[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2277-S2285]
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.


                           amendment no. 3533

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will vote to support the Bond amendment 
to the underlying Lautenberg-Kerry amendment only because it provides 
some additional funding for environmental programs that are critical to 
improving the health and safety of all Americans and because it is the 
most that Democratic negotiators could wrest from the Republicans for 
these purposes. Regrettably, this Bond-Mikulski compromise eliminates 
any opportunity to pass the Lautenberg-Kerry amendment which contains 
almost double the funding for environmental protection, including water 
infrastructure funding for the State revolving loan fund and additional 
funds to cleanup of Boston Harbor.
  However, I hope that the overwhelming support for the Bond-Mikulski 
compromise amendment will demonstrate to the House conferees that the 
vast majority of Senators want to support increased funding for 
critical

[[Page S2278]]

environmental protection. I plan to work with the White House and the 
Senate and House conferees in the hope that we can provide even more 
support for the environment.
  Let me first put in perspective the situation before us on funding 
for environmental programs. I was pleased to join Senator Lautenberg in 
offering the underlying amendment to the Hatfield substitute to H.R. 
3019. Our amendment would add back nearly $900 million for 
environmental programs at four Federal agencies: the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and 
Interior. The EPA would receive over $700 million--for clean water, 
Superfund and EPA enforcement and operations, environmental technology 
and climate change programs--with the remainder going to important 
conservation programs at the other agencies. This funding is critically 
needed to continue to protect the public's health and safety at a level 
that Americans have come to expect from their Government.
  The conference report on the 1996 VA/HUD/independent agencies 
appropriations bill, from which the Environmental Protection Agency 
obtains its funding, was vetoed last December by President Clinton in 
part because it provided $1.6 billion less for environmental protection 
than the President's budget request of $7.4 billion--a 23-percent cut. 
The President, in budget negotiations with the Republicans, then 
proposed to compromise by restoring approximately $1 billion to the EPA 
budget. The Republicans rejected that proposal.
  The amendment I offered with Senator Lautenberg and a number of other 
Senators would restore just over $700 million for the EPA including 
$365 million for the two State revolving loan funds for water 
infrastructure projects and an additional $75 million to share the 
costs facing the residents of the Boston area for a multi billion-
dollar water and sewer treatment facility. This further compromise was 
also rejected by the Republicans.

  Following that rejection, Senators Mikulski and Lautenberg negotiated 
with Republicans the deal reflected in the amendment before us today--
the Bond-Mikulski amendment. While it provides far less environmental 
protection than the Lautenberg-Kerry amendment, it does restore 
critically needed resources to the EPA that neither the House bill nor 
the underlying Senate committee bill includes.
  The Bond amendment restores $300 million for the State revolving 
funds for water projects and additional funding for Superfund and EPA 
operations. That is important and beneficial. However, I cannot fail to 
describe why I wish the Bond amendment went further.
  While the Bond amendment restores funding for some activities at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, it eliminates critical funding for 
services and functions vital to protecting the environment in my State 
of Massachusetts and the rest of the Nation.
  Relevant to the Democrat proposal, the Bond amendment reduces the 
additional funding for the EPA contained in the underlying amendment by 
almost half. It reduces funding for water infrastructure projects under 
the State revolving loan fund by $75 million and eliminates the 
additional $75 million for cleaning up Boston Harbor--high priorities 
for both me and for the President and other Members of the House and 
Senate.
  In addition, the Bond-Mikulski amendment cuts $100 million from other 
crucial environmental protection activities within EPA such as the 
Environmental Technology Initiative, the climate change program and the 
operations and enforcement budgets--the environmental cops on the 
street.
  Finally, the Bond amendment eliminates $170 million included in our 
amendment for other environmental enhancement and protection efforts, 
including funding for the Department of Energy's conservation and 
weatherization activities which would have insulated 12,000 homes, $72 
million to help keep our national parks open and $20 million for 
conservation and research projects at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  The Environmental Protection Agency and environmental protection 
activities it and other agencies operate have been subjected to far 
more than their fair share of cuts in the past year. For example, in 
the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill, the EPA budget was cut by $600 
million to pay for disaster assistance. Now, for fiscal year 1996, we 
are asking the EPA to take another huge reduction in its budget. It is 
clear the Republicans are not imposing cuts on environmental protection 
activities just to reach a balanced budget. Their objective is far more 
sinister--to cripple environmental protection efforts because their 
friends who own or manage polluting industries don't want to go to the 
trouble or expense.
  If we want a healthier environment for all Americans, we must provide 
adequate resources to accomplish this to those arms of our Government 
charged with that responsibility. What has happened to these activities 
during the past year is a tragedy. In the case of the EPA, first, there 
was a Government shutdown, then proposals for significant layoffs of 
thousands of employees, followed by another 3-week-long shutdown, 
followed by another short-term funding measure which only served to 
prolong the anxiety and uncertainty among EPA employees. EPA is facing 
a crisis where its best and brightest minds are seeking more secure 
employment outside public service. This directly affects the quality 
and effectiveness of our Government's efforts to ensure a clean, 
healthy environment to all our citizens. The only way to resolve this 
crisis is for Congress to make environmental protection a priority, not 
a punching bag.
  This Congress is seeking to place more burdens on the EPA through new 
regulatory reform measures and new assistance for small businesses. I 
support a number of these measures. But if they are to be implemented 
properly, or at all, we must provide the requisite resources.
  If we want clean water and air, if we want to clean up toxic waste 
dumps, if we want a healthy environment, we in the Congress have to 
support those activities.
  The Bond amendment is the very least we should do. But it is more 
than anything for which we have been able to secure Republican support 
up to this point. So I support the Bond amendment and I still firmly 
support the goals of the Lautenberg-Kerry amendment to restore 
environmental protection and I will work to achieve the higher funding 
levels in the conference committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3533.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thurmond
  So the amendment (No. 3533) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a number of votes. I ask 
unanimous

