[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2036-S2066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    REBUTTAL TO PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I want to just take a moment of the 
Senate's time to respond briefly to a speech that President Clinton 
delivered in New Jersey last Monday. The President decided to give a 
very political speech on the environment and made several misstatements 
that I believe need to be corrected.
  It is interesting that in that speech he decried the fact that there 
were political divisions now over the environment. I read the speech, 
and for the life of me I cannot understand how his speech could do 
anything except to exacerbate political divisions, if there are any.
  The President of the United States accused the Congress of moving 
forward on Superfund legislation that would ``let polluters off the 
hook and make the taxpayers pay.'' I am the chairman of the Superfund 
Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and have 
been working on the bill for almost 2 years. I think I know what I am 
talking about when I say very frankly and bluntly that is a false 
statement. There is not another nice way to say it. It is simply not 
true.
  Let me take a moment to explain. Since its inception, the Superfund 
Program has been paid for by industries that were considered, in a 
broad sense, to be responsible for the bulk of the toxic waste problem. 
That is how we pay for Superfund. Those taxes that

[[Page S2037]]

are collected are collected as follows: an excise tax on 42 feedstock 
chemicals; an excise tax on imported chemical derivatives; an excise 
tax on petroleum; and the corporate environment income tax. All of 
those taxes together paid by these large corporations who are 
responsible for much of the environmental--some of these environmental 
problems we had, paid into a fund called Superfund. Together, all of 
those taxes raise roughly $1.5 billion every year. They are then 
deposited into that Superfund.
  Maybe I am missing something. I do not think the average taxpayer is 
importing chemical derivatives. It is safe to say that the taxpayer is 
not--I repeat not--being asked to pick up the tab for the Superfund 
Program. That is not the way it is now. That is not the way it is going 
to be under the legislation that we are drafting--in a bipartisan way, 
I might add--here in the Senate.
  I believe those taxes should be extended. In fact, I included an 
extension of those taxes in the Superfund reform legislation that I 
introduced last year as we were making changes in that legislation. I 
am still advocating the extension of those taxes. Both the House and 
the Senate passed a temporary extension of the taxes last year. Guess 
what? We passed the extension of these taxes on these companies that 
pollute, and the President vetoed--I repeat, the President vetoed--that 
legislation.
  I read the whole speech, and I did not find any reference to that in 
the President's speech last Monday. That, in fact, at the very same 
time standards that help us put money in the Superfund trust fund to 
clean up the sites, like the one the President visited in New Jersey, 
was vetoed by the President of the United States. I find it outrageous 
he would go to New Jersey, to one of those brown-field sites, and say 
that. It is false.
  Let there be no misunderstanding: The taxpayers have never--never, I 
repeat--been asked to pay for polluters, and not a single bill 
introduced in Congress, including my own, would ask the taxpayers to do 
it.
  Mr. President, read the bills. Read the bills that have been 
introduced. Read my bill, Mr. President. The bill that I am working on 
with your colleagues in the Senate, every day, as we speak--staff, 
working to get a bipartisan bill--that Superfund Program has always 
been, and will be in the future, financed by taxes on various 
industries. Nothing has changed.
  Second, the President claimed on Monday--this is particularly 
disturbing--``a small army of powerful lobbyists'' have descended upon 
the Capitol to launch a ``full-scale attack'' on our environmental 
laws. According to the President, these lobbyists and congressional 
Republicans just cannot wait to gut each and every one of our 
environmental laws--every one of them.
  I have a message to deliver to the President. Check in with the EPA, 
your own EPA, Mr. President. Talk to them. For the past several weeks 
and months, my staff has been in daily discussions with the Democrat 
and Republican Senate staff and the EPA, trying to work out a 
commonsense approach to reform our Nation's Superfund Program, a 
program that has spent $30 billion and cleaned up 50 sites in 15 years, 
Mr. President. It does need reform. It needs more than that. It needs a 
dramatic overhaul, and you know it.
  While we are working toward this solution together, the President is 
making it more difficult with inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric. The 
only individuals working on drafting legislation are elected officials 
and their representatives. To suggest otherwise, that somehow this 
Senator or any Senator or any Congressman is allowing a lobbyist to 
write a bill, is an insult and demagogic at worst.
  Let me just say this, Mr. President, give one example. You tell me 
where any lobbyist in any Senator's office is writing a bill. Put your 
words up there one more time, Mr. President, and back it up with fact. 
Show me one case, one example, where any Senator is using a lobbyist to 
write his bill. You have insulted me, personally, Mr. President, and 
that is exactly the way I take it. You have insulted many other people, 
good people, in both parties in the House and the Senate.
  As the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Risk 
Assessment, as a father, a sportsman, environmental issues are as much 
concern to me as you. It may come as a surprise, Mr. President, but my 
daughter drinks the same water as your daughter does, breathes the same 
air. My sons and I fish in the same rivers, or rivers that are similar. 
There is not a Senator or Congressman that I know who wants to trash 
our environment.

  Do we have differences as to how to clean it up? Of course. To say we 
want to trash it or imply that we do is outrageous. That is exactly 
what the President implied last Monday. Apparently, the President 
believes that his way is the only way to a clean and healthy 
environment. I am sorry, I disagree.
  When the President hits the campaign trail, he tends to get a little 
bit excited and he says some things he really does not mean. I am 
willing to forgive that. Mr. President, admit it: You were wrong in 
what you said.
  President Clinton campaigned on a tax cut, and he raised taxes. He 
vetoed a tax cut. He campaigned on welfare reform, and he vetoed 
welfare reform. He campaigned on a balanced budget, and he vetoed a 
balanced budget. In those instances where the President has taken a 
strong position on an issue, he always finds a way to change his mind.
  Given that fact, I will give the President the benefit of the doubt. 
I will assume he did not intend to impugn the integrity of dozens of 
hard-working men and women who are working in the various committees, 
working on environmental legislation in the House and the Senate. I am 
certain that this false accusation just slipped out in the heat of the 
moment and was not carefully thought out. This is a campaign year, but 
it need not be a year where bipartisan consensus is made impossible by 
cheap political shots. That is exactly what this is, Mr. President. You 
owe every one of us an apology--myself, my staff, Democrats who have 
worked on this issue, we would not be working day in and day out with 
the Senate Democrats and EPA officials if we did not think there was a 
real opportunity to pass a strong Superfund reform bill early this 
year. That is exactly what we are going to do, in spite of that 
rhetoric. That is my goal, to get this bill on the floor of the Senate 
within the next couple of months, hopefully, that all of us can support 
and be proud of.

  We are going to put it on your desk, Mr. President. Maybe you will 
veto that like you did the balanced budget that you promised, or 
welfare reform that you promised. But we are going to put it on your 
desk. I suggest, Mr. President, with the greatest respect, that you 
tone down the rhetoric a little, read the speeches before you deliver 
them, see what your staff puts in them. I do. Maybe you ought to do 
that, too. Talk to some of your colleagues in the Senate and in the 
House and find out what we are really doing before you take any more 
cheap shots.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, Madam President. I will not 
object to my friend's request, but I would like to inquire of the 
managers as to the status of the legislation. Are we moving along with 
amendments? It seems like in the last hour or 2 we have made speeches 
as in morning business.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the manager of the bill has just stepped 
off the floor, but I know they are working to reduce the number of 
amendments, to try to resolve as many issues as they can, to get us to 
a final passage document. The manager has just returned to the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, then if we are going to make speeches as 
in morning business, may I ask unanimous consent that after the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho has completed his statement, I be 
recognized for a 10-minute period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1614 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.

[[Page S2038]]



                  BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                             Generic Drugs

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, my colleagues, Senators Chafee and 
Senator Brown, and I have submitted an amendment that every authority I 
have consulted says should already be the law but for a simple 
congressional mistake. According to our United States Trade 
Representative, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Food 
and Drug Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office, our 
amendment should have been part of the GATT implementing legislation 
known as the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
  Congress made a mistake, Madam President. We left the amendment out 
of the GATT legislation. We forgot. It is as simple as that. It has 
happened before, and it will undoubtedly happen again.
  The very unfortunate result of our error is that every day a few 
pharmaceutical companies are earning an extra $5 million a day, 
courtesy of the American taxpayer, the American consumer, the American 
veteran, and the American senior citizen. Today, however, we have a 
unique opportunity, Madam President, to correct that mistake. We could 
implement the law as it was intended, saving consumers billions of 
dollars and fulfilling our obligations under the GATT treaty, all in 
one stroke. Let us take this opportunity today to put our mistake 
behind us.

  Madam President, I know this issue is familiar to all of my 
colleagues. Last December we brought this amendment to the floor and 
sought a vote which we never got. There was an effort to kill the 
amendment with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and call for future 
hearings. When I withdrew the amendment, along with my colleagues--
Senators Chafee and Brown--from consideration, I promised, like 
McArthur, to ``return.'' Today, my colleagues and I have returned to 
the floor of the Senate.
  Here is the single fact which I urge my colleagues to keep in mind. 
Ambassador Kantor testified only 2 weeks ago that the Pryor-Chafee-
Brown amendment ``would do nothing more than fulfill our obligations to 
be faithful to what we negotiated in the GATT treaty.'' He confirmed 
that it would ``carry out the intent not only of the negotiations and 
what the Administration intended, but also what the Congress itself 
intended.''
  Those were the words of our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador 
Mickey Kantor. In other words, Madam President, all of us in the 
Congress believed that the substance of this amendment was part of the 
GATT agreement which we enacted into law. We assumed at that time that 
the GATT transition provisions were universal in nature and scope, but 
we in fact neglected to include a specific, conforming amendment. As a 
result, if we do not accept this amendment, we are then deliberately 
carving out a special exemption from the GATT treaty for one single 
industry--indeed, for a small number of pharmaceutical companies within 
this single industry.
  As my friend and colleague--and almost seat mate--Senator Paul Simon 
of Illinois, has stated, ``This is as classic a case of public interest 
versus special interest as you could find.'' A very fine statement by 
Senator Simon.
  Madam President, I received a letter from several of my colleagues 
yesterday about this issue. But there is a misconception that they have 
raised and must be dispelled. I am certain they did not have the facts 
which I feel at this time must be discussed. In this letter, my 
colleagues write:

       The committee learned during the Judiciary hearing that 
     because of ongoing patent litigation, no potential generic 
     manufacturer of Zantac can expect to enter the market before 
     September of this year, regardless of what Congress does or 
     doesn't do.

  I am afraid that this allegation is in fact untrue. I am sure it will 
come as no surprise that it was the company called Glaxo and the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association who made this 
allegation before the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. What they 
neglected to share with our colleagues were some very critical facts--
facts which I hold in my hand. As Paul Harvey would say on the radio, 
Madam President, ``Here is the rest of the story.''
  There is litigation over Zantac, which is the best selling 
prescription drug in the world. It is delayed because it was Glaxo--the 
company that has the patent--who asked the court to delay its ruling, 
thus denying all generic competition.
  I have in my hand a copy of the brief submitted by Glaxo's lawyers to 
the court. Madam President, should we not inquire into the reason that 
Glaxo gave the court for delaying action and for restraining immediate 
competition from a market after 17 years of monopoly protection and 
extremely high prices? It was simple. It was because of the GATT 
loophole. Glaxo told the court in its brief that it has a patent 
extension which would shield it from generic competition until the year 
1997.
  Madam President, the reason Glaxo will not face any generic 
competition until 1997 is because of the very same GATT loophole we are 
trying to correct. Glaxo wants to delay the court. They want to delay 
action in the Congress because every day that we delay, Madam 
President, is another jackpot payday for Glaxo--and for every other 
company benefiting from this loophole.

  Let me reemphasize this point: The reason these companies are 
shielded from generic competition is that Congress made a mistake and 
forgot a conforming amendment when the GATT legislation was passed. The 
court is now delaying its ruling because we in the Senate have not 
acted on the Pryor-Chafee-Brown amendment. Every day that we delay is 
another day the court has no reason to act. Now we need to give the 
court that reason to act.
  As soon as we have enacted this amendment, the courts will take 
notice and have reason to act. They will have a statutory basis for 
allowing immediate generic competition for Zantac and other drugs on 
the market. As a result, we will see generic Zantac reach the market as 
quickly as possible at something like one-half of the price of 
brandname Zantac.
  So now we can see why Glaxo would have us believe we have plenty of 
time to act. They want us to delay. Why not? Every day is an extra $5 
million in their pockets, courtesy of the American consumer and the 
American taxpayer. The companies opposed to our amendment are the very 
reasons why the courts are taking their time. But if we pass this 
amendment, the courts will act expeditiously--no ifs, no ands, and no 
buts.
  Madam President, we must also remember that there are a dozen other 
drugs affected by this GATT loophole, costing hundreds of millions of 
dollars more for the American consumer than they should. None of these 
products are affected by litigation, and all of these products would be 
available much more rapidly as generics once the amendment is enacted.
  Madam President, I mentioned the hearing held 2 weeks ago by the 
Judiciary Committee. The hearing did one thing and one thing only: It 
confirmed what we already knew--that Congress made a mistake. After a 
year of exhaustive review, discussion, and debate, we held a single 3-
hour hearing and discovered once again that the Washington Post was 
right when they called this ``an error of omission.'' And the New York 
Times was right once again when they wrote on the morning after the 
hearing that ``Glaxo's trade loophole'' should be closed.
  Let me quote from that New York Times editorial:

       Congress finds it hard to remedy the simplest mistakes when 
     powerful corporate interests are at stake. In 1994, when 
     Congress approved a new trade pact with more than 100 other 
     countries, it unintentionally handed pharmaceutical companies 
     windfall profits. More than a year later, Congress has yet to 
     correct this error.

  And most recently, Madam President, on March 6th, the Des Moines 
Register of Des Moines, IA, wrote that it is ``patent nonsense'' to let 
this ``costly congressional blunder'' go uncorrected, which ``Congress 
could correct in a jiffy.''
  Let me conclude, Madam President, with the following observation: We 
have a vast body of evidence at our disposal from the U.S. Trade 
Representative, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
the Patent Office, and the Congressional

[[Page S2039]]

Record. That body of evidence shows that Congress made a mistake.
  Today is our opportunity to correct that mistake--to spare the 
American consumers unnecessary expenses and guarantee 100 percent 
equitable treatment for all American companies under the GATT treaty.
  The alternative is to ignore the evidence--to choose to side with a 
few drug companies. There were two Glaxo lobbyists actually testifying 
at last month's hearing.
  They happened to disagree with the U.S. Government, with our U.S. 
Trade Representative, with our Patent Office, and many others.
  I am asking today, on behalf of Senator Chafee, Senator Brown and 
myself, for this body to consider the possibility that Glaxo has a deep 
financial interest in this issue and may not be as objective as four or 
five executive agencies of our Federal Government.
  This is not a partisan issue. It is not a partisan choice. It never 
has been. It is about fixing a mistake. It is about doing right. It is 
about serving consumers. It is about taking on a special interest which 
has entered this fight and making certain that the public interest 
prevails.
  I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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, it is 3:15. The chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee is here ready to work. The leadership is 
working to identify amendments that are going to be offered. There are 
a couple of amendments that are pending that have been set aside, but 
it is our hope that those amendments will be acted on. If the Members 
do not show up and offer their amendments, I would support the 
chairman's effort to go to third reading.
  I think it is totally ridiculous that on Thursday afternoon at 3:15, 
Senators who have amendments on the list to be offered will not show up 
and offer their amendments. This is what makes the Senate look so bad. 
That is why we wind up working at night, like nocturnal animals, 
instead of human beings who work in the daylight.
  Members will show up later on this afternoon and they will want to go 
have supper with their families, they will want to keep commitments 
they have made, they will want to see their children before they go to 
sleep, they would like to have a good night's sleep. They are not going 
to be able to do that because they will not show up and offer 
amendments now, in the middle of the afternoon.
  This is the kind of thing that leads to bad relationships between 
Members, because they get exhausted. They do not do the work during the 
day, and then they try to do it at night.
  I urge my colleagues, this is not a partisan thing, it is not a 
leadership thing, this is just an individual Senator saying: Please, 
let us do our work. The committee staff and the committee leadership is 
here, ready to work. Come over, bring your amendments, let us get some 
time agreements, let us get our work done, let us move this bill 
through.
  This is an embarrassment. We have been working on this omnibus 
appropriations bill since Monday. That is why we started on Monday, so 
we could, hopefully, get it done. Do the Members want to be here next 
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night doing the same thing?
  I just make one last plea, I am not going to do it again today, that 
Members come on over and bring their amendments and offer them now, or 
forever hold your peace. I hope the chairman, when these amendments 
that are pending are completed--and I urge they be acted on shortly--
that we go to third reading. We have always threatened it, but we have 
never done it. This would be a good one to give it a shot on.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3497 to Amendment No. 3466

  (Purpose: To restore funding for the Competitiveness Policy Council)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send an 
amendment to the desk that has been cleared on both sides that does not 
appear on the list that we have adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes amendment numbered 3497 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                     COMPETITIVENESS POLICY COUNCIL


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Competitiveness Policy 
     Council, $100,000.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during a previous time of trying to 
assimilate the various amendments, in the Judiciary and now, there was 
a Bingaman amendment relating to the Competitive Policy Council in 
which Senator Daschle, the minority leader, and Senator Lott, as the 
assistant majority leader, had entered into an understanding, an 
agreement, in their attempt to reduce the number of amendments.
  Unfortunately, there was a slippage of communication, and the staff 
at that time was not informed of this agreement. So we are now 
validating that which had been agreed to by Senator Daschle and Senator 
Lott. It has no budgetary impact, but it does make good the commitments 
made.
  So, Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The amendment (No. 3497) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was adopted and move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3495

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment by the Senator from Utah to the 
substitute of the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.


                    Amendment No. 3495, As Modified

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to clear the parliamentary 
situation at this moment in order to make way for Senator Harkin by 
sending to the desk a modification of Senator Hatch's amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment as modified is as follows:

[[Page S2040]]

       On page 755, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

            TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                 OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' 
     $3,900,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


                         Federal Building Fund

                 Limitations on Availability of Revenue

                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available for installment acquisition 
     payments under this heading in Public Law 104-52, $3,500,000 
     are rescinded: Provided, That of the funds made available for 
     advance design under this heading in Public Law 104-52, 
     $200,000 are rescinded: Provided further, That the aggregate 
     amount made available to the Fund shall be $5,062,449,000.

                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                         Salaries and Expenses

                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-52, $200,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 12

       On page 755, line 22, redesignate the section number, and
       On page 756, line 8, redesignate the section number.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senators 
Hatch, Shelby, and Grassley regarding the drug office. I strongly 
support the addition of $3.9 million to help our new Drug Director--
General McCaffrey--with the increased staff he needs. As my colleagues 
know, I have the distinction of being the author of the law that opened 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It took more than a decade 
worth of effort to start this office--the Reagan administration opposed 
my every effort to have a Drug Director. It was not until 1988 that 
they finally relented.
  Let me also offer a little history about why the Drug Office staff 
was reduced in the first place. Under the previous administration, the 
Drug Office had become overrun with political appointees. Frankly, it 
became a political dumping ground with the greatest percentage of 
political appointees of any Cabinet agency. This was not the only 
reason for the reduction in staff, but it was the key reason I did not 
oppose the reduction.
  But, today we have a new Drug Director, an accomplished, impressive 
general who has been tasked with the difficult job of bringing action 
to our national effort against drugs. The General has asked for, and 
the President has formally requested, an additional $3.9 million to 
increase the staff by 80 personnel.
  Today, we are offered an amendment sponsored by Republican Senators 
that provides what General McCaffrey requested. It is my hope that this 
signals that my Republican colleagues will be as supportive of General 
McCaffrey's future requests as they are of this one.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support additional 
funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy to cover certain 
salary and expenses. The efforts by the new director, General 
McCaffrey, to restore the effectiveness and credibility of that office 
must be welcomed as a step in the right direction--at last. In 
supporting this legislation, I am expressing my hope and that of many 
of my colleagues that the administration will now put the drug issue 
back into the picture of its policy priorities.
  As many Members in both the House and Senate have remarked in the 
last several years, we have seen little in the way of serious 
leadership or direction from the administration on this issue. Drug 
policy sank without a trace almost from day one when the President 
fired virtually the whole of the drug czar's staff at that time. Lee 
Brown, his first incumbent, never had a chance. Without staff, without 
support, without credibility, he was left to languish in obscurity 
along with drug policy. Now we are preparing to vote to restore funding 
to that office in order to reinstate the positions cut in 1993. I hope 
everyone appreciates the irony of this process. Nevertheless, if 
restoring these positions will put us back on the track of serious and 
sustained narcotics control policies, then it is money well spent.
  In doing this, however, we are engaging in an act of faith. We have 
seen no performance yet. What we are doing is investing in a 
possibility. It is an investment that I believe we must make, but we 
must also expect sound performance in return. We need to see a renewed 
emphasis on drug policy. We need to see a renewed strategy linked to 
meaningful and measurable performance criteria. We need to see a 
serious effort to promote drug policy on the Hill and with the American 
public. We need a drug czar who will fight for drug policy even if that 
means embarrassing some of his fellow cabinet members.
  I hope that this money will help do these things, and I for one will 
be looking closely to see that we get a return on our faith.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Utah.
  The amendment (No. 3495), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to and to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what we have just done is very simple; 
that is, that Senator Hatch had cleared the concept on both sides of 
the aisle in terms of expanding the support for the drug czar. The 
question was on the offset. This is budget neutral. The money has been 
offset from GSA. That has also been cleared. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3498 To Amendment No. 3466

 (Purpose: To establish a fraud and abuse control program in order to 
                  prevent health care fraud and abuse)

