[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S429-S441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAXPAYER FUNDING OF HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleagues in the
House for adding the language in section 128 of this bill, which
prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to create human embryos, to perform
destructive experiments on them, and ultimately, to destroy and discard
them.
We funded the National Institutes of Health in the earlier targeted
appropriations legislation, but that bill did not contain this
important restriction on the use of Federal funds. I have been working
on this issue for the past several months, trying to call attention to
the issue, and I am very pleased that we are very close to getting this
important provision enacted into law.
Many of my colleagues might not totally understand what exactly we
mean when we talk about human embryo research. So, before we vote on
this critical legislation, I would like to give a brief explanation of
the issue.
Mr. President, this is an issue that calls upon us to reaffirm the
ethical limitations that govern taxpayer-funded scientific research. It
is an issue that calls upon us to uphold the dignity of humanity
itself.
We know that science has benefited all of humanity in countless ways,
but every one of us knows that the history of scientific inquiry also
has its dark chapters. We have learned painful lessons from the
atrocities that have been committed in the name of scientific progress.
We have learned that the human subjects of scientific experiments must
give their fully informed and voluntary consent. We have learned that
ethical experimentation requires a proper respect for the dignity of
the human subject. We have learned that an experiment that is likely to
result in the death of, or disabling injury to, the human subject
cannot be ethical and must never be permitted to occur.
These principles are enshrined in the Nuremberg Code. They can also
be found in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki as
well as other major international conventions governing scientific
ethics. They make it clear that no human being can be ethically
regarded as an instrument--a mere means to serve the ends of another
person or group of persons.
These are absolute principles. Their framers clearly intended to
establish limits beyond which an ethical science would not be permitted
to go. Suppose for a moment that it could be proven that a large number
of people could benefit and live happier lives if we all agreed to use
a few of our fellow human beings as research subjects in experiments
that we knew would harm or kill them. Of course, the benefits of
scientific research are never certain, but let's put that aside. It
wouldn't matter. Certain ethical principles are inviolate. That means
that we do not subject them to cost-benefit analyses.
I must commend President Clinton for his Executive order banning
taxpayer-financed creation and destruction of research embryos. In
making this decision, the President acted on the belief that ethics
imposes certain limits on science. I only wish he had followed that
logic to a more honest and consistent conclusion.
Unfortunately, however, President Clinton continued to allow so-
called spare embryos from in vitro fertilization programs for
experimentation and destruction. In other words, it's still permissible
to use developing human beings as raw material for bizarre experiments
that will result in death.
First of all, the distinction between specially created embryos and
so-called spare embryos is unenforceable and meaningless in practice.
When the Australian Parliament considered this issue, Dr. Robert
Jansen--an advocate of embryo research--put it very plainly:
It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and
specially created embryos . . . any intelligent administrator
of an in vitro fertilization program can, by minor changes in
his ordinary clinical way of going about things, change the
number of embryos that are fertilized. . . . It would be but
a trifle administratively to make these embryos surplus
rather than special.
The Warnock Committee, which investigated this issue in Great
Britain, reached an identical conclusion. Furthermore, how can we say
that it is wrong for Government to use taxpayer money to fund the
creation of life for experimental purposes but say that it is
nevertheless permissible to fund its destruction?
More importantly, just because a private party plans to destroy life,
why should Government force taxpayers to give their blessing to that
act? Let private parties use private money for their ethically
challenged experiments. Taxpayer dollars should be used to protect and
uphold human life, not to destroy it.
Columnist Ellen Goodman has stated that scientific inquiry must
recognize the existence of ethical stop signs. President Clinton also
acknowledged that there are ethical limits on scientific inquiry when
he drew the line and prohibited the creation of human life for research
purposes. Former NIH Director Bernadine Healy probably put it best:
It's a rather profound decision to say that a government
agency will use taxpayer dollars to designate a class of
subhuman humans that will be there solely to be experimented
upon and then discard them at the whim of science.
Mr. President, the supposed benefits of a kind of scientific research
do not make that research ethical. Today, when we pass this legislation
we will be saying to the American people that ethics determine the
limits of science and not vice versa. We will be saying that in the
interest of science, we should not violate the fundamental principle of
the sanctity and dignity of all human life. I urge the President to
support this important provision.
balanced budget
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the provisions of the Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act that relate to the Commerce, Justice, State, the
judiciary, and related agencies [CJS] appropriations bill provide for
funding at the levels outlined in the fiscal year 1996 conference
report under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions, with certain
exceptions which are spelled out in the legislation.
Along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee,
Senator Hollings, I want to notify all departments and agencies funded
under the CJS bill that the fiscal year 1996 conference report and
statement of managers and the House and Senate reports relating to the
fiscal year 1996 CJS bill should be used to the maximum extent possible
in allocating resources under this legislation. With very few
exceptions, the guidance provided in these documents will likely become
the final guidance for expenditure of fiscal year 1996 funds.
[[Page S430]]
department of justice
Office of Justice Programs--Funding is included for discretionary and
formula grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Program. It is the committee's intent that discretionary
grants should be made in accordance with the joint statement of
managers, and, that among those grants, the Justice Department should
make funding the requirements of State and local law enforcement
related to the 1996 Olympic Games a priority.
Truth-in-sentencing grants--The pending bill contains language that
withholds all funding for a new Truth-in-Sentencing Prison Grant
Program until an agreement on revised legislative language can be
reached. The sole exception to this provision is funding included under
this program in the conference report to help reimburse States for the
costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.
The pending bill includes a provision that applies the terms and
conditions of the 1996 conference report and statement of managers to
amounts provided in the previous targeted appropriations legislation
for various Department of Justice programs for the remainder of the
fiscal year. Within these terms and conditions, Senator Hollings and I
want to clarify the following points:
Under the Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement Program, it is the
committee's intent that the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Office of Investigative Agencies Policies, will allocate resources
among agencies participating in interagency crime and drug task forces
based on current task force requirements. It is our intent that this
review include a results-oriented analysis of task force operations.
It is the committee's intent that funding provided for the Federal
Prison System includes both the construction of new prisons under the
terms specified in the statement of managers and continued support for
the National Institute of Corrections.
department of commerce
Advanced Technology Program--The pending bill provides funding for
the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] at a rate of operations of up to
75 percent of the final fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. The bill
contains language which would prohibit funding for new ATP awards or
grant competitions during the period covered by this legislation.
During this period, ATP funding will be restricted to program
administration and continuation grants for ATP projects awarded in
fiscal year 1995 or earlier.
The pending bill includes language similar to a provision contained
in the conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations Act requiring that costs associated with personnel
actions resulting from funding reductions included in subsection 201(a)
bill be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to each
department or agency. This provision allows each department or agency
to transfer funds between appropriations accounts as necessary to cover
the personnel costs associated with program closeouts or downsizing
requirements. This transfer authority is provided in addition to the
authorities available under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions and
is subject to the committee's standard reprogramming procedures.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES
With respect to title IV of the CJS bill, covering the Department of
State, the United States Information Agency [USIA], and the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA], funding at the conference level
generally provides an operating level above what has been in effect
under the previous continuing resolutions.
For contributions to international organizations and contributions
for international peacekeeping activities, the amount of funds
available to be obligated is intended to be no higher than the
proportionate amount of the full-year funding level provided in the
conference report that corresponds to the number of days covered by
this legislation.
Under USIA, continued funding for the inspector general [IG] has been
provided for the term of this legislation. The funding is to be derived
from the conference level of funding for the State Department's
inspector general, because that level of funding was based upon the
merger of the USIA IG office into the State IG office. Both offices are
to continue to prepare for the merger, which is fully anticipated to
occur during this fiscal year.
With respect to educational and cultural exchange programs, the
statement of managers language in the conference report concerning the
tenth paralympiad should be carried out on an expedited basis.
Sufficient funds should have been appropriated under previous
continuing resolutions and the pending bill to permit this issue to be
addressed during the period in which the current legislation is in
effect.
RELATED AGENCIES
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The committee expects that amounts provided in the bill for both the
Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust
Division will allow these agencies to function at the full operating
levels assumed in the conference report on H.R. 2076, based on
estimated offsetting collections of $48,262,000 for each agency.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Funding in this bill for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]
includes interim funding for basic field programs until a new
competitive grant program is implemented. The committee expects LSC to
begin a competitive grant program on April 1, 1996, and to be prepared
to implement restrictions outlined in the conference report on H.R.
2076.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Small Business Development Centers--the bill provides funding for the
Small Business Administration [SBA] Small Business Development Center
[SBDC] Program at the fiscal year 1996 conference level. This will
allow SBA to continue to make funding commitments with State resource
partners in the SBDC Program based on the fiscal year 1996 funding
level provided in the conference report.
Disaster assitance--the committee is aware that funding levels
provided for the SBA Disaster Loan Program subsidies and administrative
expenses may be insufficient to continue the program for the full
fiscal year, especially considering the rate of disasters thus far this
fiscal year. The committee notes that there are two primary reasons for
the shortfall. First, the request for subsidy amounts for the loan
program was based on proposed legislative changes modifying the
interest rate on SBA disaster loans. While the full request for loan
subsidies was appropriated, the proposed legislative changes, which are
not under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, have not
been enacted yet. Additionally, the administration has not amended its
budget request to provide additional resources needed to maintain
program operations, nor has it identified the offsets necessary to
provide those resources.
