[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7371-S7385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1995--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 1158 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1158) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
     additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of May 16, 1995.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I require.
  Mr. President, the conference report before us reflects the agreement 
of the two Houses on H.R. 1158, a bill making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the additional disaster assistance and making 
rescissions for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes.
  This conference report is a culmination of several weeks of effort on 
a number of different fronts. It represents a balance between our 
responsibility to provide additional funding when necessary to address 
urgent national needs, on the one hand, and our responsibility to 
reduce funding for lower priority programs whenever and wherever we 
can, on the other hand. The Senate's conferees on this measure present 
it to the Senate with a belief that it merits approval of this body, 
and I urge its adoption.
  The bill provides a total of $7,249,503,600 in additional 
appropriations, of which $6,700,000,000, equally divided between fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996, is for FEMA for the disaster relief programs. We 
have fully funded the President's request in this regard, and we concur 
with his designation of this funding as an emergency requirement.
  We also agree with the President's request for additional emergency 
appropriations in response to the Oklahoma City tragedy and have 
provided $183,798,000 for that purpose.
  Finally, we are recommending $365,705,600 in nonemergency 
supplementals for fiscal year 1995. That latter figure includes $275 
million in debt relief for Jordan as requested by the President and 
endorsed by the joint leadership of the Senate.
  In addition, the conferees reached agreement on rescissions of budget 
authority and other funding limitations totaling $16,413,932,975, and 
those reductions have been the focus of the debate throughout the 
consideration of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the 
supplementals and rescissions recommended in the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                             H.R. 1158, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSION BILL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                           Conference vs.--                     
                                                          President's                                                                -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                            request         House allowance    Senate allowance       Conference          President's                                           
                                                                                                                                            request         House allowance    Senate allowance 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTALS AND RESCISSIONS                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Emergency supplementals:                                                                                                                                                                        
    FEMA disaster relief, 1995......................       6,700,000,000       5,360,000,000       1,900,000,000       3,350,000,000      -3,350,000,000      -2,010,000,000       1,450,000,000
    FEMA disaster relief, 1996 advance..............  ..................  ..................       4,800,000,000       3,350,000,000       3,350,000,000       3,350,000,000      -1,450,000,000
    Other emergency supplementals...................         718,297,000          28,297,000  ..................  ..................        -718,297,000         -28,297,000  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, emergency supplements...............       7,418,297,000       5,388,297,000       6,700,000,000       6,700,000,000        -718,297,000       1,311,703,000  ..................
Other supplementals.................................         434,672,000          85,471,600         306,915,600         365,705,600         -68,966,400         280,234,000          58,790,000
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, supplementals.......................       7,852,969,000       5,473,768,600       7,006,915,600       7,065,705,600        -787,263,400       1,591,937,000          58,790,000
Rescissions.........................................      -1,536,623,805     -17,187,861,839     -15,144,481,050     -16,247,831,476     -14,711,207,671         940,030,363      -1,103,350,426
Reductions in limitations on obligations............  ..................        -201,791,000        -279,166,000        -166,101,500        -166,101,500          35,689,500         113,064,500
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page S7372]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
    Rescissions and other reductions................      -1,536,623,805     -17,389,652,839     -15,423,647,050     -16,413,932,976     -14,877,309,171         975,719,863        -990,285,926
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total title I.................................       6,316,345,195     -11,714,093,239      -8,137,565,450      -9,182,125,876     -15,498,471,071       2,531,967,363      -1,044,560,426
            TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Travel and administrative reduction.................  ..................  ..................        -342,500,000  ..................  ..................  ..................         342,500,000
Forest Service timber sales.........................  ..................         -31,169,000         -31,169,000         -31,169,000         -31,169,000  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total title II................................  ..................         -31,169,000        -373,669,000         -31,169,000         -31,169,000  ..................  ..................
     TITLE III--ANTITERRORISM AND OKLAHOMA CITY                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
      Total title III...............................         116,037,000  ..................  ..................         183,798,000          67,761,000         183,798,000         183,798,000
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Bill total, budget authority..................       6,432,382,195     -11,745,262,239      -8,511,234,450      -9,029,496,876     -15,461,879,071       2,715,765,363        -518,262,426
    Reductions in limitations on obligations........  ..................        -201,791,000        -279,166,000        -166,101,500        -166,101,500          35,689,500         113,064,500
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bill total, budget resources..................       6,432,382,195     -11,947,053,239      -8,790,400,450      -9,195,598,376     -15,627,980,571       2,751,454,863        -405,197,926
Note.--Rescissions and other reductions:                                                                                                                                                        
    Rescissions.....................................      -1,536,623,805     -17,187,861,839     -15,144,481,050     -16,247,831,476     -13,607,857,245       2,043,380,789      -1,103,350,426
    Travel and administrative rescission............  ..................  ..................        -342,500,000  ..................        -342,500,000        -342,500,000         342,500,000
    Reductions in limitations on obligations........  ..................        -201,791,000        -279,166,000        -166,101,500        -279,166,000         -77,375,000         113,064,500
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total reductions..............................      -1,536,623,805     -17,389,652,839     -15,766,147,050     -16,413,932,976     -14,229,523,245       1,623,505,789        -647,785,926
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe this is a good bill. I believe 
we should pass it, and I believe the President of the United States 
should sign it into law. I know that the President's administration has 
objections to the final outcome reached by the conferees. But I hope 
the President will realize the conferees addressed many of his most 
pressing concerns, and we tried as best we could to reach an 
accommodation of his interests. The so-called striker replacement 
language which the administration indicated was the sole provision--I 
emphasize the sole provision--that would prompt a Presidential veto on 
its own was dropped. That was in a letter addressed to me as the 
chairman of the committee signed by Alice Rivlin, the Director of OMB.
  I wish to reiterate. In all of the period of this bill's 
consideration, there was only one communication from the White House 
that indicated there was a proviso in the bill that would elicit a veto 
response from the President. I think that is very important to 
understand. And during that 2 months of the consideration of this bill 
and for the week and a half practically that we were in conference, the 
only other communications were verbal communications indicating 
categories of disappointment, and that is all I can call them. There 
were no specifics that were given to us. Account-by-account categories 
of disappointment that we had failed to reach the President's funding 
request levels in a number of education matters, and so forth, but they 
were general.
  I wish to emphasize also that there were many days in which there was 
more than one encounter with Presidential representatives from the 
White House and not once did I, as the chairman of the committee, 
receive any kind of counsel requests that would indicate we had to 
comply with certain requirements of the White House in order to get a 
signature. There was always the striker replacement and categories of 
what I call disappointment.
  On any number of funding issues, we moved more than halfway toward 
the administration's priorities as they were known to us.
  I would like to also indicate, having served on this committee over a 
number of years, this is the first administration that has not hovered 
in the appropriations process, hovered day by day, hour by hour, making 
known specifics, their requests, and what they considered to be the 
requirements of a compatible bill between the Congress and the 
President.
  In the past 2 days, we have seen indications that the President 
intends to veto this legislation. I suppose I should say that there 
have been more than indications since the President himself said as 
much in public remarks yesterday.
  I am very, very disappointed by that. I want very much to see this 
bill enacted. It is not the bill in all its particulars that I 
personally would craft if I were acting alone, but it is a most 
significant step in the direction of a balanced budget which we all, 
the President included, have endorsed as a common goal.
  Our conference agreement would achieve an estimated $3 billion in 
fiscal year 1996 outlays which may be a drop in the bucket compared to 
the enormity of the task ahead but is a good start, and get started we 
must.
  So I hope the President will reconsider and will sign this bill, 
assuming that we pass this report. And if he chooses to veto it, he 
will miss a great opportunity. Other opportunities may lie ahead, and I 
have always been ready to work with this or any other administration to 
seize those opportunities as they arise. But I hope the President, and 
his many advisors, will remember that the legislative exercise, 
particularly in matters of the budget, is an exercise in give and take 
and neither side can expect to have things entirely their own way.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve 
the remainder of my time for Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference agreement on H.R. 1158 is the 
product of lengthy and difficult negotiations with the House conferees. 
The agreement we reached was the best we could do, under the 
circumstances.
  The President has expressed his dissatisfaction, and has indicated 
his intent to veto the measure when it reaches his desk. Despite the 
misgivings of some, I want to remind the Members of the time-sensitive 
and emergency nature of some of the items included in the bill.
  The conference agreement includes the full $6.7 billion request for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, disaster relief efforts. 
These funds are to be used to finance the relief costs associated with 
the Northridge earthquake, as well as to address declared disasters 
resulting from floods and storms throughout some 40 States, including 
the most recent, extraordinary rains and hail which occurred in 
Louisiana and some other States. These funds are needed in the next 
several weeks, or FEMA will run out of funds to assist in these 
disasters.
  With regard to the administration's request for emergency 
supplemental appropriations in the wake of the tragedy in Oklahoma 
City, the conferees provided approximately $250 million for anti-
terrorism initiatives and Oklahoma City recovery efforts. This included 
substantial increases above the President's request for the FBI, the 
Department of Justice, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Judiciary. Included in this amount is 
$67 million to meet the special needs of the General Services 
Administration created by the April 19, 1995, terrorist bombing attack 
at the Murrah Federal Building.
  With regard to the striker replacement issue, the Senate bill struck 
a provision which was included in the House bill and which would have 
prohibited the use of any funds in any appropriations act for fiscal 
year 1995 to [[Page S7373]] issue, administer or enforce any Executive 
order that prohibited Federal contracts with companies that hire 
permanent replacements for striking employees. The conference agreement 
deletes that provision.
  The conferees adopted a provision which I authored and which passed 
the Senate by a vote of 99 yeas to 0 nays. This provision will assure 
that the net savings in this bill, in the amount of approximately $9 
billion, will be applied to deficit reduction only.
  Members will recall that under the Daschle/Dole joint leadership 
amendment, which was adopted when the measure was before the Senate, 
approximately $835 million was restored for various programs which 
assist children and improve education programs. Among those funds added 
back by the joint leadership amendment were a number of Presidential 
and congressional priorities, such as AmeriCorps, WIC, summer jobs, 
school-to-work, and Chapter 1. Despite numerous meetings and the strong 
efforts of the Senate conferees, the House conferees were adamant, and 
the Senate was not able to sustain many of the priority addbacks in 
conference. For example, of the $35 million in the WIC restoration in 
the Senate, the conferees agreed to restore $15 million. With regard to 
Chapter 1 funding for the education of the disadvantaged, the Senate 
was successful in preventing any funds from being rescinded. The House 
had proposed rescinding $140.3 million and the conference agreement 
fully restored these funds. The conferees also fully restored the 
House-proposed rescission of $16.3 million for impact aid. Overall, for 
the programs of the Department of Education, the House had proposed 
rescinding $1.6 billion, the Senate had restored $1.3 billion, and the 
conferees agreed to rescind approximately $800 million. In other words, 
the conferees restored about $800 million or one-half of the education 
cuts proposed by the House. However, this still fell short, by about 
$500 million, of the Senate level of restorations in the education 
area.
  Members may also be encouraged to know that the Senate position 
prevailed in conference with regard to the 1995 Summer Youth Program. 
The full cut of $867 million, as proposed by the House, was restored. 
The conferees did, however, rescind all funding for next summer's 
program, although this issue can be revisited during the processing of 
the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference agreement now before the 
Senate provides important disaster relief and antiterrorism funding. 
The objectionable provision relating to striker replacements is 
deleted. The savings in the bill of about $9 billion will be applied to 
deficit reduction. Unfortunately, there are still substantial cuts in 
priority programs affecting children and improving education. The 
Senate conferees struggled to support the Senate positions, but, 
through the give-and-take of the conference process, were unable to 
sustain all Senate positions. Nevertheless, the rescissions agreed to 
in conference are more reasonable and responsible, in large part, than 
were contained in the original version of the House bill.
  Consequently, I urge the adoption of the conference report. If the 
conference report is adopted by the Senate and the bill is vetoed when 
it reaches the President's desk, and if the veto is sustained, it 
remains to be seen if the Congress, in subsequent legislation, will be 
able to do any better in the areas of concern to the President.
  Mr. President, in closing, I compliment the chairman, Senator 
Hatfield, for his leadership in bringing this legislation through the 
conference. I also compliment all of the Senate and House conferees. 
They worked hard and they worked diligently to resolve the issues in 
conference. Although I would have favored other outcomes in conference, 
I must commend the House conferees, under the leadership of their 
chairman, Mr. Livingston, and their ranking minority member, Mr. Obey, 
for their fairness and cordiality. I think it is a good agreement and I 
intend to vote for it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this bill passed the Senate on a totally 
bipartisan vote of 99-0. I voted for it, along with every one of our 
Democratic colleagues.
  I had hoped I could vote for this conference report, especially given 
the hard work that the chairman, ranking member, and every other member 
of the committee put into the compromise that passed in the Senate.
  I particularly want to thank the ranking member for his efforts in 
bringing the bill to the point that we had it prior to the time it went 
to conference. And I would like to thank him as well for his efforts in 
the conference. Without his tireless effort, this conference report 
would lack even more than it does of the characteristics of the 
agreement we reached with the majority leader. I know that the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member, did 
everything in his power to preserve that agreement.
  Unfortunately, despite those efforts, some key changes were made in 
conference at the behest of many of our Republican colleagues.
  As a result, I am unable to support this conference report today, and 
the President is absolutely right to insist that these changes be 
reversed. If they are not, the President, in my view, is right to veto 
the bill.
  This is a different bill than the one we supported when it passed the 
Senate. The bipartisan compromise we reached with the majority leader 
made it a bill that we could support and the President could sign. 
Unfortunately, in conference, that deal was undone. The priorities were 
changed.
  This is not a fight about deficit reduction. It is a fight about 
priorities. We all agree and have voted to cut over $16 billion as this 
bill proposes. We simply disagree about where the cuts ought to be 
made.
  The bipartisan deal we reached actually cut spending in the bill by 
$812 million. The Dole-Daschle amendment restored $835 million for 
investments in children and education. It paid for these investments 
with $1.65 billion in additional cuts in lower priority programs.
  The deal cut spending by twice as much money as it added back for 
children and education. Yet, the programs for which we restored $835 
million were cut $685 million in conference below the amount provided 
in the Senate bill. In other words, 80 percent of the funds for 
programs we restored were dropped in conference.
  Those cuts, while a small part of the overall bill, betrayed the 
agreement that we had in the Senate. Worse, in my view, they undermined 
our highest priority: America's children and their families.
  The programs shortchanged by the conference agreement include child 
care, education, Safe and Drug Free Schools, child nutrition, and the 
President's national service program. As a result:
  Fifteen thousand fewer adults will serve their communities and earn 
money for education as AmeriCorps members;
  Two thousand fewer schools in 47 States will receive funds for 
comprehensive reforms that can boost academic standards;
  Several thousand young people would lose the opportunity to 
participate in apprenticeships in the School-to-Work Program;
  Nearly 20 million students and nearly 90 percent of all schools would 
lose the benefits of antiviolence and drug prevention programs.
  We simply cannot accept this effort to undermine a bipartisan 
agreement we made to protect our investments in children and education. 
At the same time, we have no debate with the bulk of the provisions in 
this bill. We accept and have voted for the same level of cuts 
contained in it.
  We would prefer to have a rescissions package that we can all 
support. Disaster funding for FEMA, the President's antiterrorism 
initiative, and the costs arising from the Oklahoma City bombing should 
not be held hostage because certain Members insist on cutting funds for 
children's programs.
  It is not too late. There is still time for us to accommodate many of 
these concerns, and I hope in the coming days that discussion and 
perhaps resulting negotiations can bring about a better result.
  If this bill is vetoed, we should quickly revisit the issue and make 
the changes that can allow us to support [[Page S7374]] and the 
President to sign a better bill. We are going to have to put the pieces 
back together in some form that accommodates our concerns, but also 
addresses the bipartisan concern about the need for $16 billion in 
overall rescissions. Whether it is done before or after, it must be 
done. Many of us prefer it be done before. But if it is done after, let 
us get on with it, let us do it, let us do our job and do it right.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from 
Arizona, I will be relatively brief, probably within 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
his fine work. In many ways, I look to him as a teacher, especially 
when it comes to understanding this process and also when it comes to 
wedding integrity with politics. I thank him.
  I rise, however, in disagreement with two Senators for whom I have a 
tremendous amount of respect, because I hold the Senator from Oregon in 
the same high regard, in the highest regard.
  Mr. President, while I supported many of the cuts provided for in 
this bill, I really believe that what happened in conference committee, 
as the minority leader pointed out, really violates a basic standard of 
fairness. For example, I brought an amendment to the floor which put 
the Senate on record that we will take no action that would increase 
hunger or homelessness among children. The distinguished Senator from 
Oregon accepted that amendment as a part of this rescissions package 
that then went to conference committee. The amendment was dropped in 
conference.
  I understand why it was dropped, that we were simply expressing the 
sense of the Senate, and not the sense of the House of Representatives, 
too. But I also realize, based upon the cuts in this rescissions bill 
and based upon some of the votes that we have cast today, that it is 
going to be very important for me and other like-minded colleagues to 
work hard to make sure that we, in fact, will not take such action in 
the months to come as we move through this budget process.
 Mr. President, I think that is exactly what we are doing.