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

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes amendment 
     numbered 3498 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am back on the floor today to try to 
attack the problem I have spoken about many times over the years, a 
problem I have been working on, first as chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee dealing with labor, health, human services, and education, 
and now as ranking member of that under the able leadership of Senator 
Specter. I have been for years working on the waste, fraud, and abuse 
situation, particularly as it pertains to the Medicare Program.
  I have asked for and obtained over the last several years many 
investigations by the GAO and by the Inspector General's Office of HHS. 
Quite frankly, Mr. President, what they have come up with is just 
startling. I am not going to take the time of the Senate here today. I 
have spoken about this many times before on the Senate floor. Again, 
every day that we put off attacking this problem and making the 
necessary changes is a day that wastes, literally, hundreds of millions 
of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse, money that is going out and not 
coming back, money of our taxpayers that is being wasted.
  How extensive is this, Mr. President? The General Accounting Office 
and others have estimated that up to 10 percent of health care 
expenditures in Medicare is lost every year to fraud, waste, and abuse. 
Well, 10 percent of what? Medicare this year is spending about $180 
billion. So 10 percent of that is $18 billion. GAO has said about up to 
that much is being lost every year.
  As we know, we are trying to find some savings in Medicare to reach a 
balanced budget, to make the Medicare

[[Page S2041]]

system more secure, to make sure that it meets its obligations through 
the next 7 years. Quite frankly, the trustees have said we need about 
$89 billion to do that over the next 7 years. Obviously, if we are 
wasting $18 billion a year and we are talking about 7 years, we are 
talking about $126 billion going out for waste, fraud, and abuse during 
that period of time.
  Assuming that we cannot save every dollar, we cannot end every iota 
of waste and abuse--which I wish we could--if we could only save 60 
percent of it, or 50 percent of it, we would be well on or way toward 
finding that $89 billion.
  Common sense dictates that waste, fraud, and abuse should be the 
first target of any responsible plan to reduce Medicare expenditures. I 
am pleased, on a bipartisan basis, the Appropriations Committee--and I 
especially want to pay tribute to the good work of Senator Specter and 
our chairman, Senator Hatfield, for their help in doing this--the 
Appropriations Committee agreed to my amendment to this bill to restore 
the cut in funding for the HHS inspector general to tackle this 
problem.
  The amendment I am offering today builds on that. It is very similar 
to an amendment I offered last year, I regret to say, unsuccessfully, 
to the budget reconciliation bill. However, we did get, I believe, 44 
votes on that, and I know that a lot of Senators I talked to since that 
time now, I think, have a deeper appreciation for the magnitude of what 
we are talking about in terms of waste and abuse. I am hopeful that we 
might gain even more votes on this amendment yet.
  This amendment I offer would significantly expand the abuse-fighting 
activities that have been proven to save money, strengthen the 
penalties for committing fraud, cut waste in Medicare payments by 
insisting on greater competition, as well as through the use of state-
of-the-art private sector technologies. It would provide new incentive 
to consumers and providers to expose Medicare abuses and would reduce 
excessive paperwork and duplicative forms.
  Mr. President, this proposal just makes common sense. It would reduce 
the budget deficit. The CBO estimated the nearly identical amendment I 
offered last year would have reduced the deficit by $4.8 billion over 7 
years. I am convinced, however, based on years of analysis by the GAO 
and the inspector general and others, that this would save much more 
money than that.
  For example, every dollar invested in antifraud activities by the 
inspector general and the Justice Department results in significant 
savings to taxpayers. I have a chart here to show that. Mr. President, 
this is a chart showing the savings per employee.
  From 1991 to 1995; this is from the inspector general's office, HHS: 
If you take every employee, including the secretaries, that are in the 
inspector general's office, the savings per employee, 1991, was $4.8 
million, and it has gone up to $9.7 million last year.
  Now, talking about the savings per dollar spent. For every dollar we 
put into the inspector general's office last year, they returned $115 
to the taxpayers of this country. Let me reemphasize that: For every $1 
that we put into the inspector general's office, they returned back--
this is real money; this is not phony money; this is money they 
actually brought back or stopped from being paid out--$115 they 
returned to the taxpayers for every $1 we put into the inspector 
general's office.
  Yet their efforts to stop Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse are 
underfunded. In addition, efforts to combat health care fraud and abuse 
are not coordinated adequately between Federal, State, and local 
agencies. As a result, many fraud schemes move from State to State to 
avoid detection. I point out, Mr. President, because of the 
underfunding of the inspector general's office, right now there are 24 
States in which there is no presence by the inspector general's office. 
Not only that, Mr. President, you wonder why there is so much waste, 
fraud, and abuse? Right now, less than 5 percent of the payments are 
audited. If you have 24 States in which there is not even an inspector 
general's presence, and you only audit, say, 3 to 5 percent of the 
claims, you can see the chances of being caught are pretty slim. That 
is why we need to invest more in fighting waste, fraud, and abuse.

  This amendment would change that by more than doubling our investment 
in fighting fraud and abuse. The Medicare trust fund would invest 
directly in these efforts, providing a stable, adequate source of 
funding, and reaping a huge return in savings to Medicare.
  The amendment would also require greater coordination of Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement efforts to combat health care fraud. 
All agencies investigating health care fraud and abuse will share 
information and otherwise coordinate activities, since fraudulent 
schemes are often replicated in different health programs.
  The fight against Medicare fraud and abuse is also limited by 
inadequate sanctions and loopholes in the law that make it easier for 
offenders to escape any penalty. This amendment would strengthen 
sanctions against providers who rip off Medicare. Those convicted of 
health care fraud and felonies related to controlled substances would 
be kicked out of Medicare. Penalties for those found to have provided 
kickbacks, charged Medicare excessive fees, or submitted false claims 
or otherwise abusive activities--the penalties would be increased. 
Maximum fines would be increased from $2,000 to $10,000 for violation. 
In addition, fines could be imposed on HMO's and other managed care 
plans for abusive activities. No such penalty exists under current law.
  Mr. President, think about this: Right now the maximum fine if you 
submitted a false claim or otherwise abusive activities is $2,000. That 
is hardly an incentive for someone to stop this practice when they may 
be filing false claims for thousands and thousands of dollars a year. 
Again, Mr. President, a lot of times these claims come in, and if they 
are ever caught they just claim they made a mistake, just made a 
mistake. Well, the fines and penalties is just a slap on the wrist, and 
off they go.
  I must tell you, Mr. President, after looking at this for the last 
almost 7 years now, I am convinced that there is absolutely near zero 
kind of a sanction or a threat of sanction against anyone filing false 
claims or abusive activities.
  Lastly, right now a managed care plan that submits the claims for the 
group itself, right now, no fine or no such penalty can be imposed on 
those HMO's, an invitation to raid the Medicare trust fund.
  Mr. President, this amendment would also strengthen criminal remedies 
available to combat health care fraud and abuse by creating a new 
health care fraud statute, authorizing forfeiture of property gained 
through the commission of health care fraud. Well, if we can have 
forfeiture of property for controlled substances, then if people commit 
fraud against the health care system and they gain property by doing 
so, we ought to have that right of forfeiture. It creates a criminal 
statute prohibiting obstruction of criminal health care investigations 
and provides other legal tools to go after criminal health care fraud 
cases.
  This is all in my amendment as a result of, as I have said, over 7 
years of investigations by my subcommittee and by the GAO and the 
inspector general's office. These hearings, along with the IG's office, 
have repeatedly documented massive losses to Medicare due to excessive 
payments for equipment, services and other items.
  For example, Medicare pays over $3,000 a year to rent portable oxygen 
concentrators that only cost $1,000 to buy. Mr. President, I was on a 
radio program, a call-in radio show, as I am sure all of us do in our 
own States, WMT radio in Cedar Rapids, several weeks ago. I was talking 
about this Medicare fraud and abuse. I had a caller call in. We found 
out who he was and we later got hold of him. He has been on an oxygen 
concentrator now for 4 years. The rent has been $300 a month. Medicare 
pays it. He has been on it for 4 years. Medicare pays $300 a month, or 
$3,600 a year for 4 years. They paid over $14,000 in rent. They could 
have bought it for $1,000. That is the kind of abuses that are taking 
place.
  We found cases where Medicare is paying up to $2.32 for a gauze pad 
that the Veterans Administration purchases for 4 cents. Also, a recent 
series of reports by the HHS inspector general found that Medicare had 
been billed for such outrageous items as a trip to Italy to inspect a 
piece of sculpture, country club memberships for executives, golf shop 
gift certificates, and

[[Page S2042]]

Tiffany crystal pictures for executives. These items are not 
specifically disallowed as indirect costs to Medicare. My amendment 
closes that loophole.

  That is a fact. Right now, an executive or health care provider can 
take a trip, write it off, and have Medicare pay for it.
  My amendment would also end Medicare's wasteful reimbursement 
practices with regard to durable medical equipment, medical supplies, 
and other items by requiring competitive bidding to assure Medicare 
gets the best price possible. This system has been successfully used by 
many in the private sector and the Veterans' Administration.
  For example, take the oxygen concentrator I just spoke about. While 
Medicare pays over $3,000 a year to rent it, the Veterans' 
Administration pays less than half that much every year for the same 
oxygen concentrators, many times from the same company, the same 
supplier. Why? Because the Veterans' Administration engages in 
competitive bidding and Medicare does not.
  When I tell audiences that in Iowa and other places around the 
country where I speak about this, they are dumbfounded. They say, you 
mean the Veterans' Administration puts out for competitive bids certain 
items that Medicare does not? I say, yes, Medicare has no competitive 
bidding, none whatsoever, zero.
  Well, now, it would seem to me that if you really want to have a 
really conservative approach to this, what we ought to do is mandate 
competitive bidding, like the Veterans' Administration does. I want to 
make this clear, also. Some people say, well, you cannot have 
competitive bidding because it would reduce the quality. Well, under my 
provision, quality standards would have to be maintained and access 
could not be reduced. In other words, we issue the quality standards 
and then say, OK, now you competitively bid on it.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why, after all of these 
years, after all the documentation, after all the hearings and 
investigations that have gone on year after year, this Congress cannot 
pass legislation mandating competitive bidding for Medicare. I tell my 
audiences that, and they do not believe it. They absolutely do not 
believe that Medicare does not engage in competitive bidding. Well, 
they do not and, to this day, we have not mandated that they do so.
  Last year, I finally got the Director of HCFA, Health Care Financing 
Administration, who administers Medicare, to agree that, yes, they 
could utilize competitive bidding and, yes, it could be implemented 
and, yes, it would save them money. So the head of the agency himself 
says it will save them money. He says they can do it. Yet, this 
Congress will not let them do it.
  So I say to people around America, if you are mad, if you are upset 
about all the waste in Medicare, do not take it out on Medicare because 
they are only doing what the Congress tells them to do. The Congress, 
so far, has told them you cannot engage in competitive bidding.
  I must say, Mr. President, this really is the heart of this 
amendment. It is the guts of this amendment. Oh, we can dance around 
the edges, we can provide increased penalties, which we ought to do, 
and which this amendment does, and we can provide for more computers 
and software to catch these practices, and this amendment does that; 
but if you adopted all those and still did not adopt competitive 
bidding, Medicare will be throwing billions of dollars away in wasteful 
spending because we would not be getting the best deal for the 
taxpayer.
  What would we do around here if the Defense Department did not engage 
in competitive bidding? What if they said they were going to go to 
contractors and say, ``What do you want for this piece of military 
equipment?'' And the contractor says, ``I want $1,000.'' We say, ``OK, 
that is what you will get.'' Now, if you think the stories about toilet 
seats that cost $600, and things like that which came up in the past 
are abusive, wait until you see some of the things that come out in 
Medicare.
  Well, I have a device--and we do not show things like that on the 
floor, but I have a blood glucose monitor, as small as the palm of my 
hand, which is used with people with diabetes; it tells them their 
glucose level. We found out Medicare is paying up to $211 for each one 
of these. I sent my staff to a local K-Mart, and they bought one for 
$49.99 Yet, Medicare is paying $211 for it. We got that one item 
stopped. It took a while to get it stopped. That will save about $25 
million over 5 years. But that is just one item.
  Mr. President, we also found, thanks to the good work of the GAO, 
that while Medicare once led the health care industry in technology for 
processing claims and preventing waste and abuse, it has fallen way 
behind. A recent report by the General Accounting Office found that, in 
1994, $640 million in improper payments could be prevented if Medicare 
had employed commercially available detection software that is already 
used in the private sector.
  In fact, many of the same insurers that administer Medicare use this 
software to stop inappropriate payments for their private sector 
business.
  I had a witness testify before my subcommittee--I think it was last 
year or the year before maybe. Their organization is the claims 
processor for Medicare in the Northwestern part of the United States. 
They also process for their own individual claims--in this case with 
Blue Cross-Blue Shield. They told me that they have one set of software 
for what they do privately and another set for what they do for 
Medicare. Yet Medicare will not adopt what they use on the private side 
to catch and stop these abusive payments.
  This is a study that I had done. It came out in May 1995 from the 
GAO: ``Commercial Technology Could Save Billions Lost to Billing 
Abuse.'' Here is what it said. It said HCFA could save over $600 
million annually by using commercial systems to detect code 
manipulation. Also beneficiaries--the people themselves--would save 
over $140 million a year that they are paying out of pocket to this 
code manipulation.
  There are a lot of examples here of unbundling. Here is one where a 
physician was paid for interpreting two xrays because he unbundled. He 
put it under two codes. He was paid $32. When the GAO investigated it, 
he should only have been paid $16 rather than $32. That may not sound 
like a bunch of money. But that is twice what he should have been paid, 
and multiply that by thousands and thousands every day throughout the 
Nation it adds up to real money. The GAO came up with a lot of examples 
of this.
  Let me say at the outset, is this doctor who submitted two charges 
when he should have only charged once being fraudulent? Maybe; maybe 
not. It may have been an honest mistake on that doctor's part. Maybe 
the nurse, or his assistant, or maybe his secretary, or his 
administrator who takes care of his billing said, ``Well, he took one x 
ray here and another x ray here. So that is two different things. So we 
will apply under two different codes.'' It could have been an honest 
mistake. Yet, he got paid $32 when he only should have been paid $16. 
Using commercially available software that we have on the market today 
that would have been stopped. Blue Cross would not have paid that. They 
would not have paid $32. They would have paid $16.
  So, again, whether it is an honest mistake, or whether a fraudulent 
claim, we need the software that will stop that.
  I might point out that GAO found out that only 8 percent of doctors 
had billed inappropriately--8 percent. So 92 percent of the doctors are 
doing just fine. But the 8 percent are the ones that are really digging 
into our pockets. That is why we need the software. So even if we 
adopted the software there would not be any impact on the vast majority 
of providers out there.
  So, Mr. President, my amendment would require Medicare contractors to 
employ this private sector commercial software within 180 days--6 
months. What is the cost of this? GAO estimated the cost of doing this 
would be $20 million the first year and savings of over $600 million--
not a bad deal for the taxpayers and for the beneficiaries under 
Medicare.
  So, Mr. President, we know that Medicare beneficiaries and other 
health care consumers are the front line in detecting and reporting 
Medicare fraud and abuse. Currently though

[[Page S2043]]

they have little information and incentive to aggressively watch for 
and report such activities. Likewise the providers lack the incentives 
to report problems.
  Let me relate what happened to me a couple of years ago. Shirley 
Pollock's--a constituent of mine in Atlantic, IA--mother-in-law had 
been in a nursing home for a few weeks. And when she got the Medicare 
report which said ``This is not a bill'' because Medicare paid the 
claim. On that Medicare claim it reported that Medicare had paid for 
over $5,000 in bandages for about 3 weeks of nursing home care.
  Shirley Pollock looked at this. Of course, it said, ``This is not a 
bill.'' She went to the nursing home, and said, ``I have been here with 
my mother-in-law. I know she did not use $5,000 worth of bandages in 3 
weeks.'' She was told, ``Do not worry about it. You do not have to pay 
it anyway.''
  I tell you. If you want to get heads nodding if you ever go to a 
senior citizens meeting, relate a story like that and you will see a 
lot of heads nod because the same things have happened to senior 
citizens all over this country. They get the report of what Medicare 
has paid. It says, ``This is not a bill.'' A lot of times they just 
throw it away because it says ``This is not a bill.'' And if they ever 
question the payment they are told, ``Do not worry about it. You do not 
have to pay it. Medicare pays it.''
  Thank goodness for people like Shirley Pollock. She was not going to 
take that for an answer. She said, ``Someone is paying it, and it is 
not right.'' She got hold of my office. We looked into it, and found 
that was right. They should never have paid that. So we got that taken 
care of.
  But there is not enough incentive out there for people to come 
forward like that.
  So what my amendment does is make it easier for Medicare 
beneficiaries to check their bills for errors--first of all, by giving 
them assured access to itemized bills. It would also require that when 
beneficiaries receive their statements from Medicare they are asked to 
carefully review it, and to report any suspected problems to a listed 
toll-free number.
  Third, it would establish rewards of up to $10,000 for reports by 
consumers that lead to criminal convictions for health care fraud and 
up to 10 percent of amounts recovered from abusive billings.
  Three things: The first thing is itemization. I do not know how many 
of you have ever looked at a Medicare claim form; payment form. When 
these things come into Medicare, no itemization is required. You do not 
have to itemize. So a lot of the times, as GAO pointed out, Medicare is 
paying for things and they do not even know what is there.
  So, Mr. President, let say you are a provider and you submitted a 
bill to Medicare for $1,000. You do not have to itemize what that 
thousand dollars is for. Medicare pays you. But you obviously have an 
itemized list someplace because it makes up $1,000. So if you, as a 
provider, have the list, it would seem to me that itemized account 
ought to also be made available to the consumer so the consumer can 
look at it and see whether or not they got something. That ought to be 
available to Medicare, too. I know some people say, well, this is more 
paperwork. The fact is that the provider who is putting a claim on 
Medicare for reimbursement already has to have that itemized list. With 
the modern computers that we have that can read all this data, that is 
not a problem at all.

  One constituent of mine said, you know, it is like when you go to a 
grocery store and you pile your cart full of groceries and you go 
through the checkout counter. What if they just added up all your 
groceries and they gave you a bill and said, ``Here, your groceries are 
$83.50, but you don't get a an itemized list of what you bought.'' You 
would not stand for it. So just as easy as it is for a checkout counter 
in a grocery store to give you a long list of everything you bought and 
the number and how much it cost, the same thing could happen in 
Medicare for the services, the equipment and devices provided.
  Second, a little bit of an incentive. There is nothing like a little 
bit of incentive, so we provide for up to a $10,000 reward for any 
person who provides information that leads to a criminal conviction of 
health care fraud, and up to 10 percent of amounts recovered from 
abusive billings. So there would be an incentive in there for people to 
take a very careful look at what they are being billed.
  Mr. President, I have taken a lot of time, but I wanted to lay this 
out because this is a comprehensive plan to combat waste and abuse in 
Medicare and other health programs. It is a commonsense approach. I 
hope we can adopt it. It will save us money for the taxpayers. It will 
save the Medicare trust fund money. It will save beneficiaries money 
because there is a lot of this money that is out of pocket that they 
have to spend. I pointed out that GAO said that by having this new 
technology, it would save beneficiaries $140 million a year.
  So any way you cut it, I believe this is an amendment that will help 
make the Medicare system more sound, more secure, and save us in fraud, 
waste, and abuse.
  I do not know the disposition of the managers of the bill as to this 
amendment. It is my understanding that if this amendment were adopted, 
it would be approved by the administration.
  Yes, I just have had reassurance of that, that the administration 
would accept these provisions. As I said, I have spent several years of 
subcommittee investigations and my own time on this. There is nothing 
in this amendment that has not been carefully thought out and looked at 
by the Inspector General's Office, the Justice Department, the Health 
Care Finance Administration, and others to make sure that it will 
really do the job. So I hope it can be adopted and sent down to the 
White House, whatever happens to this bill otherwise, and get it 
approved and save us a lot of money.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to respond to what the 
distinguished whip said about Members working on their amendments.
  I have been, over the past 18 hours or so, working with members of 
the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Hatfield and the staff have 
been very cooperative in trying to work on something that we can do to 
address the concerns I have about disaster relief funds in this bill 
being declared an emergency and off budget and therefore adding to the 
deficit. We are working and have been and will continue to work to try 
to come to some agreement where we can put this spending within the 
context of the budget laid out last year so we do not cause an increase 
in the deficit. I know everyone wants to work on that in good faith, so 
this negotiation will continue. I wish to tell the Members and the whip 
this is ongoing, and I am optimistic we will come to some favorable 
conclusion on that issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Harkin amendment the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Harkin amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3500 to Amendment No. 3466

   (Purpose: Delete language concerning certification of population 
                               programs)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 3500.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S2044]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 756, Title III--Miscellaneous Provisions, strike 
     section 3001, beginning on line 14 ``The President,'' through 
     line 25, ending ``such restrictions.''

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 3498

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] has 
presented an amendment that deals with a mutual concern of issues.
  I am grateful that the Senator put together a way to deal with these 
issues. The only problem is that under the current parliamentary 
situation, this is an appropriations measure, and, as the Senator 
realizes, out of this rather extensive amendment, which is almost 100 
pages, there is a lot of legislation in the amendment as well as 
earmarks relating to appropriations.
  I would have to, probably, raise a point of order against the 
amendment being considered on this vehicle. Both from the standpoint of 
our personal working relationship, that I treasure, and our mutual 
interest that we share on so many of these issues, I would not like to 
do that, and I would like to also assure the Senator that I am willing 
to cooperate and work with him to find some suitable alternative to 
this particular vehicle. It is fragile enough, without adding more 
problems to it, in terms of so much legislation.
  So, I just say I deeply regret the situation I am in, but in order to 
move this bill on through to a conference with the House and, 
hopefully, to the signature of the President, I wonder if the Senator 
would consider the possibility of postponing this action to a time when 
we could join together in partnership?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand. I do not want to add to the problems our 
distinguished chairman has with this bill. I was hoping perhaps the 
Finance Committee and others would approve of this and let it go on 
through. As I said, I know it is authorization, but we have other 
authorizing things that are in this bill, too. But I understand for 
some reason there are some who do not want this on this bill. I had 
hoped we could have prevailed on this, but I understand the chairman's 
position on this. I know he is in a position where he has to try to get 
this bill through.
  We do not want to hold it up any longer. We want to get it through as 
soon as possible. There are some very important things in this bill, 
like education and other things that we got in it, that I hope we can 
hold.
  With the assurance of the chairman that perhaps we can find some 
other vehicle to get this thing through this year, Mr. President, I 
then ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 3498) was withdrawn.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let us put our 
staffs together, sooner rather than later, to try to work out some 
strategy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the existing unanimous consent limiting amendments, 
that I be able to offer the D.C. Police amendment which was originally 
a part of my drug czar's amendment. The floor manager and several 
Members expressed their hope that this amendment would not be 
considered as part of the drug czar's amendment.
  I understand it has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3499 to Amendment No. 3466

  (Purpose: To provide assistance to the District of Columbia Police 
                              Department)

  Mr. HATCH. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3499 to amendment numbered 3466.

