Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4161-S4178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

1996 BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee and our ranking member, the very
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for their work in bringing us
to the point we are tonight. This has been a very long, difficult
struggle. Seven months, two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing
resolutions later, we resolved many of these extraordinarily difficult
and contentious issues in a way that I feel has done a real service to
the Senate.
I commend our colleagues. I commend all of those involved for having
finally concluded this effort. I certainly appreciate the effort on
both sides. I know others wish to speak, and I now yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, who, as I understand it, is going to
manage some time here under the agreement we have with the
distinguished majority leader so that we can make the comments we would
have made before the passage of the omnibus bill at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. I believe that was the majority leader's indication of
the procedure we would follow. Let me say at this point in time, I
suggest that those who have statements to make that do not relate to a
colloquy which requires my presence would then follow after the
colloquy that does require my presence with the Senator from Texas
[Mrs. Hutchison]. So that would be the procedure. And then if there are
no questions for me afterward, I am going to retire and let the
speeches flow on.
Mr. President, returning now to the omnibus appropriations bill that
just passed the Senate by an 88 to 11 vote, has passed the House of
Representatives by a 399 to 25 vote, remarkable votes on a matter that
has as much controversy and issues that excited people's passions as
has this particular bill, I would like to acknowledge the support and
the backing of the Senate and House leadership. We kept the leadership
informed periodically throughout the negotiations with the White House,
and we had the constant and consistent support by the leadership for
the strategy that we had laid out and for the steps we were able to
achieve.
I also want to pay particular attention to the subcommittee chairmen
who served on the Appropriations Committee and the ranking members of
those subcommittees, because they were involved in the negotiations as
they related to their particular issues under their jurisdiction in the
subcommittees. So we had a very broad base of participation in spite of
the fact that five individuals had been put together in order to
achieve the agreement--Senator Byrd and myself, and Chairman Livingston
and Mr. Obey of the House, and Mr. Panetta representing the White
House.
I also want to express our deep appreciation to the White House
negotiators for their responding to short-time notices. When we were
ready to meet again--and all these meetings took place in the
Appropriations Committee room of the Senate side of the building--they
responded within minutes of the times when we said we would like to
talk to you again on this issue, or we are ready to return to the table
on a package of issues.
I want to also acknowledge Senator Domenici, as chairman of the
Budget Committee. As you know, we function in a linked, and oftentimes
in a lockstep with the Budget Committee, vis-a-vis the budget
resolution and maintaining the caps and limits of spending established
by that budget resolution. In this particular case we were making add-
backs and offsets, but it impacted upon the scoring system of the CBO.
We had constant, immediate response to needs by the Budget Committee
and its staff, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, to give us an
update or an immediate response to a question of scoring. We also had,
for every add-back, offsets; so that it was deficit neutral in every
step we took. Those offsets had to be called upon again by imaginative,
creative ideas--uranium enrichment programs and other such things,
again, which had a scoring implication that the Budget Committee
responded to regarding our need and helping us along.
In any case, there is something that comes up in the tail end that
you do not anticipate and do not suspect. One such incident is
illustrative of the close working relationship with the Budget
Committee. In a case where $15 million was asked for nuclear safety as
it related to nuclear nonproliferation, it was considered as one of
those oversights for some reason, but nevertheless it had to be acted
upon at the request of the sponsoring Member. Here we had to reopen, in
a sense, the Energy Subcommittee that had been closed in relation to
this conference on the omnibus package. Again, Senator Domenici, as
chairman of that subcommittee, came with the assistance required in
order to not only reopen that committee but also to, in effect, find an
offset. So, I want to pay special attention to the support from the
Budget Committee, particularly Senator Domenici.

Mr. President, I am sure at the time the Senate acted upon these
issues one by one, when we came out of our committee with a reported
bill, people were very much aware of the heated debates that took place
here on the floor before we were able to take that bill, having passed
the Senate, with leadership support of both Senator Dole and Senator
Daschle, with the overwhelming support of Republicans and Democrats--we
went into that conference with that kind of vote support which was very
important. But we tend to forget, after we have gone through these
debates and do not relive them as those of us do who have to relive
them within a smaller context of a conference. Let me tell you, those
debates were just as intense, they were just as heated, they were just
as divisive as they are on the floor, if not more so, because here you
are sitting across a table, looking eyeball to eyeball to the adversary
in the debate.
Let me just say, we got into abortion. That was the Coats amendment.
We got into population planning. We got into HIV, which was lifting the
ban that had been done in the managers' report here on this floor. But
we got into it in that situation within this very small context of
basically five principals. We got into seven debates on environmental
issues. I think they are equal in the intensity that people express
their viewpoints and ideas as were the social issues. And we had to
work through every one of those.
Let me say, the White House position initially was that all seven of
those environmental issues that had been put there by the Senate and
the House had to be excised; it would be a veto on the entire package
if any one of those amendments, riders, stayed on this package. We kept
five of them. We kept five of the seven, modifying four of the five,
but we kept five of those environmental riders.

So, you see from that, the White House had moved. The White House had
asked for $8 billion in add-backs. We agreed with offsets on $4.8
billion, about a split. We denied the White House half of what they
wanted. The White House got half of what they wanted.
I think, when you come to a conference, it is a matter of giving and
getting, so when the conference is over, everybody can say we won. That
is a successful conference. I think we spend too much of our time
trying to determine who loses and who wins, and if we do not spend that
time, the media do.

[[Page S4162]]

The media likes winners and losers. It is kind of strange. It is
difficult for them to comprehend and handle a situation where everybody
wins. They may not have won everything, and they did not lose
everything. To me that is the art of compromise. That is the art of
legislation. That is recognizing the pluralism of our society.
We do not all think alike. God forbid we should ever. But,
nevertheless, what I am saying is these votes in both the House of
Representatives and in the Senate of the United States demonstrated my
thesis--everybody won, or at least they can claim victory in this or
that or the other thing.
We have to recognize one other thing. The Appropriations Committee, 7
months into this 1996 fiscal year, are behind already for the 1997
fiscal year. What we did in this conference was going to affect how
expedited we can make the 1997 procedure. Sure, we might have won more
from the House on the Senate side, but we would have done so at the
expense of being able to find the kind of compromises to expedite the
1997 process. So we always, I think, have to realize that what we are
doing at the moment has an impact on what we are going to have to do
next. Again, we live in the moment and in a culture of instantaneous
gratification: instant this, instant news, bite-size everything, and
very few people in our culture are looking beyond today and this very
hour.
I want to say, in my view, the exception to that is the Republican
determination to balance the budget by the year 2002, because we are
looking ahead to what implications today's actions are going to have on
our children and our grandchildren, to the year 2002. But very few
things are happening in our culture total, not just the political, that
gives any indication that people are looking beyond the moment.
We were looking as well to resolve this issue, knowing we were going
to be immediately thrust into the next fiscal year activity, of 1997.
We have to always remain conscious of the fact that the President has
legislative power.
He cannot force us to legislate anything, but we cannot legislate
independent of the President either. That is the marvelous mystery of
our mixing of powers within a separation of powers organization.
So when you look at the issues, the riders on the bill--and I am
going to use any and every occasion that I have an opportunity to
remind ourselves that, blast it all, it is the authorizers who should
be doing these riders in the first place and they are dumping on to us,
complicating the appropriations process unnecessarily.
Why? Well, we are the only committee that has to act. A lot of people
like to talk, and they do. The appropriators not only talk, they have
to act. We have to pass our bills. No other committee in this Congress,
except the appropriators, are required by law to pass their bills to
keep the Government going. Not even the Budget Committee has to act. In
fact, the Budget Committee did not give the appropriators a budget
resolution until August a few years ago which, really, by that time,
was a rather futile gesture because we had to move ahead before the
Budget Committee even acted in order to meet the October 1 fiscal year
deadline.
So I want to say again, a lot of people talk about budget reductions,
but it is the appropriators who have done it. We have cut the budget
over $22 billion. No other committee has done it. They have talked
about it. We have done the cutting, $22 billion. And sometimes we have
had to do that without the benefit of anesthetic. This is a bloody
surgery we are into.
I am always amused by the Members who come around to the
appropriating committee and say, ``Be sure and put that in. Be sure and
hang on to that one,'' spend that money and then get up here and talk
about the appropriators or people refusing to cut spending. We are all
guilty of it. It gets a little weary at times, I must say, but,
nevertheless, that is the way the system functions. It is still the
best system in the world, no matter how many times we find fault with
it.
So I can say this to the body today that it is not the bill I would
have written if I had been the only one, but it certainly is a bill of
consensus. We had to deal with Democrats, Republicans, House Members,
Senate Members and the White House, and to have engaged in that was,
indeed, both an experience and one that took team effort. I am indebted
to my colleagues in the Senate for this vote of 88 to 11 and to the
superior leadership of Congressman Livingston. Let me tell you, we have
sometimes divisions on this side, and we think it is hard to bridge
those differences and so forth, but let me tell you, that House side--
it is an amazing, amazing accomplishment that the leadership and
Chairman Livingston were able to get a 399-to-25 vote and, again,
everybody won.

Mr. President, I said I would yield to my friend from Texas, Mrs.
Hutchison, and engage in a colloquy, and if there are no other
questions, I will engage in that colloquy at this time in order to
accommodate the Senator. If there are no questions, then I will depart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman of the
committee. There is a high price for leadership, and he certainly has
provided the leadership in this body in a very difficult circumstance.
I appreciate the courtesies that he has given to me because it has been
a very tough vote. I feel very strongly on principle, and I will talk
about that later, but I appreciate the integrity of the process and of
the Senator from the State of Oregon.
Mr. President, today the Senate passed H.R. 3019, the omnibus
appropriations bill for 1996. Included in that bill as part of the
appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of
the Interior was a provision that has twice passed the Senate. It puts
a moratorium on the listing of endangered species and the designation
of critical habitat in order to permit the reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act to go forward without the controversy of new
listings and seeks to prevent further unnecessary harm to workers and
property owners in the meantime.
As reported by the conference committee, the moratorium was revised
to include language permitting the moratorium to be suspended if the
President determines that it is in the public interest in the
protection of naturally or locally affected interests. I certainly
agree that it is in the national and local interest to have sound
environmental management. But I also believe that it is in the national
and local interest to protect agricultural, ranching and timber jobs.
We must have the food, clothing, and shelter that our farmers, ranchers
and lumberjacks provide. It is also in the national and local interest
to protect human access to water for health, safety and economic
reasons. We cannot have the people's access to water threatened, as it
has been in my State, by environmental laws that were enacted before
their effect on the water supply was fully understood.
Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oregon, is it his intention and
understanding that in using this provision, the President shall take
into account jobs and people in addition to species?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison. That is
correct. In his exercise of the Executive power, the President is bound
to consider the health and safety of the people and the economy in
making Executive orders.
This is, of course, true with the suspension provision, too. I
appreciate the assistance of the Senator from Texas in bringing this
issue into focus at this particular time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oregon, Mr. President. I
thank him very much. I think that clarification should be a guide for
the President if he decides to override what the Senate has passed.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Texas will
yield momentarily for a unanimous-consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Highlights in Title I of H.R. 3019, Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 1996

Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies

A total of $14.7 billion for the Department of Justice,
roughly a 20 percent increase over FY 1995 levels.
$1.4 billion for the Community-Oriented Policing Services
to meet the goal of putting

[[Page S4163]]

cops on the beat. This program received no direct funding in
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2076, the FY 96
Commerce, Justice, State & the Judiciary Appropriations bill.
$503 million for a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, which
will give those on the front lines in the fight against crime
greater authority to make decisions about which crime-
fighting strategies can work best in their communities.
Under the Department of Commerce, $221 million for the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which receive no funding
in the conference report to H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill, and $80
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program
(MEP). Both ATP and MEP are part of NIST's (National
Institute of Standards and Technology) Industrial Technology
Services.
$185 million for the Federal Communication Commission, an
increase of $10 million over the conference report to H.R.
2076.
Under the Department of State, sufficient funding for the
United States to maintain its commitment to the United
Nations at the 25 percent assessment rate, including $395
million to support U.N. Peacekeeping.
$278 million for the Legal Services Corporation.