  Frankly, I was never quite sure of that bill we passed in the Senate. 
I worked about 12 or 15 hours. So did other Senators, right before the 
final vote which must have been about 10 p.m. that night, to restore 
certain funding for key programs.
  I felt proud at that point, because while it was not all that I 
wanted, it moved us in the right direction. And when I got up in the 
middle of the night about 3 a.m. that night, I started thinking maybe I 
should not even have voted for that package. It was a close call. We 
have a lot of close calls, and we make our best decisions.
  However, I felt good about some of the work many Members had done 
together. We restored some of the funding for WIC, Women, Infants and 
Children Program, restored funding for child care. There was a 
counseling program for seniors, to make sure that they did not get 
ripped off, as all too often happens when it comes to some of the 
supplemental Medicare coverage. We worked hard to restore funding in 
Medstart, safe and drug-free schools, School to Work initiatives.
  In any case, Mr. President, I felt like we had done a good job of 
restoring some funding for programs that are not bureaucratic, but that 
makes a very important difference to a lot of young people in our 
country, especially children at risk.
  Mr. President, now what has happened is that more than 80 percent of 
the funds that we restored, most of that funding for the most 
vulnerable citizens in this country--children--have now been cut again. 
Of the $835 million we restored, $685 million was dropped in the final 
package.
  Mr. President, I believe that this rescissions packages just simply 
does not meet a basic standard of fairness. So many kids are in trouble 
in our country, and we have to be willing to reach out and invest in 
them, reach out and provide support for them.
  Not support that reinforces dependency, but support that is important 
to kids, that broadens their opportunities. Starting with making sure 
that a woman who is expecting a child has a decent diet. Making sure 
that a newborn infant has a decent diet. What are we doing cutting the 
Women, Infant, and Children Program? It is an unqualified success.
  Mr. President, there were never any cuts in the Pentagon budget. None 
of the big military contractors was asked to sacrifice at all.
  I think this rescissions package asks the very citizens who cannot 
tighten their belts, to tighten their belts. Especially children in our 
country. Especially low-income children, minority children.
  And it is for that reason I believe the President of the United 
States is absolutely right when he says we should make some changes in 
this bill, or he will veto it. And they don't have to be wholesale 
changes, relative to the amount of funds in the whole bill. There are 
parts of this rescissions package I want to support. So do my 
colleagues. But when it comes to the disproportionate cuts that affect 
the most vulnerable citizens in this country, starting with children, 
it just simply is wrong. And the President of the United States of 
America is absolutely right to draw the line. To say, ``I am not going 
to be a party to or agree to a package of cuts that basically focus on 
those citizens who do not give the big bucks, who did not have the 
political power. These are just cuts based upon the path of least 
political resistance, and I won't be a party to them.''
  And let me observe one more thing about the President's role in all 
these negotiations on this bill. It has been implied on the floor here 
today that the administration did not provide its full views on the 
rescission bill as it moved through the conference committee process. 
That is simply not true. I understand the administration provided its 
specific objections to the bill at each stage of its development, 
including a letter to the conferees on April 28. These objections are 
printed in the Congressional Record of May 18, 1995 on pages H5339 
through H5352. I commend this letter to my colleagues' attention.
  Mr. President, let me finally say one more thing about this bill. I 
do not know that there is another Senator who has been more of a leader 
on issues that affect people in Indian country than Senator McCain, and 
so I say this conscious of his important role.
  In many Indian communities there is no running water, sanitation 
facilities or indoor plumbing. Mr. President, 40 percent of the 
American Indian population live in substandard housing, in substandard 
housing conditions, in deplorable conditions.
  Yet we are now poised to wipe out $80 million that was duly 
appropriated last Congress, which could really make a difference in 
providing some affordable low-income housing. Mr. President, I cannot 
stand by in silence, while the Senate prepares to pass legislation 
which I think would have devastating effects on our first American 
citizens.
  Mr. President, as I review overall this rescissions package, I just 
think that we can do better. What has come back from the conference in 
the form of this conference report includes many of the cuts we 
restored for nutrition programs, safe and drug free schools, safe 
housing for children, child care, School to Work, AmeriCorps, 8 percent 
of that, has now been cut again.
  I speak tonight to express support for the President's decision but, 
more importantly, to support some of the most important citizens in my 
State and in this country, and that is young people. Some of the kids 
who are having the most difficult time are the very kids we ought to be 
supporting right now.
  We can do much better. I think we will do much better. But only if we 
stand strong and only if the President remains firm in his commitment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not intend to take the full 30 
minutes as I have under the unanimous consent agreement, and also I 
would like to yield some of the time to the Senator from Pennsylvania. 
Also, if necessary, I would be glad to yield some of the time to my 
colleague from Iowa or the Senator from Mississippi in response to some 
of the concerns that I have.
  First let me applaud the Appropriations Committee for doing an 
admirable job and resisting earmarks and [[Page S7375]] other 
unnecessary spending, and I especially want to thank Chairman Hatfield, 
Senator Byrd, Chairman Livingston, and other members of the committee.
  I also disagree with the President for stating that he intends to 
veto this bill. Certainly, the bill is not perfect, but it does, I 
think, contribute to our efforts to reduce unnecessary spending.
  There are several aspects of this bill that I have concerns about 
and, very frankly, Mr. President, when the President says there is pork 
barrel spending in the bill, I am sorry to say that I also have reached 
that conclusion.
  I just want to mention several aspects of the bill, and I would be 
glad to hear a response either from the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi, from West Virginia, or the Senator from Iowa, if he so 
chooses.
  To begin with, there are several portions of the bill where money was 
added--added--in, and projects created without being in either 
rescission bill before it went to conference.
  Again, Mr. President, I find this practice unacceptable. I find it a 
deprivation of my rights as a Senator to vote and debate on 
authorization and appropriation, and that is why I would continue to 
raise especially these items that are put in conference without 
consultation with the rest of the Senate or even, very frankly, having 
been debated or discussed in the formulation of the bill on both sides.
  One, the bill's text says:
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-330 and other Acts, $1,400,000 are rescinded; 
     Provided that of balances available within this account, 
     $12,678,000 shall be available for a grant to Iowa State 
     University for the construction of the National Swine 
     Research Center.

