Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2081-S2094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could get a clarification here, I
believe that the Senator has indicated that there would be objection
and we are not going to have a vote on this issue tonight, as I
understand it, and we had announced to all the members 1\1/2\ hours or
so ago that we would have a vote at or about 8:30. The distinguished
Senator from Minnesota has been on his feet for probably close to an
hour now seeking to get recognition to speak on an amendment that is
the pending business.
Now, Mr. President, is that the----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the pending business. The pending
business is the amendment of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell].
Mr. LOTT. Would the Chair repeat that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment of
Senator Coverdell of Georgia.
Mr. LOTT. I believe, Mr. President, it would be in order to ask for
the regular order on the Grams amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could finish my one
question of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. LOTT. In order to wrap this up, I would yield to Senator Dorgan,
and then I am going to yield to Senator Murkowski. But I would like to
get on with the business I told the Members we have.
Mr. DORGAN. I only want to amplify the point the Senator has made.
The cloakroom indicated there was going to be a vote at 8:30 on an
amendment that was pending. This is probably an appropriate time for a
China debate here in the Senate, but I would certainly support the
inclination of the Senator from Mississippi to get the regular order
and move to the amendments that are now pending.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, would the Senator from Alaska like to----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would just like to ask my friend from Louisiana,
with whom I share the responsibility on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and we work together, if, indeed, on page 2, line
23----
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, who has recognition at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like for us to be able to wrap this
issue up. I know the Senator has some more comments to make on it, but
we did say the regular order would be the Grams amendment, I believe.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thought there was a reference to Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the majority whip wishes, the regular order
will be the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams.
Mr. LOTT. I believe that is the order, Mr. President, and I would
like to ask for that at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The amendment 3492 is now
pending.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Amendment No. 3492

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I will not take a lot of time. I know
everybody is in a hurry to wrap this up for tonight.
I think this is a very important amendment that I offered last night.
It has a growing number of cosponsors as well. It is called the
taxpayer protection lockbox amendment. I think it is very important
because I think we have been talking about trying to get a budget
together, spending authority for this Government over the next couple
weeks, for a couple of months in order to avoid a shutdown.
I think it was a glaring example this last week, when we are talking
about a

[[Page S2082]]

lockbox, we are talking about trying to save the taxpayers some money,
when the President asked for over $8 billion in new spending and he
wants this Congress to come up with that much money.
There have been many amendments that have been offered that have cut
spending trying to save the taxpayers some dollars. Those dollars have
always gone for a savings and a cut, but it has never been a cut. It
has never reduced the amount of spending for that year. Those dollars
that are saved are always just shuffled off into another pot and
somehow get spent before the end of the year.

The request that has been made by the President is supposed to come
from new spending. In other words, there is even some estimated
savings, savings that we are going to have if we pass a balanced
budget. Since those dollars are out there floating, everybody is trying
to get their hands on those projected savings dollars. In fact, we have
a number of amendments pending on the floor that are asking for those
same dollars to be spent over and over and over again.
So my objection is that this should not be a shell game for the
taxpayers. We should not be using smoke and mirrors when it comes to
the budget. If we are going to reduce appropriations or spending
levels, they actually should be reduced. The taxpayers should see that
benefit in a smaller budget.
Instead, all we do is move those dollars from one hand and we put
them into another hand, and at the end of the day they are spent and
the taxpayer is handed a larger bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, can we have order in the Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. GRAMS. Just a couple of quick other notes. This is not the first
time this idea has been introduced. The lockbox language has been
adopted by the House three times already, by large votes, the latest
vote, 373 to 52. Also, it has the support of a number of groups such as
the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy,
the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Madam President, if we are going to be responsible for the taxpayers,
we should get our house in order. If we are talking about saving some
money, let us make sure we do save it and just do not play a shell game
and put it in another pocket and spend it later.
Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from Missouri who had a
comment.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. GRAMS. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I think I understand what the Senator is saying here,
and I think the point is this. When something comes to the floor here
and we knock funding out of an appropriation, instead of that being
available to reduce the debt----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, there are two Senators out here
speaking on an amendment. They have a right to be heard. May we have
order here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senators who are having the caucus in
the middle of the Chamber please repair to the Cloakroom?
The Senator from Missouri is recognized to pose a question to the
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Missouri thanks the Chair.
It is my understanding that what the Senator is saying is, when we
strike something from an appropriations measure and we would reduce the
amount of the appropriation, that currently that money is not reduced
from spending, but it just becomes available for spending in other
areas. Is that correct?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So all the efforts we make to amend spending measures
here and reduce them just allow the diversion of funds to other
sources?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct. The taxpayer is under the belief that
money is being saved in their name, but it is just being moved from one
pocket and put into another.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's measure would say whenever we reduce a
spending measure here by amendment, that the reduction would go into a
special category which could only be used to reduce the deficit?
Mr. GRAMS. That is right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So when we had an amendment to occasion savings, that
would be real savings and not just a diversion to other sources?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It seems to me that some of the rules of industry ought
to apply. One of the great rules of industry is that your system is
designed to give you what you are getting. It may not be designed to
give you what you wanted to get, but it is designed to give you what
you are getting. We have been getting a lot of debt and maybe it is
because we need to redesign the structure.

Mr. GRAMS. That is hopefully what this will do. It is the first step
in trying to change the budget process.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That will be when we reduce the spending on the floor
as a result of an amendment; instead of that money automatically just
being diverted to other spending, it would go into a special category
which could only be used to reduce the deficit?
Mr. GRAMS. And reduce our budget obligations for that fiscal year.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The second part of the Senator's measure is, I guess,
related to revenues. If we project a certain amount of money that comes
in as revenues and for spending, and then we get more money than that,
the Senator creates another special fund, that if our revenues come in
higher than projected, that money goes into a deficit-reduction account
as well?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct. Say our projected revenues will be $1.6
trillion and because of the hard work of the American workers, it comes
in at $1.7 trillion, that additional $100 billion really should benefit
the taxpayers and workers of this country to pay off the deficit and
not to be laid on the table for people to grab at it and spend it in
different ways.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So the bonus would be to the next generation by having
lower debt instead of a bonus being to politicians to have bigger
spending?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So the two components are to change the system so when
we amend the system and we amend a measure to reduce spending, the
money goes into a special lockbox or fund for deficit reduction, and in
the event we have higher-than-anticipated revenues, we sweep those
revenues into deficit reduction instead of dumping them into a slush--a
fund that can be appropriated for additional spending?
Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If I might commend my colleague, I think this is the
kind of structural change we need. We have been for the last three
decades just amassing debt and passing on the responsibility to pay
that to the next generation. It is high time we develop a technique and
change the structure, which would provide that when we do have the
discipline to cut a spending measure, that the cut goes to deficit
reduction instead of just being diverted to something else.
I thank the Senator for proposing this measure, and I intend to
support it. I think it is a major benefit, not only to us here but to
the next generation.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Minnesota, Senator Grams, in supporting the Deficit Reduction Lockbox
Act of 1995 as an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act.
This is a simple amendment. Often Members stand on the floor and make
that claim that this or that proposal is simple. Well, this is. For all
the legislative language, it mandates that if any money is cut from an
appropriations bill or if revenues raised by the Federal Government are
in excess of budgetary projections, the money can only be used to
reduce the deficit or cut taxes.
Often a Member will go to the floor to oppose a program or project.
The Member will fight to eliminate this or that waste or abuse of
Government spending. And from time to time, the effort will be
successful and funding to some program will be cut.
But unfortunately, instead of using the money for deficit reduction,
it is often used to fund yet another pork barrel project.
Madam President, when the Senator from Minnesota and I oppose
earmarks and pork barrel funding, we are not taking such action so that
the money can be used for some other pork

[[Page S2083]]

