[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S22-S24]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 1995 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as 1996 begins, and the 2d session of the
104th Congress convenes, we need to take a close look at the record of
this Congress' first year. In reviewing that record, one stunning
failure stands out above all others. The majority in 1995 presided over
perhaps the most bungled budget and appropriations process ever seen in
Congress. The majority failed to meet every budget deadline set by law,
and every deadline they set for themselves.
Rather than react responsibly to bring order to this process,
Republicans instead chose to shut down the government twice. The most
recent shutdown, now in its 19th day, is by far the longest in history.
Both of these shutdowns have been unnecessary, wasteful of taxpayer
funds, and have inconvenienced thousands of Americans who paid their
taxes only to have basic services denied them.
Let there be no mistake: Despite some of the rhetoric we have heard,
the responsibility for the shutdown falls squarely on the shoulders of
Republicans in the House of Representatives. Nothing makes that clearer
than the action by the Senate on January 2 to approve a continuing
resolution that would fund the Government until January 12. The other
body could take up and enact that legislation in a matter of minutes.
Yet because of objections by self-proclaimed revolutionaries in the
other body, the shutdown continues. These extremists plan to hold the
Government and its workers hostage to force the administration to
accept a budget that has already been rejected by the President and the
American people.
A brief review of the botched budget process this year explains how
Congress got into this mess. The Budget Act requires the Senate Budget
Committee to report a resolution by April 1. The majority missed that
deadline. The Budget Act requires Congress to complete a budget
resolution by April 15. Again, the majority missed that legal deadline.
By June 15, the Budget Act requires Congress to complete action on a
final budget reconciliation bill. Today, over 6 months later, we are
still discussing that legislation at the White House. In fact, they did
not even complete work on the budget resolution until June 29.
The majority has missed every legal deadline for the appropriations
process, as well. By June 10, the Budget Act requires the House
Appropriations Committee to report all 13 appropriations bills. The
majority failed to report even one of them by that date. By June 30,
the Budget Act requires the House to complete action on all 13
appropriations bills. They had completed only two. By October 1, the
beginning of the fiscal year, all 13 appropriations bills are supposed
to be enacted. On October 1, 1995, Congress had sent only two of them
to the President.
Not only has Congress failed to meet its legal responsibilities. It
is now failing to meet its constitutional responsibilities to properly
fund the Government. Last year was not the first time the President
differed with Congress on appropriations bills. When Democrats
controlled Congress and Republicans controlled the White House,
Democrats handled Presidential vetoes very differently than the
majority does today. In 1990, President Bush vetoed the District of
Columbia bill twice, and he also vetoed the foreign operations and
Labor/Health and Human Services bills. He again vetoed the District of
Columbia bills in 1992 and 1993, and the Labor/HHS bill in 1992. In
each of these cases, Congress approved a continuing resolution to avoid
a shutdown while Congress and the President worked out differences over
these bills.
There is no reason that Congress cannot again this year approve
stopgap funding while Congress and the President negotiate differences
over outstanding appropriations bills that should have been completed
long ago. In fact, the President has indicated that, with relatively
minor changes, he would quickly sign the bills he has vetoed, and the
Government could be put back to work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my
statement, the veto messages of the President regarding the VA/HUD,
Commerce/State/Justice, and the Interior appropriations bills be
printed in the Record.
As these messages make clear, agreement is within reach if extremist
riders are removed and limited funding for high-priority programs is
restored. The only reason that this has not been done already is that
certain leaders in the
[[Page S23]]
other body seek to impose their radical agenda on America by holding
these bills hostage. The Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution,
expected more responsible behavior from leaders in Congress, and did
not anticipate that Congress would renege on its basic obligation to
maintain the functioning of Government because one faction expected to
gain partisan advantage.
Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to review these veto
messages, and begin working to bridge the differences by negotiating in
good faith, and stop using coercive tactics to extract advantage. I
hope very much that the House will act today on the clean continuing
resolution approved by the Senate yesterday. Ending the irresponsible
shutdown would be a good demonstration of leadership, and would clearly
add a positive note to the bipartisan negotiations over balancing the
budget that are now taking place.
There being no objection, the messages were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2099, the
``Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996.''
H.R. 2099 would threaten public health and the environment,
end programs that are helping communities help themselves,
close the door on college for thousands of young people, and
leave veterans seeking medical care with fewer treatment
options.