[[Page S2279]]

consent that following the next vote--we have already had one vote--
that all other votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the 
distinguished majority leader, are we going to have a minute or so 
between each vote so an explanation can be made for the Record, at 
least, of what we are about to vote on?
  Mr. DOLE. I would be pleased to accede to that request for a minute 
on each side to explain the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3482

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3482, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3482) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3508

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes, equally divided, 
on the Boxer amendment No. 3508.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator 
from West Virginia for 1 minute to explain both the pro and con of 
these amendments. I think when we run a whole bunch together, that is 
necessary.
  I argued this morning in opposition to the Boxer amendment because it 
allows, essentially, unrestricted funding of abortion on demand in the 
District of Columbia. The amendment, I believe, violates the conference 
agreement and restricts the use of funds for abortion to protect the 
life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. It also violates 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the exclusive 
right of legislation for the District to the Congress. It is not 
possible to separate the funds appropriated by the Federal Government 
from the funds raised by the District of Columbia. I do not believe it 
should be the policy of this body to allow for, essentially, an 
unrestricted right to abortion in the District of Columbia.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Boxer amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at 
the current situation regarding the Federal Government telling 
localities what they can do. There are thousands of counties in this 
country, and there are thousands of cities, and not one of them is told 
by the Federal Government how to spend their own local funds.
  If you support the Boxer amendment, you merely say that Washington, 
DC, will be treated the same way as every other entity in this Nation. 
It would still not allow Federal funds to be used, but it would permit 
Washington, DC, to make that decision on how to spend their own locally 
raised funds.
  Thank you very much.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3508

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3508.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 3508) was rejected.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay it 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute for the purpose of withdrawing some amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, 3523, 3531, 3484, and 3488 
                               Withdrawn

  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments 
be withdrawn: No. 3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, 3523, and 3531.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that my 
amendments Nos. 3484 and 3488 be withdrawn. The subject of my 
amendments has been taken care of within the managers' amendment. I 
want to thank the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for his 
cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order, please. They are 
withdrawing amendments. We would like to hear which ones are withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Chair has recognized the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is next. If we can 
have it worked out with the managers, it will not be necessary for a 
rollcall. And I would offer a revised amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Illinois 
that the amendment of the Senator from Washington is the next order of 
business.