project. We are doing so because we want the money to be used for
deficit reduction. We are doing so because of the budget crisis that
our Nation faces.
The No. 1 dilemma facing the future of this country is not whether
another bridge is built, whether a 13th swine research center is built,
whether we do or do not study the effect on the atmosphere of
flatulence in cows, or if we build another supercomputer to study the
aurora borealis--it is this Nation's debt. What we must do is restore
the fiscal integrity of this Nation and the only way to do that is to
reduce the debt.
Two final points, first, I want to note that this amendment has been
endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound
Economy, and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Second, this body has gone on record supporting lockbox language in
the past. During consideration of the line item veto, the Senate
adopted an amendment regarding the lockbox. The House has also passed
lockbox language--adopting an amendment very similar to this one just
last week. I would hope that we could now follow the House's lead.
This amendment will not alone solve this problem. But it is an
important step in the right direction. Together with passage of a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the line-item veto,
a powerful body of legislation, we will do much to restore the
integrity of the congressional budget process.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the
amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], the
Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act of 1996. I commend the Senator on his
amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor.
It only makes common sense: When the Senate or the other body passes
an amendment to cut spending, with great fanfare about how fiscally
responsible it is and how it will help reduce the deficit, we should
make sure that the cut is, indeed, a cut. Many of us in both bodies
have been frustrated by supposed spending cuts only to learn that the
money supposedly saved becomes immediately available for spending on
some other programs. That just shouldn't happen.
The Lockbox Act would be an invaluable help to honest budgeting. It
would be a blow for truth in legislating. It would finally put an end
to one of the gimmicks that has fed so much public cynicism about how
Congress goes through the budget process.
This amendment is very similar to an amendment adopted by the other
body, which was offered by Congressman Mike Crapo of Idaho. It is also
similar to one title of a budget process reform package I introduced in
the last Congress, the Common-Cents Budget Reform Act. Not only is this
sound legislation, it also has a good Idaho pedigree.
I support Senator Grams in his offering of this amendment and I call
on our colleagues to adopt it. It would remove, once and for all, one
insidious way in which Congress in the past have cooked the books. A
vote for the Lockbox Act is a vote for better government, more honest
budgeting, and a more accountable Congress.
Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I understand the yeas and nays have been
ordered on this amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor? The Senator
from Minnesota has the floor. Does he yield the floor? Does the Senator
from Minnesota yield to the Senator from New Mexico?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me say to Senator Grams, I share
his concern about getting the budget under control, but I have to
oppose this amendment because it violates the Budget Act and is subject
to a point of order.
I do not choose to discuss the amendment very much, other than to say
to the Senate that the way things work right now, the Budget Committee
produces a budget resolution; it is voted on by both Houses and
eventually becomes the budget resolution for both Houses. As far as
domestic discretionary and defense discretionary spending, after that
budget resolution is completed, the Appropriations Committee, under the
leadership of the chairman, allocates to subcommittees the amount of
discretionary money that is available for the entire year, and that
total amount of money becomes a cap beyond which you cannot spend
unless Congress declares an emergency for funds that would exceed the
cap.
Let me give the Senate an example of how far we have come in just
this year. By enforcing those caps, we will save $21 billion in just
the discretionary appropriated accounts. Without one nickel of savings
in entitlements, we save $21 billion.
What that means is that every bill that comes before the Senate is
part of the cumulation of subcommittee allocations that equal the cap.
We do not need another piecemeal cap, which means on the floor of the
Senate we readjust the caps based upon what actions we take on
appropriations bills. We took the action. This year the action is to
save $21 billion.
I understand there is a fervent desire--and I have great respect for
it--to do even more than the formal binding caps that were established
this year by the Republicans in both Houses, which save $21 billion. I
do not believe we should now establish another piecemeal approach to
reducing the caps on the basis of individual votes on appropriations
bills on the Senate floor.
The last time the House visited this item, they passed it by two
votes. I believe the U.S. Senate has a far more reasonable and rational
approach, which is to send this proposal, this kind of change, to the
committees of jurisdiction so you look at it in the context of the
overall the budget process, not just this one piece.
Having said that, it is with regret that I must make a point of order
under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. I make the point of
order.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I want to say I have the deepest respect
for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Domenici, and also the highest
respect, of course, for the hearing process, but I would like to see a
vote on this. So I move to waive the Budget Act, and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act. 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], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs.
Kassebaum], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily
absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is
absent on official business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 57, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

YEAS--36

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Brown
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Thomas
Thompson
Warner

NAYS--57

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Thurmond
Wellstone
Wyden

[[Page S2084]]

NOT VOTING--7

Bennett
Dole
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Moynihan
Pryor
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 36 and the nays are
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is rejected.
The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota contains matter within
the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee but the pending bill
was not reported by the Budget Committee. Therefore, the amendment
violates section 306 of the Budget Act. The point of order is
sustained. The amendment fails.

amendment no. 3508

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by Senator Boxer. This amendment will ensure that the
District of Columbia can make its own decisions on whether to use
locally raised revenues for abortion services.
I oppose the provision included in the bill as reported from the
committee. Under the committee's bill, neither Federal nor locally
raised funds could be used for abortion.
Frankly, I oppose any restrictions on funding for abortion services.
But the language in the committee bill is particularly onerous.
Madam President, let me offer three reasons why the committee's
language is objectionable, and why the Boxer amendment must be
approved:
First, the language in the bill is an assault on the local
prerogatives of the District of Columbia.
Second, it threatens the health of poor women.
Third, it is part of a wide ranging attack on women's reproductive
rights.
Let me explain.
First of all, the committee's provision is an unwarranted intrusion
on the District's sovereignty. It restricts the ability of the District
to use its own, locally raised revenues for access to abortion.
No other jurisdiction is told how to use its own revenues. Every
State can make its own decision on using its own funds to provide
access to abortion for poor women.
Seventeen States, including the State of Maryland, provide Medicaid
funding for abortion under all or most circumstances. That is their
right. Thirty-three States have chosen not to use their funds for
abortion. I may not agree with them on this point, but it is their
right to make that decision.
The District should be given the same autonomy as the States to
create its own policy about matters of public health. The Boxer
amendment will assure that the District has that right.
Madam President, the provision currently in the bill tramples on the
rights of women who live in the District, especially those who are poor
and most vulnerable.
For poor women who cannot afford basic health care without Government
assistance, this denies access to abortion services. Poor women should
have the same choices to terminate a pregnancy that other women have.
Finally, Madam President, the provision in the bill as it now stands
is part of a disturbing series of assaults on women's reproductive
rights.
Throughout the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process, we have seen
one attack after another on women's constitutionally protected right to
choose. I strongly oppose these efforts to chip away at women's rights.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boxer amendment. I would prefer
to strike the entire provision, so that there would be no restrictions
on either the Federal funds or locally raised revenue. But I recognize
that is not possible given the current composition of this body.
So while it may be that we cannot strike the restriction on Federal
funds, surely at a minimum we must protect the right of the District of
Columbia to use locally raised revenues as it sees fit.
Not to do so violates the District's right to determine its own
affairs. It is unfair to poor women who reside in the District. And, it
is one more effort to undermine reproductive rights.
I urge support of the Boxer amendment.

pride

Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity
to commend the subcommittee chairman for his leadership and for his
sensitivity to the alarming rate of increased drug use among our teens.
Mr. GREGG. I thank my good friend and share his concern about drug
use among our youth.
Mr. COVERDELL. In my capacity as chairman of the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I recently
held a field hearing in my home State of Georgia about drugs. One of
the witnesses, Dr. Thomas J. Gleaton who is the president of the
Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education or PRIDE, testified that
we are on the brink of a national disaster. I frankly agree with him.
Dr. Gleaton testified that teen drug use peaked in 1979 when 55
percent of senior high school students reported using an illicit
substance in the previous year; that level dropped steadily through
1992 to 25 percent. However, the shocking evidence over the past 3
years shows a rapid reversal. If current trends continue, drug use will
pass the high mark of 1979, and we will have more high school seniors
using drugs than are not. That, to me, is shocking.
One of the reasons I am sold on PRIDE's approach to this growing
problem is its emphasis on parental involvement as a main deterrent to
drug use among our children. A recent Barbara Walters interview with
Colin Powell illustrates the power of parental involvement. Ms. Walters
asked General Powell if he had ever used drugs. General Powell replied
that he never used drugs because if he had, he would have had to answer
to his mother.
I would ask the Senator if he, in his capacity as the chairman of the
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee,
would support using a portion of Office of Justice Programs funding to
maintain the work of groups who seek to stop drug use among our
children through grassroots efforts like PRIDE?
Mr. GREGG. The subcommittee shares the Senator from Georgia's belief
that an important component in winning the war against drugs is putting
an end to drug use among our youth. Further, the subcommittee would
encourage the Office of Justice Programs to support grassroots efforts
like the one described by the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my friend and appreciate his support.

mental health block grant

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to express my concern
about the funding level proposed in this bill for the mental health
block grant. While I am pleased that the bill retains separate funding
for the Path Program, which provides critical services to homeless
Americans with mental illnesses, the mental health block grant proposal
is another matter. The Senate cuts the block grant by 18 percent, down
to $226.3 million, while the House proposes level funding at $275.4
million.
Cutting the block grant is penny wise and pound foolish. The block
grant is the primary Federal discretionary program supporting
community-based mental health services for adults and children. States
use the block grant to fund community-based treatment, case management,
homeless outreach, juvenile services, and rural mental health services
for people with serious mental illness. The block grant plays a
particularly important role in States like New Mexico where we have
numerous underserved areas where there is often inadequate access to
may different types of vital health care services.
The block grant provides up to 39.5 percent of the Community Mental
Health Services budget controlled by State mental health agencies.
Although it constitutes a small portion of many States' overall
spending on mental health, its impact on community-based services is
undeniable.
The bill cuts block grant funds at a time when States are placing
more emphasis on cost-effective community-based services. More and more
States are closing or downsizing their State hospitals in an effort to
save funds. The States are replacing those services with more cost-
effective services at the community level. The block grant helps ensure
that individuals who leave institutions have somewhere to go for
treatment, and are not simply relegated to the streets.
According to the National Association of State Mental Health Program
Directors, fiscal year 1993 was the first

[[Page S2085]]

time that State hospital inpatient spending equalled spending on
community-based services. The mental health block grant played an
important role in this transition, and I believe this trend will only
continue in the future.
I understand very well the constraints facing the Appropriations
Committee. But I believe the spending in the mental health block grant
is cost-effective, and if the House is willing to provide level
funding, it is my hope that the Senate can do so as well. I urge the
committee to accept the House number.

