[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10456-S10468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
   ASSISTANCE, FOR ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES, FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE 
     RECOVERY FROM THE TRAGEDY THAT OCCURRED AT OKLAHOMA CITY, AND 
                         RESCISSIONS ACT, 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 1944, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1944) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for anti-
     terrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from 
     the tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma City, and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Wellstone/Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 1833, to strike 
     certain rescissions, and to provide an offset.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to take this 
occasion to thank Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun, the minority 
leader, the majority leader, the White House, and all the participants 
who have sought to resolve this issue and bring this to a vote on the 
rescissions package. I also thank Senator Byrd, as our ranking member 
of this subcommittee, for giving leadership in every instance of this 
committee's activity. And I especially want to thank Senator Byrd for 
his participation, as well.
  Mr. President, the Wellstone amendment adds back $651 million into 
the rescissions package, or reduces rescissions by that figure; $332 
million for 8 education and job training programs; and $319 million for 
the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program.
  These add-backs are over and above the levels for these programs 
negotiated with the President of the United States, the White House, 
the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well, and this includes 
the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate.
  In the case of youth training, education technology, and the 
Eisenhower Professional Development Programs, the add-backs in the 
Wellstone amendment exceed the levels agreed to in the so-called Dole-
Daschle compromise. That was back when the rescissions package was 
being acted upon by the Senate. And the Dole-Daschle compromise became 
our point of reference, our guidelines in the conference with the House 
of Representatives. That was the original rescissions package.
  Let me emphasize again that in those areas, the Wellstone amendment 
exceeds those levels that this Senate passed. The provisions of H.R. 
1944 are the product of extensive negotiations over several months.
  To add back funding for these programs at this time jeopardizes the 
enactment of this bill. I say that because of the fact that if we 
change this bill, it goes back to the House of Representatives again 
for an action, and if the House of Representatives refuses to adopt any 
changes that we have made in this rescissions package at this time, 
they can demand a conference, and we would be back into that process of 
a conference. Notwithstanding that, we would be thrown back in the 
situation of negotiating again with the White House, who vetoed the 
first bill.
  To add back funding for these programs at this particular time 
jeopardizes the enactment of this bill, which is an emergency 
supplement to assist in providing for disaster assistance, for 
antiterrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery of the 
tragedy that occurred in Oklahoma City, and for making rescissions.
  Additionally, the Wellstone amendment jeopardizes funding for fiscal 
year 1996 for the very programs he seeks to protect. Without enactment 
of H.R. 1944, the Labor-HHS and Education subcommittee alone will be 
forced to absorb an additional $3 billion in budget authority and $1.3 
billion in outlays within its already reduced allocations for 1996, 
because of the reduced budget resolution.
  The committee already has a tough job ahead. Adoption of the 
Wellstone amendment would make that job even more difficult by putting 
off until another day on reducing the growth of Federal spending.
  Mr. President, how many minutes did I use?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager has 5 minutes and 40 seconds.
  
[[Page S10457]]

  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Hatfield is one of the finest 
chairmen that I have had the pleasure to work with and to observe 
during my 37--going on 37--years in the Senate. He has a bright 
intellect. He has an understanding manner. He is gracious always. He is 
a gentleman. He speaks with conviction. He is one of my real profiles 
in courage that I have seen during all these years. It is a pleasure to 
work with the Senator. I admire the Senator. I respect him, and hold 
for him the highest, very highest, personal esteem.
  Mr. President, as Senators may recall, many months ago the Senate and 
House initiated an appropriations bill for urgently needed FEMA funds 
and that measure, H.R. 1158, contained rescissions which were more than 
sufficient to cover the FEMA supplemental request as well as 
additional, smaller supplemental items that were contained in that 
measure.
  After House and Senate passage, a conference agreement on H.R. 1158 
was reached and, after passing the House, was taken up by the Senate on 
May 25 and was adopted by a vote of 61-38. At the time, there were a 
number of Members on this side of the aisle who felt that the 
conference agreement should be defeated because it did not contain a 
number of the items that were included in the Senate bill, pursuant to 
the Dole-Daschle amendment.
  Nevertheless, I urged the President to sign the conference agreement 
on H.R. 1158 because it contained the appropriations for FEMA disaster 
assistance of $6.7 billion. It also made a very sizable reduction in 
the deficit. We were told that by the end of May, or shortly 
thereafter, FEMA would no longer be able to obligate funds to finance 
relief efforts associated with the Northridge earthquake and with other 
declared disasters throughout the Nation resulting from floods and 
storms in 40 States.
  Nevertheless, the President chose to veto H.R. 1158 and he set forth 
his reasons for doing so in correspondence to the Congress which 
accompanied his veto message.
  Following that veto, the House and Senate leadership reached an 
agreement with the President on a package of changes to H.R. 1158. 
Those changes were incorporated into a new bill, H.R. 1944, which 
passed the House of Representatives some weeks ago. Senators may recall 
that during an attempt to pass H.R. 1944 prior to the Fourth of July 
recess, Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun exercised their right to 
insist that the bill not be passed under a unanimous-consent agreement 
and that they be allowed to offer amendments to the measure.
  Negotiations with the leadership have been ongoing since the recess 
in order to find a way to accommodate Senators Wellstone and Moseley-
Braun and to also ensure that the Senate finally pass this very 
important appropriation and rescissions bill and get it to the 
President for his signature so that its provisions can take effect. As 
a result of those negotiations, an amendment is pending which was 
proposed by Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun.
  Mr. President, I fully understand the importance which Senators 
Wellstone and Moseley-Braun place on the program for which they are 
proposing addbacks. I also have no qualms with their proposed offsets 
for those addbacks--namely DOD administrative and travel expenses.
  Mr. President, I compliment both the distinguished Senators. I admire 
them for their pluck, their courage and for their convictions. I wish 
that more Senators could demonstrate the same kind of courage and 
convictions and pluck. It takes courage. It takes courage to stand up 
in the face of criticism that was directed against them. I have no 
criticism of them.
  I do have, as I say, a tremendous admiration for both Senators, 
fighting for what they believe in. Who can quarrel with that? After 
all, this is the Senate, the forum of the States, in which Senators can 
stand on their feet and speak as long as they wish to speak. I shall 
always defend their rights to do that. So I fully understand the 
importance of these programs. I share their views.
  I will not, however, vote for the amendment because if either part of 
the amendment is adopted, that would cause the bill to go back to the 
House for further consideration. I do not know what the House would do 
at that point. I do know that further delay would be inevitable. Mr. 
President, it is time to end the months of delay that have occurred on 
this bill and send it to the President for his signature. He has 
indicated that he will sign it--he will sign it--in its unamended form.
  I will reiterate the key provisions of the bill: It contains an 
appropriation of just over $6.5 billion for emergency disaster 
assistance for the victims of various disasters; under the Byrd 
amendment, the bill will reduce the deficit by approximately $9 
billion; and the rescissions contained in the bill will result in a 
freeing-up of approximately $3.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 
1996 appropriation bills, which can be used for other purposes. This is 
so because the outlays which would have occurred in 1996 from the 
appropriations for which these funds are rescinded will no longer be 
required. This will help ease the pain for the various appropriation 
subcommittees with jurisdiction over important discretionary programs 
in achieving the deficit reduction targets for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, I once again congratulate the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Hatfield, for the tireless effort he has put forth 
in helping to resolve the differences between the President, the House, 
and various Senators on these difficult matters. I know that a number 
of Senators are still displeased with this bill but, on balance, I 
believe that it deserves the support of the Senate for the reasons I 
have set forth.
  The need to pass this rescission bill cannot be overstated. The 
Appropriations Committee has begun its work on the fiscal year 1996 
bills. Failure to capture the outlay savings contained in this bill 
will make things even more difficult in the weeks ahead when the Senate 
takes up the fiscal year 1996 bills.
  Several subcommittees are planning to mark up their bills next week. 
However, whether they are in compliance with their allocations is 
linked to action on this bill. In the case of the Interior bill, for 
example, it means a difference of over $100 million. So if we don't 
pass this bill, the Interior Subcommittee will have to go in and cut 
over $100 million in addition to the over $860 million already being 
cut below this year's level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the Senators from 
Illinois and Minnesota have 30 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the 
Senator from West Virginia, I thank the Senator for his gracious 
remarks. It means a great deal to me personally and I am sure to 
Senator Moseley-Braun as well.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, principle and people, not power and 
prerogatives, that is what this debate is about.
  Two Fridays ago we came to the floor and we said, regarding these 
kinds of cuts in programs that have such a dramatic impact on people's 
lives in our States and around the country, this cannot be a Stealth 
Senate, we demanded the right to have debate, to introduce amendments, 
and to have those amendments voted on. Now that will happen. That is a 
victory.
  There would have been more amendments, but in one area, where I could 
not understand why in the world the Senate was making cuts, a 
counseling program for elderly people so they do not get ripped off on 
some of the health care plans that are presented to them, that money 
has been restored through reprogramming--a victory.
  But it is about more than power and prerogative, it is about 
principle and it is about people. We gave our word from the very 
beginning that we wanted the opportunity to have these amendments on 
the floor. It has taken 2 weeks of tough negotiations for that to 
happen. We wanted this to be done in an accountable way. And we live up 
to our word.
  But there is more than power and prerogative here. Last night the 
majority leader--it is his prerogative--decided we would get started on 
this bill at 10:30 or 11 o'clock at night, to use up time. Why not have 
more of the debate during the day when people in the country can 
observe it and make up 