District of Columbia

$4.9 billion spending limit on total city expenditures.
In response the District's request, language regarding
reductions-in-force (RIF) procedures is provided to make it
easier for the city to reduce staff and control spending.
Public education reforms: authority for establishing
independent charter schools; an oversight Commission on
Consensus Reform in the public schools to ensure
implementation of a required reform plan; technical
assistance from GSA to repair school facilities.

department of interior and related agencies

$1.321 billion is provided for the National Park Service
activities, an increase over the FY 1995 level.
The partial moratorium on Endangered Species Act listings
is retained in the bill, as is language protecting historical
management practices in the Mojave National Preserve. The
President would be allowed to suspend these provisions if he
determines such suspension is appropriate based upon the
public interest in sound environmental management and
resource protection.
Language providing a one-year moratorium on establishment
of a new Tongass Land Management Plan and allows certain
timber sales on the Tongass National Forest to be awarded if
the Forest Service determines additional analysis is not
necessary. The President would be allowed to suspend these
provisions if he determines such suspension is appropriate
based upon the public interest in sound environmental
management and resource protection. Should the provision be
suspended, $110 million would be available for economic
disaster assistance in Southeast Alaska timber communities.
Language affecting Western Oregon and Western Washington,
that would give greater flexibility to the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management to offer alternative timber
sale volume to timber sale purchasers, has been dropped.
Language providing the Administration the authority to
purchase all or portions of previously sold timber sales in
Western Oregon and Western Washington has been dropped.

departments of labor, health & human services, and education, and
related agencies

$625 million for the 1996 Summer Youth Employment Program
of the Department of Labor; The House bill had terminated
this program.
$1.1 billion for the Dislocated Worker Retraining program,
bringing the total $233 million above the House bill.
$350 million for the School to Work program, jointly
administered by the Department of Labor and Education, an
increase of $105 million from the 1995 appropriated level.
$11.9 billion for medical research supported by the
National Institutes of Health. This is an increase of $654
million over 1995, or 5.8 percent.
$738 million for the Ryan White AIDS programs. This is an
increase of $105 million over 1995. Within the total is $52
million specifically set aside for the AIDS drugs
reimbursement program. These additional funds will enable
states to better meet the growing cost and demand for new
AIDS drugs.
$93 million to continue the Healthy Start program. This is
$43 million above the original level passed by the House.
$3.57 billion for the Head Start program. This is $36
million above 1995.
$350 million for the GOALS 2000 Educate American Act
program. The House bill had terminated funding for this
program.
$7.2 billion for the Title I, Compensatory Education for
the Disadvantaged, program. This is the same as the 1995
level and nearly $1 billion more than the House bill.
$466 million for the Drug Free Schools program. This is
$266 million above the House bill.
$78 million for education technology programs which assist
schools in expanding the availability of technology enhanced
curricula and instruction to improve educational services.
This is $23 million above 1995.
$973 million for Vocational Education Basis Grants. This is
the same as the 1995 level and $83 million over the House
bill.
$93 million to recapitalize the Perkins Loan student aid
program. The House had proposed no funding for this purpose.
$32 million for the State Student Incentive Grant program.
The House bill had proposed terminating funding for this
program.
The bill also raises the maximum Pell Grant to $2.47
billion. This is an increase of $130 million in the maximum
grant and is the highest maximum grant ever provided.

Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing & Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies

$16.564 billion for Veteran's Medical Care, an increase of
$400 million over FY 1995.
The overall EPA level is increased to $6.528 billion, which
is $818 million more than was included in the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2099, the FY 96 VA, HUD &
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
Under EPA, $490 million was provided for enforcement, $40
million more than was included in the conference report and
an increase of $10 million over FY95.
Superfund receives an additional appropriation of $150
million bringing its total to $1,313,400,000.
State Revolving Funds: an increase of $448,500,000 over the
conference level, including $225 million for drinking water
SRFs and $223,500,000 for clean water SRFs.
Council on Environmental Quality: $2,150,000, which is
double the CEQ conference level.
Economic Development Initiative: $80 million. No funding
was provided for EDI in the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2099.
Severely Distressed Public Housing: $380 million, an
increase of $100 million over the H.R. 2099 conference report
level.
Community Development Financial Institutions: $45 million
compared to zero in the conference report.
National Service: $400 million compared to $15 million for
termination in conference report.
$3.2 billion for the National Science Foundation, an
increase of $40 million over the amount provided in H.R.
2099.
$13.9 billion for NASA, and increase of $83 million over
the original amount in H.R. 2099.

[[Page S4164]]

H.R. 3019, OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED RESCISSIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference compared to--
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1996 Senate reported H.R. 3019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
enacted request conference \1\ House passed S. 1594 Senate passed conference Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1996 House passed Committee
enacted request conference \1\ H.R. 3019 reported S. 1594 Senate passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce-Justice:
New budget (obligational)
authority................ $26,698,342,000 $31,158,679,000 $27,287,525,000 $27,284,734,000 $27,285,234,000 $27,299,134,000 $27,841,284,000 $1,142,942,000 ($3,317,395,000) $553,759,000 $556,550,000 $556,050,000 $542,150,000
Appropriations........ 24,541,692,000 27,148,479,000 23,538,956,000 23,536,165,000 23,572,165,000 23,586,065,000 24,097,215,000 (444,477,000) (3,051,264,000) 558,259,000 561,050,000 525,050,000 511,150,000
Rescissions........... (171,250,000) ................. (207,400,000) (207,400,000) (242,900,000) (242,900,000) (211,900,000) (40,650,000) (211,900,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) 31,000,000 31,000,000
Crime trust fund...... 2,327,900,000 4,010,200,000 3,955,969,000 3,955,969,000 3,955,969,000 3,955,969,000 3,955,969,000 1,628,069,000 (54,231,000) ................. ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)............. 56,500,000 55,500,000 106,000,000 106,000,000 106,000,000 106,000,000 106,000,000 49,500,000 50,500,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on
administrative expenses). 3,463,000 3,559,000 3,559,000 3,559,000 3,559,000 3,559,000 3,559,000 96,000 ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct
loans)................... 741,000 741,000 741,000 741,000 741,000 741,000 741,000 ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract
authority)............... 214,356,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 (51,746,000) ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Foreign currency
appropriation)........... 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
District of Columbia:
Appropriations............... 712,070,000 712,070,000 727,000,000 727,000,000 727,000,000 727,000,000 712,070,000 ................ ................ (14,930,000) (14,930,000) (14,930,000) (14,930,000)
Interior:
New budget (obligational)
authority................ 13,519,230,000 13,817,404,000 12,164,636,000 12,164,505,000 12,165,355,000 12,167,985,999 12,294,592,000 (1,224,638,000) (1,522,812,000) 129,956,000 130,087,000 129,237,000 126,606,001
Appropriations............ 13,549,230,000 13,832,204,000 12,194,636,000 12,194,505,000 12,197,527,000 12,200,157,999 12,324,592,000 (1,224,638,000) (1,507,612,000) 129,956,000 130,087,000 127,065,000 124,434,001
Rescissions............... (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (32,172,000) (32,172,000) (30,000,000) ................ ................ ................. ................ 2,172,000 2,172,000
Crime trust fund.......... ................. 15,200,000 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ (15,200,000) ................. ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)............. 107,764,000 187,000,000 187,000,000 187,000,000 187,000,000 187,000,000 187,000,000 79,236,000 ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
Labor-HHS-Education:
Total budget
(obligational) authority. 244,495,303,000 268,133,087,000 258,971,170,000 257,256,285,000 258,357,553,000 257,914,331,000 260,151,017,000 15,655,714,000 (7,982,070,000) 1,179,847,000 2,894,732,000 1,793,464,000 2,236,686,000
New budget (obligational)
authority, 1996.......... 204,547,586,000 226,132,133,000 217,325,820,000 216,620,935,000 216,722,203,000 216,278,981,000 218,217,281,000 13,669,695,000 (7,914,852,000) 891,461,000 1,596,346,000 1,495,078,000 1,938,300,000
Appropriations........ 205,154,584,000 225,956,733,000 217,360,820,000 216,667,935,000 216,769,203,000 216,325,981,000 218,264,281,000 13,109,697,000 (7,692,452,000) 903,461,000 1,596,346,000 1,495,078,000 1,938,300,000
Rescissions........... (617,998,000) ................. (100,000,000) (100,000,000) (100,000,000) (100,000,000) (100,000,000) 517,998,000 (100,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................
Crime trust fund...... 11,000,000 175,400,000 65,000,000 53,000,000 53,000,000 53,000,000 53,000,000 42,000,000 (122,400,000) (12,000,000) ................ ................ ................
Advance
Appropriations, 1997. 39,687,717,000 41,704,554,000 41,385,350,000 40,385,350,000 41,385,350,000 41,385,350,000 41,683,736,000 1,996,019,000 (20,818,000) 298,386,000 1,298,386,000 298,386,000 298,386,000
Advance
Appropriations, 1998. 260,000,000 296,400,000 260,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 (10,000,000) (46,400,000) (10,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on trust
funds)................... 11,396,796,000 12,259,261,000 11,487,093,000 11,573,093,000 11,490,092,000 11,490,766,000 11,546,926,000 150,130,000 (712,335,000) 59,833,000 (26,167,000) 56,834,000 56,160,000
VA, HUD:
New budget (obligational)
authority................ 89,927,686,000 90,551,351,093 80,606,927,000 81,311,016,000 81,995,196,000 81,995,196,000 82,442,966,000 (7,484,720,000) (8,108,385,093) 1,836,039,000 1,131,950,000 447,770,000 447,770,000
Appropriations........ 90,260,686,000 90,746,470,093 80,805,046,000 81,509,135,000 82,193,315,000 82,193,315,000 82,641,085,000 (7,619,601,000) (8,105,385,093) 1,836,039,000 1,131,950,000 447,770,000 447,770,000
Rescissions........... (333,000,000) (198,119,000) (198,119,000) (198,119,000) (198,119,000) (198,119,000) (198,119,000) 134,881,000 ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
Crime trust fund...... ................. 3,000,000 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ (3,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)............. 100,061,000 63,000 17,561,000 17,561,000 17,561,000 17,561,000 17,561,000 (82,500,000) 17,498,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on
administrative e......... 623,746,500 2,502,000 17,602,000 17,602,000 17,602,000 17,602,000 17,602,000 (606,144,500) 15,100,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct
loans)................... 1,200,523,034 1,075,421,120 1,075,363,000 1,075,363,000 1,075,363,000 1,075,363,000 1,075,363,000 (125,160,034) (58,120) ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed
loans.................... 264,939,072,000 237,400,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 (26,039,072,000) 1,500,000,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on corporate
funds)................... 516,041,000 549,626,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 38,360,000 4,775,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
Title I--Omnibus
Appropriations

Total budget (obligational)
authority.................... 375,352,631,000 404,372,591,093 379,757,258,000 378,743,540,000 380,530,338,000 380,103,646,999 383,441,929,000 8,089,298,000 (20,930,662,093) 3,684,671,000 4,698,389,000 2,911,591,000 3,338,282,001
New budget (obligational)
authority.................... 335,404,914,000 362,371,637,093 338,111,908,000 338,108,190,000 338,894,988,000 338,468,296,999 341,508,193,000 6,103,279,000 (20,863,444,093) 3,396,285,000 3,400,003,000 2,613,205,000 3,039,896,001
Appropriations............ 334,218,262,000 358,395,956,093 334,626,458,000 334,634,740,000 335,459,210,000 335,032,518,999 338,039,243,000 3,820,981,000 (20,356,713,093) 3,412,785,000 3,404,503,000 2,580,033,000 3,006,724,001
Rescissions............... (1,152,248,000) (228,119,000) (535,519,000) (535,519,000) (573,191,000) (573,191,000) (540,019,000) 612,229,000 (311,900,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) 33,172,000 33,172,000
Crime trust fund.......... 2,338,900,000 4,203,800,000 4,020,969,000 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 1,670,069,000 (194,831,000) (12,000,000) ................ ................ ................
Advance Appropriations,
1997..................... 39,687,717,000 41,704,554,000 41,385,350,000 40,385,350,000 41,385,350,000 41,385,350,000 41,683,736,000 1,996,019,000 (20,818,000) 298,386,000 1,298,386,000 298,386,000 298,386,000
Advance Appropriations,
1998..................... 260,000,000 296,400,000 260,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 (10,000,000) (46,400,000) (10,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)................. 264,325,000 242,563,000 310,561,000 310,561,000 310,561,000 310,561,000 310,561,000 46,236,000 67,998,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on administrative
expenses).................... 627,209,500 6,061,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 (606,048,500) 15,100,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).. 1,201,264,034 1,076,162,120 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 (125,160,034) (58,120) ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed
loans)....................... 264,939,072,000 237,400,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 (26,039,072,000) 1,500,000,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on corporate
funds)....................... 516,041,000 549,626,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 38,360,000 4,775,000 ................. ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract
authority)................... 214,356,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 162,610,000 (51,746,000) ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Foreign currency
appropriation)............... 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ ................

