by the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee are not based on a fundamental dislike for particular 
programs. Nor are they driven by a belief that one or two foreign aid 
programs are unnecessary. Rather, the Subcommittee's recommendation of 
$100 million in general reductions to programs within its jurisdiction 
reflects the laudable belief that deficit reduction can be achieved in 
a manner which minimizes harm to all programs.
  Over the next few weeks, as my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee take this bill to conference with the House, I urge them to 
remain firmly committed to the Subcommittee's goal of making equitable 
rescissions in foreign policy programs. More specifically, I urge them 
to resist House efforts to target and cut vital population and 
development programs.
  Under the House-passed bill, population and development programs 
would disproportionately bear the burden of foreign
 policy rescissions. Development assistance would be cut by $45.5 
million and population assistance would be targeted for $9 million in 
cuts. In my view, these cuts are extremely shortsighted. In the long-
term, they could end up costing the U.S. far more than we would save in 
fiscal year 1995. The Senate should remain firm in its commitment to 
making foreign policy rescissions that are rationale and fair, and the 
House rescissions should be rejected in Conference.
  From my perspective, attention to global population issues and 
support for world-wide development is critical to our future successes 
here in the United States. Because I so strongly believe this, I joined 
with Senator Simpson--and Congressman Beilenson and Congresswoman 
Morella--to introduce legislation called the ``International Population 
Stabilization and Reproductive Health Care Act,'' S. 1096, in the 103rd 
Congress. Our bill, which we are revising for re-introduction in this 
Congress, would have focused U.S. 
[[Page S5364]] foreign policy on a coordinated strategy to help achieve 
world population stabilization; encourage global economic development 
and self-determination; and improve the health and well-being of women 
and their children.
  I believe these three objectives are inextricably tied to one 
another. The way I see it, all U.S. efforts to help develop economies 
and promote democracy around the world will be futile if we do not 
first address the staggering rate of global population growth. How can 
we expect under-developed countries to pull themselves up when the 
world's population is growing at a rate of more than 10,000 people per 
hour? When the women and men who make up a nation's workforce pool do 
not even have the right to plan their families? And when millions of 
women around the world do not have access to basic--and lifesaving--
reproductive health care or educational opportunities?
  Fortunately, national and international awareness of two fundamental 
concepts is growing: (1) population, poverty, patterns of production 
and consumption, and the environment are so closely interconnected that 
none can be considered in isolation; and (2) sustained economic growth, 
sustainable development and population are fundamentally dependent on 
advances in the education, economic status and empowerment of women.
  Tonight, we in the Senate are re-affirming these principles, and we 
are rejecting the House's attempt to drag U.S. foreign policy 
backwards. I sincerely hope the Senate conferees carry this message 
into Conference. I urge them not to waiver from the Senate's position 
on this issue.
                           amendment no. 445

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
the amendment proposed by the minority leader that would restore 
funding for several important programs that address the needs of our 
Nation's children.
  Mr. President, the bill we are debating here today, H.R. 1158, would 
rescind $13.4 billion in previously appropriated funds--including $600 
million appropriated last year for Federal education programs.
  Needless to say, I am vehemently opposed to taking this kind of giant 
leap backward. In my view, it would be unconscionable for Congress to 
reduce the Federal Government's share of public education funding which 
has already fallen from 9.1 percent during the 1980-1981 school year to 
5.6 percent during the 1993-1994 school year.
  It is vital to the interest of our Nation that we maintain quality 
public education for everyone. Education is not just a private benefit 
but a public good. It is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and, as 
a society, we all benefit from a well educated citizenry.
  We are currently experiencing a new era in economic competition. All 
over the world, barriers to trade between nations are falling. We are 
witnessing the development of a truly global marketplace. I believe 
that America can lead the way in this marketplace. But if we are to 
succeed, if we are to retain our competitiveness into the 21st century, 
there must be a renewed commitment to education in this country.
  Several international institutions recognized the increasing 
importance of education just a few weeks ago at the United Nations 
summit on social development when they urged developing nations to 
invest in education rather than on defense.
  In fact, for the first time in history, over 130 world leaders also 
agreed to a non-binding goal known as the 20-20 proposal which 
recognizes that economic and social problems have global consequences 
by creating immigration problems, epidemics, markets too poor to buy 
exports, and economies too risky for investors.
  This proposal encourages all donor nations and international 
institutions to earmark 20 percent of their foreign aid for basic 
social needs including education and health care. It also encourages 
developing nations to allocate 20 percent of their expenditures to the 
same underfinanced sectors.
  Nonetheless, while leaders from around the world were recognizing the 
increasing importance of education, Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives were busy passing H.R. 1158. If enacted, H.R. 1158 
would rescind $17 billion--including $1.7 billion in education funding 
for our Nation's children and $2.3 billion in job training funding for 
our Nation's unemployed youth.
  In fact, this legislation would also withdraw funding for all new 
education initiatives--including the education infrastructure act which 
I introduced last April to help local school boards ensure the health 
and safety of their students.
  Mr. President, I simply do not understand why some of my colleagues 
are so determined to slash funding for programs that increase economic, 
social, and educational opportunities for our Nation's children. 
According to the Children's Defense Fund, every day in America: 3 
children die from child abuse; 15 children die from guns; 27 children 
die from poverty; 95 children before their first birthday; 564 babies 
are born to women who had little or no prenatal care; 2,217 teenagers 
drop out of school; 2,350 children are in adult jails; 100,000 children 
are homeless; and 135,000 children bring guns to school.
  Although S. 617 would reduce our investment in our Nation's children 
by less than H.R. 1158, it still asks them to bear too much of the pain 
created by this effort to pay for emergency spending.
  The Daschle amendment would improve the bill by restoring $1.3 
billion for some of the most important and successful education and job 
training programs in this country. More specifically, the Daschle 
amendment would provide: $42 million for the Head Start Program which 
has successfully given hundreds of thousands of pre-schoolers the 
chance to start school ready to learn; $100 million for the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools Program which is helping local school districts keep 
drugs and guns out of our Nation's $72 million for the Chapter 1 
Program which has helped States and local school districts meet the 
educational needs of economically disadvantaged children for 30 years; 
$69.6 million for the goals 2000 program which is helping States create 
coherent frameworks for education reform founded on the national 
education goals; $30 million for the school-to-work program which helps 
States and local school districts improve the educational and 
employment opportunities of our Nation's high school students who do 
not plan to attend college; $8.8 million for the immigrant education 
program which helps local school districts meet the educational needs 
of recently arrived immigrant children; $16.3 million for the impact 
aid program which compensates local school districts for revenue losses 
incurred due to removal of Federal property from local tax rolls; $35 
million for the WIC Program which provides important nutrition 
supplements to 6.5 million women, infants, and children everyday--
including more than 3 million children under 5; $100 million for the 
Youth Training Program which helps States prepare youth and young 
adults for high skill, high wage careers; and $210 million for the 
Americorps Program which provides a $4,725 scholarship to individuals 
who serve the educational, environmental, public safety, and human 
needs of our communities.
  By providing this needed and long overdue support, the Daschle 
amendment will begin to address our failure to adequately engage 
resources in behalf of preparing our children for competition in the 
emerging global economy. It will help our children to succeed--to make 
a living, to participate in the community, to enjoy the arts, and to 
understand the technology that has reshaped our workplace. This is in 
our children's interest; this is in our national interest.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my 
colleagues to support these investments in our Nation's children by 
voting for the Daschle amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while there are a number of features of the 
Daschle amendment which significantly improve this legislation, I would 
like to draw particular attention to two provisions that reinstate 
funding the original bill intended to rescind--$14.7 million for the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] and 
$100 million for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--because it was 
my intention prior to their inclusion in the Daschle 
[[Page S5365]] amendment to offer amendments to restore these funds and 
to offset the consequent additional costs by rescinding funds from 
programs less vital to our Nation and its people.
  SAMHSA funds both Substance Abuse Block Grants and the Children's 
Mental Health Program. Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants are the 
most important vehicle of support for substance abuse treatment efforts 
in this country. Funding for these grants cannot be compromised if we 
are to succeed in our efforts to reform welfare, reduce crime, and 
contain health care costs. The grants account for over one-third of the 
funding for public substance abuse treatment nationwide.
  The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, July 1994 
[CALDATA], found that each day of substance abuse treatment pays for 
itself on the day it is received, primarily through reductions in 
crime. The Rand Corporation reports that drug treatment is the most 
cost-effective form of drug intervention, compared with other potential 
drug strategy program options, such as interdiction or imprisonment.
  Mr. President, every $1 invested in drug treatment saves taxpayers $7 
dollars. There are several sources for this figure, including CALDATA 
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  The heavy toll drug use exacts on the United States is most easily 
measured by the criminal and medical costs imposed on and paid for by 
the Nation's taxpaying citizens. One major study, conducted by Dorothy 
Rice at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of 
California at San Francisco, concluded that drug abuse costs taxpayers 
$67 billion, alcohol abuse costs $99 billion, for a total cost to the 
Federal Government of $166 billion per year. ``The impact of substance 
abuse and addiction on Federal entitlements is equivalent to more than 
40 percent of the Federal deficit for 1995,'' states Joe Califano, 
former HEW Secretary and President of the Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. Ninety-two percent of 
the funds spent by health care entitlement programs as a result of 
substance abuse are used to pay for treatment of the consequences of 
such abuse; only 8 percent is spent to reduce dependency.
  The costs to the Federal Government do not begin to account for the 
higher costs substance abuse wreak on the private economy. Every man, 
woman, and child in America pays nearly $1,000 annually to cover the 
costs of unnecessary health care, extra law enforcement, auto 
accidents, crime, and lost productivity resulting from substance abuse, 
according to a Brandeis University study.
  The impact of substance abuse on crime is staggering. Substance abuse 
is linked to between one-quarter and one-third of all suicides, 
according to the Public Health Service, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, 
and Mental Health Administration. Substance abuse is linked to half of 
all homicides, rapes, spousal abuse, and traffic fatalities. Substance 
abuse is linked to two-thirds of all cases of manslaughter, drownings, 
burglaries, robberies, thefts, and assaults.
  According to a study by the National Association of State Alcohol and 
Drug Abuse Directors [NASADAD], approximately 1 million people--40 
percent of those in need--want and pursue substance abuse treatment at 
this moment but do not get it: instead of helping them to help 
themselves, the Government leaves them sitting on waiting lists across 
the country.
  These individuals--the vast majority of which are mothers, workers, 
or professionals--are willing and eager to improve their lives and the 
lives of those around them, but the government fails to extend a 
helping hand. Not only taxpayers, but society at large, foots the bill 
for this neglect.
  SAMHSA also funds the Children's Mental Health Program, which 
provides services for children with very serious emotional disturbances 
[SED]. This program is targeted at the 1 million children with SED--out 
of 7.5 million nationwide--who are in State-administered systems 
encompassing child welfare, juvenile justice, and special education 
programs. This amendment restores $1.3 million to this program that the 
bill would have rescinded. This money goes to 22 service sites that 
will not survive without the funds. The future of these children is at 
stake.
  Even in the face of all these facts, Mr. President, the rescissions 
bill--prior to the Daschle amendment--would have taken a random, 
unexplained, unjustifiable slice out of the budget for SAMHSA.
  At the same time, it would have taken $100 million out of the Safe 
and Drug Free Schools--Safe Schools--program.
  Mr. President, on this subject, I would like to take a few moments to 
talk about a reality that is very separate from the one in which my 
colleagues and I live.
  Someone who lives in this reality, Mr. President, wakes up worried 
that today he could very well be killed. He realistically expects that 
someone he knows might be shot this week, or stabbed, or beaten. He 
goes through his day fearing everyone who passes by, constantly alert 
for trouble and danger, always keeping an eye on the nearest exit or 
hiding place. He might carry a weapon, purely for protection, and hide 
it on his person--a crude knife hidden in his sleeve, a length of pipe 
tucked into his boot, a makeshift handgun in his pocket, a box-cutter 
taped to his stomach. One hand is probably always on this weapon, this 
small piece of security. If he makes it back to bed at the end of the 
day, he will be thankful, relieved, and certainly a little surprised.
  This reality is not a war, and the people who inhabit this world are 
not soldiers. This reality is only blocks away from this Chamber, and 
is mirrored in towns across our country. And the participants in this 
reality are not adults, they are children, they are as young as 5 and 6 
years old, and rarely over the age of 18. I am talking about the 
reality found in many elementary and secondary schools across the 
United States, where 150,000 students bring a gun every day; where 
shootings and stabbings are commonplace; where gangs are in control; 
and where 3 million violent crimes are committed each year. I am 
talking about a national disgrace, a monumental embarrassment, a 
failure on the part of all who care about the future of this country 
and the quality of life of our children.
  I am talking about a state of events that we cannot tolerate, that we 
cannot allow to endure.
  In the Steven Speilberg film ``Schindler's List,'' a Nazi soldier 
stands on the balcony of his home overlooking the busy center square of 
a Jewish concentration camp. Calm and precise, he aims his powerful 
rifle at random Jews passing through the crowded streets below, and 
effortlessly pulls the trigger. His aim is never faulty, and he always 
succeeds in ending a life. The people near the murder recoil in fright 
only momentarily, then continue on their way, perhaps a little quicker, 
perhaps a little slower, thankful for the moment that the gun was not 
trained on them, fearful that the next shot will terminate their 
existence. The bullet has struck them, too, and changed them 
permanently, leaving them forever horrified, forever damaged, forever 
in shock.
  This sequence is brutally painful for so many reasons. The only 
relief I expected to feel when I watched this sequence was the lack of 
any connection between the events on the screen and present day reality 
in America. But such a connection is exactly what I felt. Violence in 
portions of our country has become so rampant and so deadly that almost 
all of us live in a collective state of fear and acceptance. Our cities 
and schools have become infested with random violence and bloodshed and 
criminals with no conscience and no check on their destructive 
impulses. And when this state of affairs has infected our Nation's 
schools, then we know that our children are going to be conditioned to 
accept this disease as normal. Not only are some of our children dying 
in our Nation's schools, but the ones who survive are learning that 
murder and violence are simply a part of life--in fact, the most 
important part. Mr. President, we are permitting our Nation's youth to 
grow up emotionally scarred, terminally frightened, and permanently 
embittered.
  Mr. President, the Safe Schools Program is a necessity if this 
systemic child abuse and neglect is to cease.
  A study examining the effects of the first 2 years of funding for the 
Safe Schools Program showed increases in 
[[Page S5366]] the number of school districts with formal drug and 
violence prevention programs in every State and territory in the United 
States.
  The same study also showed increases in school-community 
collaboration on drug prevention issues in 50 States and territories; 
increases in parent involvement in drug education efforts in 49 States 
and territories; increases in the degree of community involvement in 
prevention programs for youth in 46 States and territories; and 
increases in the number of high-risk youth served in drug education 
programs in 38 States and territories.
  Prior to the Daschle amendment, the rescission would reduce or 
eliminate violence and drug prevention programs serving approximately 
39 million students attending the schools operated by 94 percent of 
local educational agencies in the Nation.
  Also at risk would be every state Governor's drug and violence 
prevention programs designed for youth not served by local educational 
agencies. So would be the development and distribution of publications 
on school violence and drug/alcohol prevention, which have been the 
cornerstone of nationwide efforts to provide schools with information 
on models and effective practices. The Parent's Guide on Drug 
Prevention alone has been requested by over 30 million persons.
  The original rescission would have eliminated assistance and model 
development in the area of alternatives to expulsion. With expulsion 
rates increasing dramatically in several regions, it is essential to 
provide leadership in this area, or more and more kids will go straight 
from the schoolhouse to the courthouse.
  Consequently I commend the Democratic leader for his leadership and 
his sensitivity to the importance of these issues. I appreciate the 
opportunity to work with him to gain the inclusion of these important 
provisions in his amendment. And I am pleased that the ultimate goals 
of the amendments I intended to offer were realized. Since the House 
version of the rescissions bill rescinded no funds from SAMHSA, fiscal 
year 1995 funds for SAMHSA are now secure. I wish I could say the same 
about Safe Schools funds. The House bill eliminated Safe Schools funds 
altogether. I urge the conferees to the rescissions bill to protect 
Safe School funds. We owe the children and the future of this Nation 
nothing less.
                           amendment no. 448