                           amendment no. 3496

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment. 
Very simply, this amendment will change the name of the Walla Walla 
Veterans Medical Center in Walla Walla, WA to the Jonathan M. 
Wainwright Memorial VA Medical Center.
  General Wainwright was born at Fort Walla Walla and was a member of 
the 1st cavalry after graduating from West Point. He served in France 
during World War I and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 
1945 by President Truman for his service in World War II. He spent 
nearly 4 years in a prisoner of war camp in the Philippines and was 
known as the hero of Bataan and Corregidor. General Wainwright was a 
true war hero and won the praise and respect of all Americans.
  Mr. President, the people of Walla Walla, WA want this name change to 
honor a war veteran and local hero. In May, they are dedicating a 
statue in his honor and would like to dedicate the name change of the 
hospital at the same time. The entire Washington State congressional 
delegation supports this change. And all of the veterans service 
organizations in Washington State support the change.
  I urge my colleagues to support changing the name of the Walla Walla 
Veterans Medical Center to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial VA 
Medical Center, and to allow this war hero the recognition he so 
rightly deserves.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                      Amendment No. 3496 Withdrawn

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated on the Gorton Amendment No. 3496.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn. It also will be included in the managers' amendment.

[[Page S2280]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the majority leader seeking recognition?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand the Senator from Illinois, 
his amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. SIMON. My amendment has been agreed to by the managers on both 
sides.
  Mr. DOLE. I was just informed maybe it had not been cleared on this 
side.
  Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that it be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under a prior unanimous-consent agreement, the Senator from Indiana 
is recognized for 1 minute.


                    Amendment No. 3513, As Modified

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the amendment on which we are about to vote 
prevents the Government from discriminating against hospitals and ob-
gyn residents who choose not to perform abortions. It protects those 
civil rights, but it also allows those who voluntarily choose to 
perform abortions to receive training in that procedure. The amendment 
is supported by Senator Frist. The amendment is supported by Senator 
Snowe. It is supported by the American Medical Association, the 
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It goes to the rights of 
institutions and individuals to say that they do not believe it is in 
their best interests to receive mandatory training for abortion 
procedures. It is a civil rights issue. I hope our Members would vote 
for it.

  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I hope my colleagues understand that under current law any medical 
school that has any conscience objection in teaching abortion does not 
have to teach abortion and they still get their Federal funds. What the 
Coats amendment would do is say that even if an institution has no 
conscience objection, it can stop teaching surgical abortion and 
continue to receive Federal funds.
  The reason why many of us on this side particularly oppose this is 
that we think it is dangerous for women. We think that doctors will no 
longer know how to perform surgical abortions. We think it is very 
dangerous that a woman is put in a situation where a physician does not 
know how to perform a surgical abortion, say, if she is brought in in 
an emergency situation. That is why the American Association of 
University Women opposes this amendment, the National Women's Law 
Center, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, and the Center for Reproductive 
Law and Policy, among others.
  I hope you will vote no. Current law has a conscience clause. We all 
support that. I hope we can defeat the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3513, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  So the amendment (No. 3513), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. May we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.


                    Amendment No. 3511, As Modified

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the amendment we temporarily set 
aside. I have modified it in line with the request of the managers. It 
is now acceptable on both sides, and I offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3511, as modified, to amendment No. 3466.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 582, line 14, strike ``$1,257,134,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,257,888,000''.
       On page 582, line 16, before the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``, and of which $5,100,000 shall be available to 
     carry out title VI of the National Literacy Act of 1991''.
       On page 582, line 16, strike ``$1,254,215,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,254,969,000''.
       On page 591, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 305. (a) Section 428(n) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(n)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Applicability to part d loans.--The provisions of 
     this subsection shall apply to institutions of higher 
     education participating in direct lending under part D with 
     respect to loans made under such part, and for the purposes 
     of this paragraph, paragraph (4) shall be applied by 
     inserting `or part D' after `this part'.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on July 1, 1996.
       On page 592, line 7, strike ``$196,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$201,294,000''.
       On page 592, line 7, before the period insert the 
     following: ``, of which $5,024,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 109 of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     of 1973''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 3511, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3511), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 3519

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this bill started with a $4.8 billion 
contingency fund which represented our effort to buy the President into 
a budget agreement where, if he would agree to a budget--any budget, 
not just a balanced budget--we would give him $4.8 billion.
  But it seems since we started, we were overly eager to give the money 
away. We have already given the President about $3.3 billion by adding 
it right to spending, without even requiring a budget agreement. What I 
am saying here is, let us take this contingency appropriation out. If 
we have an agreement with the President, let us negotiate at that time. 
Let us not negotiate in advance. I thought we were