Title II--Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations

New budget (obligational)
authority.................... ................. 1,033,329,000 ................. 1,147,600,000 1,529,214,000 1,585,814,000 2,124,714,000 2,124,714,000 1,091,385,000 2,124,714,000 977,114,000 595,500,000 538,900,000
Appropriations............ ................. 140,000,000 ................. 70,000,000 847,700,000 901,600,000 193,300,000 193,300,000 53,300,000 193,300,000 123,300,000 (654,400,000) (708,300,000)
Emergency appropriation... ................. 1,784,329,000 ................. 1,835,600,000 1,043,100,000 1,093,100,000 1,655,600,000 1,655,600,000 (128,729,000) 1,655,600,000 (180,000,000) 612,500,000 562,500,000
Contingency emergency
appropriations........... ................. 69,000,000 ................. 173,000,000 458,414,000 486,314,000 275,814,000 275,814,000 206,814,000 275,814,000 102,814,000 (182,600,000) (210,500,000)
Rescissions............... ................. (960,000,000) ................. (931,000,000) (820,000,000) (895,200,000) ................. ................ 960,000,000 ................. 931,000,000 820,000,000 895,200,000

[[Page S4165]]

(By transfer)................. ................. 5,500,000 ................. 10,500,000 ................. 64,900,000 28,500,000 28,500,000 23,000,000 28,500,000 18,000,000 28,500,000 (36,400,000)
(Liquidation of contract
authority)................... ................. 375,000,000 ................. 375,000,000 375,000,000 375,000,000 375,000,000 375,000,000 ................ 375,000,000 ................ ................ ................
(Exempt obligations).......... ................. 267,000,000 ................. 267,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 33,000,000 300,000,000 33,000,000 ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).. ................. 118,874,000 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ (118,874,000) ................. ................ ................ ................

Title III--Offsets and
Rescissions

New budget (obligational)
authority.................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000) (4,170,246,000)
Rescissions............... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000) (1,631,246,000)
Offsets................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000)
Rescissions of contract
authority................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000)
Emergency rescission...... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000)

Title IV--Contingency
Appropriations

Total budget (obligational)
authority.................... ................. ................. ................. 3,332,900,000 4,781,500,000 3,649,102,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. (3,332,900,000) (4,781,500,000) (3,649,102,000)
New budget (obligational)
authority.................... ................. ................. ................. 3,332,900,000 4,781,500,000 2,382,863,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. (3,332,900,000) (4,781,500,000) (2,382,863,000)
Appropriations............ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 1,458,000,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ (1,458,000,000)
Contingency appropriations ................. ................. ................. 3,332,900,000 4,781,500,000 1,540,863,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. (3,332,900,000) (4,781,500,000) (1,540,863,000)
Advance Appropriations,
1997..................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 1,266,239,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ (1,266,239,000)
Rescission of contract
authority................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (616,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ 616,000,000
Offset: Petroleum reserves.... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (227,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ 227,000,000

Title V--Environmental
Initiatives

New budget (obligational)
authority.................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 439,000,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ (439,000,000)
Appropriations............ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 487,000,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ (487,000,000)
Rescission of contract
authority................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (48,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ 48,000,000
Offset: Debt collection....... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (440,000,000) ................. ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ 440,000,000

TOTAL

Total budget (obligational)
authority.................... 375,352,631,000 405,405,920,093 ................. 383,224,040,000 386,841,052,000 384,623,562,999 381,396,397,000 6,043,766,000 (24,009,523,093) 381,396,397,000 (1,827,643,000) (5,444,655,000) (3,227,165,999)
New budget (obligational)
authority.................... 335,404,914,000 363,404,966,093 ................. 342,588,690,000 345,205,702,000 341,721,973,999 339,462,661,000 4,057,747,000 (23,942,305,093) 339,462,661,000 (3,126,029,000) (5,743,041,000) (2,259,312,999)
Appropriations............ 334,218,262,000 358,535,956,093 ................. 334,704,740,000 336,306,910,000 337,392,118,999 338,232,543,000 4,014,281,000 (20,303,413,093) 338,232,543,000 3,527,803,000 1,925,633,000 840,424,001
Emergency appropriation... ................. 1,784,329,000 ................. 1,835,600,000 1,043,100,000 1,093,100,000 1,655,600,000 1,655,600,000 (128,729,000) 1,655,600,000 (180,000,000) 612,500,000 562,500,000
Contingency emergency
appropriations........... ................. 69,000,000 ................. 173,000,000 458,414,000 486,314,000 275,814,000 275,814,000 206,814,000 275,814,000 102,814,000 (182,600,000) (210,500,000)
Contingency appropriations ................. ................. ................. 3,332,900,000 4,781,500,000 1,540,863,000 ................. ................ ................ ................. (3,332,900,000) (4,781,500,000) (1,540,863,000)
Rescissions............... (1,152,248,000) (1,188,119,000) ................. (1,466,519,000) (1,393,191,000) (1,468,391,000) (2,171,265,000) (1,019,017,000) (983,146,000) (2,171,265,000) (704,746,000) (778,074,000) (702,874,000)
Rescissions of contract
authority................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (664,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (762,000,000) (98,000,000)
Crime trust fund.......... 2,338,900,000 4,203,800,000 ................. 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 4,008,969,000 1,670,069,000 (194,831,000) 4,008,969,000 ................ ................ ................
Emergency rescission...... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000) (1,000,000,000)
Offsets................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. (667,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (777,000,000) (110,000,000)
Advance Appropriations,
1997..................... 39,687,717,000 41,704,554,000 ................. 40,385,350,000 41,385,350,000 42,651,589,000 41,683,736,000 1,996,019,000 (20,818,000) 41,683,736,000 1,298,386,000 298,386,000 (967,853,000)
Advance Appropriations,
1998..................... 260,000,000 296,400,000 ................. 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 250,000,000 (10,000,000) (46,400,000) 250,000,000 ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)................. 264,325,000 248,063,000 ................. 321,061,000 310,561,000 375,461,000 339,061,000 74,736,000 90,998,000 339,061,000 18,000,000 28,500,000 (36,400,000)
(Limitation on administrative
expenses).................... 627,209,500 6,061,000 ................. 21,161,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 21,161,000 (606,048,500) 15,100,000 21,161,000 ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).. 1,201,264,034 1,076,162,120 ................. 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 1,076,104,000 (125,160,034) (58,120) 1,076,104,000 ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed
loans)....................... 264,939,072,000 237,400,000,000 ................. 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 238,900,000,000 (26,039,072,000) 1,500,000,000 238,900,000,000 ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on corporate
funds)....................... 516,041,000 549,626,000 ................. 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 554,401,000 38,360,000 4,775,000 554,401,000 ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract
authority)................... 214,356,000 537,610,000 ................. 537,610,000 537,610,000 537,610,000 537,610,000 323,254,000 ................ 537,610,000 ................ ................ ................
(Foreign currency
appropriation)............... 1,420,000 1,420,000 ................. 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 ................ ................ 1,420,000 ................ ................ ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate-reported level for Labor-HHS-Education.

[[Page S4166]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, once again, I thank the Senator from
Oregon for completing a very tough job, and I commend him for the job
that he has done.
Mr. President, I want to talk about my vote, because I voted against
this bill on a principle that I think is very important, and I would
like to step back and talk about the background.
Over the past 20 years, we have greatly improved the environment in
the United States. As a Nation, we have spent over a trillion dollars
to clean our air, water, and land. We have cleaner air and water than
we have had for the past 40 years in our country. Now we are at a
crossroads in environmental policy. We can preserve all of the
environmental gains that we have made and still move forward to assure
our children a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment.
But we will not be able to move forward if we continue to rely on the
old, top-down command and control solutions from Washington, DC.
Instead of orders from Washington, DC, we need to allow communities and
businesses to find the best way to meet our national environmental
standards themselves.
The administration and its leaders on Capitol Hill have used every
opportunity to demagog and politicize environmental policy in order to
protect the status quo and appease extremist environmental ideologs.
They seek to take every opportunity to accuse Republicans of harming
the environment, as if we had a separate supply of water and air to
breathe.
I was accused by one of these groups of being supported by
antienvironmental groups. So I asked the question, ``What groups are
you referring to as antienvironment?'' And they said, ``Realtors, home
builders, electrical co-ops, farm bureaus.''
Mr. President, I am proud to be associated with those groups that
give to our economy and create the jobs in our country. They are not
antienvironmental. And neither are any of us in this body. The rhetoric
is misleading and it is even false in some cases.
They claimed that the Senate bill that we passed originally lowered
clean air standards. It did not. They claimed that the Senate bill
would have increased industrial pollution. It did not. It provided
increases in clean water and drinking water programs.
They claimed the Senate bill would have ignored toxic waste sites. It
did not. In fact, it is time for this administration to stop rhetoric
like that and stop dragging its heels on Superfund cleanups, to put
aside the red tape and get things done that actually clean our water
and air.
So what happened tonight? In order to prevent the President from
shutting down the Government again, to protect the Washington
bureaucrats' power, today's bill cedes to the President too much
authority that is our authority to write laws and then to make sure
that the regulators are doing what we intended for them to do. I think
that is a mistake.
Last year this Congress recognized that reform of the Endangered
Species Act is long overdue. It called a timeout on new listings and
new designations of critical habitat. Congress recognizes that we must
protect the environment at the least possible cost to American workers
and families.
The conference report that was before us today permits President
Clinton to suspend the moratorium on new listings at will. The
Endangered Species Act has been good. It has focused us on the need to
preserve plants and animals. There have been some notable successes.
But the heavyhanded means that are being employed now to preserve
hundreds of subspecies of bait fish and rats are increasingly
counterproductive.
The moratorium on listings have kept American workers from losing
their jobs. It has stopped narrow-minded interest groups from hijacking
the Endangered Species Act and hurting our economy. Timber growers that
have worked for years to grow trees to save for their retirement or for
their children's education have had to cut trees on the basis of a
rumor that their land might be listed as an endangered species habitat.
Why? In order to avoid having Washington bureaucrats tell these people
that they cannot cut down a tree after they have cultivated it for
decades.

In central Texas, my home State, the Fish and Wildlife Service
limited cutting of cedars to protect habitat for the golden-cheeked
warbler. The warbler uses cedar bark to make its nest. Cedars are a
weed. They are a weed. Our homeowners and land owners clear the land.
If they are not cleared, in fact it hurts health. It also absorbs water
that should be going into the Edwards Aquifer which is a water supply
to the city of San Antonio and ranches and farms all over the area.
If we cannot rely on the support and cooperation of the people who
live with the animals that we want to save, I do not think the animals
are going to be saved. And that is not in anyone's interest nor is it
in the interest of saving the animals.
That is why I have made such a high priority of reforming the
Endangered Species Act. We need to forge a new consensus about saving
endangered species. We need to make private property owners
stakeholders, not adversaries in the process.
That is why I proposed and the President signed into law the
moratorium on new listings. The President says we must go back to the
old law that is obsolete that everyone admits does not work. Even the
people who are trying to keep it admit it does not work. It puts the
power back in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
The President should not be able to change what has passed this body
twice in the last year with the stroke of a pen and take away the
savings, the property, and even the jobs of hard-working Americans. We
can set national environmental standards.
We can put Federal resources behind environmental cleanup and
enforcement. But it must be done in a sensible way. It must take human
needs into account. Before we list species again we must put common
sense into the law, put control back in the hands of the people. Only
then will we be able to assure a healthier, safer environment for all
Americans.
Mr. President, there is some good in the bill that passed tonight.
There are some lower spending levels. That was a step in the right
direction in many ways. But the President pushed too far. Economic
damage could occur. Jobs could be lost. If the Fish and Wildlife
Service acts without considering good science, local concerns, and
water supplies for people, there could be untold damage to the people
of our country.
I feel that I must oppose the compromise that passed tonight on this
principle and say to the President, Mr. President, you must assume full
responsibility for your administration's actions. If people and
communities are not considered in this process, when farmers cannot
farm, and water sources for cities are shut down, and when working
people lose their jobs, Mr. President, you have pushed too far, and
this politicization of the environment must stop. Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the only Democratic member of this
body who sits on both the Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with EPA
and on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have had a special
interest in the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency.
And I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their work on
these issues.
Mr. President, when the EPA budget first passed the the Senate, EPA's
funding level was 17 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level. The
House was 33 percent below the previous year level. Those figures were
unacceptable to me, to the President and the American people.
The people of America have made clear that they want us do all we can
to protect their drinking water from contaminates, their air from
harmful smog and their land from the improper disposal of toxic wastes.
Since the President vetoed that funding bill for EPA, there has been
significant progress.
When this pending continuing resolution was considered in the Senate,
I offered an amendment that would have raised EPA funding $726 million.
That would have raised EPA to the full 1995 level by adding money for
state assistance for drinking water and sewage treatment, for global
climate change research, for environmental enforcement and for Boston
Harbor clean up.

