[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 32 (Monday, March 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1668-S1675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 3019.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3019) making appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 to make a further downpayment toward a balanced budget, 
     and for other purposes.


[[Page S1669]]


  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate begins 
consideration of H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill, providing 
funding for the departments and agencies normally covered for the five 
regular fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. These are appropriations 
bills that have not yet become law, and this legislation is necessary 
because the existing funding authority under the provisions of Public 
law 104-99 expires this Friday, March 15.
  After I have concluded my opening remarks, I will offer a substitute 
amendment on behalf of the Appropriations Committee incorporating the 
text of S. 1594, as reported from our committee last Wednesday. Senate 
report 104-236 explains the committee's recommendations on the measure. 
We are taking the unusual step of reporting an original bill to be 
offered as a substitute to the House to expedite the Senate's 
consideration of this necessary legislation.
  Mr. President, the committee substitute provides funding that would 
normally be included in the five regular fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bills that have not become law. These are Commerce, 
District of Columbia, Interior, Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. Three of those 
five--Commerce, Interior, and VA-HUD--were vetoed by the President. The 
committee has attempted to respond to the President's objections listed 
in his veto message and to modify objectionable language in the two 
bills remaining before the Congress in hopes of clearing procedural 
roadblocks and earning the President's approval, finally bringing an 
end to our fiscal year 1996 appropriations process.

  For example, in the Commerce portion of our committee substitute, we 
have responded to the President's concern about the Cops on the Beat 
Program by earmarking $975 million, within the $1.9 billion block 
grant, exclusively for that program. An additional $25 million was 
earmarked for drug courts. Additional funding was also provided for the 
Legal Services Corporation, the Ounce of Prevention Council, and the 
GLOBE Program in NOAA, all in response to objections raised by the 
President in his veto of the Commerce bill.
  In the Interior bill, the committee recommends modifying the timber 
salvage language and the language concerning the Tongass National 
Forest in Alaska, attempting to, again, address the President's 
concerns in those areas.
  And for the VA-HUD bill, we have recommended additional funding for 
National Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on 
Environmental Quality, and the Community Development Financial 
Institutions Program, all in specific response to objections raised in 
the President's veto message.
  All of these adjustments have been made within the constraints of our 
existing funding allocations under the budget resolution. I might say, 
Mr. President, that the funding reductions achieved in discretionary 
appropriations for nondefense programs constitute the only deficit 
reduction achievement in the 104th Congress. Our committee has more 
than done its share.
  In addition to these funding adjustments, the committee recommends 
contingent appropriations for certain programs if, and only if, a 
subsequent agreement is reached between the President and the Congress 
with respect to Federal expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and future 
years.
  For some months now, there has been discussion on both sides of the 
aisle in both Houses of Congress about providing additional funding for 
certain discretionary programs in the context of a larger agreement on 
the budget. Republican budget negotiators offered an estimated $10 
billion in budget authority and $5 billion in outlays last December. 
The administration has come forward recently with $8.1 billion in 
budget authority and an estimated $3.5 billion in outlays.
  Title IV of our committee substitute would provide $4.7 billion in 
budget authority and something in the neighborhood of $2 billion in 
outlays in additional funding beyond that provided in title I of the 
bill if--that two-letter word--if agreement can be reached on how to 
provide those additional resources.
  Let me add parenthetically that we are the Appropriations Committee 
and we are not the negotiating committee on the long-term budget 
solution. So we have not, in any way, attempted to prescribe how that 
agreement should be reached. That is not in our jurisdiction.
  Our committee did not view its responsibility to come up with those 
additional resources with offsets derived from programs within the 
jurisdiction of other committees. It is not for us to decide whether to 
extend the ticket tax or impose a new banking fee or require the 
formation of a new uranium enrichment corporation, nor is it our proper 
role to stipulate the specifics of a potential agreement between the 
President and the Congress. That is the leadership responsibility.
  It is our responsibility, however, to recommend what we believe to be 
appropriate levels of funding for programs within our jurisdiction, and 
we have done so.
  If an agreement can be reached, our committee recommends additional 
funding for the Advanced Technology Program, contributions to 
international organizations and peacekeeping efforts, for energy 
conservation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
for job training, education and health programs, and for several 
housing programs. These recommendations are detailed in an explanatory 
statement that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, all of these changes and new 
recommendations represent the committee's best effort to respond to the 
legitimate concerns of the administration, changing circumstances, and 
the view of our colleagues so that we can bring fiscal year 1996 to a 
close at last and begin our work on fiscal year 1997.
  Despite the absence of enthusiastic support from the administration 
and its comments on our efforts to date, I remain hopeful that the 
President and his advisers will look favorably upon our 
recommendations. We have made a sincere effort to respond to the 
President's concerns. I believe we have gone about as far as we can. If 
there are the votes to do more, we will, but it is imperative that we 
move on and, I must add, stay within the budget resolution parameters.