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my 
wholehearted support for the Sense of the Senate resolution proposed as 
an amendment today by Senator Kennedy. As a member of the Finance 
Committee, I offered an amendment to H.R. 831 that would have closed a 
loophole that allows wealthy citizens who renounce their American 
citizenships to avoid U.S. taxes. My amendment would have dedicated all 
of the savings from closing this loophole to deficit reduction. 
According to estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, my amendment 
would have reduced the deficit by approximately $3.6 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  Unfortunately, although the Finance Committee adopted this amendment 
on an undivided voice vote and the Senate approved it as part of H.R. 
831, the joint House-Senate conference committee re-opened this 
loophole. Senator Kennedy's resolution simply expresses the sense of 
the Senate that in the interest of tax equity and in the face of on-
going Federal deficits, we must close this loophole.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I proposed was fundamentally about 
fairness. Not only is it fair to those who enjoyed the benefits of U.S. 
citizenship to make billions and are now attempting to avoid paying tax 
on such gain, it is also fair to those Americans who stay behind to 
shoulder the burdens of citizenship. All my amendment would have done 
is treat those who renounce their citizenship on par with Americans who 
stay and pay their share of the tax burden.
  While U.S. citizenship confers tremendous benefit, it also requires 
responsibility. Although we may not always be happy about the amount, 
most of us willingly pay our fair share of the tax burden. However, for 
many Americans it becomes just too much when they have to pay not only 
their share of taxes, but also an additional share for those few, 
wealthy individuals who made their money in this country, but are now 
trying to skip town without paying their portion of the tab.
  Significantly, my amendment would have excluded pension income, real 
estate assets, and the first $600,000 in gain. As a result, of the 
roughly 850 U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenships in 1994, 
only a handful would be affected by the closing of this loophole. In 
fact, representatives from the Treasury Department testified that the 
amendment would have affected only 24 Americans each year.
  Mr. President, significant deficit reduction will be necessary to put 
our country back on the right track. However, until we close these 
special-interest tax loopholes for the few, we cannot ask for the 
shared sacrifice from the many that will be necessary to reduce the 
deficit. Therefore, I urge all of our colleagues to support the Kennedy 
sense of the Senate amendment.
                  amendment no. 470--renewable energy

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the rescissions bill we are discussing 
today, H.R. 1158, cuts $35 million from the Department of Energy's 
solar, wind and renewables research and development budget. The 
amendment I offer today will limit to $25 million the amount to be 
rescinded from this account, thereby protecting vital renewable energy 
programs. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator 
Wellstone, Senator Chafee, Senator Daschle, Senator Roth, Senator 
Campbell, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, Senator Kerry, Senator Pell, 
Senator Kohl, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about creating jobs, reducing our 
foreign debt, reducing our reliance on imported oil, making American 
business more competitive, maintaining our commitment to these small 
energy companies and continuing on the path of developing clean, cheap, 
efficient energy.
  Mr. President, we are proposing to restore $10 million to the 
Department of Energy's solar, wind and renewables R&D budget. This 
money is primarily used for research, joint ventures with small U.S. 
companies, market development and commercialization. Federal support 
for renewable energy research and development has been a major success 
story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved and a domestic 
industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in basic 
research at our national labs and applied development to bring down 
costs and work with industry.
  The $10 million we restore to renewables will come from the $1 
billion Army Corps of Engineer's construction account.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for clean domestic 
energy, domestic jobs, reduced trade deficit and a stronger economy. I 
would like to thank the managers of this bill for their support.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to express my appreciation 
to the Senators from Oregon, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Louisiana 
for their help in allowing this amendment to go forward. The amendment 
decreases the recission from renewable energy research and development 
by $10 million, paying for it by increasing the recission for the Army 
Corps' general construction activities by the same amount.
  This amendment reflects the growing recognition that funding for 
research and development of renewable energy technologies is money 
well-spent. The recission provided in the Committee Substitute was just 
too high.
  There is a nationwide movement toward funding only R&D that is going 
to lead to commercially viable, economically realistic technology in 
the relatively short-term. Renewable energy R&D fits that description. 
Renewable energy R&D has been and continues to be a major success 
story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a domestic 
industry has been born. While the United States is currently the world 
leader in renewable energy technologies, other nations are investing 
heavily in this area. Given that many utilities are averse to investing 
in new technologies, the continued strength of DOE's programs is 
necessary to protect our position in the world market.
  [[Page S5367]] The American people agree that renewable energy R&D 
ought to be a priority for Federal R&D funding. According to a December 
1994 survey by RSM Inc., when asked what energy source should be 
highest priority for R&D spending, Americans overwhelmingly supported 
renewables. The top finisher was renewable energy, receiving 42 percent 
of the vote.
  Again, I appreciate the help of my colleagues in making acceptance of 
this amendment possible. It is time that our federal energy R&D dollars 
reflect the public's funding priorities.
                           Amendment No. 490

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Feinstein, Senator Feingold, and Senator Simon.
  The amendment will insure continued funding for the National Center 
for Research in Vocational Education. The Center is a consortium of 
institutions of higher education in California, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
New York, and Virginia. The Center is widely recognized for the 
important research work it does in vocational education, and it would 
be very unfortunate, indeed, if funding to permit it to continue its 
work were curtailed.
  As my colleagues know, we will soon be considering reauthorization of 
the Vocational Education Act. The work of the Center has provided the 
authorizing committee invaluable information to help guide and 
facilitate our work. But even more critical, their research efforts are 
vital to improving the quality of vocational education throughout our 
Nation.
  I view the amendment as an important placeholder so that when the 
Senate and House conferees meet on this legislation, they will have the 
opportunity to give this matter full and complete consideration. I am 
very hopeful they will ultimately decide to retain funding for the 
Center, but without this amendment there will be no chance whatsoever 
to provide continued funding for the Center and the important work it 
does.
            citizenship training and naturalization services

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I and my colleagues from California and 
Illinois, Senators Feinstein and Moseley-Braun, had intended to offer 
an amendment restoring $6 million dollars for citizenship training and 
naturalization services that had been rescinded in the Senate, but not 
in the House.
  Although naturalization has been identified as a priority by the 
administration in its immigration policy, naturalization services have 
been chronically underfunded and naturalization backlogs begin to grow. 
It is my believe--and I belief that of my colleagues--that these funds 
are essential to the important goal of providing those who want to 
naturalize with an opportunity to do so. Admittedly, $6 million dollars 
is a small amount of money, but the program rescinded in the Senate is 
crucial to the continued health of those providing citizenship 
training.
  In discussing my intention with the Honorable Chairman of the Labor/
HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter, I was impressed with 
his willingness to attempt to resolve this problem in conference with 
the House of Representatives, which, as I mentioned before, did not 
rescind the $6 million in citizenship training money. I would like to 
ask the Honorable Chairman if it is in fact his desire to take a second 
look at the $6 million citizenship money in conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois. The committee's 
intent, in recommending this rescission, was to revisit funding once 
authorizing legislation has been enacted through the regular process of 
Judiciary Committee consideration. There is some concern that adding 
this responsibility to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the 
Department of Health and Human Services could increase pressure on 
already underfunded domestic resettlement activities, as opposed to 
placing responsibility under the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. I believe this is an issue the authorizing committees need to 
address. Nevertheless, it is indeed my intention to resolve this matter 
in conference to the satisfaction of all those who--like myself--value 
legal immigration and recognize the importance to our immigration 
policies of an effective naturalization process. I look forward to 
working with the distinguished Senate Appropriations Committee 
Chairman, Mr. Hatfield; my counterpart in the House, Congressman 
Porter, chairman of the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee; 
and the other conferees to address this issue, and I thank Senator 
Simon, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Moseley-Braun for their attention 
to this important matter.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. His concern for 
issues of legal immigration and naturalization has long been 
recognized, and I am gratified that he will undertake to review 
seriously, and hopefully restore, the $6 million Senate rescission with 
our colleagues in the House.
                        The Mildgas Process Unit

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, this amendment has a simple 
purpose--to restore $4.8 million in fiscal year 1995 fossil energy 
research and development funds to help complete a small coal technology 
testing facility, the Mildgas Process Unit.
  I am joined in this amendment by my distinguished senior Illinois 
colleague, my good friend, Senator Simon.
  The Mildgas Process Unit is a facility that will test a technology 
known as mild gasification, a process where lower-grade domestic coals 
are heated at moderate temperatures and pressures to produce a variety 
of gaseous fuels, liquid hydrocarbons, and a solid product known as 
char.
  Char, the primary product of the Mildgas facility, can be briquetted 
into form coke, creating a new alternative to conventional coke now 
used by American steel firms and foundries. This is particularly 
important because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 imposed strong 
restrictions on the emissions from coke ovens.
  Those are two major reasons why my amendment is important, Mr. 
President. For a modest investment today, the Mildgas experiment 
promises hundreds of millions of dollars in new uses tomorrow for 
Illinois Basin and Appalachian high-sulfur coals. And those new uses 
solve a significant economic and environmental problem of our Nation's 
iron and steel industries.
  However, I am concerned that the decision to cut funds for the 
Mildgas Process Unit has been based principally on deficit reduction, 
and on a belief that this technology is unwanted and unneeded.
  This year, overall Federal spending will be in excess of $1\1/2\ 
trillion, and it will take $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction to 
achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Laid along figures of that 
size, the $4.8 million we seek for the Mildgas project may seem to be a 
small matter.
  That is not to say that its relatively small size should not immunize 
the Mildgas project from review. After all, to paraphrase a famous 
Illinoisan who preceded me in the Senate, the Senate Republican leader 
of his day, Everett Dirksen, ``A few dollars here, a few dollars there, 
and pretty soon you're talking about serious money.'' What that means, 
it seems to me, is that nothing can be off limits--not small items, not 
large items, not any item.
  I therefore agree that review of Federal support for mild 
gasification technology demonstrations is both necessary and 
appropriate. It is because my own review of the facts convinces
 me that going forward is the right decision, the prudent decision, and 
the right budgetary decision, that I am offering this amendment to 
restore funding toward completing the Mildgas project.

