[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1907-S1926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate H.R. 3019.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative 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.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Hatfield modified amendment No. 3466, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid amendment No. 3478 (to amendment No. 3466), to restore
funding for and ensure the protection of endangered species
of fish and wildlife.
Hutchison/Kempthorne amendment No. 3479 (to amendment No.
3478), to reduce funding for endangered species listings.
Amendment No. 3479
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Texas to the
amendment of the Senator from Nevada is in order.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair advise the Senator from
Nevada when I have 5 minutes remaining of the 15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have here a letter from the Evangelical
Environmental Network consisting of a number of people, including Dr.
Robert C. Andringa, president of the Christian College Coalition; Dr.
George Brushaber, president of Bethel College and Seminary; Mr. Roger
Cross, president of Youth for Christ/USA; Rev. Art DeKruyter, pastor of
Christ Church of Oakbrook, and on and on with other religious leaders
of this country.
The letter, written to all Senators, says, among other things:
This week the Senate will be voting on an omnibus
appropriations bill that contains a subtle attack on God's
handiwork. Buried in the legislation is a provision to
continue the moratorium on listing plants and animals as
endangered or threatened, under the Endangered Species Act.
Certainly there are scientific, economic, and medical
reasons for saving endangered creatures, but for many
individuals and congregations linked to the Evangelical
Environmental Network, the moral and spiritual aspects are
the more important. The Bible records ``the everlasting
covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind
on Earth'' and God affirms that covenant after using Noah to
bring the creatures through the Flood and save their
lives.
Mr. President, the letter continues:
If I am going to be in the right relationship with God, I
should treat the things he has made in the same way he treats
them.
The moratorium on listing species is nothing more than a
back door attack. While we stand by and do nothing, this
supposedly ``temporary'' measure may stretch over more than
two years, with the cost of recovering species becoming
greater and greater as time passes.
The moratorium was a bad idea when instituted; it is a bad
idea today. . . .
Despite anti-ESA propagandists claim, neither law nor our
environmental stance values plants or animals above people.
At issue is not favoritism but just and moral treatment of
all of God's creatures. God placed us here as stewards, not
as exploiters, and we have no right to act in a callous
manner toward any living creature.
With respect to the Endangered Species Act, we are
compelled to speak out because this matter relates to the
core of our faith and respect for God.
Mr. President, I have read only part of the letter, but the
indication from these religious leaders is that the moratorium on the
Endangered Species Act is wrong and it is immoral.
Mr. President, we have received letters from all over the country,
not the least of which is a letter from a group of physicians. I talked
about some of the things they said yesterday. But, in effect, what they
say is that it is wrong to have this moratorium; it is wrong for health
reasons to millions of people throughout the world.
This letter is signed by representatives of the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, the National Association
[[Page S1908]]
of Physicians for the Environment, someone from the Pennsylvania
Medical Society, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Nevada Medical
Society, the Vermont Medical Society, the Arthritis Foundation, AIDS
Action Council, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston University, and
on and on, Mr. President, with people from the medical community who
say that this moratorium is not only wrong from a political standpoint;
it is wrong from a moral perspective.
Mr. President, last night I went back to the office and asked my
staff to look at some of the things we have received over our computer,
over our e-mail network. We received--and I just at random picked a
few--we received something from Basking Ridge, NJ, from a woman who
says:
I implore you--
It is written to various Senators.
I implore you to support Senator Reid's amendment.
This matter is of critical importance because:
Listing a species under the Endangered Species Act is not a
trivial matter that can be delayed indefinitely. The
moratorium on listing and critical habitat designations must
be lifted.
The integrity of the ESA is extremely important to your
constituents. Do not allow this Congress to weaken this
important legislation.
That letter was from Merideth Mueller.
I received a letter from Minnesota from one Todd Burnside of
Roseville, MN. He says:
The extinction of species and the degradation of the
environment are things that future generations may never
forgive us for.
I received also, Mr. President, a copy of an e-mail written to all
Senators:
With all my heart I beg you to vote yes to Reid's amendment
to H.R. 3019, so that the awful moratorium to the ESA will
end. I cannot express to you how angry and disappointed I am
at this government for allowing for an ESA moratorium in the
first place. This act completely goes against the needs of
the country in terms of economics, morality, responsibility,
and common sense. At a time when we urgently need solidarity
on all fronts to protect what little we have left of the
natural environment and to leave something for our future
generations to cherish, and to stop the massive onslaught on
our natural world, we as citizens need you to protect the
environment, our home.
Mr. President, it is obvious what has happened here. The second-
degree amendment calls for emergency listings only. We know that this
will allow people to file all kinds of lawsuits to have emergency
listings. We know that there were listings prior to this moratorium
being pronounced. They should proceed in an orderly fashion.
What this second-degree amendment will do is force the Department of
the Interior to defend numerous lawsuits to show that what they are
doing is adequate. We need to get rid of this moratorium and get back
to good science and good protection of the environment and these
species. What is taking place now is an assault on good science and
good government.
It also allows this body to simply not go forward with reauthorizing
the Endangered Species Act. As long as this moratorium is in effect,
there will be no further listings, and that is wrong. This moratorium,
I think it is clear, is going to continue throughout this Congress with
all we have to do with all the problems with the balanced budget and 13
appropriations bills, 5 of which we did not pass last year.
I think it is going to be extremely difficult to reauthorize this
bill. This is a license to repudiate the Endangered Species Act. I
think we as a country and we as a Congress should be ashamed if we
allow this to happen. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my
time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to the
amendment because I think it is most important that we keep the
integrity of what we are trying to do to protect the endangered
species. The authorization for the Endangered Species Act ran out
several years ago. That is because of the ridiculous excesses that have
been perpetrated on the private property owners in this country. So we
called a moratorium on the old act so that we could reauthorize it, so
that we could protect private property and protect the endangered
species. And we want to have good science, we want to have cost-benefit
analysis, we want to have economic impact analysis because, after all,
Mr. President, there is no reason for people in the Northwest to have
the entire timber industry shut down because of the spotted owl. There
is no reason to have put people who had worked for generations in the
timber industry there out of work and untrained to do other things.
In fact, Mr. President, you and I are paying $250 million to retrain
those people because we were protecting a spotted owl that could have
been put somewhere else in a national forest to protect. We could have
had it both ways if we had just used common sense, Mr. President. But
we did not do that. And that is why it was necessary and why this
Congress voted overwhelmingly to put a moratorium on the Endangered
Species Act listing--not the preparation for listing, not the research,
just the final listings--until we could have a reauthorization of the
act that would put common sense into it, that would put people into the
equation, because after all, people should be in the equation as well.
I like to joke sometimes and say that the only endangered species not
protected is Homo sapiens.
Now, Mr. President, it is time that we started putting common sense
into this act. Let me talk to you about a few of the excesses that have
caused us to be in the situation where we are, needing to do a drastic
reorganization and reauthorization of this bill.
In Texas, my home State, there is a golden cheek warbler. Fish and
Wildlife originally said they were going to set aside an area the size
of the State of Rhode Island to protect a golden cheek warbler. Mr.
President, we want to protect golden cheek warblers, but I think it is
a little excessive to cause property values in that entire area to
plummet to save this golden cheek warbler when we can do it with other
means. Not only that, but what they said you could not do on your
property is cut cedar. Now, cedar has a very bad impact on people's
health. People have what we call cedar fever. People are miserable with
cedar fever. So they cut cedar trees to keep people from having this
very annoying sort of sneezing attack.
Well, in addition to that, even more important to the farmers and
ranchers in the area, cedar absorbs water so that we lose the ability
to use water downstream because the cedar trees are absorbing the water
upstream. So it really is a hindrance and something that our farmers
and ranchers need to deal with. One Travis County, TX, owner, Margaret
Rector, invested in land 25 years ago to help her in her retirement
years. In 1990, her land was worth $830,000. After it was designated a
golden cheek warbler habitat, its value plunged to $30,000.
Mr. President, that is not a guess, that is an assessment on the
county tax rolls in Travis County, TX. Mr. President, that is
ridiculous. Next is the southwestern willow fly catcher in California.
The Army Corps of Engineers built the Isabella Dam in Kern County, CA,
to catch the runoff of melting snow from the southern Sierra Mountains
to save it for use in the summer. It has saved millions in flood
damage, increased the water supply, and it is the third largest food-
producing county in the entire country now. But the listing in February
1995 of the southwestern willow fly catcher has put the dam's use at
risk, fearing the reservoir will flood fly catcher nesting areas, a
harm to the bird's habitat. Now Fish and Wildlife may force the Corps
of Engineers to release water from the reservoir to protect the habitat
that did not exist until the dam was built.
These are two examples, Mr. President. The jaguar in Texas. Mr.
President, they have not seen a jaguar in Texas since 1948 when one
wandered up from Mexico, they think, and it was cited as sort of an
anomaly. Now they are talking about listing the jaguar as an endangered
species in Texas, having not seen one since 1948, and it could cause
restrictions on land use in 30 counties along the Rio Grande River.
Mr. President, that is why so many groups and private property
owners--the American Farm Bureau is alarmed by what is happening with
this Endangered Species Act. They are in total support of my amendment,
which does the following. My amendment just says that we will protect
the ability to have emergency listings. It has been said on
[[Page S1909]]
this floor that we might lose some of the very important endangered
species. Well, we will not. With my amendment, we give the Secretary of
the Interior the right to do an emergency listing so there would not be
a danger of losing an endangered species on an emergency basis.
But, Mr. President, I think it is very important that we realize that
the people who are holding up the progress on the reauthorization are
also the people who are here wanting to lift the moratorium. I do not
understand that. I do not understand why they would want to lift the
moratorium on a bill that they have all said has problems. I have
pointed out a few of those problems here this morning. Why would they
lift the moratorium under the old act that they say has problems when
they have the power to reauthorize and to protect everyone--private
property rights, private property owners, and to protect the animals
under the Endangered Species Act, as well? Why would we not do things
the right way, Mr. President? That is my question here today.
Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the
remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island, [Mr. Chafee].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, what is wrong with the Hutchison amendment, the
second-degree amendment? First of all, it maintains the moratorium on
final decisions to list species through the end of this fiscal year.
Now, Mr. President, let us briefly review the bidding. Last March,
the Senate approved a 6-month moratorium, a brief time out on listings
under the Endangered Species Act. That was 6 months. That was extended
another 5 months under the continuing resolution. Now, under this bill,
the moratorium would be extended for another 7 months. That means that
for a minimum of 18 months no work will be done toward conserving
species that warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act,
species threatened with extinction or destruction, and a lot of ground
can be lost in a year and a half.
Now, Mr. President, the second point is that although the Hutchison
second-degree amendment would allow emergency listings --the word
``emergency'' is in there--that is not an adequate or practical way to
recover a species. Mr. President, you come up with emergency listing
when the situation is really desperate. It is sort of a last-ditch
effort to save a species, when the species is about to become extinct
either through disease, or destruction by man in some fashion, or the
last remnant of the habitat has been wiped out.
At this point, Mr. President, there is little hope of recovering the
species. Recovery, after all, is the goal of the Endangered Species
Act. That is what this is all about. If we do not want an Endangered
Species Act, just let us say so. But we hear constantly on the floor of
this Senate--when these amendments are brought up to really demolish
the Endangered Species Act, it is prefaced by, ``We are all for the
act, we just want to make these corrections.'' But this ``correction,''
so-called, really is devastating to the recovery of a species.
If you are only listing it as endangered when it reaches the
emergency situation, then the cause is practically lost, in most
instances, due to the destruction of the animal, bird or plant, or lost
due to the destruction of the habitat that is so essential for the
survival of that.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I point out that emergency listings are
only temporary. Under the Endangered Species Act, they last for 240
days. You go in--it is not like a listing for an endangered species. It
is an emergency situation. Normally, the Fish and Wildlife Service
promulgates a final rule to list a species at the end of the 240-day
emergency listing period.
Under the second-degree amendment that is presented, the Fish and
Wildlife Service could not make a final rule to protect the species
under the Endangered Species Act because you cannot do that. They have
to go through a whole series of emergency actions--240 days, and then
another 240 days. That is not the kind of situation that is really
going to lead to the saving of a species. It is not going to permit
long-term decisions to be made and expenditures of money, perhaps, for
the saving of habitat.
So, Mr. President, I do hope the second-degree amendment will be
tabled, as the distinguished Senator from Nevada will move at some
period.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the Endangered Species Listing Handbook
published by the Division of Endangered Species, under Procedures
Guidance for the Preparations and Processing of Rules and Notices
Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act:
An emergency listing is a temporary measure, providing the
Act's protection for only 240 days. It is only used in
extreme situations of dire imminent threat to a species'
continued existence.
Mr. President, there is going to be a flood of lawsuits if this
amendment of my friend from Texas is not tabled. The listing moratorium
must be lifted. The motion to table that I will make should be granted,
and the listing moratorium must be lifted.
First, over 500 species are dangerously close to extinction along
with their life-sustaining ecosystems.
Second, the moratorium on the listing process is a display of lack of
faith in the legislative process. Really, it is arrogance, because
everyone knows that as long as this moratorium is in effect, there will
be no endangered species reauthorization. It removes the incentive for
opponents of the Endangered Species Act to reauthorize the act.
Third, it is argued that a time out is what was needed to get reform
measures in place and better science procedures in the listing process.
I have two responses. The first is that there is no time out for the
species who may face habitat degradation and extinction. Finally, the
science is irrelevant if a species has become extinct. My second
response to a time out is that the show of good faith in
reauthorization that my colleagues talked about last night and this
morning would be the lifting of the moratorium and proceeding with the
business of reforming the act.
Fourth, I received letters from 38 physicians, chemists, dentists,
and others from around the country advocating the repeal of the
moratorium. I read some of their organizations today. They state with
clarity: ``What is often lost in the debate over species conservation
is the value of species to human health.''
They continue. ``* * * [R]ecent studies have shown that a substantial
proportion of the Nation's medicines are derived from plants and other
natural resources. The medicines of tomorrow being discovered today
from nature * * *.''
They conclude: ``When a species is lost to extinction, we have no
idea what potential medical cures are lost along with it.''
I have talked about the evangelicals and representatives of religious
organizations. I have read in detail from their letters. They believe
that this is a moral issue and not a political issue.