  Mr. HATCH. 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:

       Page 29, line 18, insert the following: ``Provided further, 
     That no less than $20,000,000 shall be for the District of 
     Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to be used at the 
     discretion of the Police Chief for law enforcement purposes, 
     conditioned upon prior written consultation and notification 
     being given to the chairman and ranking members of the House 
     and Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations.''

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3500

  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. President, do we have a time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no limitation on debate at this time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I had heard it might be acceptable to the other side 
to have 1 hour equally divided. That would certainly be appropriate and 
agreeable with me.
  Mr. HATFIELD. We will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good 
friend, has inserted language in the underlying bill which affects a 
provision in the recently passed foreign operations bill. The very 
reason it only recently passed is because the foreign operations bill 
was ping-ponged back and forth across the Capitol, between the House 
and the Senate, over a period of 3 or 4 months, during which we had 
nine different votes in the two Houses on the question of abortion.
  I understand the concerns that Senator Hatfield has raised with 
regard to this provision. However, this is not a new topic of debate. 
In trying to pass the foreign operations bill, as I just indicated, we 
voted nine times on modifications, amendments, and variations of the 
language that my good friend from Oregon is now attempting to change. I 
fear that his language, like earlier proposals, will simply reopen a 
contentious debate in which Congress and the administration simply do 
not agree. This is just an area of deep-seated disagreement.
  Over on the House side, initially, Congressman Chris Smith and others 
sought restrictions on population funding that would assure none of our 
resources was used by institutions which carry out abortions. At no 
point has anyone opposed supporting legitimate and voluntary family 
planning services.
  I believe the proposal put forward by Congressman Smith, which I 
included in my chairman's mark for the foreign operations bill, was 
reasonable. Our proposal would have had no adverse impact on the 
availability of family planning. But the administration objected to the 
application of the so-called Mexico City standards on population 
programs.
  As a result, after months of debate and nine votes, we reached a 
stalemate. At the time of final passage, Senator Hatfield and I agreed 
the entire issue was more appropriately dealt with by the authorization 
committees.
  To encourage them to continue negotiations and reach a settlement of 
this policy matter with the administration, we delayed the provision of 
any population funds until July 1, and at that point disbursed the 
funds on a limited basis over the next 15 months.

  Frankly, I continue to believe we have done the best possible job we 
could under the circumstances. I have never been involved in a more 
difficult legislative endeavor than trying to reach some kind of 
compromise which the previously passed bill embodied.
  I hope we take the view, at least for this fiscal year, that a deal 
is a deal. I think the language in the bill jeopardizes the commitment 
we made to allow the authorization process to resolve the issue. I 
really hope we will not reopen this matter today. I think we run the 
risk of losing the entire omnibus resolution. I do not think the House 
is going to budge 1 inch on this issue.
  So it seems to me we potentially put the omnibus--we actually do put 
the

[[Page S2045]]

omnibus appropriations bill in the very same position the foreign 
operations bill was in for months, stuck in a legislative ditch.
  My good friend, the chairman of the full committee, certainly 
appreciates the issue, that issue, was an enormously complicated 
problem. I know he has a big task in managing this 781-page bill. But I 
urge my colleagues, regardless of whether you consider yourself pro-
life or pro-choice, we finally struck a deal on the foreign operations 
bill which has already passed and was signed by the President, which 
carries us through September 30. We finally, after nine votes, reached 
a compromise. Nobody was particularly happy with it, but it is now the 
law. I hope we will not undo that compromise here, halfway through this 
fiscal year, and run the risk of putting this omnibus appropriations 
bill in the very same condition that the foreign operations bill was in 
in October, November, December, and January.
  So, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment I have at the 
desk. I think it will allow us to get past this issue. We are going to 
have to deal with it again in next year's bill. We are already 
beginning to develop the foreign operations appropriations bill for 
next fiscal year, and this issue obviously is not going to go away. But 
we have reached a compromise for the current year, and I hope we stick 
to that. We take the view that a deal is a deal, at least for this 
fiscal year.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment, 
which, hopefully, we will be able to vote on sometime in the near 
future. Senator Dole, I might add, is a cosponsor of my amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I have really completed my remarks. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to echo my colleague's remarks, 
because we have an excellent working relationship. I think sometimes, 
on highly emotional issues like this one--emotional on both sides of 
the issue--that there is always a fear, with good friends differing on 
an issue, of rupturing a good friendship.
  I want to assure the Senator from Kentucky I have no intention of 
doing that. The Senator needed help on the Jordan funding system. We 
worked that out in the Appropriations Committee. The Senator has sought 
our help even today on this appropriations bill. We have been 
responsive to that.

  So whether we agree or disagree on this issue does not in any way 
impair my concern and desire to help the Senator when he makes the 
request for help as chairman of the committee.
  But I also at the same time am a little bit dismayed that my 
colleague would move to strike this provision I have included in the 
committee substitute concerning international voluntary family 
planning. I would like to review the history of this last year. Let me 
state briefly where things stand.
  First of all, let me say this is not a negotiated compromise. We, at 
no time--the Senate had no opportunity to negotiate this issue with the 
House. We were given this kind of approach, and it was that or nothing. 
So this is not a negotiated settlement on this issue or even a 
provision of this bill that has been worked out with the House.
  In late January, when the Senate passed H.R. 2880 to keep the 
Government from shutting down, the bill included a provision 
restricting the expenditure of funds for the International Family 
Planning Program administered by the U.S. Agency for International 
Development.
  Again, let me underscore, this so-called compromise was worked out on 
the House side unilaterally and presented to us. Our choice was to 
accept it or to shut the Government down. If anybody remembers, I stood 
on the floor of the Senate and apologized for having the Senate put in 
this position.
  As a result, we put forth our own bill, an original appropriations 
omnibus bill that is now before the Senate, because we were not going 
to be put into that situation of being handed a document of 
controversial issues and told, ``Take it or shut the Government down.'' 
And that is where we were.
  The Senate has a right to have its views expressed, to have its views 
debated, to have its views understood and negotiated with the House. 
This is not a compromise. This is a unilateral demand of the House to 
take it or shut the Government down, and we had no option. I want to 
make that point clear.
  The bill included a provision restricting the expenditure of funds 
for the International Family Planning Program. These funds for 
international voluntary family planning were cut by 35 percent from 
1995 fiscal year levels. However, interestingly, listen to this, two 
further restrictions were added which ensured that no funds may be 
allocated, unless authorized, until July 1, 1996, and thereafter funds 
may only be allocated each month in amounts no larger than 6.67 percent 
of the total.
  This will effectively lead to an 85-percent cut in funding for fiscal 
year 1996 because the authorizing committee failed to act on this 
matter and has yet to act on this matter, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  They had a chance in a recent conference on the foreign aid 
reauthorization bill to act, and they did not act.
  I want to say clearly that I am pro-life to the extent that I do not 
necessarily have to have exceptions for rape and incest, because I 
believe that life begins at the point of implantation, not at 
conception. Over 50 percent of the eggs abort naturally at conception 
before they are implanted, and you have 10 days to 2 weeks to take care 
of that situation, even in rape and incest.
  So I speak as a pro-life Senator. I have voted pro-life for more 
years and more often probably than 90 percent of the other Members of 
this Senate, because I have been here now almost 30 years.
  I am pro-life as it relates to capital punishment, too, and I am pro-
life as it relates to war as well. But nevertheless, I am unabashedly 
pro-life, and I come from a State that is the most pro-choice State in 
the Union, by all surveys. In fact, it is so pro-choice that we had, 
through an initiative, an assisted-suicide proposal that passed in a 
vote of the people. So if we did not get them zapped in the womb, we 
can zap them at the other end of the lifespan.
  But nevertheless, that is the character of my State. We have the 
lowest church membership per capita of any State in the Union. We have 
the highest percentage of atheists per capita of any State in the 
Union, according to the New York University religious survey.
  I am just stating the political environment from which I come. You, 
obviously, can understand this is carried into my political elections 
as a handicap. I stand unashamedly as a pro-life Senator.
  But let me say this. There are ways to reduce abortion and the demand 
for abortion, and that is contraception. ``Family planning'' is perhaps 
a more subtle way to express it. I think anybody who has had biology 
101 understands why. So I will not go into the details of how this 
reduces the demand for abortion. It is pretty obvious.
  Therefore, it seems to me when we make available family planning 
devices and contraception abroad in those countries that do not have 
access and that are experiencing the continued population explosions 
that are going to impact not just their country but the whole world, we 
have an opportunity to deal with a cause rather than just the effect. I 
think after the period of time that this bill has been bouncing around, 
we even have more ramifications and we have more evidence of why this 
position is a valid position.
  A very recent methodological summary, put together by a coalition of 
groups, including the Alan Guttmacher Institute, estimates that this 
restriction on funding will lead to 1.9 million unplanned births and 
1.6 million more abortions. These figures have been attacked by groups 
such as the Population Research Institute, an arm of the pro-life Human 
Life International, which claims that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is 
funded by Planned Parenthood and, thus, cannot be trusted to give 
accurate numbers, though it ironically cites the Guttmacher statistics 
to support its own assertions.
  Now, you cannot have it both ways. If you say this is not a credible 
institute in making the studies on one hand, you cannot turn around and 
cite their statistics to prove your case on

[[Page S2046]]

another question that relates to abortion. That is precisely what the 
PRI has done.
  But listen to this. The PRI's, Population Research Institute, a pro-
life organization, most recent study states that the actual number of 
unplanned births resulting from a 35-percent cut in funding will be 
500,000, and they further estimate that there will be 450,000 more 
abortions as a result of the cuts.
  Now, is that not interesting? If you take the Guttmacher estimate, it 
is a higher level. But even the PRI studies show, yes, it will not be 
500,000, or as Guttmacher says it will not be a million, but it will be 
450,000.
  PRI goes on to argue that they believe other countries will donate 
more funds to make up for the lack of United States contributions.
  In effect, they are saying, we, in a way, are going to answer this 
problem in the United States by asking other countries to increase 
their contributions. However, using PRI's own numbers, this would 
result in 129,000 more abortions, hardly negligible, as PRI claims, 
129,000 more abortions. In my view, whether the number is 1.6 million, 
450,000 or 129,000 makes little difference. Even one more abortion is 
one too many.
  That is why I cannot understand why my colleagues who say they are 
pro-life would object to the provision that I have included in this 
committee substitute.
  This provision states the following:

       Sec. 3001. The President may make available funds for 
     population planning activities or other population assistance 
     pursuant to programs under title II and title IV of the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, . . . notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 518A of such Act, if he determines and reports to the 
     Congress that the effects of those restrictions would be that 
     the demand for family planning services would be less likely 
     to be met and that there would be a significant increase in 
     abortions than would otherwise be the case in the absence of 
     such restrictions.

  Bear in mind, we have not put language in here that automatically 
makes that money available to family planning. The President has to 
certify that there is a relationship between the absence of that money 
or the great reduction of that money and as a result more abortions.
  So for those, again, who are concerned that perhaps we are just 
giving the President more money to spend, there is that restriction in 
this provision. Let me repeat, funds would be made available only if 
the President certifies there would be a significant increase in 
abortions as a result of these restrictions.
  Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone who claims to be pro-life and 
opposed to abortion would support a funding restriction that may lead 
to increases in abortions. If the President makes a certification that 
the action taken by Congress will lead to an increase in abortions, I 
would expect every Member in Congress who takes a pro-life stand to act 
to reverse this horrible result. To oppose the committee position makes 
no sense to me at all.
  We can argue the merits of family planning until we are blue in the 
face. I believe the evidence proves that international voluntary family 
planning programs have contributed to reducing unplanned pregnancies 
and abortions worldwide. I can give you some recent examples of where 
international voluntary family planning has made a difference 
specifically. In Hungary, where voluntary family planning services were 
introduced 8 years ago, the abortion rate has dropped by 60 percent and 
continues to fall. Although programs in the Newly Independent States 
and in Russia, where the average woman--listen to this--the average 
woman has between four and eight abortions during her lifetime, are too 
new to make reliable calculations, similar success is expected, or was 
before the funding cuts.
  Mr. President, I stated in this Chamber on February 6:

       The family planning language included previously in H.R. 
     2880 is not prolife, it is not prowoman, it is not prochild, 
     it is not prohealth, and it is not profamily planning. It 
     inflicts the harm of a profound misconception on the very 
     poor families overseas who only ask for help in spacing their 
     children through contraception, not abortion.

  The statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute prove this, 
and those from the Population Research Institute fail to refute it. 
Therefore, I implore my colleagues, especially those who take a pro-
life position, to carefully examine the language I have introduced in 
this bill. If you are opposed to abortion or in favor of family 
planning, you should vote to oppose the McConnell motion to strike.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, we have visited and revisited this 
issue many times. We struggled with the House of Representatives over 
this issue for 3 frustrating, unproductive months, and we could not 
resolve it. We finally agreed to let the matter be resolved in the 
authorizing legislation. Why then, as some of my colleagues are asking, 
would Senator Hatfield choose to reopen the debate in the current 
legislation? I suggest, Mr. President, for two very important reasons:
  First of all, the authorizers punted. They did not address the issue 
in the authorizing language. Thus, we are left with an authorizing bill 
that was reported out of conference which does not address this issue. 
This part of the compromise, which we added to the last CR, was not 
fulfilled.
  Second, the language that Senator Hatfield has added to the current 
continuing resolution is sound policy. As he has just so eloquently 
stated, the simple, honest truth is that maintaining effective family 
planning programs is the best hope we have of limiting abortions. It is 
an elementary equation, I believe, that contraception does reduce 
abortions.
  Mr. President, arguments to the contrary are just misinformed. We 
cannot prevent abortions worldwide by preventing women from having 
access to the very information and services that enable them to prevent 
unplanned pregnancies.
  I applaud my friend from Oregon for his thoughtfulness on this issue. 
Senator Hatfield is not an advocate of abortion rights, and yet he 
authored the provision in the omnibus budget bill that Senator 
McConnell is trying to strike out.
  Why would a Senator who does not support abortion take the lead on 
restoring funding for international population assistance programs? It 
is because Senator Hatfield judiciously realizes the most effective way 
we can use our budget dollars is to prevent abortions and to promote 
effective, safe, and comprehensive pregnancy-prevention services.
  Senator Hatfield's provision restores funding for population-
assistance programs if the President determines that cutting this 
funding would increase the number of abortions being performed. If you 
are against abortions, it seems to me, Mr. President, you must be for 
Senator Hatfield's language.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
President, for her very astute and calmly stated remarks on a very, 
very tough issue. I appreciate her contribution.
  Mr. President, this is a unanimous-consent agreement that is cleared 
on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour for debate 
on the pending McConnell amendment, to be equally divided in the usual 
way, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the McConnell amendment, 
and that no amendment be in order to the McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank the Senator 
from Oregon for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President, yet again, the Senate is debating funding and 
restrictions on the international family planning account. In many ways 
it is a debate I cannot understand, for the supporters of this 
amendment are only ensuring

[[Page S2047]]

that the incidence of abortion worldwide will increase, and that is a 
trend that would disappoint and trouble every single Member of this 
body. Mr. President, I rise to oppose strongly this amendment, that is, 
the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, and to support Senator 
Hatfield's very reasonable and practical provision on population in the 
omnibus appropriations bill.
  My colleagues are all familiar with the difficult disagreements that 
have ensued this year over the U.S. population program. For months now, 
the Senate and House have lobbed amendments back and forth concerning 
what restrictions should be placed on family planning assistance in our 
foreign aid program. Unfortunately, as I have always argued, the debate 
in Congress has almost always been perilously miscast, as it is miscast 
again today. This is not, as some have portrayed it, a debate about a 
woman's right to abortion. The law has been on the books, Mr. 
President, since 1973, unchallenged, that U.S. assistance cannot be 
used to finance abortions.
  That is the law. That is the way it has been for 23 years. The 
problem we are addressing here is access to family planning services. 
The only connection this has to abortion is that more widespread 
voluntary family planning will reduce the number of abortions 
worldwide. That is a goal that everybody, I think, without question, 
shares.
  The genius of the Hatfield provision is that it spells this out 
clearly and precisely. It says that if the President cannot determine 
that our population program does not reduce the incidence of abortion, 
then the restrictions laid out in the continuing resolution passed in 
January will go into effect.
  Mr. President, there is an ironic and dangerous twist to this debate. 
The opponents of the Hatfield language seem to be caught up in a 
shortsighted goal to advance what is both an isolationist and 
antiabortion agenda. This is based on the somewhat perverse assumption 
and wrong assumption that population assistance increases the incidence 
of abortion.
  Mr. President, we will take a look at how wrong that reasoning is. 
Over 100 million women worldwide, and who knows how many couples, do 
not use family planning because they do not have access to basic health 
care. One out of five of the women will undergo unsafe abortions. 
Statistics indicate that some will die. Some will be disabled. Some 
will never be able to bear children again. Some may deliver babies that 
have no chance of leading a healthy life.
  The U.S. population program educates women and couples about family 
planning and increases access to contraception and basic health care. 
Mr. President, it saves women's lives. It is a life saver. Why would we 
want to cut that account by 85 percent or deeper than any other foreign 
aid account as currently written in January's continuing resolution?
  For example, Mr. President, in Africa, 1 out of every 21 women die as 
a result of complications of pregnancy. That is roughly 200 times the 
rate for European women. Mr. President, African women deserve the right 
to family planning. Their lives depend on it. Their nation's 
development depends on it. The countries of the former Soviet Union, 
including Russia, where women have no sustained access to family 
planning and virtually no access to any quality contraception, the 
average woman undergoes nine abortions in her lifetime. An average of 
nine abortions in those places where people do not have access to 
family planning.
  Our population programs in Russia and throughout Africa are designed 
to reduce the rate of abortion. There is no rational justification to 
cut these programs.
  Mr. President, it is a well-documented fact that when couples have 
access to family planning, the incidence of abortion goes down. That is 
the whole confusion in this debate. If you want to increase abortion, 
support the McConnell amendment and the language of a January 
continuing resolution; if you want to really and truly reduce the 
incidence of abortion, as I do, and if you oppose abortion outright as 
Senator Hatfield does, then the population program is one of the most 
important foreign aid accounts we have. Family planning simply stated 
is an important part of the solution to abortion.
  If this is not true, then the President cannot report it. Under the 
Hatfield language, the population program would be reduced. I think 
this is really a very good compromise, for if population programs do 
not reduce the incidence of abortions, then I agree, we should 
reexamine them.
  Mr. President, fact, statistics, logic and United States national 
interest dictate that the population program is an essential 
cornerstone of our goal of global development. I urge the defeat of the 
McConnell amendment. I sincerely thank the Senator from Oregon not only 
for his courage but also for his wisdom in crafting the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation on 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate is limited to one hour, 30 minutes each 
side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator from Oregon yield me 4 or 5 minutes?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the foreign operations conference report, 
which was signed into law on February 12, categorically prohibits the 
use of any funds for abortion. It also prohibits the use of any funds 
in China.
  But that legislation contains a provision that was inserted by the 
House at the behest of the right-to-life lobby, which will cut funding 
for voluntary, international family programs by one-third.
  Those family planning programs have one purpose--to give couples in 
developing countries the means to avoid unwanted pregnancies and reduce 
the number of abortions. The funds are used to purchase and distribute 
contraceptives, to improve the quality and safety of contraceptives, to 
educate couples about spacing the births of their children, and 
maternal and child health.
  Why anyone would be against that is a mystery to me, but that is what 
the House did. And because they recessed immediately afterward, the 
Senate had no opportunity to amend it. We were presented with the 
choice of closing down the Government again, or accepting the House 
provision word for word.
  Anyone who wants to see fewer abortions, and fewer women die from 
botched abortions, should deplore what the House did, and support the 
Hatfield language in this bill.
  The House provision would prohibit the obligation of any family 
planning funds before July 1 unless they are specifically authorized.
  The whole purpose of that provision was to give an incentive to the 
authorizing committees to resolve the Mexico City issue. We were told 
that was what they wanted--an opportunity to resolve it themselves.
  But the authorization conferees hardly discussed the issue. In fact, 
they specifically decided not to authorize these programs. In one of 
the more hypocritical maneuvers I have seen in a long time, the House 
authorizers revealed that their real agenda is to destroy the 
international family planning program.
  Without an authorization, the House provision says that only 65 
percent of the fiscal year 1995 level for family planning may be 
obligated, and then only at the rate of 6.7 percent per month.
  What will be the effect of the House provision? According to 
conservative estimates: 7 million couples in developing countries who 
have used modern contraceptives, will be left without access to them; 
there will be 4 million more unintended pregnancies; 1.9 million more 
unplanned births; 1.6 million more abortions; 8,000 more women dying in 
pregnancy; and 134,000 more infant deaths.
  Mr. President, that would be unforgivable, particularly since it is 
entirely avoidable.
  The United States has been the world's leader in the effort to 
stabilize population growth. Tens of millions of people are born into 
terrible poverty each year. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that if 
we make it harder for people to avoid pregnancy, the result will be 
more abortions, not less.
  The Hatfield language ensures that that will not happen. It would 
prevent the House provision from going into affect if the President 
determines that it would result in significantly more abortions.
  Every Senator, whether pro-life or pro-choice, should support the 
Hatfield

[[Page S2048]]

language, and oppose this amendment. I want to commend Senator Hatfield 
for his leadership on this, and for his determination to correct this 
problem. He is solidly pro-life, but he is also a stalwart supporter of 
family planning because he knows what family planning is the way to 
reduce abortions.
  That is what we all want, and why all Senators should vote to keep 
the Hatfield language in the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a two newspaper 
editorials which are representative of dozens of similar editorials 
from around the country expressing strong support for Senator 
Hatfield's position, be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1996]