epa research facility, research triangle park, north carolina

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator
Chafee, to clarify the intent of his amendment concerning funds to
construct a new research facility for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency at Research Triangle Park, NC.
I understand the chairman's concern that this proposed project be
reviewed by the appropriate authorizing committees of the Senate and
House of Representatives. However, I have a concern that if the
Congress does not act in time for contracts to be awarded in this
fiscal year, that the cost will escalate dramatically.
I believe that the distinguished chairman is aware of my 2-year
efforts to lower the overall costs associated with the project. As
such, it would be unfortunate to experience needless delay resulting in
higher costs to the taxpayers. Does the chairman intend to schedule
committee consideration of a resolution authorizing this project in the
near future?
Mr. CHAFEE. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator's question.
I am indeed aware of your successful efforts to lower the overall costs
of this important project. It is not my intention to sacrifice these
savings by delaying authorization. Instead, this amendment will
preserve the Environment and Public Works Committee's authority to
review and determine spending levels for the construction of Federal
buildings.
With respect to committee consideration of a resolution authorizing
the project, it is my intention to schedule a business meeting as
expeditiously as possible. I am confident that we could consider a
resolution well before the April 19, 1996, deadline established in the
amendment.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I appreciate the chairman's response. I have one final
question for the chairman. Will the prospective committee resolution
allow for multi-year funding? That is, will the authorization permit
incremental appropriations over the next few fiscal years for this
project to be completed?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Authorizations provided by committee resolutions
approving construction of Federal buildings stand unless and until
subsequently modified by the committee.

amendment no. 3493

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity
to explain my vote today in support of Senator Murray's amendment to
the Omnibus Rescissions and Appropriations Act. A year ago this body
passed what had become known as the salvage timber rider. Given the
threats this provision posed to the health of many valuable forest
environments and the potential impacts of harvesting timber under
suspension of environmental laws on fish and wildlife habitat, I
opposed that amendment. Today, I supported Senator Murray's amendment
for the same reason. Senator Murray's amendment offered our Nation a
reasonable, well thought out, environmentally and economically sound
alternative to current law on timber salvage.
Although many people feel that any timber salvage program threatens
our natural resources, I believe our Nation needs an effective,
environmentally sound timber salvage program that addresses the risks
posed by persistent drought, disease, and insect infestation. Senator
Murray has met the challenge of developing a reasonable and effective
response to this issue.
I am supporting Senator Murray's amendment for several reasons:
First, it repeals the previous salvage timber amendment; second, it
institutes a temporary program that increases public participation in
salvage timber sales; third, it mandates compliance with all
environmental laws; and, finally, it requires a comprehensive study of
forest health by the National Academy of Sciences.
I applaud Senator Murray for her diligence and hard work in bringing
this amendment to the floor. Mrs. Murray developed an approach that
garnered the support of a wide array of constituents, a formidable task
on any issue.
Our Nation has reached a point where we can no longer tinker at the
edges of the forest management system of our country. For both economic
and environmental reasons, we need to create certainty in how our
forests will be managed. I believe that Senator Murray's amendment is a
positive step in that direction and will resolve what has been a
difficult and unsustainable situation.

Joint Implementation Activities

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, it has come to my attention that there
may be a need to give the Environmental Protection Agency additional
guidance and budgetary flexibility regarding their support for climate
changes studies in developing countries and their contribution to joint
implementation activities carried out by Federal agencies to reduce
CO2 emissions worldwide. At present, a total of $8 million is
appropriated for these activities in the Omnibus appropriations bill.
As I understand it, there is a development consensus that the United
States can achieve significantly greater CO2 reductions and better
value for dollars spent by supplementing that $8 million with another
$4 million, drawn from the general allocations provided to the global
climate account. CO2 reductions accomplished under joint
implementation activities accrue to the United States. I am not
proposing that we incorporate this direction to EPA today, but I am
suggesting that this is an issue that we should discuss prior to and
during conference with the House, especially if this kind of
programmatic flexibility will assure that we achieve our environmental
objectives in a way that is most cost effective and which demonstrates
the United States commitment to environmental protection.

TERMINUS OF THE NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

Mr. COCHRAN. The Natchez Trace Parkway is nearing the end of
construction on 445 miles of historic roadway through Mississippi and
Tennessee. The parkway has been under construction since 1937 and only
the final 20 miles remain to be completed along with an Intermodal
Visitor's Center at the terminus in Natchez, MS, a cost-share project
that combines Federal, State, and local funds.
The fiscal year 1996 Interior section of the Omnibus consolidated
rescissions and appropriations bill contains $3,000,000 for
construction of the Natchez Trace Parkway. This $3,000,000 is
insufficient to complete construction of any of the remaining miles on
the parkway and the National Park Service has indicated that the
appropriated funds can be used for the cost-share visitor center
project to be located at the terminus of the parkway. This transfer of
funds will be a single appropriation to the National Park Service to be
used for the construction of the visitors center.
I have worked on this project with my friend and colleague, Senator
Gorton, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
and Senator Byrd, my friend from West Virginia and distinguished
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and ask them if they are
in agreement that it would be acceptable for the $3,000,000 provided
for construction on the Natchez Trace Parkway in fiscal year 1996 to be
used for the project at the parkway's terminus?
Mr. GORTON. That is correct. In providing these funds the committee
is aware of the need to initiate construction of the Intermodal Center,
and that providing these funds would fulfill the Federal commitment to
this cost-shared visitor center project.
Mr. BYRD. I concur with the chairman and my friend from Mississippi
that using these funds for such a project at the terminus of the
Natchez Trace Parkway is a proper use of the appropriated funds, and
that agreeing to this proposal at this time will not impose any outyear
construction costs for this project on the Interior bill.

generic ranitidine

Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Madam President, today the distinguished Senator from

[[Page S2086]]

Arkansas offered a statement with regard to patent litigation
concerning an application filed with the FDA for generic ranitidine. In
fact, that applicant has declined several opportunities to expedite
this case. Moreover, the applicant has introduced a new counterclaim
which will begin a new round of discovery, thereby significantly
delaying the trial.
Geneva filed an ANDA for generic ranitidine tablets and notified
Glaxo Wellcome in March 1994. Glaxo Wellcome filed a patent
infringement suit in March 1994. Under the Hatch-Waxman procedures, the
30-month statutory injunction runs through September 1996. A trial date
has not been set.
A trial court decision is not considered final if an appeal is taken.
Thus it is highly unlikely that a final court ruling will occur prior
to September 1996.
Even if the trial had already begun, it is unlikely that the trial
and appeal could be completed by September. In an earlier patent
infringement case against Novopharm with respect to the validity of the
Form 2 patent, the trial court ruled in Glaxo Wellcome's favor in
September 1993. Novopharm appealed the same month, but the appeal was
not decided for 19 months, in April 1995.
Geneva had delayed the case. After their initial request for an
expedited trial, Geneva has made little effort to expedite the
proceedings, even after the district court in Royce versus Bristol
Myers Squibb ruled that the FDA could approve ANDA's prior to the GATT-
amended patent expiration dates.
Also, after the discovery schedule was set in January of this year,
Geneva amended their original complaint to add a new action. Glaxo
Wellcome has argued against allowing them to amend their complaint
partially because it will open up the discovery process and further
delay the proceedings, probably beyond the July 1997 patent expiration
date for Zantac.

crop insurance

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I rise to call attention to a serious
problem facing our Nation's farmers. Currently farmers are required to
purchase crop insurance coverage to be eligible for farm program
benefits. The deadline for purchasing crop insurance has already
expired for southern commodities and will expire Friday, March 15, for
midwestern commodities. Under normal circumstances, these deadlines
would not be a problem; however, the farm bill has yet to be enacted,
farm program provisions have not been announced, and farmers are
uncertain about what crops they can or can't plant and still be
eligible for farm program benefits.
As you know, I have strongly supported a viable crop insurance
program and have urged farmers to utilize important risk management
tool. However, to require farmers to meet the crop insurance closing
deadlines without knowing what will be in the farm bill, what they can
or can't plant, or whether or not they even have to purchase crop
insurance at all does not make common sense to me.
Madam President, I would prefer to address this issue by simply
extending the deadline to purchase crop insurance, but I understand it
will be scored by CBO as and cost and thus require an offset.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, my colleague raises a valid and
important point. Farmers are in fact, facing uncertainty and a
potentially serious situation concerning purchase of crop insurance for
1996. Many believe they are not going to be required to buy it; others
may believe that they are already covered when, in fact, they aren't
because the automatic extension of their 1995 policy won't cover all
the crops they may plant in 1996. For example, a farmer who planted
cotton last year and corn this year is not covered under an extension
of his old policy. And, because the closing date has or soon will pass,
he will not be able to purchase insurance.
I am pleased to report to the Senate that the conferees on the farm
bill are aware of this issue. I hope my colleagues will work to see
that this is addressed as part of the conference agreement on that bill
by temporarily extending the purchase date for those producers who want
to purchase insurance. We should not send a mixed message by allowing
broad cropping flexibility, while remaining totally inflexible about
insurance purchase dates for the 1996 crops.
I appreciate the designated Democratic leader for raising this
important issue. I agree this is a problem and should be corrected.