[[Page S10458]]
their own mind? That is prerogative. That is power.
  The majority leader has also made it clear to everyone in this 
Chamber that if his motion to table our amendments--there will be two 
separate votes--does not succeed, he will pull the bill. What is this 
all about? The majority leader says, and I want to make it clear: If 
you should succeed, Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun, I will 
pull the bill. That is power and prerogative.
  But let me please talk about people. The Low-Income Energy Assistant 
Program, the total cost was $1.3 billion--about the cost of one B-2 
bomber. And Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield and Senators, when you 
voted this bill initially out of the Senate, you voted for that full 
expenditure. You have not contradicted your vote when you vote on low-
energy assistance today. But in this deal, that we in the Senate had 
nothing to do with, we saw a 25-percent cut, $319 million.
  Mr. President, I come from a cold-weather State. For most of the low-
income energy assistance people it is not an income supplement, it is a 
survival supplement. Mr. President, 53 percent of them work at low 
wages; 32 percent are senior citizens; 41 percent are households with 
small children; 50 percent earn under $6,000 a year. And there are 
about 300,000 people in my State that depend on this, and many more 
would be eligible but the funding levels have been cut so dramatically 
over the years we cannot even help all the people that need some 
assistance.
  I thought we are all our brothers' and sisters' keeper. But please 
remember it is not just heating assistance, it is cooling assistance. 
My God, 450 people in our country have died in the last week and a 
half, 2 weeks; elderly, most of them poor, no air-conditioning, no 
cooling assistance. And we are cutting this program. What does this say 
about our priorities? GAO report: ``Travel Process, re: Engineering. 
DOD Faces Challenges in Using Industry Practices to Reduce Costs.'' All 
about waste in Pentagon travel budget.
  Washington Post series, ``Billions Go Astray, Often Without A Trace: 
Defense Department.''
  In the LIHEAP amendment I just say, can we not transfer $319 million 
from all this waste and put it into the Low-Income Energy Assistance 
Program? Mr. President, my colleague from Illinois will talk with 
eloquence and power about job training programs for dislocated workers, 
about job training programs for veterans, about children's programs, 
education programs. I have not met one Minnesotan in one cafe who has 
said to me, ``Senator, when you do this deficit reduction, cut those 
job training programs for dislocated workers.'' Mr. President, all of 
my colleagues need to understand, when we talk about the Low-Income 
Energy Assistance Program, which will be the first vote, the House of 
Representatives has zeroed it out. They did it at 3 a.m. last week. 
They zeroed the program out. This vote today is all about whether we 
are going to continue it. That is the meaning of this vote.
  There is power and prerogative, and some people here are saying, ``If 
I loose, I will pull the bill.'' But what about the people in the 
country who lose? Many Senators signed a letter saying there ought to 
be the $1.3 billion, that is not too much. Forget the power and 
prerogative, forget the deal, I say to my colleagues. If we restore 
this funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, it will 
go to the House of Representatives and it could be back here at 1 p.m. 
We all know that. And you cannot say to the people you represent: I am 
sorry, you go without heating assistance, you are going to be homeless, 
or you are going to be cold, or you are going to die because of summer 
heat, because we made a deal with the House and it will take us a few 
extra hours to pass this bill. My God, I do not see the values behind 
that kind of position.
  I am sorry the White House was a part of this deal. I am sorry the 
deal was made late at night and then it came over here. And we made it 
clear we were not going to just let it sail through.
  But I say to my colleagues, you do not represent the White House. It 
does not matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican, we took the 
position before in the Senate that there ought to be adequate funding. 
You represent the people back in your States. And people are counting 
on you.
  So I say to my colleagues, this is not about power and prerogative. 
This is about people and principles. I appeal to every Democrat and 
every Republican, please, Senators, do not be generous with the 
suffering of other people.
  Let me repeat that. These are not statistics, these are not charts, 
these are not deals, these are not abstractions. Whatever State you 
come from, hot weather or cold weather, whether you are a Democrat or 
Republican: Please do not be generous with the suffering of other 
people. Vote your principles. Vote for what you believe in. We should 
win this vote.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair assumes you are dividing the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In which case you would have 5 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will reserve that time. I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator 
Wellstone, for that passionate speech, and one which, I think, sets the 
tone for the debate on this amendment.
  At the outset, I want to add my thanks to the Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd, for his kind and complimentary remarks. 
Frankly, I can think of no higher compliment than to be commended by a 
Senator who is known worldwide as the dean of the Senate and, indeed, 
the historian of the Senate. And I can think of no one who has a 
greater respect for the traditions of this institution and the 
importance of that tradition than he. So, to have him give such a kind 
compliment this morning is a singular honor, and I am very grateful to 
him for it.
  I also thank the Senator from Oregon for his diligence in working 
with us on this matter, because it is something about which both 
Senator Wellstone and I, and I hope many other Senators, feel strongly.
  Mr. President, I spoke to the issue of priorities last evening, and I 
will touch on that again. But I want to speak, really, more in a 
legislative context, about what it is that is going on here and what we 
have done and what we are attempting to do. There is an old expression 
that those who love the law and who love sausages should not watch 
either of them being made.
  So it is with H.R. 1944. To read the title of this bill, it says, 
``Making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster 
assistance.'' Nobody can be against disaster assistance--for 
``antiterrorism initiative''--something we all would applaud--for 
``assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma 
City.'' Again, something for which I know there must be unanimous 
consent.
  And here comes the poison pill: And ``making rescissions for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.'' That 
is the rescissions portion of this legislation that gives rise to this 
amendment and the controversy that we have had over the last few weeks.
  The rescissions portion of this legislation has several aspects to it 
that I think all Senators ought to a pay attention to. In the first 
instance, it is, as Senator Wellstone points out, a matter of 
priorities, a matter of principle, a matter having to do with the 
direction we take as we proceed on the glidepath toward a balanced 
budget.
  In this Senate the members of the Budget Committee adopted a budget 
resolution which had, on the one hand, the good news that it began to 
put us on a glidepath toward a balanced budget and began to assert that 
we were going to begin to get our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. President, as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment I 
could not have been more pleased that we had started in the direction 
of getting our fiscal house in order and beginning to achieve budget 
balance. However, Mr. President, this is why this amendment is so 
important. I was very concerned with the budget resolution, as I am 
with H.R. 1944, that the approach that we take toward a balanced budget 