The second reason for the shortfall is the failure of the Small
Business Administration to adequately budget for the appropriate level
of administrative costs for even a normal disaster year within the
appropriate account for this program. The committee expects SBA to
reprogram an amount to cover the base requirements for disaster loan
making within the funds provided under this act. Furthermore, the
committee expects that future budget requests for administrative
expenses under the Disaster Loan Program account will fully cover the
costs of providing the services required to manage the loan program
level assumed in the budget request.
The committee recognizes the severity of disasters such as the
devastating flooding in Pennsylvania and other Mid-Atlantic States
following recent storms, and is confident that the SBA will be able to
respond appropriately and responsibly to these dire situations within
the resources currently available under the Disaster Loan Program
during the period covered by the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act. The
committee recognizes that additional funds for the SBA Disaster Loan
Program may be required prior to April, and believes that if additional
resources are needed, they can be provided through the reprogramming
process to assure continuation of the program through March 15. The
committee will work with the administration to determine the
appropriate level of funding for this program as well as potential
sources of funding offsets.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I will vote for the continuing
resolution that will prevent another Government shutdown. I do so
because I do
[[Page S431]]
not believe our country can withstand another Government shutdown.
I am budget weary. My home State of Maryland is budget weary. I have
260,000 Federal employees in my State. They are budget weary. And the
Nation is budget weary.
Running our Government by shutdown and 30-day funding measures is
wasteful and irresponsible. It's harmful to our country--harmful to our
international standing, harmful to our credit rating, and harmful to
the future of our country.
Mr. President, the State of Maryland is home to some of the flagship
agencies of the Federal Government. It is home to the National
Institutes of Health, where dedicated researchers are fighting to
discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease, to Parkinson's disease, to
cancer, and other devastating ailments. We are the home to the Food and
Drug Administration, to the National Institute of Science and
Technology, and to Goddard which is piloting the Mission to Planet
Earth.
During the last shutdown, I spent time throughout my State talking to
Federal Employees about how the shutdown was affecting them. I talked
to the dedicated doctors, nurses, and lab technicians at our excellent
Veterans' Administration Hospital in Baltimore. They were on the job,
tending to our veterans health care needs, but they weren't getting
paid.
I met with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were
working to protect our safety, to fight the war on drugs and crime--but
they weren't getting paid.
I spoke with the good people at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center--
where they are scanning the universe for the secrets to life here on
Earth. But their work was imperiled because essential contractors were
not getting paid.
After having met with these essential and valuable Federal employees,
I am more determined than ever that we can never have another
Government shutdown.
So, Mr. President, I will vote for this continuing resolution today.
But I must say that I have profound problems with many of the terms and
conditions of this bill. The need to avoid a third shutdown cannot
ignore the very real harm that will result from the terms of this CR.
First of all, I am very disappointed that we are not providing the
same furlough protection for Federal employees that we did in previous
continuing resolutions. This CR will allow agencies to furlough
employees for 1 workday per pay period. This could amount to a 10
percent pay cut for Federal employees in Maryland and across the
Nation.
I don't see how we can expect to maintain an effective and dedicated
work force when Federal employees are under constant attack. These
assaults must stop.
I am also deeply distressed by the inadequate funding for education
that this measure contains. For this reason, I supported Senator
Kennedy's amendment to protect education programs. I know all too well
that schools in my State of Maryland could use any additional Federal
funding because times are hard right now for the public school in my
State.
Without the Kennedy amendment, Maryland's college students will not
know if they can afford to go back to college next semester, services
for Maryland's disadvantaged youngsters in elementary school would end,
and teachers would be laid off.
As an appropriator, I know first-hand how difficult it is to allocate
and balance limited Federal dollars. But if the current funding levels
are extended over the next year, it would cut education by $3.1
billion--the largest education cut in history. That's why I supported
the Kennedy amendment. I'm disappointed it could not be approved today.
Furthermore, the cuts to agency budgets will have very negative
consequences. Cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] truly
threaten public health and safety.
This continuing resolution will cut the EPA by $1 billion. That's a
25-percent reduction in enforcing environmental and public health
standards for air pollution, pesticides, and clean water. It's a 45-
percent cut in funds needed to protect community drinking water. It's a
30-percent cut in funds going directly to States to build wastewater
and sewage treatment plants, and a 25-percent cut in Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup.
The American people want clean drinking water. The American people
want hazardous and contaminated waste sites cleaned. But these deep
cuts would make it impossible for EPA to protect the environment and
public health and safety and it would cause staff cuts at EPA.
I am also opposed to the way HUD is treated in this process. This
Nation cannot run its housing programs by continuing resolution. HUD
cannot effectively enter into contracts to provide basic housing
services. Community development and emergency housing services have
been unable to spend any funds to meet the very real needs of the
people. The uncertainty of program funds and guidelines make it
difficult for HUD to proceed in an intelligent fashion.
In addition to concerns over the education, the environment, and the
housing provisions, I strongly oppose the provisions in this bill that
deal with international family planning. By delaying and reducing our
contribution to international family planning, we are denying healh
care to the world's poorest women.
Those who support this provision claim to want to reduce the number
of abortions. But the effect of this provision will be just the
opposite. Family planning prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
You would think this basic fact would not need to be restated on the
floor of the U.S. Senate.
U.S. international family planning funds are not spent on abortion.
So now they are going after basic health care services that prevent
pregnancy.
Over 100 million women throughout the world cannot obtain or are not
using family planning because they are poor, uneducated, or lack access
to care. Twenty million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some
women will die, some will be disabled. We could prevent some of this
needless suffering.
This issue won't go away. The majority of the Senate opposes this
irrational and cruel provision--and we will continue the fight to
enable the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives.
There are other examples of how running a government by CR makes no
sense and hurts the employees of those agencies. But the bottom line
remains that we cannot afford another shutdown. Despite the onerous
provisions contained in this continuing resolution, shutting down the
Government would be worse. This is why I will vote for this bill, but I
do so with great anguish.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for
section 126 of H.R. 2880. That provision was sought by many American
Indian and Alaska Native communities throughout the Nation who rely on
the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide
essential governmental services and to build, operate, and maintain
critically-needed facilities for them. I comment the House and Senate
leadership, as well as the leadership of the Appropriations Committees,
for including this provision.
Earlier this week, Senator Stevens and I asked that the House include
funding, through September 30, 1996, for all Native American-related
projects and activities within the Interior and related agencies
appropriations bill at the level of funding provided for in the
Interior conference report approved by the House and Senate last
December. Most of what we sought finally was adopted as section 126 by
the House late yesterday and is before the Senate for consideration
today.
Section 126 of H.R. 2880 provides funding through March 15, 1996, at
the December 1995 conference markup for all projects and activities
funded through two Federal agencies under the Interior and related
agencies appropriations bill--the Indian Health Service and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. It is my understanding that this includes all health
services and related health facilities projects and activities
administered by the Indian Health Service, as well as all those
projects and activities administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
under the account headings operation of Indian programs, construction,
Indian land and
[[Page S432]]
water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians,
technical assistance of Indian enterprises, and the Indian guaranteed
loan program account.
Mr. President, on January 5, 1996, Senator Stevens and I and many
other Senators and Representatives were able to secure funding through
September 30, 1996, for all projects and activities administered by
Native American tribes and organizations under self-determination
contracts and self-governance compacts authorized by Public Law 93-638,
as amended. Under Public Law 104-91, the full-year funding level for
these tribal operations was set at the amounts provided for in the
December conference report.
Although a substantial number of native American tribes and
organizations have assumed operational responsibilities under Public
Law 93-638, many of the more dependent tribes have not done so and thus
continue to rely on Federal employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Indian Health Service to provide essential governmental
services. Under the continuing resolution expiring tonight, these non-
Public Law 93-638 activities have been funded at a sharply lower rate
than that provided Public Law 93-638 activities carried out by tribes,
because of the great differential between the funding levels passed by
the House and Senate last summer in the Indian accounts. As a result,
there has been a huge disparity between funding levels for tribally
operated activities and projects and for those operated by Federal
agencies on behalf of other tribes in recent weeks.
Section 126 of the bill under Senate consideration today will fund
all remaining federally operated projects and activities under the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service at the same
level the Congress funded tribal-operations earlier this month. This
will remove any difference in funding levels between tribally-operated
and federally operated projects or activities for the benefit of native
Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this provision.
clarifications on restrictions
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the foreign operations provisions included in today's continuing
resolution.
Some questions have been raised concerning the Brown amendment on
Pakistan and the extent of its application. I would like to take a
minute to clarify the intent behind the amendment. The purpose of the
Brown amendment was to release equipment bought and paid for by
Pakistan that has been held by the United States and prevented from
delivery. As a party to the contract between the United States and
Pakistan, it is my firm belief that the United States has significant
obligations to tender goods that meet our contractual obligations. It
is my view that the United States should deliver to Pakistan military
equipment and technology that is in full working order, and that costs
accrued in the process of bringing the equipment up to full working
order should come from reprogramming funds from within existing
budgetary resources.
Second, questions have been raised about the provision of defense
services. The Brown amendment specifically states:
(4) Notwithstanding the restrictions contained in this
subsection, military equipment, technology, or defense
services, other than F-16 aircraft, may be transferred to
Pakistan pursuant to contracts or cases entered into before
October 1, 1990.