  And the manager's statement says:

       The House bill proposed rescinding $12,678,000 from amounts 
     appropriated for the National Swine Research Facility in 
     Ames, Iowa. The conference agreement provides that the 
     $12,678,000 for the National Swine Research Facility be 
     provided as a grant to Iowa State University to construct 
     that facility at Ames, Iowa. The conferees direct the 
     Agricultural Research Service to convey ownership to Iowa 
     State University. The conferees are aware of the interest and 
     need for important swine research; however, financial 
     constraints require difficult choices. The conferees expect 
     that any future cost of operation associated with that 
     facility be provided by sources other than the federal 
     government.

  By the way, I noted that just last month the President of the United 
States went to Iowa and expressed his strong support for spending $13 
million for a 13th Federal swine research center.
  What I do not understand here is, first, why does this action have to 
be taken in a conference that is on a rescission bill? That is No. 1. 
No. 2, why should it be given to Iowa State University? Are there other 
universities in the country that are qualified? Was there any 
competition? Was there any estimate made of the cost? Or did we just 
decide that $12,678,000 should be given to build a facility at Iowa 
State University? There may be very legitimate answers to these 
questions, but none of them have been discussed or debated by the 
entire U.S. Senate.
  There are several more, but two especially. One concerns Clear Lake 
Development Facility.

       The conferees agree to include an administrative provision 
     which will enable the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to exercise an option to purchase the Clear 
     Lake Development Facility, as modified for use as a Neutral 
     Buoyancy Laboratory. The facility is currently being leased 
     by NASA. It is the intention of the conferees that the cost 
     of the facility as modified by the current owner (or 
     contractor) and delivered completely modified to NASA, will 
     be no more than $35,000,000.

  The bill text says:

       Sec. 1008. The Administrator shall acquire, for no more 
     than $35,000,000 a certain parcel of land, together with 
     existing facilities, located on the site of the property 
     referred to as the Clear Lake Development Facility, Clear 
     Lake, Texas. The land and facilities in question comprise 
     approximately 13 acres and include a light Manufacturing 
     Facility, an Avionics Development Facility and an Assembly 
     and Test Building which shall be modified for use as a 
     Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in support of human space flight 
     activities.

  This provision, which is in the bill text, and the report language 
was not in either the House or the Senate bills as passed by each body. 
Have there been hearings on this matter? The President's budget request 
does not contain request for this purchase.
  It is my understanding that NASA must now, should this act become 
law, purchase this one certain parcel of land. What if there were other 
facilities that could be bought more inexpensively?
  Does NASA need the facilities described in the bill text?
  Why is NASA purchasing building facilities that it is then directed 
to convert into a buoyancy lab?
  Does NASA have any need for these additional buildings?
  It is my understanding that McDonnel-Douglas currently owns this 
facility. What is the fair market value of this facility? Have NASA and 
McDonnel-Douglas been negotiating this sale?
  Could not this purchase wait for the normal authorization and 
appropriation process to occur?
  It seems to me if we are going to make a purchase of $35 million from 
a private corporation of a piece of land it should not appear suddenly 
in the conference report of a rescission bill. As I say there may be 
perfectly legitimate reason to do so, but this is no way to legislate.
  The next one, of course, that I find very unusual is:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
     shall convey, without reimbursement, to the State of 
     Mississippi, all rights, title and interest of the United 
     States in the property known as the Yellow Creek Facility and 
     consisting of approximately 1,200 acres near the city of 
     Iuka, Mississippi, including all improvements thereon and 
     also including any personal property owned at NASA that is 
     currently located on-site and which the State of Mississippi 
     to facilitate the transfer: Provided, that appropriated funds 
     shall be used to effect this conveyance; Provided further, 
     that $10,000,000 in appropriated funds otherwise available to 
     NASA shall be transferred to the State of Mississippi to be 
     used in the transition of the facility; Provided further, 
     that each federal agency with prior contact to the site shall 
     remain responsible for any and all environmental remediation 
     made necessary as a result of its activities on the site * * 
     *

  The Manager's statement says:

       Yellow Creek Facility, Mississippi--The federal government 
     has a long history of involvement in Yellow Creek, located 
     near Iuka, Mississippi. The site, originally purchased by the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority for use as a nuclear energy plant, 
     was subsequently transferred to NASA after the nuclear energy 
     plant's cancellation. NASA intended to use Yellow Creek to 
     build the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) and, after its 
     cancellation, instead committed to use the site to build 
     nozzles for the Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM). On May 
     2, 1995, due to its current budgetary constraints, NASA 
     terminated the RSRM nozzle production effort at Yellow Creek. 
     The bill language included by the conferees on the transfer 
     of the NASA Yellow Creek facility reflects the most recent 
     commitment made by the NASA Administrator to the Governor of 
     the State of Mississippi. The major investment by the State 
     of Mississippi in facilities and infrastructure to support 
     Yellow Creek, in excess of $100,000,000 is a key to factor in 
     NASA's agreement to turn the site over to the State of 
     Mississippi. The main elements of the agreement reached 
     between NASA and the State of Mississippi, which the 
     conferees expect to be adhered to by the two parties, are as 
     follows; The Yellow Creek facility will be turned over to the 
     appropriate agency of the State of Mississippi within 30 days 
     of enactment of this Act. All of the NASA property on Yellow 
     Creek which the State of Mississippi requires to facilitate 
     the transfer of the site transfers within the site to the 
     State, subject to the following exceptions * * *

  And those exceptions are interesting, to say the least. But, also, 
and the final paragraph is also interesting:

       Within thirty days of enactment of this Act, $10,000,000 
     will be transferred from NASA to the appropriate agency of 
     the State of Mississippi. The site's environmental permits 
     will become the property of the State of Mississippi. NASA 
     will provide all necessary assistance in transferring these 
     permits to the State of Mississippi.
  Again, Mr. President, this is a rescission bill. This provision was 
contained in neither the House nor the Senate bills nor accompanying 
reports. Again, this language is not in the President's budget.
  Why are we forcing NASA to buy one parcel of land while we are 
forcing it to give another away at no cost? If NASA has been working 
with the State of Mississippi on this matter, why was this provision 
not included in the rescission bill when that measure was before the 
Senate? Is there some emergency, some reason why we are transferring 
this land to the State of Mississippi in this bill without waiting for 
[[Page S7376]] NASA reauthorization and appropriations bills?
  Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this bill which 
I will make part of the Record as part of my statement. But here is the 
problem again.
  The problem is that we have authorization bills on which many issues 
are silent, like these two I just went over. Then we have an 
appropriations process here on the floor of the Senate where we are 
silent on these two major projects totaling well over $70 million here.
  And then out of the conference into the report, where no Member of 
this body can make any changes to it, appear these appropriations for 
as much as $50 or $60 million in this case. It deprives the Members of 
the Senate of the ability to debate and discuss issues and the 
expenditure of their taxpayers' dollars.
  Especially egregious is when it is on a rescission bill. This is not 
a spending bill. This is a rescission bill. So instead of cutting 
funding we are adding money.
  Mr. President, as I say, there are probably good and valid and 
legitimate reasons for these areas and others I will highlight in the 
formal part of my statement. But I can assure you, there is no argument 
that can be made that this process is correct because it does not allow 
the Members of this body, who were duly elected but were not members of 
the conference on appropriations with the other body to have any input 
whatsoever into these decisions. We deserve that. And it is our 
obligation, since it is our taxpayers' dollars being expended, to be a 
part of that.
  I hope this process will stop. I hope this process will stop. We are 
about to begin the appropriations cycle of some 12 or 13 bills.
  I intend, I say to my colleagues, to continue to do everything in my 
power to stop this practice and return to the practices that we should 
follow in the U.S. Senate, which are hearings, authorization, 
appropriation, conference, and final signing of the bill by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 5 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will yield at the appropriate time, when 
he is ready, 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, of my time 
remaining.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from 
Arizona for yielding. I appreciate his comments. It is gratifying to 
know the Senator, not only on this bill but many other bills that come 
through here, is dogged in his determination to ferret out 
inappropriate things that are put in bills. I appreciate the Senator's 
comments on that and congratulate him on his vigor.
  I wanted to first congratulate the Senator from Oregon, Senator 
Hatfield, and the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, on plain, 
true leadership in this bill through the process. They went into the 
conference and they stood by the Senate positions as best they could. 
They negotiated, I think, a very good bill, a bill that strikes a good 
balance in a variety of different programs. They provided leadership. 
They provided leadership. They stood up, fought for what they believed 
in, and they were able to succeed in coming out with a compromise bill 
that I think will pass overwhelmingly on the Senate floor.
  I am not surprised by the comments of Senator Hatfield. Senator 
Hatfield said that in his entire tenure as a Member of the 
Appropriations Committee--which I am sure spans well over 20 years--
that this was the first conference committee that he has been to where 
the administration had no input, had no one there, was providing no 
guidance, no leadership, no direction as to where to take this 
conference report and how to reduce the budget deficit. Absent, without 
leadership, AWOL again this time on a $16 billion rescissions bill. It 
was not there.
  Now, after Senator Hatfield, Senator Byrd, and Chairman Livingston 
over in the House worked so hard, put together and crafted a compromise 
that they could all live with, the President comes in and waves a white 
flag and, says, ``Oh, no. I do not like this. I know this is bad. Of 
the $16 billion there, is almost $1 billion I do not like. I cannot 
sign it. I wish you would have told me.''
  That is not leadership. That is not taking a very serious problem, 
and the problem is the budget deficit, and doing something proactive 
coming into those conferences and providing direction.
  So now we see the veto threat coming out, that they are going to veto 
this bill that passed the House with bipartisan support, and passed the 
Senate with partisan support, and will now go to the President to be 
buried. It is something that did not have to happen.
  If there is a sad thing about what is going to occur in the next few 
days, it is it did not have to be this way. The reason it is this way 
is because the President refused to lead. But this should come as no 
shock to anyone in this Chamber.
  One of the reasons I am here tonight--and I have been for the past 
several nights--is to talk about the President's lack of leadership 
with respect to the budget resolution. Now, 6 days ago, as I add the 
number 7 to the chart--7 days ago Senator Domenici's Budget Committee 
presented a balanced budget resolution on the floor of the Senate. It 
has been 7 days with no proposal to balance the budget from President 
Clinton now, a week the President has sat on the sidelines. Yesterday 
was day 6, a potentially exciting day because there were reports that 
the President was actually going to come forward with a budget, that he 
said in some radio interview with National Public Radio in New 
Hampshire that he was really going to work on his 10-year budget plan, 
that he thought we could get to a balanced budget in 10 years, and he 
was going to offer something.
  But, again, not with a great amount of surprise, the President came 
out today, and according to the Washington Post:

       Clinton sidestepped questions about whether he was still 
     committed to the time frame he outlined in a weekend radio 
     interview with four New Hampshire reporters * * *

  He said, you know, I think all Americans should be committed to a 
balanced budget.
  That was his new comment that, you know, we should all be for this 
but, of course, he is not going to put anything forward. In fact, 
Michael McCurry, his spokesperson, his press secretary, said:

       Right now, to come forward [with an alternative budget] 
     would be an idle exercise.