  It is worth noting, in this era of concern about earmarks and pork-
barrel spending, that this project did not originate with the Congress. 
The Department of Energy originally selected this project in 1991 in a 
competitive solicitation. The Mildgas project had to compete with a 
number of other proposals.
  In the years since the Mildgas project won that competition, over 
$7.5 million has been provided by Congress--half of the Federal share. 
The State of Illinois has funding that amounts to 20 percent of the 
total cost. A team of participants, which includes Kerr McGee Coal 
Corp., Southern Illinois University, and the Institute of Gas 
Technology in Chicago, has broken ground at the Coal Development Park 
in Carterville, IL, in preparation to test this technology.
  [[Page S5368]] The contracts are now in place to turn this 
demonstration into reality. Construction of the facility will end late 
1995, followed by 1 year of testing, after which the project will be 
shut down.
  I am well aware that there are several similar projects currently 
being funded by the Department of Energy. But, success cannot be 
defined as simply demonstrating one example of a broad class of mild 
gasification technologies. The spectrum of mild gasification techniques 
is quite broad. There are different types of coals used, products 
produced, and markets served.
  That is why the Mildgas process unit is important. It does not 
reinvent the wheel. It does not duplicate other mild gasification 
technologies. It is unique.
  Mildgas can use many types of coals. The Encoal clean coal 
demonstration project in Wyoming, a project often compared to Mildgas, 
utilizes only Western coal. Mildgas technology makes use of Illinois, 
Wyoming, and West Virginia coals.
  And although Encoal's primary product is a value-added fuel, its 
market is still only a boiler fuel. Mildgas's product, char, creates an 
entirely new market for high-sulfur and lower-grade coals, and solves 
an environmental problem for the Nation's steel industry. And as aging 
coke ovens are shut down and not replaced, Mildgas can provide American 
steel industries with a domestically produced alternative to importing 
coke from the same countries that are our steel-making competitors.
  Encoal and the other mild gasification technologies have been, and I 
hope will continue to be, successful, but their success will not 
address the Illinois Basin and Appalachian coals that Mildgas will use, 
nor meet the environmental needs of the steel industry like Mildgas 
will.
  Mr. President, the Mildgas Process Unit is based upon years of 
detailed planning, investment, and careful research by industry and 
scientists in close cooperation with the Department of Energy. It 
deserves to continue.
  Mildgas does not break the bank. For a minor investment today, 
Mildgas can open hundreds of millions of dollars in markets tomorrow.
  Mildgas can help the coal industry, by exploring a way to shift high-
sulfur coals from markets reduced by the Clean Air Act, to markets 
opened.
  And, Mildgas is unique. Mildgas uses coals, produces products, and 
serves markets that other mild gasification technologies simply do not. 
I think it is worth investing a few more years to complete this 
experiment.
  I strongly urge my colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, to give every consideration in conference to providing the 
necessary funds to complete the Mildgas Process Unit.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments 
regarding the mild gasification facility planned for southern Illinois. 
As I am sure the Senator knows, given the budget constraints that the 
committee was forced to confront, we were simply unable to include the 
funds needed to initiate construction of the Mildgas Process Unit. I 
can assure the distinguished Senator, however, that I will give 
appropriate consideration to this project within the budget limitations 
that we will continue to face in conference.
                  federal emergency management agency

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise at this time to voice my concerns 
with apparent inconsistencies in the administration of disaster 
recommendations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
  As my colleagues well know, H.R. 1158, the fiscal year 1995 Disaster 
Supplemental/Rescissions Bill, contains $1.9 billion for outstanding 
expenses accrued from previous disasters in 39 States, including recent 
flooding in Southern California.
  I am sure all of us have seen news footage of the raging winter 
storms that have wreaked havoc across virtually the entire State of 
California. The devastation families have endured is terrible. As a 
result, the President--acting on recommendations made by FEMA--declared 
many California counties disaster areas. This includes Ventura County, 
which is located along the Southern California coast north of Los 
Angeles.
  There is one particular area of Ventura County I would like to call 
to the attention of my colleagues. Homes located on a hillside in La 
Conchita, CA recently sustained considerable damage. Because of the 
President's declaration, private and public property damaged by the 
disaster is eligible for four different kinds of FEMA assistance. These 
homeowners rightfully have the hope of relief.
  My concern is not with the fact that relief is being made available 
to those affected by the La Conchita mudslide. Rather, I am concerned 
with what I believe could very well be an inconsistent approach to 
disaster recommendations made by FEMA.
  Permit me to explain. Mr. President, geologists have known for 
several decades that the La Conchita hillside has been moving for 
23,000 years. In other words, La Conchita was a potential disaster 
waiting to happen. Thus, FEMA is making relief available in response to 
a disaster resulting from a preexisting condition. This is a policy 
vastly different from one FEMA applied last July.
  I see my colleague, the chairman of Appropriations Committee, is now 
on the floor. I ask the Senator if he is familiar with a similar 
situation that occurred in Lead, SD.
  Mr. HATFIELD. No, I am not familiar with the situation. Could the 
Senator from South Dakota please explain.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from Oregon for inquiring.
  Last May, a slow moving landslide damaged homes, businesses, and 
infrastructure. This landslide was exacerbated by excessive 
precipitation. Despite a request by the governor of South Dakota and 
the urging of the State's Congressional delegation, FEMA recommended 
that the President deny South Dakota's relief request for the Lead 
landslide. According to FEMA, the landslide resulted from a preexisting 
condition and did not pose ``an immediate threat to public health, 
safety, and improved property.''
  The Lead landslide forced the community's only grocery store, 
pharmacy, and discount store to close. Some of the stores
 were forced to relocate to the community hall and church basement.

  Clearly, the people of Lead suffered a great deal. This isolated 
community has yet to reopen the only grocery store in the area. 
Although the Economic Development Administration has offered a grant to 
help mitigate the slide, the city will have to sacrifice vital repairs 
to streets, gas lines, and water lines.
  By contrast, the residents of the La Conchita hillside in Ventura 
County will have access to expedited FEMA assistance. This lack of 
consistency concerns me.
  I would like to verify with the Senator from Oregon that monies 
provided in H.R. 1158 will be used, in part, to assist the victims of 
this winter's storms in California. Is this correct?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from South Dakota is correct. The bill, in 
its current form, provides $1.9 billion to FEMA for disaster relief 
functions including expenses resulting from disasters in 39 States. 
Report language accompanying this bill acknowledges that these funds 
may be used to ensure unforeseen expenses associated with the recent 
disaster in California resulting from winter storms.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I also understand my concerns regarding the consistency 
of disaster declarations are shared by others. As Chairman of the 
Committee, I am sure the Senator from Oregon is very familiar with 
questions regarding disaster declaration criteria. Does the Senator 
from Oregon agree this is a common concern?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, I do agree with the senior Senator from South 
Dakota. As he well knows, the General Accounting Office, the 
Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office 
recently released a comprehensive study of the entire relief process.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Will the distinguished Senator from Oregon agree that 
it is imperative that FEMA apply its declaration criteria consistently, 
regardless of where the disaster is taking place?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I could not agree more with my friend from South 
Dakota. Consistency in the disaster declaration process should be a 
reasonable expectation of all Americans.
  [[Page S5369]] Mr. PRESSLER. I think it is clear, Mr. President, that 
FEMA needs to take a close look at its current declaration policies.
  The similarities surrounding the landslides in Lead and Ventura 
County are striking. For the residents of Ventura County, FEMA's 
response is reassuring. For the people of Lead, the response from FEMA 
is disconcerting. I must stress a point I have made on this very floor 
in the past: Disasters occurring in isolated rural areas do not seem to 
capture the attention of the national media, Federal agencies, or the 
President. Lead, SD, does not compare to Southern California glamour, 
and it
 certainly is not near a major media outlet.

  However, as we all know, the size of a community or its media outlets 
should not dictate whether or not Federal relief is granted or how fast 
the assistance gets to those in need.
  I believe the time has come for FEMA take a close look at its 
policies. In the meantime, I have asked GAO to examine FEMA's 
responsiveness to urban and rural disasters. I hope Congress will be 
able to maintain an oversight role. If there is an inconsistency we 
should not hesitate to consider legislation to ensure emergency 
assistance is provided consistently and judiciously.
  In fact, I believe it would be appropriate for the conferees of this 
bill to include language in the accompanying report to direct FEMA to 
report to Congress on how it found that disaster assistance could be 
provided in response to the identified preexisting condition in Ventura 
County, but came to a different conclusion with the preexisting 
condition in Lead. I believe this instruction is an appropriate first 
step in what I hope will be a comprehensive review by FEMA of its 
current declaration policies and criteria.
  Would the distinguished chairman of the committee agree that this 
review is necessary?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that a 
review of the disaster declaration process may be appropriate. His 
concerns have merit. The people of Lead, SD, deserve to be assured that 
they are being treated fairly by the federal government. The Senator 
from South Dakota is to be commended for his diligent attention to the 
needs of his constituents. The Senator can be assured I will deliver 
this message to the conferees and will do my best to include a 
directive to FEMA regarding its declaration policies and criteria in 
the conference report to this bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my good friend the Senator from Oregon and 
thank him for his leadership. I yield the floor.


            health care financing research and demo projects

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the situation with 
respect to funding of research and demonstration projects by the Health 
Care Financing Administration. The Senate recommendation calls for a 
rescission of $11 million, which would reduce fiscal year 
appropriations to $45.1 million for research and demonstration 
projects. This is an increase of nearly $2 million over the amount 
needed to fund continuations of on-going activities, so that even if 
the entire Senate rescission is enacted into law, the Health Care 
Financing Administration should be able to fund about $2 million of new 
projects. I would ask Senator Specter, the chairman of the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, is that his 
understanding.
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, based on information supplied to me by the 
Department of Health and Human Services, there would still be about $2 
million available for new research and demonstration projects by the 
Health Care Financing Administration, even after the Senate recommended 
rescission.
                         essential air service

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a section in 
chapter IX of this legislation that in my view could have an adverse 
impact on the future of the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. 
Specifically, I am very concerned about the language affecting 
``Payments to Air Carriers,'' otherwise referred to as EAS subsidies.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on 
the floor. Would the chairman be willing to enter into a short colloquy 
on this issue and explain the intent of this section of the bill?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Certainly. I understand the chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has always supported 
EAS. Therefore, I would be pleased to explain the intent of these 
provisions and answer any questions posed by the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Oregon. First, I understand this 
legislation would rescind $5.3 million in ``Payments to Air Carriers.'' 
What is the impact of this rescission?
  Mr. HATFIELD. This rescission should have no real impact on the 
program. The Appropriations Committee was informed sufficient funding 
would remain available to continue the EAS program through the end of 
this fiscal year. In other words, all communities currently provided 
air service with EAS assistance will continue to be served through this 
fiscal year.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I understand about 79 cities rely on EAS to remain 
linked to the national air transportation system. I am pleased the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee will continue to uphold our 
commitment to these small communities.
  Now, as my friend from Oregon knows, there are EAS agreements in at 
least 13 States that will expire before September 30 of this year. The 
committee amendment to the bill before us includes a provision to 
prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Transportation [DOT] from 
entering into any new EAS agreements beyond September 30, 1995. I am 
concerned about the purpose of this restriction. In my view, it implies 
congressional support for EAS ends September 30, 1995--the end of the 
current fiscal year. My support for EAS will not end on that date. 
Would the chairman explain the purpose of this specific provision?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. First, let me assure the Senator from South Dakota 
this provision should not be read by any Member of Congress as an 
attempt to jeopardize future congressional support for EAS. This 
provision applies only to fiscal year 1995. Further, as the chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on
 Transportation, I intend to work with my friend from South Dakota on 
an appropriate level of EAS funding for Fiscal Year 1996.

  Mr. PRESSLER. I am very pleased to know my friend from Oregon does 
not view the provision in question as a threat to the future of EAS. 
However, I still have strong concerns about the language in this bill. 
Specifically, I remain concerned the most economic continuation of EAS 
may be hindered by this provision. Permit me to explain.
  As my friend from Oregon knows, when an EAS agreement is about to 
expire, current law requires the Department of Transportation to invite 
and consider competing proposals from any interested air carriers. The 
objective of that policy is to maximize the carriers' incentives to be 
efficient, to control costs effectively and to develop demand in the 
EAS market. This process yields two primary benefits: subsidy burdens 
are minimized and service to the community is often enhanced. That 
process has served the EAS program very well.
  As I mentioned, EAS agreements will expire in 13 states before 
September 30th. Several already have expired. The practical reality of 
the proposed restriction to limit contract commitments would result in 
very short contracts at much higher costs in order to continue air 
service to those 13 states for the remainder of this fiscal year.
  I am concerned efficiencies will be jeopardized if the DOT is 
prohibited from entering into any agreements beyond September 30th. I 
do not believe new carriers would seek to serve any of these 13 states 
for such a limited time period. In turn, those EAS carriers serving the 
13 states will almost assuredly demand higher subsidies if they are 
held into those markets through the end of the fiscal year.
  Further, DOT already issues notification to carriers that subsidy 
payments under EAS agreements are subject to the availability of funds 
in future fiscal years. Therefore, EAS carriers already know their 
subsidies are contingent on the annual approval of the Congress.
  In my view, competition could be eliminated by this provision. In 
turn, 
[[Page S5370]] subsidy rates will go up. What is the view of the 
Chairman?
  Mr. HATFIELD. This language simply forces the EAS office to have EAS 
contracts conform to the federal fiscal year. The office has had almost 
twenty years to make this adjustment. When the Appropriations Committee 
tries to get data from this office it often does not comport to the 
fiscal year basis that the Committee must consider in its 
deliberations.
  Mr. PRESSLER. As the Chairman knows, I am prepared to offer an 
amendment to strike all the language after the rescission provision. I 
am willing to modify my amendment to further ensure the future of EAS 
is not jeopardized. Would the Manager of the bill be willing to accept 
my amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to accept the Senator's amendment 
which would strike lines 1 through 3 on page 42. As he knows, the 
language which was provided by the Department had the effect of totally 
canceling the EAS program which was not the Committee's intent.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chairman. I very much appreciate his 
support for EAS and his leadership on this overall legislation. I also 
thank him for his support of my amendment and urge its adoption.
              colloquy on smithsonian institution funding

