[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S442-S446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, I
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair if there is an
opportunity to make a statement without interrupting the discussion on
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa?
Mr. President, clearly, since there is a moment of time, I just
wanted to make a point about an amendment that I was going to offer. I
have decided not to do so, not because I do not think it is warranted
and justified and ought to be presented, but it is very obvious to me,
after having seen the vote that was taken on the amendment offered by
the Senator from Massachusetts to increase education funding
substantially so we can meet our needs for our young people and to
provide the kind of education that is essential if the United States is
going to maintain or improve its leadership in global affairs,
economics, science, et cetera--I saw what happened with that vote. We
did not get 60 votes in favor of it, whatever the technicality was, to
waive the budget, et cetera.
So, when I look at an amendment I was going to offer on environmental
protection, it seemed to me that the handwriting was on the wall or
that the toxics were in the ground or in the air, and that we were not
going to get anywhere with a vote.
Mr. President, the American people clearly want to see an end to the
partisan bickering, and it seems we are making some progress in that
direction.
At the same time, Mr. President, I do want to register my concern
about the stop-start way we are now financing much of the Government.
Continuing resolutions and shutdowns are no way to run a Government.
The resulting uncertainty and chaos has a serious impact on States and
local governments, on Federal employees, and on Americans throughout
the country.
I also want to take a few moments to discuss the impact of the
current CR on an area of particular concern to me: the environment.
Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to protect
environmental programs during the life of this short-term spending
measure. My amendment would have frozen EPA's funding at last year's
levels, as opposed to the roughly 14-percent cut called for in this
bill.
However, I recognize that my amendment would be subject to the same
point of order that was raised on Senator Kennedy's amendment. As with
his amendment, I am confident this amendment would receive a majority
of votes, but not enough to overcome the parliamentary objection.
I also am concerned that, if my amendment were adopted in the Senate,
the House leadership would refuse to put such a CR up to a vote, and
the result would be another Government
[[Page S443]]
shutdown. I do not want that to happen. And I will not be offering my
amendment. But I do want to take this opportunity to emphasize the
importance of adequately funding EPA--and preferably doing so on a
longer-term basis--when the pending CR expires in March.
Mr. President, it is time to make protection of our environment a
national priority. Americans have a right to know that their air is
clean enough to breathe, their water is clean enough to drink, and
their children are not going to get sick because they live near a toxic
waste dump.
The American people feel strongly about this, Mr. President. Poll
after poll shows very strong public support for protecting our
environment. Even Republican polls have reached that conclusion.
One recent Republican poll by Linda DiVall showed that only 35
percent of voters would support a candidate who supported the one-third
cut in EPA funding in the House Republicans' VA/HUD appropriations
bill. The same poll showed that while 6 out of 10 Americans say there
is too much Government regulation generally, only 1 in 5 believe that
statement applies to the EPA.
Unfortunately, despite the broad public support for environmental
protection, this Congress has treated these programs very poorly.
Funding for EPA has been under serious attack. And EPA's budget has
been subject to stop-start budgeting, which has created tremendous
uncertainty and which has had a serious impact on environmental
programs.
For example, many toxic waste sites are not getting cleaned up
because of budget uncertainties and inadequate funding. These cleanups
typically take a long time, and sometimes are costly. Since EPA does
not know how much money it will have, it has been forced to shut down
many projects that already have been underway, and to delay others.
This will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It also will
mean that many sites will remain filled with toxic wastes, placing
nearby residents at additional risk.
Mr. President, EPA is not an agency with a fat budget. It has been
underfunded for years. EPA has already eliminated all of its temporary
employees, and the Agency now has 1,300 employees less than its
authorized ceiling. If the level in the continuing resolution continues
for the rest of the year, EPA will be forced to furlough all its
employees for 10 to 12 workdays.
Mr. President, furloughs at EPA are not what the people want. They
want a Federal Government that will take responsible and prudent steps
to improve our environment. To to that, in my view, we should be
increasing EPA's budget, not cutting it, as this bill would do.