  Whatever additions over and above have to be, obviously, offset. If 
those offsets can be found, that will be the requirement on any 
amendment that would be offered to expand beyond the scope of this 
bill.
  Finally, Mr. President, I should not overlook the supplementals 
provided in the bill our committee recommends to the Senate today. 
Slightly over $2 billion is recommended in supplementals for disaster 
relief and for United States operations in Bosnia. Approximately $1.2 
billion is provided for disaster relief, all recommended with an 
emergency declaration under the terms of the Budget Act and subject to 
a subsequent request from the President.
  Funding in the amount of approximately $1 billion is provided for 
Bosnia operations, partially offset by $820 million in defense 
rescissions.
  In addition, $70 million is recommended in response to the 
President's request for aid to Jordan.
  This is a major piece of legislation, and like all omnibus packages, 
it contains many things that various Senators will support and a number 
of various Senators will oppose. I do not ordinarily support such 
measures in the appropriations process, but I do believe the committee 
substitute represents the best option available to us at the time. I 
hope the Senate will proceed expeditiously and adopt the committee 
substitute in the earliest possible time.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Title I and Title IV Add-Backs

           (and list of dropped/modified legislative riders)

       In addition to the $4.7 billion contingency funding 
     contained in Title IV, the Committee proposes increased 
     funding from conference levels in Title I of the FY 1996 
     Omnibus Appropriations bill in efforts to address concerns 
     and priorities expressed by the Administration.
       We are trying to come up with a package that we can all 
     agree upon. It is critical that

[[Page S1670]]

     an Omnibus bill is signed--provisions must be made for these 
     agencies that have been in limbo for the last six months so 
     that they can do their jobs and we can move on to the FY 97 
     cycle. That is why we are so earnest about working with the 
     Administration to devise a plan that can be cleared by 
     Congress and that the President will sign. This is our last, 
     best effort. Failure to enact this bill will likely result in 
     an extension of the current C.R. until September 30th. No one 
     likes this prospect.
       We must not lose sight of efforts to balance the budget, 
     and that is why some increases are contingent upon a balanced 
     budget agreement with the President. However, in Title I, we 
     are recommending increases in response to the President's 
     concerns; we have augmented dozens of conference funding 
     levels with absolutely no strings attached. We are making a 
     good-faith effort to accommodate the President's requests.
       Programs whose conference levels that have been increased 
     in response to the Administration's requests for add-backs 
     include: Community Oriented Policing [COPS] Program (Violent 
     Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance): $975,000,000. This program received no direct 
     funding in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2076, the 
     fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
     Appropriations bill.
       Drug Courts: $25,000,000 for Drug Courts, which also did 
     not receive funding in the conference report to accompany 
     H.R. 2076.
       Legal Services Corporation: $300,000,000, an increase of 
     $22,000,000 over the level in the conference report to H.R. 
     2076.
       Global Learning to Benefit the Environment Program [GLOBE] 
     (NOAA): $7,000,000. This program received no funding in H.R. 
     2076's conference report.
       National Parks Service: $1,322,000,000, which exceeds by 
     $38,000,000 the level in the conference report to H.R. 1977, 
     the fiscal year 1996 Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill.
       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 
     $1,380,000,000, an increase of $270,000,000 over the 
     conference level for H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor, 
     HHS, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
       Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: $128,000,000, 
     which exceeds the H.R. 2127 conference report level by 
     $1,000,000.
       Developmental Disabilities: $112,000,000, an increase of 
     $2,000,000 over the conference report (H.R. 2127) level.
       The overall EPA level is increased to $5,951,000,000, which 
     is $340,000,000 more than was included in the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD 
     and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
       Under EPA, $490,000,000 was provided for enforcement, 
     $40,000,000 more than was included in the conference report.
       Superfund receives an additional appropriation of 
     $100,000,000, bringing its total to $1,252,000,000.
       Clean Water: $1,225,000,000 under title I, an increase of 
     $100,000,000 over the conference level.
       Council on Environmental Quality; $2,000,000, which is 
     double the CEQ conference level.
       Community Development Financial Institutions; $50,000,000. 
     No funding was provided for the CDFI program in the 
     conference report to accompany H.R. 2099.
       Economic Development Initiatives: $80,000,000. No funding 
     was provided for EDI in the conference report to accompany 
     H.R. 2099.
       Severely Distressed Public Housing: $380,000,000, an 
     increase of $100,000,000 over the H.R. 2099 conference report 
     level.
       Title IV Contingency funding programs, that is, programs 
     which will receive additional funding in the event the 
     President and Congress are able to reach a balanced budget 
     agreement, include: National Institutes of Standards and 
     Technology (NIST)'s Manufacturing Extension Program: 
     $235,000,000, which received no funding in the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, 
     Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill.
       Department of Commerce's contributions to International 
     Peacekeeping: $215,000,000 on top of an original conference 
     report level of $700,000,000.
       Department of Labor's School to Work program: $91,000,000 
     in addition to $95,000,000 in the level in the conference 
     report to H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, 
     Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
       Dislocated Workers program, Department of Labor: 
     $333,000,000 in addition to an original appropriation of 
     $867,000,000 in the Omnibus bill's title I.
       Summer Youth Jobs, Department of Labor: $635,000,000. This 
     program received no funding in the conference to accompany 
     H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996, Labor, HHS, Education and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
       Head Start, Department of Health and Human Services: 
     $137,000,000 in addition to an appropriation of 
     $3,397,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 
     $134,000,000 on top of an appropriation of $1,380,000,000 in 
     title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Goals 2000, Department of Education: $1,278,000,000 in 
     addition to $6,514,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Drug-Free Schools program: $200,000,000, a matching amount 
     to the level appropriated under title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Charter Schools: $8,000,000, a matching amount to the level 
     appropriated under title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Education Technology: $10,000,000, in addition to 
     $25,000,000 in title I of the Omnibus bill.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Overall Enforcement, 
     $162,000,000 in addition to $5,951,000,000 in title I of the 
     Omnibus bill.
       Economic Development Initiatives, Housing for the Elderly: 
     $150,000,000 in addition to $780,000,000 in title I of the 
     Omnibus bill.
       These represent some of the programs that would receive 
     funding. In addition, the Committee has modified the Tongass 
     language; dropped Mojave language; dropped most of the riders 
     contained in the Labor, HHS and Education bill; modified the 
     Timber Salvage amendment contained in last year's Rescission 
     bill; and eliminated objectionable environmental riders in 
     the House VA, HUD and Independent Agencies bill.