[[Page S4167]]

Once that amendment was offered, there were long, and ultimately
painful negotiations among the parties. Needless to say, negotiations
were not easy; if they had been today would be October 25,1995 not
April 25, 1996.
I want to especially acknowledge the efforts of the Junior Senator
from Massachusetts, John Kerry, who fought relentlessly to fund EPA
and, in particular, to address the special needs of Boston Harbor.
Without his persistent efforts during our negotiations, the additonal
dollars for Boston Harbor would not be in this bill.
As a member of the Conference, I want to take this opportunity to
thank Senator Kerry for his hard work and persistent efforts in getting
the funding for this important water pollution control program.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this bill contains extremely important
funding for the State of Idaho, along with other items I must clearly
support. For that reason, I will be voting in favor of this bill.
However, I think it is important to make a record of some of the
shortcomings of this bill.
First, I am extremely disappointed that this bill ignores the
concerns of many communities and citizens in the Columbia Basin who
worked honestly and deliberately over the years to develop local forest
management plans. Those plans will now be summarily overridden by two
gigantic environmental impact statements which will dramatically alter
all the existing local plans on 144 million acres. It remains my
opinion that these EIS's represent an inappropriate application of the
National Environmental Policy Act. They are too big; they are too
remote for comment by the citizens who will be affected; and they are
too complex for any reasonable understanding by any affected party. I
am told that this project will have cost the Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management up to $30 million. I submit that the advancement of
science through this project has been worth but a fraction. Despite my
efforts and those of Congressman Nethercutt to interject some common
sense and fiscal responsibility, the language we worked hard to support
has been dropped. As a result, I am very apprehensive that our local
governments, our citizens who depend upon the public lands for
livelihood and recreation, and many others who use the forest will be
locked out of the forest for reasons none of us will ever understand.
Another item missing from this agreement that concerns me is my
amendment, passed by the Senate, relating to the Legal Services
Corporation. Let me acknowledge the efforts of the Senate conferees--
and particularly, Senator Gregg--to protect this amendment. As my
colleagues will recall, this amendment was aimed at what some of us
believe is a pattern of straying from the important mandate of
providing legal services to the poor, instead pursuing a political
agenda. In the case I highlighted, the Legal Services Corporation
grantee drove my constituents to the edge of bankruptcy in a 6-year
battle over an adoption that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
and twice to the Idaho State Supreme Court. Eventually, my constituents
prevailed and the adoption was finalized. If anyone benefited from this
gross waste of taxpayer funds, I have yet to discover it. It's my
intention to continue pursuing my amendment to redress this unfairness
in another forum.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3019, the
Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Bill which includes five
separate appropriations bills for the balance of fiscal year 1996. This
bill provides full year funding for the Veterans, Housing Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, the Labor,
Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the District of Columbia
appropriations bill, the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations
bill, and the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. It also
includes emergency funding to deal with the floods in the Pacific
Northwest and other disasters.
Mr. President, I serve as ranking member on the Commerce, Justice and
State Subcommittee. I have served in that capacity or as Chairman of
that Subcommittee since 1977. And, I want to speak today most of all in
support of the conference agreement as it pertains to the departments,
agencies, programs and people covered by that important appropriations
bill.
We need to keep in mind that we have had 13 stop-gap ``continuing
resolutions'' since October 1, 1995 when the fiscal year began. In the
case of the CJS bill, the Senate completed action on the bill on
September 29, 1995, and passed the conference report to H.R. 2076 on
December 7, 1995. I voted against that conference report as did 48 of
my colleagues. The President then vetoed H.R. 2076 on December 19,
1995. While the President's official veto message mentioned many
problems with the CJS bill, in his actual statement he mentioned only
the elimination of the Cops on the Beat program and the Advanced
Technology Program as his reasons for finding the bill to be
unacceptable.
So, we have now gone through this somewhat difficult process and
conferenced what is essentially a new Commerce, Justice and State bill.
During the past weeks, we have had negotiations between the White House
and the Congressional leadership. And, during the past week, we have
had intensive negotiations going on between the White House represented
by President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, his able assistant Martha
Foley, and Jack Lew of OMB and the Congressional leadership represented
by our distinguished Chairman, Senator Hatfield, Senator Byrd, House
Chairman Mr. Livingston, and Mr. Obey. They have had to work long hours
on a number of difficult, controversial issues. I think that they have
done an excellent job. I think that our Congressional team deserves
special praise. They conducted these negotiations in a bipartisan
manner, something that has been seriously lacking in the 104th
Congress.
Mr. President, the Commerce, Justice and State portion of this
agreement represents a good, realistic compromise that responds to our
spending priorities at the same time that it cutbacks overall spending.
This conference report provides $27.8 billion for the CJS bill. This is
$3.2 billion BELOW the level requested in the FY 1996 President's
Budget request.
This agreement restores funding for several high priority programs
and makes several other changes that lead me to conclude that it is a
vast improvement over the CJS bill that the President vetoed. I will
just mention a few.
First, and most important to me, this agreement provides $221 million
for the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program (ATP). I
authored this program in the 1988 Trade Act and I can tell you that it
is strongly supported by the President and was a high priority for our
late Secretary of Commerce. Ron Brown. ATP provides cooperative
agreements that are cost-shared with industry. These ATP awards are
intended to help industry take leading edge technologies from the
drawing board to the marketplace. It is intended to develop entirely
new industries, create high-paying jobs, and to help us compete with
the Japanese, French, and Germans who maintain quite similar programs.
This conference agreement is $221 million above the vetoed CJS bill,
H.R. 2076, but is still about $210 million below the level enacted for
the ATP program in fiscal year 1995. Report language notes that the
highest priority should be to continue ATP awards made in fiscal year
1995 and prior years--but, the new Commerce Secretary, Mickey Kantor,
is allowed under this agreement to continue to make new ATP awards.
And, I should note, that the agreement includes an additional $2
million for the Office of our Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology, Mary Lowe Good. She is the best. And report language
expresses our commitment to continue the U.S./Israel Science and
Technology Agreement which is overseen by her office.
Second, this conference agreement includes $1.4 billion for the
Community Oriented Policing Services program or ``COPS'' as it is
commonly known. This is $100 million above the fiscal year 1995 level,
$1.4 billion above the level included in H.R. 2076, the Commerce,
Justice and State bill that the President vetoed last December. I
should note that it is almost the identical amount that was restored on
the Senate floor in September when the Senate

[[Page S4168]]

considered H.R. 2076. The conference report reiterates, for the first
time since the Republicans won a majority in the House and Senate, that
the Congress remains committed to deploying one hundred thousand
additional police officers on the beat across America by the year 2000.
The conference agreement also provides $503 million for a new local law
enforcement block grant. This program is intended to meet other law
enforcement needs that communities may have, such as equipment. It is
my hope that this latter program will not simply become a new Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) program.
On another crime issue, the conference report includes $403 million
for a new State prison grant program, sometimes called ``Truth in
Sentencing.'' This program, which will provide grants to States to
build or renovate or expand prisons. Senator Gregg, our Chairman, and
his staff director, David Taylor, worked very, very hard on this issue.
I think they have come up with a program that is much better than the
existing program which is authorized in the 1994 Crime Bill. This new
prison program will now really address the needs of small states, and
will help all states add prison cells to incarcerate violent offenders.
Third, this conference agreement includes $1.254 billion for
Department of State international organizations and conferences. For
the most part this represents assessed contributions to the United
Nations and other international organizations, for example the World
Health Organization and Organization of American States, and for United
Nations Peacekeeping. The conference agreement represents an increase
of $326 million above the vetoed CJS bill, H.R. 2076. While this is not
a personal priority of mine, I know that the Administration's view was
that these funds would have to be restored for the President to sign
this bill.

Fourth, the agreement waives Section 15a of the State Department
basic authorities Act, so the State Department can continue to obligate
appropriations even in the absence of a fiscal year 1996 authorization.
Only in this CJS bill do we have this crazy situation where an agency
is told that it legally cannot obligate appropriations if an annual
authorization has not been enacted. The Department of Defense doesn't
live under this ridiculous rule. Nor does the Justice Department or
Health and Human Services, or anyone else. I'm all for the importance
of the authorization process--I am ranking minority and former Chairman
of an authorization committee. But, I would never think of trying to
stop NASA, or the Transportation Department, or the National Science
Foundation or other agencies from obligating appropriations that the
Congress and the President considered, approved, and enacted.
I also should note that the bill language regarding Vietnam allows
the State Department, USIA, and Foreign Commercial Service to maintain
a presence in that nation. We have opened diplomatic relations with
Vietnam and have an Embassy in that nation. It's time to move forward
in our relations with Hanoi. I'm glad that Senators Hatfield, Kerry,
Kerrey, McCain, and Lautenberg were able to prevail on this issue.
Fifth, this bill includes some very important appropriations for
disaster assistance: $100 million is provided for the SBA for disaster
loans. This ensures that parts of the United States that are hit by
disasters in the future, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, can receive
assistance. And, $18 million is provided to EDA to help the Northwest
and North Dakota deal with flooding and to address other disasters if
necessary.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. What is most important to
note is that this bill will become law unlike the previous
appropriations bills that were vetoed. This is happening because
members from my side of the aisle were included in the appropriations
process. The role of the Presidency was recognized and the
administration's views were considered in making spending decisions.
This is not the way the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce,
Justice and State Subcommittee started business in the 104th Congress.
I truly hope it is the way we now will continue to do business as we
embark on fiscal year 1997.
In conclusion, I think there are many people who deserve credit for
getting this bill to this point. But, no one deserves more credit than
our distinguished Chairman, Senator Hatfield. He and I have been
Governors and know what it means to run a government. We have been
legislators together in this Senate for some thirty years. Senator
Hatfield understands the responsibilities of being a Senator and what
it means to be Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a
Committee with such an important tradition and mission. Senator
Hatfield took control a few months ago and literally brought the
appropriations process back from total chaos. During this fiscal year,
he has repeatedly tried to bring some sanity, and bipartisanship to the
appropriations decisions. I think the President and the many Federal
employees in the Executive Branch owe him a real debt of gratitude.
But, most of all, I think he has done this Senate, this Congress, and
this Nation a very real service and I, for one, want to express my
appreciation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this conference agreement includes the
final conference agreement on the District of Columbia appropriations
for fiscal year 1996. Like each of the other appropriations bills
contained in this omnibus agreement, the District's bill has endured a
long and arduous course to enactment today.
The District of Columbia portion is not all that we would want, but
it is the best we can do. A key feature of this bill is the education
reform that it contains. It would have been better and more effective
if we could have included the $15 million in additional assistance that
our original conference agreement included to begin these reforms. But
that was not possible. However, legislative language is included on
many of the reforms and I will work with the Superintendent, the Board
of Education, other city officials and the control board to make sure
that these reforms are implemented. The children of this city can not,
and now will not, wait another day.
The District is in a fiscal crisis. Research by the General
Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service of cities who
have faced similar crises tells us that if we are to restore the
economic vitality, an essential ingredient to restoring fiscal health,
we must reform the schools. We must provide quality public schools to
retain and attract a tax base. That pursuit within Congress begins with
this bill.
One of the important reforms in the bill is the creation of a
Consensus Commission on Education Reform. This group of citizens will
cast a watchful eye over the reform process in the District and, if
there are impediments or a failure to act on the required reform plan,
it will recommend and request the control board to take the required
steps to make reform a reality. I am determined that we will no longer
have wonderful plans or insightful reports that go unimplemented. This
time the intentions of the reformers will be realized.

The agreement does not include additional funds to carry out these
reforms in 1996, but it does authorize funds for fiscal year 1997 and
beyond. I can assure city officials and my colleagues that I intend to
do everything that I can to see that these funds are appropriated next
year and in the future so that the changes envisioned are achieved.
Mr. President, in closing I want to thank the Senator from Oregon
for his tenacious and tireless work on this bill and his invaluable
help in the regular D.C. conference. His help and guidance made an
agreement possible. Many others contributed to the D.C. bill and the
Omnibus bill's success, especially the Senator from West Virginia who
helped craft the agreement we are considering today.
I also need to thank our subcommittee's distinguished ranking member,
the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, for his cooperation and
support during the consideration of this bill. Finally, Mr. President,
our counterparts in the House, Representative Jim Walsh and
Representative Julian Dixon, who worked with us in a partnership to
find common ground and bring this bill to this point today.
Mr. President, I urge Senators to support this agreement, we need to
get on with the task of reforming public education in the District and
restoring

