[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.
____________________