amendment no. 3513

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by Senator Coats. The amendment would allow hospitals whose
programs have not been accredited by the Accreditation Council on
Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] to continue to receive Federal funds
if the accreditation was denied because the program did not provide
abortion training.
Let me share with you three reasons why I oppose the amendment.
First of all, if the amendment is adopted, the Congress will be
imposing its judgment of what should be taught in OB/GYN residency
programs over that of the medical professionals of the ACGME.
Second, the amendment would create a bureaucratic nightmare. If
Federal agencies cannot be guided by ACGME accreditations in
administering Federal programs, what standards will be used?
Third, under this amendment the number of physicians trained to
provide abortions--a legal medical procedure--will continue to decline,
jeopardizing women's health.
As my colleagues know, the ACGME is a private medical accreditation
body which sets the standards for over 7,400 residency programs in this
country. The American Medical Association, the American Hospital
Association, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American
Board of Medical Specialties, and the Council of Medical Specialty
Societies are all a part of ACGME.
They are the medical experts who know what should be included in a
complete medical training program. Earlier this year, the experts of
the ACGME unanimously agreed that ACGME's standards should be modified
to require that residency programs providing training in abortion
procedures.
But, let me be clear. The ACGME recognized that people and
institutions have strongly held beliefs on the issue of abortion. So,
the ACGME ensured that these new standards do not compel any
institution or person with moral or religious objections to abortion to
participate in training. It respects the beliefs of individuals and of
institutions. Under the ACGME policy, training programs with moral or
religious objections are permitted to refer their students to other
facilities to receive this training.
I believe the Congress should respect the medical expertise and
judgment of the ACGME. Politicians should not be setting the standards
for medical residency programs. That is the job of experts.
It is ironic that at a time when we see efforts to reduce the role of
big government, proponents of this amendment seek to substitute the
judgment of government for what should be the judgment of medical
experts.
If this amendment is adopted, Federal agencies will face a
bureaucratic nightmare. If Federal programs cannot rely on the ACGME
accreditation in making decisions on funding medical education or other
programs, what standard should they use?
Will the Government have to devise another Federal accreditation
standard? Will the Federal Government require the States to set up new
standards? It seems to me that either of these options results in more
redtape for medical programs, more bureaucracy, and more government
involvement in the private sector.
Do we allow residence programs to receive Federal funds if they have
not had to receive any accreditation at all? This option would mean
residency programs have not had to meet any quality of care standard at
all. Surely that is not in the best interests of patients or medical
institutions. And, surely that cannot be the intent of those offering
this amendment. Yet, I fear that it could well be the result.
Let me make one further point, Madam President. There is a growing
shortage of physicians who are trained in abortion procedures and
willing to provide abortion services. This constitutes a serious risk
to the health of America's women, for whom access to safe and legal
abortion is disappearing.

[[Page S2087]]

In fact, in 45 States, the number of physicians who perform abortions
declined between 1982 and 1992. Currently, in 84 percent of counties in
the United States, not a single physician provides abortion services.
At the same time, the number of residency programs that routinely offer
training in first-trimester abortions has declined from 23 percent in
1985 to only 12 percent in 1992.
Abortion is legal in this country. But the constitutionally protected
right to choice is endangered if there are no physicians trained in
providing abortion services. It is essential that women who need
abortion services have access to qualified and well-trained health care
providers.
That is what the ACGME standards would ensure. That is why the
Congress should not undermine the ACGME standards. That is why this
amendment should be defeated.

department of justice local law enforcement block grants

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if I could I would like to engage the
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] in a colloquy with
respect to provisions in this bill which relate to funding under the
Justice Department Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance Program. I am specifically speaking to the
issue of the local law enforcement block grants. It is my understanding
that in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the authority to
enforce felony crime statutes is vested solely in the Commonwealth
Police Department. it is also my understanding that when the committee
took up this provision that the committee did not intend to preclude
the Puerto Rico Commonwealth Police Department, the only law
enforcement agency with the authority to enforce our felony crime
statutes, from being eligible for community policing funds. Is my
understanding correct that the committee was unaware of this specific
circumstance with respect to Puerto Rico?
Mr. GREGG. The Senator is correct, the committee was in fact unaware
of these circumstances.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would hope that the Senator would ensure that this
matter is clarified when this bill reaches conference and the final
conference agreement reflects that the terms and conditions of the
local law enforcement block grants do not preclude the Puerto Rico
Commonwealth Police Department from being eligible for community
policing funds?
Mr. GREGG. Yes, I want to assure my good friend from Louisiana, that
on behalf of the committee that we intend to correct this matter in
conference.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I want to thank my good friend from New Hampshire for
this clarification. I yield the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the bill now before us in the 10th
continuing resolution for this fiscal year. That is 10 times too many.
We should and could have done better. The American people have
patiently endured two major Government shutdowns which severely
disrupted their lives. Americans deserve to know that their Government
will remain open, that it is not in danger of another shutdown. They
deserve to know that agencies that perform important functions, and
that affect all of our lives, are funded through the fiscal year 1996
year.
We are over 5 months into the fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year is
nearly half over, yet we are still operating our Government in a
piecemeal fashion. Five appropriation bills remain pending. These bills
include funds for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and dozens
of other agencies.
Rather than passing another stop-gap continuing resolution, we should
complete action on the remaining appropriation bills. We should be
working to avoid another Government shutdown. Hostage-taking and
legislative blackmail is not the way to arrive at the kind of solution
we need to solve our budgetary problems.
As you know, a number of the provisions of this legislation have been
vetoed by the President or have drawn veto threats. The President
indicated that insufficient funding for priority programs was a major
reason for his vetoes.

When this bill arrived in the Senate it lacked over $8 billion in
funds for important programs. The President identified several high
priority programs in the areas of education, crime, and the environment
and called for $8.1 billion to be added back to those programs. He also
offered a number of suggestions to offset that spending; the
administration's budget offsets come from potential savings in other
areas of the budget, so that we can restore funding without increasing
the deficit. However, rather than incorporating the administration's
request, the committee responded by adding back only $4.8 billion. On
the face of it, this additional spending appears to be a move in the
right direction. However, this money is not real; this money is
contingent on future actions that may or may not occur. As a result,
the President has threatened to veto this bill in its current form.
If we are to make real progress we need to get our priorities
straight. In a recent poll, Americans stated that they were concerned
about education, crime, jobs, and health care. Americans are concerned
about earning a fair wage, about their children's education, and about
their ability to live in safe and healthy communities. Spending
priorities should reflect these priorities.
Domestic discretionary spending is being badly squeezed in this bill.
However, domestic discretionary spending is not one of the major causes
of the budget crisis the Federal Government is facing. Domestic
discretionary spending has not grown as a percentage of the GDP since
1969, the last time we had a balanced budget. Domestic discretionary
spending comprises only one-sixth of the $1.5 trillion Federal budget,
and that percentage is steadily declining.
While I firmly believe that if we are to stay on track and balance
the budget, every program needs to be reviewed for spending reduction.
However, I believe that these reductions need to be made in a fair and
equitable way. This bill, however, guts important programs upon which
millions of working Americans depend.

JOB TRAINING

One of the greatest concerns of public officials, nonprofits, and
business groups throughout my State is that Congress is eliminating the
summer jobs program for youth. This program trains young people for
jobs that actually exist, teaches them about work habits, and keeps
them off of the streets and out of harms--or troubles--way. Cities and
towns throughout Illinois are telling me that young people count on
these jobs, but that without funding at the $635 million level, there
will be almost no summer program.
Programs such as those that provide young people with summer
employment and job training, train dislocated workers in new
occupations, and provide a transition from school-to-work for the
Nation's young people should not be pawns in a budget chess match. We
should not hold young people, dislocated workers, and students, among
others, hostage to our demands.
I am glad my colleagues supported the bipartisan amendment to restore
funds--to provide opportunity for this Nation's workers and future
workers. This amendment also restored funding for education the
foundation for the future success of our Nation's youth.

EDUCATION

Mr. President, we are not living in a global economy, and education
is the key to it. Education increases our productivity and competitive
edge. It promotes our economy, raises the standard of living, and
improves the quality of life for our people.
Education opens the doors of opportunity in American society. Today,
access to quality education is more important than ever. The abilities
to read and write are no longer enough: today, a student must also
learn to speak the language of computers, and must learn about our
changing, global, competitive economy.
The bipartisan amendment restoring funding for many important
education programs was a step in the right direction. I urge my
colleagues to help keep these additions in the bill when it goes to
conference.

ENVIRONMENT

And I hope we can provide additional funding for essential
environmental activities. In this area the bill is sadly lacking. Mr.
President, time after time in poll after poll, Americans across the

[[Page S2088]]

country have supported and continue to support environmental
protections. They want strong environmental laws. Americans want an
environment that is safe and healthy. And they want their children and
grandchildren to be able to do the same.