                         Family Planning Fiasco

       The continuing resolution that brought government workers 
     back to the job last January is due to expire at the end of 
     the week. One of the matters that must be settled before that 
     can be done is the future of American assistance to family 
     planning efforts abroad. This has nothing to do with 
     abortion, since no U.S. funds can be spent outside the United 
     States for that purpose. Rather, what is at stake is this 
     country's extremely valuable and long-supported work in the 
     developing world to provide couples with information and 
     materials needed to plan the spacing and total numbers of 
     their children.
       In January, one regular appropriations bill was attached to 
     the continuing resolution by the House. It cut international 
     family planning money 35 percent below 1995 levels, and it 
     put two additional restrictions on these expenditures: 
     Nothing can be spent before July 1, and thereafter the funds 
     would be doled out at the rate of 6.7 percent a month until 
     the new fiscal year begins on October 1. This amounts to an 
     effective cut of 85 percent in a single year, which is a 
     terrible idea. Sen. Mark Hatfield, chairman of the 
     Appropriations Committee, has put a saving clause in the 
     pending bill that would allow the president to spend 
     appropriated funds without these two restrictions if he can 
     demonstrate that they will have the effect of reducing demand 
     for family planning services and lead to a significant 
     increase in abortions. That won't be hard to do. An effort 
     will be made, probably today, to strike the Hatfield language 
     and retain the restrictions.
       The united States contributes about 17 percent of all 
     public funds spent on family planning in the developing world 
     outside China, which does not receive this kind of aid. 
     Various organizations have made estimates on what would 
     follow a cut of 85 percent--how many unplanned children would 
     be born, how many women would die in childbirth or having 
     abortions, for instance. Predictably, these figures have been 
     challenged by others who believe that the poorest people in 
     the world will simply buy their own contraceptives or remain 
     abstinent. But the exact numbers don't matter, for the damage 
     will be severe. American foreign aid has been instrumental in 
     the developing world's increasing family planning success. 
     This, in turn, has spurred economic progress and brought 
     about tremendous improvement in the health and welfare of 
     women and children in recipient countries. Legislators more 
     interested in pleasing an extreme slice of the American 
     electorate than in saving lives and reaching out to the poor 
     of the world should not be allowed to succeed.
                                                                    ____


            [From the Portland, Press Herald, Mar. 12, 1996]

             Senate Should Protect Needed International Aid

       The abandoned baby girls pictured here testify eloquently 
     to the need for U.S. support of voluntary international 
     family planning programs.
       A key vote on that support is expected in the Senate today.
       The babies shown here, abandoned in India, are far from 
     alone. World population expands by nearly 100 million people 
     a year. Ninety percent are born in developing countries. 
     Countless are desperately poor and unwanted.
       Family planning programs, long supported by U.S. aid, 
     provide assistance that can break the desperate cycle. They 
     give families the power to plan. They do not provide 
     abortions. U.S. law has forbidden use of foreign aid funds 
     for abortion for two decades.
       Even so, opponents continue to attack the funding on that 
     basis. That's why the Hatfield Amendment coming before the 
     Senate is so important. It would enable the president to 
     override restrictions, now in place on family planning aid if 
     he can report to Congress that they unwisely ``will result in 
     significantly more abortions, as well as a greater unmet need 
     for family planning services.''
       That is an amendment in the best interest of everyone 
     involved.
       The Senate should approve it.
  Mr. LEAHY. On behalf of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], I 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine, [Ms. Snowe].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
yielding me this time to speak on this very important issue.
  I regret that the Senate is in a position to address this issue once 
again because the Senate has spoken on many occasions in support of 
international family planning. So I think it is unfortunate that we are 
here today to have to fight an amendment that, basically, would 
decimate family planning support by the U.S. Government on behalf of 
international family planning programs around the country.
  I think everybody knows that the United States has traditionally been 
a leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the 
case ever since this issue rose to international prominence with the 
1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a number of 
Third World developing countries perceived family planning as a Western 
effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World countries.
  It is a sad irony that we are here today because the U.S. Government 
became a leader on this issue to influence the Third World countries, 
to insert themselves into the developing family planning programs. They 
have done that. We have been a traditional leader in international 
family planning and have had unrivaled influence worldwide for setting 
standards for these programs. An estimated 50 million families around 
the globe use family planning as a direct result of U.S. leadership and 
population assistance programs. Now we are confronted with the idea of 
basically eliminating any U.S. support for U.S. international family 
planning programs.
  The passage of the continuing resolution back in January came at a 
terrible price to these programs. After the date of July 1, funding may 
be provided at 65 percent of the 1995 level, appropriated on a monthly 
basis at 6.5 percent for 15 months.
  As a result, U.S. population assistance expenditures could drop from 
$547 million last year to only $72 million during 1996. This means a 
loss of revenue to the program of $475 million, or a cut of 85 percent 
in funding for 1996.
  Senator Hatfield, who has been a champion in fighting for 
international family planning assistance programs throughout his 
career, included language in the omnibus appropriations bill that would 
restore the funding. The Hatfield provision would nullify the funding 
cuts in the continuing resolution. If not, this will lead to a 
significant increase in abortion. Senator McConnell is offering an 
amendment that would basically strike the Hatfield language and 
preserve the cuts contained in the continuing resolution. This will 
have a devastating impact on women, children, and families all over the 
globe, particularly in the developing countries. The Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, and other respected research institutions, predict that as a 
result of these cuts, at a minimum, 7 million couples in developing 
countries who would have used modern contraceptives will be left 
without access to family planning. Four million more women will 
experience unintended pregnancies.
  We can expect 1.9 million more unplanned births; 1.6 million more 
abortions and countless miscarriages; 8,000 more women dying in 
pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions; and 
134,000 infant deaths.

  So let us make very clear what the impact of the McConnell amendment 
will be. It will result in more abortions, more women dying, and more 
children dying. It appears to be incongruous-- in fact, it is 
inconceivable--that opponents of abortions would support cuts to family 
planning which would result, undoubtedly, in many more abortions, 
particularly because current law prohibits the use of any U.S. 
population assistance funds for abortion-related activities.
  So this debate should not be about the fact that population 
assistance programs support abortion. They do not. In fact, they reduce 
the incidence of abortions worldwide. So the issue is not about 
encouraging abortion. It is about preventing unwanted pregnancies and 
preventing abortions, and because of the continuing resolution, 
organizations that provide family planning services with American funds 
are already determining which of their programs will have to be cut or 
eliminated. A local affiliate of International

[[Page S2049]]

Planned Parenthood in Brazil estimates that 250,000 couples who rely on 
its services will lose access to family planning and related health 
care. In Peru, a country that is among the poorest in Latin America and 
where 90 percent of women surveyed say they want to prevent or delay 
another pregnancy, more than 200,000 couples will lose services.
  Families in these extremely poor countries cannot afford to lose this 
vital U.S. family planning assistance. But this will become a certainty 
should the Senate pass the McConnell amendment.
  Mr. President, the United States has been a model nation on 
international family planning programs, and other countries look to our 
leadership and to our example. The implications of these reductions in 
U.S. aid contained in the continuing resolution are far broader than 
one might think. If other countries follow our lead, the impact will be 
devastating to the health of women and families of developing nations. 
Ironically, last Friday, March 8, was International Women's Day. Is 
this the gift that Congress will bequeath to the women around the world 
in honor of International Women's Day? Greater poverty? Increased 
maternal death? More abortions? Increased infant death?
  I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment because 
hanging in the balance are lives around the world. I hope we will not 
want to set this kind of example for other countries with respect to 
this very critical program if we are going to do everything that we can 
to reduce the explosion in population growth in other countries, and 
particularly in the developing world. The increase in population alone 
worldwide was 100 million, the greatest increase ever, and that is not 
the direction we want to take. In fact, the United States ought to take 
the leadership and reject the McConnell amendment and support Senator 
Hatfield's provision.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. President, again, I join with my colleagues in encouraging 
colleagues to vote for the Hatfield provision.
  In the final days of January, in an effort to avert a third 
Government shutdown, this body passed by unanimous consent a continuing 
resolution which included a provision that will decimate international 
family planning programs. After studying this provision more closely, 
we now know that the effects will be far greater than was known at the 
time the Senate acted on the bill.
  We are currently in the sixth month of the fiscal year. 
Unfortunately, we are living under an extraordinary reduction in family 
planning funding. In fact, it has received no funding from any 
continuing resolution since October 1, 1995. As we know, the January 
continuing resolution prohibits any funding for family planning until 
July 1. Beginning in July, the program will be funded at a level 
reduced 35 percent from the 1995 funding level, to be allocated on a 
month-by-month basis for the next 15 months. So, in effect, you really 
have a reduction that is catastrophic.
  Mr. President, in dollar figures, the family planning program has 
been cut from $527 million in 1995 to $72 million in 1996, which is an 
85-percent cut in 1 year. One can only conclude that that cut is not 
just a cut to try to reduce overall spending commensurate with the 
other reductions in the budget; it is punitive, purposeful, and it is 
wrong. Fortunately, in the continuing resolution before us today--the 
10th continuing resolution and I certainly hope the last funding bill 
we are going to debate in 1996--we have the opportunity to reverse 
those cuts and restore critical funding for these vital family planning 
programs.
  I congratulate Senator Hatfield for his efforts to try to do this and 
express my very firm support and conviction that the international 
family planning programs are in our best interest and do not have to do 
with abortion. To the degree that any arguments about abortion enter 
into this debate, it is a preventive measure. I think everybody has 
spoken to the fact that this planning money will reduce abortions and 
avoid a catastrophic situation which will only result in a great deal 
more abortions than we would want.
  Funding for these programs is an investment that will save the lives 
of thousands of women and prevent millions of unplanned births and 
abortions in the future. These programs ensure that mothers all over 
the world are going to give birth to, more often than not, healthy 
babies, and that the competition for resources in our world is not even 
more severe for those babies who are born into it because of continued 
significant overpopulation problems.
  I joined Senator Simpson in representing the United States at the 
1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, 
where the United States went to great lengths to play a leadership role 
in galvanizing the international community to action on this issue. The 
conference called for a global effort, which we signed onto, which we 
helped lead, and which the Vatican signed onto, to help address the 
overpopulation and to work together to promote maternal and child 
health care, as well as educational opportunities for women and for 
girls, and, most importantly, family planning programs. After pledging 
to provide world leadership in the area of international family 
planning, we should not now abandon our global partners at this 
juncture.
  Mr. President, I again want to just emphasis what I think we must 
understand and underscore in this debate. Family planning does not mean 
abortion. In fact, family planning has been proven to rule out the 
incidence of abortion through education and contraception. Family 
planning programs help women and families living in impoverished 
countries to begin childbearing at a later stage of life, to space 
their children apart, and to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The issue of 
helping families to better plan for children is in the interest of 
everybody on this planet.
  In addition, Federal law, now in effect, prohibits the United States 
from funding any abortions abroad. The U.S. Agency for International 
Development has widely and strictly abided by that law. Those who argue 
that international family planning programs fund abortions are simply 
wrong, and they argue in contravention of the law of the United States.
  Mr. President, by denying people access to the family planning 
programs worldwide and by slashing their funding, there will be an 
estimated 4 million more unintended pregnancies, close to 1 million 
infant deaths, tens of thousands of deaths among women--and I 
emphasize, for those who oppose permitting women to choose abortion as 
an alternative--that the result of cutting this money will create 1.6 
million more abortions. I think none of us want to encourage that 
abortion.
  So, Mr. President, I simply say that these programs provide 17 
million families worldwide with the opportunity to responsibly plan 
their families, to responsibly space their children, to provide a 
better life for those children, to provide for healthy children, and to 
avoid adding to a population problem that hurts all of us and hurts the 
unborn generation even more severely.
  I hope my colleagues will vote against the McConnell amendment which 
is counter to all of our interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I strongly oppose the pending amendment. I believe 
Senator Hatfield and the Appropriations Committee have recommended a 
very prudent policy with respect to international family planning 
assistance. To strike the language as they have proposed--as the 
pending amendment would do--I think would be a very serious mistake.
  On Thursday of last week, I spoke in this Chamber about the severe 
restrictions the current continuing resolution places on U.S. funding 
for international family planning. If these restrictions remain in 
place, I too, fear that abortions will come to be regarded as the only 
form of birth control in many desperately poor developing nations.

[[Page S2050]]

  I know some of my colleagues would prefer that we not raise such an 
unpleasant prospect, but this is exactly what will occur. As family 
planning services become less accessible, more unwanted pregnancies and 
more abortions will be the inevitable result.
  The language in the bill before us simply stipulates that the 
restrictions on family planning assistance will be lifted if it is 
determined that they will result in a significant increase in abortions 
and a greater unmet need for family planning services. It surely seems 
to me that those who are eternally concerned about the practice of 
abortion--and we all should be--would be eager to embrace this or any 
other policy that helps to reduce the number of abortions that are 
actually performed.
  That is where we are. It is an extraordinary thing through the years 
for me--and, yes, I am pro-choice on abortion, and, yes, I believe that 
men should not even vote on the issue. That is my view. I have held it 
for many a year. And I respect those on other side of the issue. It is 
a deeply personal issue in every sense--an intimate personal issue, and 
not one of us will ever change our opinion.
  If you can reflect on why we are not getting things done in the 
appropriations area, you might reflect that four appropriations bills 
have been stalled continually on the issue of abortion. Let us just 
vote up or down somewhere along the line about once a year on abortion, 
and then move on instead of hanging on, tacking it on, driving us all 
to an emotional and tattered edge continually. That is what we do with 
the issue, and we are all good at it.

  The population of the Earth has doubled since 1940--since the 
beginning of mankind to 1940. Since 1940 until 1996, the population of 
the Earth has doubled. If anybody can believe and tell me how it 
doubles again in the year 2067, how the resources of the Earth can 
sustain human beings who will be starving, who will be out of water, 
food, clothing, timber, just because of how many footprints will fit on 
the Earth, and then what legacy have we left but poverty and starvation 
and all the rest--which to me is really a remarkably bizarre result. 
That is where we are.
  So, I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hatfield and all of those who 
admire him in all things that he does to try to bring reason and 
responsibility to all of our debates and good common sense.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. President, before he is recognized, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of State 
representing the administration's viewpoint on this particular issue.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the 
     Administration's strong and unqualified support for your 
     efforts to remedy the severe limitations imposed on U.S. 
     international family planning programs in the FY 1996 Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations legislation.
       As you know, the final agreement reached in Congress on the 
     FY 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill delays 
     population funding until July 1, 1996, and then requires that 
     these funds be disbursed over a 15-month period, at a rate of 
     6.7 percent per month. The net effect of these restrictions 
     would be to reduce U.S. funding for international family 
     planning programs to approximately $75 million in FY'96, from 
     an appropriated level of $525 million in FY'95.
       This kind of massive reduction in U.S. funding will have a 
     major deleterious impact on women and families all over the 
     world. Family planning services help to prevent unintended 
     pregnancies and abortion, reduce maternal and infant 
     mortality and encourage overall family health. Experts inside 
     and outside the government are in agreement that the 
     congressionally imposed constraints will prevent access to 
     family planning for almost 7 million couples. As a result, 
     more than four million women will experience unplanned 
     pregnancies--leading to as many as 1.6 million more 
     abortions.
       For the past 25 years, the United States has been the 
     world's leader in encouraging the provision of voluntary 
     family planning services around the world. Our efforts have 
     helped to reduce rapid population growth rates to the benefit 
     of our international economic and security interests, as well 
     as those of the countries and families with whom we have 
     worked.
       The Administration wants to work with you and your 
     colleagues in the Congress to encourage global health and 
     reduce recourse to abortion. We believe that your amendment 
     will do both and we enthusiastically support its adoption.
           Sincerely,

                                             Wendy R. Sherman,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon.
  Mr. President, I oppose efforts to undermine the provision Senator 
Hatfield included in this bill, which is intended to reduce the need 
for abortion.
  In the continuing resolution approved by the Congress in January, 
funding for voluntary international family planning programs was capped 
at 65 percent of the level provided in fiscal year 1995. This 
represented a steep reduction below the President's budget request for 
international family planning programs in fiscal year 1996. Even more, 
the continuing resolution prevented the Agency for International 
Development from spending any of those funds until July 1, 1996.
  These draconian cuts and restrictions will hamstring the voluntary 
population program, result in an increase in abortions, and undermine 
the United States development efforts in the long run.
  Unfortunately, the Senate was not given much opportunity to debate 
this or any other provision in the last continuing resolution, which 
was required immediately to keep the Government functioning. The House 
of Representatives sent us the bill at the 11th hour and then adjourned 
for a long recess. Because the House of Representatives was no longer 
in session, the Senate effectively had no choice but to accept this 
provision along with the rest of the provisions included in the 
continuing resolution. To do otherwise would have resulted in a 
Government shutdown.
  Though advocated by opponents of abortion, the irony is that the 
funding restriction in current law will result in more--not fewer--
abortions. On the other hand, the provision Senator Hatfield included 
in this bill is intended to reduce the need for abortion by freeing up 
funds for voluntary international family planning programs. Let me 
repeat that statement. The provision in the bill before us is intended 
to reduce the need for abortion. For this reason, I do not understand 
why Members of the Senate who oppose abortion are seeking to delete it.
  Ask yourselves, ``What is the net effect of reduced funding for 
voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs?'' Less 
money? But what does that actually mean? Does it mean programs will be 
available to help educate women in developing countries about how to 
avoid unwanted pregnancies? Absolutely not. Does it mean fewer 
abortions? Clearly not.
  The funding restriction on voluntary family planning programs in 
current law will, I believe, inevitably result in more abortions. It is 
estimated that approximately 50 million couples worldwide benefit from 
U.S. funded family planning services.
  But because of the draconian reductions included in the last 
continuing resolution, estimating conservatively, approximately 7 
million of these couples will no longer have access to the very 
services that enable them to plan the timing and size of their 
families. Millions of families in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and 
Caribbean will no longer have access to information so vital to making 
family planning decisions.
  Blocking access to this information in developing countries can only 
have one result: an increase in unintended pregnancies. And that can 
only lead to an increase in abortion.
  These cuts are clearly at odds with America's long-term development 
interests. Without the funds to train personnel in population control 
or educate families in the poorest countries, there is no doubt that 
population sizes will increase. Unchecked population growth perpetuates 
hunger, disease, and poverty. It undermines opportunities for economic 
growth and political stability in developing countries. It also has

[[Page S2051]]

a lasting and harmful effect on our ability to protect the global 
environment.
  And who are those most affected by these cuts in voluntary family 
planning programs? Mostly, it's poor women and their children in 
developing countries. Poor women who seek to chart a better future by 
planning the number of children they will bear. Women who seek to 
elevate themselves politically and economically and pursue greater 
opportunities for their children.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Hatfield for rectifying this wrong 
in the bill that is before us. The provision he has included in the 
bill will enable the President to restore voluntary international 
family planning funding if he certifies that funding restrictions will 
result in an increase in abortions. I wholeheartedly endorse his remedy 
and urge my colleagues to fully support it as well. It gives the 
President a necessary tool to use to head off the devastating effects 
funding cuts on family planning services will certainly engender.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
McConnell amendment. This amendment would continue the assault on our 
International Family Planning Assistance Program, and leave millions of 
families worldwide without these vital services.
  In January, in hopes of averting another Government shutdown, the 
Senate attached the foreign operations appropriations bill to the 
continuing resolution. As a member of this subcommittee, I was happy to 
see these programs receive much needed funding. Unfortunately, the 
continuing resolution contained a provision that drastically cut 
funding for our international family planning programs.
  Essentially, this language said that none of the appropriated funds 
can be spent until July 1. After that, money can only be spent on a 
month-to-month basis at a rate of 6.7 percent a month until the new 
fiscal year begins on October 1. The result of this is that funding for 
U.S. population assistance will be reduced by about 85 percent from 
last year's level. This is a disastrous situation that will severely 
hamper this program.
  Mr. President, shortly after the last continuing resolution passed, 
Senator Hatfield vowed to fix this problem. I want to commend him for 
his leadership and action on this issue. Senator Hatfield's solution 
states: ``If the restrictions in current law will result in 
significantly more abortions as well as a greater unmet need for family 
planning services, the restrictions will be nullified.'' I think this 
is a responsible and direct approach.
  Without the Hatfield language, millions of couples will lose access 
to these valuable services. There will be a higher incidence of 
unplanned pregnancies, an increase in infant deaths, and more women 
dying from unsafe conditions.
  Ironically, by denying support to international family planning 
assistance, a vote for the McConnell amendment may well have the 
unintended effect of increasing the incidence of abortion.
  Mr. President, the United States has been a leader in international 
population assistance since 1965. During that time, we have made 
significant progress in increasing access to health care, improving 
women's health worldwide, and providing family planning services. But 
this progress will stop if we don't fund the programs.
  This last year, the Senate continually showed its support for 
international family planning and its funding. Now we have an 
opportunity to rectify a very troubling situation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment 
and support the Hatfield language.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to 
speak in favor of the provision in this appropriations measure 
regarding international population assistance. The amendment before us 
would strike this provision, a move I believe would be unwise.
  The international family planning program was cut 35 percent in the 
Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign Operations Act from fiscal year 1995 levels. 
In addition, two restrictions were added, the effects of which will 
lead to an 85-percent cut to the program. The net effect of this cut is 
a budget which will go from $547 million in 1996 to $72 million.
  Senator Hatfield added a provision to this bill which states that if 
the President determines that the restrictions in current law result in 
more abortions and a greater need for family planning services which is 
not met, the funding restrictions will be lifted. This seems to me, Mr. 
President, to be a reasonable approach. I am sure that those who are 
opposed to abortion do not want to support a policy which increases 
abortions.
  I must say, Mr. President, I am always perplexed by those who oppose 
family planning and also oppose abortion. Study after study has shown 
that lack of family planning leads to more unintended pregnancies which 
leads to more abortions. Consider two countries: Russia has very little 
contraception available, and abortion is the primary method of birth 
control. The average Russian woman has at least four abortions in her 
lifetime. Alternatively, Hungary has made family planning services more 
widely available and the abortion rate has dropped dramatically.
  Mr. President, the United States plays a critical role in providing 
family planning services abroad. It has been certified over and over 
again that none of the funds are used to pay for abortions, as required 
by law. I feel strongly that we should continue our leadership role in 
this area. I urge my colleagues to defeat the McConnell amendment and 
support the Hatfield language in the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Kentucky asserted, 
section 3001 of the pending bill is unacceptable to the House. And 
unless that section is dropped, it will surely lead to another Federal 
shutdown. Simply put, section 3001 is another enormous additional gift 
of the American taxpayers' dollars to various pro-abortion 
organizations, and the House will never agree to it.
  Because of this issue, the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations 
appropriations bill bounced back and forth between the House and Senate 
for several months until a compromise was worked out on the previous 
continuing resolution. And unless section 3001 is changed, Congress 
will be in precisely the same predicament as before; section 3001, as 
currently drawn, will grind the Federal Government to a halt, and the 
blame will perch squarely on the shoulders of section 3001's supporters 
in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I am bewildered at suggestions that section 3001 of 
the pending bill is somehow pro-life. The author of section 3001, 
Chairman Hatfield, stated on the Senate floor this past month, and 
repeated in Saturday's Washington Post that ``For those of us who take 
a pro-life position, this is the most effective way to reiterate our 
profound opposition to the practice of abortion.'' Mr. President, I 
have constantly sought to protect the lives of unborn children 
throughout my 24 years in the Senate. I respectfully disagree with my 
good friend, Senator Hatfield's statement--I find it difficult to 
understand his conclusion that section 3001 is even remotely a pro-life 
position.
  After all, the loudest proponents of Senator Hatfield's so-called 
pro-life language are the leaders of the abortion industry and their 
lobby. Any statistics purporting to claim that the compromise worked 
out in the previous continuing resolution would cause more abortions 
and more unintended pregnancies are bound to be contrived, and are 
based on studies produced by recipients of international population 
control funding--which was reduced substantially in the previous CR. In 
fact, it occurs to me that the numbers were cooked up to ensure that 
these groups can receive even more of the American taxpayers' money. 
The best that can be said of them is that they are purely hypothetical 
estimates based on guesses.
  Mr. President, I wonder about the groups coming up with these 
statistics, who are they and how did they obtain such doubtful 
statistics? Among the groups cited in Saturday's Washington Post was 
the Futures Group which just happens to be the recipient of substantial 
funding from the Agency for International Development's population 
control program. Another group cited by the Washington Post was the 
Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America--an active promoter of abortion.

