[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S44-S47]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with interest I listened to some of
our colleagues talk about the Government shutting down, and I also note
yesterday, when the President had a press conference, he said the
congressional Republicans shut down the Government. At least he said
Congress shut down Government. He mentioned several examples.
Several of the examples that have been mentioned, both on the floor
and by the President and by other people, some of the horror stories of
individuals who have lost their jobs, who are not being paid, are in
agencies for which the President vetoed the appropriation bill. One
agency that has received as much attention as any other is Interior,
the appropriation bill that is covered by Interior, dealing with
national parks and the museums.
The Washington Post has run some front-page articles talking about
the museums not being open, the Smithsonian shut down, national parks
being shut down, not having access for individuals wanting to have
their vacations and go to the parks, not being able to get in because
the Government shut it down and, as the President said, Congress shut
it down.
I just happen to be aware of the fact the President vetoed the
Interior bill. The President is the one who shut down the parks. The
President is the one who did not make it possible for the parks to be
opened. If he had signed the bill, those people would have been paid.
They would not have been furloughed. The parks would be open. The
Smithsonian would be open. Those people would have had coverage. There
would be no disruption.
I just make that point. It is interesting that everything is
Congress' fault. The President vetoed the Interior bill. I think that
is unfortunate.
I used to manage that bill. Now Senator Gorton is managing that bill,
and I think he has done a very good job. I looked at the veto message
dealing with Interior. There are different reasons why the President
vetoed the bill. These are very poor excuses for vetoing a bill. I have
urged others, and I hope maybe, I will tell my friends and colleagues,
maybe within a very short period of time we will have another Interior
bill on the floor. I hope that is the case. I hope it happens today.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the House of
Representatives is going to take up a veto override today on that. I
was over there earlier this morning.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. The veto override may not happen. I
hope it does. That is one way we could get the employees back to work
immediately.
If that does not happen, I hope we will take the original Interior
bill as it passed through both Houses and maybe make some changes. I am
looking at the President's veto message on Interior. Most of these
changes could be made with very little dollars involved and maybe some
better understanding.
We had the Presiding Officer, a moment ago, who is from Alaska--part
of it was dealing with Tongass. There is a misunderstanding on what
would happen in the Tongass. Some people were saying the Interior bill
as passed would open up a lot of additional clear cutting. I do not
think that is the case. We can clarify that, and we should clarify it.
I am looking through some of the other things that were mentioned. I
ask unanimous consent to have the President's veto message printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. NICKLES. But these are minuscule problems. This is no reason to
shut down the Interior Department, national parks, Forest Service and
so on, and everything else that is covered by this bill, Indian Health
Services--you name it.
So, let us try to accommodate. Let us make a couple of concessions.
Let us work to resolve some of the problems that are raised in here. It
can be done with very few dollars and open up the Interior Department,
open up the national parks, open up the Smithsonian, open up the
national museums. There is no reason not to. The President should not
have vetoed the bill in the
[[Page S45]]
first place, but the President is responsible for those parks being
closed.
Yesterday, or the day before, there was an article in the Post
talking about somebody having a concession service adjacent to a park
and now they had to let their employees go. Those employees,
incidentally, will not be covered by the bill once it passes. They will
not be paid. They are not Federal employees; they are contractors. And
if they are not contracting with the Federal Government, if they just
happen to be doing business adjacent to the Federal Government
operation, they are out of luck.
Again, I fault President Clinton in this case. I think he made a
mistake in vetoing the bill. But for him to say Congress is the reason
why those agencies are shut down is not the case, and that is not the
case in Interior.
It is not the case in other agencies as well. A lot of us are very
concerned about the Veterans' Department being closed. I agree with my
colleagues from Maryland and other places saying if you have a
physician or if you have a nurse or if you have somebody working in a
veterans hospital, that person ought to be paid. It does not make a lot
of sense not to pay them.
Why are they not being paid? The appropriation bill was not signed.
We passed the appropriation bill, we funded the Veterans' Department,
the President vetoed the bill.
Why did he veto the bill? I have a copy of his veto message. I ask
unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. NICKLES. But we should take care of veterans and people who are
working in veterans hospitals. They should be paid. They should not be
furloughed. And we can solve that problem. I am hopeful before very
long we will pass the VA-HUD bill, and let us look at the President's
veto message and see if some accommodations can and could and should be
made in that area.
But let no one misunderstand. The President vetoed the bill that
funds the Veterans' Department. It was on his desk. If he would have
signed that bill, those individuals would not have been furloughed.
They would not have been working without pay. So we need to get past
this maybe rhetorical war and who is at fault. The President vetoed
several of these bills.
One of the other things that maybe concerns me where Congress is
largely at fault is dealing with the agency called Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education--actually three different agencies. We
have heard some people talk about how some people are impacted. This
Senate has not passed that appropriations bill. It is the only
appropriations bill we have not passed. You might say, ``Why hasn't
it?'' We are supposed to pass that bill before the end of September. We
have not passed it.
Unfortunately, there has been a filibuster on even a motion to
proceed to that bill. I have been around here a long time. I cannot
remember an appropriations bill where Members filibustered the motion
to proceed. We usually have fought out our differences--win, lose, or
draw--on all appropriations bills. Somebody said it has riders on it.