The cuts in the EPA budget now included in this bill will slow
cleanup of Superfund sites, limited the power of the EPA to maintain
safe drinking water standards, such as contamination by radon, and
limit the EPA's ability to enforce laws that protect the quality of the
environment. The EPA cannot sustain cuts of this magnitude an still do
the job of protecting the public health.
These cuts in the EPA budget are part of environmental rollbacks some
in this Congress have proposed, and that the American people simply do
not support. Mr. President, I believe that jeopardizing the environment
to achieve sort-term budgetary benefits is simply wrong.

women's programs

While we have done a shameful job when it comes to the environment,
we have done a few things right when it comes to protecting the lives
and health of women in this country and around the globe. We have given
the President the ability to lift the restrictions on international
family planning and we have not included a House provision giving
States the right to refuse Medicaid abortions for women in the case of
rape or incest nor a House provision allowing medical colleges to be
accredited without training OB/GYN's in abortion procedures.
I urge my colleagues to hold the line on these provisions. The
striking of the first or the inclusion of the later two provisions
would result in death and hardship for women in the United States and
throughout the world.
It is crucial that we allow the President to lift the restrictions on
international family planning funds. According to a consortium of
expert demographers, the current funding restrictions will result in at
least 1.9 million unplanned births and 1.6 million abortions. Eight
thousand women around the world will die in pregnancy and childbirth
and 134,000 infants will die. Our role should be to encourage families
who are trying to make deliberate decisions about their ability to have
and care for additional children. Our role should not be to punish
these families by forcing them into dangerous or unwanted pregnancies.
We must prevent the inclusion of provisions allowing State
governments to refuse to pay for Medicaid abortions in the case of rape
or incest. The women who would seek an abortion prohibited by this
provision are women living in poverty who have recently been the victim
of a sexual assault by a stranger, a friend, or a family member. We
have already placed enormous limits on the rights of poor women to
choose to terminate a pregnancy, this provision brings us into the
realm of the horribly absurd. Rape and incest are not something any
woman should ever experience. Being forced, by poverty, to carry a
pregnancy resulting from rape or incest if horrific.
Finally, we must prevent the inclusion of a provision to overturn the
requirements of the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education
(ACGME) that residency training programs in obstetrics and gynecology
provide medical training in abortion. This is not a requirement that
doctors perform abortions, but simply a requirement that a doctor know
and understand all the procedures related to pregnancy and childbirth.
Women's lives depend on the full knowledge and skill of their doctors.
Providing the opportunity for physicians to learn all the tools
available to save a woman's life is not too much to ask.
Mr. President, I believe that we need to move to a balanced budget.
And we need to do it in a way that does not sacrifice the long-term
goals of the American people to achieve illusory short-term cuts. We
need a budget that restores fiscal discipline to the Federal
Government. We need a budget based on the realities facing Americans.
Most importantly, we need a budget for our future.
I believe that we can achieve that kind of budget, if we put aside
partisan bickering and political point scoring, and if we get down to
the work the American people elected us to do.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam 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. LOTT. Madam 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. Madam President, we are working very diligently with the
distinguished Democratic leader to try to work out an agreement for how
we will proceed for the balance of the night and on Friday, Monday, and
Tuesday. I think we are close to getting an agreement worked out here
momentarily, so that Members will know what they can expect in terms of
recorded votes, if any, tonight, or on Tuesday and Wednesday.
In the interim, while we are trying to get that wrapped up, we will
go ahead and proceed with the Bond-Mikulski amendment. Our intent is to
just have that offered and debated, and then if we can get an
agreement, we will announce that to the Members how that one and others
will be disposed of. When we get that agreement, we will notify all
Members.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3532 offered by the Senator from
Georgia, Senator Coverdell.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3482

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask that amendment No. 3482 to the
committee substitute amendment, previously debated and set aside, be
called up.
Mr. KERRY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOND. I call for the regular order with respect to that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 3482
to amendment No. 3466.

Amendment No. 3533 to Amendment No. 3482

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for EPA water infrastructure
financing. Superfund toxic waste site clean ups, operating programs,
and for other purposes and to increase funding for the Corporation for
National and Community Service (AmeriCorps) to $400.5 million)

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send to the desk a second degree
amendment to amendment No. 3482 on behalf of myself and Senator
Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Ms.
Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 3533 to amendment
No. 3482.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BOND. Madam President, it has been suggested that, in order to
facilitate the consideration of these amendments, we ask for time
agreements. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes allotted
for the debate of this amendment with the control under the normal
fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Thank you very much, Madam President.
This measure inserts a new title V adding funds for EPA and for
AmeriCorps. The increase for EPA includes $200 million for State
revolving loan funds for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure,
$50 million for Superfund, and $75 million for EPA operating programs.
The amendment also removes the contingency requirement on $162 million
of EPA funds contained in title IV.
These additional funds are offset by debt collection legislation of
$440 million and rescissions of unobligated contract authority of $48
million.
The amendment also increases funding for the AmeriCorps program by
$17

[[Page S2089]]

million, for a total of $402.5 million. This increase is offset by a
reduction in HUD property disposition funding, provides $20 million to
help HUD restructure and clarify its existing law for HUD block grants
to New York, transfers $30 million for additional drug elimination
funding in HUD-assisted housing, clarifies existing law for demolishing
public housing in Texas, clarifies the rent rules in HUD-assisted
housing, and provides program direction to NASA for a new satellite.

Madam President, this second-degree amendment that my ranking member,
Senator Mikulski, and I have submitted to the Lautenberg amendment
reflects a great deal of effort. We have worked long and hard to come
to an agreement in order for us to increase funding in this measure in
a manner that is consistent with balancing the budget. We have insisted
all along that additional funding be offset, and we have worked with my
ranking member, Senator Mikulski, primarily. Today we had advanced
additional funds for an offset of $440 million, and we have found
additional funding, and we have placed that in what we believe is the
highest priority areas.
In January of this year, the administration, after vetoing this bill,
came back and said that they wanted $966 million added into spending in
this measure for EPA in fiscal year 1996. We have added $487 million in
funding for EPA with additional offsets today. That amount, combined
with the $240 million in additional EPA funds in title I of the
underlying amendment, means that we are able to fund, through offsets,
$727 million of the $966 million requested.
I think this is more than a generous compromise. It is a good-faith
attempt at resolving the fiscal year 1996 budget for EPA. I understand
that the administration has not been able to agree to it. At least,
today, for the first time, they talked with us, and I am grateful for
that. But, most importantly, I think this represents a compromise that
Members on both sides of the aisle can work with.
There are many, many items that were in this original bill that we
have been able to increase. The amendment provides funding for the
highest priorities for EPA, funding for the States' toxic waste site
cleanups, and EPA core operating programs. Under this measure, EPA
should not have to have a furlough or a reduction in force for a single
employee. Enforcement spending would actually increase by over $10
million. States would receive an 80 percent increase in their water
infrastructure State revolving funds, and all Superfund sites posing
real risk would receive cleanup dollars.
It has an additional $300 million for water infrastructure State
revolving funds, bringing the total amount to $2.025 billion compared
to $1.2 billion available in fiscal year 1995.
Madam President, this provides money for State revolving funds. It
includes $50 million additional for the Superfund, and it provides
funds to begin cleanups in every single toxic waste site which poses a
real threat to human health for the environment, if the site is ready
to go in the Superfund cleanup.
Madam President, the amendment before us today adds $487 million in
funding for EPA, with real offsets. This amount, together with the $240
million in additional EPA funds in title I of the committee-reported
bill, total $727 million.
Madam President, this represents 75 percent of the administration's
requested add-back list of $966 million. This is more than a generous
compromise and a good faith attempt at resolving the fiscal year 1996
budget for EPA.
Each of the items included in this amendment were requested by the
administration in its January wish list to the Congress. There are no
congressional earmarks or add-ons.
The amendment represents what we believe to be the highest priorities
for EPA-funding for the States, toxic waste site cleanups, and EPA's
core operating programs. The amounts provided prevent EPA from having
to RIF or furlough a single employee.
Enforcement spending would actually increase by $10 million over
fiscal year 1995. States would receive an 80-percent increase in their
water infrastructure State revolving funds over what they got last
year. And all Superfund sites posing real risks would receive cleanup
dollars.
The amendment includes an additional $300 million for water
infrastructure State revolving funds. This brings the total amount of
State revolving funds available through this bill to $2.025 billion--
compared to only $1.2 billion in available funds in fiscal year 1995.
These funds enable States and communities to make significant progress
in meeting their water infrastructure construction needs.
These funds are provided for both clean water and drinking water
State revolving funds, to enable communities to build and upgrade water
treatment plants to continue the progress which has been made to clean
up and maintain the water quality of our rivers, lakes, and streams,
and to provide safe drinking water.
The amendment includes an additional $50 million for Superfund,
bringing Superfund spending to the fiscal year 1995 level, and
increasing the amount spent on actual cleanups--rather than overhead
costs--by $150 million. Even while I and others have very strong
concerns about the way the current Superfund program works, additional
funds are made available through this amendment to address real
threats.
Let me say clearly that funds are available to begin cleanups at
every single toxic waste site posing a real threat to human health or
the environment if the site is ready to go in the Superfund cleanup
pipeline.
The amendment would fund EPA's proposed new laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, NC, a research facility which will help EPA improve the
quality of its research so that decisions are based on sound science.
This is not a pork project, Madame President. This project replaces a
deteriorating facility inappropriate to conducting research.
The amendment would result in a total appropriation of $6.44 billion
for EPA--an increase of $35 million above the amount of funding
actually available to EPA in fiscal year 1995.
In addition, carryover funds of $225 million would be available,
making a total of $6.7 billion available to EPA in fiscal year 1996.
This is $248 million more than what EPA had available to it in fiscal
year 1995.
Madam President, this amendment does not provide everything on the
administration's wish list because frankly, the administration's wish
list is not about real environmental priorities. The administration's
wish list is about pork-barrel projects and boutique programs. It is
about continuing to provide funding for programs which do not afford
opportunities to reduce real threats to human health and the
environment.
Despite grave concerns about EPA's ability to manage and prioritize,
we have been willing to provide more funds to the Agency's most
important programs.
Madam President, I reiterate that this does not provide everything on
the administration's wish list because, frankly, the wish list had
things that were beyond our ability to fund and things that were not
real environmental priorities. Some were pork barrel projects or
boutique programs. But I think, thanks to the excellent work--and I
emphasize the excellent work--of my ranking Member and the Senator from
New Jersey who offered the underlying amendment, we have come together
with a workable amendment. I hope all of us can support that.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to support this bipartisan
agreement to restore funds for the important environmental programs,
including funding for National Service.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Lautenberg,
and their staffs as well as my own for all of their hard work in
developing this agreement.
This is a compromise agreement. It provides an additional $487
million for the core EPA programs. These programs are fully offset in
this bill to keep EPA fully staffed so that enough people are there to
get the job done to ensure clean rivers and drinking water and to clean
up hazardous waste sites. The environment is a priority of the American
people, and I think it is the priority of this Congress.
There was more that we wanted to do. There was more that I certainly