                           Amendment No. 3466

 (Purpose: Making omnibus consolidated rescissions and appropriations 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send the substitute amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3466.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, S. 1594 is a comprehensive attempt by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee to bring before the Senate, in a timely 
manner, all of the pending fiscal year 1996 appropriation issues. By 
that, I mean that this bill not only would fund the five remaining 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills, which are funded in Title I 
through the end of the fiscal year, but the bill also contains the 
President's requests for emergency disaster assistance for thousands of 
victims of floods and other recent disasters throughout the country. 
These disaster assistance payments amount to a little over $1 billion 
and are contained in Title II of the bill. Title II also contains $820 
million in defense spending relating to Bosnia. These appropriations 
are fully offset by rescissions from the committee's defense (050) 
allocation. Finally, Title II contains non-military assistance for 
Bosnia totaling $200 million. Rather than offset this non-DoD spending 
for Bosnia with DoD offsets, as requested by the President, the 
committee chose not to offset this $200 million and, instead, to 
declare it emergency spending under the appropriate section of the 
Budget Enforcement Act.
  Mr. President, as all Senators are aware, the administration has 
vetoed three of the five fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills contained 
in Title I of the pending measure--namely, the Commerce-Justice-State 
bill; the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill; and the Interior bill. 
In all three instances, the President felt that these bills contained 
too little funding for what he considered critical public investments. 
In addition, each of these vetoed bills contained at least one 
objectionable legislative rider. So, the President vetoed these three 
bills and, in each instance, his veto was sustained. Similarly, the 
Labor-HHS bill has insufficient funding and riders unacceptable to the 
administration and the District of Columbia bill, as well, has 
unacceptable provisions. In an attempt to resolve these funding and 
legislative objections of the administration, the committee-reported 
bill has stricken most, but not all, objectionable legislative riders 
and, importantly, the committee has included additional appropriations 
in Title IV of the bill, subject to enactment into law of a subsequent 
Act entitled ``An Act Incorporating an Agreement Between the President 
and Congress Relative to Federal Expenditures in Fiscal Year 1996 and 
Future Fiscal Years.''
  In other words, these additional appropriations contained in Title IV 
and totaling $4.8 billion, are beyond the committee's present 602(a) 
allocation. Therefore, the chairman chose, and the committee agreed, to 
report these additional appropriations and to set forth where the 
committee agrees with the President that additional funding should be 
provided, but at the same time, to do so in a way which did not exceed 
the committee's 602(a) allocation.

[[Page S1671]]

  Pages 251-253 of the committee report (104-236), which is on each 
Senator's desk, contain a table which sets forth each of the individual 
appropriations for the departments and agencies that would receive the 
additional funding, subject to enactment of a future deficit reduction 
act.
  I anticipate a number of amendments on this side of the aisle which 
will attempt to fully offset portions, if not all, of the addbacks 
included in the committee-reported bill and, consequently, make the 
funds available immediately upon enactment in a deficit-neutral way.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, we have a long way to go in completing 
congressional action on this bill in a very short time. As Senators are 
aware, the current continuing resolution expires on midnight this 
Friday, March 15th. If Congress has not completed action and the 
President has not signed the conference version of the pending measure 
by that time, we face another government shutdown. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to work with the managers of the bill so that we may 
schedule appropriate amendments in a timely way and complete action on 
them expeditiously so that we may get to conference with the House and 
complete that conference prior to midnight, March 15th.
  Mr. President, I yield the Floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment 
numbered 3466 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:
       Insert on page 771, after line 17 of the amendment.

     SEC. 3006. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, GREENSBORO, 
                   ALABAMA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to Hale County, Alabama, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of real property consisting of approximately 5.17 
     acres and located at the Army Reserve Center, Greensboro, 
     Alabama, that was conveyed by Hale County, Alabama, to the 
     United States by warranty deed dated September 12, 1988.
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property conveyed under subsection (a) 
     shall be as described in the deed referred to in that 
     subsection.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 3007. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $15,000,000 made available for ``Operations and Maintenance, 
     Army'' in P.L. 104-61 shall be obligated for the remediation 
     of environmental contamination at the National Presto 
     Industries, Inc. site in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. These funds 
     shall be obligated only for the implementation and execution 
     of the 1988 agreement between the Department of the Army and 
     National Presto Industries, Inc.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is an error on page 213 of Senate 
Report 104-236, which accompanies S. 1594, that I would like to 
correct. Chapter 1 of title II of the bill pertains to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, which is under the jurisdiction of the 
appropriations subcommittee which I chair. In this chapter, the 
committee notes that for fiscal year 1996, the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service received a 5.5-percent increase over the amount 
appropriated to it for fiscal year 1995. However, this percentage does 
not include the supplemental appropriation which the agency received 
for fiscal year 1995, and should instead be 3.6 percent.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3466