[[Page S2281]]

trying to cut spending, not increase it. I do not understand how we 
balance the budget by giving the President $4.8 billion of additional 
spending. So I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. May we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. We can move this 
process along a little faster if Senators will take their conversations 
to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me clarify the Gramm amendment, 
which is in the context of what the leadership has been doing in trying 
to negotiate with the White House. In fact, the leadership supports my 
effort to try to table or to kill or vote no on the Gramm amendment, 
and that is simply this.
  The negotiators on our side said to the President there would be $10 
billion that we would consider adding in nondefense discretionary 
spending if you agree to balance the budget through this process by the 
year 2002. That was our leaders, the Speaker of the House and Mr. Dole, 
the majority leader of the Senate.

  So, consequently, the administration came up with a request for this 
particular fiscal year for $8 billion of additional spending under the 
proposed agreement contingent upon getting that agreement.
  We in the Appropriations Committee went over those requests. We cut 
it to $4 billion and we said, ``But that $4 billion is contingent upon 
the leadership, who have been negotiating that long-term agreement 
finding an agreement.''
  So what we are trying to do is to help the leadership by providing 
the incentive, by providing the continuing leverage, and that is simply 
it. There is not a dollar of this that can be spent until the 
leadership has reached an agreement with the White House, and that is 
to assist the leadership to pursue this expeditiously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3519. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  So the amendment (No. 3519) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 3520

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3520.
  The yeas and nays have not been requested.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I proposed this amendment with Senators 
Specter, Santorum, Jeffords, and Harkin.
  This amendment has two parts to it. It urges the Senate to maintain 
the Senate position going into the conference committee on the energy 
assistance program, which the House has attempted to eliminate. It 
urges the President to release emergency energy assistance money, which 
he already has under the LIHEAP program.
  This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is extremely important, 
not just for cold-weather States, but also for some of the Southern 
States that have experienced cold weather this winter.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, 
Senator Santorum, and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone, in supporting this amendment. The Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is vital for the poor, especially 
for the elderly. In many cases, they have to choose between eating or 
heating.
  This amendment will be of substantial assistance in conference as we 
attempt to provide advanced funding for LIHEAP for next year. It is 
critical because of the way the appropriations process has worked when 
we have had continuing resolutions. Under the continuing resolutions, 
if there is not advanced funding for the program, we will not have the 
funds available and the States and local governments will not be able 
to do their planning. So I think this is a very important amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues will come to this 
floor and vote for millions of dollars in corporate welfare, and then 
vote against providing $168 to assist a 73-year-old widow in New 
Bedford to pay her heating bill.
  They'll vote to fund the Defense Department at a level above what the 
Defense Department has requested, and they'll turn around and vote 
against 143,000 families in Massachusetts.
  All this sense of the Senate does, Mr. President, is ask the 
President to release about $300 million in emergency assistance LIHEAP 
funding to people who need it. It's been a long, cold winter in New 
England and across this country--a record amount of snow has fallen in 
my State--and it has been very, very cold. Too many people just can't 
pay their heating bills. We simply should do the right thing and 
release this money.
  This year, those in Massachusetts who need help paying their heating 
bills are going to receive about $20 million less than they did last 
year. The release of emergency funds still won't bring us close to what 
was received last year, but it will help hard-working families 
struggling to make ends meet, seniors who are having the safety net 
stripped from beneath them in this Congress, and the disabled who 
deserve our help.
  Mr. President, if my Republican colleagues can vote in unison for 
millions of unnecessary dollars for defense, I would like to hope they 
could do as much to release a few extra dollars already appropriated to 
help people financially survive the winter.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer with my colleague 
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, an amendment on the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. The amendment is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution with two parts.
  The first calls upon the Senate to hold its position on advance 
appropriations for LIHEAP in fiscal year 1997 when we go to conference 
with the House. Advance appropriations allow States to plan properly 
for next winter and enable their programs to be fully operational by 
the time the cold weather begins.
  The second part calls upon the President to use the LIHEAP emergency 
funds to meet the energy needs of America's low income citizens. If 
this bill passes, there will be no additional LIHEAP funds available 
for the rest of this year. Under existing law, the President has the 
authority to use emergency funds to help low income families pay their 
energy bills. He should do so.