[[Page S2090]]

wanted to do in this bill, particularly in the area of the
environmental programs. But they were not included in this amendment
because we could not arrive at sufficient offsets.
One of the key programs that is not in this area, with great
reluctance, is the cleanup of Boston Harbor; also, the cleanup of the
Chesapeake Bay, which is in my own State. The programs that were
included there that would have been important are also not included in
this amendment.
We have consistently in the past supported the funding for Boston
Harbor, and, as the chairman and ranking member of the VA-HUD know, I
am committed to the cleanup of Boston Harbor and will continue to work
to solve this problem.
In this legislation, Senator Bond and I have found efforts to find
additional funds for EPA. Again, I thank him for his efforts to move
the process forward to provide real money--not funny money--to deal
with real environmental concerns. This additional $487 million is an
investment in that.
I also want to say thank you for the ability to provide additional
money for National Service, which brings National Service to a total of
$4.5 million. This amount will fund 23,000 participants in the program.
It restores funding for the Points of Light Foundation, and as part of
the amendment, like the EPA funding, that is part of a bipartisan
effort.
My colleague, Senator Grassley, has worked with us on helping resolve
many of our concerns. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with
our former colleague, Senator Wofford, to address the very valid
concerns and criticisms for National Service.
I look forward to working with Senators Grassley and Bond to ensure
that these valid concerns are addressed.
This amendment would ensure taxpayers get a dollar's worth of effort
for a dollar's worth of taxes and address valid concerns about the
program.
I believe this is the absolute minimum level this Congress should
provide for National Service.
Even more should be done, but I recognize this may be the best we can
do with the money available.
This amendment will increase funds for innovation and assistance by
$15 million to support demonstration programs involving national
nonprofit and volunteer organizations and other agencies and provide
another $2 million of the Points of Light Foundation for a total of
$5.5 million.
This amendment also addresses valid concerns about the program's
efficiency and accountability.
It eliminates grants to Federal agencies, makes improvements in the
Corporation's grant review process, and requires a study of the
Corporation by the National Association of Public Administrators.
Let me assure my colleagues I have a full offset for my amendment in
the FHA Multifamily Property Disposition program.
Let me tell you why I think it is so important to provide these funds
and why we must continue to support National Service.
National Service meets compelling needs in our society. It provides
opportunity for young people; it helps meet the needs of communities;
and it cultivates the habits of the heart.
National Service provides opportunity by giving young people access
to higher education and training. For many Americans, their first
mortgage is their student debt. After graduation, many of them owe
$15,000, $30,000, or even more. Through National Service, young people
can work off some of their student debt.
Second, National Service meets compelling needs in America's
communities. Young people serve their communities. For example in
education, young people tutor children and teach adults basic reading
skills.
They help protect public safety. For example, in my own state of
Maryland, in Montgomery County, AmeriCorps volunteers operate a
Community Policing program, where volunteers help control crime by
running community education seminars and outreach projects.
In other communities, they patrol vacant buildings and teach conflict
resolution skills. They help meet compelling human needs by
distributing food to sick people and poor families.
They help address environmental concerns like restoring neighborhood
parks, and helping communities recover from floods and disasters. After
recent floods in Pennsylvania, AmeriCorps teams assisted the Red Cross
to help 10,000 families devastated by that disaster.
Third, National Service teaches the habits of the heart. It is not a
social program. It is a social invention designed to create the ethic
of service in today's young people. It provides an opportunity
structure so young Americans can receive a reduction in their student
debt or a voucher for further education in exchange for full-time
community service.
National Service is a movement toward community building, it is about
neighbor helping neighbor, and it is about helping people who help
themselves. National Service fosters the spirit of community in
Americans, it brings people together and teaches a new generation that
by working together it is possible to create a better world.
I urge my colleagues to take another step toward community building
and encouraging habits of the heart by voting to increase the funds to
National Service.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly on the issue
of funding in the continuing resolution for the Corporation for
National and Community Service and the AmeriCorps program.
As many of my colleagues know, for over a year and a half I have
raised concerns about the costs of the AmeriCorps Program. Last summer,
the General Accounting Office [GAO] issued a report that substantiated
my concerns, finding that the average cost per participant is
approximately $27,000, with the Federal Government providing roughly
$20,000, State and local governments $5,000, and the private sector
providing only 8 percent of these high costs.
There is no question that these measurements are not in keeping with
the goals and vision of this program as originally articulated by
President Bill Clinton.
I have stated in testimony and in letters to the President and
administration officials that I would be willing to support funding for
this program if the administration would commit to several specific
program reforms, most importantly, increasing the private sector match
and decreasing the cost per participant.
It has been my desire to ensure the taxpayers' money is spent
efficiently and to increase the number of young people who will be
provided assistance to pay for college. To that end, I met several
weeks ago with Senator Harris Wofford, the chief executive officer of
the Corporation. Since that meeting, we have been engaged in
negotiations on how to improve and reform the AmeriCorps Program.

I am pleased to state that I believe these negotiations have achieved
real progress. While there are still points that need to be addressed,
Senator Wofford has indicated in a letter to me his commitment to
implementing meaningful program reforms, control costs and increase the
private sector match, as I have strongly suggested.
It is for this reason that I am willing to support funding for the
Corporation and, in turn, AmeriCorps.
As my colleagues know, I have never criticized the good work
performed by the young people who participate in AmeriCorps. I have met
with young people from my State who participate in the I CAN Program
that allows young people at Iowa State University and several other
colleges in Iowa to perform community service while attending college
full time. There is no question these college students are a benefit to
their community.
However, we should not forget the 3.9 million young people who do
volunteer work in their community without compensation. These
volunteers help form the backbone of community service in America.
As I say, my concern is not the work performed, but the costs to the
taxpayer and the possibility that more young people could be provided
assistance if AmeriCorps is reinvented. My hope is that the
reforms that Senator Wofford and I have agreed to will help ensure that
the program meets the original goals articulated by President Clinton.

[[Page S2091]]

It is my view that this President, any President, has the right to
see an initiative, such as this, be given an opportunity. However, the
initiative must remain in keeping with the President's original intent.
And that has been my focus, to keep this program's costs and private
sector match in line with the President's promises.
Let me assure my colleagues that no one should take my statements
today to mean that I am ready to anoint the Corporation with garlands.
The Corporation has serious problems, most significantly in the area
of financial management. A recent audit of the Corporation, contracted
by the Inspector General, indicates that there is an immediate need for
fundamental reforms in financial management at the Corporation.
In addition, the Corporation must now implement the reforms that have
been proposed, as well as meeting the goals for per capita costs and
private sector match that it will establish.
My colleagues can be certain that, just as I have with agencies such
as the Department of Defense and the IRS, I will continue to
aggressively watchdog the taxpayers' money at the Corporation.
Madam President, in closing, let me reiterate how pleased I am to
have worked with Senator Wofford on this issue. I commend him for his
sincere efforts to reform the program. There is no question that the
Corporation has benefited from his commitment and the fresh
perspectives he has brought as chief executive officer.