[[Page S4169]]

fiscal sense to it's budget process. This bill sets that course. I
yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to gratefully express my
relief that finally, 7 months into the current fiscal year, we are
debating the bill that will put this year's budget to bed. And I am
pleased to be able to support this bill based on changes that have been
made over the past few days.
This agreement did not come easy, and it comes nearly too late for
many people. It's unfortunate that it took two Government shut-downs,
innumerable furloughs, and needlessly bitter partisan disputes, before
we reached the path of resolution: serious bipartisan negotiations.
I do not think many families would make their budgets this way, 6
months late. I know I would not. But I am glad we've reached an
agreement nonetheless.
I said to all my colleagues and the people of Washington State early
last year there is a right way, and a wrong way, to balance the Federal
budget. The wrong way would be to use quick and dirty gimmicks, paper
tigers like the constitutional amendment or the line item veto.
I said the right way is to go through the budget line-by-line,
program-by-program, and make the tough choices necessary to balance the
books. Well, that is what happened on this bill. It reflects tough
decisions, and strong, clearly-set priorities of both political
parties.
The final agreement saves the taxpayers another $23 billion under
last year's budget, and I think that's a good thing. But it also
redirects funds to support important education programs, health
programs, and environmental programs. In other words, we achieved a
rare balance between spending cuts and spending increases that is good
for the people.
I want to talk briefly about each of these three areas, environmental
priorities, education priorities, and public health priorities.
Mr. President, I am so pleased with the progress the administration
made in stripping this bill of almost all environmental riders. I
believe this cleaner bill represents a victory for all of us who care
about the health of our environment and protection of natural
resources. Two provisions I spoke against on the floor 3 days ago have
been dropped: those affecting the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project and
those addressing the timber salvage provisions.
Now, the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project can go forward, providing
resource managers with comprehensive, scientific information about how
best to protect the land, restore riparian habitat, and sustainably use
our natural resources. This offers us one of our first opportunities to
get ahead of the curve, and proactively address resource management
before it we face a debilitating crisis. I appreciate my Senate
colleagues agreeing to allow this project to move forward.
Likewise, I appreciate Senator Hatfield dropping the salvage
provisions. I know there was legitimate disagreement between the
chairman and the President about whether these provisions would help or
hinder the administration's ability to alter current timber contracts
to protect old growth forests. This has been such a contentious,
divisive issue that finding the right course of action in this
atmosphere has been nearly impossible. I wish this Senate had chosen
simply to repeal the entire timber salvage rider and replace it with
the long-term salvage program I had advocated in my amendment.
Overall, the Interior portion of this bill is balanced and fair. The
President's Forest Plan is well-funded, the Elwha Dam has initial
acquisition funds, Native American programs have been sufficiently
funded, some important land acquisitions have been made, and many vital
programs remain intact. I am very sorry the Lummi People are still
being coerced about water rights on their reservation and wish we could
have made more progress on this provision.
Now on to education. Mr. President, my greatest concerns in this
budget were the deep and painful cuts to programs that support
America's young people. When we began this debate, we were faced with a
proposal that would have slashed nearly $4 billion away from the
education of our next generation. Had these cuts been enacted, we would
have faced the largest setback to education in our Nation's history.
Thankfully, for children in Washington State and the millions of
young people who can not be heard through the vote, rational and
thoughtful leadership prevailed. The add backs to education and
training represent a commitment to programs that provide opportunity
and hope.
We have restored $333 million for dislocated worker retraining that
puts my State's timber workers back into the work force. We have added
back $137 million Head Start dollars that insure our kids begin school
ready to learn. We have restored $635 million for summer youth jobs for
our young people that provide many of our most disadvantaged kids with
the opportunity to give back to their communities. We have also saved
the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program with $200 million that works
proactively to take the fear out of our classrooms. Finally, the
School-to-Work Program, which has been proven effective in the State of
Washington received an additional $182 million. These programs, along
with $814 million new Title I dollars that provide our schools with the
essentials of learning, will immeasurably benefit our kids and our
Nation's future.

I also want to talk about how AIDS research, prevention, and
treatment issues have been handled by this Congress. Today's agreement
has been a long-time coming. Finally, we have the opportunity to vote
and pass a spending measure that will give help and peace of mind to
many who need it most. Of course, we can always do more and there is
always room for improvement. But, after months of debate and
disagreement, we have come up with a plan that I can vote for. I
recognize the need to cut spending and allocate Federal resources with
strict scrutiny.
But, these decisions cannot be made at the expense of our most
vulnerable citizens.
Programs like the Ryan White CARE Act receive a much needed increase.
This bill raises funding for programs which care for those living with
HIV/AIDS by $106 million over last year. These are critical dollars
for: emergency care for particularly hard-hit cities like Seattle;
comprehensive care for all our States to cope with the epidemic; early
intervention services to save money down the road; and funds for
Pediatric AIDS demonstration projects.
The AIDS Education Training Center program, which I fought so hard to
protect last fall, and which I fought hard for throughout this process,
will be maintained. This critical program provides information to
health care professionals about HIV and keeps them up-to-date on the
latest in treatment for those living with HIV and AIDS. We must make
sure that information and public awareness are kept at an all-time
high, and I congratulate my colleagues for having the good sense to
recognize the importance of the AETC program.
I also want to briefly express my relief that the blatantly
discriminatory policy of discharging HIV-infected service members is
repealed in this bill. This proposal was closed-minded, unfounded, and
offensive to our men and women in uniform who have chosen to serve our
country. The Dornan-provision sent the wrong message; it said that
Congress bases decisions on ignorance, fear and hate. I want no part of
sending that message, and today we have the chance to right a terrible
wrong.
Finally, Mr. President, while I am pleased with many of the changes
that were made to this bill, I am deeply disappointed that Senator
Hatfield's language on International Family Planning was not
maintained. Like many issues in this Congress, the Senate has taken a
different approach than our counterparts in the House with respect to
International Family Planning assistance. Throughout the debate on this
issue, the Senate has continually supported funding for this program,
and I have spoken many times in favor of our efforts to continue
providing these services.
As it stands now, none of the appropriated funds can be spent until
July 1. After that, money can only be spent on a month-to-month basis
at a rate of 6.7 percent a month until the new fiscal year begins on
October 1. The result is funding for U.S. population assistance will be
reduced by about 85 percent

[[Page S4170]]

from last year's level. This is a disastrous situation that will
severely hamper this program.
As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
I will work this year to try to restore these funds in fiscal year
1997. The millions of couples who rely on these valuable services are
counting on this assistance.
Mr. President, I am glad we have finished the fiscal year 1996
budget. It's the people's business, and it's our responsibility to
conduct. While the process over the past several months has been
dominated by partisanship and dispute, the past few weeks have
demonstrated that if reasonable leaders get together, they can usually
resolve their differences and reach agreements that serve the public
interest.
I sincerely hope this example sets a new tone that will carry into
the fiscal year 1997 budget process. We have a short year, only a few
months left to complete work on 13 new budget bills, before the
political season completely overtakes Congress. I think it is in
everyone's interest that we remain at the table and complete our next
set of tasks with good humor and discipline.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when H.R. 3019 passed the Senate on March
19, substantial progress had been made to protect critical funding for
education and training programs. The amendment I offered with Senator
Harkin during Senate consideration provided $2.7 billion more for
education, job training and Head Start programs for the 1996/1997
academic year. These additional funds were fully offset, thus
preserving the balanced budget objectives for discretionary
appropriations in fiscal year 1996.
The conference agreement before the Senate today maintains the
increased funds for education provided by the Specter/Harkin amendment.
It also protects funding for other important objectives, such as,
worker safety, medical research, health services, and domestic violence
prevention.
Overall, H.R, 3019 appropriates $64.6 billion for discretionary
programs of the Labor, HHS and Education Subcommittee. This is $204
million above the Senate passed bill, $2.6 billion above the House
bill, and $2.6 billion, or 4 percent, below the 1995 post-rescission
level. Included in the bill is the termination of over 110 programs
viewed by the conferees as either having met their objectives, being
duplicative of other programs, or having low priority. The bill's
highlights include the following: $625 million for the 1996 Summer
Youth Employment Program of the Department of Labor; the House bill had
terminated this program; $1.1 billion for the Dislocated Worker
Retraining Program, bringing the total $233 million above the House
bill; $1.3 billion for worker protection programs, bringing the average
funding level for each enforcement agency to 98 percent of the 1995
level; $350 million for the School to Work Program, jointly
administered by the Departments of Labor and Education, an increase of
$105 million from the 1995 appropriated level. $11.9 billion for
medical research supported by the National Institutes of Health. This
is an increase of $654 million over the 1995 level, or 5.8 percent;
$738 million for the Ryan White AIDS Programs. this is an increase of
$105 million over 1995. Within the total is $52 million specifically
set aside for the AIDS drugs reimbursement program. These additional
funds will enable states to better meet the growing cost and demand for
new AIDS drugs; $93 million to continue the Healthy Start Program. This
is $43 million above the original level passed by the House. $3.57
billion for the Head Start Program. This is $36 million above the 1995
level; 350 million for the GOALS 2000 Educate America Act Program. The
House bill had terminated funding for this program; $7.2 billion for
the Title I, Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged Program. This
is the same as the 1995 level and nearly $1 billion more than the House
bill; $466 million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. This is
$266 million above the House bill; and $78 million for education
technology programs which assist schools in expanding the availability
of technology enhanced curricula and instruction to improve educational
services. This is $23 million above 1995.
H.R. 3019 also preserves funding for student aid programs. The
agreement raises the maximum Pell Grant to $2,470. This is an increase
of $130 in the maximum grant and is the highest maximum grant ever
provided. Funds also are provided to maintain the capital contributions
to the Perkins Loan Program and Federal support for the State Student
Incentive Grants Program.
Finally, the agreement includes $900 million for the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in fiscal year 1996. The original
House bill, H.R. 2127, had included no funding for the LIHEAP Program.
H.R. 3019, also makes available $420 million in ``emergency''
contingency funds for the fiscal year 1997 program. Regular funding for
next winter's LIHEAP Program will be considered during the fiscal year
1997 appropriations process.
It is always easy to add money, but much more difficult to find the
offsets for additional spending in order to not add to the Federal
deficit. The conference agreement before the Senate today succeeds in
both restoring funding to critical education, health and training
programs and in maintaining our commitment to balance the federal
budget. It is an excellent appropriations bill, and I urge my
colleagues to give it their support.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, with the passage of this bill, and
with the signature of the President, the Federal Government will, at
long last, resume normal operations. The Federal Government will
function as planned--for the first time in 7 months.
Much has happened in those past 7 months. Thirteen times, the
Government of the United States faced uncertain funding. Twice, the
Government ground to a halt. Federal services were interrupted, Federal
paychecks were stopped, and Federal employees were treated as helpless
pawns in the midst of congressional grandstanding. Financial markets,
international image, and public confidence were put at risk. There
seems to be no resolution to this situation.
Seven months of uncertainty, said some of my colleagues, yes--but a
necessary sacrifice to achieve 7 years of deficit reduction and a
balanced budget by 2002.
That reasoning, Mr. President, was just plain wrong.
The type of Federal spending that pays for Government salaries and
Government programs, known as domestic discretionary spending, is not
responsible for our Federal deficits. Discretionary spending has not
increased as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product since 1969--the
last time we had a balanced budget. Discretionary spending is a mere
one-sixth of the $1.5 trillion total of Federal spending--and that is
steadily declining.
The real problems with the deficit are with what are known as
entitlement spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal
retirement programs, and interest on the national debt. These programs
are consuming a rapidly growing portion of overall federal revenues,
and, by 2012, will consume 100 percent of the revenue the Federal
Government takes in.
I know how important it is to reduce the deficit. That's why I
cosponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment. We cannot leave a legacy of
debt to our children. We have an obligation to restore budget
discipline, so that our children--and future generations--will be able
to achieve the American Dream.

In order to do that, tough choices must be made. All federal programs
must be on the table. Nothing can be exempt from review. Everything
must be examined to see where we can do better, and what we no longer
need to do.
That does not mean, however, that reducing the debt can be achieved
simply by cutting one Federal program in favor of another. Yet that's
exactly what this omnibus appropriations bill attempts to do.
This $163 billion bill funds programs normally funded through
individual appropriations bills, such as education, job training, Head
Start, crime and the environment. Over $5 billion in programs once
targeted for termination or deep cuts are restored, such as Community
Development Financial Institutions, Head Start, Safe and Drug Free
Schools, and School-to-Work programs.
The bill provides $1.4 billion to put 100,000 additional police
officers on the streets. The bill restores the Summer Jobs for Youth
Program, restores $195