All appropriations have riders on how are we going to spend money. This
bill is no different than any other bill. It had some riders. It says
the administration will not spend money on a variety of different
things. That is part of Congress' legislative responsibility. But we
have not even been able to vote on the Labor-HHS bill. That is
unfortunate.
I hear today and read in the paper about scare tactics--that it is
terrible; we are not able to take care of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics or Meals on Wheels. It is because, unfortunately, many
Democrats will not allow us to bring that bill up and vote on it. I
hope maybe we can get that resolved because that bill needs to pass. We
need to vote. We need to find out where the votes are. Some people are
objecting to us even considering the bill.
Looking at several of the bills the President has vetoed, Interior,
which I alluded to before. If you add Interior, 76,000 employees are
impacted. The Forest Service is funded at 38,000 under that bill.
Indian Health is at 15,000, for a total of 133,800 employees who are
impacted because the President vetoed the Interior bill. That was not
Congress' veto. It was the President's veto.
Again, I reiterate my statement about my offer to work with people. I
think we ought to make some changes--minor changes--and pass the
Interior bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I welcome this attitude that we need to try to work out
the differences. That is how I think you legislate.
The fact is, though, that when President Reagan and President Bush
vetoed appropriations bills, until we worked out the differences we
passed the continuing resolutions to allow the Government to continue
to function. We then considered seriously the basis upon which the
President had vetoed the legislation and tried to work out an
accommodation so that an appropriations bill could be passed by the
Congress to which the President could give his consent.
So the veto by the President of legislation because it contains
provisions with which he disagrees is a standard practice.
What has happened in the past is either we could work that out, or we
have provided a continuing resolution in the meantime while we tried to
work it out. That has not been done in this instance. I do say to the
Senator that I think that his suggestion that we ought to look at the
basis of the veto message and see what accommodations can be made
between the two branches in terms of passing another bill, my
understanding is the other side simply wants to send the same bill back
which I would not regard as a constructive action.
I assume from the Senator's comments that he would not regard it as a
positive or constructive action in the circumstance either.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to respond to my colleague, I really see
no reason that the President vetoed the Interior bill and put people
out of work. My point is that for the President to say, ``Well, this is
Congress' fault these people are not working,'' I just disagree. I
think he bears direct responsibility in vetoing the Interior bill which
is impacting the lives of 133,000 employees, and also for his actions
in vetoing Commerce, State, Justice, as well as VA-HUD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. In looking at VA-HUD, and if we are not able to break
this impasse soon, I tell my colleague from Maryland that it is my hope
that we will take up--maybe we cannot pass--the HUD bill. Maybe there
is a dispute. But we ought to be able to pass the veterans bill. My
guess is we could pass that very quickly and maybe some additional
things.
I worked with the Senator Mikulski. I was on that Appropriations
Committee. I cannot help but think we could fund most areas in that
bill. I have a copy of that veto message. I think we should be able to
fund people working for the Veterans' Department, and hopefully we will
be able to break that logjam. We should do it today, or certainly
before the end of this week.
In looking at Commerce, State, Justice, the Justice portion of it I
have heard some people allude to the fact, well, we are going to have
problems with prisons; we are going to have problems with clerks; and
so on. Hopefully we will pass the Justice portion of it. I notice there
is a dispute in Commerce. Maybe we could leave that one set aside, or
other areas.
My point is that the President vetoed that bill. That bill has
impacted 194,000 employees. We passed that bill. The President could
have signed the bill and then said, well, he sends a rescission, or he
could have requested a supplemental appropriations. That has happened
as well. The President did not do that.
I think the President's pollster was whispering in his ear saying,
``This is looking good if you stand up to Congress and veto some bills.
We will reenact Harry Truman, and say the heck with Congress.''
Unfortunately, that
[[Page S46]]
has put thousands of people into a furlough situation, or thousands of
people into working without pay.
The President vetoed those bills. He could have signed those bills
and then worked out a budget agreement. He could have signed those
bills and then requested a supplemental appropriation, if he did not
think we were spending enough money in some areas. If he thought we
were spending too much money in other areas, he could have sent a
rescissions package. But instead he was in a veto mood, and he vetoed
these bills having an impact on hundreds of thousands of people, all of
which he is trying to give Congress full credit for.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. No. I am almost out of time.
So the President is directly responsible for putting hundreds of
thousands of people--I will submit this for the Record as well--who
were impacted because he vetoed the bills. That was his right to do so.
But for him to come back and say that was all Congress' fault I think
was incorrect.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this chart.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to the printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Ball's in the President's Court
The following bills have been vetoed by the President. These three
vetoes have adversely affected more than 620,000 employees, as follows:
Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary:
Justice.......................................................102,000
Commerce.......................................................25,000
Judiciary......................................................28,000
State..........................................................25,000
SBA.............................................................5,800
USIA............................................................8,000
__________
Total.....................................................194,000
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Interior:
Interior.......................................................76,000
Indian Health..................................................15,500
Forest.........................................................38,000
Energy..........................................................2,300
Miscellaneous...................................................2,000
__________
Total.....................................................133,800
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
VA-HUD:
NASA...........................................................20,000
National Science Foundation.....................................2,000
Veterans......................................................240,000
HUD............................................................11,000
EPA/miscellaneous..............................................20,000
__________
Total.....................................................293,000
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Overall total.............................................620,900
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
Exhibit 1
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 our 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 communities 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.
Exhibit 2
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 serve 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
[[Page S47]]
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 conveyed
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.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
____________________