It is the specific intent of this subsection to ensure that all
contracts or cases entered into prior to October 1, 1990, are able to
be reinstated, as well as all military equipment or technology
transferred other than F-16 aircraft. This authorizes the provision of
depot level assistance, contract follow-on support and contractor
engineering, management and technical services, including engine depot
repair. Included would be the ability for Pakistan, under existing
foreign military sales cases, to renew existing support contracts or to
enter into new contracts for the support of the equipment that is
transferred.
Also questioned has been the subsection permitting the President to
reimburse the Government of Pakistan for any amounts paid in storage
costs. The subsection requires that the payments have no budgetary
impact, which means that the President may reprogram any existing funds
to repay the Pakistani Government, but that he is not authorized to
expend funds that would be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as
requiring an additional appropriation.
Pakistan has been an important friend and ally of the United States.
It is my hope that this amendment will begin the process of
reinvigorating our relationship.
opposition to prohibition of federal funding for human embryo research
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the language in
the continuing resolution which prohibits Federal funding of human
embryo research.
All this prohibition does is close out venues for medical research
that could save people's lives. Prohibiting Federal funding of human
embryo research will hold the health of millions of Americans hostage
to antichoice politics.
Let me highlight a few important facts about human embryo research.
Human embryo research does not involve human embryos or fetuses
developing inside the body. Rather, this research involves the
examination of embryos only in a culture dish.
Nor does human embryo research involve abortion or the use of aborted
fetal tissue. Human embryo research also does not involve cloning or
the creation of nonhuman life forms. Lastly, human embryo research does
not involve genetic engineering or the sale of embryos.
This research involves embryos donated by couples who have undergone
certain medical treatments which help them have children. A woman
receives hormone shots that cause her ovaries to produce eggs, which in
turn are removed and fertilized in a petri dish by a man's sperm.
Some of the embryos are returned to the womb with hopes a pregnancy
will result. If there are remaining embryos, they can be used for
research with the couples permission.
A prohibition on embryo research will severely restrict high-quality
scientific research that could lead to a variety of beneficial medical
treatments. Medical research on human embryos shows promise for the
treatment and prevention of some forms of infertility, cancers, and
genetic disorders, and may help lead to a reduction in miscarriages and
the development of improved contraceptive methods.
Human embryo research could help enable hospitals to create tissue
banks which would store tissue that could be used for bone marrow
transplants, spinal cord injuries, and skin replacement for burn
victims.
As doctors have discovered, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's
disease are the result of damaged degenerating nerve cells and tissues.
Human embryo research could ultimately result in development of
universal donor cells and tissue to replace what was lost to nerve
damage.
Human embryo research is also vital in the prevention of cancer.
Knowing how cells divide and grow will help researchers to better
understand how and why cancer cells grow. This research may lead to
better methods of prevention and treatment for leukemia, breast cancer,
prostate cancer, and many other cancers.
Between 1975 and 1993, due to a combination of regulatory
restrictions and administrative inaction, no Federal funding was made
available for human embryo research. As a result, the United States has
fallen far behind the rest of the world in this area.
Although the United States often leads the world in biomedical
research, the most recent breakthroughs in assisted reproductive
technologies and human embryology have come from England, France,
Italy, and Australia.
In 1994, the Director of NIH created a Human Embryo Testing Research
Panel to recommend guidelines for reviewing applications for Federal
research funds. In September 1994, the panel endorsed human embryo
research finding that ``the promise of human benefit from research is
significant, carrying great potential benefit to infertile couples, and
to families with genetic conditions, and to individuals and families in
need of effective therapies for a variety of diseases.''
Federal funding for these studies will help assure that a single set
of scientific and ethical standards is put in
[[Page S433]]
place for this research. No such official standards exist now.
Compromise language was proposed in the House and should be
considered in the Senate as well. Pursuant to recommendations developed
by an NIH panel of experts the language would state: ``None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used to support the creation of
human embryos for research purposes.''
This prohibition on medical research, which could save people's
lives, is yet another example of the misguided attack by anti-choice
forces on women's health and on their reproductive rights.
We cannot let this happen. I urge Members to vote to strike the
language in this continuing resolution which calls for a total
prohibition of Federal funding for human embryo research.
foreign operations conference report
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator Mitch McConnell, on his
unending efforts to produce a foreign operations conference report. It
has been a very difficult and controversial process, but he has
persevered and deserves the Senate's praise as we pass the bill today.
Robin Cleveland of his staff and Jim Bond of the Appropriations staff
also deserve recognition for their hard work.
Mr. President, I would also like to ensure that the language included
in the continuing resolution will enact all terms, conditions and
general provisions that were included in the original conference report
passed by both Houses of Congress. Is that the intent of the chairman
of the subcommittee?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado is correct.
It is our intent that the language included in title III of the
continuing resolution, H.R. 2880, will incorporate by reference the
entire conference report for H.R. 1868, the appropriations bill for all
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs other than
the substitute for amendment 115 included in the language of the
conference report.
Mr. BROWN. I thank my distinguished colleague, and note that included
will be important legislative provisions such as the Middle East Peace
Facilitation Act, clarifications on restrictions in our relationship
with Pakistan and improvements to the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief
remarks on one section of the continuing resolution which includes the
foreign operations conference report.
Over the past several months the Senate and House have sent the bill
back and forth because of differences over the population program and
abortion restrictions. After no less than nine votes on the issue we
have finally produced a solution which satisfies the concerns of those
of us who strongly oppose abortion with the interests of those who wish
to fund AID's current population programs. It is not a perfect solution
by any account, but it is the best we were able to achieve.
I am pleased we were able to negotiate a solution to the abortion
concerns because I believe there are many provisions in this bill which
serve important national priorities. Let me briefly review some of the
key provisions and conditions of the foreign operations bill.
We have fully funded our Camp David partnership and strengthened our
interests in the region by extending the Middle East Peace Facilitation
Act. Once again, the Congress has made clear how high a priority we
place on securing a regional peace and advancing stability. The tragic
loss of Itzhak Rabin's life and leadership serves as a reminder of how
quickly events may change in the region but our commitment must remain
steadfast.
As we are all well aware, there have also been major changes over the
past several months in Russia. President Yeltsin has fired or removed
every single person who advanced our common interests in economic and
political reform. While the administration continues to sing the same
tune, that reform is inevitable and there is no looking back, I am
deeply concerned about the implications of these developments.
For 3 years, I have pressed for a shift in both policy and resource
emphasis to assure balance in our relations with the NIS. With the
change in the Congress, we have now been able to change the ``Russia
first'' approach insofar as this bill is concerned. This year, we have
earmarked $225 million for Ukraine, a minimum of $85 million for
Armenia and recommended $30 million for Georgia. We have also directed
$15 million be made available to establish a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise
Fund and $50 million for the Western NIS and the Central Asian
Enterprise Funds to support the emerging private sectors.
Within those earmarked resources we have set aside funds for specific
programs which directly serve American interests including a nuclear
safety initiative in Ukraine to prevent another Chernobyl incident and
resources targeting law enforcement training and exchanges.
The alarming increase in international crime emanating from Russia
and other NIS republics is already having an impact here in the United
States. The $12.6 million included in the conference report will allow
the FBI, DEA, and other U.S. agencies to aggressively address these
problems. It is my expectation that Judge Freeh will have primary
responsibility for developing and coordinating a strategy for the
region and, he will, in turn, work closely with his counterpart agency
heads to disburse funds either through our international law
enforcement center in Budapest or on a country by country, case by case
basis.
The final provision regarding the NIS which I believe serves our
interests links aid to Russia to termination of the nuclear deal with
Iran. In the interest of maximizing the administration's leverage the
condition begins 3 months after the date of enactment of this bill
giving the administration ample time to negotiate a solution to this
problem.
Beyond the NIS, I think it is worth pointing out that the Senate's
positions on a range of issues have been included in the conference
report. We linked the provision of assistance to the Korean Peninsular
Energy Development Organization to concrete progress in the North-South
relationship. We resolved the long standing dispute over equipment
purchased by Pakistan. We included legislative language introduced by
Senator Brown which I cosponsored and strongly supported outlining a
specific strategy for expanding NATO. We have earmarked $2 million to
support democracy and freedom of the press in Burma, one of the most
repugnant and repressive regimes on Earth. And, the bill also included
the terms of the Humanitarian Corridors Act which should help guarantee
safe passage of crucial assistance to countries with dire needs.
Finally, I think we provide strong support for our export agencies
and activities. I just received a note from Ken Brody, the recently
retired Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. He pointed out that with
billions of people joining the free market for the first time,
``initial market shares are being established that will set the
patterns for years to come. We cannot afford to let other countries
give their companies an unfair advantage.'' With the strong backing of
this bill, Exim and our other trade agencies have helped U.S. companies
and ``exporters compete and win the global economy and thereby create
high paying American jobs.''
We have included each of these initiatives and funding levels while
still affording the administration a measure of flexibility.
Specifically, flexibility has been enhanced by consolidating a variety
of development assistance accounts into a single flexible fund and we
have provided transfer authority between accounts. For example, NIS
resources can be used to fund the Warsaw Initiative and Partnership for
Peace programs.
In conclusion, this bill sets a new course for our foreign assistance
programs. The taxpayers should be enormously relieved to learn that we
were able to reduce foreign assistance from last year's level by nearly
$1.5 billion and were $2.6 billion below the administration's actual
request. Even with these significant cuts, I believe the foreign
operations bill effectively promotes democracy, free markets, and U.S.
economic interests and protects our national security.