  Now I understand. Leadership, according to the White House, is an 
``idle exercise,'' going to conference committee meetings to discuss 
reducing the budget deficit by $16 billion is an ``idle exercise'' that 
is not worth the President's time. Why should he get involved in 
anything such as cutting money or the balanced budget? This is an 
``idle exercise.'' This, for a President who weeks ago had a debate 
with himself as to whether he was relevant to the process here in 
Washington.
  Mr. President, you are answering your own questions by your actions.
  So while he says, ``Well, I am not now putting together a budget 
because it would be an idle exercise to do so,'' we find out from 
senior spokespeople at the White House that the Office of Management 
and Budget is working on a budget. I do not know whether they are not 
telling the President they are working on a budget or the President 
does not want anybody to know he is working on a budget, or whether, 
you know, someone is just leaking it out that they are working on a 
budget so we think they are working on a budget. These are all very 
interesting things that could be going on.
  But the bottom line is that it is 7 days and no budget, no plan; 7 
days, no leadership, no direction, no ideas, walking away from one of 
the greatest and most important moments in the last several decades, 
which is balancing this budget.
  I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. As I said before, I am 
going to come here every day, every day between now and October 1, and 
challenge the President to stop it; please, please stop it. Please stop 
me from coming here and having to put this chart up, having to print up 
more numbers. These get expensive. I do not want to print up more 
numbers.
  So I have to keep adding numbers to the chart here about how many 
days it [[Page S7377]] has been since you have decided not to 
participate in the process.
  Today was an interesting day. It was an interesting day today. We had 
several Democratic Senators come forward with their balanced budget 
proposals. After, I am sure, imploring the Chief Executive Officer of 
the country to propose his budget that balances the budget, they 
decided to venture out on their own and introduce the budget an hour 
before the end of debate on the balanced budget resolution.
  We had 50 hours of debate on the budget, and 1 hour before the 
termination of debate, several Democratic Senators rushed to the floor 
with their idea sketched out--I do not know whether it was on the back 
of the envelope or the front of the envelope--but it was sketched out 
in very vague terms about how they are going to get there. We are going 
to have some tax increases. We knew that. I mean, that was a given. The 
question was, how much? They said $230 billion. The Senator from New 
Hampshire was suggesting maybe it is more like $400 billion, about a 
third of what they want to cut the deficit by.
  They want to do it over 9 years instead of 7. They want to use some 
of our cuts. They want to use some of our savings given by the 
Congressional Budget Office by balancing the budget, none of which has 
been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. They just want to throw 
this together with no specifics, no plan on how to get the $150 billion 
in cuts they want to get out of Medicare, no plan on how they are going 
to restructure any of the programs that they want to cut in domestic 
discretionary or defense spending --no specifics, just some numbers, 
just some tax increases, and just a lot of rhetoric about, you know, we 
are for this too, we want to be relevant, too.
  After sounding somewhat critical, I congratulate them. I congratulate 
them for at least stepping from behind the shadows and moving forward, 
and saying, ``We believe in a balanced budget, too. Here is how we are 
going to get there. We don't believe we should fundamentally 
restructure Government as much as you think we need to do. We need to 
increase taxes some more because the American public does not pay 
enough to run this place. So we need to tax them some more.''
  That is fine, if they believe that. If that is what you believe, then 
come here and defend it.
  I congratulate them for having the courage to come up and defend it. 
I am hoping that when this debate is all--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes allotted to the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from 
Arizona, for his comments regarding various provisions included in the 
conference report of the rescissions bill.
  Let me first reiterate how pleased I am to be working with the 
Senator on a variety of congressional and budget related reforms. He 
and I share a number of common concerns regarding the impact of special 
interests on elected Government, and I was delighted when the Senator 
from Arizona approached me before this session began to see if I would 
be interested in working with him on some of those issues.
  That kind of bipartisan spirit is essential if we are to build 
anything truly meaningful and lasting in the 104th Congress.
  Without that spirit, all that can be done is to advance an agenda 
that is hollow and transitory. Despite the understandably partisan tone 
of the statements often made in the Chamber, I know there are people of 
good will on both sides of the aisle who are willing to try to tackle 
problems together.
  I have often mentioned the Kerrey-Brown deficit reduction package 
that was developed in the last Congress as an example of that kind of 
effort. And I was happy to be a part of that bipartisan effort.
  I think the effort the Senator from Arizona and I are making is 
another such example of bipartisan work.
  There has been some progress made already this year. I was delighted 
that a measure to clean up the emergency appropriations process, which 
the Senator from Arizona and I sponsored, was included in the line-item 
veto measure that passed the Senate, and I very much hope that the 
line-item veto conferees will retain that emergency spending provision. 
And there will be others as well.
  Mr. President, one of the ongoing efforts that the Senator from 
Arizona and I agreed on was to undertake a look at the earmarked items 
in appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona has a long history of 
this already, of certainly some discomfort to some, but I believe it 
has had an impact. Just the knowledge that the Senator from Arizona 
will be asking questions about these kinds of appropriations can be a 
deterrent. I certainly hope this is the case. And I also hope that by 
joining him in this effort on a regular basis, we can discourage even 
more.
  So, Mr. President, that brings me to the rescissions bill. It is 
ironic that legislation intended to take a first step toward a balanced 
budget has become again a vehicle for a number of provisions that I 
think move us in the wrong direction. Not only does the conference 
report specify new spending, for which there is no compelling or 
immediate need, it also contains provisions which restore funding 
beyond the level which passed either House.
  My friend from Arizona mentioned some of these items. We have all 
read about the various earmarked transportation projects, courthouses 
and other building projects that somehow continue to endure. They are 
kind of like cockroaches; no matter what we throw at them or how many 
we kill, some of them still survive.
  Mr. President, there are other programs as well: $12.7 million for a 
National Swine Research Center. It is my understanding that, as I 
believe my friend pointed out, there are already a dozen such centers. 
Do we really need a 13th swine research center? And if we do need a 
13th swine research center, should there not be a competitive process 
to justify where the thing is sited?
  Another one: $1 million allocated to the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery 
Consortium.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that one company is the 
principal beneficiary of this research funding. This has all the 
trappings once again of corporate welfare. I question whether we should 
be dedicating scarce revenues to the kind of applied research for which 
the private benefits clearly exceed the public benefits.
  And then, Mr. President, we find the following provision in section 
1008 of the bill. It says:

       The Administrator shall acquire, for no more than $35 
     million, a certain parcel of land, together with existing 
     facilities, located on the site of the property referred to 
     as the Clear Lake Development Facility, Clear Lake, TX.

  The section goes on to explain that NASA is being directed to buy 
this property to use as a neutral buoyancy laboratory.
  One might well ask, Mr. President, what this provision is doing in a 
bill, the main focus of which is to reduce the deficit.
  But, Mr. President, just when you think you have seen it all, you 
read the very next provision, section 1009, which reads as follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation.* 
     * * NASA shall convey, without reimbursement, to the State of 
     Mississippi, all rights, title and interest of the United 
     States in the property known as the Yellow Creek Facility and 
     consisting of approximately 1,200 acres near the city of 
     Iuka, MS.

  Mr. President, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Further down 
section 1009 we find the following.

       Provided further that $10 million in appropriated funds 
     otherwise available to NASA shall be transferred to the State 
     of Mississippi to be used in the transition of the facility.

