[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9511-S9512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE RESCISSIONS BILL

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to 
make comments about the rescissions bill which has been before us but 
which has been withdrawn from consideration as a result of the 
unwillingness on the part of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 
from Minnesota to allow amendments to be voted on.
  Just moments ago, the Senator from Illinois said that there were 
amendments which she had prepared which she hoped she would have the 
opportunity to submit. I recall this morning having listened to the 
leader ask specifically that amendments be submitted. He asked not only 
that the Senator from Illinois submit amendments for consideration but 
asked that the Senator from Minnesota submit amendments for 
consideration. Over and over again, they would deny that they wanted to 
submit amendments; they would refuse to submit amendments.
  Then I saw the leader, the majority leader, come to this podium and 
say I have heard the debate and I will craft an amendment which will 
reflect the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from 
Minnesota, and I will submit that amendment so that we can have a vote 
so that the Senate can express itself in regard to the amendment, if I 
can have unanimous consent to do that.
  The objections which were heard in this Chamber at that time were the 
objections from the very Senators who now say they were deprived of an 
opportunity to forward such concerns and have a vote on their concerns. 


[[Page S9512]]

  I find that to be confusing, and it is troublesome because every 
effort was made and every deference was given to those individuals in 
this Chamber to submit their own amendments.
  Then absent their own capacity to submit their amendments, the 
majority leader generously offered to formulate and submit an amendment 
in their behalf so that there could be a vote reflecting those 
concerns, and they simply refused to allow those concerns to be 
reflected in an amendment.
  I want the Record to be clear on this. Mr. President, the majority 
leader made the opportunity clear and made it expansive for amendments 
to be provided here. No amendments were offered.
  Second, when the majority leader himself offered in their behalf an 
amendment and needed unanimous consent in order to so do, they objected 
to that amendment.
  It is clear to me that the opportunity for amending the rescissions 
package was thorough and substantial, and that the majority leader bent 
over backwards in order to make those concerns not available as 
opportunities but to put them in a position and posture whereupon they 
could be voted. But the objection to that procedure was, in fact, made 
by those individuals who had later protested that they had not had the 
opportunity.
  Let me just say that we have worked on this issue since early this 
morning, and that the rescissions bill is a bill, the content of which 
is well known. In general, it restores $772 million of proposed 
rescissions and cuts an additional $794 million in the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations, for a total rescissions of $16.4 billion. It passed the 
House by a vote of 276 to 151.
  The suggestion by individuals in this Chamber that you could not know 
what was in this bill, that there had been inadequate information or 
time for consideration, I do not believe, is an accurate suggestion.
  The restored funding included $225 million for safe drinking water, 
$105 million to the so-called AmeriCorps volunteer program. That is 
what it costs us just in this bill in increased funding over our 
previous effort at rescissions to support the President's so-called 
volunteer program in which he pays each volunteer $15,000 a year. Of 
course, then it requires a $15,000 commitment to the bureaucracy to 
support that volunteer program.
  There was $220 million in safe/drug free schools restored funding in 
this rescissions package; $120 million in education and job training 
that was restored in this rescissions package over the previous 
rescissions package.
  It was interesting to hear objection raised that we are somehow 
depriving opportunities for job training, and the Senator from 
Minnesota said this was an unconscionable bill. I wonder if that is the 
way he views his President's recommendation that this bill be passed 
and assurance that he would sign the bill if the bill were to be 
presented to him.
  When the Senator from Illinois talked about job training, I wonder if 
she was referring to the fact that $120 million was restored in this 
bill in the area of job training and that there was $102 million in 
community development block grants, and that this measure as a matter 
of fact had $39 million as an increase in the 1995 appropriations in 
miscellaneous housing, community and education programs.
  Well, I could go on and on. Much was said this morning about a 
general who had spent $100,000 moving an airplane and asking that he be 
transported, and I do not think we ought to have generals abusing air 
travel privileges. That is why I think we ought to support this 
rescissions bill. This rescissions bill cuts $375 million in Government 
administration travel. We need to cut that. We need to delete that. And 
yet under the guise of complaining about travel abuses we have stopped 
the consideration of a bill which would cut $375 million in Government 
administrative travel.
  I believe that the efforts have been counterproductive in this 
Chamber today. I believe that they have failed to achieve the purposes 
which they have stated--as a matter of fact, they have turned in on 
themselves. And the very things they said they sought to assist--job 
training, cutting abuses, travel abuses in the administration--as a 
matter of fact, would have been addressed in this rescissions bill, but 
we were simply denied the opportunity to consider them today.
  They talked about LIHEAP, the energy program. What we really need to 
talk about today is the fact that we must make progress toward bringing 
Government spending into balance with Government resources, and in 
order to do that we are going to have to make some cuts. We are going 
to have to make some adjustments.
  We are looking at the Fourth of July. That is Independence Day. We 
should be thinking about legislation in the context of independence. We 
should be thinking about legislation in the context of freeing 
ourselves from debt. This was an opportunity to free ourselves from 
expenditures totaling $9.3 billion, with a consensus reached by House 
leaders, by Senate leaders, by the White House, some way that we could 
begin to get a handle on the deficit, and we were refused.
  One of the reasons is there is no willingness to cut the so-called 
LIHEAP program. Let us look at what LIHEAP represents.
  Back in the 1970's, when energy prices more than doubled, there was a 
special program to take the sting out of the massive increase in energy 
costs. This was a special program to help people buy fuel oil for their 
homes. The price for energy now has gone below where it was before the 
crisis. And yet while the energy price has gone down, the LIHEAP 
program has gone up and up and up.
  Eventually, if we are going to do what the people of this great 
Nation sent us here to do--and that is to get Government under 
control--we are at least going to have to look carefully at programs, 
the need for which is no longer existent but which grow as a result of 
the fact that bureaucrats who want to buy the favor of citizens 
continue to build and build and build the programs.
  Mr. President, we have had today an opportunity which is sorely 
missed--missed because there are those who would have, they said, 
improved the future for our children. I do not think maintaining debt 
improves the future for America. Virtually every child born today faces 
interest payments on the Federal debt of nearly $200,000 over their 
lifetime. We must not saddle the yet unborn children whose wages are 
yet unearned with the burden, the incredible burden of that kind of 
weight, a weight in interest costs on the Federal debt.
  We must get it under control. It is time for us to curtail the $4.9 
trillion debt of this country, and the first step, the step agreed to 
by the House in an overwhelming vote, agreed to by the President of the 
United States, agreed to by the leadership of the Senate, was to make 
the $9.3 billion downpayment of rescissions.
  It has been said loudly and sometimes very sincerely that we maybe 
did not need a balanced budget amendment. We simply needed to have the 
capacity to balance the budget. I wonder about our capacity. If we do 
not have the ability and discipline when we come to a negotiated 
conclusion about what can be done, what ought to be done to restrict 
spending, even by a small amount like $9.3 billion as it relates to the 
trillion dollar budget of this country, I wonder if we have much 
opportunity for success.
  So I heard the debate this morning, the debate of apologies between 
individuals about, oh, it was terrible that we had to rescind these 
funds. I am here to say that I do not apologize for rescinding funds, 
funds that we can no longer spend at the expense of the next 
generation. It is time for us to be serious about curtailing the debt 
of the United States of America to save the next generation and their 
opportunities.
  Independence Day is but a few days away. Unfortunately, independence 
from debt is not that close, but it is time for us to make a beginning.
  Mr. President, happy Fourth of July.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much. The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________