The bill includes no funds for the highly successful
National Service program. If such funding were eliminated,
the bill would cost nearly 50,000 young Americans the
opportunity to help their community, through AmeriCorps, to
address vital local needs such as health care, crime
prevention, and education while earning a monetary award to
help them pursue additional education or training. I will not
sign any version of this appropriations bill that does not
restore funds for this vital program.
This bill includes a 22 percent cut in requested funding
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including a 25
percent cut in enforcement that would cripple EPA efforts to
enforce laws against polluters. Particularly objectionable
are the bill's 25 percent cut in Superfund, which would
continue to expose hundreds of thousands of citizens to
dangerous chemicals and cuts, which would hamper efforts to
train workers in hazardous waste cleanup.
In addition to severe funding cuts for EPA, the bill also
includes legislative riders that were tacked onto the bill
without any hearings or adequate public input, including one
that would prevent EPA from exercising its authority under
the Clean Water Act to prevent wetlands losses.
I am concerned about the bill's $762 million reduction to
my request for funds that would go directly to States and
needy cities for clean water and drinking water needs, such
as assistance to clean up Boston Harbor. I also object to
cuts the Congress has made in environmental technology, the
climate change action plan, and other environmental programs.
The bill would reduce funding for the Council for
Environmental Quality by more than half. Such a reduction
would severely hamper the Council's ability to provide me
with advice on environmental policy and carry out its
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The bill provides no new funding for the Community
Development Financial Institutions program, an important
initiative for bringing credit and growth to communities long
left behind.
While the bill provides spending authority for several
important initiatives of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), including Community Development Block
Grants, homeless assistance and the sale of HUD-owned
properties, it lacks funding for others. For example, the
bill provides no funds to support economic development
initiatives; it has insufficient funds for incremental rental
vouchers; and it cuts nearly in half my request for tearing
down the most severely distressed housing projects. Also, the
bill contains harmful riders that would transfer HUD's Fair
Housing activities to the Justice Department and eliminate
Federal preferences in the section 8, tenant-based program.
The bill provides less than I requested for the medical
care of this Nation's veterans. It includes significant
restrictions on funding for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
that appear designed to impede him from carrying out his
duties as an advocate for veterans. Further, the bill does
not provide necessary funding for VA hospital construction.
For these reasons and others my Administration has
converyed to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot
accept this bill. This bill does not reflect the values that
Americans hold dear. I urge the Congress to send me an
appropriations bill for these important priorities that truly
serves the American people.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 18, 1995.
____
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1977, the
``Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1996.''
This bill is unacceptable because it would unduly restrict
our ability to protect America's natural resources and
cultural heritage, promote the technology we need for long-
term energy conservation and economic growth, and provide
adequate health, educational, and other services to Native
Americans.
First, the bill makes wrong-headed choices with regard to
the management and preservation of some of our most precious
assets. In the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, it would
allow harmful clear-cutting, require the sale of timber at
unsustainable levels, and dictate the use of an outdated
forest plan for the next 2 fiscal years.
In the Columbia River basin in the Pacific Northwest, the
bill would impede implementation of our comprehensive plan
for managing public lands--the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem
Management Project. It would do this by prohibiting
publication of a final Environmental Impact Statement or
Record of Decision and requiring the exclusion of information
on fisheries and watersheds. The result: a potential return
to legal gridlock on timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and
other economically important activities.
And in the California desert, the bill undermines our
designation of the Mojave National Preserve by cutting
funding for the Preserve and shifting responsibility for its
management from the National Park Service to the Bureau of
Land Management. The Mojave is our newest national park and
part of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act--the
largest addition to our park system in the lower 48 States.
It deserves our support.
Moreover, the bill would impose a misguided moratorium on
future listings and critical habitat designations under the
Endangered Species Act. And in the case of one endangered
species, the marbled murrelet, it would eliminate the normal
flexibility for both the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture to use new scientific information in managing our
forests.
Second, the bill slashes funding for the Department of
Energy's energy conservation programs. This is short-sighted
and unwise. Investment in the technology of energy
conservation is important for our Nation's long-term economic
strength and environmental health. We should be doing all we
can to maintain and sharpen our competitive edge, not back
off.
Third, this bill fails to honor our historic obligations
toward Native Americans. It provides inadequate funding for
the Indian Health Service and our Indian Education programs.
And the cuts targeted at key programs in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' are crippling--including programs that support child
welfare; adult vocational training; law enforcement and
detention services; community fire protection; and general
assistance to low-income Indian individuals and families.
Moreover, the bill would unfairly single out certain self-
governance tribes in Washington State for punitive treatment.