[[Page S2282]]

  I am very pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee was able to 
include $1 billion in advance appropriations for LIHEAP in this bill. 
The House bill does not include these funds and we must fight to keep 
them.
  The recent temporary funding bills severely limited the rate at which 
States could draw down their LIHEAP allocations and caused serious 
disruptions in States' ability to provide assistance to low income 
families. If LIHEAP funds had not been appropriated in advance in the 
fiscal year 1995 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the President would not 
have been able to release $578 million in energy assistance in 
December.
  These funds enabled millions of low income households to keep their 
homes warm during the coldest winter months. Both the Senate fiscal 
year 1996 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and the administration's budget 
request for fiscal year 1996 included advance appropriations in fiscal 
year 1997 for LIHEAP.
  Last week I joined with 16 of my colleagues in writing to Chairman 
Hatfield asking that he include advance appropriations. I ask that a 
copy of this letter be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Northeast Midwest


                                             Senate Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Before March 15th, the Senate may 
     consider an appropriations bill to provide funds needed 
     through the remainder of FY1996. We are writing to urge you 
     to include at least $1 billion in advance appropriations for 
     the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for 
     FY1997 in this bill. Advance appropriations allow states to 
     plan properly for next winter and enable their programs to be 
     fully operational by the time the cold weather begins.
       The recent temporary funding bills severely limited the 
     rate at which states could draw down their LIHEAP allocations 
     and caused serious disruptions in states' ability to provide 
     assistance to low income families. If LIHEAP funds had not 
     been appropriated in advance in the FY1995 Labor/HHS 
     Appropriations bill, the President would not have been able 
     to release $578 million in energy assistance in December. 
     These funds enabled millions of low income households to keep 
     their homes warm during the coldest winter months. As you 
     know, both the Senate FY1996 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill 
     and the Administration's budget request for FY1996 included 
     advance appropriations in FY1997 for LIHEAP.
       We must ensure that state LIHEAP programs can operate 
     effectively next winter. Advance appropriations are 
     essential. We urge you to include at least $1 billion in 
     advance appropriations funding for LIHEAP for FY1997. Thank 
     you.
           Sincerely,
         James M. Jeffords, Co-Chairman. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 
           Co-Chairman. Herb Kohl, John Glenn, Olympia Snowe, John 
           F. Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Chuck Grassley,------ ------, 
           Carol Moseley-Braun, Bill Cohen, John H. Chaffee, Chris 
           Dodd, Patrick Leahy, ------ ------, Rick Santorum, Bob 
           Smith.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we must ensure that State LIHEAP 
programs can operate effectively next winter. Advance appropriations 
are essential in this regard.
  The other part of this resolution deals with funding for the rest of 
this fiscal year.
  With passage of this bill, LIHEAP funding for this year will only be 
$900 million--a 40-percent cut from last year. Let me say at this point 
that getting to the $900 million level has been quite a struggle.
  There has been an effort by some Members of the other body to abolish 
the program. I have worked very hard to combat these efforts as have 
the Senator from Minnesota and the chairman and ranking member of the 
Labor/HHS subcommittee--the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator 
from Iowa.
  While $900 million is not sufficient to meet the energy needs of 
America's low income families, these funds have made it possible for 
States to provide energy assistance to many low income residents.
  The problem is that the money is all spent. Using the authority 
granted under the advance appropriations and the continuing resolutions 
we had previously passed, the President has already released $900 
million so far this year, the amount this bill includes for LIHEAP. 
Almost all of these funds have gone out to the States and they have 
obligated the funds. There isn't any money left.
  There is currently available to the President up to $300 million in 
emergency LIHEAP funding. A portion of these funds could be made 
available to those areas with the greatest need in order to meet the 
urgent home heating needs of families eligible for LIHEAP. No emergency 
funds have been used so far this fiscal year.
  Mr. President, spring may officially start later this week, but for 
many parts of the country winter is not over. Last week we had lows in 
the twenties in Burlington, VT.
  Checking today's USA Today we see that people can expect lows of 28 
degrees in Grand Rapids, MI; 18 degrees in Eau Clair, WI; 13 degrees in 
Duluth, MN; and 15 degrees in Rapid City, SD. I might also remind my 
colleagues that 3 years ago, the so-called Storm of the Century 
occurred, not in January, not in February, but in March. We are not out 
of the woods yet.
  How are low income families going to heat their homes? How are they 
going to pay their energy bills? How are they going to avoid having 
their heat shut off? Mr. President, there are no more LIHEAP funds 
available. Using the emergency funds is the only way to meet this need.
  And what about this summer? Traditionally, 10 percent of LIHEAP funds 
are used for cooling assistance during the warm weather months, but 
this year there is no money left. How are States going to help low 
income senior citizens and persons with disabilities keeps their homes 
cool this summer?
  This is not a trivial matter. High temperatures pose a serious health 
threat. Look at what happened last summer in Chicago. Hundreds of 
people died as a result of the extreme heat. There aren't any LIHEAP 
funds left, we are going to need emergency funds to meet this need.
  Mr. President, because of reductions in LIHEAP funding, most States 
have had to reduce benefit levels and restrict eligibility. There has 
been a 24-percent reduction in the number of households served by 
LIHEAP. In seven States that figure is 40 percent.
  I guess you can say Vermont has done well in this regard. Only 14 
percent of the 25,000 households that received aid last year have not 
gotten heating assistance this year, but the benefit level has been 
reduced by almost half.
  I call to my colleagues' attention an article that appeared in 
yesterday's Providence Journal. It says that local agencies that 
provide heating assistance expect the need for heating assistance to 
continue well beyond April 1 but they do not have the money to meet the 
need.
  Mr. President, our amendment is simply a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution calling upon the President to use the authority he already 
has to meet the energy needs of America's low income families. LIHEAP 
funds have been cut 40 percent from last year and there is no money 
left. We need to use the emergency funds.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This 
winter is not over and we have to start thinking about next winter.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the sense-of-the-
senate resolution on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
[LIHEAP].
  This resolution calls on the President to release additional LIHEAP 
funds this year, and recognizes that forward funding for next year is 
critical to the LIHEAP program.
  Mr. President, according to the calender, Spring has almost arrived, 
but freezing weather is still expected for the Upper Midwest. There is 
still a very real need for LIHEAP assistance.
  Mr. President, we came perilously close to disaster earlier this 
winter because of cuts to LIHEAP and the failure of the Congress to 
finalize spending for the year.
  Thankfully, President Clinton was able to release emergency funding 
when extended and severe cold weather spells threatened to result in a 
crisis situation for thousands of people in my State of Wisconsin and 
throughout the Nation.
  LIHEAP has traditionally received forward funding by the 
Appropriations Committee so that States will know what to expect and 
may plan for the next heating season.
  Forward funding this year also served to prevent partisan budget