[[Page S10459]]
does not fall on one segment of Americans, particularly the most 
vulnerable Americans, to make more sacrifice, to give more than they 
can afford to give than any other group of Americans. That is 
essentially the issue of priorities that is raised in this Wellstone/
Moseley-Braun amendment.
  Some 62 percent of the cuts in this rescissions portion of this bill 
come from programs that serve low-income individuals. As we approach 
balanced budget, I think we have to, as we take the first step toward a 
balanced budget, ask ourselves a question: As a nation, are we going to 
call on low-income individuals to make more of a sacrifice than middle-
income individuals, than middle-income communities, more than the 
wealthy?
  Without talking about class warfare--this is not intended to be class 
warfare, Mr. President--the point is we have to take a look at the 
whole of what we do because a budget is not just about numbers. It is 
not an abstract exercise. A budget is about people and about 
priorities, and it makes some very profound statements about the 
direction in which we intend to have this country go.
  Unfortunately, the cuts in this bill, as the first step to the budget 
exercise, suggest a set of priorities and a direction that I think is 
most unfortunate. In the first instance, Senator Wellstone talked about 
the cut in low-income heating assistance. That can have real dramatic 
and particular effect on hundreds of thousands of low-income 
individuals, particularly senior citizens, all over this country.
  The second place that concerns me greatly has to do--and this is the 
second division of this amendment--with the cuts specifically in the 
area of education and job training. We are calling upon our children to 
make sacrifices and to make cuts that we are not calling upon our 
generals to make, Mr. President. And that, it seems to me, is poor 
public policy.
  Specifically, the bill eliminates the education infrastructure 
program which is designed to help rebuild some of the dilapidated 
elementary and secondary schools around this country and the safe and 
drug-free schools and communities program. These cuts do not take into 
account that thousands of young people in many communities across this 
country cannot learn, cannot get to school because of the drug wars 
that rage in too many of our urban centers and our communities across 
this Nation overall.
  This bill would cut the Education Technology Program--who would argue 
the point but that we need to make certain that our young people are 
equipped to go into the 21st century with the same access to education, 
technologies, and innovations of the information age as any other group 
of youngsters anywhere else in the world? We are relegating and, 
frankly, dooming our own youngsters to be in a second-class position 
when it comes to competing in this international economy if we do not 
provide them with the tools, with the capacity, and with the access to 
technologies that they will need to be able to access in the 21st 
century.
  The Eisenhower Professional Development Program--another education 
cut. Who would argue with the notion that we ought to promote the 
training of teachers so that the people who train our young people will 
be able to give them a world-class education.
  Those are where the education cuts come from, Mr. President, in this 
rescissions bill. And that is one of the reasons why we have argued 
that as a matter priority, we ought to send a signal that it is not 
acceptable to us that our youngsters take these kinds of cuts, that the 
initiatives that we have for education, which is our investment not 
only in the future but our investment in the present, in our human 
capital, in our human infrastructure, that these are not cuts that 
ought to be made in this legislation.
  To go further, the second part of the cuts in this division of the 
amendment has to do with job training. If you want to talk about 
vulnerable populations, I would point out at the outset that one of the 
first cuts that this second part of the rescissions bill makes is 
against job training for homeless veterans. How we can say it is OK to 
cut job training for homeless veterans and not offset those cuts with 
money from the travel and administrative budget out of the Department 
of Defense is incomprehensible to me.
  Homeless veterans programs get cut in this legislation as does 
displaced worker training. Displaced workers, people laid off from 
their jobs from the base closings, or from some event in the various 
downsizing going on, need assistance to make the transition so their 
families do not have to go through the trauma of being dependent on 
welfare and public assistance. Yet, we are going to cut displaced 
worker training in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I know areas certainly in my State of Illinois in 
which there is 1 percent private sector employment--1 percent. It 
sounds almost incomprehensible that we could have that kind of economic 
meltdown in any part of our Nation. With 1 percent private sector 
employment, and in some instances as high as 89 percent unemployment 
among teenagers, how then do we say, well, we have to get this bill 
passed because we do not want it to go back to the House and then go 
ahead and cut some $272 million out of job training for teenagers who 
do not have any other option.
  That is what is at stake, Mr. President, with this legislation. And I 
submit to my colleagues, as I did last night, and I spoke to this bill 
last night, that the real significance --the cuts are bad enough--but 
the real significance is the direction that this puts us. Our assent to 
this legislation as it is currently written suggests that it is OK for 
the budget debate to go forward allowing for these kinds of cuts in 
these kinds of sensitive areas in which, if anything, we ought to 
invest our energies as opposed to withdraw our support, and that is the 
priority debate that we ought to be able to engage at this time.
  An interesting thing happened here, Mr. President. This is one of the 
reasons for the emergency nature of this legislation. The budget that I 
referenced that has been adopted presumed that this legislation is 
already passed. The budget presumes that this is already done and it is 
OK, and we are just going to go forward down the path of trying to 
achieve balance based on not only these cuts but cuts that are slated 
to happen in future.
  I would just point my colleagues to what has already happened in the 
House of Representatives with regard to education, with regard to job 
training, with regard to investment in people, and say, if this is not 
a precursor of things to come, if this is not the ghost of Christmas 
present, then what is coming out of the House certainly is the ghost of 
Christmas yet to come. And it will not be a very nice Christmas at all. 
Indeed, if anything, I believe that it will cause great strains in the 
social fabric of our country. I believe that it will put us on the 
wrong path and exacerbate not only wealth disparity, but exacerbate our 
inability to provide for a strong America in the future.
  That, it seems to me, is the issue. There is no question, Mr. 
President, that as we address the whole issue of how we get on the 
glidepath to a balanced budget but that everybody is going to have to 
make a sacrifice.
  I served on the President's Commission on Entitlements and Tax 
Reform. There is just no question but that we are going to have to have 
some budget discipline, but that we all are going to have to tighten 
our belts a little bit, but that we are going to have to have cuts in 
some areas.
  I ask you if it is at all appropriate to have the cuts in areas that 
provide job training for homeless veterans? I ask you if it is 
appropriate for us to have the cuts in areas that have to deal with 
technology training for students? I ask you if it is altogether 
appropriate to cut the funding for heating assistance for low-income 
individuals in winter?
  The Senator from Minnesota referenced the heat wave that we had in 
Illinois recently. Quite frankly, we have had over 376 deaths come from 
the heat wave. Illinois does not have a heating program under LIHEAP, 
although, frankly, it could. The point I make, there have been 376 
deaths from heat this summer, but anybody who knows anything about this 
United States knows that we have a saying in Chicago: ``If you don't 
like the weather in Chicago, wait a minute.''
  So this next winter is likely to be as cold as it was hot last week. 
Are we going to sit back and say, well, it is OK 