Specifically, it would penalize these tribes financially for
using legal remedies in disputes with non-tribal owners of
land within reservations.
Finally, the bill represents a dramatic departure from our
commitment to support for the arts and the humanities. It
cuts funding of the National Endowments for the Arts and
Humanities so deeply as to jeopardize their capacity to keep
providing the cultural, educational, and artistic programs
that enrich America's communitties large and small.
For these reasons and others my Administration has conveyed
to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot accept
this bill. It does not reflect my priorities or the values of
the American people. I urge the Congress to send me a bill
that truly serves the interests of our Nation and our
citizens.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 18, 1995.
____
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2076, the
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996.''
This bill does not meet the priorities and needs of our
Nation and people. It would undermine our ability to fight
the war on crime; decimate technology programs that are
critical to building a strong U.S. economy; and weaken our
leadership in the world by drastically cutting funding for
international organizations, peacekeeping, and other
international affairs activities.
First, the bill represents an unacceptable retreat in our
fight against crime and drugs. It eliminates my COPS
initiative (Community Oriented Policing Services) to put
100,000 more police officers on the street. Already, this
initiative has put thousands of police on the street, working
hand-in-hand with their communities to fight crime. The block
grant that H.R. 2076 would offer instead would not guarantee
a single new police officer. That's not what the American
people want, and I won't accept it. As I have said, I will
not sign any version of this bill that does not fund the COPS
initiative as a free-standing, discretionary grant program,
as authorized.
The bill also eliminates my ``drug courts'' initiative. And
it unwisely abandons crime prevention efforts such as the
Ounce of Prevention Council and the Community Relations
Service. I am also disappointed that the funding levels in
the bill fall short of my request for the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and OCDETF (Organized Crime Drug
[[Page S24]]
Enforcement Task Force). This is no time to let down our guard in the
fight against drugs.
Second, the bill constitutes a short-sighted assault on the
Commerce Department's technology programs that work
effectively with business to expand our economy, help
Americans compete in the global marketplace, and create high
quality jobs. As we approach a new, technology-driven
century, it makes no sense to eliminate an industry-driven,
highly competitive, cost-shared initiative like our Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), which fosters technology
development, promotes industrial alliances, and creates jobs.
Nor does it make sense to sharply cut funding for measures
that will help assure our long-term growth and
competitiveness--such as our National Information
Infrastructure grants program, which helps connect schools,
hospitals, and libraries to the information superhighway; the
GLOBE program, which promotes the study of science and the
environment in our schools; the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, which helps small manufacturers meet the hi-tech
demands of the new marketplace; Defense Conversion; or the
Technology Administration. And I oppose the bill's harmful
cuts for the Census Bureau and for economic and statistical
analysis.
Third, I am deeply concerned that this bill would undermine
our global leadership and impair our ability to protect and
defend important U.S. interests around the world--both by
making unwise cuts in funding for international organizations
and peacekeeping activities, and by cutting programs of the
State Department, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
and the United States Information Agency. These cuts would
impair our ability to support important activities such as
the nonproliferation of weapons, the promotion of human
rights, and the control of infectious disease like the Ebola
virus.
Moreover, sections of the bill include inappropriate
restrictive language, including language limiting the conduct
of U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam, that I believe
infringe on Presidential prerogatives. And I cannot accept
the provision that would cut off all funding for these
agencies on April 1, 1996, unless the State Department
Authorization Act and related legislation had been signed
into law.
Fourth, the bill includes three additional provisions that
I cannot accept.
It cripples the capacity of the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC) to fulfill its historic mission of serving people in
need--slashing its overall funding, sharply limiting the
administrative funds LSC needs to conduct its business, and
imposing excessive restrictions on LSC's operations. LSC
should be allowed to carry on its work in an appropriate
manner, both in its basic programs and in special initiatives
like the migrant legal services program.
Section 103 of the bill would prohibit the use of funds for
performing abortions, except in cases involving rape or
danger to the life of the mother. The Justice Department has
advised that there is a substantial risk that this provision
would be held unconstitutional as applied to female prison
inmates.
The bill also includes an ill-considered legislative rider
that would impose a moratorium on future listings under the
Endangered Species Act by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and other agencies. That rider not
only would make bad policy, it also has no place in this
bill.
Finally, I would urge the Congress to continue the
Associate Attorney General's office.
For these reasons and others my Administration has conveyed
to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot accept
this bill. H.R. 2076 does not reflect my priorities or the
values of the American people. I urge the Congress to send me
an appropriations bill that truly serves this Nation and its
people.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 19, 1995.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________