  Not only are we giving away this facility, Mr. President, the Federal 
Government is actually throwing in $10 million to sweeten the deal in 
something we call a rescissions bill.
  Mr. President, in two consecutive sessions of the so-called 
rescissions bill, NASA is required to pay $35 million for 13 acres of 
land and facilities in Texas to establish a neutral buoyancy lab and to 
give away 1,200 acres of land and facilities in Mississippi along with 
a bonus of $10 million.
  My back-of-the-envelop arithmetic suggests that Federal taxpayers 
netted out losing $45 million and 1,187 acres from just those two 
sections alone. [[Page S7378]] 
  I am sure someone might be able to provide us with some reasons NASA 
is being required to make these deals, but nothing in this legislation 
before us suggests anything the least bit urgent about them.
  Mr. President, should we be asked to swallow these land deals as part 
of legislation intended to give us a good jump-start at deficit 
reduction and to provide emergency funding for some urgent problems? I 
do not think we should. If there are sound reasons to make these land 
deals, then those who advocate these arrangements should be willing to 
subject them to the scrutiny of the regular appropriations or 
authorization bills. These provisions argue strongly for the reform 
that the Senator from Arizona and I have introduced and that was 
included in the line-item veto measure we passed.
  Mr. President, by establishing a new point of order against adding 
these kinds of nonemergency measures to emergency appropriations bills 
and by prohibiting OMB from adjusting spending caps or otherwise 
relaxing the sequester process for emergency appropriations bills that 
include these extraneous measures, our proposal would limit the ability 
of some to circumvent the normal legislative process as I suggest may 
have occurred here. These provisions also argue for the line-item veto 
measure itself, and I very much hope we can make progress in moving 
that issue along as well.
  I just want to reiterate any thanks to the Senator from Arizona and 
his staff for their continuing vigilance on these issues. There are 
tangible costs to that work, as anyone reviewing the list of projects 
that has been rescinded can divine, but in the end, Mr. President, the 
only way we will end these abuses is for Members to follow the lead of 
the Senator from Arizona and reject these special provisions even when 
it means rejecting a project for one's own State.
  So I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Iowa be allowed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Arizona for the 10 minutes.
  Before I speak to the point that the Senator from Arizona brought up 
about the national swine center, I want to compliment everyone who 
worked on this rescissions bill which rescinds $16 billion of 
expenditures, moving us more quickly to a balanced budget than waiting 
until the beginning of fiscal year 1996 which starts October 1 of this 
year.
  This gives us a 6-month head start on the efforts toward balancing 
the budget. Everybody, Republican and Democrat, involved in this 
process to bring forth this sort of change in the expenditures for our 
present fiscal year is to be complimented and to be considered fiscally 
responsible. I applaud them for that.
  At the same time, I think it is irresponsible for the President to 
take the position he has when there was so much of an effort in the 
Senate to accommodate the White House in the first instance of the 
passage of this legislation.
  I hope the President will change his mind, sign the bill and help 
move us on to a balanced budget much quicker than would otherwise 
happen.
  My good friend from Arizona has raised a lot of issues, on this bill 
and on other bills, that raise the question about the wise expenditure 
of public moneys. I compliment him for doing that. He is a responsible 
watchdog of the taxpayers' money. There are not enough of those in this 
town.
  One of the issues that he raised previously was on the National Swine 
Research Center located at Iowa State University, one of the major 
universities in my State. I want to speak to that point, because I 
think he raised some legitimate questions about it.
  The first question raised was whether or not it was a conferenceable 
item--was it in one of the bills before it went to conference or was it 
amended in conference?
  It was a conferenceable item. Under the rules of the House and Senate 
conference, it was something that could have legitimately been dealt 
with in the conference. It was not something that was added after the 
fact by the conferees in an effort to sneak something through.
  The next question that was legitimately raised was why a swine 
research center and why at Iowa State University?
  I suppose the latter one is the easiest to answer. It is there 
because our State is the leading pork producing State in the Nation. 
And some of the best scientists in animal husbandry are there, some of 
the best researchers. So you put a facility where outstanding people 
are located to do the research when you have a national goal to do 
research in a particular area.
  The whole issue of swine research, the whole issue of agricultural 
research, is not questioned any more as a good public policy of our 
Government. It is something that has been promoted by the Federal 
Government going back to 1862. More specifically, in this century, a 
lot of legislation was passed that has the Federal Government, through 
the Agriculture Research Service, very much involved in agricultural 
research; not to benefit just the farmers, but to make sure that there 
is an adequate supply of food and high-quality food available for 
consumers.
  Why do we have a National Swine Research Center? Well, there was 
careful consideration given to the formation of this. A long time ago, 
a national peer panel recommended the establishment of a Swine Research 
Center. They did it because the needed research was not being conducted 
in any other State or Federal laboratory nationwide. This peer review 
panel made very definite that this program of research not be 
duplicative and they made a determination it would not be duplicative. 
They did that through defining the mission, the mission of the research 
center. That mission is to develop technology to ensure that the U.S. 
pork industry operates as an environmentally sound and efficient animal 
production system.
  In that particular statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
we ought to put emphasis upon environmentally sound as a lead purpose 
of the swine research center in Iowa as opposed to the other swine 
research centers that the Senator from Arizona mentioned in the 
question about why, when you have some, do you need others. We need a 
national swine research center because we have not had adequate 
research in that area and we need it.
  The emphasis, of course, is on the environmental aspects. But also 
like other research centers, the environmental research and 
determinations have something to do with the efficiency of the animal 
production system.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through their directives on this 
particular National Swine Research Center, says that it will help 
maintain and increase the competitiveness and efficiency of U.S. pork 
production and marketing. These are national goals, as well. 
Agriculture is one of those areas of production in America where we are 
most efficient and where we are without a doubt competitive with any 
other country in the world.
  The exports of our agriculture products give us a very positive, 
favorable trade balance in agriculture. Without that positive favorable 
balance in agriculture and in food products we would have yet a bigger 
deficit in our overall trade. So, a research center that is going to 
continue to keep us competitive has a very good overall economic 
benefit to our entire Nation, as we try to keep our trade deficit down.
  Now this compromise before us allows the laboratory of the national 
swine center to be built at a cost of $12,678,000 by the Agriculture 
Research Service.
  Mr. President, we have appropriated these funds in other fiscal years 
for this project, in fiscal year 1992, $1.8 million; fiscal year 1993, 
$1.5 million; fiscal year 1994, $4.5 million; and fiscal year 1995, 
$6.2 million.
  Twelve million dollars completes the project. I am sure that the 
Senator from Arizona would not suggest that we should throw the work 
already done down the drain by not completing this project.
  Now, the legitimate question is asked by the Senator from Arizona 
about why is this project given to Iowa State University. 
[[Page S7379]] 
  The pork industry of the United States of America, probably the 
researchers involved, and Iowa State University, would rather not have 
this given to Iowa State University. Traditionally, this would continue 
to be a Federal facility with the operation costs paid, because it is a 
national research center in cooperation with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, fulfilling a national service.
  A lot of those operational costs over the ensuing years would be paid 
for by the Federal taxpayers. But, it is one of the compromises, in 
order to go ahead and get this facility finished, that Iowa State 
University would assume the operational costs of the laboratory and any 
additional construction costs above that figure. The Agricultural 
Research Service, then, would turn the completed structure over to Iowa 
State University.
  Where continually there would be an ongoing cost every year for 
decades into the future for the operation of this, the answer to the 
Senator from Arizona is it was given to Iowa State University so that 
the Federal taxpayers would not be saddled with the operation of it 
into the future.
  Iowa State University, the National Pork Producers and even the 
Agriculture Research Service will work to make sure that there is no 
duplication of research other places, that there are efficiencies made 
elsewhere at the other facilities for swine research, and to make sure 
that we consolidate Federal swine research activities so there is no 
duplication.
  This was a demand from the chairman, particularly on the House side, 
for us to meet, to satisfy the leaders on the other side of the Hill 
that this would not be an ongoing cost and this would be the end of it 
if they completed it. This was all a general agreement to get this 
activity completed. So it is completed.
  I hope that I have satisfied the Senator from Arizona--without trying 
to discourage him from asking legitimate questions, which he has--that 
the completion of this is necessary so that the $12 million is not 
wasted and, in addition, that this will not be an ongoing cost to the 
taxpayers of the Federal Government. That it was only given in 
ownership to Iowa State University, not just because the Federal 
Government just gives away things willy-nilly, but because Iowa State 
University is accepting the cost of the operation not for only the 
short term but long term.
  I hope that my colleagues see that as a good deal for the taxpayers, 
a good deal for agricultural research, a good deal for the pork 
industry, a good deal for our balance of trade, a good deal to assure 
an adequate supply of quality food to the consumers of America. All of 
these are good public policy; all of these have been followed in a lot 
of areas of agricultural research in the past, maybe even a lot of 
research generally that our National Government conducts.
  So I ask my colleagues to consider these points of view and let this 
facility be completed once and for all.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for 
his very lucid and informative explanation. I regret we have to go 
through this kind of a drill. I think we could probably avoid it in the 
future under different circumstances of authorization and 
appropriations process.
  I also thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator 
Feingold, for all he has done and all he will continue to do. I 
appreciate the opportunity of working with him on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I regret that my friend, the senator from 
Arizona, has chosen once again to criticize funding for the National 
Swine Research Center. He attacks this conference report because it 
does not rescind funding for the center provided in previous measures.
  Let us be clear that the rescissions bill passed by the Senate did 
not include any provisions pertaining to the National Swine Research 
Center. It was only in the measure passed by the House of 
Representatives that funding for the center would have been rescinded. 
So if the senator from Arizona is criticizing the Senate conferees for 
supporting the Senate's position and not receding to the House on this 
point, I believe his criticism is misplaced.
  We debated funding for the center on the floor of the Senate earlier 
this year. My colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and I discussed 
the development of plans for the center, the need for the research that 
it will conduct and the justification for construction of this new 
facility.
  The Agricultural Research Service has stated that the research at the 
Swine Research Center will not be duplicative of other research. There 
is no other facility now equipped to carry out the research that is 
planned for the Center. That research will emphasize odor and water 
quality research. The goal is to help the pork industry improve its 
competitiveness and efficiency in an environmentally sound manner.
  This Center was peer reviewed. It has been identified by ARS as a 
high priority. It is a product of joint planning by ARS, the National 
Pork Producers Council, the Iowa Pork Producers and Iowa State 
University.
  Because agricultural research is so important to our Nation, and 
because pork production is such a large part of our Nation's 
agricultural economy, I believe there is ample justification for using 
Federal funds to construct the National Swine Research Center and to 
support the operation of the center and its research in future years.
  But the House conferees on this bill said that their leadership was 
adamant about not letting the plans for the Swine Research Center go 
forward as originally developed. I strongly disagreed with the position 
of the House conferees, and I worked with them to improve report 
language they had first recommended that would have been quite damaging 
to the future of the center. In the end the House conferees agreed that 
the $12.678 million which had been appropriated would not be rescinded, 
but they insisted on report language specifying that once the facility 
at Ames, Iowa is constructed it would be conveyed to Iowa State 
University and further stating that future costs of operating that 
facility at Ames are expected to be provided by sources other than the 
Federal Government. The language also states that Iowa State University 
should work in collaboration with the pork industry to cover research 
and additional construction costs associated with the center or to 
offset those costs through the consolidation of Federal research 
activities. Again, I strongly disagree with the report language 
insisted upon by the House conferees, but it was the best that could be 
obtained under the circumstances.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe I have about 7 minutes 
remaining. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Rhode 
Island who has a statement to make.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona for letting me have some time at the final part of this 
evening.
  It is with some reluctance that I will vote against the conference 
report on H.R. 1158, the pending rescissions bill. The report has much 
to commend it. It would provide needed disaster relief to Americans 
across the country who are still recovering from a series of tragedies, 
of course the principal one of those is in Oklahoma City.
  In addition, the report would provide for more than $16 billion in 
savings to the Federal Treasury. Although I cannot say I agree with 
each of the places where the report would make these cuts, nonetheless 
it represents a really solid first step toward reversing the pattern of 
unconstrained Federal spending.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding the benefits of the funding provisions 
of the report, it is the general policy provisions that are the ones 
that have led me to conclude I cannot support the report. As those who 
have read the report carefully will note, it is replete with measures 
that would override or revise substantially environmental laws in a 
variety of contexts. I am especially concerned about those relating to 
Federal timber sales and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
sometimes referred to as NEPA.
  My concern with the bill's timber sales provisions have been 
evidenced ever since I voted against a motion to table a substitute 
amendment during [[Page S7380]] the floor debate on the Senate version 
of the bill. I recognize the need to address expeditiously risks 
arising from the poor health of certain public forests.
  However, this provides no ground for throwing environmental 
considerations overboard. The conference report has only added to my 
concerns.
  Why do I say this? First, the report retains so-called ``sufficiency 
language,'' with respect to salvage and option 9 timber sales. This 
language provides that an agency's compliance with certain minimal 
obligations in the carrying out of a sale is ``deemed sufficient'' to 
satisfy the requirements of all applicable statutes.
  This language would disallow any meaningful site-specific challenge 
to a sale under the environmental laws, especially given that the 
report would also would eliminate administrative appeals of timber sale 
decisions.
  In addition, Mr. President, another provision in the report expressly 
would revise the agencies' analytical obligations with respect to 
salvage timber sales. The provision in question would make the duty to 
consider environmental effects of salvage timber sales solely 
discretionary. I think this is an important point, Mr. President. Under 
the revisions that have been made in connection with this rescissions 
bill, the agency would make the duty to consider environmental effects 
of salvage timber sales to become discretionary; in other words, you do 
not have to do it.
  This approach, I believe, is shortsighted and unwise. Conducting 
environmental analysis can be especially important in carrying out 
salvage sales because candidate sites usually have experienced 
significant disturbances. A salvage sale has arisen because there has 
been significant disturbances in the area--a tremendous hurricane or 
tornado, earthquake, or something as formidable as an explosion, the 
volcanic action of a mountain, as took place in the State of Washington 
about 15 to 18 years ago.
  Such sites, therefore, are often especially sensitive to further 
disturbance caused by timber harvests.
  Is this me talking or some expert? Well, let us see what the dean of 
the Duke University School of Environment, Norman Christensen, said in 
March 23 of 1995, just 2 months ago, in a letter to Appropriations 
Committee Chairman Hatfield. He explained the possible serious adverse 
effects of poorly carried out salvage sales.
  This is what he said:

       Improperly used, however, [salvage and thinning] can cause 
     serious, long-lasting damage to resources including soils, 
     streams, wildlife, fish and residual trees. The timing and 
     manner of their application requires at least as careful 
     analysis and monitoring as other types of logging.