 (Purpose: To provide funding for important education initiatives with 
                               an offset)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. Harkin 
     for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3467 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we resume debate on the five 
remaining fiscal 1996 appropriations bills. We are halfway through the 
fiscal year. We have had two Government shutdowns. Our country's 
priorities have suffered greatly. Education, in particular, has 
suffered a series of extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Last 
week, the Appropriations Committee reported the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill that again cuts education by more than $3 billion.
  Many Republicans, once again, are attempting to pass a bill that 
continues these very devastating cuts in education--cuts that include 
$679 million from math and reading programs, denying services to 
700,000 children; cuts in Head Start of $137 million, depriving 20,000 
3- and 4-year-olds of early help that can lead to a lifetime of 
achievement; cuts of $266 million in the safe and drug-free school 
program, currently serving 23 million children.
  In the Republican bill, which passed in the Appropriations Committee, 
all funding for the Summer Youth Jobs Program is eliminated. More than 
500,000 young people would otherwise benefit from that program.
  Spending levels in South Dakota and every other State are affected. 
In my State, schools face $5.3 million in reductions in the 
availability of education funding for fiscal 1996 and 1997. All this 
adds up to the fact that students will not receive the services they 
need. We simply cannot allow that to happen if there is any prospect of 
avoiding that kind of a disaster in education in the coming year.
  This crisis in education is a true emergency. This is not just 
rhetoric. This is not something we can wish away. All of these, and 
many other programs directly affecting thousands and thousands of 
students, will be very directly affected if we cannot address our 
country's education needs in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way 
than does the bill now before us.
  The cuts in education we have experienced over the last several 
months represent the single largest reduction in education in history--
a 25-percent cut--at a time when, I remind my colleagues, there is 
record enrollment in the public schools. Not only are we seeing 
increases in enrollment and a demand for more services, but we are 
asking our schools to meet that demand at a time when we are asking 
them to absorb a cut of record proportions.
  One quarter of every dollar that was available in 1995 has not been 
available this year. Next year, nearly 52 million children will be 
seeking educational services across the country. That breaks the 1971 
baby boom generation record.
  Schools and colleges across the country are reporting that they are 
unable to plan their budgets and provide the services at the 
elementary, secondary, and higher educational levels because of the 
extraordinary cuts this bill and the past continuing resolutions 
require them to make.
  Schools are already planning to lay off teachers and scale back 
services as a result of the budget we are contemplating. Not long ago, 
the mayors of most of our big cities were in Washington to share their 
concerns about the impact these cuts will have on their school 
districts. I thought that Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer probably said it 
as succinctly and eloquently as any I have heard as he discussed the 
impact this 25-percent cut in education will have on the Detroit school 
system. ``Which 25 percent,'' he asked, ``of my students should I not 
educate?''
  We ask, which 25 percent of America's children should be denied help

[[Page S1672]]