[[Page S2052]]

  Then, of course, there is the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation whose role in this massive lobbying campaign is perhaps the 
most transparent because as currently drawn, section 3001 will 
guarantee that the International Planned Parenthood Federation will 
receive 100 percent of its U.S. taxpayer funding--with no strings 
attached. The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a major 
force behind efforts to overturn the compromise worked out in the 
previous CR, which was agreed to by the House and the Senate and by 
President Clinton.
  This is because the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and 
many of its affiliates, are in the business of promoting and performing 
abortions. They make no bones about it. Consider, if you will, excerpts 
from the Federation's own 1994-95 annual report supplement:

       Where it was suspected that abortion was likely to be made 
     illegal/or delegalized in a country, FPAs [family planning 
     affiliates] should act immediately to raise awareness and, 
     with IPPF's [International Planned Parenthood Federation's] 
     regional and international support, lobby where possible to 
     prevent this from occurring.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The FPA [family planning affiliate] of Nepal has initiated 
     efforts aimed at liberalizing abortion law.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The FPA [family planning affiliate] of Sri Lanka's recent 
     research into attitudes toward abortion was a major factor in 
     the successful lobby of the Government to change the law to 
     permit abortion for victims of rape and incest in 1994, a 
     major step forward for the Region. The FPA is continuing to 
     push for further liberalization.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Under the project ``Motivation of Leadership,'' AUPF 
     [IPPF's affiliate in Uruguay] held several meetings with 
     parliamentarians from different political parties interested 
     in promoting a law to legalize abortion. It is likely that a 
     new attempt to liberalize the abortion law may succeed before 
     the end of 1995.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The FPAs [family planning affiliates] of Swaziland, Burkina 
     Faso, Zambia and Senegal have conducted research to identify 
     existing laws on abortion. The research findings are expected 
     to be used for advocacy for legal and policy reform [that is, 
     to liberalize abortion laws].

  Finally, Mr. President, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
boasted in its 1994-95 annual report about having performed 133,289 
abortions in the United States. There is no telling how many abortions 
International Planned Parenthood affiliates are responsible for 
worldwide. How could anybody be duped into believing that the 
International Planned Parenthood Federation seeks to protect the lives 
of unborn children? Of course, it does not. The Federation is in the 
business of destroying the lives of helpless, innocent unborn children. 
It is, in fact, the world's leader in promoting abortions, and that 
crowd is thrilled by Senator Hatfield's proposed language in this bill.
  Clearly, the primary supporters of this provision are pro-abortion. 
Having read Senator Hatfield's characterization of section 3001 as pro-
life, one is obliged to wonder what the pro-life groups have to say? 
They strongly oppose the current language in section 3001. In the same 
Washington Post article, the Christian Coalition asserted that ``We 
consider Senator Hatfield's argument preposterous, that somehow, giving 
money to International Planned Parenthood organizations is going to 
reduce abortions. That is absurd.'' National Right to Life has informed 
me that they are appalled at section 3001 and the claims that is 
somehow represents the pro-life view.
  Mr. President, I must say to those who may be inclined to support 
section 3001, that if they genuinely want to ``reiterate [their] 
profound opposition to the practice of abortion,'' they should vote for 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. This entire effort 
is orchestrated by a handful of powerful organizations in the abortion 
business and their well-heeled lobbyists--including the Agency for 
International Development. The Senate should stand up to these groups 
and reject their tactics by supporting the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, a vote for the pending amendment--not section 3001 of 
the continuing resolution--will protect the lives of unborn children. A 
vote against the amendment is a boon for the abortion industry and its 
lobby, and will very likely result in another Government shutdown.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles be printed 
in the Record. The first is the March 9, Washington Post article and 
the second is an article by Nicholas Eberstadt that appeared in the 
March 11, Washington Times. Mr. Eberstadt's analysis refutes the 
statistics used to support the language in the bill, and should be 
required reading.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, March 11, 1996]

                      Birds, Bees and Budget Cuts

                        (By Nicholas Eberstadt)

       For advocates of Third World population control--or as they 
     new prefer to say, ``stabilizing world population''--the 
     resort to scare tactics in debates and policy battles, is 
     nothing new. Quite the contrary: The specter of disastrous 
     consequences (famine, plague, vast and needless human 
     suffering) is routinely invoked by the neo-Malthusian lobby 
     in its attempts to silence opponents and to proselytize the 
     unconvinced.
       The latest dire claims from this alarmist approach to 
     public policy discourse have just been unveiled in 
     Washington. Today Congress is being warned that millions of 
     unwanted third World pregnancies (thus, unwanted Third World 
     births and abortions) will be on its hands if it does not 
     immediately reverse itself, and add hundreds of millions of 
     dollars to the prospective foreign aid program population 
     budget. The gambit, and its supporting ``evidence,'' are 
     entirely of a piece with the anti-natalist movement that 
     authored them: amazing, but not surprising.
       The background to this unfolding drama was a January 1996 
     vote, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to cut 
     America's international ``population assistance'' funds by 
     about 35 percent from the level of the previous year. The 
     slated total--about $380 million--would mean a reduction of 
     over $200 million. It looked to be a dramatic cutback 
     (although due to the enthusiastic, high-level support that 
     population programs have enjoyed in the Clinton 
     administration, the ``cutback'' would still have left these 
     programs with more money than they had under President Bush).
       The claxons immediately sounded. Nafis Sadik, executive 
     direct of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), raised 
     the threat, among several others, of a renewed global 
     population explosion. ``The way U.S. funding is going,'' she 
     told the New York Times, ``17 to 18 million unwanted 
     pregnancies are going to take place, a couple of million 
     abortions will take place, and I'm sure that 60,000 to 80,000 
     women are going to die because of those abortions--and all 
     because the money has been reduced overnight.''
       Treated as a serious prognosis (rather than, say, a 
     rhetorical outburst disguised by numbers), Dr. Sadik's 
     prophecy, would have had some remarkable implications. For 
     its arithmetic to work, for example, population growth in 
     such places as Latin America and Indonesia (where, currently, 
     modern contraceptives are widely used) would basically have 
     to double from one year to the next. To all but the most 
     committed anti-natal advocates, the implausibility of this 
     official UNFPA assertion was patent. Implausible (or 
     easily falsifiable) claims do not make good debaters' 
     points. The Sadik prophecy was thus quietly retired before 
     the battle to cancel the congressional cutbacks began in 
     earnest.
       The ammunition that is now being used in the effort to 
     overturn the funding reduction programs comes from the Alan 
     Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America. On its face, the Guttmacher 
     analysis sounds inherently more reasonable than Dr. Sadik's. 
     Instead of 17 to 18 million unwanted Third World pregnancies, 
     the Guttmacher analysis indicates that U.S. population aid 
     cutbacks will result in about 4 million. (To be more exact: 
     3,956,544 ``unwanted pregnancies from budget cuts''--this is 
     a very precise study.) Unlike the Sadik pronouncement, 
     moreover, the Guttmacher paper offers a meticulous 
     explanation of its methodology, a detailed breakdown of its 
     calculations, and a long list of citations and references 
     utilized in the exercise.
       Yet for all its seeming rigor and statistical precision, 
     this Guttmacher study is nothing but an elegant fantasy. For 
     despite its sober and careful tone, there is absolutely no 
     reason to expect the correspondence between ``budget cuts'' 
     and extra Third World pregnancies anticipated in its pages to 
     occur in a real world populated by human beings.
       The reason the Guttmacher study is so flawed as to be 
     useless is both simply and fundamental: It ignores the fact 
     that human beings--in poor countries as well as rich ones--
     respond to changes in their circumstances, and strive to 
     improve their lot in the face of constraint.
       Forget for the moment that the impending congressional cuts 
     might well be made up by other governments (Western aid-
     giving countries, or even Third World aid-taking countries 
     themselves). For the Guttmacher study to make sense, there 
     would have to be a fixed, mechanical and determinative 
     relationship in our world between a population's usage level 
     of publicly provided modern contraceptives and its levels of 
     pregnancy or fertility. By the logic animating this exercise,

[[Page S2053]]

     less public money for contraception would mean that a 
     corresponding proportion of adults would automatically cease 
     practicing birth control.
       These Guttmacher assumptions would be perfectly reasonable 
     if Third World parents were blind automatons or heedless 
     beasts. Beasts, after all, do not deliberately regulate their 
     procreation, and automatons are built to follow an immutable 
     routine. Everything we know about Third World parents, 
     though, suggests that a more human vision of them would be 
     rather more successful in describing, and predicting, their 
     behavior--including their ``population dynamics.''
       After all: Survey results from country after country in 
     Asia, Africa, and Latin America consistently demonstrate that 
     parents throughout the Third World (like parents in rich 
     countries) have pronounced views about their own ``desired 
     family size''--and that their own ``desired family size'' is 
     in fact the best predictor of their country's fertility 
     level. Though they may be deemed ignorant by the planners who 
     propose to improve their lives, Third World parents do not 
     believe that babies are simply found under cabbages. They 
     know how to make babies and how to avoid births, and put the 
     sort of effort into achieving those objectives that would be 
     expected of major life decisions.
       If international funding for government-sponsored family 
     planning programs falls, Third World parents will not 
     fatalistically abandon their views about their own desired 
     family size and fall into a breeding frenzy, as the 
     Guttmacher study implicitly presumes. Instead they will 
     attempt to achieve their goals by other means. They may use 
     ``traditional'' family planning methods (which brought low 
     fertility to Europe before modern contraceptives were 
     invented). They may practice abstinence--no modern method is 
     more effective than this. They may even spend some of their 
     own money to purchase modern contraceptives. (Though 
     population planners talk endlessly about the ``unmet need'' 
     for modern contraceptives in the Third World, the simple fact 
     is that poor people have an ``unmet need'' for practically 
     everything--and their spending decisions reveal their 
     preferences and priorities.)
       Since it is completely tone-deaf to the very human 
     qualities at the center of the family formation process, the 
     Guttmacher calculations cannot provide a realistic estimate 
     of the demographic consequences of Congress' impending 
     population fund cutbacks. In truth, that impact is probably 
     incalculable. Depending upon how couples behave, it is 
     possible that those cutbacks would have a small demographic 
     impact--or virtually none at all. Conversely, if the 
     Guttmacher methodology were actually valid, the population 
     funding increases during the Clinton years should be credited 
     with bringing birth rates in Third World countries down 
     significantly--but not even the neo-Malthusian lobby has been 
     bold enough to make this extravagant claim.
       The current population funding contretemps, of course, is 
     not the first occasion upon which junk science has been 
     brought to Capital Hill in the hope of influencing 
     legislation. It is not the first time that representatives 
     and senators have heard claimants depict catastrophes in 
     their effort to fend off cuts to their own particular 
     spending programs. By and large, however, such conduct is 
     still the exception in Washington. For the population-control 
     lobby, by contrast, such conduct now seems to define the 
     norm. As long as that population lobby exists, demographic 
     demagoguery--like death and taxes--promises to be a fact of 
     life.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 9, 1996]

    Abortion Forecast Renews Fight for Overseas Family Planning Aid

                          (By Barbara Vobejda)

       A new law that deeply cuts U.S. aid for international 
     family planning will result in at least 1.6 million more 
     abortions in developing countries in one year, according to a 
     study that has reignited a battle over the funds and split 
     the antiabortion community.
       The study, issued this week by a group of population 
     organizations, also estimates that the funding cuts will mean 
     that 7 million couples in developing countries who would have 
     used modern contraceptive methods no longer will have access 
     to them, resulting in 1.9 million more unplanned births, 
     134,000 more infant deaths, and 8,000 more women dying in 
     childbirth and pregnancy, including from unsafe abortions.
       Those numbers are fueling renewed efforts by Sen. Mark O. 
     Hatfield (R-Ore.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, 
     to rally support among antiabortion groups in his effort to 
     restore the overseas family planning funds.
       ``For those of us who take a pro-life position, this is the 
     most effective way to reiterate our profound opposition to 
     the practice of abortion,'' Hatfield said on the Senate floor 
     last month. ``All the antiabortion speech this chamber can 
     tolerate will not reduce the number of unintended pregnancies 
     as swiftly or as surely as our support for voluntary family 
     planning.''
       Hatfield is attempting to attach language to the interim 
     spending measure Congress must pass before government funding 
     expires March 15. The language would allow the president to 
     restore funds if he certifies that the lack of aid will lead 
     to a significant increase in abortions.
       While Hatfield has support in the Senate and from the White 
     House, he must win over the House, where there is strong 
     opposition from some antiabortion lawmakers.
       In late January, Congress approved legislation that cut 
     funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development's 
     family planning program by 35 percent, from $547 million to 
     $356 million. The funds were further reduced by restrictions 
     that prevent any spending until July 1 and require that funds 
     be parceled out at a monthly rate over the next 15 months. As 
     a result, funding for this fiscal year was reduced by about 
     85 percent from 1995.
       The study on the effect of the cuts took into account the 
     35 percent cut, but not the spending restrictions, which 
     would presumably further raise the number of abortions and 
     deaths. It was conducted by demographers and others at the 
     Futures Group, Population Action International, the 
     Population Reference Bureau, the Population Council and the 
     Alan Guttmacher Institute.
       The cut in funding follows years of disagreement over the 
     use of U.S. aid for family planning overseas. The reduction 
     was attached to the continuing resolution approved in late 
     January at the urging of Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), 
     an ardent abortion foe.
       Hatfield, who also opposes abortion, has had mixed success 
     in his efforts to find support among antiabortion advocates. 
     Some groups have dismissed the new study and Hatfield's 
     efforts to restore funding.
       ``We consider Sen. Hatfield's argument preposterous, that 
     somehow, giving money to International Planned Parenthood 
     organizations, is going to reduce abortions. That is 
     absurd,'' said Brian Lopina, who heads the Washington office 
     of the Christian Coalition.
       Opponents to family planning assistance have argued that, 
     despite a ban on use of the funds for abortions, the 
     assistance frees up other money that can then be used for 
     abortion.
       But others with strong antiabortion views contend that 
     family planning assistance is the most effective way to 
     reduce abortions. ``To knock out this funding based on a 
     misguided pro-life agenda is absolutely the wrong thing to 
     do,'' said Gordon Aeschliman, president of the Christian 
     Environmental Association, which conducts development 
     projects in 14 countries.
       He said antiabortion groups that work over seas see the 
     ``clear connection'' between family planning and reduced 
     human suffering. ``Unfortunately, in the U.S., the strong 
     wing in the pro-life movement sees family planning as the 
     same as forced abortion, which is inaccurate.''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the McConnell 
amendment. It is another attempt to deny health care to the world's 
poorest women.
  The McConnell amendment seeks to maintain a provision of the foreign 
operations bill that would decimate America's effort to improve health 
care for the world's poorest women. A recent report by the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute estimates that these cuts will mean that 7 million 
couples in developing countries would no longer have access to 
contraceptives. There would be almost 2 million unplanned births. And 
there could be up to 1.6 million additional abortions.
  Those who support the McConnell amendment claim to want to reduce the 
number of abortions. But the effect of this provision will be just the 
opposite. Family planning prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. 
You would think this basic fact would not need to be restated on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate.
  U.S. international family planning funds are not spent on abortion. 
So now, some insist on going after basic health care services that 
prevent pregnancy.
  Over 100 million women throughout the world cannot obtain or are not 
using family planning because they are poor, uneducated or lack access 
to care. Twenty million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some 
women will die, some will be disabled. We could prevent some of this 
needless suffering.
  This issue won't go away. The majority of the Senate opposes the 
irrational and cruel effort to end U.S. assistance for international 
family planning. I commend Senator Hatfield for his principled stand on 
this issue. We will continue the fight to enable the world's poorest 
women to control and improve their lives.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, we have done better in this 
legislation than our House counterparts in protecting the lives and 
health of women around the globe.
  There is a provision in this bill that allows restrictions on 
dispensing international family planning funds to be lifted if the 
President determines that the restrictions would result in 
significantly more abortions and a greater unmet need for family 
planning services.

[[Page S2054]]

  The McConnell amendment would deny the President the ability to make 
this determination and leave the current funding restrictions in place. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment 
because the clear outcome will be an increase in abortion and an 
increase in infant death--something no Senator can support.
  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute and a consortium of expert 
demographers, the current funding restrictions will result in at least 
1.9 million unplanned births and 1.6 million abortions. The McConnell 
amendment would result in over 1.6 million abortions. This amendment is 
not about allowing women to choose, but about forcing them into a 
choice they don't want to make.
  If we do not retain the language in the bill and overturn the current 
funding restrictions, we could cause 8,000 women around the world to 
die in pregnancy and childbirth and 134,000 infants to die from low 
birth weight and undernourishment. That is something that I cannot live 
with and I do not believe my colleagues can either.
  We should encourage families who are trying to make deliberate 
decisions about their ability to have and care for additional children. 
We should provide women with an option to unwanted pregnancy and 
abortion. We should not force families into dangerous or unwanted 
pregnancies.
  I support the language currently in the bill because it allows the 
President to lift the restrictions on family planning funds. It allows 
the President to make a sound public policy decision based on the 
facts. And the facts are that if women are denied family planning 
assistance, many will turn to abortion.
  I oppose the McConnell amendment because it would result in 
abortions, in infant death, and in maternal death. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the McConnell amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Atlanta 
Constitution, written by the director of the population unit at CARE, 
that illustrates the need for international family planning funds, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Atlanta Constitution]

                      Cutting Money, Costing Lives

                       (By Maurice I. Middleberg)

       Last July, I snapped a photograph of a couple who had 
     become family planning providers in the remote Andean village 
     of Cushcandahy, Peru, 11,000 feet in the mountains. Their 
     modest home displayed a sign: ``Plantification Familiar Aqui 
     (Family Planning Here).''.
       Thanks in part to funds from the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development, CARE has trained more than 1,400 
     workers and introduced family planning services to thousands 
     of people in Peru, from the Amazon basin to the Andean 
     mountaintops.
       Unfortunately, the efforts of CARE and other humanitarian 
     agencies to bring family planning to villages around the 
     globe have been jeopardized by the congressional resolution 
     of the budget impasse. The funds available for family 
     planning were cut by 35 percent. Even worse, a set of 
     unprecedented procedural requirements threatens to reduce the 
     actual flow of funds to a trickle.
       Meanwhile, here are the facts: Some 120 million women in 
     the developing world want to stop or postpone childbearing 
     but do not have access to family planning services. Women in 
     the developing world are 100 times more likely than American 
     women to die as a result of childbirth. Half a million 
     women--one every minute of every day--die each year from 
     complications of pregnancy and childbirth; 5 million women 
     suffer serious illnesses or trauma.
       In developing countries, more than 10 percent of births end 
     in the death of the infant before his or her first birthday, 
     a rate more than 10 times as high as in the United States. 
     High infant mortality is in part attributable to the fact 
     that many births are high risk; that is, they occur to very 
     young women, to women over age 35, to women who have already 
     had many pregnancies or who have given birth in the preceding 
     24 months. In many countries, simply spacing births could 
     reduce the infant mortality rate by one-fifth.
       Ten million to 12 million illegal abortions occur each year 
     in the developing world. CARE does not support abortion 
     services directly or indirectly. Reducing funding for family 
     planning services means that fewer women will be able to 
     avoid the unwanted pregnancies that too often conclude in 
     abortion.
       We find the action by Congress particularly puzzling in 
     view of its laudable decision to protect other child health 
     programs such as immunization. It may be a simple lack of 
     understanding of the health benefits of family planning.
       The cuts in family planning programs are disporportionate--
     three times the 11 percent cut in foreign aid overall. In 
     addition, agencies cannot get the funds until July 1, nine 
     months into the fiscal year and five months after Congress 
     appropriated the money. Therefore, the funds will be doled 
     out at a rate of one-fifteenth of the appropriation each 
     month.
       As we were entering the village of Cushcandahy, the local 
     health worker said to me, ``In these villages, they say that 
     only God and CARE come to visit.'' The truth is that God and 
     CARE have relied on the compassion and enlightened self-
     interest of the American people to build the links between 
     Atlanta and Cushcandahy.
       International family planning programs are of virtually no 
     budgetary significance, totaling only a few hundredths of 1 
     percent of the U.S. government budget. They also have been 
     extraordinarily successful: In 1965, 10 percent of women in 
     the developing world used contraceptives; today, more than 50 
     percent do.
       Congress should rethink the excessive cuts and burdensome 
     rules it has mandated and restore a program that reflects 
     American interests and generosity.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield back all the time of Senator 
McConnell at his direction, and I yield back whatever time I might 
have. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Kentucky. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
absent on official business.
  I further announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bennett
     Dole
     Kennedy
     Moynihan
     Stevens
  So the amendment (No. 3500) was rejected.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there any order for offering 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments will be laid aside to offer 
amendments.
  If the Senator will withhold, the Senate is not in order. I ask 
Members of the Senate, those who have business, to

