[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.

                          ____________________