Mr. President, I would appreciate inserting a colloquy between
Senator Brown and myself in the Record immediately following my
remarks. Apparently, because of the abbreviated nature of the text of
the continuing
[[Page S434]]
resolution, there appears to be some confusion over the meaning of the
language. I hope this colloquy clarifies that the entire conference
report funding levels, terms, and conditions accompanying H.R. 1868 are
included in this bill and will be law when the President signs the
continuing resolution.
Authorities Exercised under the Continuing Resolution
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a brief
colloquy with the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
I ask the distinguished Senator from Washington the following
question: Does the continuing resolution we are about to adopt fulfill
our commitment to continue funding for departments and agencies for
which regular appropriations measures have not been provided, and our
commitment to Federal workers at those departments and agencies that
they will continue to go to their jobs and be paid for their hard work?
Mr. GORTON. The continuing resolution we are about to adopt fulfills
a commitment to continue reasonable funding of those departments and
agencies for which regular appropriations measures have not been signed
into law. It also fulfills our commitment to eliminate significant
uncertainty for Federal workers who will stay on the job through the
resolution's coverage period, seeing that the Federal Government
continues to operate.
Mr. DOMENICI. In that context, I believe we must also be very clear
about certain priorities we expect to see addressed by the departments
and agencies that will continue to operate under this resolution.
First, employees who are at work are expected to fulfill their
administrative and other regular program duties within the funding
level provided. Under this measure all activities are covered through
March 15, not just visitor services. Those duties that are necessary to
continue the revenue generating activities of the Federal Government
should certainly be a priority for continuation under this resolution
as should other statutory responsibilities assigned to the agencies.
That means that normal approval of permits for such activities as oil
and gas operation on Federal lands and offshore should continue, as
should the administration of other programs that provide income to the
U.S. Treasury. Surely the continuation of such activities should join
those necessary to protect human health and safety as priorities under
the reduced spending levels of the continuing resolution we are
considering. Would my distinguished colleague agree that this is a
reasonable expectation under continuing authority for agency
operations?
Mr. GORTON. I fully agree with the Senator from New Mexico that
routine operations should continue under this continuing resolution.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for this understanding. I yield the
floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, every Senator is aware that the continuing
resolution now before the Senate represents a less than perfect
solution to the impasse over the unsigned fiscal year 1996
appropriations bills. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I'd like to take a moment to discuss why the Interior
bill remains unsigned, and why I am beginning to question whether we
will be able to enact a bill this year.
Our system of Government is based on checks and balances. To enact
legislation and govern effectively, cooperation, and compromise are
required. Indeed, the President made cooperation and compromise the
central theme of his State of the Union Address Tuesday night.
Sadly, there seems to be little cooperation and virtually no
compromise with regard to the Interior bill. Despite the fact that
House and Senate negotiators have made many significant changes to the
bill to address the President's concerns, the administration has shown
little willingness to accommodate a number of serious congressional
policy concerns.
Unfortunately for those agencies funded by the bill, this refusal
will result in continued uncertainty and reduced funding. In many
cases, the agencies hit hardest by continued operation under continuing
resolutions are the very agencies for which the administration
expresses its support.
The administration's demands include complete elimination of a number
of legislative provisions, as well as additional funding for a variety
of programs.
The House and Senate remain willing to consider additional funding
for some Interior programs should such funding become available as part
of a broader balanced budget agreement. But in the absence of such an
agreement, the subcommittee cannot simply print additional money to
fund the President's wish list and agree to send the bill to our
children and grandchildren.
Without a budget agreement, any increases for favored programs must
be offset within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. The
administration is well aware of this fact, but has not made a single
proposal to reallocate funds within the bill to benefit the programs it
has identified as priorities. This is not a constructive approach.
Neither has the administration proposed compromise language to
resolve the legislative provisions in dispute. It simply continues to
insist that such provisions be removed entirely--refusing to recognize
that these provisions address real problems and concerns, expressing
little appreciation for the many compromises already made by Congress,
and scarcely acknowledging that some provisions objectionable to the
administration have already been dropped altogether.
As we have moved through the various steps of the appropriations
process, the Interior subcommittees have consciously taken into account
the administration's policy statements and the President's veto message
of December 18. A deliberate effort was made to address the
administration's concerns as well as the concerns of many Members of
the House and Senate.
I think it is worth reviewing just how far we have come in addressing
the administration's objections.
FUNDING ISSUES
Indian programs
The Administration has criticized the level of funding provided for
Indian programs. In response to these concerns--as well as those of
other Members--House and Senate conferees have agreed to provide $111.5
million more for the Bureau of Indian Affairs than was provided in the
original Senate bill. This includes $25 million in new funding added to
the bill since completion of the first conference agreement.
Conferees have also agreed to add $25 million to the bill for Indian
health programs, giving the Indian Health Service a 1-percent increase
over its fiscal year 1995 funding level.
Indian programs account for $3.6 billion of the $12.2 billion
included in the Interior bill that was vetoed by the President. This
represents 30 percent of the total funding provided. In a year in which
overall funding for the Interior bill was reduced by 10 percent from
fiscal year 1995, it is remarkable that these Indian programs were
reduced by only 4 percent. For the administration to assert that these
programs have been treated unfairly is simply false.
Energy conservation
The Administration has also expressed its opposition to funding
levels for energy conservation programs. While these programs have,
indeed, been reduced significantly, 29 percent, from the fiscal year
1995 level, this reduction comes only after a 105-percent increase
since fiscal year 1990.
The fiscal year 1996 bill that was vetoed by the President would fund
conservation programs well above fiscal year 1993 levels. I cannot
think of any other major program in the Interior bill that seen such an
astronomical increase over the last 3 years.
National parks, refuges, and forests
Because this Congress shares the President's desire to protect our
natural heritage and provide for the effective management of public
lands, the operating accounts of the land management agencies were
protected.
Though funding provided in the Interior bill is reduced by 10 percent
overall, the combined operating accounts of the National Park Service,
the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Land Management are reduced by just 3 percent. The operating account
for the Park Service actually receives a slight increase, and $2
million has been added to the continuing resolution as a downpayment
for the catastrophic flood damage to the C&O Canal Park.
National Biological Service
Partly in response to administration concerns--and because I
personally
[[Page S435]]
agree that good science is vital to the effective management of our
public lands--funding for research currently conducted by the National
Biological Service has been increased by $24 million over the level
originally proposed by the House.
Though the Biological Service would be terminated in name, natural
resource research critical to the missions of the various Interior
agencies will continue to be performed under the strong leadership of
the U.S. Geological Survey.
LANGUAGE ISSUES
Mining patents
The fiscal year 1996 Interior bill continues the moratorium on new
mining patents demanded by the President and the House of
Representatives. This represents a major concession from the original
conference provision, which received 53 votes in the Senate and had the
support of a majority of conferees.
Endangered Species Act
The fiscal year 1996 Interior bill includes a moratorium on
Endangered Species Act listings and critical habitat designations
pending reauthorization of the act itself. While the administration
objects to this provision, exactly such a moratorium was signed into
law by the President in 1995.
Sixty Senators voted to support the moratorium in the hope that a
time out would promote enactment of a bill to reauthorize and reform
the ESA. To this end, I and several other Members of the House and
Senate have introduced legislation to reauthorize the act and make
reforms we feel are long overdue. For all its expressions of support
for the existing act, the administration has yet to propose legislation
to reauthorize it.
It should also be noted that the fiscal year 1996 bill vetoed by the
President includes $65 million explicitly for ESA programs--a
significant sum considering that authorization for such funding expired
in 1992.
Tongass National Forest
President Clinton's veto message states that the Tongass provision in
the Interior bill would allow harmful clear-cutting, require the sale
of timber at unsustainable levels, and dictate the use of an outdated
forest plan.
In response, we have proposed to modify the Tongass language to
prevent explicitly the mandating of clear-cutting or the sale of
timber. In addition, the language would be modified to stipulate that
nothing in the Tongass provision should be construed to limit the
Secretary's use any new information, or prejudice future revision,
amendment, or modification of the forest plan. These latest
modifications would be applied to the most recent Tongass language,
which has already been modified substantially from its original form.
Modifications already made include dropping sufficiency language,
dropping the reference to the preferred forest plan alternative, and
dropping the prohibition of habitat conservation areas.
Despite these compromises, the administration continues to insist on
complete removal of the language, contrary to the views of a majority
of Alaskans and those who represent them.
Mojave National Preserve
The Interior bill vetoed by the President provides the National Park
Service [NPS] $500,000 to develop the general management plan for the
Mojave National Preserve. Management of the preserve would remain the
responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management, which has had the
management responsibility of the area for years.
However, the Bureau of Land Management would be able to use NPS
seasonal employees to assist in the management of the preserve. The
original House provision did not allow for any Park Service
participation in the preserve, and would have provided only $1 to the
Park Service for related activities. The effect of the current
provision would be minimal in terms of the management of the preserve,
but would be significant in allowing the Park Service an opportunity to
gain the trust of the people who will be its neighbors for the
foreseeable future before taking over on a permanent basis.