Let me note too, the work of Congressman Hoekstra who has been a true
watchdog for the taxpayers on this program. As I stated earlier, I
share his strong concerns about the financial management at the
Corporation.
I also want to commend the work of the chairmen of the committee and
subcommittee, Senators Mark Hatfield and Kit Bond. I know it has been
difficult to find funding for this program.
I especially want to thank Senator Bond. It has been my pleasure to
work closely with him on this matter and appreciate all his efforts to
address our mutual concerns that the taxpayers' money be spend
effectively and wisely in this program.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I join my colleagues, Senators Bond
and Mikulski, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies, on which I serve, in supporting an increase in
funding for the National Service Program. This amendment provides $403
million for the National Service Program in fiscal year 1996.
I voted in support of establishing this program in 1993 because it
gives young people a chance to serve their communities and earn
education awards to finance their education. Currently, there are over
450 participants in Colorado's AmeriCorps programs who are engaged in
serving low-income communities, tutoring at-risk youth, mentoring
students, helping young people stay out of gangs, and providing health
services in rural areas.
The Corporation for National Service sponsors important service
programs for native Americans nationwide. Current activities in this
area include improving safety on reservations, constructing community
facilities, improving access to medical services for low-income elders,
tutoring students, and reducing violence among young people. The Ute
tribes in my State and over 20 other tribal organizations throughout
the country are benefiting from the National Service Program.
The Corporation also is working with the National Coalition for
Homeless Veterans. Dedicated individuals are serving homeless veterans
by providing them access to health care, substance abuse treatment, and
training to seek jobs.
It is my hope that the Corporation for National Service continue and
expand its support under this amendment for programs assisting those in
our communities that need it the most and continue to build bridges
with programs assisting veterans, tribal organizations and at-risk
youth.
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise tonight to comment on this
amendment, offered by Senators Bond and Mikulski, to provide, among
other things, additional funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because it includes funding
that is very necessary to the people of Watertown, SD. This amendment
would provide $13 million for the reconstruction of a wastewater
treatment facility in Watertown, SD.
The city of Watertown has worked for more than 10 years to overcome
Clean Water Act violations. Now, the city is facing an expensive
lawsuit, fines of up to $25,000 per day, and the high costs of
restructuring the wastewater treatment plant. I have worked closely
with Watertown's Mayor Brenda Barger, who is seeking a reasonable
settlement to the lawsuit with the EPA.
The city of Watertown's innovative/alternative technology wastewater
treatment facility was built as a joint partnership with the EPA, the
city, and the State of South Dakota in 1982. The plant was constructed
with the understanding that the EPA would provide assistance in the
event the new technology failed. The facility was modified and rebuilt
in 1991 when it was unable to comply with Clean Water Act discharge
requirements. Unfortunately, the newly reconstructed plant still was
found to violate Federal regulations. That is why the city now faces a
possible lawsuit by the Federal Government, and fines of up to $25,000
per day.
The city of Watertown, under the very capable guidance of Mayor
Barger, has entered into a municipal compliance plan with the EPA.
Under the agree plan, Watertown should achieve compliance by December
1996. However, without Federal assistance, Watertown will be unable to
complete the reconstruction by the date set forth by the EPA. In
addition, the compliance plan does not address the issue of the onerous
civil and administrative penalties that continue to accumulate against
the city.
Under the law, Watertown could accumulate an additional $14 million
in penalties before the treatment facility is able to comply with the
Clean Water Act requirements.
Madam President, I don't know of any cities in South Dakota that can
afford those kinds of penalties.
Watertown is working hard to comply with the law. However, to
succeed, Watertown needs the constructive cooperation of the Federal
Government. The funding in the amendment offered by my friend from
Missouri reflects the kind of constructive cooperation needed. As I
said, it would provide $13 million to the city of Watertown to rebuild
Watertown's wastewater treatment facility.
Madam President, this project is necessary for the health and safety
of the people of Watertown. Already this year, the city has increased
consumer water rates from $9/month to $16/month in order to fund the
water treatment facility reconstruction project. The city is prepared
for additional rate increases in order to cover a portion of the total
project cost of $25 million.
The city also has worked diligently to secure a variety of available
funding sources, including an allocation of $1 million from the State
of South Dakota. Additionally, the city of Watertown has committed to a
local match of $8.25 million. This Federal appropriation of $13 million
would enable the city to complete construction on the water treatment
facility in a timely manner, as required by the EPA.
Madam President, I believe the merits of this project are clear.
Construction of this facility would allow the city of Watertown to
provide its residents with a safe water supply which complies with the
Clean Water Act and thus ensures that the environment is protected.
I have enjoyed working with Senator Bond, chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee that provides funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency, and Senator Mikulski, the ranking member on that
subcommittee. I know I represent the citizens of Watertown, SD, when I
say thank you for your commitment to securing this funding. This is a
great first step. As I said, this is a constructive effort. I sincerely
hope that the EPA will show the same constructive, cooperative spirit
to the people of Watertown.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in closing let me briefly state my
support for the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski on AmeriCorps.
While I

[[Page S2092]]

believe the Appropriations Committees has provided sufficient funding
for the Corporation, I recognize the desire of the administration and
Senator Mikulski to see a small increase in the amount of funds
provided by the committee.
I believe this amendment is a good compromise that will allow the VA/
HUD bill to proceed and be signed by the President.
The amendment contains a sense of the Senate that I have worked on
with Senator Kassebaum stating that the President should expeditiously
nominate a CFO for the Corporation and that the Corporation should make
implementation of financial management reforms a top priority.
In meeting with accountants from Arthur Anderson, who conducted the
independent audit of the Corporation, they stated that the appointment
of a CFO was the single most important thing that needs to be done to
begin the effort to get the Corporation's financial house in order.
The amendment also allows the Corporation to spend up to $3 million
for implementing financial management reforms.
Finally, I am pleased that in conjunction with this amendment, the
Corporation has agreed that they will set aside $10 million for an
education-awards only program that I have advocated. Under this new
program, the Corporation will provide only educational awards to young
people who perform community service. These funds could help up to
4,000 young people pay for college.
Madam President, I want to recognize Senator Barbara Mikulski for her
work. She has been a strong advocate for AmeriCorps. Earlier this fall,
I said that I thought there would be funding for this program. I made
that statement in part because of the confidence I had that Senator
Mikulski's determination would win the day. Certainly, she deserves a
great deal of the credit for the funding contained in this bill already
and all the credit for the passage of this amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I will now yield the floor but reserve
the remainder of whatever time our side might have.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 3509 Withdrawn

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an
amendment that I have pending on National Service be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. It
is withdrawn.
So the amendment (No. 3509) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. How much time?
Mr. McCAIN. Thirty seconds.
Mr. BOND. Thirty seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. Thirty seconds.
Mr. BOND. I yield a minute to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I am not real familiar with this amendment. I just saw
it. I am not sure we need $200 million for State revolving funds or $50
million for Superfund, $75 million--$162 million in funds offset by
unobligated airway trust fund contract authority. I did not know that
was unobligated.
All this is another increase in spending. That is really all this is
about. I think it is time it came to a stop, and at least I would like
to be on record as being in opposition to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator from Maryland if I can have 5
minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I may not need 5 minutes, Mr. President, but I thank
my colleague from Maryland.
This is a compromise piece of legislation. If you see lots of people
concerned about what it is that we have in front of us, these are
legitimate concerns for both those who support and those who object to
this compromise. The amendment that is being offered, as we heard from
the distinguished Senator from Missouri, includes $487 million for
environmental programs instead of the roughly $900 million that was
proposed in the original amendment. Unlike the earlier amendment, this
amendment does not include a provision designating the proposed funding
as emergency spending.
Mr. President, clearly this amendment does not increase the budget
for environmental programs as much as I believe is needed. However,
under the circumstances, with earnest exchanges of view, we arrived at
what was a middle ground. While having been so active on matters of
environmental cleanup including Superfund and clean air and others,
clean water, it distresses me that we could not get more to do the
environmental job that many of us here would like to see done. I am
pleased to see that there is $50 million more for Superfund cleanup. It
is a program that needs to be continued. And even as we choose to
examine it, to reform, to make reforms where necessary or where
possible, still in all this is a program that has value and should be
continued.
In the final analysis, there is a major concern, major disappointment
in this amendment, that concerns the Boston Harbor cleanup. Boston
Harbor was an environmental disaster because of the inability to
contain the pollution, the contamination that flowed into that body of
water. It caused enormous increases in costs for those who use the
drinking water in the area because of the costs invested thus far in
trying to get it to a satisfactory condition.
Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy have worked very hard for a number
of years to get the kind of funding that is essential to continue this
job. And I hope, Mr. President, that as we consider this amendment
there will be opportunities to reevaluate some of the decisions that we
are making this evening. There will be a conference with the House.

The biggest deficiency in this bill is the lack of a clear-cut
commitment to expend funding to clean up Boston Harbor. And again,
other than that, we have fashioned a compromise--not one that is
satisfactory to those who are most anxious to get the environment
cleaned up to the fullest extent possible, but we do face a budget
crisis here. We are interested in balancing the budget. We are
interested in doing what we can with the limited resources that we
have. This compromise amendment, I think, does just that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from New Jersey
that he is in charge of the time which is remaining, which is 10
minutes and 18 seconds on that side, and 5 minutes and 11 seconds for
the majority.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to some basic
principles which we had to follow in this bill. This bill, the VA-HUD,
Independent Agencies, which includes EPA, space, FEMA, and others, took
a 12 percent this year. There was no way we could continue to fund
these special projects each Member had in specific cities.
Now, some people would call them pork projects, but, frankly, these
are all very important, necessary environmental projects designed to
clean up our waterways and other vital elements of the environment. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are approximately
$100 billion of infrastructure needs for clean water and safe drinking
water in the country today.