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when debate began on the House rescissions 
bill I intended to offer an amendment prohibiting the Smithsonian 
Institution from using appropriated funds to develop, plan, or build 
any new museum before congressional authorization had been obtained.
  After speaking with the distinguished chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, I chose to forgo proposing 
the amendment. Senator Gorton assured me that the Smithsonian has no 
intention of beginning any new museum without first seeking the 
appropriate authorization from Congress.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Rules Committee, which is 
the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the Smithsonian, I 
have seen the Smithsonian initiate a new project without congressional 
authorization and then come to Congress to authorize the project 
bemoaning the waste of funds already spent should the project not be 
authorized.
  It is important to stress that any new project requesting taxpayer 
funds, should first go to the committee that has authorizing authority 
and then, if and only if, the project has been authorized should the 
request go to the Appropriations Committee for funding.
  The Smithsonian must not ignore this process.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina 
yield?
  Mr. HELMS. I welcome comments from the able Senator from the State of 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the decision of the Senator 
from North Carolina, Senator Helms, not to offer his amendment so we 
can speed up debate on this important bill.
  The issue that Senator Helms has brought to our attention is a 
serious one that deserves emphasis. I am confident through my 
conversations with the current Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. 
Heyman, that the Smithsonian intends properly to fulfill its 
obligations as steward of this public trust. Secretary Heyman agrees 
that no Federal appropriation will be used for projects that have not 
yet been authorized by Congress.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for a point of clarification?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield.
  Mr. HELMS. Senator Gorton, I am not sure that all of our colleagues 
realize that 72 percent of Smithsonian operating funds are public, 
taxpayer funds.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Helms is correct.
  Therefore, it is important for the Smithsonian, like all other 
entities that receive taxpayer dollars, to take note of the budgetary 
constraints under which we are working. It is a time for fiscal 
responsibility and the careful allocation of increasingly scarce 
resources.
  I have been assured in all conversations I have had with Secretary 
Heyman that he is aware of his institution's role and its attendant 
responsibilities. The Secretary has underscored the importance of 
prioritizing projects during his tenure.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the distinguished subcommittee chairman yield for a 
moment?
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly. I yield the floor to the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I sincerely appreciate the work the Senator from 
Washington has done in this area. The Senate Rules Committee has yet to 
meet with the current Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. Heyman, but I 
have been assured we will soon be given that opportunity. I will 
welcome that important hearing.
 NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY'S GREAT LAKES SCIENCE CENTER IN ANN ARBOR, 
                                   MI

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and 
Related Agencies in a brief discussion regarding the impact of S. 617 
on the National Biological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center in Ann 
Arbor, MI. The committee's report accompanying S. 617 recommends 
rescinding $4.136 million less than was included in the House-passed 
recission bill, H.R. 1158. That is almost exactly the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to maintain operations at the Great 
Lakes Science Center. If the Senate approves the committee's 
recommended recissions from funds already appropriated for NBS 
research, will this center remain in business in fiscal year 1995?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. While there is not a correlation between the funding 
levels rescinded by the House and by the Senate and the fiscal year 
1995 appropriations level necessary for keeping the Great Lakes Center 
open, it is the committee's intent to provide sufficient funds for NBS 
research so that the Great Lakes Center and other NBS centers can 
continue to operate in fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if the subcommittee chairman would answer 
an additional question, I would like to know whether he will continue 
to support funding to keep the Great Lakes Center open in fiscal year 
1995, during the conference on S. 617 and H.R. 1158?
  Mr. GORTON. I am aware that both of my colleagues from Michigan and 
from elsewhere in the Great Lakes region strongly support the work 
being done by the NBS Great Lakes Science Center. Hopefully, in 
conference, we can arrive at a compromise which will prevent cuts in 
the NBS research budget that would close or hamper operations at NBS 
centers and cooperative units.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Washington for his 
responsiveness to our concerns. As he may know, the Great Lakes Center 
conducts fishery stock assessments that are relied upon by States, 
tribes, and Canada. And effective management of fish stocks in the 
Great Lakes is important to the $4 billion fishing industry in the 
region.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would also like to thank my colleague from Washington 
for his assistance in this matter. As my colleague from Michigan has 
indicated, the Great Lakes Center has important duties. Besides the 
fishery stock management element of its activities, the center conducts 
invaluable scientific research on preventing, controlling and 
mitigating the impacts on nonindigenous species, such as the zebra 
mussel. And, the center is conducting essential studies on the sources 
and health effects of toxics in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
                                  wic

  Mr. LEAHY. I am very worried that the House Republican welfare reform 
bill ultimately could throw millions of pregnant women, infants and 
children off the WIC program [the Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants and Children].
  That part of the Contract with America guts strong competitive 
bidding requirements which have put millions of pregnant women, infants 
and children on the WIC program at no cost to taxpayers in recent 
years.
  These are provisions which I and my Senate colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle included in child nutrition legislation in 1987 and in 
1989 and which the Senate Appropriations Committee mandated in 1988 
with strong bipartisan support.
  I am concerned that this victory is eliminated by the House bill.
  These efforts on the House side raise serious concerns about why 
House 
[[Page S5371]] members want to provide millions of dollars to the four 
huge corporations that manufacture infant formula.
  The details of this tragedy are set forth in articles in the Wall 
Street Journal ``Four Drug Firms Could Gain $1 Billion Under GOP 
Nutrition-Program Revision,'' Hilary Stout, February 28, 1995; the New 
York Times ``Formula for Tragedy,'' Bob Herbert Op Ed, March 25, 1995; 
and the Washington Post ``Food Program Defender Becomes a Dismantler,'' 
David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf, April 4, 1995.
  WIC serves children at some of the most critical times of their 
lives. It feeds mothers when they are pregnant or breastfeeding. And it 
feeds children during their important, early development years.
  WIC is a proven success story. A 1991 USDA study showed that for 
every WIC dollar spent on a pregnant woman, between $2.98 and $4.75 was 
saved in Medicaid costs for the newborn during the first 60 days after 
birth.
  Thus competitive bidding saves taxpayers doubly--first, it puts 1.5 
million more eligible women, infants and children on the program at no 
costs to taxpayers, and it saves millions in Medicaid and other Federal 
costs, in addition to saving millions of dollars in family, local and 
State medical costs.
  The details of this system are easy to explain. At retail stores, WIC 
participants exchange special vouchers for infant formula. The 
recipients pay nothing; the State reimburses the store for the full 
retail cost of the formula. The infant formula manufacturers then 
rebate a portion of the retail price to the State. The States are 
required to use the rebates to serve more persons who are eligible for 
WIC.
  Under current law States are required to use competitive bidding, 
with certain exceptions, to buy infant formula for the WIC program. 
USDA has calculated that this provision now saves $1.1 billion a year 
and thus puts 1.5 million more women, infants and children on WIC at no 
extra cost to taxpayers.
  That provision is eliminated by the Contract with America. That 
Contract should be renamed the ``Contract to Increase Profits of Drug 
Companies.''
  That part of the Contract is a sham. It contains an extremely weak 
cost containment provision which will allow infant formula 
manufacturers to make a killing off the WIC program while allowing them 
to pretend to help WIC.
  It will let drug giants donate small amounts of formula to State WIC 
programs, in front of their cameras, while making hundreds of millions 
of dollars in increased profits.
  How have they been able to get this done in this Republican Congress? 
The Washington Post article that I referred to earlier, ``Food Program 
Defender Becomes a Dismantler,'' explains the influence of large 
corporations on the House. A short history lesson is in order.
  Some years ago these drug giants hired the former Republican Ranking 
Member of the House Agriculture Committee and a former Republican 
Assistant Secretary of USDA who was in charge of WIC to fight 
competitive bidding at the State level.
  Unfortunately, actions of the infant formula and infant cereals 
manufacturers have made such mandatory competitive bidding language 
necessary and
 demonstrate why the House bill will be an invitation to drug companies 
and cereal companies to siphon millions out of WIC.

  As reported in Senate Hearing 101-979 (``Competitive Issues in Infant 
Formula Pricing,'' May 29, 1990) efforts were made by two major 
manufacturers Ross Laboratories--a division of Abbott Laboratories--and 
Mead-Johnson--a division of Bristol-Myers Squibb--to prevent individual 
States from using competitive bidding procedures. In 1985 three 
States--Tennessee, Oregon and South Carolina--announced plans to 
institute a competitive bidding system for the purchase of infant 
formula for WIC.
  A group called the Infant Formula Council, an association of formula 
manufacturers, immediately opposed these cost containment ideas. The 
IFC sent letters to USDA and State officials opposing the plans and 
testified against this approach.
  The Council retained a Washington law firm to raise legal concerns 
with such attempts by States to buy formula more cheaply. The IFC 
argued that State efforts to buy formula through competitive bidding 
would disrupt commercial channels of distribution of infant formula.
  Tennessee went ahead anyway and set a deadline for bids from the 
companies to supply formula to WIC participants. However, not a single 
company submitted a bid.
  That is why I, and many of my Senate colleagues, are very worried. 
Under the House Republican bill any State could fall prey to these same 
practices today as already discussed in the April 4, 1995, Washington 
Post article.
  The former ranking Republican member of the House Agriculture 
Committee, Congressman Wampler, was hired to oppose these State 
voluntary efforts to use competitive bidding. Congressman Wampler was 
one of several well connected lobbyists hired by Mead Johnson and Ross 
Laboratories to persuade USDA either directly, or indirectly through 
Congressional intervention, to prevent States from moving ahead with 
plans to institute competitive bidding. Senate Hearing 101-979.
  Mead-Johnson also hired the former Republican Assistant Secretary, 
Mary Jarrett, to help make sure that States did not use competitive 
bidding.
  The new plan of attack by the companies was to only offer paltry cost 
containment deals to States. This would include giving States some free 
formula, or modest cash rebates, or free coupons instead of 
participating in competitive bidding.
  I am very worried that smaller States such as my home State of 
Vermont could be easily victimized by the drug companies under the 
House bill.
  The lawyers hired by the formula manufacturers then raised legal 
objections at the State and Federal level to competitive bidding. They 
also tried to convince States not to use competitive bidding but to 
instead offer States formula at discounted prices under a system then 
called open bidding which is fully described in that report.
  A full description of the efforts of Republican lobbyists and the 
drug companies to promote cost containment instead of competitive 
bidding is detailed in Joint Hearing Report 102-135--Pricing and 
Promotion of Infant Formula, March 14, 1991.
  Also, on Mach 6, 1990, Mead-Johnson sent letters to the other formula 
manufacturers advising them that Mead would only provide a 75 cent 
rebate for each can of formula purchased through WIC. Ross Laboratories 
and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories--a division of American Home Products 
Corporation--followed suit and put in much lower rebate bids at or 
around 75 cents.
  During the next 8 months, Mead submitted 75 cent rebate bids to 12 
different States. In several States, Ross and Wyeth followed Mead's 
lead. Ross bid 75 cents 9 times, and 75.7 cents once.
  When one company bids a rebate of $0.75 and soon after another bids 
$0.757, as Mead and Ross did in Wisconsin and Montana in early 1990, it 
does not take a genius to see how this could frustrate competitive 
bidding.
  A very unusual development also took place which tipped off Federal 
investigators with the Federal Trade Commission. The same companies 
offered a better bid under what was called an open market system--
whereby all companies matching a discounted price could sell formula to 
WIC in that State.
  This higher rebate bid of $1.00 made no economic sense since the 
companies would have made more money off the exclusive competitive bid 
of 75 cents
 rather than the open market bid. This apparently was done to 
discourage states from using competitive bidding since it signalled 
states that the companies would bid $1.00 in an open market setting but 
only around 75 cents for a competitive bidding system. The chronology 
of infant formula rebate bids for 1990 shows this point.

  I asked the FTC to investigate allegations of price fixing and bid 
rigging in the WIC program and the efforts to discourage states from 
using the best system for purchasing infant formula. The Federal Trade 
Commission found merit to the charges and filed actions against the 
three companies. Also, several States filed actions against formula 
companies for anti-trade activities which have been well detailed in 
the press.
   [[Page S5372]] In June, 1992, the Federal Trade Commission found 
that three pharmaceutical companies tried to fix prices of infant 
formula they supply to the WIC program.
  The FTC also concluded that competition was reduced because Mead 
Johnson announced in advance the amounts to be submitted in sealed bids 
to provide formula to the WIC program. Also, it was alleged by the FTC 
that Mead Johnson sought to limit advertising to the public and 
provided information to competitors signalling bidding preferences.
  Two of the drug companies consented to having a Federal court issue 
relief against them. The companies--Mead Johnson and American Home 
Products--were ordered to provide formula to the WIC program free of 
charge as partial restitution.
  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed the harm to 
States from the advance price signaling in 1990. It concluded that 
after the Mead-Johnson letter announcing what it would bid in the 
future that States were harmed by over $14 million by increases in 
annual infant formula costs including the following: Indiana, $3.7 
million cost increase; Minnesota, $1,811,000 increase; Mississippi, 
$1.7 million increase; Oklahoma, $1.4 million increase; Kentucky, 
$868,000 increase; Oregon, $867,000 increase; Colorado, $820,000 
increase; West Virginia, $650,000 increase; Iowa, $539,000 increase; 
and Montana, with a $324,000 cost increase.
  I am very worried, as are many of my Senate colleagues, that allowing 
these companies the opportunity to take more than one million 
participants off the program so the drug companies can make more 
profits is outrageous. The fact that the House cut $25 million out of 
the WIC budget for fiscal year 1995 also raises some concern. We will 
work to see that no one is taken off the WIC rolls in fiscal year 1995 
because of funding limitations.
  Senator Bumpers also took the lead in supporting and defending these 
competitive bidding requirements. What are the views of the Senator 
from Arkansas on this matter?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am also worried and concerned about the provisions in 
the House bill that eliminate the current WIC competitive bidding 
requirements. I have supported these efforts right from the beginning 
and will strongly oppose efforts to eliminate competitive bidding.
  I share Senator Leahy's concern that the new plan of attack by the 
companies will be to only offer paltry cost containment deals to 
States. This would include giving States some free formula, or modest 
cash rebates, or free coupons instead of participating in competitive 
bidding. This could mean that millions of infants, women and children 
would be forced off WIC.
  Senator Pryor has been a leader regarding child nutrition programs 
and I would like his views on this issue.
  Mr. PRYOR. As I said at an Agriculture Committee hearing, I am also 
very troubled by the House efforts to cut child nutrition programs. The 
worst aspect of their bill relates to efforts to give these drug 
companies the opportunity to increase their profits at a high cost to 
poor pregnant women and children.
  The Senate reports show the efforts drug companies have exerted over 
the years to sell formula at a high cost to WIC. Since WIC is 100 
percent federally funded, the Federal Government should insist that it 
get the best return on each dollar spent.
  Competitive bidding, which is used by the Federal Government for much 
of its procurement, should be required as under current law. Clever 
efforts to hide profiteering under the cloak of weakened, so-called 
cost-containment measures, will hurt the WIC program in my State, and 
throughout the Nation. I know the drug companies may already be 
celebrating, but the Senate took the lead in the past in standing up to 
these corporate interests. I believe that despite all the money spent 
by the drug companies to influence opinion, the Senate will do the 
right thing.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I fully agree with the views expressed by my fellow 
Democratic colleagues. We cannot give the WIC program to the drug 
companies and allow them to turn WIC into a formula for profit.
  WIC is one of America's most effective child nutrition programs and I 
intend to fight any efforts of the House to repeal the WIC program. 
Senator Harkin led the fight against the practices of one infant 
formula company that sold powdered formula to third-world countries. 
Low-income families would mix the formula with contaminated water and 
the formula would do more harm than good. I ask Senator Harkin what are 
his views on competitive bidding?
  Mr. HARKIN. I was very proud of my role in leading the fight against 
companies that tried to push formula in the third-world. While I am a 
very strong supporter of breastfeeding I recognize the formula does 
play an important role in the WIC program.
  I agree fully with the remarks that Senator Leahy has made about the 
importance of competitive bidding for WIC infant formula, and the 
comments of my colleagues on the subject, and I commend Senator Leahy 
for his work on this issue as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry and now as ranking member.
  To get the best deal for taxpayers I believe it is essential that we 
require that competitive bidding be used for WIC infant formula so that 
we can ensure that the States are not subjected to the kinds of 
pressure tactics to eliminate competitive bidding that have been so 
thoroughly documented. We owe it to taxpayers and to over a million and 
a half additional people who are served each month with the savings 
from competitive bidding. I do not want this provision watered down so 
that companies can increase their profit margins at the expense of WIC 
participants and taxpayers.
  I have had a long involvement in the efforts to implement competitive 
bidding for WIC infant formula. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Nutrition and Investigations, I worked to include the provision in the 
1987 Commodity Distribution Reform Act that allowed States to keep a 
portion of savings they achieved through competitive bidding in order 
to cover the increased administrative expenses of bringing additional 
participants into WIC.
  Without that provision, the States could not have used the savings 
from WIC cost containment to serve more people in the WIC program. 
Unbelievably, the Republican Deputy Secretary of Agriculture wrote a 
letter to Chairman Leahy officially opposing that provision in the 
bill.
  I also requested the study by the General Accounting Office that was 
issued in October of 1987 demonstrating the savings that could be 
achieved through competitive bidding for infant formula.
  And in 1989, as Chairman of the Nutrition and Investigations 
Subcommittee, I introduced the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Act of 1989, which included the provision requiring the use of 
competitive bidding or equally effective cost
 containment measures for WIC infant formula. Again, it was my 
privilege to work with Senator Leahy, as Chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, in getting this provision enacted into law.