My response to the second-degree amendment is, among other things:
First, the amendment fundamentally maintains the listing moratorium.
That is all it does. It fails to mitigate the devastating impact of the
listing moratorium because it does not allow for a final determination
of an emergency listing. This means that no real recovery can take
place. It is a meaningless exercise in paperwork.
Second, the second-degree amendment only creates wasteful
bureaucratic procedures and would be a heyday for lawyers.
Third, the Kempthorne amendment has agreed in the past that we should
try to avoid emergency listings. This is directly in the offset.
Finally, Mr. President, there is no justification, no logic, to this
inactivity when the net result will be a greater cost to the taxpayer,
fewer management options, and, most importantly, greater increase in
the likelihood of extinction.
The amendment is a superficial legislative ploy.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
[[Page S1910]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized, and the
remaining time is 7 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I had 7\1/2\ minutes the last time I asked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes remain.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am very happy to be here to support my
colleague from Texas. I think on this issue she is absolutely right.
Let me explain why.
In 1973, we passed the Endangered Species Act. We have gone back
periodically and rewritten that law, and in the last rewriting we put
in a date by which the law had to be updated in order to still have
force, a sunsetting provision. The logic of the sunsetting provision
was to assure that periodically as situations changed, such as the
power of the bureaucracy to expand the law beyond any limit anyone
foresaw when the law was written, that by that date we were going to
have to go back and rewrite the law or it was going to stop having any
force of law. That act expired in 1992. This is 1996. For 4 years, we
have had no Endangered Species Act because the law is sunset. Granted,
we have continued to allow it to operate by providing funds for that
purpose. But the whole purpose of sunsetting is to modernize
legislation to reflect the new reality.
Then in April 1995 we took a time out. This time out basically said,
``It has been 3 years since this law expired.'' We should not allow the
Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to designate endangered species
without any limit, without any congressional check, until this law is
reauthorized. That was eminently reasonable. It was adopted right here
on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and it became the law of the land.
Now we have an effort by Senator Reid to go back and, in essence, to
make the endangered species law a law that operates in perpetuity where
there is no requirement that it be modernized and where it can simply
continue to do things like the effort by U.S. Fish and Wildlife to
designate 33 counties in central Texas as being affected by an
endangered species called the Golden Cheek Warbler. In the face of
widespread opposition in Texas, they backed off.
But the point is we have a right to say that when Congress wrote this
law, it wanted the right to periodically review it. That time for
review occurred 4 years ago.
I think the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has proposed a
reasonable compromise that will allow emergency designations and allow
us to rewrite this law and make changes that the American people
clearly want but which will put the pressure on those whose viewpoint
is a minority viewpoint.
This is not just about endangered species. This is about whether or
not we are going to let a small group of people who do not agree with
the mandate of the 1994 election ride roughshod over that mandate by
extending a law which expired 4 years ago and by allowing bureaucrats
to continue to not consider cost and benefits. Everybody in the Senate
knows that if we rewrite the Endangered Species Act in this Congress,
there are going to be dramatic changes in it.
If the underlying Reid amendment which Senator Hutchison has amended
is adopted and becomes law, we will not rewrite the Endangered Species
Act--and everybody knows it. As a result, even though the majority of
the American people and the majority of the Members of Congress are
ready to make the changes, even though the law has expired, we will end
up continuing to expand the power of the Federal bureaucracy.
I want to urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison amendment.
Let me also say that, if the underlying Reid amendment is attached to
this bill, I intend to oppose this bill and I intend to vigorously
fight its adoption. I think it would be an absolute outrage if we went
back now and eliminated the time out we declared in April 1995 on a law
which expired 4 years ago.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 2 minutes and 11
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the argument has been made in the Chamber that we
might lose some very important endangered animals in America. I
submitted an amendment to the amendment to make sure that that would
not happen. We allow emergency listings if there really is a danger of
losing any animal or any species that is under the old act.
Let us look at what the Reid amendment does. You have heard people on
the other side argue that there are problems with the act, but
nevertheless they are urging you in the Reid amendment to go forward
under the old act which we acknowledge has problems, regardless of the
fact that it costs people jobs, that it hurts the economies of many
States, and that it takes away a fundamental constitutional right in
this country, and that is the right to private property.
That is wrong. It would be ridiculous for the Senate to vote today to
go forward, take away jobs, hurt the economy, and take away private
property rights under an act which everyone has acknowledged has
problems.
If we are sincere about doing what is right, if we are sincere about
reauthorizing the bill with some common sense, with some protection for
private property, if we are sincere about making sure that private
property rights and people's jobs have some part in the equation in the
decisionmaking, then we should vote for the Hutchison-Kempthorne
amendment. The Hutchison-Kempthorne amendment protects emergency
listings. If there really is a danger of losing one of the endangered
species, it protects that right.
However, what we must do is also protect the right of the people in
this country. The jobs and the people who work for a living ought to
have some protection by the Senate. If we vote for the Hutchison-
Kempthorne amendment, their rights will be protected and we will also
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act to protect the animals in our
country as well. Let us do it right. Vote for Hutchison-Kempthorne.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I first want to commend the Junior
Senator from Idaho for his leadership on this issue. I know that
reforming the Endangered Species Act is a critical issue to Idaho. It
is a make or break issue for many of our constituents. I am certain
that he will approach the reauthorization with the reasoned,
commonsense perspective it desperately needs.
Mr. President, as a life-long farmer, I understand the value of
wildlife. I have grown up with wildlife and protected it without
government forcing me to. But also as a farmer, I understand the
incredible burden being placed on private landowners and public
resources to meet the mandates of this act.
The problem comes when the bureaucracy gets out of control and
government hurts people in order to protect animals. That is precisely
what is happening all around the country. And where it is not already
happening, it will happen soon.
For instance, in North Carolina we have thousands of acres of
valuable timberland which cannot be cut because the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service believes it may harm red cockaded woodpeckers. Some
changes have been announced recently that should help matters some. But
there remains a big problem back home. By any reasonable measure the
government has seized the land of many of my constituents without
offering them a dime of compensation.
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy and the environmental industry do not
care about the reality outside of Washington. They seek to use the
Endangered Species Act and the animals themselves as tools to create
Federal land use regulations nationwide. The ultimate result being
thousands upon thousands of overlapping habitat ranges for each and
every bug, snail, and fly the bureaucrats think we need more of.
Mr. President, the important question is: What happens when virtually
all land is home to a protected animal--what happens then?
[[Page S1911]]
This is a very serious question. It has happened in Idaho, Senator
Kempthorne's State. As he has shown the committee, virtually all of
Idaho is regulated as home to some sort of government protected animal.
Thousands of acres of valuable farmland have been locked off to protect
an underground water snail called the brunei snail. This kind of thing
is going to happen everywhere when the environmental industry gets its
way.
I will oppose Senator Reid's amendment because we need to restrain
the bureaucracy that is now operating under a flawed law. A law that
gives too little consideration for the livelihood and property of
people, and too much for bugs, bees, and bureaucrats.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side have
an additional 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note that in the second-degree amendment
it provides $1 to the Fish and Wildlife Service to do the entire
emergency listing. That shows you how serious the other side is about
this whole proposition.
In other words, in the underlying bill, there was $750,000 which was
available for the downlisting and the other activities in connection
with this program. And now they are saying that we are out to take care
of this situation because there is an emergency provision, and in order
to take care of it they provide $1.
It seems to me that shows you how serious really the other side is in
proposing this second-degree amendment. And so I hope that the Reid
effort to table the Hutchison amendment will succeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague
from Texas and 30 seconds to my colleague from Wyoming.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I hope nobody is confused by the statement
that was just made. When we took a time out in April of 1995, we did
not take all the money away from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We left
them the money to continue to trample on private property and the
rights of citizens and to continue to fail to look at reason,
responsibility, and cost and benefits. But we simply took away the
right for them 3 years after the law had expired to continue to limit
jobs, growth and opportunity in America. The only reason the Senator
from Texas added a dollar in her amendment was because this is an
appropriations bill and it was strictly a technicality. The Senators
amendment does not reduce the $750,000 available. So I hope no one is
confused.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
I rise in support of the Hutchison amendment. We have worked very
hard now for almost a year and a half having hearings going on in the
country, and clearly all of us want to have endangered species
protection. But very clearly, it needs to be changed, and it needs to
be upgraded.
We need to learn from the experience of the past 20 years. This is
the way to do it. If we do not have passage of the Hutchison amendment,
then we will not get to making the changes that need to be made. I
fully support the Hutchison amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the amendment will be laid aside and the majority leader is
recognized to call up an amendment.
The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Amendments Nos. 3480 and 3481 to Amendment No. 3466
(Purpose: To provide economic reconstruction funds to Bosnia-
Herzegovina subject to compliance with the Dayton Accord's requirement
for withdrawal of foreign troops)
(Purpose: To provide economic assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina
subject to certain conditions)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to offer two amendments on behalf
of myself and the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, Senator McConnell. One amendment would prohibit the
release of funds to Bosnia under this act until the Bosnian Federation
is in compliance with article III of annex 1-A of the Dayton agreement
which simply means that all foreign forces must leave Bosnia before
funds for civilian implementation can be released.
I will also send to the desk another amendment on behalf of Senator
McConnell and myself which establishes several conditions for the use
of the funds provided for civilian implementation projects in Bosnia.
In my view, these two amendments should enjoy bipartisan support. As
far as I know, there is no objection to the amendments, but I will
offer the amendments and not ask for final disposition until everyone
has had an opportunity to take a look at them.
I am pleased to cosponsor with the chairman of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee these two amendments to the Bosnia supplemental portion of
the continuing resolution. I wish to address first the issues of
offsets for this $200 million in civilian implementation funding. I
understand that this portion of the supplemental was designed as an
``emergency'' by the Appropriations Committee but was offset by the
House. I hope that the conferees will ultimately offset this $200
million request.
As we have seen over the past few months, the military aspects of the
Dayton agreement have been the easiest to implement. It is the civilian
side of the equation that poses the toughest problems. Among them,
facilitating the return of refugees, conducting free and fair
elections, and establishing a professional civilian police force.
Indeed, the reports we are getting from Sarajevo have demonstrated
that integrating the capital is more difficult than separating the
various military forces. The military task is limited and clear, while
the civilian task is wide-reaching and complex, with only vague lines
of authority.
The United States has made a tremendous commitment of personnel and
resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While many of us disagreed with
the administration's decision to send troops to Bosnia, while many of
us advocated a different policy, those American forces are now there,
and therefore it is essential that we succeed. Our credibility and that
of NATO is on the line. It is essential that we in the international
community get Bosnia back on its feet. Otherwise, this risky deployment
of thousands of American and NATO soldiers will be for naught. It will
end up being a brief interlude in a long war. The challenges are
immense. There are more than 2.5 million Bosnians who have been
displaced from their homes. At least 60 percent of housing in Bosnia
has been damaged or destroyed. Most Bosnian Moslems and Croats have no
paying jobs and have been dependent on humanitarian assistance for
nearly 4 years.
No doubt about it, the Bosnians need and deserve our help. However,
there are problems that we cannot and should not ignore. First and
foremost is the continued presence of Iranian military personnel in
Bosnia and Iranian intelligence officials.
They pose a potential threat to our forces--but also to Bosnia's
place in the international community. The McConnell-Dole amendment
requires the President to certify that the Bosnians are in full
compliance with article III of annex 1-A of the Dayton Agreement
mandating the withdrawal of foreign forces, and to certify that Bosnian
Government-Iranian Government cooperation on intelligence matters has
been terminated.
It seems to me that through our actions today we can send two
beneficial signals: That we are seriously committed to assisting
Bosnia, but that the Bosnian Government's continued military and
intelligence relationship with Iran must be halted.
We know that Iran provided military aid to Bosnia when the rest of
the world refused to. I opposed the policy of refusing the Bosnians the
means to defend themselves. The Congress opposed that policy. But, that
is the past.
And now the Bosnian Government must make choices that will affect
Bosnia and Herzegovina's future. Will Bosnia be part of Europe and the
West or not? A continuing military and intelligence relationship with
Iran clearly jeopardizes Bosnia's future as a pluralistic democratic
state in Europe.
Looking further at developments within Bosnia, we need to make sure
[[Page S1912]]
that our economic assistance has a positive effect on the social,
economic and political situation there and that other donors are doing
their fair share. So, besides limiting U.S. aid to projects in the U.S.
sector, the second McConnell-Dole amendment would add criteria
including:
Prohibiting funds for the repair of housing in areas where displaced
persons or refugees are refused the right of return due to ethnicity or
political party affiliation;
Establishing, in advance, GAO audit access to the banking and
financial institutions that will receive AID assistance;
A certification by the president, after 90 days, that the total U.S.
contribution to reconstruction for this year, $532 million, has been
matched by a combined total of bilateral donor pledges.
These amendments do not address all problems related to the civilian
effort in Bosnia, but they go a long way. For example, more
congressional oversight and work will need to be done on the matter of
civilian police and the international police task force which is
partially funded in this supplemental. This week we saw houses being
looted and burned in Sarajevo and a handful of international police are
standing by and watching--because they have no arms and no authority.
Another vital issue is that of arming and training Bosnian Federation
Forces--which is critical to the long-term stability of Bosnia. That of
course, can also only be achieved once the Bosnian Government ensures
that Iranian military units are no longer on its territory.
Mr. President, helping Bosnia and the Bosnian people is the right
thing to do. However, we must do so wisely--and these two amendments
will ensure that U.S. dollars are spent prudently and in a manner that
supports our broader goals. It is not only in Bosnia's interest, but in
our interest, to have a Bosnia which is pluralistic, democratic,
multiethnic and able to defend itself.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I now
send these amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for Mr. McConnell, for
himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bennett, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes
an amendment numbered 3480 to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
No funds may be provided under this Act until the President
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that:
(1) The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is in full
compliance with Article III, Annex 1A of the Dayton
Agreement; and
(2) Intelligence cooperation between Iranian officials and
Bosnian officials has been terminated.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not know if anybody now wishes to speak
on these amendments, but I wanted to offer the amendments. I think
Senator McConnell will speak after his hearing.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there a time limit on this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I believe I sent two amendments to the desk.