[[Page S4171]]

million for the Goals 2000 program, for a total $350 million; restores
$387 million more for National Service, for a total of $402 million,
and restores Title I funding for disadvantaged students. The bill also
boosts Ryan White funds by $82 million, EPA water programs by $465
million, and Superfund by $150 million.
The agreement deletes, or allows the President to waive such
controversial legislative riders as the anti-environmental provisions
associated with the Tongass National Forest, Mojave National Preserve,
and Endangered Species Act.
Also included in the bill is a repeal of the discriminatory provision
that would have forced HIV-positive members of the military to leave
the service.
This bill is a great improvement over the spending levels initially
proposed by this Congress. The restoration, or near restoration, of
many of these education and job training programs means that the
priorities of the American people have prevailed.
The bill still cuts important discretionary spending by $23 billion.
Some may hail that as deficit reduction, Mr. President, and yes, a
number of these program reductions and terminations are justified.
But cutting those items will not make a dent in Federal deficits. The
appropriations process cannot be expected to compensate for our failure
to address our deficit problem.
We can cut this $23 billion, cut welfare and foreign aid, stop pork
barrel spending, and eliminate funding for Congress altogether, but we
still will not solve our more fundamental budget problems.
The only way to really balance the budget is to act based on the
budgetary realities, rather than the myths. If we fail to do so, in
less than 20 years, the skyrocketing growth in entitlement programs
means there will not be one single dollar for agriculture, for
education, for national defense, or transportation, cancer research, or
flood control, or any of the myriad of other Federal activities.
It is as simple as that, Mr. President, and it's a critical fact that
this bill, with all its cuts, simply misses.
We are halfway into this fiscal year. There is a time to debate, and
a time to act. While I believe we can do far better than this bill,
going forward with additional temporary funding extensions is something
I find even more unpalatable, and that is why I reluctantly will
support final passage of this conference report.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my serious concerns that
this omnibus appropriations bill fails to include an important
provision: a limitation on the expansion of the Federal Direct Loan
Program to 40 percent of loan volume for the academic year that begins
on July 1, 1996.
As my colleagues know, back in the fall when we passed the Balanced
Budget and Reconciliation Act, Congress agreed to return this
questionable, big-government program to a true demonstration size--10
percent of total student loan volume. Many of us viewed the 10 percent
cap as a reasonable compromise, especially in light of the House vote
to repeal the program altogether. And, many of us would still prefer to
repeal this misguided takeover of the student loan program.
Nonetheless, I and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
were willing to support a middle ground on this issue: a limit on the
expansion of direct lending to 40 percent of loan volume. I believe
that this was a more-than-reasonable compromise because it would permit
all currently participating schools to remain in the program. Let me
say that again: not one school that is already participating in direct
loans would be forced out.
However, the administration would not accept this reasonable
compromise. The President allegedly threatened to veto the entire
omnibus appropriations bill if a cap on direct lending was included.
This is incredible! That the President would be willing to hold the
entire appropriations process hostage to ensure the continued expansion
of a program which is nothing more than a delivery system for loans, is
truly an extreme position.
Remember, this President told the country just a few short months
ago, during his State of the Union address, that the era of big
Government is over. This same President stressed the need for stronger
public-private partnerships in meeting the needs of the American
people. Yet he threatened to stop the budget process once again if this
omnibus appropriations bill included a cap on a massive, new government
bureaucracy which seeks to end a public/private partnership which has
been successfully serving students for 30 years!
We should not allow the President to pretend to be moderate on the
campaign trail while he engineers a potentially disastrous federal
takeover of the student loan industry. The President's refusal to
negotiate a reasonable cap on the untested direct loan program exposes
the true colors of this administration: rather than new Democrats they
are clearly old-fashioned, bureaucracy-building, Washington-knows-best
liberals.
Unlike the more complex debates over Medicare, Medicaid and welfare
delivery systems, it is quite obvious that direct lending is an
intuitively backward idea that will:
Make the Department of Education the single largest consumer finance
lender in the country, while driving private lenders out of the student
loan business.
Result in a $150 billion increase in federal debt by 2002, and a $350
billion increase over the next 20 years.
Eliminate a program where the private lenders share default risk, and
replace it with a system where private sector contractors shift the
entire risk to the taxpayer.
Replace private sector competition with government contractors.
Substitute an untested student aid delivery system that has yet to
demonstrate the ability to collect the loans it makes for the
guaranteed loan program, which has dramatically improved the
performance of the student loan portfolio in recent years.
We should keep in mind that the Department of Education's management
track record bodes ill for the future of the direct loan program.
The management track record of the Department of Education over the
past few years--and the last several months in particular--raises grave
questions concerning whether the Department has the management ability
to take over student lending without jeopardizing the uninterrupted
flow of funds in the Nation's largest program of student financial
assistance.
Major missteps in the past year have included:
I. Inability to process on a timely basis the Federal Application for
Student Financial Aid (FAFSA), the basis calculation of financial need
required of all applicants for student assistance.
Although the Department continues to blame weather and Federal
furloughs for the unprecedented delays, the fact is that the Department
started 6 months behind schedule, and hired new contractors using new,
untested technology. In trying to cover up their very serious mistakes,
the Department has had to hire additional processors and authorized 24-
hour, 7-day-a-week operation, at unknown additional taxpayer cost.
Students and institutions have been severely affected by this mix-up
at the Department: institutional financial aid officers and State
scholarship programs are unable to offer student aid packages to
prospective students; a million students do not know where or whether
they will be able to attend college this fall; and 23 percent of our
Nation's colleges are planning to push back their May 1 deadline for
students to decide which college to attend.
II. The Department has mismanaged the congressionally mandated anti-
default initiative, which is designed to terminate high-default schools
from Federal student loan programs.
Although the law requires the Department to decide institutional
appeals within 45 days, the Department failed to meet this requirement.
In an effort to get rid of its 1992 backlog, the Department threw in
the towel and accepted whatever default rate a school claimed for
itself, without investigation. As a result, schools with default rates
of as high as 24 percent now boast single digit official rates for
fiscal year 1992. Incredibly, there is still a backlog of 400 appeals
of rates calculated for 1990 and 1991!
As a result, students at high-default institutions have remained
eligible for student loans--loans which have a high

[[Page S4172]]

probability of defaulting, burdening taxpayers with millions of dollars
in unnecessary costs. The Department's default rate for 1993 for high
risk schools was so flawed that it had to be withdrawn and reissued in
February 1996.
III. The Inspector General severely criticized the cost effectiveness
of the Department's efforts to encourage defaulters to consolidate
their defaulted loans into direct lending's income contingent
repayment.
The Inspector General estimated this flawed initiative could cost
taxpayers $38 million.
IV. Failure of the Department's contractor to post information
received from guaranty agencies on a timely basis has resulted in
thousands of defaulted borrowers having their income tax refunds
wrongly withheld.
In addition, these individuals have been subjected to Federal
collections efforts despite the fact that they had entered into
satisfactory repayment arrangements with their guarantor.
V. The National Student Loan Data System, mandated by Congress in
1986 and only implemented by the Department in 1995, is so flawed that
it has erroneously calculated school default rates and cannot be relied
upon for its basic function of determining student's eligibility for
grants or loans.
What does this woeful litany of mismanagement mean?
It means that the Department of Education has used poor judgment in
developing its computer systems and overseeing its contractors.
It means that its current management is incapable of performing
essential technological functions which it had been performing
successfully for a number of years.
It means that the taxpayer will be unnecessarily burdened with
additional costs incurred because of the Department's inability to
manage.
It means that millions of students and their parents are, at the very
least, extremely inconvenienced by the Department's inability to
generate information essential to awarding of student financial aid on
a timely basis. And in far too many cases, a student's entire future--
whether or not he/she attends college--may be jeopardized by the
Department's mismanagement.
And it means that it would be foolhardy to trust the Nation's largest
student financial assistance program--student loans--to the same
Departmental officials that have in the past few months mismanaged
every major contract and system for which they have been responsible.
This debate is about what is the best way of delivering student
loans--whether through a Federal bureaucracy, or through a private-
public partnership. While I believe very strongly that the latter will
prevail in the long run, the compromise that the President would not
allow simply called for leaving things where they are, and not
expanding this program further.
We should not be allowing the administration to go forward with its
grandiose plans for taking over the student loan program with its own
untested, costly direct government lending program. The
administration's direct loan program is more Federal bureaucrats, more
Government spending, and a more costly program. The administration
wants this massive, new bureaucracy to replace the current bank-based
student loan program.
By not including a cap on this experimental program in this omnibus
appropriations bill we are trusting the Department of Education to
distribute, account for, and collect billions of dollars in student
loans. This is the same Department that is currently causing students
across the country to have to worry needlessly about their financial
aid awards because the Department was unable to manage the processing
of the forms.
We should be stopping this insanity today. A reasonable cap of 40
percent on direct lending would have forced the Department to slow down
and pay attention to all the student aid programs, not just direct
lending--hopefully avoiding a repeat of the trauma which is facing
students now during the application cycle. Unfortunately, this
reasonable approach was lost along the way.
President Clinton's pronouncements in his State of the Union Address
notwithstanding, the era of big government continues.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, there is no excuse for the Congress to have
delayed the fiscal 1996 budget this long. But thankfully, the high
stakes game of political chicken is finally over. After closing the
Government on two occasions, passing 13 separate stop-gap funding
bills, and waiting a full 7 months beyond the start of the budget year,
Congress will finally pass the 1996 spending bill.
This $160 billion measure funds the programs from five separate
appropriations bills throughout the rest of this fiscal year. I will
vote for the bill because it demonstrates that, when we work as a
bipartisan majority, we can do what America has been asking us to do
for a long time: cut the budget while protecting priorities like
education, health care, and the environment. With this plan, overall
Federal spending will be cut by $23 billion. However, $5 billion for
health, education, environment, and job training programs has been
restored under this measure.
Because some were intent on trying to score political points this
year rather than finishing our budget in a timely fashion, important
programs for education, public health and job training and safety had
been left in precarious funding situations since October 1, the
beginning of the fiscal year. State labor departments were hampered in
their ability to help those affected by plant closings. Head Start
administrators wondered if they would have to close doors in the middle
of their program year, negating recent gains from this early
intervention program. And it looked like Americorps would be killed
before the benefits from this promising community service program were
ever realized.
But no cuts would have had a more detrimental and long-term effect
than the proposed cuts in education. I say this as a strong advocate of
balancing the budget. To get to that goal, I know we have to consider
cuts in programs we support. And I am willing to do so in every area--
except education. The drastic cuts in education initially proposed
would have set our Nation back in the attempt to build a work force
needed to lead our economy into the 21st Century.
During negotiations with the House, the Senate and the administration
insisted on basing overall education funding on the levels contained in
the Senate bill--that is, funding at least at last year's level. As a
Member of the Appropriations Committee, I have fought for the Senate
education levels. With the diligent leadership of Senators Hatfield,
Byrd, Specter, and Harkin, the Senate position on education prevailed.
The title I education program, our largest contribution to schools
across the country to help teach disadvantaged kids, has been funded at
$7.2 billion. This is a full restoration to last year's level. Safe and
drug free schools, a program granting schools the resources they need
to curb drugs and violence and create a productive learning
environment, is funded at last year's amount of $466 million. GOALS
2000 will be funded at $350 million, $22 million less than 1995, but
enough to allow States and school districts to continue in their
efforts to pursue effective education benchmarks. I am very pleased to
say that the School to Work Program, which helps kids obtain technical
skills critically needed in today's work force, received a $105 million
increase.
Although these levels may not seem like a huge victory, just take a
look at what could have been, and what would have been, had the Senate
and the President caved to extremist policies. The House proposed
cutting title I education by almost $1 billion; Goals 2000 was
completely eliminated as was the State student incentive grant program;
$266 million was slashed from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program;
vocational education was cut $83 million; and, school to work cut $55
million.
These levels would have had dire consequences for Wisconsin's
education system. Wisconsin was originally slated to lose $28 million
in education resources--including over $1 million in cuts to Goals
2000, almost $2 million in cuts to safe and drug free schools, over $4
million in vocational education cuts, and an unsustainable $20 million
cut in title I, the money that goes to our most disadvantaged young
students. This bill today prevents these short-sighted education cuts.

[[Page S4173]]

Other programs important to the future of Wisconsin received needed
investments under this bill. The Ryan White AIDS programs received a
$105 million increase from last year. This total includes $52 million
directed to the AIDS drug reimbursement program so that States may
better meet demands for breakthrough drugs. Healthy start, which funds
a promising demonstration program in Milwaukee aimed at preventing
infant mortality, was restored to $93 million, or $43 million above the
House cut. Funding was added back to the mental health block grant,
which provides resources to help adults and children with severe mental
illness and emotional disturbance. Dislocated worker assistance and the
Summer Youth Employment Program were also restored under the bill.
Mr. President, this bill is much more than a day late, but at least
it's not billions of dollars short on education. Although I am
disappointed with some provisions of the bill, I am pleased that our
efforts to restore the investment in education prevailed.
I am also pleased that the most egregious antienvironmental riders
have been either eliminated or modified in this bill. Further, I am
pleased that a significant portion of the funding for environmental
programs has been restored. While overall fiscal constraints will
undoubtedly become more severe in the coming years as we take the steps
necessary to move toward a balanced budget, I think we should take a
closer look at our priorities for discretionary spending. In my view,
spending on the environment, as an investment in our future, should be
a priority.