  The benefits of competitive bidding are simply too large to give up. 
The national benefits have already been described. In Iowa, as of late 
last year our State was gaining approximately $630,000 a month for its 
WIC program through infant formula rebates, which allows approximately 
12,000 additional Iowa women, infants and children to be served each 
month without increasing spending.
  WIC is one of our Nation's most successful and cost-effective 
efforts. Competitive bidding makes WIC remarkably more cost-effective. 
We hear a lot about the importance of letting States have more freedom 
in administering programs. WIC already involves a partnership between 
the Federal Government and the States--it is already administered by 
the States, but it is funded entirely with Federal money. This proposal 
to do away with the competitive bidding requirement stands the idea of 
State flexibility on its head. It basically says that if the States 
want to squander federal taxpayer dollars by lining the pockets of the 
infant formula companies, that is just fine, have at it.
  All I can say is that we have made too much progress and there is far 
too much at stake for this Senator to stand by and watch a proven and 
practical tool like competitive bidding be thrown out the window for 
the sake of 
[[Page S5373]] some half-baked, radical theory. Not without a fight, 
not without a huge fight.
  Finally, I am also concerned, as are my colleagues, about the 
ramifications of the $35 million cut in WIC in this rescissions bill. 
The Congress should be fully funding WIC as per the President's 
proposals and should be very cautious about cutting the funding 
available for carrying out WIC efforts in the States. I too will work 
to see that no one is taken off the WIC rolls in fiscal year 1995 
because of funding limitations.
  I understand Senator Boxer also has concerns about the WIC program.
  Mrs. BOXER. I also am very concerned about the Contract With America 
and how it will seriously hurt the WIC program. I am very proud to 
support the WIC program, and it is important to ensure that the 
competitive bidding process stays in place so that the largest number 
of women and children possible can be effectively served by this 
enormously successful program.
                              student aid

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, students on college campuses throughout 
Vermont have mobilized against cuts in student aid. The strong 
opposition around the country to these cuts has prevented most student 
aid programs from being included in the rescission bill we are debating 
today. The next step will be to make sure that students do not get 
short-changed in next year's budget.
  On Monday, I had the pleasure of meeting with 19 exceptional college 
students in my office in Burlington, Vermont. These students: John 
Boyle of Landmark College; Stephen O'Keefe and Sean Brown of Southern 
Vermont College; Terri Taylor of Lyndon State College; Eric Sorenberger 
and Marlene Rye of Sterling College; Cecily Muller of Woodbury College; 
Beth McDermott of the University of Vermont; Alison Maling of Trinity 
College; Courtney Ryan of St. Michael's College; Kevin Canney of 
Burlington College; Sue Jean Murray of Champlain College; Theresa 
Morris of Vermont Technical College; John Wyrocki and Laura Whitney of 
Green Mountain College; Jeff Albertson of Middlebury College; and 
Darryl Danaher, Ryan Carter and Matthew Thornton of Norwich University 
shared with me how cuts in student aid would affect them and other 
Vermont students.
  One student is the youngest of nine children and is holding two work 
study jobs. Another is a mother of two and on welfare. Her daughter 
also is in college. Another is the third child in her family to go to 
school. Her mother went back to school to get a better job to help pay 
her children's student loans. Another is the mother of four who had to 
leave an abusive marriage. She relies on work study to help her stay in 
school. She also will have loans to pay for her daughter's education. 
Another is returning to school after having to change her occupation 
due to major back surgery.
  I could go on and on about what these students are going through to 
earn their college degree.
  These students are working hard to learn. Now, some Members of 
Congress would like to pull the rug out from under them by cutting 
student aid.
  Earlier this week, the House Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Chairman confirmed that Republicans are considering eliminating the in-
school interest subsidy on Stafford college loans.
  If House Republicans are successful, 20,000 Vermont students will be 
paying more for college. Individual student debt will increase by 15 to 
50 percent, depending on the length of time spent in school. An 
undergraduate student who borrows the maximum amount for a four year 
college could owe an additional $3,407 in interest. This is an increase 
of about 20 percent, on top of debt that already is tough to manage.
  There also has been talk about eliminating campus-based aid including 
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Perkins loans, and the 
work-study programs. Eliminating these need-based programs would cause 
hardship for students at 2-year and 4-year colleges throughout the 
country. A student who receives an aid package that includes average 
awards from all three programs would stand to lose $3,152.
  Increasing the financial burden to students and their families will 
discourage many students from attending college or enrolling in 
vocational or graduate programs.
  As we encourage people, both young and old, to pursue higher 
education, we need to help them achieve this by providing realistic 
funding options.
  These students are our future. All of us know just how difficult it 
is to pay for a college education these days. It is important that 
these students and their families do not see the dream of higher 
education slip beyond their grasp.
  Decisions to cut student aid programs are based solely on short-
sighted politics.
  I am concerned that the debate over next year's budget is going to 
occur over the summer when many students are not on campus. I hope they 
will continue to work together to speak out against cuts in student 
aid.
                  restoration of defense cleanup funds

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of restoring $104.2 
million to the Department of Defense accounts that are used to fund the 
cleanup and redevelop of closing military bases. These funds were 
authorized and appropriated by Congress last year and they now are 
subject to a possible rescission.
  Mr. President, less than a month ago the Secretary of Defense 
announced the 1995 hit list of military base closings. This list 
recommended closing 25 major bases. Communities with bases on this list 
are currently working to convince the independent Base Closure 
Commission to remove their hometown bases from the list and to spare 
them the economic trauma of a base closing.
  Unfortunately, many of these communities will be unsuccessful in 
their efforts to save the base. In the first three base closure rounds, 
in 1988, 1991, and 1993, the Commission approved the closing of 
approximately 85 percent of the recommended bases.
  These first three base closure rounds produced the closing of 75 
major military installations and over 200 smaller installations 
nationwide. Each of these communities are now focusing on beating 
swords into plowshares. And to its credit, the U.S. military is trying 
to do its part to quickly cleanup these bases and prepare them for 
civilian use.
  Mr. President, many have argued in the past that the federal 
government should not help beat swords into plowshares--that we do not 
have a responsibility to help the workers and communities that proudly 
supported our bases for decades. However, we can not and must not turn 
a cold shoulder to those who helped us win the cold war.
  To be certain, base closings hurt. Communities that lose a base lose 
much more than just the daily sights and sounds of the military's 
presence. They lose the heart and soul of their local economy. In many 
cases, the military is the largest employer in the region. As my 
colleagues know, closing military bases causes an immediate economic 
trauma in these communities.
  But some good news is beginning to arise in a few of the towns that 
lost bases in the early rounds. Lost military jobs are slowly being 
replaced by civilian employment. The private sector is moving in and 
jobs are being created at many old bases.
  The local communities that are experiencing an economic revival have 
told us that their successful efforts to beat swords to plowshares were 
made possible only because the federal government, specifically the 
U.S. military, decided to become a partner in this worthy effort.
  In helping communities rebound, the military services are focused on 
quickly cleaning up contaminated portions of the closing bases so 
private sector businesses can move in and begin creating jobs.
  In order to quickly prepare closing bases for redevelopment, the 
DOD's base closure accounts, or BRAC accounts, must be fully funded.
  It would be shortsighted to rescind funds for closing bases, 
especially given that the Base Closure Commission is currently 
preparing to add more bases to the closure list.
  Cutting funds from the DOD base closure account will slow down the 
process of returning these bases back to the communities. By doing so, 
we would substantially damage the economic development efforts of base 
closure communities nationwide.
  [[Page S5374]] I urge my colleagues in the Senate, especially those 
on the Senate Appropriations Committee, to restore $104.2 million to 
the DOD BRAC accounts.