with math and reading? Which 25 percent of preschoolers should lose 
their chance to go to Head Start? Which 25 percent of children who 
attend schools where drugs and violence are problems should be forced 
to face those problems alone?
  Mr. President, we should not even be asking these questions. We would 
not be if Congress had done its job and passed an educational funding 
bill over 5 months ago when this fiscal year began. The Republican 
failure to fulfill this basic function of Government, causing chaos in 
classrooms around the country, is becoming increasingly clear. But the 
time has come to end the chaos and to address this problem in a more 
forthright manner. The time has come for us to stand up and recognize 
that unless we deal with these issues more directly, we will find 
ourselves in a situation that continues to increase in seriousness and 
increase exponentially in terms of the difficulties it presents for 
school districts, as well as for the students themselves.
  Throughout the budget process our Republican colleagues have said 
that their agenda is about protecting our children's future. The 
question we have is, ``How can you protect their future, or ours, if we 
deprive children of the education they need to succeed?'' The time to 
solve this problem is now. We cannot afford simply to pay lipservice to 
it.
  The contingency fund that has been incorporated into this bill is, in 
my view, an attempt on the part of some Republicans to have it both 
ways--to pretend they are funding education but to do so without 
releasing any of the money. The so-called addback that we see in this 
bill is not real. Enacting this bill into law would not produce one 
dime of this contingent funding. If we believe education is important, 
we have to ensure that funding is there regardless of contingencies--
regardless of what may or may not occur as a result of additional 
action this Congress may take at some point in the future.
  Mr. President, that is why every Democrat believes as strongly as we 
do that, of all the amendments we are offering, this one holds our 
greatest priority. This one says as clearly and as unequivocally as we 
can that we cannot mess around with education. We can have our policy 
differences throughout the year, and throughout this Congress, but when 
it comes to the crunch, when it comes to really dealing with the issue 
that we recognize is as important as anything to our future, we have to 
ensure that the investment is there.
  So this amendment will restore the $3.1 billion in educational cuts 
represented in this bill. And when I say ``restore,'' I use that word 
very intentionally. We are simply restoring the funding necessary to 
bring us to the level schools had the last time we appropriated funds 
for education in 1995. This is real money with a real offset. It 
restores real funding to the 1995 level without adding one dime to the 
deficit. We are willing to consider other offsets. We do not feel 
necessarily wedded to these particular ones. If there are others that 
are more acceptable, we will certainly take a look at them. But we 
wanted to find a dollar-for-dollar offset that allows us to fully 
restore the funding in education that we believe to be so critical.
  There are two nonnegotiable principles. First, education must be 
adequately funded; and, second, education must be fully paid for.
  Siphoning off money from education consigns American children to 
second-class futures and opportunities that are simply unacceptable.
  Democrats are united in opposition and offer this amendment to 
reverse the failed policies that got us to the position we are in 
today. The chance for all of us to cast a vote for the future of our 
country's children lies with this amendment.
  Children learn by example. We have an opportunity to set one by 
educating them properly and showing them how important they really are, 
that their future is our highest priority.
  A lot of my colleagues have had a great deal to do with the fact that 
we are offering this amendment this afternoon. I applaud them--each and 
every one--for their effort. No one has put more effort into education 
and the priority it deserves than my colleague from Rhode Island, 
Senator Pell. And Senator Harkin, Senator Kerry, Senator Wellstone, 
Senator Levin, and certainly Senator Kennedy--who has devoted his 
entire public career to the priorities that we argue today must be 
included in this bill--they, along with Senator Dodd, Senator Kohl, and 
Senator Lautenberg have all indicated how strongly they feel about this 
amendment. I applaud them, and thank them for their leadership in 
bringing us to this point this afternoon.
  Other colleagues are on the floor who seek recognition to speak in 
support of this amendment. I yield the floor to allow them to be 
recognized.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise merely to congratulate the minority 
leader on his speech, and to join him in his emphasis about the 
importance of education. It is important for the future of our 
children, our young people, and our country.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Daschle, the minority leader. We are talking about the 
subject of education.
  There is a lot of discussion in this country about where our country 
is headed and what kind of economic future we will have. Will we have 
jobs? Will we have opportunity? All of this begins with the first step, 
which is education.
  Thomas Jefferson once said that anyone who believes that a country 
can be both ignorant and free believes something that never was and 
never can be. Our economic progress in this country starts with 
education. That is what the Senator from South Dakota is saying with 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I have told this story on the floor a couple of times, 
but it is worth repeating. The first week I came to Congress, I walked 
into the office of the oldest man in Congress, Claude Pepper, and I saw 
something I have not forgotten. Claude Pepper was the oldest man 
serving in Congress at the time that I was elected to the Congress. I 
walked in, and met him. And he had behind his chair on his wall two 
autographed pictures that I have never forgotten. One was an 
autographed picture of Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first 
airplane flight. And it was autographed ``To Congressman Claude 
Pepper'' by Orville Wright before Orville Wright died. Then hanging 
just above that was a picture of Neil Armstrong setting his foot on the 
Moon autographed ``To Congressman Claude Pepper.''
  And I thought about what lies between going from the ground to the 
air in the first airplane flight, and then from the ground to the air 
to the Moon. What is it that connects that vast difference in 
technological achievement? The answer is education.
  It struck me when I saw those two pictures that in this one person's 
lifetime Claude Pepper had the autographed picture of the first person 
to fly and then the first person to go to the Moon. And what did it all 
come down to? In this country, a massive investment in education made 
possible technological breakthroughs--breakthroughs in virtually every 
area--that not only have allowed us to go to the Moon but to cure 
polio, and to do so many things in just this century.
  Anyone who believes that this country can move ahead by deciding that 
education is somehow less important than many other things in our 
country just does not understand the value of and the role of education 
in building our country's opportunities and our country's future.
  I have, I suppose, on a half-dozen occasions in recent months come to 
the floor of the Senate and lamented the juxtaposition of two programs 
that seem to me to demonstrate the misplaced priorities these days. A 
little program which I understand is now funded in this omnibus 
appropriations bill--a program called Star Schools that was designed to 
try to create Star Schools in the maths and the sciences through the 
use of technology--was cut by 40 percent in an earlier continuing 
resolution. That little program suffered a 40-percent funding cut--
which I understand has now been reversed--but a 40-percent funding cut 
in Star

[[Page S1673]]

Schools at the same time that a 115-percent funding increase was 
provided for star wars; a much, much larger program. And it occurred to 
me that those who think that we will advance this country's interests 
by cutting a Star Schools program while at the same time increasing a 
star wars program really do not understand the genesis of progress and 
the rewards from the investment in education that have given this 
country the kind of economic strength and the kind of glorious past it 
has had, and the kind of glorious future it will have if we continue to 
make the right decisions in this Congress. The Senator from South 
Dakota has offered an amendment that tries to restore some of the 
funding for some education programs. There are some who would perhaps 
like to go further than the Senator from South Dakota goes. But, for 
certain, there are many of us in this Congress who believe that we can 
and should provide the kind of funding that is necessary for the 
education programs that the Federal Government is involved in without 
at all deviating from our goal of balancing the budget. This is not a 
question of anything other than selecting the right priorities.
  Those of us who have spent time in classrooms in recent years 
understand that there are a number of elements that must be present in 
our schools in order for education to work in our country. First, there 
must be a young student who is interested in learning. Second, there 
needs to be a teacher who understands how to teach. And third, parents 
who want to be involved in their children's education.