I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the first amendment and call up
the second amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the second amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for Mr. McConnell, for
himself, Mr. Dole, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment
numbered 3481 to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 751, section entitled ``Agency for International
Development, Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics,''
insert at the appropriate place, the following: ``Provided
further, That funds appropriated by this Act may only be made
available for projects, activities, or programs within the
sector assigned to American forces of NATO military
Implementation Force (IFOR) and Sarajevo: Provided further,
That priority consideration shall be given to projects and
activities designated in the IFOR ``Task Force Eagle civil
military project list'': Provided further, That no funds made
available under this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated
for the purposes of rebuilding or repairing housing in areas
where refugees or displaced persons are refused the right of
return due to ethnicity or political party affiliation:
Provided further, That no funds may be made available under
this heading in this Act, or any other Act, to any banking or
financial institution in Bosnia and Herzegovina unless such
institution agrees in advance, and in writing, to allow the
United States General Accounting Office access for the
purposes of audit of the use of U.S. assistance: Provided
further, That effective ninety days after the date of
enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated under
this heading may be made available for the purposes of
economic reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina unless the
President determines and certifies in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that the bilateral contributions
pledged by non-U.S. donors are at least equivalent to the
U.S. bilateral contributions made under this Act and in the
FY 1995 and FY 1996 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs Appropriations bills.''
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not know of any other speakers, but
there may be requests from both sides of the aisle. I know Senator
McConnell wishes to speak briefly. He is now involved in a hearing. I
ask the amendments be temporarily laid aside, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the
amendments that have just been laid down by the majority leader and by
Senator McConnell of Kentucky. I think it is very important that we
continue to keep in mind that the agreement that was made by the
Senate, over my objection, frankly, that we would send the troops to
Bosnia, nevertheless did include some very important points.
After the United States has expended so much to try to keep this
peace agreement, it is most important that the agreement be kept in
force, including the arming and training of the Moslems. That was a key
reason that so many people on this floor voted to support sending the
troops. It is most important that we get on with that part of the
agreement. Otherwise, after all the money that we have spent trying to
bring peace to the Balkans, the results will be short-lived, because if
there is not some sort of parity there among the three parties, I think
it will be difficult to keep the peace for a long term. The one chance
that I think we have is if there is parity among the parties. So I hope
the President will remember that part of the agreement that was made
and get on with the other parts of the Dayton agreement that would give
the best chance for this to be a successful mission.
So I am very pleased to support and ask unanimous consent to be added
as a cosponsor of Dole-McConnell amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. 3479
Mr. REID. Mr. President, very briefly, my friend, the senior Senator
from Texas, in his closing remarks regarding the Reid and Kempthorne
amendments, indicated that when the moratorium was originally placed
that there was no
[[Page S1913]]
money involved. That factually is not so. Mr. President, $1.5 million
was rescinded at the same time that the original moratorium was passed.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hutchison-
Kempthorne proposal with regard to a final listing moratorium for the
Endangered Species Act.
I think a lot about this issue because I have had to confront it
frequently in my State of Mississippi. I have also heard of many
instances in other States where major problems have been caused by the
Endangered Species Act. I say this as one who voted for this act way
back in 1974, I think, when we originally passed it. I thought we were
passing an act that would be aimed narrowly at truly endangered
species.
I was thinking about perhaps, you know, crocodiles. I was thinking
about maybe white tigers. I was thinking about elephants. I had no idea
the extent to which this law would be contorted and twisted and used by
the bureaucracy to harass people who are trying to create jobs and
provide economic opportunities.
There seems to be no end to the lengths bureaucrats will go to use
the Endangered Species Act to take private and public property. I
really think that common sense has been lost when it comes to this
particular statute.
I do not think when I originally voted--in fact, I know that when I
originally voted for this act, I had no idea that this would lead to
the spotted owl situation in the Northwest. I had no idea that it would
create a problem in my own State of Mississippi with species like the
gopher tortoise or the ring-necked snake or the red cockaded
woodpecker. I believe it never occurred to many of us who voted for
this bill over 20 years ago that it would destroy jobs, cripple
economic development, and put private property at risk. It has placed
individual rights behind those of a ring-necked snake.
In my own State of Mississippi, we have had a real problem with the
Forest Service because they want to set aside not a few hundred, not a
few thousand, but 100,000 acres of timber-land for the red cockaded
woodpecker.
I thought that a lot of birds were involved. Unfortunately, I was
wrong. As a matter of fact, it involved just three colonies. Then I
thought, well maybe a colony represents a lot of birds. Unfortunately,
I was wrong again. A colony is just two birds, one male and one female.
My State of Mississippi will have a total of seven red cockaded
woodpeckers in this 100,000-acre set-aside in the Chickasaw District of
the De Soto National Forest. Seems a bit excessive, but all done in the
name of the Endangered Species Act. And, guess what--the Forest Service
wants still more acreage.
Most Senators can cite similar examples of unbelievable experiences
and excesses with this law in their States. I think that there is a
need to provide some commonsense protection for birds, fish, and
plants, but a responsible balance must be reached because the
Endangered Species Act is costing us millions of dollars. It is costing
us thousands of acres. I think it is getting out of control. Many in
this city talk about extremism by one side or the other on policy
issues, and perhaps the bureaucracy's implementation of the Endangered
Species Act has reached that stage.
It is time that Congress pull the Endangered Species Act back from
the abyss and take a calm, reasoned look at it. That is what Senators
Hutchison and Kempthorne are requesting through their amendment. A
narrow and limited pause for only one aspect of the statute.
That is what this debate is all about. Last year the Congress--not
some alien group--this Congress put a hold on future listing of
endangered species and the designation of critical habitat until the
basic statute had been reauthorized. It should be noted that this
statute is long overdue for a full review and reauthorization. The
Endangered Species Act authorization and its appropriations expired in
1992. And, a pause would enable this Congress to work in a measured
manner to correct the statute before more funds are spent and more
economic turmoil can occur. The authorization process is the accepted
method to establish and adjust public policy.
So why has it not been reauthorized? Because those that want to
continue this abuse under the guise of protection are afraid that the
American people will insist that the Congress apply common sense to
this act. And so the debate has been stalled in the authorization
committees making it impossible to bring it forward.
This leaves the appropriation process as the only legislative vehicle
to address the issue. And to the credit of Senators Hutchison and
Kempthorne, they are not trying to gut or repeal the statute. Rather
they are asking for a pause until the authorization work can be
completed.
It should be noted that the committee with jurisdiction here in the
Senate, through the efforts of Senator Kempthorne of Idaho, and others,
has made a valiant effort to move this authorization forward. But until
it is reauthorized, we should not continue to act. Abuses that has been
heaped upon many Americans as a result of this act should be stopped.
The underlying amendment by Senator Reid would lift the moratorium
accepted and adopted by this Congress last year. Senator Reid would
just take it away, saying that proper authorizations for public
policies are unnecessary.
The second-degree amendment by Senators Hutchison and Kempthorne
would maintain the original moratorium, but with some changes. It would
now only affect final listings and critical habitat designations. This
means it will permit emergency listings to go forward if the well-being
of a species is at significant risk. This is a major change because it
will permit activities to go forward, but they just cannot take the
final action. Again, I think that this is common sense and responsible.
There are very few areas where my constituents get absolutely livid
at what is happening in America--but this is one. We have lost control
of this act. Congress needs to rethink it. Congress needs to correct
the problem. We can protect truly genuinely endangered species but we
have gotten down to the area of subspecies--down to single blades of
grass, this does not reflect our original intent. It appears that only
Congress can refocus the basic statute that a bureaucracy has taken
over.
So I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at what is going on
across America, as well as what is being proposed here. We should not
lift the Endangered Species Act moratorium without a proper
reauthorization. Nor should we allow the abuses to continue.
We should support the commonsense proposal by Senator Hutchison. It
is the right thing to do. It will give Congress time to do the
reauthorization without impacting emergency listings. So I commend her
for what she is trying to do. And I urge the adoption of the amendment
by Senators Hutchison and Kempthorne. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to
comment briefly about the significant amendment which was enacted
yesterday adding funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, the subcommittee of Appropriations that I
chair, and to say at the outset, again, my compliments to the
distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who is the ranking
Democrat on the subcommittee, for his tireless work and the work of his
staff, as well as my
[[Page S1914]]
staff, in crafting that legislation in a bipartisan compromise. But I
am very fearful that if the partisan bickering and the political
credit-taking continues, we are going to jeopardize our chance to see
that amendment as the cornerstone of this omnibus appropriations bill
go through in the House of Representatives and be signed by the
President, so that it becomes law.
We have seen political gridlock in Washington in the hours of the
past many months of an unprecedented nature. We have seen the
Government close down twice, and we have seen the American people
recoiling in disgust at the kind of fighting for political advantage
which is taking place in this city. I believe that it is a matter for
blame to be equally proportioned, 50 percent on each side of this
aisle.
I think that what the American people are looking for is to have an
accommodation and to work out these differences of opinion so that we
can keep the Government going and not have another shutdown, and work
in the interests of the American people.
Yesterday, Senator Harkin and I submitted a bill which we had worked
on jointly in accordance with our responsibilities as chairman and
ranking member of that subcommittee and on which we had reached a good-
faith, bipartisan compromise. And there was a very, very strong vote in
this body--84 to 16--an unusually strong vote on an issue which is as
highly contested as that one was yesterday, or what would be expected.
And 37 of 53 Republicans joined in supporting that expenditure,
although there were many questions as to whether that was a wise
approach in the overall matter, because we are looking for a settlement
on the overall budget dispute. But those differences were laid aside in
the interest of funding for education, for health, and for labor and
plant safety, to get that done.
No sooner was the issue resolved on the Senate floor than we had back
to usual political posturing--taking credit for what had been done in a
very, very partisan way. Today's New York Times quotes one Member of
the Senate on the opposite side of the aisle saying--and this is
attributed--``Many of our Republican friends that have been reluctant
to indicate their support for this, really fell over themselves to
support this measure.''
Well, that is not so, Mr. President. There has been a lot of
Republican support for education--both on the subcommittee with Senator
Jeffords being the leader for education funding, and Senator Domenici,
as well as my own participation. When an amendment was offered on the
other side of the aisle several weeks ago to add substantial money for
education, it received 51 votes, and there were many on the Republican
side of the aisle who joined there.
Then that Member is quoted going on to say, ``They expected
Republicans in the House to bridle at the agreement, but they predicted
that the overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate for the White
House stance on the issue would help them prevail in the final
legislation.''
Mr. President, I had hoped that would be the case, and I still hope
that will be the case. But I am not so sure when we have this kind of
political credit-taking by Democrats for what was clearly a bipartisan
movement. It is a move headed by Senator Harkin and myself. It is a
move that received an 84-to-16 vote with 37 Republican Senators
supporting the measure. If we are going to go back to politics as usual
and a claim of credit by the Democrats, I think this is going to be a
very, very hard matter to hold in conference. There have been some very
key legislative proposals that have been defeated this year when
somebody crows and takes credit in the political context before the ink
is dry and before the bill is finally worked through a conference
committee and is finished.
Another Member on the other side of the aisle was referenced in the
Washington Times today saying:
Senator Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and coauthor
of the amendment, ``knows how politically vulnerable
Republicans are on education.''
That is not true, Mr. President. When a reference is made to what
Arlen Specter knows, the best source is Arlen Specter. I do not believe
that Republicans are any more vulnerable than Democrats on these
volatile issues of public policy. I think the American people are
coming to the conclusion that they ought to throw out all of the
incumbents because of dissatisfaction for what is going on and the
political infighting and political bickering which leads to gridlock.
When we work through a very, very tough, bipartisan amendment and
accomplish the goals of adequate funding for education and do it in a
way which protects the balanced budget concept, because there are
offsets on all of these lines, I would ask for a moratorium on the
political infighting and the political credit-taking so that we can get
on with the business of the American people.
There is an old saying that ``a lot could be accomplished in
Washington, DC, if people were not too concerned about who got credit
for what was being undertaken.'' I would say to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle that we ought to tone down the political rhetoric
and we ought to get on with the business of the country. What we have
hanging in the balance from the additional funding which we passed
yesterday of $814 million for title I school districts, which is very
vital for education in America, is: $182 million for school-to-work
programs; we have some $200 million for safe and drug-free school
programs; we have some $635 million for summer youth job training; we
have very substantial funding for training for dislocated workers, a
matter of enormous importance in America today with a downsizing of
American business. All of this is in jeopardy if we are going to go
back to crass politics and political credit-taking and political
bickering as usual.
I anticipate great concerns in the House of Representatives when they
exercise their legislative discretion. In the United States, we have a
bicameral form of government. We have the views of the Senate. We have
the views of the House. I have great respect for what the House of
Representatives has to say.
This kind of political bantering, political dialog, and political
credit-taking is going to be very, very difficult to deal with, because
I expect to hear all about it when we go to conference with the House
of Representatives. They have their own points of view. They have their
constituencies. They are elected on a 2-year basis. They have certain
commitments that they have made. This does not help the process at all.
So, it is my hope that the political rhetoric and the political
credit-taking will be toned down as we move ahead to try to get this
omnibus appropriations bill completed.
Mr. President, beyond this omnibus appropriations bill, it is my hope
that the leadership and the Government coming from the President, the
administration, and the leaders of the Congress will go back to the
bargaining table and try to work out an overall global settlement. We
are about to undertake now the appropriations process for fiscal year
1997. We are already scheduling the appearances of the Secretary of
Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the
Secretary of Labor for the fiscal year 1997 budget. It is a little hard
to look to the next year's budget when we have not even completed this
year's budget.
We were able to have this revenue-neutral on a tough vote for many
Senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, because we offset it
against expenditures which are available only on a one-time basis.
There had been talk on a global settlement where we addressed the issue
of entitlements and had savings there. There might be as much as $10
billion available for the issues arising out of the Department of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. If we are to find a
way to have a budget which can be adopted for fiscal year 1997, again
looking to the concerns of education, we are going to need a global
settlement. If we have the same allocation, 602(b) allocation for my
subcommittee, for next year as we had for last year when we go through
the budget resolution, I do not know how it will be possible to find
light at the end of the tunnel to add the kind of money which we added
yesterday in the amendment. And we are looking to a very, very tough
political season.