Marbled Murrelet
The administration objects to a provision in the Interior conference
agreement that would have prohibited it from redefining the known to be
nesting provision included in previously passed timber salvage
legislation. The House and Senate offered to remove this provision from
the conference agreement in an effort to reach an agreement with the
administration on the overall bill. The offer by the House and Senate--
which represents a significant compromise--is scarcely acknowledged by
the administration.
Columbia basin ecosystem
The administration's veto statement expresses several concerns about
the Columbia basin ecosystem provision in the conference agreement. The
statement specified that the provision ``would impede the
implementation of our comprehensive plan for managing public lands,''
and exclude ``information on fisheries and watersheds.'' The result of
the conference provision, according to the administration, is ``a
potential return to legal gridlock on timber harvesting, grazing,
mining, and other economically important activities.''
The House and Senate presented an offer to the administration that
would have met some of these concerns. That offer would expressly
permit the administration to include information on fisheries and
watersheds in the Columbia basin plan. Once again, however, even this
significant concession was not enough.
There is one point, however, on which the administration and the
House and Senate authors of this provision fundamentally disagree--
providing increased opportunities for legal gridlock and frivolous
lawsuits. The administration's veto statement states that the
conference language would present a potential return to legal gridlock.
This makes for a nice sound-bite--but the exact opposite is true.
We believe that the administration's current policy--based upon the
lack of success of similar endeavors by this administration--presents a
tremendous opportunity for legal gridlock. The current policy is a one-
size-fits all approach, created in response to a legal challenge by
environmentalists, and will undoubtedly create opportunity for further
challenge by environmentalists. The House and Senate offer to the
administration would preclude the filing of frivolous lawsuits--exactly
the goal the administration professes to seek.
Rescission bill flexibility
The administration has professed a desire to repeal portions of
language relating to timber sales included in section 2001(k) of the
fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill. However, when Senator Hatfield and I
put together a proposal to grant the administration greater flexibility
in implementing section 2001(k), it was not greeted with much
enthusiasm. The provision will allow the administration to trade out of
sensitive harvest areas while at the same time keeping the modest
harvest levels it promised as a part of a timber settlement.
Mr. President, there are countless other instances in which conferees
on the Interior bill modified provisions or increased funding for
programs to address administration concerns. Yet these efforts have
gone virtually unacknowledged. Until yesterday, during my conversation
with the President's Chief of Staff, there had been little indication
that there was any serious desire to reach closure on the Interior bill
on any basis other than a complete agreement with the administration's
big, intrusive Government policies.
In the absence of a settlement, agencies funded in the Interior bill
continue to lurch along from month to month, from continuing resolution
to continuing resolution. Employee morale is low, and programs
supported by both the administration and Congress are suffering.
Mr. President, we have come more than halfway in compromises with the
White House on provisions it finds objectionable. It is time for the
administration to stop posturing and close the deal.
NINTH CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution
before us today is the ninth, let me repeat, the ninth continuing
resolution for fiscal year l996. I cannot recall during my service in
the U.S. Senate another time when the funding of basic services that
people need and the concern for people's daily lives have been treated
so cavalierly by the majority. This is a misuse of the appropriations
[[Page S436]]
process, and the fact that this is the ninth continuing resolution
demonstrates amply and clearly in my mind the inability of the party
that currently holds the majority in Congress to govern.
In some areas, the amounts contained in this stop-gap resolution will
barely keep basic services operating. This is not, in my view, what the
American people want, it is certainly not what they deserve, and it
most assuredly does not reflect the American people's priorities. The
American people will have the opportunity in the elections this fall to
express their views on the priorities we have seen the Republicans
advance. I am confident the proponents of those misplaced priorities
will be shaken by the voice of the people.
The last Government shutdown cost Americans $1.4 billion. Its effects
are still being felt. Approximately 170,000 veterans did not receive
their December GI bill education benefits on time, delaying action on
some 87,000 initial benefits claims and nearly 70,000 certifications.
More than 200,000 veterans disability and compensation claims were
added to the backlog during the last shutdown. More than 5,000 small
businesses saw their government-guaranteed financing delayed. Hundreds
of Superfund toxic waste cleanups were suspended, and more than $2.2
billion in American exports were delayed because their licenses could
not be processed. Thousands of Americans were prevented from business
or other travel abroad because passports were not issued. Thousands of
Americans were prevented from enjoying or learning from their natural
or historical American heritage as national parks and forests and
federally funded museums and art galleries were closed to them.
We simply cannot afford another Government shutdown, so this measure
represents a compromise. The funding levels it contains are far from
adequate for many Government activities upon which Americans depend or
which have a daily impact on their lives. I speak specifically about
those items supported through the Labor/Health and Human Services/
Education budget--education grants for students, assistance for
disadvantged students, worker training and retraining, summer youth
jobs, Americorps and Head Start, and through the VA-HUD-Independent
Agencies budget, like health care for veterans and environmental
cleanup activities.
I also am deeply disturbed by the funding caps imposed by this
legislation at 75 percent of last year's expenditures on such critical
law enforcement activities as the cops on the beat program--or COPS--
and drug courts. Which 25 percent of our communities will not see a cop
walk down their streets because of these caps? Which 25 percent of the
drug offenders will not be prosecuted in the drug courts because of
these caps?
These caps also will hurt the Advanced Technology Program that has
helped dozens of entrepreneurs and researchers in Massachusetts with
good ideas for new technologies to bring their ideas to the
commercialization stage. ATP has worked in Massachusetts to bring forth
new products as diverse as hip replacement procedures and fire
detection codes to benefit consumers.
Funds are also affected for critical scientific research to help cure
diseases, research conducted through National Institutes of Health
grants by medical institutions and teaching hospitals in
Massachusetts--whose world-renowned research institutions have been
chosen to receive grants from NIH sufficient to rank the Commonwealth
third among States in receipt of NIH grants.
Mr. President, it is not with great enthusiasm or, indeed, any
enthusiasm that I will support this measure. The process that has
brought us to this ninth continuing resolution is a disgrace. And it is
also a disgrace that once this bill passes, which I reluctantly hope it
will, the Senate will not remain here to work at hammering out an
agreement on the budget or to pass the normal appropriations bills, or
to cleanly extend the debt limit to honor this Nation's full faith and
credit commitment to those from whom it borrows money. I predict we
will be back here to repeat this shameful exercise again and again this
year. The American people deserve better.
But we are caught in a momentous clash of philosophies and politics--
with a new group of Republicans zealously committed to imposing their
personal ideological beliefs throughout Government. Those ideologues
have proven themselves entirely willing to bring Government to a
wrenching, grinding halt, regardless of who is hurt or how badly, if
they are not satisfied with the rapidity or extent of movement toward
their goals.
In the face of such a group, the best we have been able to hope for
is a compromise--with which neither side is satisfied. President
Clinton spoke eloquently during his State of the Union Address Tuesday
night about the necessity under the circumstances to negotiate and
enact such compromises in order to keep the business of our Nation
moving forward and minimize injury of innocent Americans who must
depend on the services that only Government can provide. Up until
yesterday, the Republican majority in the House has been entirely
unwilling to countenance any significant compromise.
While I am extremely disappointed about the contents of this
legislation, and believe the American people will be the ones who are
hurt by its contents--or, more accurately, its omissions--I am relieved
that the House Republicans have finally exhibited a willingness to
engage in legislative compromise. At least the Government will keep
running so that it will continue to provide most of its services to
most of those who need them. There will be some who will be hurt, I
regret to say. But we will struggle along. That is to be preferred to
the unquantifiable and needless suffering that the Republican House
majority imposed on the Nation up to this point.
I am hopeful that we will be able during the remainder of this year
to reach more suitable solutions regarding more of the services on
which Americans depend--while we also find agreement on a fair way to
achieve a balanced budget in 7 years that provides for needed
investment in our future, human, technological, and infrastructure.
Ultimately, I look toward November for the American people to
pronounce their views and priorities, and to elect a Congress that will
pursue the best interests of the country and not a narrow ideological
agenda. In the meantime, we will pass this resolution, the President
will sign it, and the Nation will limp on for a while longer.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I do not know of any other amendments
that we have to be discussed or debated on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold just one moment,
the Senate will be in order.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee is recognized.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we stand ready to do any further
business on this CR. If not, I would ask for a third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further amendment----
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. 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 (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I know there is a lot of anguish on the
part of our colleagues who would like to exercise the constitutional
right of the Senate to amend a bill on revenue related matters that
comes to us from the House, even though the Constitution says it must
be originated from the House of Representatives. But as I said in the
opening statement today, we are literally here today with a gun to our
head in the parliamentary situation in which the House provided us with
this product as of today and have declared that they are not in session
today for legislative business. Therefore, any changes in this
particular product is going to require return to the House.
[[Page S437]]
If they are not in session today for legislative business, we are
facing a midnight curfew of whether the Government shuts down. So
consequently, as much as I detest and decry this process we find
ourselves in--I would like very much to offer some amendments to this
myself because family planning is not satisfactory to me--as Senator
Byrd, as the comanager of this bill, indicated in his opening
statement, he affirmed my analysis of where we were in this particular
bind and also urged his colleagues not to offer any amendments, because
any change on this continuing resolution we have--any change--is
required to go back to the House of Representatives.
They made it very clear that they may be subject to the call of the
Chair, but not for legislative business. So there we are.
I want to just say to my colleagues, Senator Byrd and I have not
contrived this situation. We have had absolutely nothing to do with it,
except in the sense that we had given to them many of our own thoughts
and hoped they would incorporate them. They incorporated some.