[[Page S2055]]

please do so off the Senate floor, so the Senator from Arkansas can be 
heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I had understood that we were going back 
and forth. I do not think there are any takers on the Democratic side 
for an amendment right now. I may be mistaken. If there is an amendment 
over here, somebody should offer it right now. Otherwise, Senator Cohen 
and I have an amendment that we were supposed to offer at the earliest 
possible time, but I do not see him on the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senate is not in order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am really talking, trying to take up time, hoping he 
will come to the floor and offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. The 
Senate will please come to order so the Senator can be heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COHEN. 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. 3501 to Amendment No. 3466

(Purpose: To permit recipients of Legal Services Corporation grants to 
 use funds derived from non-Federal sources to testify at legislative 
      hearings or to respond to requests for certain information)

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

       The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] for himself and Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3501 to amendment No. 
     3466.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 504 under the heading ``Administrative 
     Provisions-Legal Service Corporation--
       (1) redesignate subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) insert after subsection (d), the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prohibit a recipient from using funds derived from a source 
     other than the Legal Services Corporation to comment on 
     public rulemaking or to respond to a written request for 
     information or testimony from a Federal, State or local 
     agency, legislative body or committee, or a member of such an 
     agency, body, or committee, so long as the response is made 
     only to the parties that make the request and the recipient 
     does not arrange for the request to be made.''.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today with 
Senator Bumpers is very simple and very straightforward. It would 
permit legal services organizations across the country to use non-
Federal funds to cover the costs of testifying at legislative hearings, 
commenting on administrative regulations, and responding to requests 
for information from public officials.
  Mr. President, I find it ironic that as we are seeking to devolve 
more and more responsibility to the States, that we would preclude 
those organizations representing low-income individuals from testifying 
before legislative bodies, offering comment on regulatory proposals, or 
responding to inquiries from lawmakers.
  We have a situation in the State of Maine in which the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, a Republican, has a very cooperative 
relationship with Pine Tree Legal Assistance. This Republican Senator 
has urged that the restriction on the use of non-Federal money be 
lifted so that Pine Tree can be called to testify before the committee.
  I do not understand why we would seek to preclude non-Federal funds 
from being used in a way that will actually, hopefully, avoid lengthy 
court battles. We are talking about the possibility of turning Medicaid 
over to the States in the way of a block grant and reforming a host of 
critical social programs. During these reform efforts, the States will 
be adopting regulations and proposals that would have an impact upon 
the lives of those that the programs are designed to serve. Yet, the 
very lawyers who would be called upon to help the poor are relegated to 
bringing lawsuits or to representing them in court, when in fact their 
expertise would be helpful to legislators that formulate policies, to 
agencies that implement the programs, and to lawmakers who seek some 
clarification in fairly esoteric areas of the law.
  This amendment is very simple. It says that legal services 
organizations across the country are not precluded from using non-
Federal funds for the purposes of testifying at legislative hearings, 
commenting on administrative regulations, and responding to requests 
for information from public officials.
  Mr. President, there have been a number of restrictions included in 
the bill to preclude activities which the Congress has decided that no 
longer should be carried out by legal services attorneys. But it seems 
to me that this list of restrictions should not include a blanket 
prohibition on the participation of attorneys representing the poor 
before legislative bodies.
  So I hope that this amendment will be supported by a wide variety of 
our colleagues because it does not present a threat to the proponents 
of restricting activities of legal services lawyers. Rather, it will 
ultimately be beneficial to lawmakers and government officials who are 
seeking to craft programs that will have a direct impact upon the 
poorest of our society.
  So I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bumpers and myself in 
supporting this legislation.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if the Senator from Maine 
would be willing to enter into a time agreement and have a specific 
vote at 6:30 on this?
  Mr. COHEN. What time?
  Mr. GREGG. At 6:30.
  Mr. COHEN. Does Senator Bumpers have any objection to a time 
limitation on this?
  Mr. BUMPERS. What was the request?
  Mr. GREGG. A vote at 6:30.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is fine with me. We can probably do it in less time 
than that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying I hope the Senator 
from New Hampshire and the senior Senator from Texas will look very 
carefully at this amendment and accept it. It is not only a harmless 
amendment, it is a very beneficial amendment.

  It is an amendment that corrects a problem that apparently was not 
foreseen. It would be difficult for me to believe that the Congress 
intended that Legal Services Corporation grant recipients not even to 
be permitted to testify if a congressional committee asked them to, or 
to respond to the committee's questions.
  Let us assume that the Senator from New Hampshire wanted the answer 
to a question about a lawsuit brought in New Hampshire in which a Legal 
Services grantee was involved. They would not even be able to answer 
it. The Senator from Maine has crafted this amendment in a way that 
could offend nobody in Congress because it allows Legal Services 
grantees use only non-Federal funds to respond to inquiries. They can 
only use money that the grantee has received from non-Federal sources 
to answer specific questions in writing.
  To me, what we have done to the Legal Services Corporation is a real 
travesty, but I am not here to reopen that debate. But, Mr. President, 
just to give you some idea of what we did, we put 19--count them--19 
specific restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation of things that 
they have always done and can no longer do.
  We had never before restricted the Legal Services Corporation on any 
of those things as long as they were using their own self-generated 
money. But now the way the bill is crafted, the Presiding Officer or 
any Member of the Senate or any of the committees of the Senate could 
call a Legal Services grantee and ask them for information,

[[Page S2056]]

and the way the bill is crafted now they could not answer it.
  What kind of nonsense is that? This amendment simply says that the 
Legal Services professionals can respond to specific requests for 
comment on proposed rules, or legislative proposals, if they are asked 
and if they have comments to offer. We are a lot better hearing from 
them during the rulemaking process than we are hearing their arguments 
later in the courtroom.
  This amendment precludes lobbying. There are two things, it seems to 
me, that have really caught the attention and the exasperation of the 
Senate more than anything else--one is lobbying by the Legal Services 
Corporation and its grantees and the other are class actions.
  I sit on the appropriations subcommittee that funds them, so I can 
tell you, it has been draconian what we have done to them. But consider 
the fact that unless this amendment is adopted, those Legal Services 
providers will be prohibited from responding even to congressional 
inquiries about their activities. Think about that. You cannot even ask 
them about their activities because they would be prohibited from 
answering. The way the law is drafted now, they will not be able to 
appear at hearings to answer questions.
  So, Mr. President, the amendment permits only specific responses to 
specific written requests for information by State legislators, by 
Members of Congress and committees of Congress, or agency officials. 
And the response can be made only to the official who made the inquiry. 
I do not think I have ever argued for an amendment that was needed as 
badly as is this one. I cannot imagine it not being accepted. I hope it 
will be, and we can get on to another amendment. Mr. President, I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support this amendment. It is a very 
modest amendment to allow legal service providers who receive non-
Federal funds to participate in a very limited way in responding to 
areas which are of interest on the legislative process and 
representation of the poor.
  The pendulum has swung very far in opposition to the representation 
of the poor from community legal services because of concerns which 
have arisen over their representation of plaintiffs in class actions or 
over other kinds of representation.
  We have really come a long way, Mr. President, in our society in 
relatively few years. It has only been since 1963, in the landmark case 
of Gideon v. Wainwright, that an individual was entitled to 
representation in a criminal case, as Justice Hugo Black put it, before 
he was hauled into court.
  Before that time, in a criminal case there was no requirement there 
be a defense counsel except in capital cases. Now we have seen evolve, 
with community legal services, broader legal representation of the 
poor, a much needed, highly controversial subject which has occupied 
much floor time and debate here. By and large, we have maintained 
representation for the poor. Now there is a restriction which goes 
much, much too far.
  To have an amendment that says a recipient may use funds derived from 
sources other than the Legal Services Corporation to comment on public 
rulemaking, which is a very limited matter, hardly inspiring 
litigation, or to respond to a written request for information or 
testimony from a Federal, State or local agency, legislative body or 
committee, or a member of one of those entities, so long as the 
response is made only to the parties that make the request, and the 
recipient does not arrange for the request to be made, is 
extraordinarily limited and circumscribed.
  I hope this amendment could be accepted; if not, that there be a very 
strong vote in support of this amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3502 to Amendment No. 3466

(Purpose: To require that contracts to carry out programs of assistance 
for Bosnia and Herzegovina using funds appropriated for that purpose be 
 entered into only with corporations and other organizations organized 
                         in the United States)

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3502.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 751, line 7, insert after ``1974:'' the following: 
     ``Provided further, That contracts to carry out programs 
     using such funds shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be 
     entered into with companies organized under the laws of a 
     State of the United States and organizations (including 
     community chests, funds, foundations, non-incorporated 
     businesses, and other institutions) organized in the United 
     States:''.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The bill 
provides $200 million in foreign aid for Bosnia. Much of the money will 
be used to reconstruct Bosnia. This amendment requires, to the maximum 
extent possible, any contract derived from the aid from this $200 
million should go to American businesses or organizations. It is not 
mandatory, but to the greatest extent possible, this money should come 
back to American businesses.
  This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I am told the 
administration does not oppose it. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am informed that the amendment proposed 
by the Senator from North Carolina has been cleared by both sides. Both 
sides accept it, and it can be adopted by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3502) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


   Amendments Nos. 3503 through 3507, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a package of five amendments to the 
desk and ask they be made in order, notwithstanding the fact, in one 
instance, one of the amendments amends an amendment already numbered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the en bloc amendments.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 3503 through 3507, en bloc, to amendment No. 
     3466.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3503 through 3507), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3503

Purpose: To partially restore funds in the Department of the Interior's 
         and the Department of Energy's administrative accounts

       On page 405, line 17, strike ``$567,152,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$567,753,000''.
       On page 412, line 23, strike ``$497,670,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$497,850,000''.
       On page 419, line 22, strike ``$1,086,014,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$1,084,755,000''.
       On page 424, line 21, strike ``$729,995,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$730,330,000''.
       On page 428, line 6, strike ``$182,339,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$182,771,000''.
       On page 447, line 7, strike ``$56,456,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$57,340,000''.
       On page 447, line 13, strike ``$34,337,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$34,516,000''.
       On page 474, line 21, strike ``$416,943,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$417,092,000''.
       On page 475, line 21, strike ``$553,137,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$553,240,000''.
       On page 440, line 19, strike ``March 31, 1996'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1996''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
partially reinstate funds to the Department of the Interior and 
Department of Energy administrative accounts. Accounts within those 
departments were reduced to offset C&O Canal repair and park 
maintenance. Due to the lateness in the year, it is recognized that the 
Department of the Interior's Departmental Office account and the Office 
of

[[Page S2057]]

the Solicitor account need flexibility to move funds within those two 
offices. Therefore, the reduction areas for those two offices are not 
identified.
  The amendment changes the availability of $8 million of unobligated 
and unexpended funding within the Operation of Indian Programs from 
March 31, 1996. These funds would have otherwise expired as of 
September 30, 1995. The availability of the funding has been extended 
to help cover employee severance, relocation, and related expenses. The 
amendment is necessary because of the delay in the completion of the 
fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill.


                           amendment no. 3504

 (Purpose: To provide emergency funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
         Service to repair dmage caused by flooding in Alaska)

       On page 740, line 6 of the bill, strike ``$34,800,000'' and 
     insert ``37,300,000'' in lieu thereof.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Stevens amendment provides an 
additional $2.5 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service Construction 
account in the emergency supplemental appropriations title of this 
bill. These funds would be used to repair flood damage to Fish and 
Wildlife Service facilities along the Kenai River in Alaska. I have 
been informed by the Fish and Wildlife Service that these projects 
would have been included in the Department's emergency request to the 
Office of Management and Budget, but that the extent of the damages was 
not known in time.


                           amendment no. 3505

       On page 740 of the bill, insert the following after line 3:


                          resource management

       For an additional amount for Resource Management, 
     $1,600,000, to remain available until expended, to provide 
     technical assistance to the Natural Resource Conservation 
     Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies on fish and 
     wildlife habitat issues related to damage caused by floods, 
     storms and other acts of nature: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Kempthorne's amendment provides 
$1.6 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource Management 
account in the emergency supplemental appropriations title of this 
bill. These funds would enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide 
technical assistance on fish and wildlife issues to FEMA, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers and other 
agencies involved in disaster response.


                           amendment no. 3506

       On page 480, line 14, after ``Provided,'' insert ``That of 
     the funds provided, $800,000 shall be used for inhalant abuse 
     treatment programs to treat inhalant abuse and to provide for 
     referrals to specialized treatment facilities in the United 
     States: Provided further,''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3507

       On page 744, beginning on line 1, strike ``emergency'' 
     through ``Mine'' on line 2, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``response and rehabilitation, including access 
     repairs, at the Amalgamated Mill''.

  Mr. GORTON. These amendments, Mr. President, have also been cleared 
on both sides. They consist of a Gorton amendment restoring funds to 
administrative accounts within the Interior bill and changing the date 
for availability of Bureau of Indian Affairs funds that otherwise would 
expire on September 30, 1995; second, a Stevens amendment providing 
funds for flood damage to Fish and Wildlife Service facilities on the 
Kenai River; third, a Kempthorne amendment to provide emergency funds 
that will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide technical 
assistance to other agencies involved in disaster response; a Daschle 
amendment providing funds to the Indian Health Service for inhalant 
abuse treatment; and a Hatfield amendment on an amalgamated mill site.
  I ask they be adopted en bloc, with each description printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  So the amendments (Nos. 3503 through 3507), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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, after consultation with the Democratic 
leader, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining first-degree 
amendments in order to H.R. 3019 under the previous consent agreement 
must be offered by 8 p.m. this evening--I emphasize offered by 8 p.m. 
this evening--with the exception of the managers' package, two 
amendments by the majority leader, and two amendments by the Democratic 
leader, and one each for the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his request?
  The Senator from California.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mrs. BOXER. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elyse 
Wasch of my staff be granted privilege of the Senate floor during the 
consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3508 to Amendment No. 3466

  (Purpose: To permit the District of Columbia to use local funds for 
                          certain activities)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I discussed this with the manager, Senator 
Gorton. At this time I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside, 
and I will send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3508 to amendment 
     numbered 3466.
       On page 222, line 4, insert ``Federal'' before ``funds''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I am perfectly willing to agree to a short time agreement because I 
know the manager is anxious to move on. I would be happy to agree to 10 
minutes on a side for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be 
the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I think that the offer made by the Senator 
from California is an appropriate one as far as I can tell. As a 
consequence, we will agree to 20 minutes equally divided, 10 minutes on 
a side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask that there be no second-degree amendments 
permitted on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the moment--because I know there is an 
opponent of this amendment--I am not going to be able to agree to that. 
I hope we will be able to do so very shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not believe anyone will, in fact, make a second-
degree. I think there will be opposition. But it is very difficult for 
me to accept this time agreement where we will be able to just talk 10 
minutes on each side, if I do not have an agreement about second-degree 
amendments, I am going to have a problem.
  Mr. GORTON. Then I suggest that the Senator from California simply 
proceed with her argument, and we will see what we can do with that 
unanimous-consent request.

[[Page S2058]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the manager very much. I do not believe we are 
going to have a problem. It is a very straightforward amendment which I 
would like to explain.
  As I understand the comments of the Senator from Washington, at this 
time we are not operating under a time agreement, and I will just 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California should know that 
the Senate is still under a time agreement as a result of unanimous 
consent.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent be 
vitiated given the fact that we were not able to get agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will not take a great deal of 
time. This is a very simple, straightforward amendment.
  Mr. President, my amendment would restore the current law, the law 
that we have lived under since 1993, as it pertains to abortion funding 
policy for the District of Columbia.
  In 1993, this body decided no Medicaid funding could be used for 
abortion but that, in fact, the District of Columbia was free to use 
its locally raised revenue as it saw fit. So that if women who did not 
have the ability to pay for an abortion--they were in trouble, they 
were in crisis, and they needed help--they would be able to get it. 
That policy has been overturned by this Congress in this continuing 
resolution, and it started in December.
  So right now the District of Columbia is treated quite differently 
than any other city or State in this great country. It is the only 
jurisdiction, Mr. President, in the country which is told that it 
cannot use its locally raised funds as it sees fit.
  All I do with this amendment is clarify that point by saying no 
Federal funding can be used for abortion in Washington, DC, except for 
rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  So there is still a very broad prohibition on Medicaid funding--which 
I have to say to my friend I certainly do not support, but I know that 
the votes are not here to change that prohibition on Medicaid funding.
  So I am addressing this amendment just to the District's locally 
raised funds. What we say by way of my amendment is the District of 
Columbia should be treated as every other jurisdiction--have the right 
to make local funding decisions as it decides.
  What we have here now is that none of the funds appropriated under 
the act shall be expended for any abortion, except where the life of 
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or if 
the pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest. What my 
amendment says is that none of the Federal funds--which means that the 
District of Columbia funds which are locally raised--could be used if 
the people in D.C. decide that is the proper policy.
  I want my colleagues to understand that what I am offering is not a 
change really at all. It is going back to the way the law was since 
1993.
  I have stood on this floor, and I have listened to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle talk quite eloquently about the importance of 
letting State and local jurisdictions decide how to spend their own 
revenue. As a matter of fact, they talked about getting Federal funds 
as a block grant and deciding how to expend the Federal funds that are 
in a block grant. In other words, the virtue of local control seems to 
really be a strong point on the other side of the aisle except when it 
comes to women's reproductive health care. When they now say that the 
locally raised funds cannot be used for abortion, I think it is 
inconsistent at its best and I think it is mean spirited at its worst.
  I want to quote one friend of mine, Senator Gregg, Republican Senator 
from New Hampshire, who said in another context--I am quoting directly 
from the Record:

       Federal programs should be returned to the States to be 
     operated as State programs with the flexibility being given 
     to the State government where there is as much compassion as 
     in Washington to deliver these services to the needy and to 
     the more needy.

  That is a statement from January 3, 1996, so here is a Senator from 
New Hampshire saying that the local people are just as compassionate 
and should make the decisions on how to serve the needy, and my 
amendment says you are right, Senator Gregg, that is what we ought to 
be doing. And that is in fact what the District of Columbia has been 
doing with its locally raised revenues since 1993. They have determined 
that since there is a ban on Medicaid funding for abortion except in 
rare circumstances, they would come to the rescue, if you will, when 
women find themselves in deep trouble, deep trouble, and make an 
agonizing choice, which is their own choice, and they will stand by 
their side. I think it is wrong for us to dictate to the District on 
this issue.
  Again, I think it is most inconsistent. So if the Boxer amendment 
passes here, the District would have the ability to spend its own money 
the way it wishes in terms of providing reproductive health care 
services of abortion to low-income women.
  Now, I have to say that in this bill we are denying abortion services 
to low-income women, and I think that simply stops them from exercising 
their right to choose. The right to choose means nothing, Mr. 
President, even with Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions affirming Roe 
v. Wade, if you cannot afford to get an abortion and there is nobody 
there to help you.
  In its wisdom, this Congress says no Medicaid funding may be used for 
abortion except in certain circumstances, in narrow circumstances. I 
oppose that. I do not have the votes to overturn that. Maybe someday I 
will have those votes. Maybe someday we will have a pro-choice Senate 
and a pro-choice House. We do not have that right now. But, at the 
minimum, we should not be telling the District of Columbia what to do 
with its own funds.
  So, Mr. President, I am going to hope that there will be no second-
degree amendment to my amendment at this time. I urge my colleagues to 
accept my amendment and let the District of Columbia decide how to 
spend its locally raised revenues without congressional interference.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the manager of the bill what he 
has in mind in terms of how to deal with my amendment. I am anxious to 
get it voted on or set aside to be voted on. I do not think we need to 
have much debate unless there are many who wish to speak.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from California in her desire to move this entire matter forward.
  I see the Senator from Indiana is in the Chamber, and I say, Mr. 
President, that the Senator from California was willing to agree to 10 
minutes to a side and no second-degree amendments. We did not want to 
make that agreement without the presence of the Senator from Indiana. 
And now, if the President will inquire of the Senator from Indiana, we 
will see if we can get an agreement on disposing of this amendment.
  Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield, I just walked in the Chamber 
and I am not 100 percent sure of even what the amendment says. I think 
I have the gist of what the amendment is, and I think that there are 
probably a number of Senators who may want to speak on the amendment. I 
could easily check that and try to find out within the next few minutes 
as to whether or not that is the case and whether or not a reasonable 
time limit would entertain. But I cannot speak for other Members. I 
would like to speak in opposition to this amendment, but I cannot speak 
for other Members, and I am not prepared to agree to a time limit at 
this particular point.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I might take back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at the present time, as I understand it, 
there is no time agreement, so the Senator from California has not 
forfeited any rights to further time. And so I hope we are going to be 
able to arrange a time agreement relatively soon, but obviously we 
cannot do so right now.