  All of those elements are necessary for education to work. But 
education also cannot and will not work unless we have funding for 
training good teachers, for funding school facilities, unless we make a 
commitment to have the best education system in the world.
  Aside from this amendment, I hope and I wish that in the Presidential 
contest in 1996 and in the political discussions between our two 
parties not only in this year but beyond that we will have a thoughtful 
and thorough discussion about what role education should play in this 
country. Is education a discipline that establishes for us a goal that 
we want to have the finest education system in the world? Do we want 
America to have an education system that we can say is the best in the 
world? Is that our goal? And if so, then how do we reach that goal? It 
ought to be our goal. And that is what the Senator from South Dakota is 
saying with his amendment. Let us not step back on the issue of 
education. Let us not retreat in the investment that we ought to make. 
When we tell 55,000 little kids 4 and 5 years old, each of whom has a 
name, that we are sorry; we cannot have you in a Head Start Program--
and incidentally, that is a program that works--when we are willing to 
tell a Jimmy or Betty or Johnny or Susie that we cannot afford to have 
you in a Head Start Program; yes, you come from a low-income family; 
yes, you come from a disadvantaged family, but you cannot be in a Head 
Start Program, I say that is a shame. That is why we need to select the 
right priorities.
  Let us fund Head Start. Let us make sure a whole range of these 
education programs, school-to-work programs, title I programs, the 
vocational education programs, and dozens of other programs that we 
know work and make this a better country, let us make sure those 
programs are adequately funded. That is what the Senator from South 
Dakota's amendment would do. I fully support the amendment and 
appreciate the fact that he has offered it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan Gamby, a fellow of 
the Bureau of Land Management, be allowed floor privileges for 
discussion we will have shortly on another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President I would like to indicate just for the 
record some wrong figures. This bill pending before the floor now does 
not cut 25 percent. It is cut 12 percent. The Federal education bill in 
this present form represents support for education comprising 67 
percent of the national education expenditures. It has been cut, of 
course; it has been cut 12 percent as we are moving toward reductions 
of Government spending. Thus, the Federal cut is on a base of 6 percent 
of national expenditures on education. On the total national 
expenditures, it is a 6-percent reduction. With the additional funds in 
the title IV, the education cut is reduced less than 5 percent.
  Now, those are contingent upon agreements being reached between the 
President and the negotiators on the long-term balanced budget.
  I just want to make that correction for the record. I wish to say 
also that last spring when we allocated the 602(b) allocations we 
indicated our strong support on the Senate Appropriations Committee for 
education. We allocated $1.5 billion more than the House had allocated 
for the Labor, HHS Subcommittee 602(b).
  I cannot fault any of the arguments made by those advancing the 
amendment in terms of commitment to education, and I might say I do not 
take a back seat to anybody on that side of the aisle or anyplace else 
in this Senate Chamber on supporting education. But, nevertheless, I 
think we have to realize that when the proponents of this amendment say 
that it is offset, Mr. President, I have to correct that as well. It is 
not totally offset because even if you look at the uranium enrichment 
source to which they dip in for an offset, it does not in 1996 fully 
offset it. In fact, it costs money to do the uranium offset. It will in 
1997 more than provide money to offset back for the additions made in 
1996 and 1997.
  But let us understand this. We are offering here in this amendment 
not a total offset, which I think probably would make it subject to a 
point of order. Second, there is an emergency declaration used to 
compensate for the inability to totally dollar-for-dollar offset. Now, 
this is the right of the Senate. It is the right of the Congress at any 
time to put an emergency to any measure. I do not challenge the 
correctness. I am challenging the wisdom in adding an emergency 
declaration as a part of the offset that does not happen in a dollar-
for-dollar offset.
  I understand that we are going to lay this amendment down according 
to the leader and embark upon a major debate on this issue tomorrow 
when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator 
Specter, will be here to engage in an analysis and discussion of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I also understand the Senators from North Dakota are 
anxious, once the discussion or comments made on this amendment have 
been finished, to offer an amendment to the emergency supplemental that 
is incorporated in this vehicle relating to North Dakota which we will 
be very happy to accommodate in that we have accommodated Idaho, 
Washington, and Oregon for similar problems that North Dakota has.


                Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3466

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to support, as an original 
cosponsor, the amendment proposed this afternoon by the Senator from 
South Dakota with the objective of restoring some of the funds that 
have been cut from the education budget of this country.
  I know that most Americans will quickly agree that money is by no 
means the whole solution for the schools of this country. I think all 
of us agree with that. The reason this fight is taking place is not 
because of some automatic response that suggests that, ``Gee, they are 
cutting education. It doesn't matter how much. We must fight to put the 
money back.'' This amendment is not such a reflexive action.
  But I think, just as most Americans would automatically agree that 
throwing money at something is not the solution, so they would also 
agree that they want schools that are free of drugs and that are safe. 
So they would also agree that they want 3- and 4-year-olds to have the 
maximum exposure to early intervention school programs. So they would 
also agree that it is critical to take kids who are at risk in their 
teenage years, who have either dropped out of school or have a drug 
problem or are facing some other kind of difficulty in life, and give 
them an opportunity to get into the workplace. So they would also agree 
that it is important to share the wealth of this great Nation with a 
disadvantaged

[[Page S1674]]