What we have tried to do is to say, we are not going to appropriate,
in this bill, specific sums for specific projects, because there is no
way that we can know how to rank $100 billion of needs throughout the
country. We have set up State revolving funds, loan funds that will
revolve and provide assistance to communities, and be paid back to help
other communities within that State. That is why we have worked hard to
put additional dollars into the revolving fund.
We have been advised by the Under Secretary for EPA that we need to

[[Page S2093]]

reach a level of $10 billion on the clean water fund, so that the
projects can be dealt with. We are trying to get money into those
revolving funds. We cannot appropriate funds for specific projects and
that is why there has been much disappointment in my own State. There
are major cities that want to have funds appropriated directly to them.
What we have done instead is to appropriate money for the State
revolving funds. The States will make low- or no-interest loans to
communities--to cities, to counties--to take care of their needs. When
that is paid back it will enable others to carry out their projects.
Mr. President, it is not nearly as exciting, it is not nearly as
glamorous as having an appropriated sum targeted to one city or
another. We think, based on the best analysis we have made and on the
scientific, professional advice, that the State revolving funds will
allow the States to assist communities on a revolving basis.
Again, this bill is not all that we would like. There are many other
things we would like to do. But it is paid for. It is paid for with
real offsets. It is within the budget and I think it is a major
contribution to continued environmental progress, but progress in a way
that moves responsibility and authority back to the States,
decisionmaking back to the States.
That is why I ask my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how will quorum time be charged if we
go into a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To whatever side asks for the quorum.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent during the quorum call time
be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have to point out that I object to that
since we are almost out of time and I would like to reserve 1 minute at
the end.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be
charged to neither side during the quorum call.
Mr. KYL. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time does either side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises we have 1 minute and 23
seconds for the majority; and the opposition has 10 minutes, 18
seconds.
Ms. MIKULSKI. But there is no opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Somewhere or another we used up 4 minutes and
28 seconds.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, are we supposed to keep talking because
there are other discussions underway? Is that right?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, very important discussions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask it be charged to the minority side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is a pending amendment, is there
not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent it be laid aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3527

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk, No.
3527. I ask it be called up for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Hatfield, for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Leahy,
proposes an amendment numbered 3527.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. FORD. The Senator does not intend to ask for a rollcall vote on
this one? It has been agreed to on both sides. There will not be a
rollcall vote. It will be by voice.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say this amendment is jointly sponsored by myself,
the majority leader, Senator Dole, the minority leader, Senator
Daschle, and Senator Leahy. It provides $50 million for emergency
antiterrorism assistance for Israel. This is the program announced by
the President from Jerusalem yesterday, and will provide funds to
procure goods, provide training and/or grants in order to support
efforts to help eradicate terrorists in and around Israel.
As might be expected given the shortness of time involved in
preparation for this proposal, specific details are lacking and
therefore the amendment includes notification language, so that the
Congress can exercise adequate oversight for a program before the money
is spent.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the President, Senator Dole,
Senator Hatfield, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and I are offering
an amendment to provide $50 million in antiterrorism assistance to
Israel.
All of us in the United States Senate have been shocked and saddened
by the rash of terrorist bombings that have occurred in Israel. The
four attacks from February 26 to March 4 have killed 58 people bringing
terror and grief to Israelis and, for the moment, putting a halt to the
peace process. One tragedy is compounded by another.
In the days since the bombings, both Israeli and Palestinian security
forces have moved against the terrorists. I am pleased the Palestinian
authority has moved to round up more than 600 Hamas members and raid
mosques, businesses and schools owned by militants. Its arrest of three
senior members of Hamas' military wing over the weekend is further
evidence that it is taking seriously the need to confront Hamas'
terrorist threat.
Despite these encouraging signs, however, I share Prime Minister
Peres' view that these steps, while a good beginning, are clearly not
enough. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authority must continue
their efforts to root out the terrorist threat in its entirety.
Finally, the United States must also contribute to the antiterrorism
effort, for, without U.S. assistance, hopes for a lasting peace in the
Middle East could be in serious jeopardy.
The images of the bombs' victims lying in Jerusalem's streets, of
young girls at their friends' funeral, will haunt us indefinitely. The
pain and loss of the victims' families and the people of Israel will
always remain.
Mr. President, I can think of only one thing that could worsen the
tragedy of these bombings, and that would be for these extremists to be
successful in their effort to permanently derail the peace process. The
Israeli people have suffered greatly through each of these bombings.
While their patience must have its limits, we cannot allow the
terrorists to achieve their ultimate objective.
This amendment addresses those concerns. It will assist Israel in its
effort to combat terrorism. It will also add to the momentum for peace
in the Middle East that was aided by President Clinton's initiatives
and the resulting ``summit of the peacemakers.''
I hope Israelis will derive some encouragement from the international
community's condemnation of the attacks as well as from Wednesday's
summit. I am hopeful, as well, that this unprecedented summit will
demonstrate to the terrorists that the international community stands
united against them and their despicable acts.
It is unfortunate that Syria, among others, did not attend the
summit, but the list of countries, including moderate Arab nations,
that participated in this historic conference is most impressive:
Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen,
Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Canada, Russia,
Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Turkey,
and the United States.
This extensive list of participants clearly represents the
international

[[Page S2094]]

community's continued commitment to the Middle East peace process. And,
again, it is a sign to the Israelis that they are not alone in their
battle against terrorism.
President Clinton should also be commended for establishing an
international counter-terrorism alliance involving espionage agencies
of several nations. I am hopeful that this initiative will help ensure
that terrorist threats will not be tolerated.
This bipartisan amendment is important because it, in concert with
the summit in Egypt, puts the Senate squarely in support of Israel and
squarely on the side of urging the Palestinians and the Arab states,
with support from the United States, to move forcefully against the
terrorist threat. I hope we will send a strong, united message of
support for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3527) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? There being no Senator
seeking recognition, in my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Montana, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 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.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after a lot of efforts, I believe we have a
unanimous-consent request that will be fair to all and will give us a
way to get to a conclusion on this legislation.
The majority leader feels strongly that we need to get this work
completed. I think this will help us get there. So I ask unanimous
consent that all remaining amendments in order to H.R. 3019 must be
called up and debate concluded by 12:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 19, and
that the votes occur in the order in which they were debated beginning
at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 19, and, following the disposition of the
amendments, the Senate proceed to third reading and final passage of
H.R. 3019, as amended, all without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object--I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there
will be no further votes tonight, Friday or Monday; however, if you
have an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill, under the
previous agreement you must debate your amendment Friday, Monday, or
Tuesday morning. I want to emphasize it seems to me that is more than
fair. I know some Members have commitments on Friday or on Monday or on
Tuesday, but surely they do not have commitments all of those days. So
I think this will give us ample time to debate it. The votes will occur
beginning at 2:15 on Tuesday.
Also, Senators should be on notice that the Senate is expected to
debate the small business regulatory reform bill tomorrow under a brief
time agreement and that a vote will occur on Tuesday, also, on the
small business regulatory reform bill.
There could be other votes on Tuesday in relation to cloture on the
Whitewater special committee and possibly a cloture vote with respect
to the product liability conference report. Therefore, Senators should
be on notice that a number of votes are expected to occur on Tuesday,
March 19.
Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m.,
Tuesday, the Senate resume the Boxer and Coats amendments regarding the
abortion issue, and that there be 2 hours 45 minutes of debate to be
controlled in the following manner: 1 hour under the control of Senator
Coats, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 1 hour under the
control of Senator Snowe, and 15 minutes under the control of Senator
Murray, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the
amendments be laid aside to occur in the voting sequence beginning at
2:15 on Tuesday; and following the debate on the Coats and Boxer
amendments, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume
consideration of the Murkowski amendment No. 3525.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Democratic
leader for his efforts to get this agreement. I think it is fair. We do
have some other efforts we are still working on, and certainly we are
going to work in good faith to fulfill all that we have discussed
tonight. I yield to the distinguished Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the acting majority leader for his comments and
for his leadership in bringing us to this point.
The distinguished Senator from California had a misunderstanding
about when the Coats amendment was going to be debated and has informed
me it would be of great help to her if she could have 15 minutes in
this debate. I wonder if we might modify the unanimous consent
agreement to provide her with that opportunity.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our previous
agreement be amended to provide 15 minutes for Senator Feinstein of
California to be involved in this debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I only want to complete my thought in
urging colleagues to use the time we have available to us on Friday and
Monday. We have 2 full days here. There is no reason why we ought not
be able to use them to the fullest extent possible. Everyone now knows
what the amendments are. They ought to be laid down and debated. We
ought not lose the time we have available to us on Friday and on
Monday.
So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor in the next 2 days to
get that work done.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, did we get an agreement on the unanimous-
consent request for the 15 minutes for Senator Feinstein?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have agreement.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to join the Senator from South
Dakota in urging Members to come and be involved in this debate. We
have a lot of work to do next week on very important legislation.
Members need to understand that we cannot do the work we have to do on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and part of Thursday or part of Tuesday. So please
be prepared to come to the floor and debate these issues on Friday and
Monday, be prepared to work the full day on Thursday, too.

____________________