[[Page S10460]]
that it is just too bad that those 376 people died. Is that part of the 
brutal equation that we are buying into as part of our approach to 
budget discipline? I do not think so.
  I think, as Senator Wellstone has eloquently said, we should not be 
too generous with the suffering of others. Yes, we should make cuts, 
but those cuts should be fairly spread out; that sacrifice should be 
shared, and it should not fall on any segment of Americans, 
particularly the most vulnerable communities and constituencies in our 
country, to give more than their fair share.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1944 calls on the most vulnerable to give the 
most; those who have the least have to give the most under this bill. I 
hope this is not the direction that we will take as we engage in this 
budget debate.
  I call upon my colleagues to look closely at what is in this bill. I 
read the title but look at what actually goes on here. I am not going 
to get into the debate about what it does for the environment. It has 
some environmental language that is in my opinion, atrocious. I will 
not get into that because that was not the focus of these amendments 
and we have limited time this morning, limited time that I will add, by 
the way, is unfortunate also because this ought to be a debate in which 
every Member of the Senate engages.
  I ask my colleagues to look at the legislation. Read the bill. It may 
sound phenomenal but read the bill. It is not too much to ask. And then 
take a look at exactly where the fine print takes you. The fine print, 
in my opinion, takes you on a path on which we do not need to go, that 
frankly is beneath this great body.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, allow us to go back 
and revisit the issue of priorities, allow us to go back and revisit 
the shared sacrifice and have rescissions legislation and then as we go 
forward a budget that accurately reflects a vision for America that 
will give us a stronger America going into the 21st century and not one 
that is weakened by a shortsighted approach such as this.
  The division we are debating here today would restore $319 million 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP].
  I strongly support the LIHEAP program. This program helps 
economically disadvantaged individuals pay their heating bills during 
the winter. It also helps these individuals pay their cooling bills 
during unbearable heat waves like the one which recently swept across 
the country and is being blamed for up to 376 heat-related deaths in 
Chicago alone.
  Last year, the LIHEAP program assisted 5.6 million households--
including 200,000 households in Illinois--with an average income of 
$8,257.
  Of these households, 55 percent included at least one child under 18 
while 43 percent included at least one senior citizen.
  Although the LIHEAP program is designed to help the neediest members 
of our society, its funding has steadily declined from $2.1 billion in 
fiscal year 1985 to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1995. As a result, 
20,000 eligible households in Illinois were denied assistance last year 
due to a shortage of funds.
  I am convinced that further cuts in the LIHEAP program will force 
even more of our Nation's elderly to have to choose between putting 
food on their tables and heating their homes.
  These cuts will also force energy providers to have to choose between 
not getting paid for the energy they provide and cutting off their 
neediest customers.
  I voted for the original Senate rescission bill which did not propose 
any cuts in the LIHEAP program.
  I voted against the conference report on H.R. 1158 in no small part 
because of the $319 million cut it would make in the LIHEAP program.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this cut by supporting the division 
that Senator Wellstone and I have introduced.
  I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Wellstone 
amendment, which will restore funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program.
  Over 6 million people received aid with heating costs under the 
program last winter, including 143,000 households in Massachusetts. It 
also provided urgently needed relief in the previous winter, which was 
extremely harsh.
  Three-quarters of the families receiving LIHEAP have incomes below 
$8,000. These families spend an extremely burdensome 18 percent of 
their income on energy costs, compared to the average middle-class 
family, which spends only 4 percent.
  Researchers at Boston City Hospital have documented the heat-or-eat 
effect--higher utility bills during the coldest months of the year 
force low-income families to spend less of their money on food and more 
of it on heat. The result is increased malnutrition among children.
  The study found that almost twice as many low-weight and under-
nourished children were admitted to the Boston City Hospital emergency 
room immediately following the coldest month of the winter. No low-
income family should have to choose between heating and eating.
  But it is the low-income elderly who are at the greatest risk if 
LIHEAP is cut back, because they are the most vulnerable to 
hypothermia. In fact, older Americans accounted for more than half of 
all hypothermia deaths in 1991.
  In addition, elderly households are much more likely than other 
families to live in homes built before 1940. These homes tend to be 
less energy efficient, and the elderly who live in them are at greater 
risk.
  In addition, low-income elderly who have trouble paying their energy 
bills are often driven to rely on room heaters, fireplaces, ovens, and 
woodburning stoves in order to save money on central heating. Between 
1986 and 1990, heating sources like these were the second leading cause 
of fire deaths among the elderly. In fact, the elderly were up to 
twelve times more likely to die in a heating-related fire than adults 
under 65.
  LIHEAP is a program that makes a difference in all these cases. It 
makes a difference in human terms. It has been a lifeline to Edythe 
Aston, an 81-year-old elderly woman living in Melrose, MA. She received 
funding under the program to replace a dangerously defective furnace in 
her basement. Her furnace was in such disrepair that she said it could 
have either shut down altogether or exploded. The LIHEAP assistance she 
received not only allowed her to heat her house, it also gave her peace 
of mind that she was safe in her home.
  Finally, LIHEAP also benefits communities through its job-creating 
impact on the local economy. As Robert Coard, president of Action for 
Boston Community Development, wrote in a Boston Globe article last 
month, LIHEAP ``employs large numbers of community people who may have 
trouble finding work in industries requiring sophisticated high-
technology skills. Many are multilingual--a major asset for this 
program. The oil vendors who work with the program include many mom-
and-pop businesses that depend on fuel assistance to survive. The 
dollars spent go right back into the economy.''
  The winter of 1993-94 was an especially harsh one. For the entire 
month of January 1994, the average temperature in Boston was only 20 
degrees, and the price of oil rose to meet the increased demand for 
heat.
  LIHEAP should not be a partisan issue. If Senate Republicans are 
serious about helping and not hurting the elderly and low-income 
families, they will join us in restoring these funds. They will stop 
raiding the wallets and the furnaces of those who need help the most.
  I urge my colleagues not to freeze out the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, and to support the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 5 minutes and 
50 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any 
other time on the opposing side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only time remaining is the time of the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say to my 
colleague from Illinois that it has been a 

[[Page S10461]]
real honor to be in the Chamber of the Senate with her throughout this 
last couple weeks.
  I say to my colleague from Illinois that I think she is quite right 
about process. This is just a glimpse of what is to come in terms of 
really a lack of standard of fairness when it comes to who is asked to 
tighten their belt. And perhaps it is also a glimpse of what is to come 
in terms of trying to have a stealth Congress, where you make these 
cuts at 3 a.m. in the House, you make deals, and come over to the 
Senate.
  I say to the Senator I believe, since this is a glimpse of what is to 
come, that for us this is just the beginning. This is just the 
beginning. This will become, I believe, a very important, historic 
debate in the Senate. I know we are very determined to make sure that 
happens.
  Mr. President, I wish to just summarize because I had a chance to 
speak earlier, and I wish to speak to one thing I have heard said 
several times that I really want Senators to think about before they 
vote. I am just going to take the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program 
because we are going to have two votes, two different amendments will 
be voted on.
  Mr. President, many Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, are on 
record supporting the LIHEAP program. This $319 million that we are 
trying to restore from the Pentagon travel administrative budget is 
money that we voted for in the Senate. Senators are for this. The House 
has now zeroed it out after this deal was made. They have zeroed it 
out.
  This is a vote that could very well determine the future of this 
program. But to vote to restore this funding is consistent with the 
position I think of a majority of Senators in this Chamber. It has 
nothing to do with contradicting the prior vote.
  Second, Mr. President, just because the majority leader says if I 
should fail in my attempt to table these amendments--let us start with 
the one on LIHEAP--I will pull the bill, I doubt it. We have disaster 
relief for Oklahoma and California. Senator Moseley-Braun and I have 
been very consistent about this. That is why we said we wanted the 
right to have these amendments. We want some democracy; we want some 
openness here, and that is why we made it clear once we were able to 
obtain that right we will go forward. I doubt the majority leader will 
pull this bill.
  Third, I say to my colleagues, it is a difficult argument for you to 
make back home to the people you represent, and I know you care about, 
that somehow you had to vote for these cuts in the Low-Income Energy 
Assistance Program that you do not support because this bill would then 
have to go back to the House and it would take a few more hours. This 
bill could go back to the House, and it could be back here at 1 
o'clock.
  Forget the deals, forget inside Washington politics and think about 
the people who we represent even if those people do not have the big 
bucks, even if they are not the heavy hitters, even if they are not the 
big players.
  This vote goes to the whole question of the heart and soul of the 
Senate. Mr. President, 450 people have died in the last 2 weeks. 
Cooling assistance is part of this program. My colleague from 
Pennsylvania is one of the champions of this program. He would be the 
first to say that. Why are we cutting this program?
  Mr. President, I just say this one more time. Whether it is a cold 
weather State, where this is not an income supplement, this is a 
survival supplement, whether we are talking about heating assistance or 
cooling assistance, the total appropriations for this bill were less 
than one B-2 bomber. And we want to take just $319 million out of a 
Pentagon travel administrative budget that the GAO says is bloated and 
wasteful, with all sorts of articles: ``Billions Go Astray, Often 
Without a Trace,'' and just make sure we have a modicum of funding for 
low-income energy assistance.
  That will be the first vote. I will say it one more time to my 
colleagues. Before you vote, please think deeply about this. I appeal 
to Senators: Do not be too generous with the suffering of other people. 
We can restore this $319 million and we can send this bill over to the 
House, and it will be back here at 1 p.m. Convenience between House and 
Senate is an inside process and deals have nothing to do with justice 
and fairness and what we stand for.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak for 4 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the 
Senator is going to speak against our position, then I would ask for 
more time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would object unless we could have a unanimous 
consent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 4 minutes and if the Senator from Minnesota 
chooses 4 more minutes, it be up to his discretion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada objects.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would not object at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would object, but I would be pleased 
to have 3 minutes for the Senator from Pennsylvania and 3 minutes for 
the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like the record to show that we were for all 
debate today. We wanted it during the daytime. This was not our 
decision.
  Mr. REID. Regular order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak up to 2 minutes. This is my subcommittee's bill, and 
I have things to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object unless we have 2 minutes to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
additional minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will have to object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  All time has expired.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the first division of 
the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