There are some aspects of this bill with which I am much less happy.
I am very disappointed that this budget fails to fund an adequate
amount of crime prevention--programs that can reach young people before
they are lost to a life of crime. Last fall, a bipartisan Senate agreed
to shift $80 million into crime prevention programs like Weed & Seed,
the Boys and Girls Clubs, and DARE--only about one-quarter of what was
authorized by the 1994 Crime Act for prevention in 1996. As we started
on a new version of the budget this spring, a separate bipartisan vote
of the full Appropriations Committee again set aside $80 million for a
broad range of local crime prevention--less than 5 percent out of the
$1.9 billion local law enforcement block grant.
Despite these votes, and continuing bipartisan support on the Senate
side, our $80 million in crime prevention funding was quietly stripped
out of this legislation, leaving only a small increase for Weed & Seed
and the Boys and Girls Clubs, and entirely neglecting those areas that
do not have one of these programs. After all these months, we are shut
out--and so are all of the young people who are looking for a little
help in their efforts to get off the streets and stay out of prison.
The 1994 Crime Act authorized a reasonable 80 percent to 20 percent
split between law enforcement and prevention. But this budget wipes out
almost all prevention funding. As any professional in the juvenile
justice system will tell you, that is a big mistake.
I am also disappointed with the conferees' action on agricultural
credit. The fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations bill was
completed by Congress and signed by the President in a timely manner
last year, and therefore we have not needed to include regular
agriculture funding in any of the continuing resolutions. However,
there is an agricultural credit provision in this bill, which seeks to
rectify a credit provision of the recently passed farm bill that I
believe is very unfair.
The farm bill provision in question essentially prohibits farmers
from receiving USDA loans or loan guarantees if they ever had their
debts restructured. During the 1980s, the Federal Government actively
encouraged farmers to restructure and write down their debts. Now the
new farm bill tells farmers that they are barred from getting more
loans if they took that advice, even if they are creditworthy today. In
my mind, that's close to a breach of contract.
A number of us in this body have cosponsored a bill S. 1690,
introduced by Senators Conrad and Grassley, that would provide some
short-term relief for farmers that have been caught by this mid-stream
change of policy by delaying implementation of these unfortunate credit
eligibility provisions for 90 days.
Further, as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
I have also been working with others to try to craft language to be
included in this continuing resolution to resolve this matter. While
there is a provision included in the bill to try to provide some
relief, I believe that it is far too narrow because it doesn't address
the plight of farmers with farm ownership loans that have been
approved, but not yet obligated. Even under the credit provision
included in this bill, those farmers will be denied those loans that
they had previously been promised. To address this problem, 11 Senators
recently signed a letter asking for the necessary revisions to the
provision. I am discouraged that these efforts were rejected.
All in all, I think this bill is a victory for fiscal sanity and a
victory for education, health care, and the environment. Unfortunately,
the battle went on too long and extracted too high a price--the
uncertainty for Federal fund recipients, the Government shutdowns, the
partisan budget negotiations, and the divisive parliamentary
maneuvering around the 13 continuing resolutions. We should strive for
a similar end next year. But lets hope that our means of getting there
is more sensible, more bipartisan, and more productive.

national commission on restructuring the irs

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to compliment the work of the
distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for securing the
adoption of an amendment in the conference to modify the composition of
the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, which was authorized
in Public Law 104-52. This amendment increases to 17 the number of
members of the Commission. With this change, Mr. President, I believe
we can stop the logjam which we have found ourselves in and get the
majority and minority leaders of both bodies and the President to make
their appointments to this Commission in an expeditious manner. I
would, however, like to take this opportunity to clarify two points
with respect to the Commission with the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Shelby. First, by increasing the number of Commission
members to 17 under section 637(b)(2) of Public Law 104-52, we intended
that the number of members to constitute a quorum under section
637(b)(4), would increase from seven to nine. Is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is my understanding. Because we did not want to
reopen the Treasury chapter in the conference, this technical change
was not made, but it is certainly my intention as the subcommittee
chairman that the Commission should honor our intent that nine members
of the Commission will constitute a quorum.
Mr. KERREY. I thank the distinguished Senator for that clarification.
Finally, I want to ask if it is the Senator's understanding we intended
that the Commission not issue its report until after December 31, 1996?
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. KERREY. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator for all of his
work on this important matter. In addition, I want to thank the
distinguished majority and minority leaders and the President for their
involvement in this issue and urge them to make their appointments to
this Commission as quickly as possible.

establishment of a pediatric intensive care center in an empowerment
zone encompassing camden, new jersey

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the
chairman's attention, and to the attention of my esteemed colleague,
Senator Harkin, that Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center and its
Children's Regional Hospital are the only acute care hospitals in the
empowerment zone that encompass Camden, NJ. These hospitals provide
critical services to the Camden community. Now they are proposing to
establish a new pediatric rehabilitation center which will address a
vital unmet need in the community. There are many worthy organizations
seeking these empowerment funds; however, this project is expected to
provide community based quality care for children from communities in
the Camden area. I strongly suggest that this project be considered for
empowerment zone funding.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our
attention. I

[[Page S4174]]

concur with his recommendation and underscore the value of such a
facility. This project should certainly be considered for empowerment
zone funding.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my distinguished colleagues and am
encouraged by the significant contributions such a project can make.
Consideration should be given to the establishment of the pediatric
intensive care center with empowerment zone funds.

Universal Newborn hearing screening colloquy

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Specter, in a colloquy. As you know, the
Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a plan to
improve the health of this country's citizens by the year 2000.
Included in that plan, commonly referred to as the healthy people 2000
report, was a goal to reduce the average age at which children with
significant hearing impairment are identified to no more than 12
months.
In March 1993, NIH convened a consensus panel on early identification
of hearing impairments in infants and young children. That panel
recommended that all children be screened for hearing impairment before
they discharged from the birthing hospital. Unfortunately, at that
time, few hospitals or audiologists and experience with the newborn
hearing screening techniques which were recommended. Therefore, in
October 1993, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau funded a consortium
of sites who were experienced with NIH-recommended technique to
encourage and assist with the implementation of the NIH recommendation.
That consortium, with a relatively small amount of Federal money, has
been extremely successful in assisting with the implementation of
newborn hearing screening programs. Through their efforts, there are
now over 70 hospitals in 14 different States doing universal newborn
hearing screening following the NIH-recommended protocol.
Mr. SPECTER. I think the work of the consortium which you have
described is the kind of work which is needed to continue universal
newborn hearing screening consistent with the healthy people 2000
report and the NIH recommendations. I would support the continued
funding of these activities by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau.

vista literacy corps

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of the
conferees in regard to funding for the VISTA Program. It is my
understanding that the conference agreement provides an additional $2.1
million for VISTA and that this represents half of the $5 million added
by amendment in the Senate for the VISTA Literacy Corps. Is this
correct?
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SIMON. Am I also correct in assuming that the conferees intend
that these funds may be allocated specifically to the efforts to combat
illiteracy that have been carried out by the VISTA Literacy Corps?
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct in his understanding of our
intent.
Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator and appreciate the support of the
Committee for the effective work of the VISTA Literacy Corps.

disaster assistance

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, on the floor and
wonder if he would be willing to engage in a short colloquy with
Senator Conrad and myself on the disaster assistance section of the
omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 3019.
Mr. HATFIELD. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
Mr. CONRAD. We are particularly concerned that the conference
agreement does not explicitly mention that Devils Lake, ND, is eligible
to receive disaster and hazard mitigation assistance from the Economic
Development Administration, as was the case in the Senate-passed
version of the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Is it the Chairman's view that the ongoing and severe
flooding problems at Devils Lake should be given serious consideration
for EDA assistance under the terms of this agreement?
Mr. HATFIELD. That was the position of the Senate, and these severe
problems remain eligible for some assistance under this agreement.
Mr. DORGAN. We thank you for your help on this extremely urgent
matter for North Dakota, and sincerely appreciate your views as
chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. CONRAD. I also thank the chairman, and sincerely appreciate all
his assistance.

small airport user-fee program

Mr. COHEN. I am concerned that section 107 of this bill, which lifts
the cap on the amount of funds that may be expended on a customs
service program for small airports, could lead to abuse of this program
and unfair competition.
Under current law, all large airports, such as Bangor International
Airport, which are designated ports of entry, must charge passengers
$6.50 per ticket to pay for the cost of customs inspection and
processing. In 1984, Congress established a program for small airports
that could not qualify for port-of-entry status to enable them to
provide customs services to international passengers. Passengers
arriving at airports that qualify for this program do not pay the $6.50
fee. Instead, a user-fee airport pays a user fee directly to the
Customs Service, which goes into an account that pays the salaries of
the customs inspector and the cost of customs inspections and other
services at the user fee airport. By law, the Secretary of the Treasury
may only qualify an airport to participate in this user-fee program
upon finding that the volume or value of business cleared through such
airport is insufficient to justify the availability of customs services
at such airport.
Guidelines published by the Customs Service provide that airports
with over 15,000 international passengers annually, or which meet other
criteria, can qualify for port-of-entry status. By implication,
airports receiving more than 15,000 passengers annually should not
qualify for the user-fee program because they have sufficient volume to
justify full-time customs' services. Unfortunately, there is no
mechanism under current law for automatic graduation of user-fee
airports into port-of-entry status. This loophole enables airports
designated by the Secretary as a user-fee airport to service
substantial numbers of international passengers, but circumvent the
$6.50 per passenger fee that must be paid by passengers arriving at
port-of-entry airports. Unless the law is changed, airports with user-
fee status, that nonetheless enter the business of large-scale
international transit, have a built-in competitive advantage over port-
of-entry airports that must charge each passenger $6.50.
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his
comments on this situation.
Mr. ROTH. I agree that there appears to be a significant loophole in
the current law that should be closed regarding user fee airports. We
need to ensure that the advantages of the user-fee program benefit the
small airports it is designed to help and not give an unfair and
unintended advantage to big airports that remain in the program.

Therefore, I think we need to find a way to discourage user fee
airports that have a substantial increase in the number of
international passengers from remaining in the user-fee program and to
encourage their designation as a port of entry, which is appropriate
for larger airports. Otherwise, a user fee airport could receive an
unfair competitive advantage over port-of-entry airports merely by
avoiding the $6.50 passenger processing fee on airline tickets, as the
Senator from Maine has pointed out.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee for his comments. As the chairman may be aware, this is a
critical issue for the State of Maine, as abuse of the user-fee program
by airports that no longer qualify for that program have the potential
of causing severe economic harm to Bangor International Airport, one of
Maine's most important employers. If this abuse of the program is
permitted to continue, flights that currently refuel and clear Customs
in Bangor could decide to move their refueling operations to Canada,
where the Government heavily subsidizes fuel costs at competing transit
airports. Those flights could then continue on to Sanford Airport in
Florida, a user-fee airport that has been able to gain an unfair
competitive advantage because it can offer to international charter
flights the ability to

[[Page S4175]]

avoid the $6.50-per-passenger fee that must be paid by port-of-entry
airports such as Bangor. Indeed, there can be little doubt that this
diversion of air traffic will occur, as, according to press reports,
Sanford Airport is scheduled to receive 325,000 passengers during the
remainder of the year, a level far above the 15,000-passenger threshold
for user-fee airports. I am very concerned that the expansion of the
user-fee program, made possible by the lifting of the funding cap in
this appropriations bill, will create an immediate threat to Bangor
International Airport's business and have the unintended effect of
diverting to a Canadian airport important international air traffic
that currently uses American transit airport facilities.
Can the chairman of the Finance Committee provide assurances that
this problem will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and that
he will support a legislative remedy to close the loophole that
currently provides user-fee airports engaged in substantial
international business to circumvent the $6.50 per passenger fee?
Mr. ROTH. I am sensitive to the imminent problems facing Bangor
International Airport as a result of the loophole in the user-fee
airport program. I assure you that I will provide whatever help I can
to ensure that the customs laws provide a level playing field for all
airports that receive significant numbers of international passengers.

tongass land management plan

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the language agreed to by the conferees
and the President directs the Secretary to: first, maintain the land
base of the 1992 Tongass Land Management Plan--1.7 million acres--for
timber for 1 year; and second, release the enjoined AWRTA sales. The
President may waive either or both of these requirements. If he so
chooses, he triggers a $110 million appropriation over 4 years--fiscal
years 1996-99--for timber worker employment, community development, and
to replace lost timber sale receipts.
I want to extend to my colleague, Senator Stevens, well deserved
credit for protecting the people of southeast Alaska and penalizing the
administration for not meeting its obligations under the Tongass Timber
Reform Act of 1990 to sustain the timber dependent communities of
southeast Alaska. And I want to thank all of my colleagues,
particularly Senator Hatfield and Senator Gorton, for standing by us in
the fact of Clinton administration recalcitrance, ignorance about the
conditions in Alaska, and extreme prejudice about sustainable forest
management.
Like the Sierra Club earlier this week, the Clinton administration
appears opposed to any forest management on the national forests. I
suppose this should not be terribly surprising, given the high number
of former Sierra Club lobbyists in the Clinton administration. At least
the current lobbyists at the Sierra Club had the honesty to publicly
announce their total opposition to all timber harvesting.
I am going to be equally candid. My bottom-line goal over the next
year is going to be to make it as difficult and painful as possible for
the administration to complete its draft Tongass Land Management Plan
preferred alternative and suspend the 1.7 million acre land base
requirement that we have just enacted. It would unacceptably reduce the
productive forest land base and throw workers out of jobs and families
in the streets. The draft TLMP contains alternatives that maintain the
1.7 million acre land base and allowable sales quantity. One of these
alternatives can and should be selected.
Let me make a few additional points so that there is no confusion
about what we are doing today and so that all of my colleagues have a
complete context for the current and coming debate. And the debate will
definitely continue.
The purpose of today's amendment is to penalize the Clinton
administration for failing to meet its multiple use obligations under
the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, and to make it as difficult as
possible for the administration to shirk these obligations in the
future.