My thought is that, if the Congress of the United States and the
administration cannot come to terms, it is not
[[Page S1915]]
only going to be bad public policy for the schoolchildren who very
badly need the money which we passed in the Senate yesterday and hope
we can get through conference, but what will happen in fiscal year
1997? It is not going to get any easier as we move from March into
April, May through to October and November. So it is my hope that the
people who have been negotiating on that overall budget global
settlement will come to terms, or I think we are all going to have
havoc to pay when we look to fiscal year 1997.
But first things first. Let us focus on the bill which is currently
on the floor. Let us try to get the job done without rushing to take
the credit.
Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, for his outstanding work
and leadership on this important matter and for setting a bipartisan
tone which, if carried out by all Members in this body on both sides of
the aisle, I think will lead us to sound public policy for the
education interests and the labor interests, the funding of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education programs.
Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 3482 to Amendment No. 3466
(Purpose: To provide funding for important environmental initiatives
with an offset)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning, I send an amendment to
the desk for myself, Senator Mikulski, Senator Daschle, Senator John
Kerry, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Levin, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 3482
to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment has a very simple task,
I think a very important task, and that is to restore funding for a
critical national priority, and that is the protection of America's
environmental heritage.
There is broad support for protecting our environment. Americans
across the country want to drink clean water. They want to breathe
clean air. They do not want to live near toxic waste sites that pose
health risks to their families, regardless of whether they are urban or
rural dwellers and regardless of the region of the country.
Unfortunately, despite the public's commitment to environmental
protection, this Congress has mounted a full-scale attack on our
environment. The contract on America may not have mentioned the
environment, but deep in the recesses of the presentation is a full-
scale attack on our environment.
The contract on America does not have to mention it, but the signers
of the contract appear committed to doing everything possible to gut
environmental protection. First, the House of Representatives passed a
series of riders on the EPA appropriations bill to essentially repeal
laws protecting our air, our water, our land, and our families. Also in
that legislation, EPA's budget, already underfunded, was cut by a third
from the 1995 funding level, and more riders were added on the Interior
appropriations bill.
One banned new listings of endangered species. Another rider
essentially turned over the old growth forests to private timber
interests. And then the House passed changes to the Clean Water Act.
That bill dramatically weakened EPA's enforcement authority, wrote off
the Nation's valuable wetlands, and included numerous other provisions
apparently drafted not by legislators but by lobbyists for corporate
polluters. Bills have also been introduced to cripple the Clean Air
Act, to weaken our program for cleaning up toxic waste sites, and to
exempt various industries from critical environmental regulation.
Another legislative proposal which passed the Senate would weaken
something called the community right-to-know law. I am the author of
that law, and it has been on the books for some time. It simply
requires polluters to tell the public the truth about emissions that
come from their place of business. It has been responsible for a 46-
percent decrease in toxic emissions in 4 years. It has been a smashing
success, as they say, and yet a rider to the omnibus regulatory reform
bill would gut that law and allow any company to easily remove
chemicals from the listing requirement.
As one can see, the list of congressional attacks on our environment
goes on and on, and it is a source of great concern to millions of
Americans. A poll, a Republican poll, commissioned by the Republican
Party, by Linda DiVall, showed that only 35 percent of the voters would
support a candidate who supported the one-third cut in EPA funding
proposed by the House Republicans. Mind you, a Republican poll showed
that only 35 percent of those who vote would be willing to support a
candidate who supported this one-third cut in EPA funding. That is
quite a revelation.
The same poll showed that while 6 out of 10 Americans say there is
too much Government regulation, generally only 2 in 10 believe that the
statement applies to EPA. The public, even those who consider
themselves Republicans, do not trust their party on the issue of the
environment.
In years past, I have been proud to work closely with many of my
Republican colleagues to pass strong and effective environmental
legislation. Frankly, I look forward to that opportunity this day. I
know that there are Members from the other side of the aisle who care
about the environment that we are leaving to our children and our
grandchildren. We want to leave them the best, the cleanest available.
I wish to single out for commendation the distinguished Senator from
Missouri [Mr. Bond], chairman of the subcommittee on EPA and NASA and
the Veterans Administration, who has made a serious effort to increase
funding for EPA over the proposals that came from the House. He has had
to deal with an inadequate 602(b) allocation from the Budget Committee.
He has worked hard within these constraints, and he deserves real
credit for that.
Unfortunately, despite his efforts and despite the efforts of the
ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Mikulski from Maryland,
laboring hard to try to improve the funding, because of the inadequate
funding in the Republican budget for almost all domestic needs, the
funding in this bill for environmental protection is just not enough to
do the job. And, although better than proposals from the House, the
legislation would require real cuts in critical environmental programs.
Compared to last year's budget, even after the enactment of the
Republican rescissions bill, the bill before us would cut EPA by over
11 percent.
So, my amendment proposes to restore funding for the environment to
bring EPA's budget back up to, essentially, last year's level after the
rescission.
And, perhaps most importantly, the amendment will add $365 million
for States to fund sewage treatment and drinking water programs through
State revolving funds.
Our State and local governments need these funds to meet Federal
standards related to the control of sewage waste and to ensure safe
tapwater. States leverage this money so its real value will be many
times the amount appropriated. Yet the needs are enormous. Local
governments need to meet Clean Water Act mandates that will cost over
$100 billion. So this is not the time to be stingy with aid. It is
critical to many hard-pressed communities and to citizens who rely on
safe drinking water coming from their taps.
In addition to the $365 million to keep our water clean, my amendment
includes various other provisions that will improve our environment.
These include $50 million more for the
[[Page S1916]]
Superfund Program to clean up toxic waste sites, and success and
progress can be directly measured there. But what is going to happen as
a result of the funding levels that we presently have is we will be
shutting down work on sites that had begun, that show some promise for
cleanup. That will grind to a halt.
We have $62 million for environmental technology to do the research
necessary to find different ways and more effective ways to treat the
environment.
We have $75 million for the Department of Energy included in here,
for its excellent weatherization program which will provide
weatherization grants for 12,000 homes, and give people a chance to
protect themselves against the cold so they do not have to spend as
much for fuel and also do not add to the consumption levels.
Mr. President, we have $75 million for the National Park Service, to
stop the degradation that is taking place in our national parks. The
National Park Service needs money. It needs staff. It needs resources
to keep these parks up to the level that makes them available and makes
all of us proud about these national monuments.
There is also $5 million to advance research for methyl bromide
replacements. Methyl bromide causes nausea, headaches, convulsions, and
ultimately death in some cases. Research in this area is badly needed.
Unlike the underlying bill, which provides funds on the assumption
that Congress and the President reach some type of budget deal, this
amendment has sufficient offsets so that we can immediately get on with
our efforts to protect the environment.
First, the amendment includes legislation, proposed by the
administration and adopted in the House reconciliation bill, that will
improve the Federal Government's ability to collect delinquent debts.
The Federal Government is owed almost $50 billion in nontax debts. We
simply have to do a better job of collecting them.
The other offset included in the amendment calls for the sale of
Governors Island in New York harbor. This also enjoys broad bipartisan
support and was included in the House reconciliation bill. Governors
Island is no longer going to be used as a Coast Guard station as it has
been for so many years. It is now deemed to be inefficient and
unnecessary as a place for the Coast Guard. With these offsets, our
amendment is budget neutral.
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 dangerous waste disposal
practices. This is no time to turn back.
Because of our work, there have been measurable improvements in our
air and our water. In 1975, 60 percent of our waters--streams,
tributaries--did not meet water quality standards. Today, only 40
percent fail that test. That is a remarkable improvement, and we can
continue to build on that. But if we let it slip back, it does not take
long for pollution to take over.
Thanks to our environmental laws there is now a generation of
children in many parts of the country who have no conception about the
terrible air pollution that spoiled our air not too long ago. Even our
biggest cities have fewer days of unhealthy air pollution than they did
20 years ago, despite economic growth and population increases. Lead
has been taken out of gasoline, which has had a significant positive
impact on children's mental health. Today, ambient levels of lead are
down 89 percent since 1984.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations in urban areas are down 26 percent
since 1984, improving the ability of people with asthma and other
respiratory diseases to lead normal lives.
Carbon monoxide levels are down 37 percent since 1984, largely due to
cleaner cars and fuels, and more effective vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs. These gains have come while the number of cars
and vehicle miles has grown substantially.
Ozone levels have dropped since 1984, so 43 million fewer Americans
now must breathe unhealthy ozone levels.
These advances occurred because this Congress passed the laws to make
it happen, not in recent sessions, but over the years, and because we
provided the funding to do the job. We made an investment in the
environment and that investment has paid handsome returns. But now, if
we back off on our commitment to the environment, successes of the past
no doubt will be reversed in short order.
The environmental challenges of the future are substantial and in
many ways more difficult than those of the past. We need to control
emissions from many smaller businesses, something not easy to implement
or to police. We will need to develop new technologies and we need to
develop alternative approaches to controlling pollution. All of these
require a real commitment of resources. That fact cannot be wished away
or ignored.
We have heard it said many times that we need to balance the budget
because we are piling debt upon our children. But what about the
environment we are leaving to our kids? In my view, and the view of the
American people, the environment simply must be a national priority. We
can agree on balancing the budget and at the same time making certain
that we provide a cleaner environment for our future generations. If we
want to balance the budget we ought to find other ways to do it than
restricting environmental cleanup activities.
This amendment would simply maintain funding for environmental
protection at about the same level as last year's budget, after the
rescission. I think it is a modest and certainly a reasonable proposal.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it.
Mr. President, we all ought to agree here, and we will agree when we
cast our votes, that the environment is a priority for those of us who
can do something about it. We have to decide here and now what it is
that we want to leave for our kids by way of environmental protection.
Do we want them to be able to breathe the air without getting sick? Do
we want them to be able to go to the water tap? Sales of bottled water
in this country continue to escalate. I am sure, when the original
settlers came here they never dreamed they could do anything else but
drink the water that was naturally available, and now some 40 percent
of the population is buying bottled water. We ought to be able to
assure people that, when kids go to the tap to take a drink, they are
not jeopardizing their health, nor is the ground they are playing on
dangerous for their well-being.
Those are the decisions we are going to make with this amendment, Mr.
President. I hope that all of our friends on both sides of the aisle,
Republican and Democrat, will agree that while we can discuss budget
priorities, at the same time we can agree that we want to send a
message on a cleaner environment.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Lautenberg and
other of my colleagues in offering this amendment to restore critical
reductions taken in the funding for environmental programs. I
compliment the Senator from New Jersey for his steadfast advocacy on
the environment, and I look forward to working with him on these
important issues.
Mr. President, we in Maryland are budget weary. We have been battered
by the budget, we have been battered by floods, and we have been
battered by the shutdowns that have occurred. What has been so terrible
about the shutdowns that have occurred is that they have shut down our
ability to enforce America's vital, crucial environmental protection
laws relating to Superfund, safe drinking water, clean water, to be
able to help our people be in a safe environment and help local
communities.
The full committee and the subcommittee chairmen, Senators Hatfield
and Bond, have taken important steps by restoring $240 million in real
money to this omnibus CR. This important effort, I think, will move us
beyond this weariness that we have with shutdowns. I hope that at the
end of this week, we have not shut down the Federal Government, we have
not shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have not shut
down our ability to enforce public health and
[[Page S1917]]
safety, nor that we have shut down the funding to go to environmental
contractors.
But the fact remains that despite the efforts of the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA and
EPA, this appropriation, this CR continues to be $750 million below the
1995 level. It is the defunding of EPA. That is unacceptable to us on
this side of the aisle, and it is unacceptable to the American people.
The American people want clean air, clean drinking water, they want
contaminated and hazardous waste sites cleaned up, and they want their
local communities to have the resources to provide wastewater and clean
water to these communities.
The American people are absolutely opposed to efforts to weaken the
environmental laws and are opposed to budget and staffing cuts that do
that.
There was a recent poll that showed that 46 percent of the American
people want no changes in either clean or safe drinking water.
When we talk about the impact on these budget cuts, this has a
tremendous impact not only on local communities and on public health
and public safety, but it absolutely has a direct impact on business.
A recent study by the University of Maryland's Jacobs Center, which
is a business evaluation center, said that businesses are concerned
that cuts to regulatory agencies lead to delays in permitting, and
poorly trained staff also lead to a delay in permitting, which is a
delay to business.
In my home State of Maryland, good environment is good business. That
is why we have been such strong supporters of the Chesapeake Bay
Program and the cleanup of important rivers and polluted rivers, like
Back River. So the American people do not want any more cuts in EPA,
and neither do I.
This amendment restores $738 million and puts us at 1995 levels. It
is essentially a freeze on EPA, but it does restore funds to implement
those important standards.
It also does something else. This amendment restores programs
relating to the environmental technologies initiative. That is an
initiative to spur, working with the private sector, new technologies,
new products that we can manufacture in the United States and sell
overseas.
Mr. President, these environmental cuts have a great impact on the
United States of America and its citizens, but also this has a great
impact on our national reputation. The world is coming to the United
States of America for our environmental expertise in Government and its
form of regulation, in terms of academia, in terms of its scientific
research on the environment and in terms of a private sector that has
developed techniques and products in manufacturing biotechnology to
clean up the environment.
What we want to do in this legislation is to restore the
Environmental Protection Agency to do this. To keep the funding cuts, I
believe, will have a devastating effect on American citizens and will
be a loss of national honor, as well as a national opportunity to go
global.
This national opportunity will enable us to take our environmental
expertise that the world wants access to and to go around the world
giving out information, ideas, science and actual products.
We talk a lot in this U.S. Senate about how we need to have good jobs
at good wages. I believe the frontier to do that is in the field of
environment, using the expertise of EPA, working with America's
academic institutions, encouraging these new technologies in the
private sector. If we do that, we will not only protect our
environment, but we will also be able to create jobs and be able to
have an important contribution internationally.
So I hope, therefore, that my colleagues will support the Lautenberg-
Mikulski-Lieberman and Kerry amendment to restore these cuts to EPA. We
believe we have sound offsets to be able to do it, and I believe then
we can move this process forward.
Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Hatfield,
and the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, for taking the
first step by restoring the $240 million. We look forward now to taking
the next step to put EPA at the 1995 levels.