        Vote on Motion to Table Division I of Amendment No. 1833

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table division I of amendment No. 1833 offered by the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] 
and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 319 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole 

[[Page S10462]]

     Domenici
     Exon
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Ashcroft
     Faircloth
     Inouye
  So the motion to lay on the table division I of amendment No. 1833 
was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
remaining votes in the voting sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the second division of 
the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


     Vote On The Motion To Table Division II Of Amendment No. 1833

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table 
division II of amendment No. 1833, offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] 
and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Ashcroft
     Faircloth
     Inouye
  So the motion to lay on the table division II of the amendment (No. 
1833) was agreed to.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify one important 
question regarding additional legislative language in this bill 
governing the Community Schools Program passed last year in the crime 
bill. I appreciate the assistance of the chairman in ensuring that $10 
million of the $26.5 million originally appropriated will remain 
available to assist communities that have designed programs to use 
school buildings for constructive activities for young people to keep 
them safe and out of trouble during the afternoons, evenings and 
weekends.
  Additional language was added to the House limiting the use of funds 
somewhat further than in the authorizing legislation. After this 
rescission becomes law, funds may be used only for entrepreneurship, 
academic, or tutorial programs, or for workforce preparation. Although 
this is a slightly narrower definition than in the original 
authorization, it follows closely my original intent in developing the 
program, which was not to encourage purely recreational activities.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has done a wonderful job 
of getting this program underway. Despite a tight deadline, more than 
700 applications were received by the May 5 deadline.
  Almost all of these applications feature the components that are 
identified as permissible under the modified requirements in this 
legislation. However, some of the best applications put these 
activities in a broader context, including activities such as mentoring 
and conflict resolution, in keeping with the purpose of crime 
prevention. Other applications focus on academic and tutorial 
activities, but address topics outside the underlying school 
curriculum, which is in keeping with the intent of the legislation, 
since we did not want to duplicate or subsidize existing school 
activities.
  All of these applications were prepared and the initial evaluation 
conducted under the original, slightly less restrictive, authorizing 
language. I would be greatly concerned if HHS were required to start 
from scratch, reopening the application and evaluation process, in 
order to meet the most restrictive interpretation of these new 
constraints.
  Therefore, I would like to ask whether it is the chairman's 
understanding that, under this new language, more comprehensive 
programs that center around the activities described, but set those 
activities in the context of a broader program of mentoring or related 
methods, would be permissible?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his inquiry. My 
response is that, he is correct in his reading of this language. The 
intent is to ensure that academic, tutorial, or work and 
entrepreneurship programs constitute the primary feature of any local 
initiative funded through the Community Schools Program. I appreciate 
that there may be other activities or methods, such as mentoring, that 
are necessary as part of a more comprehensive program for youth. 
Community organizations that have already developed applications under 
the original authorization language should not be required to rewrite 
their applications to eliminate all mention of such incidental 
activities.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator. I believe this will provide needed 
clarity to the Department and to the 700 community applicants. This 
said, however, I would reiterate the intent of this restrictive 
language: in making these grants, the Department of Health and Human 
Services should not fund programs that are primarily recreational in 
nature, or whose primary feature is not academic, tutorial, or directed 
at developing the potential of young people as workers or 
entrepreneurs.
  Mr. HATFIELD. This is my view also, and I believe it will help to 
make this program successful.
                center for ecology research and training

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am concerned about the rescission 
contained in H.R. 1944 for the EPA Center for Ecology Research and 
Training in Bay City, MI. The bill rescinds $83 million from this 
planned facility, leaving about $10 million for close-out costs only.
  This facility is very important to my State and I would hope the 
Appropriations Committee would consider at a minimum funding for the 
docking and maintenance facility component of the project in the fiscal 
year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. A 
docking and maintenance 

[[Page S10463]]
facility is needed for EPA's Lake Guardian research vessel, which 
provides important monitoring and research in the Great Lakes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his remarks. Let me 
assure him that I understand how important this project is to his 
State.
  The bill rescinds funds for this project primarily because EPA is in 
the midst of a major reorganization of its research laboratories. EPA 
already has 39 laboratories, and there is great concern as to whether a 
new facility is needed or can be afforded at this time.
  I understand the plans for the center include a super computer 
center, a training center, a docking and maintenance facility, and 
environmental research and analytical chemistry laboratories.
  As part of the Agency's laboratory reorganization, EPA should study 
whether the docking and maintenance facility is critically important in 
Bay City, and if so, determine the associated construction and 
operating costs. This information should be provided to the 
Appropriations Committee as soon as possible so that it may be 
considered in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill for EPA.
  The committee will give close consideration to the Senator from 
Michigan's recommendation for this project, as well as information from 
the EPA. While I cannot provide any guarantees for funding. I ensure my 
friend from Michigan that it will receive our serious and careful 
consideration.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the assurances of the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee. I hope he will also work with me to 
ensure that EPA is able to fulfill its legal and moral obligations to 
acquire and remediate, if necessary, contaminated properties where 
acquisition by EPA has begun.
  Mr. BOND. I will make every reasonable attempt, within available 
funds, to provide EPA with the ability to satisfy the Agency's 
obligation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. His assurances and 
those expressed by Congressman Livingston regarding this project, 
improve the future prospects for the dock and maintenance facility, if 
not the entire project.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to adopt, and 
send to the President for his signature, H.R. 1944, the revised fiscal 
year 1995 rescission bill. The legislation before the Senate today is 
an important first step toward a balanced budget. Once we get to that 
balanced budget--roughly 7 years from now--the Nation will be relieved 
of a terrific burden on its people and our economy. There's another 
form of relief in the rescission bill before us today, and its 
specifically targeted at natural resource based communities across our 
Nation that have been destroyed by misguided Federal policies.
  The emergency salvage timber provision in this legislation, which has 
been the subject of many intense negotiations over the past few days, 
was included in the original rescission bill vetoed by the President, 
as a way to provide some short-term relief to timber communities in my 
State.
  For 6 long years, rural timber communities in my State have been 
under siege from their Federal Government, and the implementation of 
environmental laws that have neglected to consider the impacts of these 
laws on people. Federal agencies have gone literally unchecked in their 
imposition of regulations, and restrictions on people and their 
property, and, the cumulative effects of these actions have resulted in 
the destruction of rural communities and their way of life.
  Mr. President, I know the people who live and work in these 
communities--Forks, Morton, Aberdeen Port Angeles, Colville--and I am 
proud to call them my friends. I get angry when actions by the Federal 
Government result in the destruction of their way of life. Forks, 
Washington is no different than any other rural community across 
America. What is different about Forks is that the community has 
largely been shut down. And what is different about Forks is that the 
Federal Government has done little, if anything, to acknowledge the 
fact that this community has forever been changed.
  Today timber communities must fight for every log that gets to their 
mill. Timber communities fight against clever--and not so clever--
environmental attorneys that file lawsuits to block Federal timber 
sales. If success is measured in the number of sawmills shut down, the 
number of small business with closed doors, the number of workers 
collecting unemployment checks, and number of close-knit families that 
have unraveled, then environmental extremists have been hugely 
successful.
  It is fundamental to our ideal of the American dream that an 
individual have the ability to choose his or her livelihood. As a 
father and a grandfather, I see endless opportunities for my children 
and grandchildren, to pursue a career or life's work that will bring 
them great happiness. I believe this to be a tenet of our American way 
of life that should not be undermined or
 compromised, and this Senator will fight to protect and enhance such 
opportunities, not compromise them.