community, an urban community which depends on the property tax to fund 
its schools but which has very, very little tax base because of the 
problems it faces, in order to help the kids in that community get a 
decent education.
  What we have here in the Republican approach to this continuing 
resolution is a disavowal of each and every one of those realities. I 
do not think there is any American in a community that is affected who 
is coming to the Congress and saying, ``Hey, we only have 50 percent of 
our kids getting drug education last year. Let us lower the funding for 
drug education.'' Or, ``Hey, we know that this community cannot match 
the high-income communities in the rest of our State in the local funds 
it invests in schooling its children, but, nevertheless, let us lower 
the Federal funding provided to that community and make it harder to 
educate its children.''
  No one has come to me in my State and said, ``Senator, it's too bad 
that those kids at the Jeremiah Burke School only had 12 computers a 
year ago for 900 kids. But that's really not so important. Let's make 
sure they only have five next year--or maybe none.''
  That is the effect of what is being proposed by the Republicans in 
their approach to education, because the hard, inescapable truth in the 
United States of America is that we have district after district that 
does not have sufficient resources to provide kids with an adequate 
education.
  I was at the Healy School in Somerville, MA, the other day, which 
receives title I money.
  In that community there are kids who are in a joint first and second 
grade class. Some of those kids have special needs, and they are trying 
to mainstream through the education process those kids with special 
needs, because to take them out of the mainstream is to have them miss 
the very important experiences to which other children the same age are 
exposed. And the evidence is that they perform better and advance 
further scholastically when they feel they are part of the regular 
group.
  It is an important component of building self-esteem. It is an 
important component of helping people to grow up to be productive 
citizens. It is an important component of reducing the later costs that 
are imposed on taxpayers in this country for people who are not able to 
be part of the mainstream.
  In that school in Somerville, they have teachers' aides, part-time 
teachers helping the regular teachers to be able to keep these kids 
progressing as close to the norm as possible.
  What is the rationale for the Republicans to come along and say, 
``That doesn't matter, we're going to cut Federal funding for that 
effort, because we have to balance the budget of this country?''
  We do not disagree, of course, that we have to balance the Federal 
budget. In fact, we emphatically state that we must balance the budget. 
The debate is not over whether we have to balance the budget, the 
debate is over how the budget should be balanced. And most Americans, I 
believe, would say, ``Do we really need to build a B-2 bomber in 1996 
instead of educating these kids in Somerville and in all of America's 
other communities from coast to coast? Could we not find other parts of 
our $1.6 trillion budget to trim in order to guarantee we have the best 
education system in the world?''
  I fully understand that we need standards, we need testing, we need a 
change of attitude in the school place. We need principals who have the 
power and authority to direct the schools and hold teachers accountable 
for satisfactory teaching. Of course, we need all those things.
  But, Mr. President, we need to guarantee that our kids have 
computers. We need to guarantee that our schools are wired to the 
computer age. We need to guarantee that the libraries that they have 
are open in the afternoon. We need to guarantee that those libraries 
that are open have current reference books.
  We need to guarantee that teachers are not doing just the minimum in 
order to stay employed, that they are not just xeroxing materials in 
order to be able to put something in front of children so they have 
something to work on during the day. We need teachers striving to be 
the best they can be, and motivating children to be the best they can 
be.
  The Republicans, a couple of months ago, suggested to us that it was 
OK to zero out the money for summer jobs--eliminate summer jobs 
entirely. That was their priority. They went back home and talked to 
their constituents and read the polls, and they saw their agenda was 
not working as they intended. The American people did not like what 
they saw. So they came back to Washington and have included in this 
bill about two-thirds of the amount the President requested for summer 
jobs for teenagers. But they are not through with their intransigence. 
They have nominally appropriated funds to pay the costs of two-thirds 
as many jobs as the President requested, but then in the same bill they 
prohibit expenditure of those funds until a further deficit reduction 
bill is enacted that is to their liking. They say they are no longer 
holding schoolchildren and teenagers who want to work as hostages, but 
we all should look behind the story they are telling and closely 
inspect the facts of their bill.
  The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program is being cut by over 50 
percent. I do not understand that. This will equate to a reduction of 
about $2 million from a program that serves over 14,000 kids in 
Massachusetts. It serves 39 million students nationwide. I do not know 
of any American today who will come in here and say, ``We've got the 
drug problem licked, let's go home.''
  We just appointed a new drug czar. Most people will agree that the 
incidents of youth violence are increasing. Most people have accepted 
the stark reality of statistics that show us that 36 percent of all the 
kids in the United States of America are born out of wedlock, which 
means that they are mostly, not all, but mostly starting in one-parent 
families with one parent who has to struggle to make ends meet.
  Most people in this country understand that those kids are going to 
be most at risk, and most people understand the devastating effects of 
drugs within those communities where a huge number of children are born 
out of wedlock.
  So what is the rationale for reducing our effort to provide teen 
counselors, peer programs, all of the DARE programs and other efforts 
in our schools that make a difference in the lives of these at-risk 
children and young people? There is no credible rationale, Mr. 
President, and yet, in the name of balancing the budget and so-called 
fiscal austerity, the Republicans suggest that we can do more with less 
with respect to our education system.
  The distinguished Senator from Oregon said earlier, ``Well, we're not 
really cutting the amount of money being claimed, we are actually 
cutting a lesser amount of money.'' But the fact is that the only way 
that a lesser amount of money is being cut is if you count the funny 
money in this bill. What do I mean by funny money? I mean the money in 
the bill, $8 billion, that depends on a future agreement with respect 
to budget legislation.
  Let me read the very language of the bill. Page 780 in S. 1594, the 
pending legislation, line 20:

       No part of any appropriation contained in this title shall 
     be made available for obligation or expenditure, nor any 
     authority granted herein be effective, until the enactment 
     into law of a subsequent Act entitled ``An Act Incorporating 
     an Agreement Between the President and Congress Relative to 
     Federal Expenditures in the Fiscal Year 1996 and Future 
     Fiscal Years.''

