[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.

                          ____________________