[[Page S2283]]

fighting from holding up emergency help. Even though many important 
programs were held hostage during the Government shut-downs, forward 
funding allowed the President to release critical heating assistance 
when it was needed the most.
  Despite the President's action, the LIHEAP program was still hit with 
$400 million in cuts from previous levels, which represented a 25-
percent loss this winter.
  LIHEAP has continued to receive severe cuts even though home heating 
represents a disproportionate cost for low income households. Recent 
reductions in the program has led to steep shortfalls for States and 
prevented many families from qualifying for assistance.
  In Wisconsin, over 126,000 families depend upon the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. This year, Wisconsin families have been 
forced to confront an annual reduction of $100 due to LIHEAP cuts.
  Given the funding shortfall this winter and the real prospect that 
severe weather conditions will likely drag on over the next month, it 
is important that remaining Federal assistance be allocated to the 
States. This resolution would call on the President to use his 
authority to do just that.
  Low income families and elderly people struggle year in and year out 
with bitter cold weather and ever rising heating costs. For these 
families, the LIHEAP program has provided life-saving help when heating 
bills or needed furnace repairs become impossible.
  We must preserve LIHEAP and allow those who still need help this year 
to receive emergency assistance. We should also affirm the Senate 
position and make sure that LIHEAP is prepared to meet energy 
assistance needs in the future through forward funding.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Dodd, Moynihan, Kerry, and Moseley-Braun as additional cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I do not see anybody rising in opposition. 
If there is time, and if nobody wishes to speak in opposition to this 
amendment, I would like to speak in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for that purpose.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we have reached the point of being 
ridiculous here. We have added $5.6 billion to Government spending 
right here in this bill. We are now so eager to spend money that we are 
no longer spending it this year, we are spending it next year. We 
cannot wait until next year to spend money on a program. We have to do 
it right now.
  What happened to the mandate of the 1994 elections? I am opposed to 
this amendment. I intend to vote against it, even if I am the only 
Member of the Senate that does. I am glad we have the yeas and nays. I 
hope it will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3520.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Thompson
  So the amendment (No. 3520) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                    Amendment No. 3524, as modified