  In other words, there is not something unique about salvage sales, 
winds fall and timber; you can just go in and take it away.

       Done poorly, the productivity and biological integrity of 
     public forests may be permanently compromised.

  And finally, Mr. President, environmental effects of sales 
encompassed by the report could be substantial, particularly in light 
of two factors: No. 1, the conferees extended by a full year the period 
during which sufficiency language would apply. This extension would 
nearly double the sufficiency period that was in the Senate bill.
  We passed a bill at a certain length of time. They doubled it in the 
conference, and this could translate into an additional 2 billion to 4 
billion board feet of timber being harvested with minimal environmental 
analysis. This is not a case of rushing in and picking up some timber 
that has just fallen down in a certain area. This is big activity.
  No. 2, while numerical timber volume targets have been removed from 
the bill, the managers' statement includes a so-called ``volume 
requirements.'' This is a classic example of trying to have it both 
ways. The managers' volume numbers exceed by far what agriculture 
Secretary Glickman has said the Forest Service can achieve while 
meeting substantial requirements of applicable law.
  Mr. President, I have concerns over what is done to the National 
Environmental Policy Act, so-called NEPA. But, Mr. President, in this 
late period in the evening, I am not going to debate the merits of the 
report's NEPA provisions as much as to highlight that there has not 
been real debate on them at all. These actions take place in the 
Appropriations Committee, and I do not think the Congress should be in 
the routine of using appropriations bills to bypass or bar compliance 
with environmental statutes in ways that will have significant 
environmental effects. This is an improper practice that must cease. 
For me, that means now with this report.
  I want to thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 1158, the Emergency Supplemental and 
Rescission Act. I am proud of the fact that my colleagues and I on the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees have cut more spending in 
this bill than in any rescission bill in the history of this country. I 
want to compliment Chairman Hatfield and Chairman Livingston for their 
leadership on this legislation.
  The bill cuts $16.4 billion in spending and provides supplemental 
funding for disaster relief and increased anti-terrorism funding to 
respond to the Oklahoma City bombing. I, for one, am outraged that 
President Clinton announced last Wednesday that he intends to veto this 
rescission bill. The President should sign the rescission bill and join 
our efforts to put the Federal Government on a budget like everybody 
else. When President Clinton vetoes a $16 billion cut in Government 
spending to protect a few pet programs, he is putting the interests of 
his administration and his part in front of the interests of the people 
of America.
  I would like to comment briefly on the supplemental funding provided 
for the FBI and the Justice Department in the Commerce, Justice, State 
section of the bill. The President requested $71 million for the 
Justice Department's response to the Oklahoma City bombing and to 
enhance Federal law enforcement's ability to respond to domestic 
terrorism. The conferees were concerned that, in many cases, the 
President's request failed to provide the true, full-year cost of 
hiring additional FBI and other Justice Department personnel, since the 
President assumes that many of these new personnel will be hired late 
in the fiscal year.
  As a strong supporter of federal law enforcement, I wanted to ensure 
that the FBI and the Justice Department have the resources they need to 
prosecute and convict the violent criminals who committed the Oklahoma 
City bombing. I also wanted to begin the process of strengthening 
Federal law enforcement so that we can do everything possible to 
prevent anything like this terrible crime from ever happening again.
  To accomplish these goals, the conferees have provided $113 million 
for the Justice Department, including $90 million for the FBI, and an 
additional $16.6 million for increased security at Federal courthouses. 
These amounts are within the parameters set for this bill by the full 
committee chairmen, and I intend to provide additional resources for 
these purposes when I present my recommendations for the fiscal year 
1996 Justice Department appropriation.
  I am dismayed that, in many cases, the additional resources requested 
by the President to respond to the Oklahoma City bombing are for items 
previously requested by the FBI and the Justice Department in their 
regular budget requests, but previously rejected by the Clinton White 
House.
  Under the Clinton administration, the FBI endured a nearly 2-year 
hiring freeze, while normal attrition reduced the number of special 
agents by 765. The FBI crime laboratory has been forced to curtail the 
services it provides State and local law enforcement agencies due to 
budget constraints. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that 
funds the FBI, I am committed to reversing this trend, and I am 
confident that these efforts will have the strong support of the 
American people and the vast majority of the Senate.
  Finally, I am proud that the conference agreement on the Commerce, 
Justice, State section of the bill includes more new spending 
reductions than either of the House- or Senate-passed bills. The budget 
resolution currently under consideration in the Congress will build on 
the good work of [[Page S7381]] this rescission bill and ultimately 
lead us to the first balanced Federal budget since 1969. When we 
complete our work on these measures, we will have fulfilled the promise 
Republicans made to the American people last November, to put the 
Federal Government on a budget, to say not to more Federal spending, 
and to allow more families to say yes to their own spending priorities 
for their own children.
               national korean war veterans armistice day