Mr. President, deep cuts in EPA's budget inevitably will have an
adverse impact on our environment, and on the many hard-working people
who work at the Agency. But I also want to point out to my colleagues--
especially those on the other side of the aisle--that cuts in EPA have
a direct impact on many businesses in the private sector. Under
President Reagan, EPA entered an era of substantial privatization.
Today, over 80 percent of the Superfund budget and 52 percent of the
rest of EPA's budget goes to private contractors. Those companies and
their employees will suffer needlessly if EPA's budget is slashed.
Other companies that rely on EPA also will be hurt by EPA cuts. For
instance, EPA is required to certify new pesticides before they can be
marketed. However, under this CR, many of these certifications will not
be done. That means these products will not be approved for the coming
growing season. Farmers, consumers and the agricultural chemical
community all will be adversely affected.
Mr. President, our Nation has made enormous progress since the
environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970. Environmental
laws have made our water safer to drink, cleaned up our oceans and
rivers, made the air cleaner, and protected our land from destruction.
We can not afford to turn back now.
I have heard it said over and over that we need to balance the budget
because we are piling debt onto our children. But what about the
environment we are leaving our children? In my view, and the view of
the American people, that simply has to be a national priority.
Mr. President, at the expiration of this continuing resolution, I
really hope that the Congress will approve a budget for EPA that
protects the environment. And not for 6 weeks at a time. But for the
rest of the fiscal year.
That is important for the Agency to operate effectively. It is
important for its employees, who need to plan their work, and their
lives. It is important for the many private contractors and their
employees, who depend on this funding. It is important for States and
localities, which also rely on EPA funding to administer environmental
programs. And, most critically, it is important to all Americans who
care about the quality of our environment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an article appearing today in
the New York Times, on the front page as a matter of fact, be printed
in the Record at the appropriate place.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 26, 1996]
Worried Republicans Begin Backpedaling on Environmental Issues
(By John H. Cushman, Jr.)
Washington.--Republicans are increasingly worried that by
imposing deep cuts on environmental programs they are doing
even deeper political damage to their party, and they are
beginning to back away from further confrontations on
environmental issues.
As a result, it now appears more likely that Congress might
loosen somewhat the fiscal vise that has gripped
environmental agencies during the long budget impasse, while
a number of proposals favoring mining, logging, oil and other
big industries could vanish from the legislative landscape.
Administration officials and environmentalists can hardly
claim victory yet. The administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Carol M. Browner, said that at a Senate
hearing on Friday, she would testify that the cuts already
imposed, and the slightly less severe ones still to come,
would force the agency to delay some of its highest
priorities, including new measures to control dangerous
pollutants in drinking water.
But some environmentalists are starting to say, with a hint
of wonder in their voices, that they are close to success in
making environmental programs what one lobbyist called a
``third rail,'' political slang for issues like Social
Security that are best not touched because they carry such
voltage with voters.
Increasingly, Republicans are echoing the same message.
This week, 30 Republican moderates in Congress wrote
Speaker Newt Gingrich to complain that the party had ``taken
a beating this year over missteps in environmental policy''
and calling on him to correct the course during the
continuing budget talks.
``If the party is to resuscitate its reputation in this
important area, we cannot be seen as using the budget crisis
as an excuse to emasculate environmental protection,'' said
the letter, drafted by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a maverick
Republican environmentalist from upstate New York.
Even some of the party's more conservative advisers are
sounding similar alarms these days.
``Our party is out of sync with mainstream American
opinion,'' wrote Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster, in
reporting to congressional clients on a recent nationwide
survey on environmental issues.
But many in the party's leadership are reluctant to change
course. They say the problem is not their agenda but the way
they have explained it.
``What is out of sync is the distortion of our record by
the administration and by radical environmental groups who
want to continue to overregulate the economy,'' said Rep.
John A. Boehner of Ohio, head of the House Republican
Conference.