Congressman Livingston, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee,
signed off on a Florida tomato problem. I signed off on a Florida
tomato problem. We have another committee that is involved in this and
has objected. Therefore, it was not included.
We have been trying to craft this by telephoning across the great
rotunda of the Capitol Building. And that is not a satisfactory way to
do business either.
So here we are, not just with the House alone, but with the
jurisdictions, that are very legitimate jurisdictions, that have a part
in these actions that are taken by the Appropriations Committee.
We had a problem on timber salvage. We cannot get the White House to
sign off on that one because we are trying to help the White House have
more flexibility in that action taken.
So there are a lot of players here involved between the House, the
Senate, both sides of the aisle, authorizing committees, the White
House. We are in a very complex situation made more so by the gun to
the head that we have in dealing with this issue.
So I urge my colleagues to refrain from offering amendments because,
as much as I may agree and sympathize, understand the need, I am in a
situation as a comanager of this bill. Senator Byrd urged as well,
please do not offer amendments because we will have to fight every
amendment, not on the merits of the case, but on the parliamentary
situation we are in.
I do not think anyone here wants to raise the issue or the
possibility of shutting the Government down again. Nobody wins.
Everybody loses on that one, I think we have all come to understand.
But if the Senate, constitutional as it is--the House has to take any
action on any change we make on this. And they are not in today for
legislative business which has freed up their membership. We face the
problem of shutting down the Government. So that is the problem we
have.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have listened closely to the words of
the chairman of my committee, and my friend, someone I admire very
much. I realize he is in an untenable kind of position. But it is this
Senator's understanding that the House is in session subject to the
call of the Chair.
The chairman of our committee, the Senator from Oregon, has stated
that they would be in subject to the call of the Chair, but not for the
purpose of working on this continuing resolution. It seems that we have
been put in a position that no matter how bad the CR might be, we have
to take it or else.
If we have an amendment--and I do have an amendment that no one can
argue does not save us money. It saves money by getting the Office of
Inspector General funded so they can go after waste, fraud and abuse. I
have a letter from her dated 2 days ago where we are literally losing
millions of dollars every day because the Office of Inspector General
has not been funded fully. I think this is not anyone's purpose. I
think this is probably just an oversight of the House that they did
this.
I cannot imagine that, if we were to adopt that amendment, send it
back to the House, they could not approve that in 30 seconds. It does
not add to the debt or anything like that. In fact, it is going to save
a lot of money for our taxpayers by going after waste, fraud and abuse
in the Medicare Program.
So I, as much as I sympathize with the chairman of the committee,
must really object to having a gun held at our heads to the point where
we cannot even add an amendment that will save hundreds of millions of
dollars for our taxpayers by going after the scam artists and others
who are ripping off the Medicare system. I just find this startling
that we cannot do that, if I understand this correctly.
So, Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk. It is
very straightforward. It simply assures that our efforts to stop fraud,
waste and abuse in Medicare will not be cut. The funds are our main
line of defense against Medicare fraud by the Office of the Inspector
General of Health and Human Services through the end of the fiscal year
at last year's level.
I am told that it would add about $5.2 million to this effort. That
is, in the scheme of things, not a lot of money. But what does that get
us? The GAO has reported that as much as 10 percent of Medicare funds
are lost each year to fraud, waste and abuse.
How much money is that? Well, this year the Medicare funds are going
to send out about $180 billion. So 10 percent of that is $18 billion,
this year alone, lost to fraud, waste and abuse. That is over $500 for
each and every Medicare beneficiary.
As I said, the inspector general's activities are our main line of
defense against Medicare fraud. Even at last year's funding level, they
do not have enough to do the job. Now they are being cut even further.
At a time when there is a discussion of major cuts to Medicare,
doubling the Medicare premiums that seniors have to pay, we should not
be cutting our effort to stop the fraud, waste and abuse.
I think it makes common sense to stop the waste first. It is clearly
documented that for every dollar we invest in the inspector general's
activities, we save the taxpayers $15. That is not something in the
future. That is actual money that they are recouping for us on a daily
basis. Yet this bill before us cuts that program.
Mr. President, I was very concerned about the possible impact that
Government shutdowns and these cuts have had and is having on our
national fight against Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. So last week I
wrote to the inspector general, Inspector General June Gibbs Brown, to
ask her what the impact was. I received her letter the day before
yesterday. The findings are shocking and deserve our immediate action.
In her letter she said:
Dear Senator Harkin: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing concern about the extent to which the critical
anti-fraud and abuse activities of the Office of Inspector
General . . . are suffering from the government shutdowns and
under the current stop-gap spending bill. Specifically, you
asked the following questions:
And this is what I asked of the inspector general.
[First] [w]ere major enforcement initiatives,
investigations and audits suspended?
[Second] [a]re fewer initiatives, investigations, and
audits being initiated?
What is the potential impact on Inspector General
activities of being forced to operate under another short-
term funding measure similar to the one currently in effect?
Three questions. Here are her answers:
Presentations of cases to United States attorneys for
prosecution dropped from 92 in the first quarter of Fiscal
Year (FY) 1995 to 51 in the first quarter of this FY 1996--
Almost a half.
Criminal convictions dropped from 84 for the first quarter of last
year to 36 for the same period this year.
Investigative receivables--this is money that they actually brought
back, money that they recouped for our taxpayers--fell from
approximately $77.7 million for the first quarter of last year to about
$30.8 million for the same period this year.
Recoveries are down more than 50 percent; 60 percent of ongoing and
plant audits will be stopped or reduced if these cuts remain in place.
Last year, Mr. President, these audits saved over $5.5 billion. So
the losses to Medicare and taxpayers from the reduction in audits could
be in the billions.
[[Page S438]]
There is one other point in her letter. The Inspector General said
that considering the program savings generated in past years as a
result of their reports, as much as $1 billion could be lost from the
drop in program inspections alone this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the full text of the letter from the inspector general dated January
24.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Health
and Human Services,
January 24, 1996, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and
Education, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing concern about the extent to which the critical
anti-fraud and abuse activities of the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) in the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) are suffering from the government shutdowns and under
the current stop-gap spending bill. Specifically, you asked
the following questions:
Were major enforcement initiatives, investigations, and
audits suspended? Are fewer initiatives, investigations, and
audits being initiated? What is the potential impact on
Inspector General activities of being forced to operate under
another short-term funding measure similar to the one
currently in effect?
Suspension and Curtailment of Pending OIG Work
[Note: Social Security related activities have been removed
from FY 1995 figures because the Social Security
Administration became an independent agency on March 31, 1995
with its own Inspector General. The FY 1996 figures include
some activities funded by Operation Restore Trust--a limited
Medicare demonstration project funded through the Health Care
Financing Administration.]
Investigations and Audit Activity--Comparison of the first
fiscal quarters of 1995 and 1996:
Presentations of cases to United States Attorneys for
prosecution dropped from 92 in the first quarter of Fiscal
Year (FY) 1995 to 51 in the first quarter of FY 1996 while
indictments fell from 50 to 34.
Criminal convictions dropped from 84 for the first quarter
of last year to 36 for the same period this year with civil
judgments going from 27 to 19.
Investigative receivables fell from approximately $77.7
million for the first quarter last year to about $30.8
million for the same period this year.
The OIG issued 33 percent fewer reports (54 reports
compared to 82 reports), processed 30 percent fewer
nonfederal audits (861 compared to 1,223), identified 40
percent fewer dollars for recovery to the Federal Government
($14.2 million compared to $23.8 million), and is collecting
30 percent fewer dollars approved for recovery ($83.2 million
compared to $120.1 million).
HHS Financial Statement Audits
The Government Management Reform Act requires that agencies
have financial statement audits beginning FY 1996. The HHS-
wide financial statement audit requires audits of eight
operating agencies accountable for about $280 billion. The
financial statements of the Health Care Financing
Administration alone comprise expenditures in excess of $230
billion that are material to the overall departmental
financial statements and to the General Accounting Office
effort to report on governmentwide financial statements. If
travel funds are not obtained, all such audit work will be
suspended with resultant impact on HHS-wide and
governmentwide statements. Audit activity must be performed
at multiple State agencies and Medicare contractor locations,
all requiring substantial travel funds. In addition, funding
must be sought for expert medical assistance to review
medical claims.
Administrative Sanctions--Fines, penalties, and exclusions:
The shutdowns prevented us from excluding individuals and
entities from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
Providers were allowed to continue to bill the Medicare and
Medicaid programs even though they should have been excluded
due to convictions or because they are abusive to patients.
By comparison, there were 493 health care exclusions
implemented for the first quarter of 1995 versus 210
exclusions for the same period this year. Approximately 400
exclusion cases are presently awaiting implementation.
Impact on New OIG Initiatives
During the first quarter of last year, the OIG
investigations component opened about 560 cases and closed
about 605 cases. For the same period this year, under the
continuing resolution, we opened only 425 and closed about
390. During the furlough period this year, we opened and
closed only 2 criminal cases.
Starts on 100 audit assignments were delayed or postponed
indefinitely because of the furlough. An example of this is
the national review of prospective payment system (PPS)
transfers. The United States Attorney in Pennsylvania
proposed a joint review of PPS transfers based on prior audit
work that identified over $150 million of overpayments to
hospitals. If we are able to follow the Department of Justice
proposal, we anticipate recoveries of over $300 million under
the provisions of the Federal False Claims Act. The project
has been suspended due to the furlough and lack of
adequate travel funds.