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, included in H.R. 1158 is language that 
will designate July 27 of each year, from 1995 until 2003, the 50th 
anniversary of the end of active conflict in the Korean war, as 
National Korean War Veterans Armistic Day. This important designation 
could not have been achieved without the assistance of my good friend 
and colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens. I would 
also like to point out that our initiative to put this language in H.R. 
1158 is a one-time exception due to the timeliness of the matter--the 
Korean War Veterans' Memorial will be dedicated this July.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleague, 
the senior Senator from Virginia, in this proposal to formally honor 
those brave Americans who fought in the Korean war. This is an 
initiative which is both important and necessary.
  On June 25, 1950, without warning, armed forces of the People's 
Democratic Republic of Korea invaded their neighbors to the south, the 
Republic of Korea, initiating the Korean war. Shortly thereafter, at 
the request of the President of the Republic of Korea, President Harry 
S Truman directed American forces to enter into the war. The American 
involvement was spearheaded by the Army's Task Force Smith.
  Subsequently, a U.N. command was created which, by the end of active 
combat, had incorporated military units from 21 member nations, under 
U.S. leadership, in the struggle. The fighting continued, with American 
forces bearing the brunt of the action, until July 27, 1953, when a 
cease-fire agreement ended active combat.
  Mr. WARNER. Under the command of General of the Army Douglas 
MacArthur and, later, Gen. Matthew B. Ridgeway, U.N. forces repelled 
the invasion and restored the integrity of the Republic of Korea along 
with the freedom and independence of the South Korean people. During 3 
years of active hostilities, our Armed Forces, enduring the rigors of 
combat in the extremes of a hostile climate and the most trying of 
conditions, engaged in some of the most significant battles in our 
Nation's history. Those battles included the Inchon landings, the Pusan 
Perimeter breakout, and the battle of the Chosin Reservoir.
  Over 5.7 million American service people were involved directly or 
indirectly in the war. Of those, 54,246 died; 33,629 of whom died in 
battle. An additional 103,284 were wounded and 8,177 were listed as 
missing or prisoners of war. There are 329 American prisoners of war 
still unaccounted for.
  Mr. STEVENS. Unfortunately, the Korean war has come to be known as 
America's forgotten war, and our veterans from that era deserve the 
recognition they earned through their valor and sacrifices. The 
following Senators served in that war: my friend John Warner, as well 
as Ben Nighthorse Campbell, John Chafee, John Glenn, and Arlen Specter.
  Mr. President, for that reason, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Virginia and I proposed establishing a National Korean War Armistice 
Day. We believe that this Nation should never forget the service 
rendered, and the sacrifices made, by those brave Americans who fought, 
and in particular those who died, in the Korean war.
  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and I are 
also pleased that, as a result of congressional and Presidential 
authorizations, the Korean War Veterans Memorial will be built, in 
Washington, DC, to recognize and honor the service and sacrifice of 
those Americans who participated in the Korean war. By establishing 
July 27 as National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, we will build 
upon and enhance that long-due recognition for Korean war veterans.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the conference 
report that is before us this evening. Six weeks ago, we spent nearly a 
week here on the Senate floor debating the merits of cutting funding 
for education. Many believed that the rescission bill made too many 
cuts in important education and training and children's programs that 
benefit working families and children.
  After many days of debate, the Senate reached an agreement that 
rearranged the Senate's priorities and restored funding for children 
and for education. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Dole and 
Minority Leader Daschle, the children and education cuts were limited 
to $400 million. In the end, the Senate took a strong position in 
support of students and children, a position that we expected would be 
held in conference.
  Head Start, WIC, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Title I, Goals 2000, 
School to Work, Immigrant Education, Trio, and National Service all 
received important infusions of funding that made the final Senate 
package--with $405 million in education cuts--stand in stark contrast 
to the House package, with $1.6 billion in education cuts. The Senate's 
intention on education could have not been more clear.
  Two weeks later, 34 Senators, Republican and Democrat, reaffirmed 
that position, and sent a letter to Senator Hatfield explaining why the 
Senate had made the changes, and asking that ``We strongly urge you to 
support students and education and the Senate level of education 
rescissions.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into 
the Record.
  Despite an unmistakably clear message to the conferees, the 
conference agreement has now come back with $950 million in cuts to 
education programs and we are being asked once again to cut education.
  I don't think I need to repeat again the effect of these harsh 
rescissions--reduction or elimination of violence and drug prevention 
programs for 39 million students; elimination of school reform grants 
to 4,000 schools; reduction in reading and math assistance for 135,000 
at-risk children; elimination of a promising start on technology in 
schools--all of this and more will be gone if the conference report is 
adopted and the President signs the bill.
  One point cannot be overemphasized--schools across the country are 
counting on these funds. States have already been notified of the 
amounts they will receive in July. If these rescissions go through, 
children will be dropped from services, teachers will be laid off, 
computer orders will be canceled.
  I think the record of the U.S. Senate on education rescissions is 
clear. I urge my colleagues to reject this report, and to vote to 
sustain a veto if President Clinton vetoes this bill, which I believe 
he should and will.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have an 
order for the disposition of debate under the rescissions supplemental 
appropriations bill. I wonder if the Senator will permit us to complete 
that action, and then there will be a period for morning business set 
aside for the Senator to speak.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Only 3 minutes remain with this Senator. I am advised 
the Senator from West Virginia has 8 minutes, and he authorized us to 
yield back that time. So the Senator can speak very quickly. We will be 
in morning business very soon.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Very well.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time 
under the order.
  Mr. President, the Senators from Wisconsin and Arizona complain about 
two provisions in this conference report dealing with NASA. They are 
administrative provisions, and they are clearly and fully explained in 
the committee report on pages 132 and 133.
  Let me add to the Clear Lake development facility issue by saying 
that the authority to enter into this transaction was previously passed 
by the [[Page S7382]] Senate last year on the NASA authorization bill 
on October 5.
  This purchase saves taxpayers' funds and makes needed facilities 
available to NASA on a timely basis. It was considered carefully by the 
Senate conferees and was found to be not only in the public interest 
but in the interests of the Federal Government. That is why it was 
included and approved.
  Insofar as the Yellow Creek Facility in Mississippi is concerned, 
time does not permit a long narrative to expand on the provisions of 
this conference report itself, describing the history of this facility.
  Let me just quickly say from my own personal recollection, the 
Federal Government came into this northeast corner of Mississippi, 
condemned property to build a huge nuclear facility for TVA. Halfway 
through the construction phase, after everybody had been stressed and 
strained in terms of accommodating the Federal Government's interest or 
this agency's interest, they canceled the facility, putting a lot of 
people out of work who had moved to the area who helped build the 
facility, and finally NASA decided they would take the land.
  Transfers were authorized by Congress for NASA to build an advanced 
solid rocket motor facility on the property. People moved into the 
area--scientists, technicians and all the rest--schools were built, 
roads were built, infrastructure developed, by the State, by local 
governments, taxes were raised, to help pay for this Federal facility 
and accommodate the interests of the Federal Government.
  Patriotism was rampant because of the new pride in that part of the 
State to do something for our Federal Government and our space program. 
NASA abandoned ASRM when the House voted it down one night and canceled 
all the authority for the funds. Then they worked out a program to have 
a nozzle facility built to take the place of this other facility. Now 
it has been canceled, just recently.
  Finally, they say in Mississippi, ``Look, get the Federal Government 
out of here. Let the State government try to do something that is 
predictable that makes sense.'' This is after $100 million had been 
invested by local and State interests, local taxpayers. People have 
lost money building housing in this area, doing things in anticipation 
of the result that would come from these Federal Government activities.
  Now, finally, we are just saying in this provision, this is an 
emergency supplemental bill, too, not just a rescission bill. It 
provides funds for disaster assistance, to disaster victims. I 
challenge anybody to find anyone who has been victimized any more than 
the people of this part of the State of Mississippi by actions of the 
Federal Government. This provision has been requested by NASA, it was 
considered carefully by conferees on both sides. It is included here, 
because it is in the public interest. There ought to be more included 
here to deal with the victims of that disaster.
  I will not belabor it. I congratulate the Senator from Iowa for his 
comments about the facility. They complain about being in the bill, in 
the conference report now. We defended the position of the Senate. The 
Senate authorized this to continue to be a Federal Agriculture Research 
Service facility. We had to compromise with the House.
  The Senator, complaining that we should not have compromised, I 
suppose. It does not make logical sense to me to complain about the 
actions of the conferees who were bound to defend the position of the 
Senate. The Senate entertained an amendment of the Senator from Arizona 
and voted it down.
  We are obligated to take up for the Senate and we did. But we had to 
compromise with the House and we worked it out, and the Senator fully 
described the result.
  I am proud of the work our conferees did. We worked hard and brought 
back a conference agreement that I hope the Senate will approve when we 
vote on it tomorrow morning.
  Mr. President, the fiscal year 1995 Agriculture, Rural Development 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act provided $297 million in cost-
of-money lending authority for telephone loans of the Rural Utilities 
Service, formerly the Rural Electrification Administration, at a 
subsidy cost of $60,000. There is a 7-percent interest rate cap in that 
program, and when rates exceeded that amount at the beginning of the 
fiscal year, the cost-of-money program was substantially curtailed 
because of inadequate subsidy. Because of the cap, when long-term 
Treasury rates exceed 7 percent, the interest rates on individual loans 
require a subsidy. The $60,000 subsidy was appropriated to satisfy the 
loan loss reserve requirement of the Treasury Department, not to 
subsidize interest rates.
  The conference report accompany H.R. 1158, incorporates a provision 
included in the Senate-passed bill which removes the interest rate cap 
for fiscal year 1995 in this program. This action will allow the Rural 
Utilities Service to utilize the entire $297 million in loan authority 
provided for this program. It is my understanding that the Rural 
Utilities Service has already approved seven loans during this fiscal 
year, totalling $3.2 million. However, none of the funds on these loans 
have been drawn down by the borrowers. Since interest rates on these 
loans are fixed at the time of draw down, not at the time of approval, 
there will be no interest rate subsidy associated with these loans upon 
enactment of H.R. 1158.
  Fortunately, the long-term Treasury rate is now around 7 percent 
again, rather than almost 8 percent that existed early in October. This 
means that borrowers will receive a reasonable rate of interest at no 
cost to the Treasury for any loan in this program approved during 
fiscal year 1995. However, if interest rates do rise, the program will 
still continue at the authorized levels, without an interest rate 
subsidy, as Congress intended.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement accompanying H.R. 1158, the second supplemental 
appropriations and rescissions bill for fiscal year 1995.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for his efforts to complete congressional action on this bill. I regret 
that after significant work, the President now states that he will veto 
the final bill.
  Such action will even further delay the provision of emergency 
disaster assistance requested by the President for California and 40 
other States that have experienced natural disasters.
  Such action will delay the availability of funding to pursue the 
investigation of the tragic Oklahoma City bombing.
  Such action will delay the provision of funding requested by the 
President to fund a new counterterrorism initiative.
  The funding in this bill to respond to these requests by the 
President totals $6.95 billion.
  These emergency funds include disaster aid of $3.35 billion to be 
available for the remainder of fiscal year 1995, and $3.35 billion as a 
contingency appropriation, which can be obligated by the President 
beginning in fiscal year 1996 with specific notification of the 
Congress.
  The bill includes rescissions totaling $15.4 billion in budget 
authority and $0.4 billion in outlay savings for fiscal year 1995 to 
provide deficit reduction as the Congress seeks to move toward a 
balanced Federal budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It will put a downpayment 
on the significant deficit reduction that will be required to balance 
the budget, and begin to alleviate the burden of debt we are leaving to 
our children and future generations.
  Now is the time for Congress to embark on a serious journey to get 
its fiscal house in order. This bill is but a first step on what will 
be a long and difficult, but necessary, journey.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the 
Record at this point two tables showing the relationship of this bill 
to the section 602 allocations of the Appropriations Committee and to 
the current level which displays congressional action to date for 
fiscal year 1995.

                                                                                                                                                                                                
[[Page S7383]]
                                              H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS CONFERENCE                                              
                                                     [FY 1995, in millions of dollars, CBO scoring]                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Subcommittee      Senate 602(b)      Total comp to  
                   Subcommittee                            Current status\1\     H.R. 1158\2\          total            allocation         allocation   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture--RD..................................  BA....             58,117                -82             58,035             58,118                -83
                                                   OT....             50,330                -30             50,300             50,330                -30
Commerce-Justice\3\..............................  BA....             26,693               -291             26,402             26,903               -501
                                                   OT....             25,387                -99             25,288             25,429               -141
Defense..........................................  BA....            241,008  .................            241,008            243,630             -2,622
                                                   OT....            249,560  .................            249,560            250,713             -1,153
District of Columbia.............................  BA....                712  .................                712                720                 -8
                                                   OT....                714  .................                714                722                 -8
Energy-Water.....................................  BA....             20,293               -234             20,059             20,493               -434
                                                   OT....             20,784                -52             20,732             20,749                -17
Foreign Operations...............................  BA....             13,537                117             13,654             13,830               -176
                                                   OT....             13,762                241             14,003             14,005                 -2
Interior.........................................  BA....             13,577               -282             13,295             13,582               -287
                                                   OT....             13,968                -79             13,889             13,970                -81
Labor-HHS\4\.....................................  BA....            265,870             -2,883            262,987            266,170             -3,183
                                                   OT....            265,718               -252            265,465            265,731               -266
Legislative Branch...............................  BA....              2,459                -16              2,443              2,460                -17
                                                   OT....              2,472                -12              2,460              2,472                -12
Military Construction............................  BA....              8,735  .................              8,735              8,837               -102
                                                   OT....              8,519  .................              8,519              8,519                 -0
Transportation...................................  BA....             14,193             -2,624             11,568             14,275             -2,707
                                                   OT....             37,085                -22             37,063             37,072                 -9
Treasury-Postal\5\...............................  BA....             23,589               -588             23,001             23,757               -756
                                                   OT....             24,221                -39             24,182             24,225                -43
VA-HUD...........................................  BA....             89,891             -8,495             81,396             90,257             -8,861
                                                   OT....             92,438               -112             92,326             92,439               -113
Reserve..........................................  BA....  .................  .................  .................              2,311             -2,311
                                                   OT....  .................  .................  .................                  1                 -1
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriations\6\....................  BA....            778,674            -15,378            763,296            785,343            -22,047
                                                   OT....            804,957               -457            804,501            806,377             -1,876
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in outlays in       
  funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in 
  outlays for emergencies that would be available only upon an official budget request from the President designating the entire amount as an emergency 
  requirement.                                                                                                                                          
\2\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,491 million in budget authority and $441 million in outlays in funding 
  for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and/or the Congress.                                                               
\3\Of the amounts remaining under the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $22.1 million in budget authority and $1.6 million in outlays  
  is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.                                                                     
\4\Of the amounts remaining under the Labor-HHS Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $45.4 million in budget authority and $8.2 million in outlays is      
  available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.                                                                        
\5\Of the amounts remaining under the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $1.3 million in budget authority and $0.1 million in outlays is 
  available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.                                                                        
\6\Of the amounts remaining under the Appropriations Committee's 602(a) allocation, $68.8 million in budget authority and $9.9 million in outlays is    
  available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                    


FY 1995 CURRENT LEVEL--H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS
                                  BILL                                  
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current level (as of May 5, 1995)\2\..............    1,233.1    1,216.2
H.R. 1158, emergency supplemental and rescissions,                      
 conference agreement\3\..........................      -15.4       -0.4
Adjustment to conform mandatory items with budget                       
 resolution assumptions...........................        (1)        (1)
                                                   ---------------------
      Total current level.........................    1,217.7    1,215.7
Revised on-budget aggregates\4\...................    1,238.7    1,217.6
Amount over (+)/under (-) budget aggregates.......      -21.0       -1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than $50 million.                                               
\2\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, the total does not    
  include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in      
  outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such  
  by the President and the Congress, and $841 million in budget         
  authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would be   
  available only upon an official budget request from the President     
  designating the entire amount requested as an emergency requirement.  
\3\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not   
  include $3,491 million in budget authority and $441 million in outlays
  in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the   
  President and the Congress in this bill.                              
\4\Reflects revised allocation under section 9(g) of House Concurrent   
  Resolution 64 for the Deficit-Neutral reserve fund.                   
                                                                        