Environmental groups have mounted a sustained campaign all
year to get their millions of members to complain to
lawmakers about the Republican agenda, and it appears that
the effects are increasingly being felt.
Last week, during the congressional recess, the entire New
Jersey delegation of eight Republicans and five Democrats
wrote to the Republican leadership asking that full financing
be restored to the Superfund program, a reaction to news that
the EPA had suspended the clean-up of hundreds of toxic waste
sites.
In his State of the Union address, President Clinton spoke
at length about environmental issues, which usually take a
back seat to others. He won applause and loud cheers when he
denounced the environmental proposals of the Republicans and
challenged Congress to ``re-examine those policies and
reverse them.''
The problem for the Republican leadership, though, is that
many of those proposals are at the heart of their promise to
roll back federal regulations, and many of the party's
leaders, including Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, the majority
leader, and Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, one of Gingrich's loyal
lieutenants, are among their most vigorous advocates.
In a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers on
Thursday, DeLay, the majority whip, accused Clinton of lying
in his
[[Page S444]]
speech when he said that by voting to cut environmental enforcement by
25 percent, Congress was serving the interests of corporate
lobbyists at the expense of clean water and children's
health.
``That isn't just misrepresenting the truth; that is
outright lying,'' DeLay said.
But Ms. DiVall, whose clients include a conservative
Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas,
said in her polling report that some of the party's
environmental policies were broadly disdained by Democrats
and Republicans alike--and by most independents, most young
people and most women.
``By greater than a 2-to-1 margin, voters have more
confidence in the Democrats than Republicans as the party
they trust most to protect the environment,'' her report
said. ``Most disturbing is that 55 percent of Republicans do
not trust their party when it comes to protecting the
environment, while 72 percent of the Democrats do trust their
party.''
The poll came up with especially strong signals on the
Republicans' efforts to cut spending at the EPA.
``Attacking the EPA is a nonstarter,'' Ms. DiVall wrote.
Her polling found that only 35 percent of the public would
vote to re-elect members of the House who supported the
Republican-backed bill cutting financing for the agency, by a
third, while 46 percent said they would vote not to re-elect
them. If voter turnout in November is higher, she warned, the
results would be worse.
Warnings like that seemed to be having an effect on
Thursday, as the House leadership brought to the floor the
latest stop-gap spending bill, to keep the federal government
open until March. Previous temporary spending bills have
singled the EPA out for especially severe cuts, especially in
enforcement and clean-up activities.
The measure, passed by the House on Thursday night, would
still cut the agency's financing, just as deeply as the
spending bill Clinton vetoed in December but not as deeply as
the cuts since Oct. 1, when the fiscal year began.
The Interior Department, another environmental agency that
has been operating without a final agreement on its budget,
would be financed until March. But the real issue facing that
agency is not how much money it can spend, but rather what
environmental policies it must follow.
One of the biggest fights of the past year was over changes
the Republicans proposed in the mining law. Favored by
industry and opposed by environmentalists, the measure was
part of Interior bill and the broader budget bill, both of
which Clinton vetoed.
On Thursday, Jack Gerard, an industry spokesman, said the
budget impasse had ``at least for now halted progress toward
passage of mining law reform.''
Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, I am hoping we get on with the resolution, the
CR, not that I like it, frankly, but we do have to maintain the
constancy of our work force, get the jobs done as well as we can at the
moment. I am terribly disappointed at the relatively low levels of
funding----
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order so the Senator can be
heard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will please
come to order. Senators to the left of the Chair please take your
conversations into the Cloakroom.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, rather than take any more time, I will
yield the floor at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. I do not believe there is any more discussion. Senator
Harkin indicated he had finished his discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on a motion to waive.
Is there further debate on the motion?
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what we may propose here, at the Democratic
leader's suggestion, is to vote on this matter, vote on final passage,
vote on the START treaty, vote on DOD, and then anybody who may wish to
discuss these matters can do that.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the majority leader yield for a question? Can we
make those votes 10-minute votes?