I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their attention, and I yield
the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I particularly want
to thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from New Jersey,
Senators Mikulski and Lautenberg, for their leadership and efforts to
try to guarantee that we have a sensible environmental policy in this
country.
What is really astonishing is that this is the 10th time this year
that we are debating the environmental programs of this country, the
10th time we are debating the 1996 budget. We are now in the sixth
month of the current fiscal year, and we are setting a historic first
for the United States of America. In the 11 years that I have been in
the U.S. Senate, never--never once--have we had to go into a succeeding
fiscal year and still be debating the items of the last fiscal year.
I would say, without any question at all, that the responsibility
that fell to the majority last year or the year before, when they won
the election, has really not been discharged properly. I remember when
we were in the majority, in the last occasion of 1994, all 13
appropriations bills were passed on time. Whatever compromises were
necessary in order to achieve that, we understood the Constitution of
this country, we understood the nature of the system.
What has really happened here in Washington in 1995 and 1996 is that
a small band of radicals in the House of Representatives have
fundamentally hijacked the Constitution of this country. In the name of
ideological purity and of their particular point of view, they have
disavowed the balance of power between the executive and the
legislature. They have taken into their own hands their own definition
of timing.
They are breaking the law, Mr. President. They are breaking the law.
The law says that these bills will be accomplished by a specific point
in time. They have not been.
So we are here for the 10th time debating where we are going. People
will say, ``Well, the President won't agree.'' Well, the President has
the veto power. That is what the Founding Fathers gave him, and when
the President has the veto power, and there is not a sufficient
political force in the country to undermine whatever sustaining
capacity there is in the Congress with that veto, then the President
gets to have that balance.
The reality is, you are supposed to compromise. But that is not what
is happening. I think it is very unfortunate for all concerned. I know
that there are moderates on the Republican side, many in the Senate,
who are uncomfortable with what is happening, who do not agree with it,
who would rather see the Congress of the United States do its business.
I think it is entirely inappropriate for the country to pay the price
for this small group in the House of Representatives.
It is revealing that while a certain group of appropriations bills
have made it into law, it is revealing that the bills that fund the
agencies with primary responsibility for the environment and our
natural resources, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Interior, have not been signed into law. I think, Mr.
President, that the fact that those particular bills have not been
signed into law underscores the clash of priorities that is evidenced
in the Republican approach to the funding of those bills and the
Democratic approach.
The fact that the Republican leadership is still fighting for large
cuts in environmental programs is, in my judgment, an indication that
they are not in touch with the real concerns of the American people and
their desire for clean air and clean water. The response from some will
quickly be, ``Wait a minute. Of course we're in touch. Being in touch
means you balance the budget. We have shown that you can balance the
budget.'' But you do not have to do it at the expense of these
environmental programs.
So, in the final analysis, it really comes down to a fundamental
confrontation between choices--the choices you make to balance the
budget. And the choices that you make to balance the budget are the
final evidence of your priorities and of your values.
[[Page S1918]]
That is why, Mr. President, I am here once again in this 10th series
of efforts on the environment with Senator Lautenberg and Senator
Mikulski and others, to speak in support of increasing the funding for
specific environmental programs. What we are seeking to do is to add
back over $900 million for environmental programs at four Federal
agencies--at the Environmental Protection Agency, at the Department of
Energy, at the Agriculture and Interior Departments. It is our judgment
that this money is critically needed in order to fully protect
America's health and safety at a level that Americans have come to
expect and that they believe is their right.
Mr. President, if we succeed in passing an omnibus spending bill, we
are going to set the environmental budget for the EPA through the end
of this fiscal year. If we pass a bill that includes environmental
funding increases in this amendment, all we will have succeeded in
doing is bringing us back to last year's level of protection. I think
Americans need to understand that.
This is not a Democrat effort to try to add huge sums of money, even
though many of us believe that in certain areas we ought to be spending
more. This is simply an effort to hold our citizens harmless from a
reduction below the level that we were at last year.
If, however, this amendment is defeated, Congress will have turned
its back and turned the clock back on some 25 years of environmental
gains. Ironically, for 19 of the last 25 years, Republicans were in
charge of the EPA. It was Richard Nixon who signed into law the
National Environmental Policy Act and delivered protection of the
environment as a national priority. I think it is particularly ironic
that after George Bush joined with us to help sign into effect the
Clean Air Act, and after the many efforts of the last years that have
been bipartisan, that we are suddenly thrown into this partisan clash
over whether or not we can keep the funding at last year's level.
Regrettably, our friends on the other side of the aisle have made a
different choice, and it is different from what most Americans are
telling us that they want. I think almost every poll in the country has
shown that Americans want to protect their environment: they want
cleaner air, they want cleaner water, they want pristine rivers, they
want our ecosystems protected, they want an abundance of species,
plants, and animals, they want clean beaches and national parks, and
they want public lands that are safe and they want them protected. They
want cities with breathable air and industries and businesses that are
willing to join in the effort to guarantee that these kinds of
protections exist.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, you cannot reconcile that stated desire
of the American people with the budget figures that we are being
presented. So the central question in this debate is really: What
priority do you place on protecting the Nation's environment and
natural resources and the health of our citizens?
I am confident that we are going to hear Senators on the other side
of the aisle say, ``I take no second seat to anybody in the country on
protecting the environment.'' We will hear Senators say, ``Let's not
kid ourselves; nobody is against the environment. Nobody wants to have
bad water,'' and so forth. It is fine to say that, Mr. President, but
if you are in favor of cutting inspections, if you are in favor of
cutting a community's ability to be able to provide that clean water,
if you are voting for an amendment or a bill that reduces the
commitment from last year, even though no American is asking for a
reduction except for some companies, it is very hard to follow through
and say, you are, in truth, voting for what you are talking about.
That is the real difference here. What are you voting for? What are
you putting into the budget? What numbers do you really support? While
the bill that is being brought to the floor is an improvement from the
conference report, it is still a budget that is hundreds of millions of
dollars below the level that most people in good conscience and good
faith have decided is necessary in order to continue the level that we
have committed to the American people.
In addition to that, Mr. President, the bill contains a series of
legislative riders that cripple the EPA's ability to be able to protect
the Nation's wetlands, which is precisely what some people want to do.
They have never liked the wetlands protection. They want to develop
wetlands, and they do not care about the standards. So they are
intentionally setting out to cripple it. And it would also halt the
Department of Energy's work on setting energy efficiency standards for
appliances.
Mr. President, we have, as I have said before--but I think it needs
repeating again and again--shown that you can balance the budget in 7
years without doing what the Republicans are choosing to do here. I
hope that we will recognize that without restoring some of this
funding, the cuts to the EPA are going to deal an extraordinarily harsh
blow to efforts to be able to protect us.
I would like to bring it down to a local level, if I may, Mr.
President, to my State of Massachusetts. We are trying, in this bill,
to increase the State revolving fund by $365 million over what the
Republicans have provided. Every State will benefit. All cities in each
of our States that are in need of new infrastructure will benefit by
adding to the State revolving fund.
We have communities in Massachusetts, a community like New Bedford,
for instance, about 100,000 residents, is building a sewer treatment
facility that will cost more than $200 million. It has to build this
under Federal law. Yet the tax base is such that the citizens cannot
really afford to do that on their own. In the 1980's we had a
partnership with the Federal Government where the Federal Government
would provide anywhere from 55 to 75 percent of the money. That is not
happening today. As a result, local communities are being harder and
harder pressed to be able to try to live up to the standards that we
have set at the Federal level. Because they are harder and harder
pressed to do that, they get angrier and angrier over those Federal
standards and begin to blame the standards themselves.
What happens here, you get caught in a vicious circle. People begin
to lose their commitment to the standards and to wanting to clean up
because they feel oppressed by them. The reason they feel oppressed by
them is they are required to do things they do not have enough money to
do. The reason they do not have enough money to do it is the Federal
Government has pulled out of the partnership and taken away the help
that was given in the 1970's and the 1980's. That happened, as we all
remember, in 1982 when Ronald Reagan came along and stripped away title
II of the Clean Water Act and left the mandate. All of a sudden the
anger was directed at mandates
Mr. President, we desperately need that kind of funding assistance.
In a city like Fall River, a partner city to New Bedford, you have a
similar sort of tax base, similar difficulties. You have a combined
sewer overflow problem which the community desperately needs to be able
to refurbish, rehabilitate the sewer overflows, 100-year-old
infrastructure, a current population, and the current population is
required to pay for the next 100 years. That is not fair. You have to
try to spread that out.
Nowhere is that more felt, Mr. President, than in the city of Boston
where we are living under a court order, Federal mandate, Federal court
order, that you have to go ahead and clean up the harbor; at the same
time, put in a secondary treatment facility for water, billions of
dollars of expenditure. So the citizens of our State and city have seen
a 40 percent increase in their water rates in the last few years. It
has gone up to about $618 per family and will go up to $800. This
drives out business, drives down the value of property, and most
importantly, it is just impossible for the average family, already
struggling on a lower income, to be able to pay these increasing costs.
Once again, what is the result? The result is people get angry at the
mandate, even though it is a legitimate mandate that you have clean
water. The result is we begin to lose the consensus in this country to
be able to do these things.
Mr. President, in the 1970's and 1980's, many communities got money
to the tune of 90 percent, 75 percent, 55 percent of their project
being paid for by the Federal Government. In 1996, Boston has received
a total of 18 percent
[[Page S1919]]
funding, contrary to the 55 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent of years
past. Even President Bush saw fit to put $100 million each year into
our budget to help us with that. We desperately need the State
revolving funds and those kind of commitments. That is an example of
one State. That can be replicated all across this country. There are
other communities in need of additional money.
Mr. President, there is another area that is a concern. That is the
area of the funding for the cleanup of toxic waste sites. This bill
provides an increase, for which we are obviously grateful, over the
conference report which devastated this program. Our amendment would
restore an additional $50 million to the Superfund which is still
several hundred million dollars below what the President of the United
States has asked for. Now, while our amendment is not everything we
would have liked, we believe what the Republicans are doing will slow
the cleanups. It will continue to stall cleanup efforts in communities
that have very, very patiently waited for Federal intervention.
Let me just share with my colleagues a story that I think underscores
why this is so important. The toxic waste cleanups are critical to our
ability to be able to provide the fundamental protection that our
citizens are looking for. There was a young man in Woburn, MA, named
Jimmy Anderson who got sick from a contaminated well in Woburn. He died
from lymphocytic leukemia in 1981. His story underscores why this $50
million is important. About 30 years ago, his mother, Ann, suspected
that something was wrong and that their water was bad because it
smelled bad. She went to authorities and said, ``There is something
wrong with our water.'' The authorities just said, ``No, don't worry
about it. It's OK. It will be all right.'' Then in 1972 her son Jimmy
got sick. Despite her concerns, the wells that they were drinking from
remained in use until 1979, when an environmental inspection that was
triggered by a totally different event revealed that in those wells
there were, indeed, high levels of toxins.
Eventually, other leukemia victims came forward. It turned out that
between 1966 and 1986 there were 28 cases of leukemia among Woburn
children with victims concentrated in the two sections that were served
by those wells. Now, investigations revealed when they analyzed the
water, that there were whole lagoons of arsenic, chromium, and lead
that were discovered on a tract of land that had once housed a number
of chemical plants, and from a nearby abandoned tannery that had left
behind a huge mound of decades-old rotting horse hides that gave off a
smell that commuters used to call the Woburn odor as they drove by.
I say to my colleagues, before we rush into adopting a budget that is
going to reduce the level of inspections and give us more Jimmy
Andersons, why do we not just stop and think about what the
environmental protection effort is trying to achieve and what it has
achieved in its previous years. Jimmy Anderson's mother came to
Congress to testify. This is what she said: ``It is difficult for me to
come before you today but I do so with the realization that industry
has the strength, influence, and resources that we, the victims, do
not. I am here as a reminder of the tragic consequence of uncontrolled
toxic waste and the necessity of those who are responsible for it, to
assume that responsibility.''
Mr. President, in no uncertain terms, the budget that the Republicans
are offering empowers those polluters and takes away the
responsibility. The budget that we are offering tries to hold those
people accountable and provide power to the victims.
I hope, Mr. President, that in the hours ahead we can find the same
kind of bipartisan coalition that we found yesterday on education. This
should not be a partisan issue. I regret that there are some who have
stated their priorities different from other people's.
Finally, I hope we will rectify the legislative riders that open up
more timbering, that create a greater imbalance in the relationship
between our natural resources and the people of this country. There is
nothing, frankly, more important, than education. This is part of our
education effort. It is also part of our fundamental responsibility to
the next generations. I hope we will add the money that is necessary.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg
amendment. I also must point out to my colleagues that the partisan
rhetoric that we are hearing about the environment is reflective of the
fact that this is an election year. I have listened with great interest
to some of the wild charges and political claims being made. I keep
checking to find if it has anything to do with the measure before the
Senate. I find, unfortunately, that it has to do more with somebody's
campaign than with talking about the issues that are relevant to this
bill.
My colleague from Massachusetts has just denounced the fact that we
are breaking the law because there has been no appropriation for
veterans, housing, environment, and space--the main subject areas of
the subcommittee I chair. Well, I can tell you, Mr. President, quite
simply why there has been no bill passed and signed by the President.
It is because the President vetoed the bill that we presented to him
that was within the budget allocation and passed by both Houses of
Congress.
I can tell you, also, that beginning last November when we sought to
work with the White House to find out what would be acceptable, what we
need to do to accommodate their interests, we were stonewalled,
absolutely stonewalled. Leon Panetta came and said, ``Well, the only
way we can sign this bill is to spend $2 billion more.'' This was at a
time when the President was stating that he was for a balanced budget.
However, he was asking that we break the budget by $2 billion. He
vetoed the bill and said we need $2.5 billion. No longer the original
$2 billion.
Mr. President, how much is enough? How much is enough? How far do
they want to break the budget? I have fought hard on this bill, and I
believe we have fought responsibly to raise the amount of money
appropriated for vital environmental cleanup efforts, and within the
appropriations available to us under the budget agreement, we have done
a good job.
(Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)
Mr. BOND. In this measure before us, we have added additional funds
and we have put in a provision that if the President will agree to sign
a balanced budget amendment that would make the budget balance in 2002,
there will be even more money available for what I regard as a high
priority, and that is environmental cleanup.
My friend from Massachusetts said, ``You are supposed to compromise
and negotiate.'' Well, on that matter, I agree with him 100 percent.
But let me ask my colleagues, Mr. President, if we are supposed to
negotiate and compromise, if we are supposed to come to an agreement
with the White House, how do you do it when they do not show up? This
Chamber is essentially empty. But this Chamber is just what I have had
in attempting to deal with the White House--nobody. I have talked to
the Agency head, Administrator Browner. I have talked to Ms. McGinty in
the White House, head of the Council for Environmental Quality. I have
talked to the Vice President. I have talked to OMB director, Alice
Rivlin. I said, ``We want to compromise and work with you to make sure
we meet the objectives of the programs funded by this bill.'' We do not
have a bill, Mr. President, quite simply, because the President has
chosen the political tack. His political advisers say it is far better
to veto and throw hot rhetoric than to sit down calmly and negotiate.
I hope the time has come when we are ready to negotiate, because I
believe we have made great progress in the environment in past years. I
want to see that continue. I believe the bill before us will continue
that progress. I will be happy to work along with the leadership on
this side and the leadership on the other side of the aisle to come to
a reasonable compromise that keeps us on our budget goal of balancing
the budget, so we do not put the burdens of our debt on future
generations, but which will meet the objectives that are funded in this
bill in the environmental area.
Let me return to the Lautenberg amendment. The Lautenberg amendment
is about pumping up the rhetoric
[[Page S1920]]
and the polarization surrounding environmental issues. I must say that
the supporting remarks are completely in that vein. It is not about
ensuring that limited dollars are spent on EPA programs and activities
which most effectively reduce risk to human health and the environment.
The Lautenberg amendment includes funding for the administration's
entire wish list for EPA, totaling $726 million. I would like another
billion dollars, too. It is always nice to have that. Maybe the stork
or the tooth fairy will bring it. I am sure we can spend more money
well. But it is not possible, unless we reach other agreements that
will lead us to a balanced budget, that we can accomplish that goal and
put additional sums in.
There are additional sums in this measure introduced and presented by
Senator Hatfield, which will provide more funding when we come to an
agreement on a balanced budget. The offsets proposed in the Lautenberg
amendment are phony. They are being used in the other Democratic
leadership amendment to be offered to the bill. How many times can you
trod out that same old ghost of imaginary cuts? Imaginary cuts are a
great offset, but they make awful thin soup because there is nothing
there.
As chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I have worked very hard to
fund EPA adequately within the very constrained budget allocation
available to the subcommittee. The bill before us today increases EPA's
budget by $402 million above the conference level, including $240
million within title I that would be available upon the passage and the
signing into law by the President of this bill, and another $162
million in title IV of the bill, the contingency section. We can spend
the $162 million if we reach a broader budget agreement.
The total for EPA is $6.1 billion. This, I believe, represents a
good-faith effort to meet the administration's concerns, even though
they are not willing to discuss those concerns with us or present us
with an honest prioritized list of needs and wants.
We have made these efforts because we are concerned about the
environment. We have made these efforts, and we have taken these steps
because Members of this body on both sides of the aisle are interested
in protecting the environment. This is a bipartisan issue.
The arguments about the Republican opposition to the environmental
cleanup are absolute hogwash. It is embarrassing that we have to answer
those inane charges on the floor of the Senate. It is appalling to me
that someone would come down and make those assertions. But they have
been made, and they are nonsense. They do not deserve further
discussion.
The additional funds in title I, which are funded within the
subcommittee 602(b) allocation, are provided for State revolving funds,
for the Superfund and the enforcement activities, all of which were
included on the administration's wish list. As a matter of fact, they
were the first ones mentioned by the Administrator of EPA when I asked
her to set priorities--assistance to the States for water
infrastructure construction, toxic waste cleanups for sites posing real
and immediate risks, and funding to ensure that there are no employee
furloughs or RIF's. Reductions to ongoing contractual support are high
priorities.
Let me be clear. The amount provided in title I--that is not subject
to contingency. The only contingency is that it be passed by the
Congress and signed by the President. This appropriation ensures that
the EPA does not have to fire or furlough a single employee. And the
enforcement budget is increased, Mr. President, by $10 million over
fiscal year 1995, in a year when total funds available for commitments
by this subcommittee were reduced by 12 percent from the preceding
year.
We have held EPA at a higher level and even increased the enforcement
budget. In addition, this legislation recommends another $162 million
in title IV, the contingency section, for additional State revolving
funds operating programs and a new laboratory facility in the North
Carolina Research Triangle Park, where EPA space is sadly deficient.
This legislation recommends a total of $6.1 billion--just $300
million, or 4 percent, less than the total fiscal year 1995 actual
spending level in a bill that is 12 percent overall below. Where did we
have to cut? We had to choose priorities. We cut earmarked water and
sewer projects--the pork that Members love to bring home. Bringing home
the bacon is unfortunately a sport that is still popular around here.
Last year's appropriations contained some $800 million in these
bringing home the bacon projects. This bill all but eliminates such
earmarks.
I note that the Senator from Massachusetts, a staunch defender of the
amendment that is being offered, would see funding for his State to go
up by another $75 million. Certainly it does enhance one's enthusiasm
for an amendment. But I will address that part later.
H.R. 3019 provides $1.825 billion for State revolving funds. This
includes an increase of $100 million over the President's request of
$500 million for drinking water--State revolving funds to be
distributed by a formula based on need--a formula based on need and not
a formula based on who can offer an amendment. It is a formula for
which we hope the Environmental Protection Agency and State agencies
will use good, sound science and prioritizing in determining where the
money needs to go.
In fiscal year 1995 the States received only $1.235 billion in
revolving funds. This year's bill ensures that States will receive
$1.725 billion, and an additional $100 million if title IV spending is
released; that is, if the President agrees on a balanced budget. That
would be an increase of almost 50 percent. The occupant of the chair
and I have served as Governors. We know where the pedal hits the metal
and where the rubber hits the road, which is in the States where they
actually do the cleanup. In Washington we talk about it and we
pontificate about it. It is the States that have to do the cleanup. It
is the States that take care of the needs of their communities. It is
the States that take care of the environmental risk to their citizens.
And we increase that money by 50 percent in this bill.
I note that it is especially ironic that the pending amendment seeks
to add back pork barrel sewer projects. This is not environmental
protection so much as old-fashioned parochial political pork. That is
what is involved here.
In addition to the State revolving funds this legislation fully funds
State agency grants. We have recognized that the States have been
assigned burdensome responsibilities by the Federal Government to
protect and clean up the environment. We have tried to provide
sufficient funds for them to do that despite the budgetary constraints
under which we must act.
Despite very serious concerns with the Superfund program--and there
are serious problems with that program, Mr. President, and everybody in
this body knows there are problems with it and reservations about
putting a lot of money into a program which virtually every one agrees
needs to be reformed--the legislation before us actually recommends
$1.263 billion for Superfund, $100 million more than the conference
agreement. This appropriation would result in an increase in the
dollars spent on actual cleanups in fiscal year 1995 and would provide
level funding for enforcement activities.
The Senator from Massachusetts and other proponents of this measure
have talked about the slowdown in Superfund. Slowdow is synonymous with
Superfund. That is what Superfund has become--a tremendous slowdown
project. It has had some tremendous benefits. It has had tremendous
benefits for the lawyers who file the lawsuits and argue over who is
going to be responsible. The more money we put in the Superfund the
more fees we generate. This is a litigation machine. This is a lawyer's
dream. The law provides more dollars for lawyers and too little for
cleanup. We cannot just throw more and more dollars at it without
changing the law.
If we are serious about the Superfund and toxic site cleanups--and we
must be--then we have to reform the program. We are working to reform
the Superfund Program so that the money in Superfund goes to what
people thought it ought to, and perhaps think it still goes to; that
is, cleaning up the sites.
Mr. President, many of the recommendations included in the committee
reported bill for EPA were made by
[[Page S1921]]
the National Academy of Public Administration. This is a nonpartisan
organization which was asked by my predecessor, my Democratic colleague
and ranking Member, Senator Barbara Mikulski, to undertake a report on
reforming EPA 2 years ago. I want to say once more for the Record that
Senator Mikulski has been a leader in promoting environmental progress
and using the best management and the best science to do so, and the
work that was done at her request in the National Academy of Public
Administration, I think--in common forums away from the political
diatribes on the floor and on the hustings--is recognized as the way we
should go to make sure that we deal with the threats to health and the
threats to the environment from toxic waste.
We followed the recommendations in this bill of the National Academy
of Public Administration. They were presented to Congress almost a year
ago, and they said turn over more responsibility to the States; turn
over responsibility to the States which have developed capacity over
the past 25 years to manage environmental programs. Do not step on
their efforts, if they are doing a good job. If they are not doing a
good job, Mr. President, there is every reason to have a Federal agency
which says, ``You are not doing a good enough job.'' If we in Missouri
were polluting the air of Illinois, polluting the water of Arkansas or
Mississippi or Louisiana, the national agency should step in. But if we
are doing the job in Missouri in cleaning up the environment to
standards set on a national basis to protect the national health and
well being of the environment, then we ought to give the States the
flexibility to do it.
According to NAPA, ``EPA should revise its approach to oversight,
regarding high-performing States with grant flexibility, reduced
oversight, and greater autonomy.''
That sums it up. This is what we have tried to do through the
appropriations bill. We have even included authority for EPA to begin
issuing block grants for maximum flexibility. We have tried in this
bill to get EPA to focus on the areas of highest risk to human health
and the environment, and to reduce spending for the time being on those
programs which produce less bang for the buck, either in terms of the
cleanup progress or the risk that they are dealing with. Rather than
spending time organizing press conferences and news events, I believe
that EPA should follow the recommendations of NAPA to get its own house
in order. Despite EPA's claims to support NAPA's recommendations, we
have seen little in terms of real change.
As I have mentioned before, Mr. President, I have been trying
unsuccessfully--I have been waiting for 5 months to forge a compromise
with the White House within the allocation available to my
subcommittee. Since last November I have placed phone calls, I have
written letters, and I have held hearings--nothing, zip, nothing.
Unfortunately, the White House seemingly has decided that portraying me
and those on this side of the aisle as antienvironment is a better
political strategy than compromise. My phone calls have not been
returned. My letters have not been responded to.
I held a hearing on January 26. EPA administrator Carol Browner
refused to admit there can--and, indeed, must be--priorities within the
EPA's budget. The Administrator, when I asked her for her priorities,
claimed that the entire $966 million of add-backs demanded by the White
House were critical, including earmarks for sewer construction, the
pork barrel part of it. Is there anything that is more important than
the environment? When you cannot set any priorities you do not have any
priorities. If you refuse to prioritize, to live within a budget, then
you do not have any idea of what you are trying to do.
Two weeks ago, I held a second hearing on EPA. We heard from former
EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus, State environmental commissioners,
EPA Science Advisory Board members, and others. These witnesses
confirmed the importance of setting priorities and reordering spending
to achieve the most gains for the environment with the available
dollars. These witnesses recognized that spending was not unlimited and
there must be management discipline to ensure we allocate resources
effectively.
Unfortunately, instead of attempts to compromise, we have seen
nothing but incendiary rhetoric from the administration. Two weeks ago,
EPA Administrator Carol Browner, at a press event staged by House
Democrats, stated that the Republican budget would force her to choose
between setting drinking water standards for cryptosporidium and
controlling toxic water pollution in rivers, lakes, and streams.
There is not a shred of truth in that. I think cryptosporidium and
controlling toxic water pollution are top priorities. How come she
cannot see that? How come she wants to put pork-barrel projects and
corporate welfare projects in a budget and say that those are equal in
priority? They are not establishing any priorities. If they give us
some priorities, we will work with them. Let us talk about things that
really can clean up the environment.
The appropriation for EPA does require EPA to begin to set
priorities--a novel concept. The National Academy of Public
Administration, the General Accounting Office, EPA's own Science
Advisory Board, and other experts who have testified before our
committee recognize that EPA should begin to do it, but in no way does
it force the sort of tradeoff that the Administrator described.
Let me get to one of my favorites. I am sure you read or heard or saw
on TV about the President's campaign event in New Jersey. Oh, that was
a bell ringer. The political pundits and spin masters must have been
rubbing their hands together in glee. He attacked Congress as being
antienvironment. He accused the Congress of shutting down cleanup at a
Superfund site in Wallington, NJ. He pointed out that right next to the
site was a school and children were in danger. Why? It was because the
Republicans in Congress wanted to subject these children to the dangers
of toxic waste.
We listen to a great commentator named Paul Harvey back in our part
of the country, and he says, ``Now let me tell you the rest of the
story.'' Well, the rest of the story gets pretty interesting because
what he did not say, what the President did not say was that EPA
chose--not Congress, EPA chose--to slow down the work at that site. We
gave them the dollars and told them: You set the priorities. You
prioritize your cleanup dollars to put them into the areas which pose
the greatest risks to human health, and do that first.
Why did we do that? Why did we do that, Mr. President? Because we had
a GAO study of existing Superfund cleanup actions. This study showed
that 32 percent of the sites reflected an immediate threat to human
health and the environment, and those are under present or current land
uses; 15 percent would not pose any risk to human health in any event;
50 percent would pose a threat to human health only if they changed the
land use.
Therefore, if you went into an industrial site where they had had
manufacturing and transportation and did not clean it up and set up a
kindergarten playground or a day care center, that would pose a risk.
So you do not do that. Fifty percent of them pose no risk to human
health under the current land use. And unless you brought in kids and
had them eating the dirt, there would be no human health risks--15
percent, no human health risks. Only 30 percent of the taxpayer dollars
were being spent on human health risks.
So we told EPA: Go out and spend your money where there is a human
health risk. You have more than enough money to do that.
So either one of two things, Mr. President. Either EPA decided that
the Wallington, NJ, site was not posing a risk to human health, which
would have been a vitally important factor that reporters could ask the
President about at his news conference. Or if there was a real risk to
human health and EPA had staged the slowdown to give the President a
political forum. One of two choices. Maybe EPA will tell us which. Did
they allow the President to hype as a risk something that was not a
risk, or did they slow down funding for something that really was a
risk in order to give the President political gain and political
mileage?