  But Federal agencies and Federal environmental laws have 
compromised--if not sold out--the dreams of people in timber towns 
across my State. It was not enough that an individual's life's work was 
casually disregarded by his Government, but the response from the 
Federal Government--and from urban area leaders--to their plight was to 
simply suggest that timber workers just find another job. The arrogance 
of this statement speaks for itself.
  To add insult to injury, this administration put forward a plan--
Option 9--that would pour money--hundreds of millions of dollars--into 
myriad bureaucracies, training programs, forms, and procedures that was 
supposed to ease the pain of a policy designed to essentially eliminate 
a vital part of our region's workforce and economy.
  Mr. President, it is crystal clear to this Senator, and I hope to 
many of his colleagues, that the answer to this problem is not arrogant 
statements that look down upon the time honored way of life in our 
rural communities, or throwing money at the problem and hoping it will 
go away. The answer to this problem is simple, we must change the laws 
that have brought us to this point.
  The legislation before us today is an emergency measure that will 
bring a degree of relief to people in timber communities in my State. 
It's a good starting point, but this Senator intends to address the 
underlying statutes that have brought us to this point in the first 
place.
  The history of the emergency salvage timber provision dates back to 
what is commonly known as ``section 318'' of the fiscal year 1990 
Interior appropriations bill. That provision was crafted by the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, together 
with other members of the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation, 
to address the timber supply shortage in our region. The provision 
included what is commonly known as ``sufficiency language''--language 
insulating timber sales from frivolous legal challeges filed under 
various environmental statutes. The sufficiency language included in 
Section 318 was ultimately challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, 
where the Court ruled in favor of the goals and principles put forward 
in the legislation.
  The emergency salvage timber provision in the rescission bill before 
the Senate today includes sufficiency language that was carefully 
crafted to mirror the sufficiency language in section 318. Why? Section 
318 has been tested by legal challenge, and it has survived. The 
sufficiency language in H.R. 1944 does not attempt to chart new 
territories on this front, but to follow the carefully crafted language 
that has been held up under close scrutiny.
  In 1992, this Senator offered an amendment on the Senate floor to the 
fiscal year 1993 Interior appropriations bill that would have granted 
the authority to the Secretary to move forward with salvage timber 
sales. During the Senate debate on that amendment, I cautioned the 
Senate that to allow salvage timber to continue to build up on the 
floor of our Nation's forests would result in devastating wildfires in 
future years. The Senate rejected that warning, and my amendment was 
soundly defeated.
  And again, just last year, during the House-Senate conference on the 
fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations bill, I attempted to offer an 
amendment that would give the Secretary the authority to offer salvage 
sales to improve forest 

[[Page S10464]]
health conditions in our Nation's forests. My amendment was soundly 
rejected by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
  But this year, things are different. Today, after years of struggle 
and suffering, the voices of timber families in Washington State have 
finally been heard. Today, the Senate will finally pass legislation, 
and send it to the President that will result in real relief for people 
in my State. Real relief, Mr. President, not simply promises on paper 
to be waved around at press conferences.


                   emergency salvage timber provision

  The provision in H.R. 1944 is virtually identical to that which 
passed the House and Senate in the conference report to H.R. 1158. The 
conference report to H.R. 1158 was, of course, vetoed by the President. 
The legislation before the Senate today includes four key modifications 
to the timber language included in the conference report to H.R. 1158. 
Allow me to briefly explain these changes, and the rationale behind 
each.
  First, in subsection (c)(1)(A) of H.R. 1944, the change worthy of 
notice was included at the request of the administration. This Senator 
did not believe that this change was necessary because of the way that 
the entire provision is drafted. The fundamental concept of the timber 
language is that the Secretary has the discretion to put forward the 
salvage timber sales of which he approves. Consequently, I was baffled 
by the administration's demand that in this subsection language be 
included to give direction to the Secretary ``to the extent the 
Secretary concerned, at his sole discretion, considers appropriate and 
feasible'' that timber salvage sales ``be consistent with any standards 
and guidelines from the management plans applicable to the National 
Forest or Bureau of Land Management District on which the salvage 
timber sale occurs.'' The administration demanded that some mention of 
``standards and guidelines'' be included in this section. After a 
series of negotiations this is the compromise that the House and Senate 
worked out with the administration.
  Subsection (c)(1)(A) gives the administration the broadest latitude 
to prepare the salvage timber sales that it deems appropriate. It 
already has the discretion to make the decision of whether or not to 
put forward a sale that is consistent the standards and guidelines of a 
particular forest unit or BLM district. Essentially this request by the 
administration and the language ultimately included at its request is 
nothing more than redundant.
  Subsection (k) releases sales that were authorized under section 318 
of the fiscal year 1990 Interior appropriations bill. Roughly 300 mbf 
of timber sales have been held up due to agency gridlock over the 
marbled murelett. The administration asked the House and Senate to 
include in (k)(2) its definition of ``occupancy.'' That change in 
subsection (k)(2) of the Emergency Salvage Timber provision would 
undermine the ability to move these sales forward. That suggestion was 
soundly rejected by the House and Senate authors of the provision.
  The language of (k)(2) requires that if a threatened or endangered 
bird species is ``known to be nesting'' in the sale unit that the 
administration not harvest that unit, but come up with an equal
 amount of timber in exchange for preserving that unit. This was 
written to give the administration flexibility to protect that 
individual sale unit in which the bird resides.

  I wish to clarify that it is the intention of the House and Senate 
authors of this provision that the administration must provide physical 
evidence that the bird is ``nesting'' in that unit before the 
administration may enact (k)(3) to avoid the harvest of that sale unit.
  The administration also requested that the date in subsection (k) be 
changed from 30 days for the release of the sales, to 45 days. The 
House and Senate authors of the provision included this request in H.R. 
1944.
  The third change included at the request of the administration 
relates to subsection (l)--Effect on Plans, Policies, and Activities--
of the Timber provision. The subsection addresses the effect that 
salvage timber sales have on other multiple use activities. The 
provision was revised to create a limited exception to language that 
prohibits modifying land plans and other administrative actions as a 
consequence of implementing the section. The change, as requested by 
the administration, allows for modifications under extremely limited 
circumstances when needed to meet the salvage program agreed to by the 
conferees, or to reflect the particular effect of the salvage sale 
program.
  It is critical to note that this modification expressly prohibits the 
administration from using salvage timber sales as the basis for 
limiting other multiple use activities. If the administration does need 
to modify an existing plan or program, project decisions, such as 
salvage sales, or other activities, cannot be halted or delayed by the 
modification. This is a critical point. This provision, as included in 
the conference report to H.R. 1158, was requested by the U.S. Forest 
Service as a way in which to ensure that the Forest Service would not 
be subject to legal challenge for the ``cumulative effects'' of a 
salvage sales when combined with another multiple use activity.
  Last, the fourth change requested by the administration is, perhaps, 
the most interesting. The administration requested that the expiration 
date of the timber language be changed from September 30, 1997 to 
December 31, 1996. The administration aggressively pursued this 
request, with the express knowledge that its own agency officials in 
the Forest Service specifically asked the House and Senate conferees on 
H.R. 1158 to extend the Senate passed date of September 30, 1996 to 
September 30, 1997. The Forest Service made this request of the 
conferees for budgetary and planning purposes. Despite this fact, the 
administration was undaunted, however, in their desire to change the 
date to December 31, 1996.
  When asked why the administration needed the date to be changed to 
December 31, 1996, the response was this: the current administration 
cannot control the actions of future administrations.
  This is certainly an interesting concept, and an idea that I totally 
reject. Why? We cannot predict what will happen between now and the 
next election. Will we continue to have a Republican controlled House 
and Senate? Will one body return back to Democratic control? This is 
the subject of elections, and should not be the subject of policy 
discussions. But this
 President, unlike almost any other in recent history, has made 
election politics a consideration in nearly every one of his policy 
deliberations.