Mr. DOLE. Sure. I would put them en bloc.
Mrs. BOXER. I would support you fully and completely.
Vote On Motion To Waive The Congressional Budget Act--Amendment No.
3122
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the
Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 3122.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
Coats], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr.
Shelby] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present, and voting, the Senator from
Colorado [Mr. Campbell] would vote ``nay.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
NAYS--45
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--9
Bennett
Campbell
Coats
Domenici
Faircloth
Gramm
Hollings
Kyl
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and
the amendment fails.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with the passage of the Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, instead of the headline reading ``Government Shuts
Down,'' it will read ``Government Scaled Down.''
Instead of adding to the frustration that the American people have
with Government, we'll be adding to the amount of money we are saving
taxpayers.
Instead of punishing Federal employees; we'll be eliminating
unnecessary Federal programs.
Everybody knows that this bill is not perfect.
Each of us, if given the opportunity, would write it differently.
Some, like President Clinton, would prefer to spend more tax dollars.
Others, like me, would spend less. But I think we can all agree that
this bill is much better than shutting down the Government.
The bottom line here, Mr. President, is that with this Balanced
Budget Downpayment Act, we fulfill our commitment to keep the
Government open, while at the same time we ensure at least $30 billion
in budgetary savings for the current fiscal year.
This puts the focus back where it belongs: On cutting unnecessary
Washington spending and reducing the budget deficit.
And let me leave no doubt: The Republican promise to the American
people to balance the budget the right way in 7 years is not something
we are willing to sacrifice.
We will never relent in our fight to protect future generations of
Americans and leave them the legacy of a better America. And today's
continuing resolution is a genuine downpayment on that promise.
Let me also briefly mention that this continuing resolution includes
the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which has
been held up for many months by pro-abortion special interest groups.
I am pleased that the resolution contains many provisions which I
drafted or strongly supported. These include:
An assurance that countries which have embarked on the peace process
in
[[Page S445]]
the Middle East--Israel, Egypt, and Jordan--will receive important
support for their search for a just and lasting peace.
A restriction on aid to Bosnian Serbs, a doubling to $100 million in
military draw down authority to equip, arm, and train Bosnian
Government forces, and a provision limiting assistance to any country
which harbors international war criminals.
A requirement of human rights certification before additional
assistance can be provided to Haiti. This is in response to the
overwhelming evidence indicating that elements of the Government of
Haiti have been involved in political assassinations--a sad outcome for
a U.S. military operation that was alleged to be about democracy and
the rule of law.
Assistance for critical states on the periphery of the newly
resurgent Russia--especially Ukraine and Armenia. This bill also
provides for the Transcaucus enterprise fund--an idea I first proposed
in 1994.
This bill also contains provisions to encourage the administration to
honor its stated commitment to expand NATO eastward--sooner, rather
than later. The Republican Congress has repeatedly been forced to push
the Clinton administration on the issue of NATO expansion--another case
where the administration's deeds have not matched their words.
Finally, the bill contains the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act--a
limitation on aid to countries which impede the delivery of U.S.
humanitarian aid to other countries. This important provision will help
ensure we get the best bang for our foreign aid buck. I was proud to be
the lead sponsor of this provision.
Mr. President, it has been a long and difficult process to get the
foreign operations conference report to this point. And let me
congratulate subcommittee Chairman McConnell for his leadership and
perseverance.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to
address several of the votes cast today. Among other items, the Senate
voted today to uphold the Budget Act with respect to the Kennedy and
Harkin amendments. Let me make my position clear; I support full
funding for education and continued vigilance over Medicare fraud. In
the past, I have offered several amendments to protect education
spending from cuts as well as to create new initiatives to fight
Medicare fraud. My Medicare fraud amendment was a key part of the
Medicare reforms vetoed by the President as part of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1995.