  So, Mr. President, this is funny money. This is a fake. This is a 
scam. This is the Republicans coming along with another political 
gimmick to suggest to the country that they are really providing money 
for purposes the American people believe are vital when they are not 
providing money at all, because what they are providing depends on a 
subsequent agreement for the entire budget which, as we all know, 
depends on both sides being willing to move much further than they have 
given any indication they are prepared to move.
  The result will be even worse than the funding cuts that will be 
enforced when the subsequent budget agreement legislation proves to be 
a mirage that is unreachable by anyone. In fact, no school district in 
America can plan its budget for the next school year, because they do 
not know how much

[[Page S1675]]

money they will get for these purposes from the Federal Government.
  Is that a real problem? Let me just share with you this information.
  Because there are no 1996 commitments for key Federal education 
programs, Boston is proceeding to budget on a worst-case scenario, 
because they have to. Why? Because Boston must pay all teachers who 
have a contract for next year unless a teacher has been notified he or 
she is being laid off by May 15. So the school system has to plan for 
the worst, and send out the layoff notices.
  What does that do for morale in the schools? What does that do for 
the capacity to build education reform programs and other areas where 
we have been making some progress in Massachusetts and other States?
  The truth is that in school district after school district, people 
are left, by virtue of this game that is being played, making worst-
case plans and not being able to implement the full measure of the 
reforms for which most of us have fought very hard over the last few 
years.
  Goals 2000 is an example of those reforms. The Republicans are 
cutting Goals 2000 money. Why? Goals 2000 money is used to help 
teachers get the ongoing education and the ongoing training necessary 
to help them deal with reform, to produce reform, to teach better, to 
be state-of-the-art teachers and, hopefully, transition our kids 
successfully into the modern, complex workplace of the future.
  Mr. President, all you have to do is look at the statistics on 
reading in America. If one does so, it is then impossible to answer why 
we are making these kinds of reductions.
  Only one-third of the kids in the United States of America last year 
who graduated from high school, graduated with a passable--passable--
reading level. Out of 2\1/2\ million kids who graduated from high 
school, fully two-thirds were below a basic high school reading level.
  Out of 2\1/2\ million kids who graduated from high school in America, 
only 100,000 had a world-class reading level. And what are we doing at 
the Federal level? We are going to pull back from the incentives we can 
offer for providing an adequate education for our kids.
  Mr. President, every one of these efforts, frankly, is critical. 
Title I money enables schools to provide additional training in math 
and in reading and also provides technology resources and assistance to 
parents of at-risk students in order to help those students learn to 
read and write adequately.
  I can introduce you to one Boston student who started as a below-
average elementary student, but after completing the title I program, 
this student went on to become his high school's class president and is 
currently enrolled at MIT in Cambridge.
  There are, thank God, thousands of other similar examples. I know 
students who were having great difficulty with math or with reading 
who, only because of the extra attention they were able to get, were 
able to go on in the mainstream, attend college, graduate and secure a 
career, and, in some cases, proceed to an even higher level of 
education.
  It is incomprehensible, Mr. President, that in 1996, out of our 
Nation's $1.6 trillion budget, when we know that there are wiser 
offsets, we are being asked to reduce the safety in our schools, the 
quality of our education, and the access by kids to additional training 
and assistance, and to make it impossible for our children to receive 
the highest level of teaching. My colleagues supporting this amendment 
and I believe that all of these things are being sacrificed needlessly.
  I might add that, given the new recognition in recent months of the 
problems in the American workplace, it is even more puzzling that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle would find some virtue in trying 
to balance the budget by giving a tax cut to the wealthy while 
simultaneously taking away help for kids to go to school in the poor 
communities of this country.
  It is ironic. Patrick Buchanan and the Republican Party have been 
experiencing a certain awakening with respect to some of those things 
that many of us have been fighting for in the Senate for a long time--
the problem of people raising their wages in this modern economy, the 
problem of people holding on to the jobs that they have or getting the 
jobs they want to have, all of which in today's world depends more and 
more on the linkage of technology and skill and training to a 
particular job opportunity.
  What is the rationale, in the face of that clear connection, for 
reducing our commitment to those kinds of efforts, particularly where 
each of those efforts has been proven to be competent, valuable, and 
productive?
  It is not as if our colleagues are coming to the floor of the Senate 
and saying, ``Look, here's this program. It is a terrible program. It 
doesn't do anything. The kids aren't learning. We have had 10 years of 
wasted money. Nobody seems to be able to get ahead.'' That is not the 
evidence. I hear no one making that claim. Instead, they are saying, 
``Our eyes are closed. Our minds are made up. We have to cut these 
programs regardless.''
  The evidence is that every single one of these efforts has made a 
difference in the lives of children, in the schools they attend, and in 
the communities where they live. And that is what makes up the fabric 
of this country. And that is what produces the real values of this 
Nation.
  Mr. President, if we are going to hear lectures about values, it 
should be clear that the vote we will have on this education amendment 
will be a vote about values. If you care about values, you are not 
going to strip money from children who are trying to mainstream in a 
school in an inner city that is struggling to obtain adequate 
resources. You are not going to take that away from them in order to 
give some larger tax break to people who have seen the stock market go 
up 43 percent in the last year.
  So, I respectfully say to my colleagues that this is one of the most 
important amendments the Senate will consider this year, and the vote 
we will cast on it will be one of the most important votes we have an 
opportunity to cast in the Senate this year, because this really is a 
vote about where we want this country to go and what kind of people we 
are going to be. No one has made up the statistics or the studies which 
document the linkage of early intervention, of structure, of quality 
reading and math and science education to the ability of students to 
achieve their maximum potential.
  I hope that tomorrow or the next day, whenever we vote on this 
measure, we will articulate to the Nation our sense of the proper 
values in this country and of the proper priorities in this budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.

                          ____________________