  Aside from these changes the principle of the timber language in this 
legislation remains the same. The timber language simply provides the 
President the ability to keep the multitude of promises that have been 
made and broken to the people who live and work in timber communities 
in the Pacific Northwest. It's just that simple.
  Briefly, the three components of my amendment are: emergency salvage 
timber sales, Released timber sales, and option 9.
  Emergency salvage timber sales: An emergency situation exists in our 
Nation's forests created by past wildfires, increased fuel load, or bug 
infested and diseased timber stands. Time and again, the administration 
has publicly committed to putting together an aggressive salvage timber 
program. My amendment gives the administration the ability to do just 
that.
  The bill language directs the Forest Service and BLM expeditiously to 
prepare, offer and award salvage timber sale contracts for the thinning 
and salvaging of dead, dying, but infested, downed, and burnt timber on 
these Federal lands nationwide, and to perform the appropriate 
revegetation and tree planting operations in the areas in which the 
salvage operations have taken place.
  The bill language deems the salvage timber sales to satisfy the 
requirements of applicable Federal environmental laws. It also provides 
for an expedited process for legal challenges to any such timber sale, 
and limits administrative review of the sales.
  Released timber sales: Language has also been included to release a 
group of sales that have already been sold under the provisions of 
Section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. The harvest of these sales was assumed under the 
President's Pacific Northwest forest plan, but their release has been 
held up due to extended subsequent review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 


[[Page S10465]]
Service. Release of these sales will remove tens of millions of dollars 
of liability from the government for contract cancellation. The only 
limitation on release of these sales is in the case of a nesting of an 
endangered bird species with a known nesting site in a sale unit. In 
this case, the Secretary must provide substitute volume for the sale 
unit.
  Option 9: First, let me make clear that I do not agree with, or 
support, option 9. I do not believe it comes close to striking an 
appropriate balance between the needs of people and their environment. 
My amendment simply provides the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management the authority to expedite timber sales allowed for under 
option 9. The administration promised the people in the region of 
option 9--Washington, Oregon and California--an annual harvest of 1.1 
billion board-feet, and the time has come for it to keep its promise.
  My amendment specifies that timber sales prepared under the provision 
satisfy the requirements of Federal environmental laws, provides for an 
expedited process for legal challenges, and limits administrative 
review of such sales. Let me make clear that my amendment does not 
independently validate option 9 and does not restrict future legal 
challenges to option 9.
  Mr. President, although I believe that the negotiations that have 
gone on over the timber language were unnecessary given the broad 
latitude that the administration has in this legislation, it is a part 
of the legislative process. More important than these negotiations, and 
the last minute interest of this administration in the legislation, in 
the opinion of this Senator, are the people in timber communities. The 
people in timber communities across my State will have won their first 
victory when the President signs this bill. It's a victory they deserve 
and one we should give to them. I encourage my colleagues to support 
H.R. 1944.
                     subsection (i) of section 2001

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to share with my 
colleagues my understanding of subsection (i) of section 2001 of H.R. 
1944. This subsection contains references to several specific Federal 
statutes as well as general references to Federal laws, including 
treaties, compacts, and international agreements. It is my 
understanding that the reference to treaties is made in response to 
allegations that passage and implementation of section 2001 would 
result in violation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement or the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.


                             forest health

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I voted for the rescission bill that 
passed the Senate earlier today because I believe so strongly that we 
must bring our Federal budget under control, and hopefully balance it 
in the near future. The longer we delay this process the more difficult 
our choices become in cutting spending for truly important Federal 
programs. But I remain strongly opposed to the provision in this 
rescission bill to exempt Federal logging from all Federal 
environmental laws for 2 years under the justification of salvage 
harvests. Not only is this provision unrelated to spending cuts--and 
probably will be budget negative--it sets very inadvisable policy and 
precedent.
  ``Timber salvage'' in this provision is defined broadly to include 
virtually all Federal forests, potentially including areas set aside or 
managed scientifically for critical watersheds, endangered species, 
roadless areas, or special recreation uses. It defines salvage to 
include ``dead, dying, and associated trees''--which may include 
virtually all mature timber. And, it provides exemptions from citizens 
suits, appeals, and judicial review of agency actions. These actions do 
not appear warranted based on timber harvest data from public lands.
  According to U.S. Forest Service data, since 1992 less than one-half 
of 1 percent of forest sales by volume have been delayed by citizen 
suits, and less than 3 percent by
 litigation. In the first 11 months of 1994 over 1 billion board feet 
of timber was harvested from the ``Option 9'' areas developed for 
salmon and spotted owl protection--very close to the 1.2 billion board 
feet promise made for the 12 month period of 1994. Further, U.S. Forest 
Service data shows that a substantial number of timber sales in this 
region have been offered but not taken due to lack of demand.

  In a recent issue of Random Lengths, industry's weekly report on 
North American Forest Products Markets, the lead story states that:

       Consensus has developed that there is simply too much 
     production chasing too few orders. Most buyers and sellers 
     now agree that unless demand revives in a big way, and soon, 
     the industry is headed for widespread shutdowns and 
     curtailments.

  Futures prices for softwood continue to be very low in relation to 
past years, further indicating low demand relative to supply.
  Many experts believe that the timber industry faces a crisis of 
demand, not supply. Even if this were not the case, it is doubtful that 
exemptions from Federal environmental laws would help smaller mills 
facing log shortages. Mills that are most threatened by log shortages 
from public lands often cannot outbid larger mills at auction. Auctions 
tend to be won by deep pockets, with no guarantee that mills needing 
logs the most will get them.
  During debate over original passage of this bill Senator Murray 
offered a moderating amendment, which I voted for, that would have 
expedited but not eliminated implementation of environmental laws on 
Federal forest lands. It failed by only one vote. The timber provision 
that finally passed contains a change over previous language to expand 
the role of the Secretary of Agriculture to require his signature in 
order to implement new sales. Although I do not think this is a 
sufficient fix to this legislation, I do think it is essential for the 
administration to faithfully execute this authority in order to prevent 
serious abuse of the legal exemptions in this provision.
  This timber provision is an unrelated, inadvisable and unnecessary 
addition to the rescission bill that will only further confuse our 
efforts to bring thoughtful, balanced reform to Federal environmental 
protection, without sacrificing important safeguards.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over 2 months ago, the President first 
announced his determination to veto H.R. 1158, the rescission and 
supplemental appropriations bill agreed to by the joint House-Senate 
conference committee. In part, he decried the agreement on the basis of 
the rescission proposed for HUD. At the time, I said that rationale for 
the veto was groundless. It is ironic, and very significant, that this 
measure, H.R. 1944, which the President now finds acceptable, rescinds 
$137 million more from HUD than did the bill which he vetoed.
  Some have questioned why HUD is being cut by nearly $6.5 billion, 
more than three-quarters of a total rescission of $8.4 billion for the 
subcommittee. The answer is simple: That 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 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 the budget resolution. The Congressional Budget 
Office analysis of the cost of the President's original budget 
submission for subsidized housing demonstrated a 50-percent expenditure 
increase over the next 5 years. This is a crisis. Unless we act now to 
curb the spiraling growth in outlays, we will have to make truly 
draconian cuts in the forthcoming fiscal year, including
 widespread evictions of low-income families from subsidized housing 
and accelerated deterioration in public and assisted housing across the 
country.

  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 

[[Page S10466]]
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 half of them are elderly and disabled. It's also important to note 
that such housing assistance is expensive. This year HUD will expend 
$26 billion for these programs, and 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 the budgetary growth of the Department can only be accomplished 
with a focused, determined, multiyear effort. Unless we begin now, with 
this bill, we will lock ourselves into another multi-billion-dollar 
increment 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. Immediate 
enactment of this bill, and the enactment of further budgetary and 
legislative measures to address this crisis later this summer, provide 
us our best and perhaps only opportunity to avoid the displacement of 
thousands of low-income families, as well as further deterioration and 
loss of desperately needed affordable housing stock.