                           amendment no. 577

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if there had been a rollcall vote on the 
Dole-Daschle amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' As my colleagues 
know, I support many, if not all, of the programs that would benefit 
from the funding restorations of the amendment. They are worthwhile, 
meritorious programs that address important national needs.
  But as I said at the outset of this debate, Mr. President, many of 
the Appropriations Committee's recommended rescissions were reductions 
in the rate of funding increases, not reductions in actual funding 
below the previous year's level. I see no reason to add more money now 
to simply increase the increase. The Appropriations Committee made a 
considered judgment on these matters, and we found our recommended 
rescissions to be reasonable. Further, we found them to be urgently 
needed for the task of deficit reduction.
  On that point, Mr. President, I believe this amendment is a serious 
mistake. We do not have CBO scoring of this amendment as yet, but it 
would appear to me that the recommended ``offsets'' of this amendment 
reduce significant amounts of budget authority but very little in 
outlays. The reductions are primarily drawn from accounts with annual 
outlay rates as low as 1 percent, while the funding restorations occur 
in accounts with outlay rates as high as 80 percent. In short, Mr. 
President, it appears to me that this amendment may actually increase 
the deficit. The bill that I brought to the floor on behalf of the 
Appropriations Committee was a first step in the long march toward a 
balanced budget. This amendment is a step backward.
                  FUNDING FOR ACIR'S MANDATES STUDIES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to take note of an aspect of the 
managers' amendment to H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions bill.
  As my colleagues know, I helped write the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, which just became law. This law passed the Senate on 
January 27 by an 86-10 vote. Part of this law requires the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to conduct studies on 
unfunded mandates issues. The Senate passed my amendment giving these 
studies to ACIR by a vote of 88-0.
  The law requires ACIR to make recommendations to the President and 
Congress about simplifying, consolidating, suspending or terminating 
federal mandates. It also requires ACIR to examine the measurement and 
definition issues involved in calculating the costs and benefits of 
unfunded federal mandates.
  The law requires ACIR to do these studies very quickly. It must issue 
proposed and final criteria for its studies, hold hearings, and publish 
a preliminary and a final report, all by March 22, 1995. The conferees 
on the mandates bill recognized that ACIR needed further funding in 
this fiscal year in order to do the studies. The conferees therefore 
authorized an appropriation of $500,000 for fiscal year 1995.
  The managers' amendment contains a provision that would appropriate 
this money. I am glad that the senior Senators from Oregon and West 
Virginia, Senators Hatfield and Byrd, have funded the mandate on ACIR.
  I would like to thank them for accommodating the Senator from Idaho, 
Senator Kempthorne, and the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, and 
myself on this issue. And I look forward to helping ACIR carry out this 
mission.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am supporting the Dole-Daschle compromise 
and the final passage of the supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions bill because I believe, on balance, the bill does take a 
significant step towards fiscal control and economy in government.
  I am particularly pleased that the compromise restores nearly a 
billion dollars in House rescissions that would have jeopardized 
programs that benefit children and education.
  Head Start, Title I Education, impact aid, WIC, Goals 2000, School to 
Work and Drug Free Schools are all programs that constitute investments 
in our national future, and restoration of funding for them lends 
balance and merit to the bill.
  I am very pleased that the Senate bill restores funding for the 
LIHEAP program and housing modernization, two programs that are 
important to my State.
  And finally I would note that the Senate bill would restore more than 
half of what the House bill would cut from our foreign aid programs--
not a perfect outcome, but certainly far preferable to the House 
version.
  Mr. President, none of us are going to be completely satisfied with 
the painful compromises that must be made in the current season of 
downsizing of government. But this bill does what had to be done with 
less pain than might otherwise have been inflicted. I commend the 
managers and give the bill my support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend the majority 
leader, Senator Dole, and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for 
the successful completion of the managers rescission amendment package 
to H.R. 1158, the fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations bill for 
disaster assistance and rescissions. I am particularly gratified that 
the leadership has steadfastly retained, through a myriad of 
negotiations, the restoration of section 8002 of the Federal Impact Aid 
Program.
  With funding of only $16.29 million, nearly 200 school districts 
directly benefit from section 8002 payments in lieu of taxes for 
Federal properties. As federally owned lands, these properties are tax-
exempt and contribute nothing to local tax revenues. These monies are 
made available under strict criteria to help compensate local school 
districts for revenues they might otherwise be receiving.
  The impact aid section 8002 program has been authorized since the 
inception of impact aid in 1950. For 45 years, the Congress has 
recognized its responsibilities to compensate local schools for tax-
exempt Federal personnel and properties.
  Furthermore, the entire impact aid program was just reauthorized last 
year as a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is 
no time to retreat from our longstanding commitment which is so vital 
to federally impacted school districts.
  I am supporting that impact aid restoration because the York County 
School Division in the historic Hampton Roads region of Virginia is the 
largest recipient of section 8002 funding in the Nation. I commend the 
York County School Division finance director, Mr. Dennis Jarrett, as 
well as superintendent Steven Staples for their careful work in 
bringing this urgent matter to my attention.
  This year alone, more than $1 million of the York County School 
District budget is at risk because of the proposed rescission. I am 
confident that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee had no 
intention for the budget cutting axe to fall so heavily on only one of 
some 200 school districts.
  The restoration of the $16.29 million for impact aid will symbolize 
our support of the communities across the Nation which house and serve 
the U.S. Armed Services and their families.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and commend this small measure to 
the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the agreement offered today on H.R. 1158, the rescissions bill. The 
leadership can be commended for their hard work on this compromise. 
This rescissions bill has been a drawn-out and difficult process. But 
this hard-fought agreement represents good news for many South 
Dakotans: it contains my amendment that would restore funds for Section 
8002 of the Impact Aid Program, otherwise known as Section 2. The 
inclusion of my amendment to save this important program is a 
significant reason why I offer my whole-hearted support for this 
agreement.
  The impact aid program is not aid in the traditional sense. It is 
called Impact Aid because the presence of the Federal Government is 
having an adverse impact on nearby school districts. The adverse impact 
is the loss of tax revenue to the schools, and the Impact Aid Program 
is designed to compensate schools for that lost tax base.
  In short, impact aid is an ongoing Federal responsibility. Impact aid 
does 
[[Page S5375]] not represent extra dollars for special programs. Impact 
aid provides support payments for basic day-to-day operations. It is 
neither a wasteful nor ideologically driven program--these funds go 
directly to a school district's operating budget. Impact aid represents 
fairness--to the schools and the parents and children they serve.
  Section 2 of the Impact Aid Program is the lifeblood of many schools 
across the Nation. This program provides support payments to school 
districts for Federal land. Across the country, schools in 27 States 
rely on Section 2 payments. It would be most unfair to federally 
impacted districts and the children they serve if the Federal 
Government opts to deny them both a tax base and Federal support.
  If Section 2 payments had been terminated, the Pollock School 
district in northern South Dakota would have closed, forcing 
potentially displaced students to travel up to 50 miles in order to 
receive an education. Pollock and similarly situated school districts 
would have been forced into this drastic course of action because no 
other revenue options are available.
  Mr. President, federally impacted schools already have taken their 
share of cuts. The Impact Aid Program suffered a $70 million cut last 
year. If we were to add to this cut the elimination of Section 2 
payments, federally impacted schools would be left without the 
assistance they had planned on to pay teachers, buy textbooks, or as in 
the case of Pollock, to even function.
  Like my colleagues, I am committed to reducing wasteful government 
spending. My voting record consistently has been in favor of a balanced 
budget. I also appreciate fully the difficult nature of the 
Appropriations Committee's job this year. We are all in the difficult 
position of needing to cut bureaucracy and federal spending. However, 
our leadership can be commended for realizing where our priorities must 
lie.
  Impact aid is a program that enjoys support on both sides of the
   aisle. However, I especially would like to thank my distinguished 
friends from New York and Virginia, Senators D'Amato and Warner, for 
their leadership on this issue. These Senators and others on both sides 
of the aisle were prepared to support my amendment to restore the 
Section 2 payments. It is because of this bipartisan commitment to 
education that the leadership has restored this important program. I 
appreciate their help and support.

  I hope this bipartisan support for impact aid will send a clear 
signal to our colleagues and especially to the administration. Impact 
aid is vital to our schools and it should continue to be fully funded. 
It is my hope that we will not have to fight this battle again during 
the budget negotiations for fiscal year 1996. President Clinton has 
requested a $109 million cut in the Impact Aid Program for next fiscal 
year. I hope it has been made clear that such a cut would be 
unacceptable.
  I would be happy to work with my colleagues to demonstrate why impact 
aid is critical to so many school children. I also look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the budget and appropriations committees 
to maintain the vitality of the Impact Aid Program for many years to 
come.


                   restore funding for the cdfi fund

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, one of the provisions in the 
amendment the distinguished majority and minority leaders have offered, 
would partially restore funding for the Community Development Financial 
Institutions [CDFI] Fund. The full House and Senate Appropriations 
Committee have both rescinded $124 million of the $125 million 
appropriated for this bill in fiscal year 1995.
  Although it is not clear when the Senate will have the opportunity to 
vote on this amendment. I want to take a few moments to discuss why the 
funding for the CDFI Fund is needed.
  Clearly, the $36 million included in the Daschle amendment is an 
insufficient amount compared to the $125 million appropriated last 
year--but, this start up money will help the CDFI Fund get off the 
ground. The importance of this Fund is its profound affect on the lives 
of people who want to make their lives better and improve their 
neighborhoods.
  The CDFI Fund is bipartisan initiative passed in the Riegle Community 
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. I was proud to be a 
cosponsor, along with many of my colleagues, of this legislation.
  The Fund will support and expand existing Community Development Banks 
and Financial Institutions [CDBFI] across the country. The CDFI Fund is 
based on the simple proposition--helping the private sector to help 
communities grow from the bottom up.
  Over the last two decades, a diverse range of community development 
financial institutions have emerged to provide new opportunities for 
neglected communities. In urban, reservation-based and rural settings, 
more than 300 CDFIs are providing credit, investments and comprehensive 
development services. These institutions--working in 45 States--manage 
more than $1 billion in primarily private sector capital. These 
institutions have loaned more than $3 billion with a loan loss rates 
comparable to some of the best banks in this country.
  Mr. President, across the country, many rural and urban communities 
are starved for affordable credit, capital and basic banking services. 
The lack of jobs is a critical issue for any community. The lack of 
jobs is also the crux of an important issue for the welfare reform 
debate that the Senate will soon be considering.
  What the Fund is all about is creating jobs in communities that 
desperately needs jobs. What this amendment is all about is providing a 
very, very modest amount of Federal money to spur entrepreneurship, and 
assist small and microbusinesses in low-income communities to help 
create those jobs.
  Job creation is so important to the many critical issues that come 
before Congress. It is also the crux of the welfare reform debate now 
before Congress.
  Almost everyone agrees that our welfare system needs major reform, 
and almost everyone agrees that welfare recipients who can work ought 
to be required to work. The question that remains is simple--where are 
those jobs supposed to come from?
  The basic truth that must be faced is that there simply aren't enough 
jobs now in many communities where the poor are concentrated, are 
dropping. My own home town of Chicago illustrates the problem.
  Between 1972 and 1990, the City of Chicago lost over 146,000 jobs. 
Between 1979 and 1990, the city lost over one-third of its 
manufacturing jobs. Over the same period, the central business district 
actually gained jobs over that period, which means that the impact of 
the declining job base fell most heavily on Chicago's neighborhoods, 
and particularly its poorest neighborhoods. In the decade of 1980's 
alone, the south and west side Chicago neighborhoods--where many of the 
City's low-income residents reside--lost over 82,000 jobs.
  This results in a declining population in the city, and high 
unemployment rates for those who want to stay, or who can't leave. For 
residents in public housing in the inner cities, jobs are almost non-
existent. Of the households in the Robert Taylor Homes--the country's 
largest public housing complex located on Chicago's southside--an 
approximate 4 percent report any wage income at all.
  The fact of the matter is--there is not enough economic opportunity 
in poor communities. It's no secret that what is needed to create jobs 
in any community is capital. However, poor communities, simply do not 
have the access they need to our capital market. What this means is 
that prospective homebuyers, oftentimes have difficulty getting 
mortgage money. What it also means is that people who want to start 
businesses--or expand businesses--in poor communities where all too 
often cannot get access to the money they need. The creation of the 
CDFI FUND is a crucial first step in helping low-income communities 
help themselves.
  The CDFI Fund will invest in community development banks and other 
community development financial institutions which have a primary 
mission of community development, lending and equity investment and 
loan counseling services in distressed, underserved communities.
  This capital assistance will serve only as seed capital that must be 
matched by private funds. All types of new and existing CDFIs will be 
eligible for assistance, including community 
[[Page S5376]] development banks, credit unions, micro-enterprise and 
revolving loan funds, minority-owned banks and community development 
corporations.
  One of the exciting aspects of the Fund is the Bank Enterprise 
program will catalyze new community lending and investment activities 
by conventional financial institutions--complementing community 
reinvestment efforts by lenders.
  Mr. President, the Fund will have an extraordinary impact on many of 
this country's low-income neighborhoods. It will support financial and 
technical support for new community development banks--which will 
support thousands of new loans--which, in turn, can result in thousands 
of new full-time jobs in low-income communities.
  I have seen first hand what an important role community development 
financial institutions can play in the economic development of 
distressed communities and provide jobs to those who have relied on 
public assistance.
  South Shore Bank--the country's first community development bank in 
my home town of Chicago--has had a tremendous impact in the South Shore 
neighborhood of Chicago. Since 1973, the bank and its affiliated 
community development activities have invested $450 million in its 
target communities, financing the rehabilitation of 15,000 housing 
units and hundreds of businesses. South Shore was once a rapidly-
deteriorating, inner city community abandoned by conventional lenders. 
Today it is a stable community with access to a range of sources of 
conventional credit.
  Another example is the Women's Self Employment Project in Chicago 
which has lent more than $800,000 to low income women--many of whom 
relied on public assistance--to start and grow microenterprises. This 
successful program has a repayment rate of over 94 percent.
  Mr. President, these are just two examples of how community 
development works. The list of success stories in community lending 
goes on and on: the Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina; the 
Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises in North Carolina; The 
Coalition for Women's Economic Development in South Central Los 
Angeles.
  Mr. President, as I said in my opening remarks, the $36 million 
included in this amendment is clearly not enough for the investment 
that is needed in low-income communities now. But it is a start to help 
the institutions I referred to, any many others throughout the country. 
They will be able to expand their capacity through modest federal 
investments provided by the CDFI Fund.
  It is important to point out that the Fund does have an experienced 
and knowledgeable transition team to begin setting up operations and 
programs. While the Fund cannot issue regulations or take applicants 
until the administrator is confirmed, this team is making significant 
progress to ensure that the programs are up and running.
  By using very little Federal money to leverage significant private 
dollars, the Fund's investments will build partnerships between banks, 
thrifts, credit unions, and CDFIs.
  The results in every equity dollar invested in a community 
development bank or loan fund can leverage at least $10 in new private 
capital for development lending.
  Community Development Banks and Financial Institutions provide 
capital where it is critically needed--and jump start a local economy. 
The CDFI Fund will support these institutions and represents an 
essential part of what's needed to build and strengthen the economies 
in many urban, reservation-based and rural communities.
  In closing, let me add that the CDFI Fund, is a very good step in the 
right direction in creating jobs. If the federal government is going to 
succeed in reforming welfare, we must start by creating jobs and 
economic growth in impoverished communities where they are needed most.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of success 
stories be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       In North Carolina, the Self-Credit Union and its affiliated 
     Self-Help Ventures Fund made a $50,000 loan in 1985 to a 
     small, rural worker-owned sewing company threatened with 
     closing because it could not obtain credit from its local 
     banks. With Self-Help's technical assistance and a series of 
     working capital loans, the business now employs 80 people, 
     making it the second largest private employer in its county. 
     By 1992, the company had almost tripled its sales, to $1.8 
     million.
       In Chicago, the Women's Self Employment Project set up an 
     entrepreneurial training and lending program to enable women 
     receiving public assistance and with little or no asset to 
     start their own income-producing enterprises. Seventy percent 
     of the 20 women participating in the pilot program in 1987 
     were able to move off public assistance permanently as a 
     result of their business activities. An expanded program now 
     includes 150 women. WSEP's three lending programs have lent 
     more than $500,000 to 350 low- and moderate-income women for 
     micro business ventures.
       In Central Appalachia, the Federation of Appalachian 
     Housing Enterprises [FAHE] provides loans that make 
     homeownership a reality for very low-income families, many of 
     whom have previously lived in rented trailers without heat or 
     running water. FAHE has lent $3.2 million for more than 172 
     housing units, including loans to borrowers with incomes as 
     low as $5,000 a year.
       The Coalition for Women's Economic Development in South 
     Central Los Angeles operates a 12-week training program in 
     Spanish and English, for low-income women seeking to operate 
     their own enterprises.
       Santa Cruz Community Credit Union in California, which has 
     lent more than $27 million to small businesses, non-profits 
     and cooperatives, supplements its credit union lending with a 
     non-profit housing development subsidiary, Seascape Senior 
     Housing. Seascape developed and owns an 80 unit low-income 
     housing project.
       The Quitman County Federal Credit Union in Mississippi is 
     located in one of the ten poorest counties in the United 
     States. As a community development credit union, the credit 
     union has been able to supplement the small savings of its 
     600 members with more than $1 million in nonmember deposits, 
     enabling the development of home improvement and minority 
     small business lending programs.
       For years, the Delaware Valley Community Loan Fund was one 
     of the only lenders in Camden, New Jersey. Its successful 
     lending has led to a 7 bank multimillion dollar loan pool for 
     the disinvested area managed by the loan fund.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I understand that an agreement has been 
worked out between the two sides on this legislation, but I want to set 
the record straight on a few issues which I believe to be of particular 
importance.
  The initiative in question is the Corporation for National and 
Community Service. In the last few days, several of our colleagues have 
come to the floor and, for one reason or another, discussed this 
initiative in a way which has deviated substantially from the facts. I 
want to provide information for the record to eliminate some of the 
misconceptions which may have been formed about National Service.
  First, I would like all of us to be clear on the facts. Contrary to 
what we have heard on the Senate floor in the last week, AmeriCorps 
does not cost the taxpayer outrageous sums. Counting all costs, the 
average annual cost per AmeriCorps member is $17,600. $4,725 of that 
amount is an education award which is not given until after the year of 
service is complete.
  Additionally, the program has benefited the efforts of many private 
organizations which depend on volunteers for their work. Many 
charitable organizations, from Habitat for Humanity to the Red Cross 
have resoundingly rebutted the argument that National Service injures 
the ethic of voluntarism in this country. These groups have often 
stated that the presence of AmeriCorps members has made their efforts 
to attract traditional volunteers even more effective.
  Charitable organizations are not the only ones who have seen 
sufficient worth in the program to give it their vocal support. Many 
businesses also have seen the value of AmeriCorps as an investment and 
given it their own dollars to supplement those provided by the federal 
government. These private partners range from Alcoa to Xerox, with many 
others in between. I request unanimous consent that this information 
regarding the cost per AmeriCorps participant and the number of 
volunteers and business organizations supporting AmeriCorps be printed 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NUNN. My second point is that National Service is successfully 
accomplishing its primary mission--performance of service. The 
anecdotal evidence 
[[Page S5377]] on this score is abundant. From helping clean up after 
last year's floods in the Midwest to immunizing 105,000 children in 
Texas, to building 60 homes for poor people in Americus, Georgia, these 
youngsters are performing real work that is needed by our communities. 
The independent research firm of Aguirre, International provides 
confirmation. They did a study of 52 randomly selected AmeriCorps sites 
across the country, and the findings from the study confirm that the 
achievements of this program are many and varied. I ask consent that 
the Aguirre International study be also printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, my final point is that this project should 
not be a partisan issue. The debate on the original authorization was 
not marred by the misinformation and partisan rancor that we have seen 
during the last week. Indeed, the 1993 bill passed with the support of 
a number of Republicans in both Houses. I would hope that we could 
return the debate to that higher plane in the future. To that end, I 
would hope that my colleagues, whether they agree or disagree with the 
program, would take the time over the upcoming recess to visit an 
AmeriCorps site in their states. To my colleagues who are willing to 
make this visit, if you still have concerns about the program after you 
have made this good-faith effort to see it in action, that will be 
useful to an open, straightforward debate on the upcoming 
reauthorization. I believe that the minds of my colleagues will be 
changed when they see the results of this program.
  In conclusion, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on this 
matter, and I hope that we can continue the debate in an objective 
fashion. I am fully aware of the funding constraints which face our 
nation's government, but I am confident that the program will be judged 
valuable to our nation if judged on its true merits and true costs. I 
yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