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of 
amendment No. 3524 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3524), as modified, is as follows:

       On page   , beginning with line   , insert the following:

     SEC.   . SEAFOOD SAFETY.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     domestic fish or fish product produced in compliance with 
     food safety standards or procedures accepted by the Food and 
     Drug Administration as satisfying the requirements of the 
     ``Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and 
     Importing of Fish and Fish Products'' (published by the Food 
     and Drug Administration as a final regulation in the Federal 
     Register of December 18, 1995), shall be deemed to have met 
     any inspection requirements of the Department of Agriculture 
     or other Federal agency for any Federal commodity purchase 
     program, including the program authorized under section 32 of 
     the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) except that--
       (b) The Department of Agriculture or other Federal agency 
     may utilize lot inspection to establish a reasonable degree 
     of certainly that fish or fish products purchased under a 
     Federal commodity purchase program, including the program 
     authorized under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c), meet Federal product specifications.

  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Murkowski], has offered an 
amendment relating to the purchase of domestic fish or fish products by 
the Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies. It is the 
understanding of the Senator that his amendment would impose no new 
requirement on the Federal Government to purchase these items?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is my understanding. Currently, Federal 
agencies are authorized to contract with suppliers of fish and fish 
products for various Federal feeding programs. Additionally, these 
products may be purchased by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 
commodity surplus reduction authorities of section 32 of the 
Agriculture Act of 1938. While these authorities for purchase will 
remain, my amendment will impose no requirement for purchase beyond the 
discretionary authorities of current law.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is it also the understanding of the Senator from Alaska 
that his amendment would not reduce the ability of Federal agencies to 
ensure the quality of fish and fish products purchased under these 
authorities?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is my understanding. All Federal agencies 
who enter into agreements for purchase of food commodities solicit bids 
which contain a number of contractual conditions relating to the 
quality of the items. Nothing in my amendment would restrict the 
criteria imposed by the Federal Government relating to the quality of 
the product. The only restriction imposed by my amendment would be to 
prohibit a contractual requirement that processing be subject to any 
federally mandated continuous inspection method beyond that imposed by 
the Food and Drug Administration.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I understand current procedures for such purchases 
require an inspector of the National Marine Fisheries Service to be 
present at all times during processing. Would the Senator's amendment 
prohibit the presence of any Federal inspector during processing for 
these products in order to ensure contractual compliance related to 
quality standards?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. My amendment would only eliminate the requirement 
of their continuous present for

[[Page S2284]]

any inspection purpose other than food safety and wholesomeness. All 
Federal agencies involved in the purchase of fish and fish products 
would retain all current authorities to inspect and impose quality 
standards they feel proper to protect the Federal investment in, and 
ultimate consumers of, these products.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides for agreeing to the amendment. I 
think no further debate is necessary. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3524), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendments Nos. 3521 and 3522 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the McCain 
amendment No. 3521.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 3521 and amendment No. 3522. They will be included in the 
managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3525

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 3525.
  The amendment (No. 3525) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire what the parliamentary situation is at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
Thurmond amendment No. 3526.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily 
lay aside the Thurmond amendment so that we might consider some other 
amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question would now occur on the Burns amendment No. 3528.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to suggest the absence of a 
quorum at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3528 Withdrawn

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
vitiated on the Burns amendment to H.R. 3019, amendment No. 3528, and 
the amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, indicate to the 
Senate our progress. We have now completed all of our amendments, with 
the exception of a Thurmond amendment and then the matter relating to 
the pending appeal of the ruling of the Chair by Senator Burns. Then I 
want to put in a quorum call for a few minutes for us to catch our 
breath and review things, because the only other item to be taken into 
consideration is the managers' package--the managers' package.
  In this package are those accommodations we made to Senators who were 
not able to meet the deadline for filing amendments and for those which 
had been in the process of being cleared on either side with the 
authorizing committees.
  Everyone's right is reserved in the managers' package, because anyone 
can move to strike or move to modify or second degree, whatever. So I 
want to make that process clear. We have copies now of the managers' 
package. I would like to make sure everyone has reviewed these, and I 
have made sure their own interests are protected.
  So at this time, Mr. President, I would like to, with the two parties 
on the floor, dispose of the two remaining issues, the Burns appeal and 
the Thurmond amendment.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                Appeal of Ruling of the Chair Withdrawn