Whichever answer, it is not very pleasant. It is not something that I
[[Page S1922]]
think the people of America would tolerate. If there is a risk to human
health, we said we will give you the money; go forward and clean up
those risks first. Prioritize them. EPA has a little trouble focusing
on the priorities. It is about time they did.
The amount of spending provided in the current continuing resolution
and in the conference agreement is the same as the fiscal year 1995
level for actual Superfund cleanups. That is $800 million. And the bill
before us today would increase the Superfund cleanup budget by an
additional $100 million, as I have already indicated. We have told EPA
they have to prioritize Superfund cleanups--something they have never
done in the past--and it needs to be based on real threats to human
health and the environment.
If the Wallington, NJ, site where the President staged the press
event meets EPA's own risk-ranking process, there is money and that
site should receive cleanup funding this year under the terms of the
bill before us today.
The Lautenberg amendment continues the misinformation campaign of the
White House. It seeks to add more funds for programs we have already
increased in this bill. It seeks to add funds for programs which are
not high priorities such as the environmental technology initiative.
The environmental technology initiative has funded private sector
conferences on energy efficiency lighting. In the past, they have
funded studies on how large corporations can save dollars. That is a
great idea if they save dollars by energy efficiency, but for a large
corporation, I think that they probably ought to be willing to fund
that themselves. We have heard in the past about studies to control and
study bovine emissions and many other areas that may be of scientific
interest, although not of great personal interest, I would say.
We add back money for funds for enforcement. We have already
increased enforcement spending over the fiscal year 1995 level.
Now, perhaps most amazingly, the amendment seeks to add funds for
Boston Harbor when this bill already has $25 million. We did accede to
the request of Governor Weld of Massachusetts to continue funding it at
a lower level because of the magnitude of the problem and the fact that
they have to have some funding as we phase down the availability of
dollars. But Boston Harbor has received almost $600 million over the
past several years, even while such earmarks are not authorized and are
unfair to thousands of communities which do not receive such largesse.
Surely, it cannot be a priority to move one site above every other
site in the Nation. We have said that we are making funds available to
be allocated on the basis of need, on the basis of sound science. If
that, in fact, is such a need and sound science requires it, then money
will go there.
But, as indicated by the Senator from Massachusetts, there are lots
of requests in lots of other areas. I have had many, many Members tell
me about the very difficult situations they face in their States. They
have talked about water system supplies, and I said, ``Yes, I
understand that.'' And we have not done a good job in the political
process of determining which of those projects has the highest priority
need in terms of science, in terms of human health, and in terms of the
environment. So we put the money into State revolving funds, we put the
money into programs where it will be allocated on the basis of sound
science, where it will be allocated on the basis of how much danger is
posed. That is how the money should be allocated.
I believe we can establish decent priorities. Mr. President, if the
Lautenberg amendment goes to a vote, I will oppose it because I believe
in this bill there is adequate funding for EPA within the constraints
imposed by the needs to balance the Federal budget. I think it is time
for EPA to begin prioritizing and instill management disciplines to
ensure Federal funds are spent effectively on environmental protection
activities.
There have been encouraging words. I have been approached by the
Democratic leadership. I have had a conversation with my ranking member
and colleague, Senator Mikulski. They have indicated that perhaps we
can reach a compromise with the administration. And if the
administration does not want to play, we will reach a compromise with
the Senate Democratic leadership on what we are going to do. I am tired
of guessing what the priorities of the administration are.
We are more than willing to work in a reasonable manner to allocate
the funds that are available and to make sure the EPA and the State
agencies have the funds they need to move ahead as we work on
reauthorizing and changing Superfund and other programs. If the
administration is serious, if the Democrats are serious, in case they
have lost my telephone number, my phone number is 224-5721. I have left
a lot of messages. They have probably been erased from the e-mail
screens by now, but I can be reached by fax or by message from the
cloakroom. I will be waiting for a call.
This is serious business. It is time that we end the partisan charges
that I think have been totally unwarranted, and talk about how we can
pass a measure which actually provides funding within the budget
constraints to do the vitally important environmental cleanup and
enforcement work that the people of America have a right to expect.
Mr. President, because we are hoping there will be further discussion
of this, we have conferred with the minority side and I have not heard
objection. I therefore ask unanimous consent that this amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, seeing no other Member seeking the floor, I
now suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending business be set aside so that I might speak for no more than 5
minutes on the preceding Lautenberg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy of Vermont be added
as a cosponsor of the Lautenberg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Jersey to restore funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of the
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.
Senator Lautenberg and others have discussed the critical programs of
environmental protection that would be funded by the amendment in some
detail. I want to touch very briefly on a few of the key aspects of the
amendment, particularly the provisions related to funding for
technology.
First, Senator Lautenberg's amendment adds back a modest amount of
funding for environmental technology, $62 million, for a total spending
on environmental technology of $108 million. Unfortunately, the
continuing resolution includes only $46 million for spending in this
critical area.
Funding for the President's Environmental Technology Initiative,
which is known as ETI, is slashed from his request by 92 percent to
only $10 million. Mr. President, the failure of the continuing
resolution to provide adequate funding for environmental technology is,
in my opinion, very shortsighted. A small amount of funding on these
programs can yield enormous savings for our regulated industries while
providing superior protection for all of our citizens.
During the current debate on environmental protection, we often hear
what at first appear to be conflicting messages. Some in the electorate
clearly want less of the overly bureaucratic, heavy-handed command-and-
control approaches we have turned to too often in the past to protect
our environment. Those folks want new solutions that rely more on the
marketplace. They have a good point.
On the other hand, it is clear that the public's commitment to
protecting the
[[Page S1923]]
environment has remained very strong, and understandably so. I was
pleased that at a meeting with my staff recently, representatives of
the Connecticut Business and Industry Association affirmed their
support for strong environmental protection laws.
Of course, that should not be surprising. Folks who run our
businesses, who are citizens, are as concerned as anyone else about the
quality of the air they and their families breathe and the water they
drink or swim in. They want to be good citizens, good corporate
citizens, of our community.
What the conflicting messages tell me is that we have to be smarter
in our approaches to environmental protection, not weaker. That is
precisely what the Environmental Protection Agency is working toward in
its Environmental Technology Initiative.
The program is developing and promoting new approaches to regulation
and new technologies that will increase our efficiency, cut costs,
expand exports, and produce a healthy, productive environment for our
citizens. Under the Environmental Technology Initiative, EPA is working
with the States to streamline permitting processes and to ensure that
the permit approval process does not penalize those companies that are
willing to try new, cheaper solutions involving technological
improvements in order to control pollution. The National Academy of
Public Administration's report on improving EPA's programs, mandated by
the Appropriations Committee, emphasized the need to eliminate
regulatory and policy barriers hampering use of new technologies.
Mr. President, 63 percent of the funds proposed by the President for
the Environmental Technology Initiative would be spent on programs to
promote just this kind of permit flexibility and other regulatory
innovative practices. These are the type of programs that the
Connecticut Business and Industry Association and other businesses are
telling us they want to help them meet their environmental
responsibilities in a more efficient manner.
During the last Congress, I worked with colleagues on ways to promote
these new, more cost-effective environmental technologies. I learned
that the single most significant barrier to investment in these new
technologies is that many of EPA's regulations inadvertently lock in
the old, existing technologies.
Under the Environmental Technology Initiative, EPA is working now to
develop regulations that correct this mistake, that do not lock in any
one existing technology. They are working at EPA with State and
nonprofit and Federal laboratories to test and verify the performance
of these new, promising technologies. We need to make sure that this
verification program can be expanded.
EPA is investing in other programs that make good economic and
environmental sense. One of the most successful environmental programs
has been the market-based program to reduce emissions contributing to
acid rain. Studies show that this very exciting new program is yielding
enormous health benefits while costing the industries regulated by the
Clean Air Act at least $2 to $3 billion less than estimated at the time
of enactment of the law. ETI, the Environmental Technology Initiative,
is investing in programs that will expand market-based approaches. And
that is exactly what the Lautenberg amendment would support.
Over the long term, improvements in environmental technology,
particularly when it comes to pollution prevention, are critical to the
ability of American companies to compete. Not only do new technologies
reduce compliance costs but they improve competitiveness by leading to
greater efficiency. Saturday's New York Times had an exciting article
about the success of the paper industry in vastly reducing its
discharges of contaminated water into rivers or streams and in the
process saving huge amounts of water and energy while still increasing
production. Those companies have found that this approach provides a
competitive advantage.
ETI is working in partnership with industry to develop these cleaner
technologies. For example, it is working with industry to reduce toxic
emissions released by metal finishing processes used by more than 3000
metal finishing facilities nationwide. One of these projects already is
reducing the use of chromium. Another project aims to slash the time
EPA takes to approve new technologies that prevent dangerous
contaminants such as cryptosporidium from entering our drinking water,
and other technologies that will disinfect the water as well as provide
quicker confirmation of drinking water safety.
In other words, at the most basic level, the development of
innovative environmental technology will enable us to maintain strong
environmental protection at dramatically lower cost. Involving Federal
and State agencies such as EPA as partners in this effort is important
because these agencies should have a good sense of the regulations that
may be promulgated in the next decade. Working in partnership with the
Federal Government is the best way to focus technology development on
areas where the economic and environmental benefits will be the
greatest. Involvement in technology development will also help increase
awareness by EPA and other regulatory agencies of what is or is not
possible from a technology development standpoint as they develop
regulations.
ETI is also working with industries to promote the exports and
diffusion of U.S. technologies throughout the world. There is an
enormous market for these technologies and U.S. companies should lead.
In Connecticut, the environmental technology industry--a $2 billion
industry according to recent reports--has become a major exporter.
Mr. President, the second provision in Senator Lautenberg's amendment
that I want to discuss briefly is the add-back for funding for the so-
called Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles. That is
sometimes referred to more familiarly as the clean car initiative. This
is an extremely important and innovative program that has transformed a
traditional adversarial relationship between industry and Government--
in this case the auto industry--into a relationship that is built on
common goals and has produced a broad-based cooperation. The goal of
the program is to develop an attractive, affordable, midsized car, much
like the Ford Taurus, Chrysler Concorde, or Chevrolet Lumina, which
achieves up to 80 miles to the gallon. It is mostly recyclable,
accelerates from zero to 60 miles per hour in 12 seconds.
The occupant of the chair can remember our youths together, when how
fast you could go from zero to 60 was truly a measurement of one's
status in life. This car is aimed to hold comfortably six passengers
and to meet all safety and emissions requirements and to cost about the
same as comparably sized cars on the showroom floor.
This would be a revelation. Up to 80 miles per gallon. The program is
really a win-win program. Government is working as a partner with
industry to protect our environment. At the same time, it is
stimulating new technologies that lead to increased competitiveness for
American industry in the fiercely competitive international automobile
marketplace.
The clean car initiative not only protects the environment, but also
jobs--high wage jobs--for our work force. This program is cost shared.
Industry is pulling its own weight. Government funding is used in long
term precompetitivess research and development. And there is clear
progress being made toward the program's goals. One representative of
the partnership told Vice President Gore last year: ``By the end of
l997, we will narrow the technology focus. By 2000, we will have a
concept vehicle. And by the year 2004, we will have a production
prototype.'' He added: ``This is not just about jobs. It is not just
about technology. It is not just about the environment. It is also
about a new process of working together, for both industry and
Government, in ways that have not been attempted before.''
Again, the Lautenberg amendment pluses up the money available for
this program. It is a very, very cost-effective investment of public
funds.
Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on several other provisions
in Senator Lautenberg's amendment. I strongly support the restoration
of funding for the State revolving fund under the Clean Water Act. SRF
money is critical for Connecticut and particularly Long Island Sound.
[[Page S1924]]
The SRF program espouses the virtues that the majority has been
emphasizing this Congress--it provides low interest loans to States to
meet community based environmental needs and offers flexibility in how
money is spent. For example, Connecticut has received $170 million in
Federal funds and has committed over $1 billion in State funds since
1987 to improve sewage treatment plants.
In Connecticut, clean water is not just an environmental issue--but
an economic issue. Long Island Sound, for example, generates
approximately $5 billion per year for the local economy--through fin
and shellfish harvest, boating, fishing, hunting, and beach-going
activities. The commercial oyster harvest is a great example. In l970,
Connecticut's once thriving shellfish industry was virtually
nonexistent. Today, its $50 million harvest has the highest value in
the Nation. This improvement is due in large part to required
improvements in water quality.
Our work on cleaning up Long Island Sound, however, has a long way to
go. Health advisories are still in effect for recreational fish
consumption, and disease-causing bacterial and viruses have been
responsible for numerous beach closures. Connecticut still needs
hundreds of millions of dollars to perform needed improvements on
public sewage system, which continue to be the largest source of
pollution for the sound. The total estimated cost of upgrading the
outdated plants is estimated at $6 to $8 billion.
I am also very concerned that the comprehensive conservation and
Management plan for Long Island Sound will be curtailed without
adequate SRF funding. Through this plan, representatives from EPA, New
York, Connecticut and other local governments have joined forces with
businesses, developers, farmers, and environmentalists to work
cooperatively to upgrade sewage treatment plants, improve stormwater
management and control non point source runoff. A reduction in SRF
funds will limit each State's ability to assess local conditions and
move toward more site-specific and flexible watershed protection
approaches.
Inadequate funding of the SRF delays needed improvements in Long
Island Sound and in other greater water bodies in this country--
improvements that have enormous economic, recreational and
environmental benefits. That is why I support the additional funding in
Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
Finally, I want to express my strong support for the modest additions
to the funding for climate change. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of
an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords to restore a significant
amount of funding for EPA's ozone depletion and global climate change
programs. But I think it is critical that a minimum there be no
decrease in EPA's programs from fiscal year 1995 enacted levels.
Adequate funding for DOE's climate change programs is also critical.