                      AMERICORPS BUDGET AND MEMBERS                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          1994              1995              1996      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget............      $376,000,000      $579,000,000      $828,000,000
[HUD/VA]..........    [$318,000,000]    [$516,000,000]    [$750,000,000]
Members...........            20,000            33,000            47,000
Average cost per                                                        
 Member...........           $18,800           $17,600           $17,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Average total cost per member by category

Health/child care 7%...........................................($1,200)
Grantee operations, planning, evaluation 23%...................($4,075)
State Commissions 3%.............................................($450)
Americorps' overhead 5%..........................................($850)
                                                (Represents 1995 Costs)
Education Award 27%............................................($4,725)
Stipend 35%....................................................($6,200)
                                                       ________________

    Total.......................................................$17,600
                               Exhibit 2

                     AmeriCorps USA at Five Months


      A Summary of Accomplishments from 52 Randomly Selected Sites

       The following report aggregates and summarizes the bulk of 
     the accomplishments of 1,654 AmeriCorps USA Members serving 
     at 52 sites that were selected randomly from across the 
     nation. Listed accomplishments represent the efforts of 
     approximately 8% of AmeriCorps USA's operating sites during 
     the first five months of operation--from September, 1994 
     through January, 1995.
       The accomplishments are grouped within AmeriCorps USA's 
     four issue areas: education, public safety, health and human 
     needs, and environmental and neighborhood restoration. The 
     list, while both long and diverse, is not exhaustive; not 
     every accomplishment has been captured. Nevertheless, the 
     list summarizes the major accomplishments of the selected 
     sites.


                               Education

       The AmeriCorps Members helped children and youth from 
     impoverished urban and rural communities to succeed in 
     school. They taught in classrooms, established new learning 
     programs in and out of school, and prepared preschoolers for 
     the demands of school. Specific accomplishments include the 
     following:
       Taught 1,430 and tutored 7,638 pre-school, elementary, and 
     junior high school students in basic educational skills.
       Conducted enriched learning programs and initiated new 
     ones--such as computer-based reading instruction, peer 
     tutoring, scientific experimentation, and programs for 
     children with special needs--for 6,414 children.
       Established after-school and vacation programs to reinforce 
     the academic involvement of 4,656 children.
       The AmeriCorps Members helped at-risk children succeed in 
     school by assisting them and their families to develop their 
     sense of civic and community responsibility and to become 
     more stable, more self-sufficient, and more involved in the 
     community. Specific accomplishments include the following:
       Organized and supervised community service projects for 
     4,469 at-risk children and youth. Projects included 
     neighborhood cleanups and providing food for elderly people.
       Counseled, taught parenting skills, and/or provided problem 
     solving assistance to 390 families, 183 teen parents, and the 
     low-income families of 440 children at risk of failing in 
     school.
       Provide literacy or employment-related training for 694 
     adults.
       Provided intensive educational support--including regular 
     counseling--to 30 troubled teenagers living in group homes 
     and 33 low-income children, including 22 homeless 
     preschoolers.
                             Public Safety

       The AmeriCorps Members started neighborhood safety 
     programs, mobilized neighbors, and improved community/police 
     relations, resulting in safer communities. Specific 
     accomplishments include the following:
       Escorted 8,500 children to school through safe corridors.
       Started 258 neighborhood safety programs and patrolled 250 
     vacant buildings to prevent violence, drug-dealing and other 
     illegal activities.
       Initiated 2 programs to improve community/police relations, 
     including assisting a police mobile unit.
       The AmeriCorps Members worked to prevent violence in school 
     by teaching mediation techniques, resulting in decreased 
     incidence of violence and negative behavior. Specific 
     accomplishments include the following:
       Resolved 414 school conflicts that might otherwise have 
     ended in violence or with students dropping out of school 
     because of fear of violence.
       Taught conflict resolution techniques to 8,119 school 
     children.
       Counseled and taught alternatives to violence to 1,350 
     potential or actual gang members and 54 parents of children 
     at risk of becoming involved in gangs.
       Initiated 3 programs to train school and community members 
     to implement violence prevention activities.
       Secured donated materials and created a memorial garden and 
     mural in memory of 3 children slain in the streets.
       The AmeriCorps Members worked to prevent violence and drug 
     abuse in families and communities and provided direct 
     assistance to victims of crime as well as referring them to 
     needed services. Specific accomplishments include the 
     following:
       Conducted workshops for 220 at-risk individuals about 
     family violence prevention.
       Answered crisis hotline calls and made referrals for 878 
     victims of sexual and domestic violence.
       Provided each of 470 victims of sexual and domestic 
     violence with 30 days of counseling and assistance.
       Counseled 35 elementary or high-school students in crisis 
     as a result of rape, violence, or home difficulties.
       Counseled, 1,180 teenager about alcohol and drug abuse.
       Conducted home visits about drug or alcohol abuse 
     prevention with 120 community residents.


                         Health and Human Needs

       The AmeriCorps Members made independent living easier for 
     disabled, elderly, or hospitalized individuals by providing 
     direct support service and by recruiting and organizing 
     community volunteers. Specific accomplishments include the 
     following:
       Helped 123 elderly persons, 50 visually impaired adults, 
     and 9 visually impaired children live independently.
       Provided job-related training, independent living 
     assistance and/or medical referrals for 135 mentally ill or 
     developmentally disabled persons.
       Organized weekly social activities for 400 elderly nursing 
     home residents.
       Constructed wheel-chair accessible trails, ramps, or 
     sidewalks at 3 parks, 5 low-income homes, and 4 public 
     buildings.
       Obtained donated materials, trained 58 volunteers, and 
     repair the homes 296 elderly persons.
       The AmeriCorps Members provided emergency medical services, 
     as well as health training and education. Specific 
     accomplishments include the following:
       Trained 1,144 inner-city residents in CPR.
       Provided emergency medical services to over 1,500 people.
       Screened 1,100 low-income children for lead toxicity and 
     other health risks.
       Provided health counseling, education, or referrals and 
     transportation to 220 low-income families and over 5,000 
     individuals.
       Disseminated health care information to 4,567 individuals.
       Distributed 150 children's car seats to low-income 
     families.
       Conducted immunization screenings--immunizing 158 
     individuals and notifying 500 others of their families' need 
     to be immunized.
       Administered 301 HIV tests and counseled patients regarding 
     results.
       Conducted workshops and distributed information on AIDS and 
     tuberculosis to over 7,000 people.
       The AmeriCorps Members helped meet the basic needs of low-
     income and homeless people for food and shelter. They 
     improved low- 
     [[Page S5378]] income housing, fed the hungry, and improved 
     the methods of service referral and delivery. Specific 
     accomplishments include the following:
       Renovated 238 inner-city housing units and 99 rural homes; 
     began renovation of 121 more.
       Refurbished 2 homeless shelters and began to renovate 3 
     buildings--one for seniors, one for battered women, and one 
     for the formerly homeless.
       Distributed food to more than 16,625 low-income people and 
     packed 7,000 dinners and 32,000 breakfasts for the hungry.
       Found shelter for 400 homeless families, and sorted and 
     distributed clothes to 350 homeless individuals.
       Secured hospice housing for 27 people with AIDS and helped 
     feed (on a weekly basis) 1,250 people who have AIDS or who 
     are HIV positive.
       Provided housing information or counseling to over 500 low-
     income and homeless families.
       Secured donated furniture, repaired it, and delivered it to 
     300 newly-housed families.
               Environmental and Neighborhood Restoration

       The AmeriCorps Members responded to emergencies, including 
     post-disaster environmental restorations, and worked to 
     improve emergency responses capacity in parks and public 
     lands. Specific accomplishments include the following:
       Inspected and repaired 87 small dams, protecting 200 farms.
       Provided disaster recovery assistance to 350 land owners 
     recovering from a flood; activities included sand and soil 
     deposit mapping, advice on pasture and hayland management, 
     watershed mapping, and computer simulations to plan 
     floodplain management.
       Fought 2 major forest fires and saved 1 national park road 
     from washing out.
       Joined at least 5 search and rescue efforts.
       The AmeriCorps Members restored and stabilized the natural 
     environment and wildlife habitats. Specific accomplishments 
     include the following:
       Planted 212,500 trees.
       Restored 320 acres of wild land areas by repairing fire and 
     flood damage, re-planting to prevent erosion, and fencing off 
     wetlands to prevent illegal dumping.
       Restored or stabilized 27 miles of riverbed and stream 
     banks to improve the habitat of salmon; fenced another 7 
     miles to keep cattle from destroying spawning grounds; 
     repaired three aquaculture tanks with a capacity to rear 
     1,000,000 salmon fry per year.
       Removed 2,000 lbs. of trash from an urban river.
       Monitored water quality in 2 parkland areas.
       Surveyed 5,700 acres of National Forest land as part of 
     reforestation programs to monitor reforestation efforts; 
     conducted biological inventories on 12,000 acres of wetland.
       Built, restored, or maintained 311 campsites, 88 miles of 
     parkland trails, 17 bridges, and 1 mile of forest service 
     road.
       Cleaned up storm debris and trash on 3 beaches, protected 
     sand dunes on one beach, and built one wildlife observation 
     platform and 3 duck blinds.
       The AmeriCorps Members improved neighborhoods, parks, and 
     recreation facilities by converting vacant lots, renovating 
     buildings, repairing public facilities, and conducting 
     recycling and conservation programs, resulting in a 
     heightened sense of community ownership. Specific 
     accomplishments include the following:
       Renovated 11 community buildings, including an inner-city 
     medical clinic, community centers, and public schools.
       Converted 29 overgrown lots into green space; built 7 
     community gardens; planted trees along 30 city blocks.
       Cleaned 27 miles of road, restored 1 community reservoir, 
     removed illegally dumped garbage from one community; and 
     unclogged more than 14,000 storm drains.
       Created 4 playgrounds, designed 1 picnic area, and improved 
     safety at 1 scenic overlook. Restored, repaired, or 
     maintained 19 historical landmarks and a traditional tribal 
     longhouse.
       Completed 61 inner-city neighborhood clean-ups--including a 
     city-wide graffiti removal.
       Distributed 1,375 low flush toilets and 1,700 water 
     conserving showerheads in low-income neighborhoods--along 
     with over 1,400 water conservation guides.
       Recycled 920 inefficient toilets and 1,120 inefficient 
     showerheads.
                                                                    ____