Potential Effect of Continued Underfunding
Lack of funds for travel and other expenses of field work:
For investigations, audits, and inspections not funded
under Operation Restore Trust, travel has been reduced to
about one-third of the prior year's expenditure for the same
period. If the underfunding of OIG activities continues, most
travel will be suspended and employees furloughed.
Approximately 60 percent of ongoing or planned audits will be
curtailed or severely reduced in scope because of travel
requirements with the resultant loss in program savings. The
FY 1995 audit-related savings totaled $5.5 billion.
Last year the OIG issued 68 program evaluation reports.
Under the continuing resolution scenario, the number of
completed inspections may drop to approximately half that
number. Considering the program savings generated in past
years as a result of such reports, as much as $1 billion
could be lost from the drop in program inspections alone.
Program inspections identify sources of fraud and abuse and
recommend program adjustments to prevent future occurrences.
Effect on sanctions activity:
The OIG expects a decline in potential settlements and
exclusions as a result of fewer investigative and audit
initiatives. In addition, since many of the false claim cases
originating from the Department of Justice are generated
through OIG investigations and audits, we expect a decline in
that caseload as well.
Currently, the OIG administrative sanctions staff has under
development 292 cases including false claims, Qui Tams, and
civil monetary penalties, all of which will be put on hold
during another furlough. Activity on them would be greatly
reduced if we are operating under a continuing resolution
with an inadequate level of funding.
Since the furlough, we have not been able to respond to
more than 2,217 inquiries from licensing boards and private
sector providers, who are required by law to inquire about
the exclusion status of a practitioner before hiring,
concerning the current status of a health care practitioner.
The minimum funding that would allow the OIG to meet its
basic obligations and maintain its infrastructure is the
amount shown in the Senate markup of the HHS appropriations
bill ($75,941,000). We have enclosed at Tab A a copy of the
Committee recommendation.
We sincerely appreciate the effort you have made toward
achieving a level of funding for the OIG that would allow us
to sustain basic services. We also appreciate your consistent
support year after year toward curtailing waste, fraud, and
abuse in Medicare, Medicaid and other HHS programs. The
attention you give to our findings and recommendations and
your enthusiastic encouragement assist us greatly in
strengthening the integrity of these important programs.
Sincerely,
June Gibbs Brown,
Inspector General.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, so much of the problem is that they are
funded but they do not have funds for travel. Most of their
investigative and audit work requires travel. So what we really have is
hundreds of audit professionals, auditors sitting at their desks unable
to do their jobs. Every day that they are underfunded, our taxpayers
lose money.
What kind of actions are not happening? Convictions, recoveries in
fines relating to a wide range of abuses. In fact, the inspector
general even said in her letter that they are unable to cut off people
who are receiving money from Medicare even though they have been
convicted.
Here it is, she says:
The shutdowns prevented us from excluding individuals and
entities from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
Providers are allowed to continue to bill even though they
should be excluded due to convictions or they are abusive to
patients, again, costing us millions of dollars each and
every day.
So I do not think there should be any disagreement on either side of
the aisle with this amendment that simply ensures the inspector general
efforts to combat Medicare fraud are not cut from last year's level.
Again, we seem to have our priorities out of whack.
The previous continuing resolution provided full-year funding to a
number of programs, including, for example, the Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts. I have no problem with that. I support that. However,
this bill does not even provide last year's funding for the Office of
Inspector General to go after fraud, waste, and abuse. I think that
just defies common sense.
I want to also, just for the Record, read a couple of examples from
the semiannual report of the Office of Inspector General about the kind
of cases
[[Page S439]]
they have gone after and what they have earned for the taxpayers.
Here is a Michigan carrier that agreed to pay $27.6 million to settle
a suit initiated by a former employee. The carrier was responsible for
auditing, participating in hospitals' cost reports to ensure accuracy.
An investigation by the OIG showed that the carrier performed
inadequate cursory audits in which it disregarded hundreds of dollars
in overpayments.
The carrier later gave HCFA, the Health Care Financing
Administration, fraudulent work papers in an attempt to show that
complete and accurate audits had been performed. The precise amount of
loss to the Government could not be determined because it would have
required auditing more than 200 hospitals. As part of the settlement,
the carrier agreed to pay the entire amount that HCFA had paid to
perform audits over the last 4 years, approximately $13 million. Mr.
President, $13 million, one case, recouped for the taxpayers of this
country. And yet for $5 million, we cannot even provide for that kind
of investigation.
A Texas ophthalmologist signed an agreement to pay the Government
$849,000 to resolve allegations of submitting false claims for
reimbursement for physician and related medical services to the
Medicare Program. Many of the fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare
were for services not actually provided; were for services not provided
as claimed or were billed at an inflated rate. This was a global
settlement which also involved a criminal plea based on kickback
allegations as well as submission of false claims.
Mr. President, this book is full of these examples of what the Office
of Inspector General has done for our taxpayers just in one-half of
last year. These are the kinds of audits and investigations and
criminal prosecutions that they will not be able to conduct given the
reduced funding level that they have.
So my amendment is very simple. It will simply provide for the same
level of funding for the Office of Inspector General. That is all, just
the Office of Inspector General from now through the end of this year.
It will save the taxpayers literally--well, do not take my word for it.
The inspector general said this could save up to $1 billion. So
anywhere from probably $100 or $200 million to $1 billion just this
year alone could be saved.
Amendment No. 3122
(Purpose: To provide for additional funding to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 3122.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
``Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, all projects and
activities funded under the account heading ``Office of the
Inspector General'' under the Office of the Secretary in the
Department of Health and Human Services at a rate for
operations not to exceed an annual rate for new obligational
authority of $58,493,000 for general funds together with not
to exceed an annual rate for new obligational authority of
$20,670,000 to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.''
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in controlled time.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Senator
from Iowa. I have been involved with the inspector general issue for a
long time. The Governmental Affairs Committee, back about 1980, put in
legislation to establish inspectors general across Government. There
were some that were voluntarily in place at that time. We put it into
10 more agencies of Government on sort of an experimental basis. They
ran for 10 years, and in 1990, I put in legislation that expanded the
IG's.
We have them now in 61 different agencies or departments of
Government. They have done a superb job. They save in the billions and
billions of dollars, and I do not know how many dollars they return for
every dollar spent, but they have done a great job. To cut back on
funding in those areas may be penny wise, but it is tens of dollars
short.
It is sort of indicative of the problem we have right now. We passed
a Chief Financial Officer Act a little bit along the same line. We
require audits in all departments and agencies in Government, and GAO
is to supervise that, monitor them, and try and get decent accounting
systems in Government. We are cutting those when we should be expanding
the money for that kind of operation.
We talk every day here about a balanced budget, yet to do the things
that will get efficiency in Government, like IG's and CFO's, we cut the
money for them. There was an article in the paper this morning about
how the GAO is not going to have enough money now to do the supervising
of the Chief Financial Officer Act that just comes into full compliance
requirements this year. They have been building up to this since 1990,
and now we are going to not even provide them the money for this.
I cannot imagine what people are thinking about to put this kind of
requirement in over in the House to cut back on money that is going to
make more efficiencies in Government.
Another one along the same lines is the IRS. There is something over
$115 billion, $118 billion owed to the Government that we do not
collect. Most of that is in bankruptcies, individual and corporate
bankruptcies. But we say there is $28 billion, I believe it is, that
they estimate is collectible. Yet, we are cutting the money for the tax
system modernization system. We are cutting the personnel requirement
or provisions at IRS, when we have $28 billion out there that we should
be going after. It is collectible from people who are deadbeats, and it
means that you and I and every other American that is honest about
their taxes has to pay more taxes. Yet, in the interest of economy over
in the House, they are cutting those fundings back. I just think it is
ridiculous.
Now the argument is that we are up against a Government shutdown. I
agree that we sure are. I add that we are up against it for the third
time, and every single time what they have done over in the House is
put part of their legislative agenda on the CR, send it over to us on a
short-term basis and say, ``Take it or leave it,'' and ``You have to
get it passed on our basis, you cannot change it. And if you do, the
Government shuts down.''
I am tired of legislative blackmail. That is exactly what this is. I
plan to vote against this whole thing this time, just in protest. I
think it is ridiculous. We are cutting back at least one-fourth for
funding for VA and HUD, national service, EPA, and education. We are
changing right-to-life matters in this. I just think we are legislating
on a CR that should be passed as a clean CR to keep the Government
running for a certain period while we then take up these individual
matters, see what the proper level of funding should be, and make a
rational decision on how we go ahead with funding all these things that
are very important.
We brought up the farm bill. What do the farmers in Iowa think about
this? Do they know what their loans are going to be and deficiency,
guaranteed next year? Do they know how much to borrow at the bank? No,
they do not, because we have not done our job here. Yet, we try and
take some of these things up and sock them on to a CR because now we
are up against it. We are going to say the Government shuts down
tonight unless we pass this on the basis that the House sent it to us,
which has half of their legislative agenda on it that we do not agree
with. They deliberately waited until a day before the deadline to send
it over to us, and we can take it or leave it.
Well, I do not plan to vote to take it. I just think we have been
jerked around too many times here. And to say once again that, well,
this is the last time and next time we are going to be tough, this is
the third time we have done this. How many times do we have to get hit
in the head before we do something about it?