  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the reason I obtained the floor--I just 
asked if the Senator would answer a question for me--is because I spoke 
to the Senator from Indiana yesterday about my

[[Page S2059]]

intention on this. I hope he realizes I am proceeding in good faith. I 
am trying to make the point that we should go back to the 1993 law that 
said that although Medicaid funding could not be used, no Federal 
funding could be used for abortion, that the District would have the 
ability to decide what they wanted to do with their local funds without 
being dictated to. In fact, we now change the law and we tell them they 
may not use their own funds.
  I am very happy to agree to any time agreement that the Senator feels 
is reasonable, but I would like to at least get an agreement that there 
not be any second-degree amendments.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. As I said before----
  Mrs. BOXER. I would yield to my friend for a question--or a comment.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator from 
California yielding.
  As I indicated before, I can speak for myself. I cannot speak for 
others. It is true that the Senator spoke to me about offering the 
amendment. In the context of what we are doing here, a time limit is 
reasonable. It is just that I cannot speak for other Senators who I 
know would want to speak in opposition to the Senator's amendment. I 
would be happy to check with those Senators and try to get an answer 
back to the Senator from California and announce to the Senate a 
reasonable time agreement.
  In answer to the Senator's other point, it appears to me that the 
Senator's amendment attempts to extend the rights that our States, 50 
States do not have to the District of Columbia. This Senator is not 
prepared to do that. I do not know if other Senators are prepared to do 
that.
  I think that question has to be addressed in the Chamber as well as 
the viability of the commingling, of extending the full abortion rights 
to the District of Columbia when we are not really certain how the 
funds are commingled between District funds and Federal funds. 
Everybody knows that the District of Columbia is bankrupt. We do not 
know how they are applying the funds or what Federal funds they are 
going to be getting or how the services would be funded or how the 
funds would be separated. I think there a number of questions that have 
to be asked.
  In response to the Senator's question, I would be happy to try to 
ascertain what response other Senators might want to give.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to take back my time and thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, there is much that could be debated on this. I, 
for one, do not see it as so complicated because every city and every 
county in America has the ability to use its own funds. When I am in 
working in Washington I have an apartment in the District of Columbia, 
where I stay. If I park in the District of Columbia and a meter runs 
out, I pay a fine to the District of Columbia, and therefore they 
clearly have their own locally raised funds.
  My colleague is right. I do not believe that they should be treated 
differently than any other city, any other county, and any other State 
vis-a-vis the ability of any city, county, or State to use their own 
locally raised money as they will.
  For example, I was on the board of supervisors of a county, a 
suburban county north of San Francisco, a beautiful place called Marin 
County, and the board of supervisors there quite unanimously--we came 
from different parties, different views--did give funding to Planned 
Parenthood for their clinic in which they, in fact, provided family 
planning services. They also provided abortions.
  Now, that is a county. We do not stand up here and say that county 
cannot use its own legally raised funds in any way to assist Planned 
Parenthood.
  If I might ask the manager, in an attempt to be as helpful as I can 
in moving the process, would it suit the manager's purposes if I asked 
unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside? If I can ask that 
question without losing my right to the floor, if that would help my 
friend, then I would be glad to ask that it be laid aside with no 
second-degree amendments allowed until we take it up again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GORTON. The first part of the request by the Senator from 
California is perfectly acceptable. But as I heard the remarks from the 
Senator from Indiana, he is not prepared to say there will not, under 
any circumstances, be a second-degree amendment.
  Certainly we can lay this amendment aside now while the contending 
parties try to reach an agreement on how it will be dealt with, and go 
on to something else. I have, for example, a short colloquy I would 
like to enter.
  If the Senator from California would like to lay the amendment aside, 
recognizing she will certainly be recognized again to bring it back up 
and she has forfeited none of her rights?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
laid aside until it is brought back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. 3509 to Amendment No. 3466

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment so I may offer an amendment, which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3509 to Amendment No. 3466.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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:
       Strike page 692, line 21 through page 696, line 2, and 
     insert:

             CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

                National and Community Service Programs


                           Operating Expenses

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service (referred to in the matter under this 
     heading as the ``Corporation'') in carrying out programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this 
     heading as the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), 
     $400,500,000, of which $265,000,000 shall be available for 
     obligation from September 1, 1996, through September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That not more than $25,000,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses authorized under 
     section 501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12671(a) (4)): 
     Provided further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not more than $59,000,000, to remain available 
     without fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred to the 
     National Service Trust account for educational awards 
     authorized under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12601 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than 
     $215,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading shall 
     be available for grants under the National Service Trust 
     program authorized under subtitle C of title I of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) (relating to activities including the 
     Americorps program), of which not more than $40,000,000 may 
     be used to administer, reimburse or support any national 
     service program authorized under section 121(d)(2) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)): Provided further, That not more 
     than $5,500,000 of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be made available for the Points of Light 
     Foundation for activities authorized under title III of the 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): Provided further, That no 
     funds shall be available for national service programs run by 
     Federal agencies authorized under section 121(b) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 12581(b)): 
     Provided further, That, to the maximum extent feasible, funds 
     appropriated in the preceding proviso shall be provided in a 
     manner that is consistent with the recommendations of peer 
     review panels in order to ensure that priority is given to 
     programs that demonstrate quality, innovation, replicability, 
     and sustainability: Provided further, That not more than 
     $18,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading 
     shall be available for the Civilian Community Corps 
     authorized under subtitle E of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12611 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than 
     $43,000,000 shall be available for school-based and 
     community-based

[[Page S2060]]

     service-learning programs authorized under subtitle B of 
     title I of the Act (41 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That not more than $30,000,000 shall be available 
     for quality and innovation activities authorized under 
     subtitle H of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12853 et 
     seq.): Provided further, That not more than $5,000,000 
     shall be available for audits and other evaluations 
     authorized under section 179 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12639), 
     of which up to $500,000 shall be available for a study by 
     the National Academy of Public Administration on the 
     structure, organization, and management of the Corporation 
     and activities supported by the Corporation, including an 
     assessment of the quality, innovation replicability, and 
     sustainability without Federal funds of such activities, 
     and the Federal and non-federal cost of supporting 
     participants in community service activities: Provided 
     further, That no funds from any other appropriation, or 
     from funds otherwise made available to the Corporation, 
     shall be used to pay for personnel compensation and 
     benefits, travel, or any other administrative expense for 
     the Board of Directors, the Office of the Chief Executive 
     Officer, the Office of the Managing Director, the Office 
     of the Chief Financial Officer, the Officer of National 
     and Community Service Programs, the Civilian Community 
     Corps, or any field office or staff of the Corporation 
     working on the National and Community Service or Civilian 
     Community Corps programs: Provided further, That to the 
     maximum extent practicable, the Corporation shall increase 
     significantly the level of matching funds and in-kind 
     contributions provided by the private sector, shall expand 
     significantly the number of educational awards provided 
     under subtitle D of title I, and shall reduce the total 
     Federal cost per participant in all programs.


                            sense of senate

       It is the Sense of the Congress that accounting for 
     taxpayers' funds must be a top priority for all federal 
     agencies and government corporations. The Congress is deeply 
     concerned about the findings of the recent audit of the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service required under 
     the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945. The Congress 
     urges the President to expeditiously nominate a qualified 
     Chief Financial Officer for the Corporation. Further, to the 
     maximum extent practicable and as quickly as possible, the 
     Corporation should implement the recommendations of the 
     independent auditors contracted for by the Corporation's 
     Inspector General, as well as the Chief Financial Officer, to 
     improve the financial management of taxpayers' funds. Should 
     the Chief Financial Officer determine that additional 
     resources are needed to implement these recommendations, the 
     Corporation should submit a reprogramming proposal for up to 
     $3,000,000 to carry out reforms of the financial management 
     system.

                            Housing Programs


               annual contributions for assisted housing

       On page 624 of the bill, line 10, strike 
     ``$10,103,795,000'' and insert ``$10,086,795,000'', and on 
     page 626, line 23, strike ``$209,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$192,000,000''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is an amendment on national 
service, which we will not debate at this time. I wish to just file it 
while we are continuing our conversation with the subcommittee 
chairman, so I, therefore, ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
temporarily laid aside, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. 3496 to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be laid aside and I call up amendment No. 3496.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] for himself and 
     Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3496 to Amendment 
     No. 3466.

  Mr. GORTON. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The Walla Walla Veterans Medical Center located at 77 
     Wainwright Drive, Walla Walla, Washington, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA 
     Medical Center.''

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Walla Walla 
     Veterans Medical Center referred to in section 1 shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the ``Jonathan M. Wainwright 
     Memorial VA Medical Center.''

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as was the case with the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland, I simply want this amendment to be considered as 
proposed, against the unanimous consent that will limit amendments in 
the future, that I hope fervently soon will be adopted.
  With that, it having been proposed, I ask unanimous consent it now be 
laid aside for consideration later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the amendments have now been temporarily 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 3501

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would like to go ahead and speak in 
opposition to the Cohen-Bumpers amendment, while we are here waiting 
for some resolution on other issues.
  Would that be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would be in order.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have had an amendment offered by Senator 
Cohen, on behalf of himself and Senator Bumpers. What their amendment 
does is it seeks to empower the Legal Services Corporation to engage in 
commenting on public rulemaking, testifying before legislative 
committees, briefing regulators and legislators on pending bills and 
legislation. Let me try to give our colleagues a little history of 
where we have come from, because I think this is typical of the problem 
we have in dealing with an agency like the Legal Services Corporation.
  When the Commerce, State, Justice bill was reported out of the 
Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say that we killed the Legal 
Services Corporation. In subcommittee, a level of funding for 
legitimate legal aid was entered into as a compromise, and the bill 
came to the floor. Then Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, 
offered an amendment to restore the Legal Services Corporation and 
provide more money for it, but as part of that amendment he restricted 
what the Legal Services Corporation could do. Those limitations were 
not as great as those that we had coming out of committee, but the 
point is, in that amendment he banned the Legal Services Corporation 
from lobbying and from engaging in the process of debating rulemaking.
  I remind my colleagues, the objective of the Legal Services 
Corporation is to provide legal services to poor people. As we all 
know, the Legal Services Corporation has become very heavily involved 
in public policymaking. The Legal Services Corporation files lawsuits 
against election dates, they file lawsuits involving numerous areas 
where people are trying to engage in their relationship with each 
other, and they have become very heavily involved in lobbying and in 
testifying before committees and doing other things that have nothing 
to do with their narrow mandate.
  Senator Domenici offered an amendment to raise their level of 
funding, which I opposed. I spoke against it. We had a long and 
spirited debate on it and I lost. Senator Domenici's provision 
prevailed. It provided more money, but with strict limits on what the 
Legal Services Corporation could do.
  The appropriations bill that is before us adds $22 million for the 
Legal Services Corporation above the level agreed to in conference. In 
addition, in the contingency section of the bill, the Legal Services 
Corporation would get another $9 million.
  Now we have an amendment by Senator Cohen and by Senator Bumpers that 
seeks to lift the restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation.
  Granted, there is a figleaf which seeks to differentiate between what 
Senator Domenici has done and what

[[Page S2061]]

they are doing, and that figleaf is that it allows them to do these 
things if anyone asks them to do it in a written request.
  Mr. President, that is obviously going to happen. This amendment is 
going to eliminate the restrictions in the Domenici amendment, and my 
colleagues who offered this amendment both voted for the Domenici 
amendment.
  So, what we are saying here is we had a debate about killing the 
Legal Services Corporation. That was successful in committee. An 
amendment was offered on the floor that said, ``OK, we'll give them 
this money, but only under strict limitations to see that they do what 
their mandate is.''
  That amendment was adopted. As far as I know, all the supporters of 
this amendment voted for it.
  Then we came in and added another $31 million to Legal Services 
Corporation in this bill, and now we are going back and lifting the 
restrictions so that the Legal Services Corporation will be able to 
spend the money on lobbying largely unencumbered and can, in fact, get 
back into exactly the kind of activities that the Domenici amendment at 
least claimed to prohibit.
  Could the Domenici amendment have been adopted had this provision 
been part of it? My guess is it could not.
  I do not know where the votes are on this. I am opposed to the Legal 
Services Corporation because I think it is a runaway Government program 
which spends entirely too much time and energy and money promoting 
political and social causes that are not part of its mandate. We live 
in a great free country. If someone wants to promote their views and 
philosophy and values, they have a right to do it, but they do not have 
a right to do it with the taxpayers' money.
  I thought we had restrictions that were reasonable under the Domenici 
amendment. We are now in the process of lifting those restrictions. I 
am strongly opposed to this amendment and hope to see it defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am saddened by the position taken by 
the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. President, was I recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield so I 
may offer two amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be set 
aside.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


          Amendments Nos. 3510 and 3511 to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer these two amendments, and I send 
them to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3510 and 3511 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3510

       On page 771, below line 17, add the following:
       Sec. 3006. (a) Subsection (b) of section 802 of the David 
     L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 
     1902) is amended by adding after paragraph (3), flush to the 
     subsection margin, the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, including the matter under the heading 
     `National Security Education Trust Fund' in title VII of 
     Public Law 104-61, the work of an individual accepting a 
     scholarship or fellowship under the program shall be the work 
     specified in paragraph (2), or such other work as the 
     individual and the Secretary agree upon under an agreement 
     having modified service requirements pursuant to subsection 
     (f).''.
       (b) such section is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(f) Authority To Modify Service Agreement Requirements.--
     The Secretary shall have sole authority to modify, amend, or 
     revise the requirements under subsection (b) that apply to 
     service agreements.''.
       (c) Subsection (a) of such section is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Employment opportunity outreach.--The Secretary shall 
     take appropriate actions to make available to recipients of 
     scholarships or fellowships under the program information on 
     employment opportunities in the departments and agencies of 
     the Federal Government having responsibility for national 
     security matters.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3511

       On page 582, line 14, strike ``$1,257,134,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,257,888,000''.
       On page 582, line 16, before the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``, and of which $5,100,000 shall be available to 
     carry out title VI of the National Literacy Act of 1991''.
       On page 582, line 16, strike ``$1,254,215,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,254,969,000''.
       On page 587, line 15, strike ``and III'' and insert ``III, 
     and VI''.
       On page 587, line 17, strike ``$131,505,000'' and insert 
     ``$139,531,000''.
       On page 587, line 20, before the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``, and of which ``$8,026,000 shall be available 
     to carry out title VI of the Library Services and 
     Construction Act and shall remain available until expended''.
       On page 591, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
        Sec. 305. (a) Section 428(n) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(n)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Applicability to part d loans.--The provisions of 
     this subsection shall apply to institutions of higher 
     education participating in direct lending under part D with 
     respect to loans made under such part, and for the purposes 
     of this paragraph, paragraph (4) shall be applied by 
     inserting `or part D' after `this part'.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on July 1, 1996.
       On page 592, line 7, strike ``$196,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$201,294,000''.
       On page 592, line 7, before the period insert the 
     following; ``, of which $5,024,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 109 of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     of 1973''.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.


                           Amendment No. 3501

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the 
Senator from Texas for a moment, there is no point belaboring this 
issue. I want to make three or four salient points.
  First, the 19 restrictions that were put on the corporation's 
grantees are not touched in this amendment. They are still intact. Many 
of them deal with lobbying.
  Second, no Federal funds can be used to carry out the actions 
permitted by this amendment. Only non-Federal funds received by a 
grantee may be used.
  Third, the request has to come from a legislator, a Member of 
Congress, or an agency to a grantee. Let me give the Senator from Texas 
this illustration.
  Let us assume that in the State of Texas the legislature thinks that 
the Legal Services Corporation's grantees in that State are doing a 
super job, but the Federal funds have been cut off, we have reduced 
Legal Services Corporation funding.
  Let us assume the Texas State Legislature wants to give a few million 
dollars to some of the Legal Services Corporation grantees, but before 
doing so, they would like for some of those people to come in and 
testify as to what their activities have been and maybe limit the use 
to which they can put the money the legislators propose to give them.
  First, they have to make a request, we will say, of the Dallas 
grantees, Legal Services of Dallas. If the State Legislature of Texas 
or a legislator or a committee wants to ask that grantee to come in, 
they would have to direct it in writing and the grantee would have to 
respond to that specific request, and only money that the grantee had 
generated on its own--not Federal money, money of its own--could be 
used to answer a written inquiry.
  It seems to me almost ludicrous to say we are not going to allow a 
committee of Congress or a State legislative committee or a Senator or 
a State legislator to get information that they need to make these 
decisions, particularly when the grantees are using their own money.
  What kind of a fix would we be in here? The Legal Services 
Corporation can come in and testify before the Senator's committee and 
tell him why they think they need more money, but a grantee could not. 
The Senator from Texas, as chairman of this committee, can write to the 
head of the local Legal Services provider in Dallas and say, ``Please 
come forthwith before my committee and testify.''
  As the bill is drafted, even if he submitted it in writing, they 
could not honor that request.

[[Page S2062]]

  I sit on the Appropriations Subcommittee that able Senator from Texas 
chaired. I was there when the debate took place about how much we were 
going to give the Legal Services Corporation, and I, indeed, did 
support Senator Domenici's amendment. I never heard of such unintended 
consequences.
  All Senator Cohen and I are doing is trying to redress a problem that 
believe the Senate did not intend to cause. Our amendment does not in 
any way allow grantees or the corporation to do anything to avoid 
complying with those 19 specific restrictions. I hope the Senator from 
Texas will reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the 
restrictions imposed in the Domenici amendment applied to all funds at 
the Legal Services Corporation, not just taxpayer funds. We have spent 
years debating this issue when the Legal Services Corporation has 
gotten involved in labor disputes, when the Legal Services Corporation 
has gotten involved in the politics of disputing election dates, when 
the Legal Services Corporation has become involved, basically, in 
political and partisan causes.
  It has often reminded me of an analogy you might have of the pastor 
of the First Baptist Church going to the Baptist student union and he 
discovers a brothel in one of the back rooms. The argument that would 
be made by the Senator from Arkansas is, ``Well, it just so happens 
that we didn't use the money from the Baptist Church for that room. 
Actually, only 80 percent of our budget comes from the Baptist Church, 
and that room was not part of the funds that came from the Baptist 
Church, and the electricity it used, and the natural gas for heating 
were not part of that budget.''
  The point is, no pastor would ever buy into that logic. So when the 
Domenici amendment was offered, it recognized this problem and said, 
``If you take taxpayer money, your job is to represent poor people, 
your job is not advocating political causes.'' That was the purpose of 
the Domenici amendment.

  If our colleague from Arkansas was willing to limit this to simply 
appearing before committees to ask for money, I might be willing to 
agree to that. But clearly he is not going to agree to that limitation. 
When you allow the Legal Services Corporation to be involved in all of 
these activities based on a written request, what you are doing is 
circumventing the limitations that we imposed in the Domenici 
amendment.
  So, we first get the money by saying we are going to restrict the 
activities, and then we come back in a second amendment and we take the 
restrictions off. It seems to me that those who voted for the Domenici 
amendment basically had put together a deal that they wanted the money, 
the money was supposed to go to help poor people get legal services, 
and they were willing as part of that to have strict limits on what the 
Legal Services Corporation could do with its money. It could not lobby, 
it could not be involved in political activities. There were a series 
of other restrictions that were included, including restrictions not 
just on the Federal money but all money commingled with it. We are now 
seeing an effort to undo that. I am opposed to it. I think this is bad 
policy. I do not know where the votes are, but if this amendment is 
voted on, and I intend to vote against it.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may submit 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be submitted and numbered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if none of my colleagues are asking for 
time, I wish to discuss the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian informs the Senator from 
Wyoming that he has not reserved the right to debate the submitted 
amendment pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement at the desk.
  Mr. THOMAS. Then, I guess I cannot do it. I ask the Presiding Officer 
what the arrangement is going to be now. We have a limited amount of 
amendments that can be proposed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yesterday, there was a unanimous-consent 
agreement that was entered into reserving the right to offer amendments 
by certain named Senators. The name of the Senator from Wyoming was not 
included in that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have it 
considered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, before I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration--well, I ask unanimous consent to 
temporarily set aside the current pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Before I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration, might I inquire as to whether this Senator's 
name is on that list?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The name of the Senator from Indiana is on the 
list.
  Mr. COATS. This Senator is pleased to hear that information.


                Amendment No. 3513 to Amendment No. 3466

     (Purpose: To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit 
  governmental discrimination in the training and licensing of health 
    professionals on the basis of the refusal to undergo or provide 
           training in the performance of induced abortions)

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself and Mr. 
     Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 3513 to amendment No. 
     3466.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     Sec.  . ESTABLISHMENT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST ABORTION-RELATED 
                   DISCRIMINATION IN TRAINING AND LICENSING OF 
                   PHYSICIANS.

       Part B of title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 238 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following section:


``abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities regarding 
                  training and licensing of physicians

       ``Sec. 245. (a) In General.--The Federal Government, and 
     any State that receives Federal financial assistance, may not 
     subject any health care entity to discrimination on the basis 
     that--
       ``(1) the entity refuses to undergo training in the 
     performance of induced abortions, to provide such training, 
     to perform such abortions, or to provide referrals for such 
     training or such abortions;
       ``(2) the entity refuses to make arrangements for any of 
     the activities specified in paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) the entity attends (or attended) a postgraduate 
     physician training program, or any other program of training 
     in the health professions, that does not (or did not) 
     require, provide or arrange for training in the performance 
     of induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision 
     of such training.
       ``(b) Accreditation of postgraduate physician training 
     programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to the State government 
     involved, or the Federal Government, restrictions under 
     subsection (a) include the restriction that, in granting a 
     legal status to a health care entity (including a license or 
     certificate), or in providing to the entity financial 
     assistance, a service, or another benefit, the government may 
     not require that the entity fulfill accreditation standards 
     for a postgraduate physician training program, or that the 
     entity have completed or be attending a program that fulfills 
     such standards, if the applicable standards for accreditation 
     of the program include the standard that the program must 
     require, provide or arrange for training in the performance 
     of induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision 
     of such training.
       ``(2) Rules of construction.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to subclauses (I) and (II) 
     of section 705(a)(2)(B)(i) (relating to a program of insured 
     loans for training in the health professions), the 
     requirements in such subclauses regarding accredited 
     internship or residency programs are subject to paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection.

