[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1638-S1639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday I received a letter from Dr. 
Alice Rivlin, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
concerning the omnibus appropriations bill our Appropriations Committee 
reported yesterday.
  As our colleagues know, the Appropriations Committee reported that 
measure to provide funding beyond the March 15 deadline of the current 
resolution for the programs and activities of the Federal Government 
and agencies funded in the five appropriations bills not yet signed 
into law, to respond to the President's supplemental request for Bosnia 
operations and disaster relief and to respond to his request for 
additional funding for certain programs he believes to be of a priority 
nature.
  Dr. Rivlin's letter is disappointing to say the least. She concludes 
by declaring, and I quote directly from the letter: ``Regrettably, I 
must advise you that if the bill were presented to the President in its 
current form, he would veto it.'' ``Veto'' is the word. I do not think 
anybody needs to go to Webster to find out that veto is no, negative, 
cut off, closed issue.
  By the way, may I say parenthetically, I received this letter 
yesterday afternoon, within a matter of an hour or two after the 
committee had completed its work and during which time the committee 
made amendments to the so-called chairman's mark. I defy anybody to go 
through that complex document in a matter of an hour or two and know 
precisely what it means and what it says.
  The Appropriations Committee has gone to considerable lengths for 
many months to address the concerns of the administration. In the bill 
reported yesterday, our committee went a very long way, in my judgment, 
toward the administration's position on many issues. That the 
administration would ignore that progress and still threaten to veto 
before the process is even completed--because, as everyone knows we are 
still in the process of having the full floor consider this bill as 
well--indicates to me that they are more interested in the politics of 
the moment than the responsibility of governing.

  Let me be specific. The President has made the so-called COPS 
Program, cops on the beat, a top priority. The bill reported yesterday 
provides $1 billion for that purpose. Mr. President, $1 billion is 
significant money.
  The President vetoed the VA/HUD bill, in part because it did not 
provide funding for the National Service Program. Our reported bill 
carries Senator Bond's recommendation, as the subcommittee chairman, of 
$383 million for that program. The committee also agreed with his 
recommendation to add $240 million in funding for the environmental 
protection programs and $50 million for community development financial 
institutions, both priorities of the administration, identified as such 
in the President's veto message of the VA/HUD bill.
  In the Interior bill, the committee concurred with Senator Gorton's 
recommendation that we want to refine the language on the Tongass 
National Forest and the salvage timber provisions of last year's 
rescissions bill, both in response to the President's objections listed 
in his veto message. We also recommended greater funding for the Park 
Service.
  In addition, we adjusted funding levels in the Labor-HHS bill to 
provide for $6.5 billion for title I of that bill, compensatory 
education; $3.245 billion for education for the handicapped; $200 
million for drug free schools. These are ample sums and all have been 
identified as priority programs of the administration.
  Mr. President, let me underscore this sentence. All of this was done 
within existing constraints. In other words, it was done within the 
constraints of the budget resolution passed by the Congress.
  But, in addition to these--in addition--our committee recommended 
$4.7 billion in additional money--add-on, increase--for an array of 
programs that the President had requested and that the committee 
believes should be funded if--if--the additional resources can be 
found.
  In total, the committee provides about $6.2 billion in response to a 
request of the administration for about $8 billion for programs of 
interest to the President. We went to $6.2 billion

[[Page S1639]]

of the $8 billion request level, contingent upon finding additional 
resources. There are many different ways in which you can do that. We 
are not prescribing how it can be done or should be done. That is not 
in the Appropriations Committee's role of authority.
  In this context, it is utterly perplexing to me that the 
administration would threaten a veto when the process is just underway. 
I hope the President's advisers understand they cannot compel Congress 
to appropriate $1 of money. That is exclusively, constitutionally the 
jurisdiction of the Congress. I hope they realize that rejection of 
good-faith efforts to reach compromise and maintain the essential 
operations of Government will harden positions and polarize and drive 
some in Congress to argue for no compromise at all.
  The omnibus appropriations bill reported yesterday is not the only 
way to maintain Government operations beyond March 15. Other vehicles 
that may be drafted should this proposal fail or be vetoed may not be 
so responsive to the administration's programs. I do not wish to pursue 
that course. I believe the bill reported by our Appropriations 
Committee yesterday is the way we should proceed; to be accommodating, 
as we are the only authority that can appropriate money. It is the 
President's check and balance to either sign or veto a bill, including 
an appropriations bill, but we can take those rigid positions and 
polarized positions and continue the stalemate.

  Mind you, the Appropriations Committee of the Senate has made a long 
movement, serious movement, sincere movement to try to be 
accommodating, recognizing the President has a role in the legislative 
process and has his priorities. But we also have ours. It is not going 
to be the President's way or no way any more than we are suggesting it 
should be the Congress' way or no way. We have made our move. We have 
made the gesture of trying to accommodate in a very real way. I only 
hope the President's advisers realize this may be our last and best 
offer. If they are more interested in the substance of governing than 
the politics of the moment, I hope they will work with us toward a 
successful conclusion of our efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________