Nevertheless, I did not support any amendment to the continuing
resolution which would result in the shutdown of the Federal
Government. By forcing this bill to return to the House for additional
debate, these amendments would have done just that. Already we have
seen the Government shut down twice in the past few months. The most
recent shutdown lasted a record 21 days. Another shutdown is simply
unacceptable.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. Before final passage, I would like to take the
opportunity to explain further my concerns about several provisions in
this bill.
Restrictions on Population Planning Activities
I am dismayed by the provision in this continuing resolution which
restricts the funds that may be made available for our international
population assistance program and the U.S. contribution to the United
Nations Population Fund [UNFPA].
The proponents of this language know that it is extremely unlikely
that an authorization bill will pass before the July 1, 1996 deadline.
Therefore, the bill provisions restricting funding to 65 percent of
fiscal year 1995 levels and the obligation of funds to monthly
apportionments of 6.67 percent will go into effect. When this occurs,
our international family planning efforts will be devastated. The
result--more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.
Let me give you a present day example. The former Soviet Union has
the highest abortion rates in the world. In 1991, an estimated 12 to 15
million legal and illegal abortions were performed. The average woman
will have between four and six abortions during her lifetime. Some
women have as many as 20 abortions. This is appalling. Why do these
countries have such high abortion rates? The answer--the unavailability
of modern contraceptives.
Last year, in the foreign operations bill I was able to secure
funding to allow the Agency for International Development to develop a
comprehensive family planning program in the former Soviet Union. AID's
efforts in Russia, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine have begun to have an
impact on the abortion rate. We have data from the Ukraine that shows a
reduction in the number of abortions.
So what are we doing today? We are drastically cutting funding to
United States-supported international family planning programs, and we
are reducing AID's flexibility to respond to areas, like the former
Soviet Union, where the need for family planning is so great. We are
ensuring that the world will return to the old ways--the old Russian
model--with increases in unintended pregnancies and abortions.
As a pro-life Senator who strongly opposes abortion, I am
disheartened by the lack of understanding and foresight of our
colleagues in the House who have been unrelenting in their insistence
on these restrictions.
Human Embryo Research
I remain concerned about using this continuing resolution to place
restrictions on research. However, I understand from the National
Institutes of Health that this will not effect any current grants
because the NIH is not funding research in this area at this time. It
is my hope that the authorizing committees will take the time necessary
to fully examine the issue of human embryo research and its
ramifications before further restrictions are placed on funding. This
is an important issue which deserves our full consideration.
Education Funding
I would like to add, Mr. President, that I regretfully oppose the
amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts, to increase funding for
education programs. While one of my highest personal priorities is to
increase funding for these programs. I cannot in good conscience
support an effort which gives us all a rhetorical win but not a
substantive win. Increasing funding for these programs for 45 days has
little to no practical effect. Aside from the fact that most education
programs are forward funded and thus, not impacted in the next 45
days--over $13 billion or 54 percent of education moneys are, by law,
not available until July 1 and another $7.5 billion or 31 percent are
not obligated until the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year--
this amendment does not provide any certainty for the long term. It may
also jeopardize our ability to enact legislation necessary to stabilize
national education spending.
The best action we can take for education is to pass this continuing
resolution and then proceed as rapidly as possible to consider the
fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill. The Senate
bill, reported from the committee on September 15, includes $22.3
billion indiscretionary spending for education programs, an increase of
$1.5 billion more than the House-passed bill and the entire amount of
increase given to the Senate Labor/HHS Subcommittee in its 602(b)
allocation. Without a Senate-passed bill we are negotiating from a
position of weakness with the House. Passage of this bill will provide
the baseline on which true long-term planning can take place in school
districts and classrooms all across this country.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to ask consent now that we have three
consecutive votes. I will make the request here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2880 be advanced to
third reading. I now ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of H.R.
2880.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays
are ordered.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 1124
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be
in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on adoption of the
conference report to accompany S. 1124, the DOD authorization bill, and
that the vote
[[Page S446]]
occur on adoption of the conference report immediately following the
vote on H.R. 2880.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
____________________