Mr. President, the new scientific assessment by the world's leading
scientists concludes that the best evidence suggest that global climate
change is in progress, that the temperature changes over the last
century are unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes, and that a
pattern of climate response to human activities is identifiable in
observed climate records. The assessment concludes that the incidence
of floods, droughts, fires and pest outbreaks is expected to increase
in some regions. For example, we are experiencing a continuing rise in
average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot
and a half by 2010. To bring that home to Connecticut, sea level rises
of this magnitude along the coast could result in total inundation of
barrier beaches such as Hammonasset Beach, which is probably our most
popular State park, and destruction of some coastal property.
The President's global climate action plan is modest . It commits the
United States to reducing greenhouse gas emission to l990 levels by the
year 2000. This is a modest step because our efforts at stabilizing
emissions is different from stabilizing atmospheric concentrations.
Constant annual emissions will still increase the total concentration
of greenhouse gases and heat-trapping capacity of our atmosphere.
The President's plan relies on voluntary, public private partnerships
which are based on building a consensus between business and
Government. It does not rely on command and control regulation. If
these types of innovative alternatives are to be the basis of our
future approach to environmental protection, it is critical to support
the programs now in existence.
I also strongly support the additional funding for the Department of
Agriculture's Stewardship Incentive Program. This program provides
financial and technical assistance to private nonindustrial forest land
owners to manage their forest land for timber production, wildlife,
recreation and aesthetics. It is an important nonregulatory incentives
program for preserving wetlands and endangered species across the
country that has widespread support, including the Connecticut Forest
and Park Association.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Mikulski.
We have to balance the budget, and everyone has to sacrifice a bit.
The new Congress does deserve some credit for trying. But it has gone
about the job in the wrong way.
It wants to give new tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations.
And to do that, Congress has threatened a back-door tax increase on
rural America through higher water rates, and threatened the creation
of good jobs by turning its back on critical research and development
in environmental technologies. This amendment will help set things
right.
stopping the back-door water tax
First, we will help small towns and rural communities meet their
obligations without slapping folks with higher water bills.
How do we do that? Well, we provide money for the State revolving
loan funds. These help communities and water systems treat their sewage
and provide safe drinking water. Without this fund, these communities
still have to keep the water safe. But they can only do it by raising
water rates, sometimes through the roof.
With this amendment, small towns can keep their drinking water safe
while keeping water rates low. Without this amendment, many just can
not do it. So if Congress does not pass the Lautenberg amendment, the
25 million Americans who get their water from a small drinking water
system could see a back-door tax increase through higher water bills.
That includes virtually everyone in rural America.
protecting high-wage jobs
Second, by adopting this amendment we will protect high-wage jobs
that make our country cleaner, healthier, and more competitive.
We do it by restoring money for the Environmental Technology
Initiatives [ETI] at the Environmental Protection Agency. Through this
program, companies and local governments can participate in research
and development of new technologies.
In Montana, small businesses like Yellowstone Environmental Sciences
in Bozeman and public-private partnerships like the Western
Environmental Technology Office in Butte are some of the most
innovative players in addressing our Superfund problems. They are also
some of the most promising sources of high-wage jobs for the future.
Elsewhere in America, the ETI Program is verifying the performance of
new technologies that are suitable to the special cost and performance
needs of small drinking water systems.
It is helping to reduce dangerous toxic emissions released by the
metal finishing processes used by over 3,000 metal finishing facilities
nationwide.
It is speeding up approvals of new analytical methods which can
rapidly determine the nature of contamination at toxic waste sites, and
make cleanups faster.
The ETI is a great example of how Government and the private sector
can cooperatively advance technology while protecting the environment.
conclusion
So we need to balance the budget, but we need to do it the right way.
This amendment keeps us on the path to a balanced budget while setting
the priorities straight. It will protect good jobs and prevent Congress
from imposing a large back-door tax on the average family's water
rates. It will help make sure our country is the clean, healthy Nation
our children deserve.
[[Page S1925]]
I urge support for the Lautenberg-Mikulski amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak
in support of the pending amendment, particularly for restoring
operating funds for the National Park Service. Without these funds
millions of Americans will not realize the full majesty and spectacle
of our national treasures.
The $72 million restoration provides funding to manage the
operational needs of our national parks. At its current level of
funding the Park Service is merely treading water with respect to
maintaining facilities. Additional funding provides for much-needed
improvements and repair of our national treasures. This would also
represent a boon to local economies as more visitors will be able to
make use of upgraded parks. The proposed offset offered in the
amendment ensures no additional taxpayer money will be spent. As some
would seek to keep level funding in the face of increasing costs and
demands, I think you now see sentiment throughout America that
recognizes the need to stop irreparable damage being done to our
national heritage. This funding restoration is necessary to ensure the
future of a strong, accessible National Park System.
As you know, I have been a strong advocate of promoting and
strengthening our national parks. Minnesota is home to a truly wondrous
area, Voyageurs National Park--the crown jewel of the north. This
unique water-based park is a pristine wildlife habitat where one can
see wolves in the wild, bald eagles soaring overhead, and fish breaking
the water in pastoral settings. Voyageurs provides Minnesotans the
opportunity to explore this national treasure by boat, snowmobile,
floatplanes, skiing, or hiking. Last summer I had the privilege of
boating in the park and I don't believe I've ever been so thrilled with
the beauty of nature as I was on that trip.
I want to see more people visit and enjoy this spectacular resource.
As with other national parks, this cannot happen without adequate
operating funds, money that will preserve and enhance the beauty of
jewels like Voyageurs. I have fought to maintain the carefully managed
multiple use nature of Voyageurs, to address water level problems, to
achieve better safety for boaters, and at the same time benefit fish
spawning and wildlife habitat.
Northern Minnesota has a rich history of individuality; the proud
people of this area have worked the land and provided for their
families through toil and sweat. Maintaining and improving facilities
at Voyageurs, ensuring the multiple-use nature of the park, will allow
more people to come and enjoy it, bring more jobs to the local economy,
and lead to economic development. Northern Minnesota deserves it and I
will work to make it happen.
Some of my colleagues are all too often willing to turn back the
environmental clock, to say get rid of Government regulation, to go
back to the days of unregulated extraction and exploitation of our
lands. I say we cannot go back, we must preserve nature's wonders for
generations to come. We cannot back down from the gains we've made in
protecting our great heritage. This must be a shared responsibility,
one that accounts for the needs of the many and the few.
When Congress voted to establish Voyageurs, we said yes to preserving
this wonderful and pristine resource for all Americans. We said no to
future lakeshore development, to building homes and putting up private
property and no trespassing signs. We made a decision to provide
multiple use recreation in a natural setting, free of development, free
of timbering and free of the threat of losing this resource. Now we
have to invest in this resource to ensure that all Americans and their
children will experience our National Parks.
We often say that someone has good common sense, but we are losing
sight of what constitutes common sense--or what makes sense. It makes
no sense to risk the loss of this treasure. Common sense should compel
us to guard and protect our parks. Once we walk away--once we fail to
provide adequate funding, it is too difficult to recover what we have
lost.
We must continue to support the gains we've made with respect to our
national parks. We must maintain and improve the treasures we have set
aside. We must make them accessible to all, to share the splendor of
nature.
Take some time, come to Minnesota, enjoy the beauty of Voyageurs. I
promise you my friends, once you've experience the wonders of our
northern jewel, you will support full funding for our national parks
and you will help to ensure their beauty for generations to come.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
amendment before us.
Americans have a core belief in protecting the environment,
regardless of party affiliation. They may differ on the means to
achieve conservation and protection of our natural resources, but they
are in agreement that we cannot squander or waste this precious
heritage. In this regard, we are the envy of the world. Few other
nations have approached protection of the environment in such a
comprehensive fashion. Our parks, our drinking and waste water systems,
and our pollution prevention efforts are envied around the world.
Some seek to rewrite our environmental laws through the budgetary and
appropriations process, rather than through the more deliberative
process which gave us those laws. It is surely true that many of these
statutes could be improved. In fact, I have introduced legislation to
amend the Clean Air Act because I do not believe that it addresses
adequately the matter of interstate transportation of air pollution. I
have supported various bills to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. And, as my colleagues are
aware, I support improving and reforming the Federal Government's
rulemaking process. However, I vigorously oppose wholesale changes in
the bedrock protection principles underpinning these laws. Americans
will not and should not accept such changes.
We have made huge strides in reducing pollution of the laws Congress,
States, and local governments have crafted over the years. Our
emissions of most toxics have been declining, recycling has become an
accepted waste management strategy, and we're working hard to develop
cleaner, more environmentally sound products and manufacturing
processes. All of these trends have occurred while economic growth
continues and exports rise.
There is a new approach to business and management catching on in the
United States. Industries, businesses, and even governmental units, are
carefully reviewing their production, procurement, and usage practices
to root out waste and so become more competitive here and abroad.
Many experts say, and in some cases I agree, that we have already
required and adopted the easy, most cost-effective pollution control
technologies. From here on out, we have to focus more carefully on
refining our laws to provide flexibility to the regulated community and
ensure that benefits of any required investments in pollution
prevention and control outweigh the costs. This is a difficult
balancing act, but if we can carefully review the basic environmental
status and very carefully adjust them we will further the goal of
cheaper, but equally effective protection. The Federal Government can
and should be an active participant in helping those regulated to
develop technologies and processes that can meet these cost-effective
criteria.
This is the direction that the Congress and the Clinton
administration, and the Bush administration before it, have begun.
EPA's resources are now being spent more often on commonsense pollution
prevention efforts that provide environmental protection and
flexibility.
But, rather than continuing that process, the bill seeks to cut items
that are important priorities for environmental protection and
conservation. Punitive cuts in Endangered Species Act activity, in Land
and Water Conservation Fund matching grants to States, in Superfund, in
environmental technology development, in wastewater treatment grants to
States, in energy conservation and so forth don't add up to a balanced
careful approach.
On a Michigan note, I must continue to express my opposition to the
bills' reductions in the National Biological Service and its transfer
to the U.S. Geological Survey, primarily because of its impact on
research at the Great Lakes Science Center. And, I oppose
[[Page S1926]]
the inclusion by reference of the conference report language
accompanying the vetoed Commerce, Justice, State bill, which proposed
transfer of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to the Department of
Interior.
Industry leaders, business managers, and local elected officials,
have internalized the public's unquenchable desire for continued
progress in environmental protection. That is a real revolution.
Now, we are halfway through the fiscal year for which this omnibus
bill is providing funds. The uncertainty of funding has caused
widespread havoc among local governments, businesses, and States. The
stop and start approach harms good, solid planning and jeopardizes
public and private sector jobs. It does not make any sense to do things
this way.
Most Americans do not have the luxury of time necessary to fully
monitor how things are being handled here. They don't know who to blame
for the holdup of wastewater treatment grants or education loans. But,
they are tired of the infighting and want it to end.
Americans want our laws fixed to relieve unnecessary burdens or gross
inefficiency. But, they will not surrender what they know to be
theirs--the right to clean air, clean water, and a safe environment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Lautenberg
amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act. It gives the environment
the high priority it deserves, by restoring some of the most serious
cuts proposed in the pending bill.
We need to do all we can to see that the Nation's priceless
environmental heritage is passed down from generation to generation.
This amendment offers Republicans and Democrats alike a chance to give
the environment the priority it deserves.
It restores needed funds for programs to improve the safety of our
Nation's drinking water supplies, and helps protect our lakes, rivers,
and coastal areas from harmful pollutants.
It maintains the Federal Government's commitment to provide needed
assistance to communities struggling to meet the requirements of the
Clean Water Act.
It gives States and localities the support and flexibility they need
to bring their water systems into the 21st century.
In particular, the amendment will restore $190 million for the Clean
Water Act's State revolving fund, which offers a vital source of
Federal assistance for wastewater projects across the Nation.
The cost of implementing clean water mandates has put an
extraordinary burden on families and businesses in thousands of
communities.
In Massachusetts, the cost of these mandates has resulted in water
and sewer bills that exceed many of my constituents' property taxes.
Low-income families have had their water shut off because they were
unable to pay their soaring bills. Some families are now paying $1,600
a year for water and sewer service, and the rates will continue to rise
through the end of the decade.
In the communities of Fall River and New Bedford, businesses that use
water-intensive processes--particularly textile companies--are
considering leaving the State, because the projected rate increases
will put them at a competitive disadvantage. To add insult to injury,
these communities are also plagued by double-digit unemployment, and
have not yet recovered from the ongoing economic recession.
Congress has a responsibility to help ease the burden of their rising
water and sewer rates by providing additional support for the State
revolving fund.
The Lautenberg amendment also adds $75 million in clean water funds
for the cleanup of Boston Harbor. This addition will bring Federal
assistance back to the $100 million level of annual support recommended
by President Clinton and President Bush as well, and provided each year
by Congress over the past several years.
Over the course of the past decade, the cleanup of Boston Harbor has
received strong bipartisan support. Democrats as well as Republicans
have recognized the crushing financial burden on the 2.5 million
ratepayers in the area to meet the $3.5 billion in federally mandated
cleanup costs.
State funds have been essential as well in bringing relief to these
ratepayers. In addition, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
which oversees the cleanup of Boston Harbor, has successfully worked to
reduce the costs of the project.
But continuing Federal assistance remains vitally important for this
ongoing project, which still has several years to go before completion.
The project has passed some important milestones already--it has
reduced harmful metals dumped into the harbor from 3,000 pounds per day
in 1984 to 500 pounds per day in 1993. It has reduced the number of
harbor beach closings by 70 percent over the last 4 years. But much
more remains to be done.
At the $100 million annual level, Federal assistance meets just 18
percent of the total Boston Harbor cleanup costs--far below the Federal
share provided in the past for many other clean water projects
throughout the United States.
Finally, the Lautenberg amendment will also restore $175 million to
the State revolving fund under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This fund
will, for the first time, provide Federal assistance to States and
localities to improve their public water systems and ensure the safety
of their drinking water supplies. Many communities urgently need this
assistance to comply with Federal law and build new water treatment
facilities, develop alternative water supplies, and consolidate small
systems.
The creation of this revolving fund received the unanimous support of
the Senate last November, by a vote of 99 to 0. The Lautenberg
amendment will help make that commitment real and bring relief to
cities and towns across America.
Communities across America will benefit from this amendment. This
Congress should not go down in history as the anti-environment
Congress. I urge the Senate to give this amendment the overwhelming
bipartisan support it deserves.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
____________________