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                    

Mr. BOND. The President recently announced his intention to veto the 
rescission bill recently agreed to by the joint House-Senate conference 
committee. In part, he decried the agreement on the basis of the 
rescissions proposed for HUD. This is outrageous. This President wants 
to take a mouth-full of popular political rhetoric on budget constraint 
and responsibility, but still can't bring himself to inhale. You can't 
stop spending until you halt the growth in programs which generate it. 
This stuff may be hard to swallow, but unless we get beyond the 
political posturing, our Nation and our economy will gag on the unpaid 
bills of our irresponsibility.
  Some have questioned why HUD is being cut more than $6.3 billion, 
nearly three-quarters of a total rescission of $8.5 billion for the 
Subcommittee. The answer is simple: The cut is roughly proportionate to 
that Department's available budgetary resources. Although HUD received 
new appropriations for fiscal year 1995 of $25.7 billion, about 39 
percent of the funding for our four major agencies, it also carried 
into this fiscal year $35.2 billion in unobligated prior year balances. 
In other words, it more than doubled its total available budgetary 
resources with this massive influx of unspent, unobligated funding.
  We must cut HUD, and we must begin now if there is to be any hope of 
surviving the very constrained ``freeze-minus'' future for 
discretionary spending reflected in both the House and Senate reported 
budget resolutions. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the 
cost of the President's original budget submission for subsidized 
housing demonstrated a 50% expenditure increase over the next five 
years. Unless we act now to curb the spiraling growth in outlays, we 
will have to make truly draconian cuts in the near future.
  The solution is simple: Turn-off the pipeline of new subsidized 
units. That is the fundamental focus of the rescission bill. We have 
also restored cuts proposed by the House in CDBG, modernization, and 
operating subsidies, and redirected available resources toward another 
urgent aspect of restoring budgetary sanity to this out of control 
Department: demolish the failed housing developments, and put the rest 
on a sound footing to survive the competition and subsidy reductions 
coming down the pike.
  Amid all the debate over the future of HUD, it's important to keep in 
mind that over 4.8 million families receive Federal housing assistance, 
and over half of them are elderly or disabled. It's also important to 
note that such housing assistance is expensive, as I said $26 billion 
in fiscal year 1995 outlays, and current costs are rising. In fact with 
the long-term contractual commitments previously made by HUD, the 
Government is currently obligated to pay over $187 billion over the 
life of these contracts, some stretching out 40 years.
  Given the long-term nature of these obligations and commitments, 
halting 
[[Page S7384]] the budgetary growth of the Department can only be 
accomplished with a focused, determined, multi-year effort. Unless we 
begin now, with this bill, we will lock ourselves into another multi-
billion dollar chunk of long-term budget obligations. And this is only 
a first step, one of many in which we will go beyond the limited fixes 
and cuts that can be accomplished in a rescission bill. We must enact 
major reform legislation later this year, but this is a good, and very 
necessary beginning.
  The program reforms and initial reductions contained in the 
rescission bill are desperately needed to avoid a budgetary train wreck 
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The President has criticized a number of specific actions contained 
in the conference agreement. Frankly, there are a number of 
recommendations in the conference report which are troubling to me. But 
this bill is a compromise with the House-passed measure which contained 
much larger rescissions, and I believe the agreement goes a long way 
towards minimizing adverse program impacts while increasing our 
contributions to deficit reduction.
  For example, the rescission agreed to for National Service was 
increased to $210 million from the $105 million Senate-passed level. 
While many of us are dubious of the whole premise of paying people to 
become ``volunteers,'' regardless of their financial resources, and we 
have heard of instances where excessive payments have been made, the 
conferees decided to maintain this program at the pre-existing funding 
level established for fiscal year 1994. I might add that the rescission 
is half the House-passed rescission of $416 million.
  The President's statement also says we cut funding for housing AIDS 
victims. While a $30 million rescission was approved, it is only a 
small fraction of $186 million included in the House bill. Moreover, 
the rescission simply provides the identical funding level requested by 
the President for this fiscal year! Since the President didn't request 
this appropriation in the first place, it is at least ironic that he 
should now protest its rescission.
  The conference agreement includes the full $6.7 billion requested by 
the President for the disaster relief fund. This will enable FEMA to 
respond to needs in California resulting from the Northridge earthquake 
and disasters in other states.
  Mr. President, I would also note that citizens of my own State are 
enduring yet another flood on the Missouri River. Thankfully, this 
flood does not compare to the devastation wrought by the Midwest Flood 
of 1993, but a number of communities still have suffered significant 
damage, and thousands of families have been dislocated. Missouri's 
governor already has stated that he anticipates a formal request for 
assistance within days, and that need has been echoed by the many local 
officials who have contacted my offices in recent weeks.
  Yet FEMA tells me that they will only be able to respond for a few 
more weeks without additional funding. Where will that leave the 
victims of the latest flooding in the Midwest when the President 
chooses politics over people?
  Mr. President, I would also note that the conference agreement 
contains $5 million requested by this the Administration to enable FEMA 
to initiate flood mitigation activities authorized by the National 
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. So this bill not only provides the 
resources to help flood victims recover from these disasters, but we 
are also taking steps to help avoid such flood damage in the future.
  With appropriations contained in this bill, FEMA will also be able to 
meet all needs arising as a result of the terrorist attack in Oklahoma 
City. I am pleased that the conference agreement includes $7 million 
for FEMA to train and plan for any future terrorist incidents, and to 
beef up security in several locations. We commend FEMA for its 
compassionate, timely and professional response to the Oklahoma City 
attack. FEMA has earned the confidence and respect of the American 
people, and has come a long way under the leadership of James Lee Witt.
  The conferees agreed to rescind $81 million from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, including $50 million from excess personnel costs and 
$31 million from excess project reserves. This rescission will not 
impact VA's ability to provide patient care in any way. The rescission 
to personnel costs does not affect staffing. Simply, VA's
 budget included $50 million more than they now estimate they need to 
pay salaries. Despite the erroneous assertion in the President's 
statement, no funding is being rescinded for medical equipment needs of 
VA hospitals and clinics.

  In terms of the construction account, funds are rescinded from 
projects which are costing less than what was originally appropriated. 
Rescinding the funds ensures VA carefully manages its construction 
budget.
  The conferees rescinded a total of $1.5 billion from EPA. Of the 
total, $1.3 billion is rescinded from the drinking water state 
revolving fund. Because this program has not been authorized, EPA has 
been unable to obligate the funds. While I support the need for this 
program, until it is authorized no funds may be spent.
  Within the Superfund program, $100 million is rescinded. Because EPA 
fails to obligate on average $100 million in Superfund appropriations 
each year, this rescission is not expected to have a dramatic effect on 
program activities. On the other hand, it is intended to slow program 
spending pending enactment of major reform legislation which will 
likely change the scope and nature of clean-up activities previously 
planned.
  Although the total rescission for EPA is slightly greater than the 
total rescission contained in either the House or Senate versions, the 
conference agreement is entirely within the scope of the differences 
between the Houses for each budget account of the agency. No new or 
extraneous items were rescinded.
  The conference agreement contains a number of legislative provisions 
impacting EPA programs. Provisions impacting EPA's automobile 
inspection and maintenance program are intended to ensure EPA is 
flexible in reviewing states' plans for I/M programs and considers 
assigning additional credits for effective decentralized programs.
  Two provisions contained in the Senate-passed version of the bill 
have been retained: first, a moratorium on new Superfund site listings 
for the balance of this fiscal year, unless requested by the governor 
or unless reauthorization legislation is enacted, and second, a 
prohibition on EPA from enforcing vehicular trip reduction programs 
were agreed to in conference.
  Finally, the White House has indicated that it seeks to restore $14 
million for the $88 million rescission for the yet to be established 
Community Development Financial Institutions program. This is despite 
the fact that the conference agreement adopted the funding level 
contained in the Daschle democratic leadership compromise amendment.
  Mr. President, the conference agreement on this supplemental and 
rescission package is a good one. Rescissions for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee 
total $8.5 billion. The contribution towards deficit reduction is $1.6 
billion more than the level originally passed by the Senate, but is 
$800 million less than that passed by the House. It is a compromise, 
but one which fairly balances the differing priorities of the two 
Houses and still maintains funding for critical activities.
  Mr. President, I hope the White House reconsiders its ill-advised 
initial reaction to this bill. If this bill is vetoed, it will mean 
further delays which may disrupt timely delivery of assistance to 
disaster victims in 41 States, including my own, as well as the Federal 
response in Oklahoma City. Perhaps equally important, delay also means 
that Federal agencies will obligate even more of the funds we have 
identified for rescission, making the task of saving money in low 
priority programs even more difficult.
  The stated objections of the White House to this emergency 
supplemental and rescission bill are nothing more than spurious. And 
the matters that they have demanded be changed can only be described as 
a grab-bag of politically appealing items, which aren't needed, or 
couldn't be effectively utilized, or simply increase current spending 
when we all know that spending must be reduced to get our budget back 
in balance. [[Page S7385]] 
  Mr. President, this is a responsible bill. It cuts funding and 
contributes to deficit reduction. It provides emergency funding which 
is urgently needed to assist victims of disasters. It makes long 
overdue reforms and corrections in programs which need fixing. And this 
bill needs to be enacted without further delay. I urge the White House 
to set politics aside, and begin working with us to make this 
conference agreement law.


                   inspection and maintenance program

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Missouri 
three questions about the provisions in this bill on the auto emissions 
inspection and maintenance program required by the Clean Air Act. The 
bill would prevent EPA from apply an automatic 50 percent discount in 
emissions credits for State programs that included test-and-repair, as 
opposed to test-only, stations. It is my understanding that the bill 
requires EPA to examine each program a State has submitted and assign 
the appropriate emissions credits. Based on various features of a 
State's program, EPA might assign emissions credits equal to 100 
percent of a test-only program. Or EPA might find the appropriate 
credit is only 75 percent or 25 percent, depending on how a State 
program is structured. Is that a correct reading of the bill?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. EPA is to examine the entirety of 
each State inspection and maintenance program and is to assign the 
appropriate emissions credits based on the actual program the State 
submits. No automatic discounting factors should apply and the 
determination of the appropriate emissions credits should be based on 
good science and engineering analysis.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The report language accompanying this bill indicates that 
EPA may give a State up to 2 years to make a demonstration that 
justifies the credits it is seeking. Is EPA required to grant a 2-year 
demonstration period to every State that requests it?
  Mr. BOND. No. The 2-year period to demonstrate the effectiveness of a 
State program may be granted by EPA, if the Agency believes it to be 
reasonable. This allows the Agency to implement the inspection and 
maintenance requirements in a more flexible way. But unreasonable 
proposals that surely would not merit the emissions credits claimed 
need not be granted a 2-year demonstration period. It is not an 
automatic extension for any and all inspection and maintenance programs 
that may be submitted by the States.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, I would ask whether this provision affects any 
other aspect of the plan submissions and attainment demonstrations that 
States are to make under the Clean Air Act?
  Mr. BOND. No. The sole purpose of this language is to prevent EPA 
from requiring States to adopt enhanced inspection and maintenance 
programs based on the I/M240, test-only model and to prevent EPA from 
automatically discounting programs that use test-and-repair stations by 
a factor of 50 percent. The language has no other effect on State 
obligations under the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask first of all to yield back the 
balance of time under the order of the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Does that conclude the authority under the conference 
report, under the order previously entered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are still 6 minutes for the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the time back on behalf of the 
Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________