  The President criticized a number of specific actions contained in 
the original conference agreement. Frankly, there are a number of 
recommendations in the revised measure before us which are even more 
troubling. But this bill is a compromise, not only between what was 
originally passed by the House more than 3 months ago and what was 
worked out in conference 2 months ago on H.R. 1158, but also with what 
the administration has subsequently demanded. I believe the agreement 
goes a long way toward minimizing adverse program impacts while 
increasing our contributions to deficit reduction. The bottom line, 
however, is that it provides almost $8.4 billion in deficit reduction 
while protecting funding for activities critical to our Nation's 
veterans, investments in science and technology, the environment, and 
to meet the housing needs of lower income families.
  For example, the rescission agreed to for national service was cut in 
half to $105 million. 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 hold this program closer to the 
funding level established for fiscal year 1994. I might add that the 
rescission is only a quarter of the original House-passed rescission of 
$416 million. The GAO is completing its report on the cost of this 
program which appears to confirm many of the concerns some of us have 
expressed. This report will serve as an important new factor in our 
consideration of funding for this program for fiscal year 1996.
  In the case of housing for AIDS victims, the current rescission 
totals only $15 million, a small fraction of $186 million included in 
the House bill. Moreover, the rescission provides an increase in 
funding over the level requested by the President for this fiscal year.
  The bill includes $6.6 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, and to meet emergency needs arising out of the terrorist 
bombing in Oklahoma City and flooding in the Midwest.
  Mr. President, I would also note that the bill contains $5 million 
requested by 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.
  The bill also rescinds $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 assertion in the President's previous 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 more careful management of the VA 
construction budget.
  This measure rescinds a total of $1.3 billion from EPA. Of the total, 
$1.1 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. The rescission bill leaves $225 
million for the drinking water State revolving fund should authorizing 
legislation be enacted.
  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 cleanup activities previously 
planned.
  This measure contains number of legislative provisions impacting EPA 
programs including the automobile inspection and maintenance program to 
ensure EPA is flexible in reviewing States' plans for I/M programs and 
considers assigning additional credits for effective decentralized 
programs.
  Also included are two key EPA reforms: 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.
  Mr. President, this compromise bill is a good one. Rescissions for 
programs under the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee total $8.4 billion. The contribution toward 
deficit reduction is $1.5 billion more than the level originally passed 
by the Senate, but is $900 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, this bill must be enacted without further delay to 
assure 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, immediate enactment of this measure is 
absolutely critical to beginning the process of expenditure reduction 
to prevent widespread disruption and dislocations as we enact the 
legislation necessary to bring the Federal budget back into balance in 
7 years. We must eliminate this spending before Federal agencies 
obligate even more of the funds we have identified for rescission, 
making the task of saving money in low priority programs even more 
difficult.
  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 its adoption.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
addressed to the Democratic leader, which is identical to the letter 
sent to the Republican leader, from Alice Rivlin indicating the 
administration's full support for the bill as it was passed by the 
House, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S10467]]

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1995.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The purpose of this letter is to provide 
     the Administration's views on H.R. 1944, the emergency 
     supplemental and rescission bill. The Administration supports 
     H.R. 1944, as it passed the House.
       H.R. 1944 provides an important balance between deficit 
     reduction and providing funds to meet emergency needs. This 
     legislation provides essential funding for FEMA Disaster 
     Relief, for the Federal response to the bombing in Oklahoma 
     City, for increased anti-terrorism efforts, and for providing 
     debt relief to Jordan in order to contribute to further 
     progress toward a Middle East peace settlement. H.R. 1944 
     reduces Federal spending by $9 billion.
       The Senate is urged to pass H.R. 1944, as it passed the 
     House. With only ten weeks remaining in the fiscal year, it 
     is essential that this legislation be presented to the 
     President as soon as possible. Therefore, the Administration 
     opposes any amendments to the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read 
the bill for the third time.
  The bill (H.R. 1944) was ordered to a third reading, and was read for 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on the passage of H.R. 1944. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], 
and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--7

     Kennedy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Ashcroft
     Faircloth
     Inouye
  So, the bill (H.R. 1944) was passed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate passed a rescission bill today 
that I wish was not needed. Unfortunately, too often disasters like the 
California earthquake and the Oklahoma City bombing occur that we 
cannot foresee or prevent. Those events are tragedies, and we must do 
what we can to assist the victims.
  But there is another disaster that made this bill necessary--a 
disaster we could have stopped, one that will affect every American for 
years to come. That disaster is the Republican's budget resolution. 
There is not a Member of this Congress that doesn't want to balance the 
Federal budget, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. The 
budget resolution passed by Congress tries to right 30 years of 
overspending with 7 years of draconian cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, affordable housing, heating assistance, and just about every 
program hard-working American families depend upon.
  This was not a bipartisan budget resolution. Republicans rejected 
President Clinton's more moderate approach. I voted against that 
resolution. Unfortunately, not enough Senators joined me to block this 
disastrous budget that has created the need for the cuts we are making 
today.
  In April, I came to the Senate floor to vote against H.R. 1158, the 
earlier rescission bill that focussed its cuts on the poor, the hungry, 
and on our children. I said then that I hoped Republicans and Democrats 
could find a way to work together to develop a bipartisan bill that 
balanced those cuts more evenly. We have done that, and I believe the 
bill we have passed today is more equitable than the rescission bill 
that I voted against a few months ago.
  The cuts to education programs, to AmeriCorps, and to programs 
fighting drug use in our schools and communities, have been reduced. To 
offset those cuts, administrative costs for the Federal Government were 
trimmed.
  This is not a perfect bill. I am deeply concerned about many of the 
cuts included in the rescission package, most importantly the cut of 
$319 million to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. 
I fought to restore funding to LIHEAP in the original Senate rescission 
bill, and I have continued to oppose cuts to this important program as 
the House and Senate worked on a compromise.
  This cut will hurt Vermonters who cannot afford to heat their homes 
during our long New England winters. I do not believe that most 
Americans would choose to let those people freeze so that the budget 
can be balanced in 7 years as opposed to 10, or so that wealthy 
Americans can get a bigger tax break next year. Certainly I would not.
  I am also extremely disappointed with a timber provision, pushed 
through by special interests, that could be devastating to our Nation's 
forests. There is no justification for this timber legislation. It is a 
gift to special interest, powerful PAC money, and the champions of 
misinformation. The letter I will include for the Record makes this 
clear.
  I commend Senator Murray for the work she has done to establish a 
sustainable forest-based economy in the State of Washington, while 
creating 3,500 new jobs in the lumber, wood manufacturing, and paper 
industries. I applaud her for having the courage to stand up to this 
backdoor attempt to weaken the laws protecting our forests without 
hearings, without committee mark-ups, without public participation, or 
open floor debate. I hope that this is not an indication of the way 
this Congress intends to address our environmental laws. The American 
people did not vote for that kind of change, and they will not stand 
for it any more than I will.
  I voted for this rescission bill today--not because it is a good 
bill, but because it is a necessary bill. It is necessary to pay for 
the disasters in California, in Oklahoma, and for the disaster that the 
Republicans have created with their budget resolution.
          regarding the national bankruptcy review commission

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to congratulate my colleagues, Senator 
Hatfield, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator 
Byrd, the ranking member of the committee, for the hard work they have 
put toward resolving the differences in this bill. I hope that the 
passage of this bill will help to put this country on her way back to a 
balanced budget. Included in the bill is the appropriation for funding 
for the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. This Commission was 
established pursuant to enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 
which both the House and Senate passed unanimously. I wish to ask my 
distinguished colleague from Alabama to clarify a few issues regarding 
that Commission, since he managed the authorizing legislation last 
session. First, is it not correct that pursuant to section 608 of the 
act, the 2-year period for submitting its report should be based on the 
date on which the first meeting is held.
  Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is correct. Although the language in the act 
envisions that the first meeting of the 

[[Page S10468]]
Commission would take place within 210 days of enactment of the act. It 
is clear that first meeting as well as the actual 2-year duration of 
the Commission should be based on the date on which the first formal 
meeting, is held. This is the practical effect of the budgeting 
process, to which the Commission is bound.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are all bound by the budgeting process and must 
adjust our actions accordingly. I have one other question for my 
colleague, regarding the Commission membership requirements. I 
understand that the membership provision of the Commission was intended 
to preclude from continued membership a person who had been appointed 
to that position due to his or her capacity as an officer or employee 
of a government. Would the Senator from Alabama explain to me who this 
provision is meant to preclude from membership on the Commission?
  Mr. HEFLIN. I will be happy to help to clear up any questions which 
may have been raised regarding membership on the Commission. It is my 
understanding that this provision is intended to preclude from 
continued membership on the Commission those Commissioners who are 
appointed based solely on the capacity of the governmental office for 
which they hold. If that Commissioner should leave the governmental 
position during their term then they can no longer serve on the 
Commission.


                          ____________________