                     AmeriCorps Community Partners

       The following is a partial list of national and local 
     volunteer, charitable and service organizations through which 
     AmeriCorps is getting things done in over a thousand 
     communities across the nation.
       4-H, Albany Police Department, American Red Cross, Arctic 
     Village Tribal Council, Arlington Police Department, ASPIRA, 
     Audubon Society, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Big Horn Police 
     Department, Boy Scouts of America, Boys and Girls Clubs, Camp 
     Fire Boys and Girls, Casper Police Department, Catholic 
     Charities, Chambers of Commerce, City of Decatur of Police 
     Department, Clearwater Police Department, Coalition of 100 
     Black Women.
       Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima, Dallas Police 
     Department, D.A.R.E., Ft. Worth Police Department, Girl 
     Scouts of the USA, Girls, Inc., Goodwill Industries, Habitat 
     For Humanity, Hart County Police Department, Head Start 
     Programs, Humane Society, I Have a Dream Foundation, 
     Independent Sector, Indianapolis Police Department, Jewish 
     Family Services, Jubilee Housing, Junior League.
       Kickpoo Tribe, Lincoln County Sheriffs Department, Lions 
     Club, Literacy Volunteers of America, Knick Tribal Council, 
     Meals on Wheels, Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis, 
     Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth and Family Services, Navajo 
     Nations, National AIDS Fund, National Center for Family 
     Literacy.
       National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, National 
     Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, National 
     Council of LaRaza, National Council of Non Profit 
     Associations, National Endowment for the Arts, National 
     Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Organization for Victim 
     Assistance, Neighborhood Green Corps, New York University, 
     NezPerce Tribe, Northeastern University, Ouzinkie Tribal 
     Council, Parents Anonymous, Philadelphia Bar Association, 
     Pinelas Sheriffs Department, Points of Light Foundation.
       Pompano Beach Police, Public Allies, Public Education Fund 
     Network, Rotary Club, Salvation Army, Seattle Police 
     Department, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Sierra Club, St. 
     Petersburg Police Department, Sunflower Girls, Teach for 
     America, Tuntutulkia Traditional Council, United Cerebral 
     Palsey, University of Texas, Austin, United Way of America.
       Urban League, Visiting Nurses Association, Volunteer 
     Centers, Volunteers of America, Westin County Sheriffs 
     Department, YMCA of the USA, YWCA.
       Dozens of colleges and universities, community health 
     centers, police and sheriffs departments, and hundreds of 
     elementary, junior and high schools.
                                                                    ____

                          AmeriCorps Investors

       The following is a partial list of corporate giving 
     programs and corporate, independent and community foundations 
     that are investing in community service organizations that 
     are a part of the AmeriCorps National Service Network:
       Alcoa, AlliedSignal, Allstate, Amelior Foundation, American 
     Airlines, American Express, Ameritech, Anheuser-Bush, ARCO, 
     Arizona Foundation, Arthur Anderson, Bank of Boston, Bank of 
     New Hampshire, Bechtel, BellSouth, Booth Ferris Industries, 
     Boston Foundation.
       British Petroleum, Bullitt Foundation, Burnett-Tandy 
     Foundation, Cabletron Systems, California Community 
     Foundation, Capital Community Foundation, Capitol Cities/ABC, 
     Carnegie Corporation of NY, Amon G. Carter Foundation, 
     Chevron, Citizens Bank, Compaq, Cowell Foundation, Charles A. 
     Dana Foundation.
       Digital Equipment Corporation, Echoing Green Foundation, 
     Enron, Entergy, Fannie Mae, First Deposit National Bank, 
     Fleet Bank, Ford Foundation, The Gap, General Electric, 
     General Mills.
       Grand Rapids Foundation, Greater Cincinnati Foundation, 
     GTE, E. & W. Haas Jr. Foundation, Hall Family Foundations, 
     Healthsource, Hogg Foundation, The Home Depot, Houston 
     Endowment, IBM, JCPenny, J.P. Morgan, James Irvine 
     Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Johnson & 
     Johnson, Kansas City Community Foundation.
       Kauffman Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Key Bank of 
     NY, Knight Foundation, Luce Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, 
     MBNA, McKesson, Meadows Foundation, Mellon Bank, R.K. Mellon 
     Foundation, Microsoft.
       Millipore, Mobil, Monsanto, Morgan Stanley, Charles S. Mott 
     Foundation, NationsBank, NH Charitable Foundation, Nike, 
     NYNEX, Packard Foundation, Panhandle Eastern.
       Patagonia, Pew Charitable Trust, Philip Morris, PNC Bank, 
     Polariod, Prince Charitable Trust, Proctor and Gamble, 
     Providian Bank, Prudential Insurance, Reebok, RI Hospital 
     Trust Bank, Winthrop Rockfeller Foundation, The Rouse 
     Company, Safeco Insurance, Sallie Mae, Joseph E. Seagram & 
     Sons, Shell Oil.
       Skillman Foundation, Sony Corporation of America, Sprint, 
     Steelcase, Surdna Foundation, Tenneco, Texaco, Timberland, 
     Time Warner, Toyota, Union Pacific, United Way of America.
       UPS, U.S. Health Corporation, Waste Management, Western 
     Resources, Lola Wright Foundation, Xerox.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dole-
Daschle amendment No. 577.
  The amendment (No. 577) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 420

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hatfield 
substitute.
  The amendment (No. 420) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote yes on final passage of this 
supplemental Appropriations/Rescission bill, but I do so with 
reservations.
  This bill provides 6.7 billion dollars for disaster assistance, more 
than 70 percent of which will go to California earthquake and flood 
victims. This is an urgent and necessary response to the heartbreaking 
disasters California has faced.
  [[Page S5379]] I regret that Republicans have played politics with 
disaster assistance--for the first time in history--by using it as a 
hook for their agenda to slash programs that benefit children, 
education, working families, and the poor.
  If the Senate were considering the House passed version of this 
legislation, I would vote no, because that is a bad bill for both my 
State and my country.
  But the Senate bill is different in two significant ways:
  First, the Senate Appropriations Committee added back funds in 
critical education and housing programs.
  Second, Senate Democrats were successful on the floor in restoring 
funds for Head Start, Child Nutrition, Safe and Drug Free Schools, 
Housing, and other programs that are so important to the well-being of 
our children.
  So I will vote to send this bill to conference with the House. But I 
reserve the right to vote no on the conference agreement if it comes 
back looking like the mean-spirited House bill. I cannot support any 
bill that does not maintain funds for our children at the Senate-passed 
level or higher.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to finish 
consideration of a Rescissions bill that reduces the Operation and 
Maintenance Account of the Bureau of Reclamation by $10 million. This 
amount is identical to the sum rescinded by the House, and I support 
it. As the former Chairman and current ranking member of the 
Subcommittee with authorizing jurisdiction over the Bureau, I have seen 
opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce spending. I have 
no doubt that this cut can be absorbed, given the streamlining that is 
now occurring within the Bureau.
  I note, however, that the Senate has wisely avoided commenting on 
particular operations. This has two benefits. First, it gives the 
Bureau the flexibility to deal with this cut in the most effective and 
appropriate manner. It won't be easy to cut this account, given that 
the fiscal year is half over. The project managers need to be creative 
and do not need legislative handcuffs.
  Second, the House report suggests that one way to balance this 
account is to stop a study of the San Joaquin River that was 
established in law through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 
This language is notably absent from the Senate report.
  As the author of this landmark CVPIA law, I am surprised at the House 
report language. This San Joaquin study is specifically ordered in this 
public law and, in fact, has a statutory deadline for action by the 
Bureau. Clearly, this statute is unaffected by any Committee Report 
language, and the law remains binding on the Bureau.
  Additionally, I am puzzled by this suggested target, since cutting 
the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, either directly or through 
report language if possible, would not save the taxpayer any money. 
Indeed, the study is not even funded out of the Bureau's Operating 
Account! The Plan was established in the statute and financed through a 
surcharge on the sales of water from the Central Valley Project. In 
fact, if these funds are not spent on this Plan, the law still requires 
that the full amount be spent on other fish and wildlife restoration 
efforts. There can be and will be no deficit reduction from stopping 
this Plan.
  Mr. President, in summary, I'm pleased with the Senate action. 
Spending cuts will occur, as agreed with the House. And the San Joaquin 
study will continue, as specifically directed in public law. The 
restoration of the San Joaquin River would bring benefits throughout 
California. We need to know if this restoration can occur and how it 
would be achieved.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will vote for this rescission bill 
because I believe it will greatly benefit the citizens of Michigan by 
reducing the burden of Government spending and deficits on the economy. 
Each dollar that Washington does not spend on Government programs means 
$1 more than Americans can spend for their families.
  While I did fight to restore funding for a few specific programs 
slated for rescission because of their critical importance to 
Michigan--such things as the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance 
Program and the Center for Ecology Research and Training slated to be 
located in Bay City, MI--I do believe that this rescission package is a 
win for the people of Michigan because it is the first down-payment 
toward reducing the size and scope of Government.
  Specifically, this bill will reduce Government spending by $15 
billion. That represents a reduction of 1 percent of the entire Federal 
budget of $1.5 trillion this year--hardly a draconian reduction in 
Government spending as some special interest groups have claimed.
  Nonetheless, these spending reductions are crucial to our Nation, and 
to Michigan in particular. This bill will help my State by reducing the 
deficit, freeing up economic resources for the economy, and job 
creation in particular. Moreover, American taxpayers send 25% of their 
paychecks to Washington.
  Furthermore, it is clear that we need to take immediate action to 
reduce Government spending because projected deficits are getting 
larger, not smaller, under President Clinton's budget policies.
  Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Clinton's budget policies 
have had almost nothing to do with the slight improvement in the size 
of the budget deficit that has occurred in recent years. According to 
the CATO Institute, almost all of the deficit reduction since 1992 is 
attributable to three main factors: No. 1, the one-time sale of assets 
and properties acquired by the Federal Government during the savings 
and loan bailout of the late 1980's--which alone has accounted for 
about $75 billion in deficit reduction in recent years; No. 2, 
reductions in defense spending resulting from the end of the cold war; 
and No. 3, the cyclical economic recovery that began well before 
President Clinton took the oath of office.
  Federal spending continues to spiral out of control. Under President 
Clinton, the level of Federal spending as a share of the national 
income is about 23 percent, near historic levels. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, unless we take action to halt 
the growth of Government spending, it will automatically rise from 
$1.531 trillion this year to $2.202 trillion by 2002.
  Under the President's budget plan, deficit spending would continue to 
explode. The CBO reports that the annual deficit will rise from $170 
billion this year to over $200 billion next year and to almost $300 
billion a year over the next 4 years. Under President Clinton's 
policies, $1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the national debt, 
thereby increasing interest payments, crowding out private sector 
investment, and reducing the economic well-being of America's children.
  I am particularly concerned about the budget crisis occurring in the 
Housing and Urban Development's subsidized housing program. The CBO 
projects that the future obligations to renew the expiring section 8 
contracts will add $20 billion to the budget by the year 2000. This $15 
billion rescission package would partially offset these added budget 
costs.
  Mr. President, this rescission package is only a small example of the 
kind of reductions in the growth rate of Government spending that will 
be required to balance the budget. According to the CBO projections, if 
we simply limit annual spending increases to 2.9 percent between now 
and 2002, we can balance the budget. In other words, achieving a 
balanced budget requires not absolute cuts in Government spending, but 
rather reductions in the rate of growth of Government spending.
  Mr. President, the best thing I can do for the citizens of Michigan 
is to reduce the burden of Government and let them keep more of what 
they earn. By reducing the growth rate of Government spending and 
cutting taxes, we can strengthen America's and Michigan's families, 
businesses, and voluntary organizations. This rescission bill is an 
important first step in achieving the electorate's desire for smaller 
Government. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with all the rhetoric spoken over the last 
few days, some of us seem to have forgotten why we are here--to cut 
unnecessary spending. Yes, there will always 
[[Page S5380]] be differences of opinion as to priorities, but the 
fundamental commitment to reassess every Federal program and reduce 
Federal expenditures must be paramount.
  I am pleased the Democratic leader and I have reached agreement, 
supported by our colleagues, that will enable us to help keep our 
promise to the American people. In the amendment, a very limited number 
of programs which Members on both sides of the aisle support, have 
received smaller reductions in their rate of increase. At the same 
time, the amendment also contains a number of items that will result in 
additional savings being achieved. Most important to this Senator, 
overall the amendment will result in additional deficit reduction.
  As a result of this amendment, the package we will send to the 
conference will contain approximately $16 billion in savings. I repeat, 
$16 billion--that's not over 2 years or 5 years, that's this year.
  For all those who supported a balanced budget--rest assured we are 
committed to achieving that goal even if it means making some tough 
choices. Of course, the real hard decisions have yet to be made. And, 
we will not be deterred by the hue and cry of the last few days about 
all the so-called terrible things the Republicans have proposed. This 
bill is certainly progress, but we still have a long way to go. While I 
am pleased we were finally able to reach consensus--I caution everyone 
that the real hard choices are yet to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the 
engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if I could have my colleagues' attention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. It is my understanding there will be no requests for a vote 
on either side on the defense supplemental bill, no request for a vote 
on the contract board, the District of Columbia, no request for a 
record vote on child pornography, and the paperwork simplification 
conference report is done, and other wrap-up material with only minor 
changes in the Constitution.
  But I just say for my colleagues, it will be our intention at 1 
o'clock on Monday, April 24, to begin consideration of H.R. 956, the 
product liability bill, and following disposition of product liability 
it will be my intention to proceed to S. 652, the telecommunications 
bill. Votes could occur during Monday's session of the Senate but will 
not occur prior to the hour of 3 p.m. on Monday, April 24.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How about tonight?
  Mr. DOLE. This will be the last vote until hopefully April 24, after 
3 p.m. There could be votes after 3 p.m. If we should decide in the 
interim there will be no votes, we will try to notify you the earliest 
possible time before you are in the air.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce [Ms. Mikulski] as necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting. [Ms. Mikulski] would 
vote ``nay'',
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the bill (H.R. 1158), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill passed, and 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 that the 
enrolling clerk, in making technical and clerical corrections to the 
bill, may insert all amendments that have been adopted to the committee 
substitute at appropriate places in the Senate amendment to the House 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, request 
a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, 
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ashcroft) 
appointed Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, 
and Mrs. Murray.

                          ____________________