[[Page S440]]
I think the Senator from Iowa makes a good point. I hope he keeps his
amendment in, and I hope we have to vote on it. If there are other
amendments to try and correct this, so be it. I think for us to be made
the heavies here and say we cannot possibly vote against this or have
amendments without being irresponsible, that we are going to stop the
Government, it is the House that sent this over and put us in this
short timeframe. I disagree with that way of doing business. I do not
think we should accept these things. If there are changes we want to
make, we ought to make them.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his
comments. He has long been a champion of inspectors general. I ask the
Senator again, with his long experience in the area of inspectors
general and what they do, is it not true that this is real money we are
talking about? In other words, we always pass bills and they say this
is going to save us so much money in the future. We are all akin to
doing that. But this is money right now, and every single day the
inspector general's office is out there getting fines, payments. I just
read examples from last year. This is real money that people have to
pay back to the Government. Is that not true?
Mr. GLENN. It is absolutely true. If the Senator will yield further,
there is not a single Senator in the U.S. Senate that would come out
and say they favor fat, fraud, waste, and abuse in Government. Who is
cutting out the fraud and abuse in Government? Who is on the front line
out there in every department looking into fraud and abuse, stopping
it, getting money back, referring cases to the Justice Department by
the hundreds--hundreds and hundreds of them, that we did not used to
have? It is the inspectors general.
I just cannot say how shortsighted I think it is that they have cut
these funds to begin with and cut the funds for the chief financial
officers, for IRS compliance. It just is the most foolish activity in
Government that I possibly can think of. I certainly urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to back the amendment of the Senator from
Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Again, it seems to me--I know the
Senator said something about having them hold a gun at our head. The
House is in session. They are in session subject to the call of the
Chair. If they can hold a gun at our heads, why can we not adopt this,
which saves the taxpayers' money, and send it back to them? We will see
what they do. We have until midnight. I bet they can pass this in 5
minutes. I cannot imagine there would be any opposition to this
whatsoever.
So why do we have to not save the taxpayers' money because they have
a gun at our head? Why do we not adopt this amendment and send it back
and let the gun be at their head. I bet they will pass it in a New York
minute--whatever that is; I do not know what that is because I am not
from New York.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio and the Senator
from Iowa raise the issue of logic. Unfortunately, neither this body or
the other body has always functioned under the great label of logic. We
are in a ridiculous situation. Obviously, we are, and we are having to
deal with it in a very--we will attempt to do it in an orderly fashion.
I would like to point out that this is the seventh CR since October 1--
six were signed into law--and the Office of Inspector General has been
operating at the House level since October 1. They have not been
required to furlough any employees. This is the first time this issue
has been raised in six of those CR's. Consequently, they have survived,
you might say, or have functioned at a reduced level, or whatever. But
the point is they are functioning.
I also want to add that the Senate has not been able to act on the
Labor-HHS appropriation bill due to the objections raised primarily by
the Democratic side of the aisle, and on a couple of occasions by the
Republican side of the aisle. Those usually circulated around rider
issues rather than the substance of these issues, such as the inspector
general's office. We are, therefore, in a further deficient role as
with the House because the House did pass a Labor-HHS, and we have not
yet passed such appropriation bill here in the Senate.
This is not a permanent situation because of the fact that it goes
until March 15. I am very hopeful that we can find $5 billion more. Let
me say, very frankly, that I have said in my leadership meeting, and in
other areas of this process of trying to resolve these appropriations
bills, that even if we got rid of the riders that have become a strong
problem for the Labor-HHS bill, different issues and riders that
reflect a problem for both sides of the aisle, we still do not have
enough money to satisfy the administration's requests in order to get
them to sign the bill. I have said whatever budget comprehensive
agreement can be reached has to have $5 billion to get the Labor-HHS;
HUD and Independent Agencies; State, Justice, and Commerce, signed by
the President. I think from time-to-time we have to remind ourselves
that the President has a role in the legislative process. We cannot
just think of the President as someone downtown that does not have a
legitimate constitutional role in the legislative process. I can say to
you, in dealing with the administration, that we have that $5 billion
more in nondefense discretionary funding. I believe we can resolve
these problems and have no more CR's. I am not going to argue what kind
of a vehicle we get that $5 billion on. But that is the real guts of
the problem. Anytime that you add something back into a bill at this
point, or a CR, it is subject to a point of order that I am going to
have to make because it exceeds our allocation under the budget
resolution.
That is not a comfortable position to be in. I could not agree with
the focus and the goal being sought by the Senator from Iowa any more
than he has that commitment. I have the same commitment.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATFIELD. I have a parliamentary question. There is an
opportunity for the Senator from Iowa to have further discussion if I
offer a point of order. If the Chair sustained a point of order and the
Senator from Iowa appeals to waive the Budget Act, then he at that
point has additional debate or discussion? I do not want to cut him
off.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the point of order is made by the Senator
before the Chair rules, the Senator may waive.
Mr. HATFIELD. And at that point he may have further discussion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to waive.
Mr. HATFIELD. The current level of budget authority exceeds that of
the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. The pending amendment by
the Senator from Iowa provides additional new budget authority and will
result in additional outlays in that year, and its adoption will cause
the aggregate levels of budget authority and outlays to be further
exceeded.
I therefore raise a point of order under section 311 of the Budget
Act against this amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that Act for the purposes of the pending amendment and the
underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is made.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I 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.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for his kindness. He did raise one
question about this--it is the first time it has been raised in six
tries; that is so. I have been on this issue for several years,
formally as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and as ranking
member now with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, as
chairman, who has been very supportive in all of our efforts to go
after waste, fraud and abuse.
I must say I had no idea that the reduced level of funding for the
Office of Inspector General would have the kind of impact it has had. I
must also be frank. I thought before Christmas we would have settled
this. It was not. I thought it would be settled soon after. It was not.
It is going from month to month to month, and you have to stop and say,
What is happening? That is what precipitated my letter to the inspector
general a couple weeks ago. I
[[Page S441]]
wanted to know if they had any data to see what was happening.
They did. They have the data from October, November and December of
this fiscal year, the first quarter, compared to last year. It is
really shocking what is happening because they do not have adequate
funding to recoup money for taxpayers.
I am going on what the inspector general said in her letter. I just
indicate to the Senator from Oregon, that was the only reason I had not
raised it before, because I had no idea it was as bad as it is. That is
why I sent the letter. Now is the time to get the money in to stop this
bleeding of the Medicare money.
Lastly, I inquire of the Chair, the Senator from Oregon has stated
that this is in violation of the Budget Act and it goes over the
allocation. It is this Senator's understanding that the whole CR, the
whole continuing resolution, is in violation of the Budget Act. I have
a parliamentary inquiry: Is the underlying continuing resolution in
violation of the Budget Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will need some time to make that
determination and will give an answer to the Senator in due course.
Mr. HARKIN. Might the Senator inquire as to how long? I do not want
to tie this up.
In conversations with the Parliamentarian of the Senate earlier this
afternoon, I asked the Parliamentarian that question: If, in fact, the
CR was subject to a point of order and if it violated the Budget Act. I
was told it was, unless I misunderstood the Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to rule on the bill. In
its current form, it is in violation of the Budget Act.
Mr. HARKIN. I wonder how many Senators know that the underlying
continuing resolution is, itself, in violation of the Budget Act. I do
not intend to raise a point of order. I could, within my legitimate
rights, raise a point of order against the entire continuing
resolution. I do not want to do that.
I also do not want to be told that this amendment that I am offering,
which by any accounting will save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars, cannot be accepted because it is in violation of the Budget
Act, when the entire continuing resolution is in violation of the
Budget Act.
I do not see my distinguished chairman on the floor. Again, with all
due respect, I do not know how one can argue that my amendment should
not be adopted because it violates--and a point of order raised against
it, when it truly saves the taxpayers a lot of money, but then go right
ahead and vote for the continuing resolution which also is in violation
of the Budget Act. I want the Record to show that.
Again, I am not here to throw a bomb or a handgrenade or to blow this
thing up. If I was, I could raise a point of order against the
continuing resolution and there would have to be 60 votes to pass it.
Maybe there is, maybe there is not. That is not my object. My object is
to try to save the taxpayers some money, to make sure that the Office
of Inspector General is funded, not at any increased level, just at
last year's level.
There is a bleeding going on every day, I tell my colleagues. There
is a bleeding going on every day in Medicare. Millions of dollars are
lost every day. It is the inspector general that is out there on the
front lines stopping it and recouping real dollars for our taxpayers.
We can close our eyes if we want. We can say it does not amount to a
heck of a lot of money. As I pointed out, the inspector general said up
to maybe $1 billion will be lost if they are not at least funded at
last year's level. We are talking about $5 million to keep the Office
of Inspector General going.
I say again, Mr. President, I am not here to disrupt, but I am here
trying my level best, as I have for a long time, to cut at the waste,
fraud, and abuse in Medicare. The main agent we have to do that is the
inspector general's office. I do not cast any aspersions on what the
House did. I do not accuse them of anything other than perhaps
oversight. I cannot believe they would not accept this. I think it was
simply an oversight.
Because of that, I believe if the Senate were to adopt this, send it
back to the House--as I said, they are in session subject to the call
of the Chair--I bet there would not be a House Member object to it. How
could they possibly object to something like this? And then send it to
the President and save our taxpayers some of their money.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________