[[Page S2063]]

       ``(B) Voluntary activities.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to--
       ``(i) prevent any health care entity from voluntarily 
     electing to be trained, to train, or to arrange for training 
     in the performance of, to perform, or to make referrals for 
     induced abortions;
       ``(ii) prevent an accrediting agency or a Federal, State or 
     local government from establishing standards of medical 
     competency applicable only to those individuals or entities 
     who have voluntarily elected to perform abortions; and
       ``(iii) affect Federal, State or local governmental 
     reliance on standards for accreditation other than those 
     related to the performance of induced abortions.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `financial assistance', with respect to a 
     government program, includes governmental payments provided 
     as reimbursement for carrying out health-related activities.
       ``(2) The term `health care entity' includes an individual 
     physician, a postgraduate physician training program, and a 
     participant in a program of training in the health 
     professions.
       ``(3) The term `postgraduate physician training program' 
     includes a residency training program.''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not intend to debate this amendment at 
this particular time. I have been in negotiations with the Senator from 
California relative to her amendment. We are attempting to work out an 
agreement whereby we can offer our amendments for a limited period of 
debate and prevent second degrees from being offered so that the 
amendments can be dealt with on their merits and voted on an up-or-down 
basis. I want to put the amendment in place so that when we reach that 
agreement we can proceed on that basis. I will just very briefly 
describe this amendment, without debating it, for my colleagues' 
information.
  Until January 1, 1996, the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical 
Education did not require that a hospital train its residents to 
perform induced abortions. Such training, if it was necessary, was done 
on a voluntary basis. On January 1, 1996, the accrediting council 
changed its standards and now requires those facilities and residents 
to undergo training in induced abortion procedures in order to receive 
its accreditation.
  As a consequence, most Federal Government rules regarding 
reimbursement to these hospitals and regarding grants and loans 
available to residents and resident training programs are pegged to the 
hospitals and training programs receiving the accreditation of the 
Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education. These facilities, 
if they choose not to require this abortion training, will lose their 
Federal funding.
  It is important that they retain this. While there is a conscience 
clause exemption, obviously that does not apply to secular hospitals, 
most of which do not require mandated abortion training. That is the 
essence of the amendment. It is a nondiscrimination amendment which 
would prevent any government, Federal or State, from discriminating 
against hospitals or residents that do not perform, train, or make 
arrangements for abortions. It would prevent, therefore, governments 
from denying these providers Medicare reimbursement, loans, or licenses 
to practice medicine.
  It does not--it is important for my colleagues to understand this--
this legislation does not prevent the accreditation council, a private, 
quasi-Government accrediting agency, the ACGME, it does not prevent 
them from promulgating any standard that they wish to promulgate 
regarding abortion. We are not telling them who to accredit and who not 
to accredit.
  We are simply saying that if they did not accredit because a 
hospital, for whatever reason--conscience reasons, moral reasons, 
religious reasons, community standards reasons, business reasons--
decided not to mandate the requirement of teaching their residents 
abortion procedures, that they will not be in a position of losing 
their funds.

  That is a quick summary of the amendment. We probably will have time 
to debate it more at length, but I did want to offer it and will 
continue to work with the Senator from California in achieving some 
type of balanced approach to these two amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senator 
from Indiana and I are really working to try to expedite these issues. 
They are difficult issues. They are divisive issues in the Senate. We 
certainly disagree, but we are never disagreeable to each other. I 
think that if we can devise a way that we can debate the amendments and 
dispose of them and do it in a way where everybody gets a chance to 
explain the amendments, I will certainly be happy to agree to 
reasonable time limits.
  Let me just say on the amendment by the Senator--and I am not going 
to debate at length, as he did not debate at length; I do not intend to 
do that--it gives me great concern because, in the end, I think what we 
are going to have is a situation where there will be enormous pressure 
on hospitals across this country not to teach their residents how to do 
surgical abortions. I just do not want to go back to the days of the 
back alleys. I feel this would lead us back to those very dangerous 
days.
  I will not take the Senate's time at this point to debate this at 
length. I know we will have a chance to do that later.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as the Senator from 
Oregon, notes the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 3514 through 3517, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk en bloc: 
the first, on behalf of Senator Pressler; the second by me, relating to 
clarifying the rent-setting requirements on housing assistance under 
section 236; the third, for me, increasing the amount available under 
the HUD drug elimination grant program; the fourth, by me, to establish 
a special fund in the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
meet milestones in restructuring its administrative organization.
  I ask all four amendments be filed and set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes amendments 
     Nos. 3514 through 3517, en bloc, to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3514 through 3517), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3514

  (Purpose: To provide funding for a Radar Satellite project at NASA)

       Within its Mission to Planet Earth program, NASA is urged 
     to fund Phase A studies for a radar satellite initiative.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3515

(Purpose: To clarify rent setting requirements of law regarding housing 
 assisted under section 236 of the National Housing Act to limit rents 
 charged moderate income families to that charged for comparable, non-
assisted housing, and clarify permissible uses of rental income is such 
        projects, in excess of operating costs and debt service)

       On page 689, after line 26 of the Committee substitute, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The second sentence of section 236(f)(1) of 
     the National Housing Act, as amended by section 405(d)(1) of 
     The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (ii)'' and inserting ``(ii)''; and
       (2) by striking ``located,'' and inserting: ``located, or 
     (iii) the actual rent (as determined by the Secretary) paid 
     for a comparable unit in comparable unassisted housing in the 
     market area in which the housing assisted under this section 
     is located,''.
       (b) The first sentence of section 236(g) of the National 
     Housing Act is amended by inserting the phrase ``on a unit-
     by-unit basis'' after ``collected''.
       On page 631, after the colon on line 24 of the Committee 
     substitute, insert the following:
       ``Provided further, That rents and rent increases for 
     tenants of projects for which

[[Page S2064]]

     plans of action are funded under section 220(d)(3)(B) of 
     LIHPRHA shall be governed in accordance with the requirements 
     of the program under which the first mortgage is insured or 
     made (sections 236 or 221(d)(3) BMIR, as appropriate):
       Provided further, That the immediately foregoing proviso 
     shall apply hereafter to projects for which plans of action 
     are to be funded under such section 220(d)(3)(B), and shall 
     apply to any project that has been funded under such section 
     starting one year after the date that such project was 
     funded:''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3516

     (Purpose: To increase in amount available under the HUD Drug 
Elimination Grant Program for drug elimination activities in and around 
 federally-assisted low-income housing developments by $30 million, to 
           be derived from carry-over HOPE program balances)

       On page 637, line 20 of the Committee substitute, insert 
     the following new proviso before the period:
       ``Provided further, That an additional $30,000,000, to be 
     derived by transfer from unobligated balances from the 
     Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Grants 
     (HOPE Grants) account, shall be available for use for grants 
     for federally-assisted low-income housing, in addition to any 
     other amount made available for this program under this 
     heading, without regard to any percentage limitation 
     otherwise applicable''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3517

     (Purpose: To establish a special fund dedicated to enable the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to meet crucial milestones 
  in restructing its administrative organization and more effectively 
  address housing and community development needs of States and local 
 units of government and to clarify and reaffirm provisions of current 
 law with respect to the disbursement of HOME and CDBG funds allocated 
                       to the State of New York)

       On page 779, after line 10, of the Committee Substitute, 
     insert the following:


     management and administration departmental restructuring fund

       In addition to funds provided elsewhere in this Act, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997, to 
     facilitate the down-sizing, streamlining, and restructuring 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to 
     reduce overall departmental staffing to 7,500 full-time 
     equivalents in fiscal year 2000: Provided, That such sum 
     shall be available only for personnel training (including 
     travel associated with such training), costs associated with 
     the transfer of personnel from headquarters and regional 
     offices to the field, and for necessary costs to acquire and 
     upgrade information system infrastructure in support of 
     Departmental field staff: Provided further, That not less 
     than 60 days following enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Appropriations Committees of the 
     Congress a report which specifies a plan and schedule for the 
     utilization of these funds for personnel reductions and 
     transfers in order to reduce headquarters on-board staffing 
     levels to 3,100 by December 31, 1996, and 2,900 by October 1, 
     1997: Provided further, That by February 1, 1997 the 
     Secretary shall certify to the Congress that headquarters on-
     board staffing levels did not exceed 3,100 on December 31, 
     1996 and submit a report which details obligations and 
     expenditures of funds made available hereunder: Provided 
     further, That if the certification of headquarters personnel 
     reductions required by this Act is not made by February 1, 
     1997, all remaining unobligated funds available under this 
     paragraph shall be rescinded.


               clarification of block grants in new york

       (a) All funds allocated for the State of New York for 
     fiscal years 1995, 1996, and all subsequent fiscal years, 
     under the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (Public Law 101-625) shall be made available to 
     the Chief Executive Officer of the State, or an entity 
     designated by the Chief Executive Officer, to be used for 
     activities in accordance with the requirements of the HOME 
     investment partnerships program, notwithstanding the 
     Memorandum from the General Counsel of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development dated March 5, 1996.
       (b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     award funds made available for fiscal year 1996 for grants 
     allocated for the State of New York for a community 
     development grants program as authorized by title I of the 
     Housing and Community Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     5301), in accordance with the requirements established under 
     the Notice of Funding Availability for fiscal year 1995 for 
     the New York State Small Cities Community Development Block 
     grant program.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3518 to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3518 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                           Amendment no. 3518

       At the end of title III, insert:
       Sec.   . Section 347(b)(3) of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
     (P.L. 104-50), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) chapter 71, relating to labor-management 
     relations,''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk 
would serve to restore the basic right to organize to thousands of 
hard-working employees at the Federal Aviation Administration. As many 
Members are aware, the FAA is poised to announce a substantial 
restructuring of its personnel system. The authority allowing the FAA 
Administrator to reform the personnel system was granted as part of the 
fiscal year 1996 Transportation Appropriations Act. The Administrator 
was directed to have the new personnel system in place and functional 
on April 1, 1996.
  Unfortunately, the legislative language enabling these reforms to be 
implemented had the unintended effect of taking away the right of FAA 
employees to be represented by a union and to have the terms and 
conditions of their employment negotiated by their union. Obviously, we 
did not intend this language to have that effect. I raised this concern 
during conference committee deliberations on the transportation bill. 
However, it was thought by the House subcommittee leadership that this 
problem could be addressed in the Statement of Managers. As such, the 
statement of managers accompanying this provision in the transportation 
appropriations conference report states unequivocally that, and I 
quote:

       The conferees do not intend that the personnel management 
     reforms included in this bill, force the disestablishment of 
     any existing management-labor agreement, or lead to the 
     dissolution of any union representing FAA employees.

  Regrettably, since that time, our legislative language has been 
restrictively interpreted by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 
Based on their reading, they are refusing to hear any FAA labor dispute 
cases, effectively leaving the FAA's thousands of employees without 
recourse or resolution in ongoing cases pertaining to pay and 
compensation, benefits, and discipline.
  The April 1 deadline for implementation of the new personnel system 
is upon us. If this situation is not resolved by April 1, thousands of 
FAA employees will be left without the right to organize. As such, I am 
taking this opportunity to include this technical fix in the continuing 
resolution in order to ensure its timely passage and avert any further 
negative impact.
  I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by the ranking member of 
the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and the ranking member 
of the aviation subcommittee, Senator Wendell Ford. The FAA reform 
bill, as reported by the Commerce Committee, would serve to correct 
this error. However, it is not clear at this time that the Commerce 
Committee bill can become law before April 1.
  Mr. President, we need FAA reform. The procurement and personnel 
reforms contained in the appropriations bill will assist the FAA in 
meeting current and future responsibilities for the safety of our 
aviation system. However, other aspects of the reform agenda have yet 
to be addressed. Air traffic continues to rise while it becomes more 
and more difficult each year to fund all of the FAA's needs.
  Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices as part of the process of 
reforming the FAA. And the FAA employees are willing to do their part. 
They are among the most dedicated employees in the Federal Service. But 
it is unfair in the extreme to deprive them of rights guaranteed to 
virtually all other Federal employees under Chapter 71, of title 5, 
United States Code--to organize

[[Page S2065]]

and be represented in collective bargaining. Rectifying this error will 
assure these dedicated employees of a fair process for negotiating 
their grievances and a structured process for resolving disputes.
  I am not aware of any opposition to this restoration of rights for 
FAA employees and I would ask my colleagues to join Senator Hollings, 
Senator Ford, and me in providing a just remedy by adopting this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside for 
consideration of it at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 3484 through 3488, En bloc, to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. SANTORUM. I send en bloc amendments to the desk and ask for their 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 3484 through 3488, en bloc, to amendment No. 
     3466.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3484 through 3488), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3484

   (Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding the budget 
               treatment of federal disaster assistance)

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE THE BUDGET 
                   TREATMENT OF FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate that 
     the Conference on S. 1594, making Omnibus Consolidated 
     Rescissions & Appropriations for Fiscal Year ending September 
     30, 1996, and for other purposes, shall find sufficient 
     funding reductions to offset the costs of providing any 
     federal disaster assistance.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3485

   (Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding the budget 
               treatment of federal disaster assistance)

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE THE BUDGET 
                   TREATMENT OF FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate that 
     Congress and the relevant committees of the Senate shall 
     examine the manner in which federal disaster assistance is 
     provided and develop a long-term funding plan for the 
     budgetary treatment of any federal assistance, providing for 
     such funds out of existing budget allocation rather than 
     taking the expenditures off budget and adding to the federal 
     deficit.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3486

 (Purpose: to require that disaster relief provided under this Act be 
    funded through amounts previously made available to the Federal 
 Emergency Management Agency, to be reimbursed through regular annual 
                          appropriations Acts)

  (The text of the amendment numbered 3486 is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')


                             amendment 3487

     (Purpose: To reduce all Title I discretionary spending by the 
 appropriate percentage (.367%) to offset federal disaster assistance)

       At the end of title II of the committee substitute, add the 
     following:
       Sec.   . (a) Not withstanding any other provision of this 
     title, none of the amounts provided in this title is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(I) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (b) Each amount provided in a nonexempt discretionary 
     spending nondefense account covered by title I is reduced by 
     the uniform percentage necessary to offset nondefense 
     discretionary amounts provided in this title. The reductions 
     required by this subsection shall be implemented generally in 
     accordance with section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set 
aside.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so I might send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3519 to Amendment No. 3466

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3519 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee substitute, insert the 
     following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no part 
     of any appropriation contained in this Act which is subject 
     to the provisions of section 4002 shall be made available for 
     obligation or expenditure.''.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this appropriations bill has an 
extraordinary provision in it. In fact, I am not aware that a similar 
provision has ever been in a bill that I have seen considered in the 
Congress. This is the contingency provision whereby we seek to bribe 
the President to enter into a budget by saying we will give him $4.8 
billion to spend if he will enter into any budget that we will agree 
to.
  Mr. President, if such a proposal were made by a private party, they 
would be subject to being sent to the Federal penitentiary. I do not 
understand, if our objective is to lower spending and balance the 
budget, how bribing the President with additional funds will get us 
closer to home or closer to the achievement of that objective.
  I know there are many people in this body who are committed to the 
principle that somehow if we will just give the President enough money 
to spend, he will do what we want him to do. It seems to me that he 
will take the money and spend it, and we will end up not doing what we 
want to do. The problem is, what I want to do is not spend the money.
  We, in trying to bribe the President by giving him $4.8 billion, are, 
in essence, using as the bribe the money that I want the President to 
help us save.
  Now, we have adjusted this contingency fund because we decided on an 
amendment offered by Senator Specter to go ahead and give him $2.7 
billion now. So the contingency fund is actually substantially lower 
than the $4.8 billion. The point remains: We need to be cutting 
spending, not increasing it.
  While I am very much in support of working out a budget agreement, I 
do not believe that we are going to succeed by giving the President 
more money in return for reaching a budget agreement, when we hope the 
budget agreement will spend less money.
  It seems to me a contradiction in terms, movement in the wrong 
direction, and wrongheadedness. Might I say, it shows how we have lost 
our way in this Congress. If anybody told me when the Contract With 
America was passed, when we sent it to the President, that we would be 
now, several months later, offering to give the President $4.8 billion 
of new discretionary spending authority if he would simply agree to any 
budget--there is no requirement in this bill this budget be balanced 
that he would agree to. If he will just agree to any budget with us, we 
will give him $4.8 billion.
  As I said, the number has been slightly adjusted because we decided 
not to wait until the agreement. There was such excitement about 
spending this money that we took $2.7 billion and decided to go ahead 
and spend it, not to even wait on the contingencies. I assume this 
amendment will not be adopted. But I want to give people an opportunity 
to vote to strike this contingency fund out. It seems to me that we 
ought to be cutting spending, not increasing it. And if we have trouble 
getting the President to agree to a budget, it seems that the solution 
is to make these temporary spending bills

[[Page S2066]]

tighter and tighter and tighter, until the President will finally 
realize that it is in his interest, as well as the country's interest, 
to agree to a budget.

  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to send an 
amendment to the desk. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I will 
read this:

       To urge the President to release already-appropriated 
     fiscal year 1996 emergency funding for home heating and other 
     energy assistance, and to express the sense of the Senate on 
     advanced-appropriated funding for fiscal year 1997.

  I am working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and later on 
I think we will be able to work out an agreement, and I can summarize 
it at that point. My understanding is that we need to get amendments 
in.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3520 to Amendment No. 3466

(Purpose: To urge the President to release already-appropriated fiscal 
     year 1996 emergency funding for home heating and other energy 
     assistance, and to express the sense of the Senate on advance-
                   appropriated funding for FY 1997)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
     Santorum, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Pell, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3520 to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       The Senate finds that:
       Record low temperatures across the country this winter, 
     coupled with record snowfalls in many areas, have generated 
     substantial and sustained demand among eligible low-income 
     Americans for home heating assistance, and put many who face 
     heating-related crises at risk;
       Home heating assistance for working and low-income families 
     with children, the elderly on fixed incomes, the disabled, 
     and others who need such help is a critical part of the 
     social safety net in cold-weather areas;
       The President has released approximately $900 million in 
     regular Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 
     funding for this year, compared to a funding level of $1.319 
     billion last year, and a large LIHEAP funding shortfall 
     remains which has adversely affected eligible recipients in 
     many cold-weather states;
       LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 
     approximately 6 million low-income Americans to pay their 
     energy bills. More than two-thirds of LIHEAP-eligible 
     households have annual incomes of less than $8000; more than 
     one-half have annual income below $6000.
       LIHEAP program funding has been substantially reduced in 
     recent years, and cannot sustain any further spending cuts if 
     the program is to remain a viable means of meeting the home 
     heating and other energy-related needs of low-income people 
     in cold-weather states;
       Traditionally, LIHEAP has received advance appropriations 
     for the next fiscal year. This allows states to properly plan 
     for the upcoming winter and best serve the energy needs of 
     low income families.
       Congress was not able to pass an appropriations bill for 
     the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education by the beginning of this fiscal year and it was 
     only because LIHEAP received advance appropriations last 
     fiscal year that the President was able to release the $578 
     million he did in December--the bulk of the funds made 
     available to the states this winter.
       There is currently available to the President up to $300 
     million in emergency LIHEAP funding, which could be made 
     available immediately, on a targeted basis, to meet the 
     urgent home heating needs of eligible persons who otherwise 
     could be faced with heating-related emergencies, including 
     shut-offs, in the coming weeks;
       Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that:
       (a) the President should release immediately a substantial 
     portion of available emergency funding for the Low Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Program for FY 1996, to help meet 
     continuing urgent needs for home heating assistance during 
     this unusually cold winter; and
       (b) not less than the $1 billion in regular advance-
     appropriated LIHEAP funding for next winter provided for in 
     this bill should be retained in a House-Senate conference on 
     this measure.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. 
This amendment reiterates the Senate's strong commitment to maintaining 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] 
despite efforts in the House of Representatives to terminate this 
program and urges House and Senate conferees to continue to fund LIHEAP 
at the Senate level of $1 billion.
  Congress first authorized the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program in 1981 at a time of unprecedented energy costs in order to 
help low-income households maintain an adequate level of heat in their 
homes to ensure their health and safety. This program helps an 
approximate 6.1 million households each year in the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and the U.S. commonwealths and territories. For 
many of these households, which represent the most vulnerable segment 
of the population, including the elderly, the disabled, the working 
poor and children, the assistance they receive through LIHEAP can mean 
the difference between having to choose between heating their home in 
the cold winter months or other vital needs such as food, warm 
clothing, and medical care.
  Mr. President, a recent study by the National Consumer Law Center 
indicated that there is a widening gap between the level of LIHEAP 
funding and the total heating and cooling costs for low-income 
families. While the LIHEAP benefits provided to these needy families 
can not meet their entire energy costs, the average benefit of $216 per 
household for heating assistance can prove critical to the efforts of 
senior citizens and working poor families on a fixed income to stay 
safely in their homes.
  In my own State of Maryland, LIHEAP funds cover only about 20 percent 
of the cost of the average heating bill for eligible recipients. The 
Maryland Energy Assistance Program, which administers the LIHEAP 
program, draws on support from other public sector sources, non-profit 
agencies, private industry and public utilities in order to best meet 
the compelling energy needs of approximated 90,000 low-income 
Marylanders.
  This collaboration between public and private sector entities has 
resulted in a number of innovative programs to make home energy more 
affordable to the most vulnerable group of Maryland citizens. Special 
payment arrangements with utilities, expanded public education and 
energy conservation programs, including weatherization assistance, and 
direct access to other energy-related programs, serve to make the 
LIHEAP program in Maryland a successful coordinated effort.
  Mr. President, this winter has seen record snowfalls in the Mid-
Atlantic region and bitterly cold temperatures across much of the 
country. This severe winter weather threatened the safety of millions 
of Americans and strained States' ability to help needy families at a 
time when the budgetary impasse made the very future of the LIHEAP 
program uncertain. This program is effective and over the years has 
helped many families in need with their energy bills. Support of 
Senator Wellstone's amendment will send a strong message to the House 
of Representatives that the Senate will persist in its efforts to 
maintain adequate funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

                          ____________________