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
appeal of the ruling of the Chair on my amendment No. 3551 yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                    Amendment No. 3526, As Modified

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to modify my amendment No. 3526. I send the modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 754, line 4, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That the authority under 
     this section may not be used to enter into a multiyear 
     procurement contract until the earlier of (1) May 24, 1996 or 
     (2) the day after the date of enactment of an Act that 
     contains a provision authorizing the Department of Defense to 
     enter into a multiyear contract for the C-17 aircraft 
     program.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I understand this amendment now has been 
agreed to by both sides. There is no objection. We tried to work 
everything out in a satisfactory manner. I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3526, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3526), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair if I am correct 
on indicating, as I did, that all the amendments that were part of the 
unanimous consent agreement have been acted upon and disposed of in 
some manner?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as I say, I am going to take this time 
to recite those amendments that are in the managers' package. Then I 
will ask for a quorum call to give time for people to come to the floor 
or to indicate an interest in either one of these. They are open to 
second degree or for striking:
  One amendment by Senators Chafee and Kempthorne on ESA funding; an 
amendment by Senator Burns on a hydroelectric facility in Montana; an 
amendment by the Finance Committee on reimbursement of certain claims 
under the Medicaid Program; an amendment by Senator Cohen to repeal the 
requirement to discharge or retire members of the Armed Services who 
are HIV positive; an amendment by Senators Dorgan and Conrad, 
additional funds for B-52's; an amendment by Senators Bennett and 
Hatch, photographic technology; an amendment by Senators Breaux and 
Johnston on machine tools; an amendment by Senator Bond earmarking ER 
highway funds within those appropriated; an amendment by Senator 
Daschle which earmark CDBG funds within those appropriated; two 
amendments by Senator Santorum, two sense-of-the-Senate amendments 
regarding offsets for title II disaster assistance and language that 
makes adjustments to discretionary spending to offset disaster 
assistance; an amendment by Senator Gorton, a Walla Walla, WA, veterans 
medical center naming; an amendment by Senators DeWine and McConnell, 
provides $11.8 million for local governments for the development of 
criminal justice identification systems, offset from foreign operations 
Eximbank.

  Let me say all of these amendments either have been offset or they do 
not

[[Page S2285]]

have a major impact on the overall bill that we are recommending from 
the committee. But these are all part of the managers' package. I did 
not want anyone to be blindsided or have any thought of any right being 
diminished by the action of the committee.
  Excuse me, Mr. President, there is a second page. Amendments, like 
mushrooms, tend to grow in the night:
  An amendment by Senator McCain on allocation of health care resources 
at VA; an amendment by Senator Hatfield, Umpqua River basin from 
existing funds; an amendment by Senator McCain on disaster funds 
allocated in accordance with established prioritization processes; a 
technical amendment making section changes; an amendment by Senator 
Murkowski; Greens Creek, AK.

  Mr. President, at the time when we move to act on these packaged 
amendments, I will also ask unanimous consent that the following 
statements and colloquies be placed in the Record: A statement by 
Senator Hutchison; a statement by Senator DeWine; a colloquy by 
Senators Stevens and Campbell; a colloquy by Senators Specter and Pell; 
a colloquy by Senators Simon and Specter; a colloquy by Senators 
Hollings, McCain, and Specter; a colloquy by Senators McConnell and 
Leahy; and a colloquy by Senators Harkin, Johnston, and Specter.
  I would also ask further that a statement by Senator McCain be 
printed in the Record at the appropriate place following the Burns 
amendment adopted herein. That is a lot.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the distinguished Senator if there is not 
also a Dole amendment on the IRS commission, which he did not list.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am told there is. Typographical error.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator add that to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have not asked yet unanimous consent, but we do have 
that included. That is on the second page.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for just a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________