The administration has been--and, under our amendment, will continue
to be--required to seek to meet market demand for Tongass forest
products and thereby protect southeast Alaska communities under the
provisions of the 1990 act.
All along, what we have wanted to do was to protect the forest land
base so a sustainable industry and associated communities can exist in
southeast Alaska. We can't make the administration--particularly this
administration--manage the forest. Our hope is that we can at least
protect the landbase, and to the greatest extent possible we have done
this.
In my oversight of the Forest Service's development of a new Tongass
Land Management Plan I have been flatly appalled by: first, the lack of
sound scientific information involved in the effort; second, the poor
credibility of the socio-economic impact analysis conducted; third, the
offering of more multiple-use promises that can't be kept; and fourth,
the rush to complete this effort which is, in part, politically driven.
Indeed, the White House press office's statement today that the
President would use the suspension, without even consulting with the
Forest Service is evidence of crass politicization of the resource
agency. Last week, we had an 8-hour hearing on this draft plan. Here
are the transcripts; I would be happy to share them with anyone who
wants to read them to see how little the Forest Service knows about the
resources and the people of the Tongass.
The TLMP uses voodoo economics to evaluate the effects of weird
science employed to justify Greenpeace politics in southeast Alaska.
We will proceed with our oversight of the TLMP process to continue to
press the Forest Service to do a professionally credible job in
developing a final plan.
This is important because nothing requires the Forest Service or the
President to ignore the requirements of common sense and multiple use
and reduce the forest land base. There are TLMP alternatives which
would maintain the land base.
The challenge today's amendment lays before Bill Clinton is to manage
a Federal forest resource wisely to protect the environment, provide
jobs, and sustain communities without falling back as a substitute to
the old, large Federal grants programs of the past. We sincerely hope
the President doesn't rely on a failed policy of large Federal grants
to shore up a failed policy of forest preservation that has reduced the
health of our forests nationwide.
The challenge to Phil Janik, our regional forester, is to get a lot
better data before he selects an approach which costs the taxpayers
$110 million. But at least the people of southeast Alaska will not be
penalized if he fails to meet this responsibility.
Janik is a $110 million man. His decisions, if not wisely made, will
take $110 million from the U.S. Treasury, assuming the administration
does not eliminate his authority to make a decision.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have just passed in the last hour and a
half the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. I think we
have dealt a big blow to the era of big government. My view is the
Americans--whether Republicans, Democrats or Independents--wanted us to
make changes, and we have delivered a true victory for all of America's
taxpayers.
We have saved $23 billion over last year's level of discretionary
spending. That is $23 billion less Washington spending, and $30 billion
less than the President requested. That is a lot more savings than many
people predicted. I think we probably could have done more had we had a
little more time. It is the biggest decrease in Washington spending in
more than half a century, according to some who have been around.
It has been a long and difficult process and has taken a lot of
bipartisanship in many cases, working with the White House in other
cases, but it covers five separate appropriations bills, nine Cabinet
agencies, and appropriates over $160 billion.
There has been a lot of back and forth with the White House. A lot of
negotiations. A lot of give and take. Both sides had to give a little.
Certainly nobody got everything they wanted in the final version of
this bill.
But what the American people got was a spending bill that is $23
billion less than last year and $30 billion less than President
Clinton's request. We did our duty for the taxpayers of America.

[[Page S4176]]

If we maintain our path of savings, we will stay on path to a
balanced budget in 2002.
We will continue to follow through on our promise for smaller
Government, less Washington spending, and letting America's working
families keep more of their hard-earned money.
There is also good news in other parts of this bill. For instance,
the ``stop-fril'' language will help stop frivolous inmate litigation.
This much-needed legislation makes it harder for inmates to sue States
and localities on prison conditions--like the prisoner who sued because
he wanted ``Reebok'' brand tennis shoes instead of the ``Converse''
brand shoes provided by the prison.
Some 33 States have estimated that frivolous lawsuits cost them more
than $55 million annually. We are doing something about that in this
bill.
I also want to say a word about the funding restriction on Vietnam in
this legislation. I am disappointed the certification standard was
changed from ``fully cooperating'' to ``cooperating in full faith'' in
this conference report. This is an issue of great importance to many
Members of Congress, including myself. I know some voted against the
entire bill because of this provision. It is also very important to me.
The administration was successful in including this change, but
Congress will continue to monitor cooperation on POW/MIA issues very
closely--regardless of the certification standard.
I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator
Hatfield, for his leadership, and also the distinguished ranking
minority member, Senator Byrd, for his leadership, in putting together
this historic legislation, as well as all the other Senators on the
Appropriations Committee who worked so hard and so successfully on this
legislation.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Endangered Species Act

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, first, I would like to acknowledge the
Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Hatfield, for his
efforts on bringing us to the point where we now have the
appropriations bills resolved. Tough, tough assignment. Senator
Hatfield did it with a great deal of insight and skill.
Mr. President, I would like to make a few points concerning the
language that is contained in the appropriations bill. I would like to
reference the moratorium on the listing of the endangered species. I
appreciated what the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, stated in
her comments. I also want to inform Members of the Senate as to the
progress toward reform of the Endangered Species Act. The
appropriations bill before us continues the moratorium language that
has been in previous bills before this Congress. I remind all of us
that the authorization of the Endangered Species Act expired in 1993.
Yet, the act continues. And it is not working.
It also contains a provision that allows the President to waive the
moratorium in its entirety. I am concerned that the latter provision
will bring a halt to real progress for Endangered Species Act reform.
When the Senate adopted the omnibus appropriations bill, which
continued the moratorium, I was already in negotiations on Endangered
Species Act reform with Senators Chafee and Reid. Soon following that,
Senator Baucus joined us in a very intensive effort in finding a way to
reform the Endangered Species Act in a true bipartisan fashion. We have
made significant progress in these talks.
Starting in each case with Senate bill 1364, the Endangered Species
Conservation Act, which I have introduced, and its companion bills, S.
1365 and S. 1366, we have come to agreement on reform of conservation
plans; we are near agreement on recovery; and will soon discuss listing
and consultation. There are a number of other issues, no less
important, that we are already discussing that are on the table as
well.
As of this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service informs me that
they have proposed 239 United States and foreign species for which they
have not completed final action. I am told the National Marine
Fisheries Service has no proposed rules outstanding at this time.
I want to provide you with a summary of the list of proposed species
that could be immediately listed upon lifting of the moratorium, which
the President may do.
I ask unanimous consent that this data provided by the Department of
the Interior be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

State Lists of Species Proposed for Listing

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed 239 species
for which they have not completed a final action (U.S. and
Foreign as of October, 1995).
The National Marine Fisheries Service has no proposed rules
outstanding at this time.
Most of the 239 FWS species are from California (>120) and
Hawaii (79). Twenty-five other states have from 1 to 9
species proposed more than one year ago.\1\ They are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These lists were made from a Department of Interior list
and map. Discrepancies between the list and the map in the
number of proposed species in each State are shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

alabama

Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidans)
Mussel, oyster (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
Slabshall, Chipola (Elliptio chipolaensis)
Bankclimber, purple (Ellptodieus sloatianus)
Pocketbook, shiny-rayed (Lampsilis subanguiata)
Gulf moccasinshell (Medlonidus panicillatus)
Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme)
Eggert's sunflower (Hellanthus eggertil)

alaska

Elder, Steller's (AK breeding population) (Polysticta
stellen)

arizona (9) note: 8 on map

Lizard, flat-tailed horned (Phrynosoma mcalll)
Talussnail, San Xavier (Sonorella aremita)
Parish's alkali grass (Puccinella parishii)
Spindace, Virgin (Lepidomada mollispiris mollispinis)
Jaguar, US population (Panthera onca)
Pygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous (Glaucidium brasilianum
cactorum)
Salamander, Sonoran tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi)
Hauchuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva)
Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes delitescents)

arkansas

Shiner, Arkansas River (native pop. only) (Notropis girardi)

california (121) note: 123 on map

Sheep, Peninsular bighorn (Ovis canadensis cremnobates)
Lane Mountain (=Coolgardle) milk-vetch (Astragalus
jaegarianus)
Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astraglus lentiginosus var.
coachellae)
Shining (=shiny) milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var.
micans)
Fish Slough milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var.
Piscinansis)
Sodaville milk-vetch (Astragalus lantiginosus var.
sesquimetralis)
Pairson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdainae var. pairsonil)
Triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus)
Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonil)
Conejo dudleya (Dudleya abramsil ssp. parva)
Marcascent dudleya (Dudleye cymosa ssp. marcencans)
Santa Monica Mountains dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp.
ovatifolla)
Verity's dudleya (Dudleya verityl)
Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonil)
Hartweg's golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahilfolla)
San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonll)
Fleshy owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succelenta)
Hoover's spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri)
Colusa grass (Neostaplla colusana)
San Joquin orcutt grass (Orcuttla inequalls)
Hairy (=pilose) orcutt grass (Orcuttla pilosa)
Slender orcutt grass (Orcuttla tenuis)
Sacramento orcutt grass (Orcuttla visida)
Green's orcutt grass (Tuctoria greenel)
Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.
crassifolla)
Encinitis baccharis (=Coyote brush) Baccharis vanessae)
Orcutt's spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana)
Del Mar sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolla var.
linifolia)
Short-leaved dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. bravifolia)
Big-leaved crownbeard (Verbesina cissita)
Lizard, flat-tailed horned (Phrynosoma mcallll)
Splittail, Sacramento (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)
Frog, California red-legged (Rana aurora draytonl)
Whipsnake, (=striped racer) Alameda (Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus)
Butterfly, Callippe silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe)
Butterfly, Behren's silverspot (Speyeria zerene behrenzil)
Parish's alkali grass (Puccinellia parishil)
Stabbins morning glory (Calystegia stubbinsil)
Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickil)
Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodedron decumbens)
El Dorado bedstraw (Callum californicum ssp. sierrae)

[[Page S4177]]

Layne's butterweed (Senacio layneae)
Grasshopper, Zayanta band-winged (Trimerotropis infantilis)
Beetle, Santa Cruz rain (Pleocoma conugens conjugens)
Beetle, Mount Hermon June (Polyphylia barbata)
Jaguar, U.S. population (Panthera onca)
Butterfly, Quino checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino)
Skipper, Laguna Mountains (Pyrgus rurlis lagunae)
Fairy shrimp, San Diego (Branchinecta sandiegoenis)
Cuyamaca Lake downingia (Downingia concolar var. brevior)
Parish's meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracillis ssp. parishil)
Rawhide Hill onion (Allium tuolumnense)
San Bruno Mountain manzanita (Arctosstaphyios imbircata)
Chinese Camp brodiaea (Brodiaea pallida)
Carpenteria (Carpenteria californica)
Mariposa pussy-paws (Calyptridium pulchellum)
Springville clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis)
Greenhorn adobe-lily (Fritillaria striata)
San Francisco lessingia (Lessingia germanorum var.
germanorum)
Mariposa lupine (Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus)
Kelso Creek monkey-flower (Mimulus shevockil)
Plute Mountains navarretia (Navarretia setiloba)
Red Hills vervain (Verbena californica)
Munz's onion (Allium munzil)
San Jacinto Valley crownscale (=saltbush) (Atriplex coronata
var. notatior)
Thread-leaved brodilaea (brodlaea fillfolia)
Navarretia few-flowered (Navarretia leucocephla ssp.
pauciflora)
Navarretia, many-flowered (Navarretia laucocephala ssp.
plleantha)
Lake County stonecrop (Parvisadum leiocarpum)
Suisun thistie (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum)
Soft bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis)
Hoffmann's Rock-crass (Arabis hoffmannll)
Santa Rosa Island manzanita (Arctostaphyios confertiflora)
Island barberry (Barberis pinnata ssp. insufaris)
Soft-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja mollis)
Catalina Island mountain-mahogany (Carcocarpus trasklae)
Santa Rosa Island dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
insularis)
Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Dudleya nesiotica)
Island bedstraw (Galium buxifolium)
Hoffmann's gilla (Gilla tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannil)
Island rush-rose (Helianthermum greenel)
Island alumroot (Heuchera maxima)
San Clemente Island woodland-star (Lithophragma maximum)
Santa Cruz Island bush-mallow (Matacothamnus fasciculatus
var. nesioticus)
Santa Cruz Island malocothrix (Malacothrix indecora)
Island malacothrix (Malacothrix squalida)
Island phacelia (Phacelia insuiaris var. insuiaris)
Santa Cruz Island rockcress (Sibara flifolla)
Santa Cruz Island lacepod (=fringepod) (Thysanocarpus
conchuliferus)
Munchkin dudleya (Dudleya sp. nov. fined ``East Point'')
Black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra)
Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus awqualis var. sonomensis)
Johnaton's rock-cress (Arabis johnstonil)
Pailid manzanita (Arctostaphios pailida)
Bear Valley sandwort (Arenaria ursina)
Clara Hunt's milk-vetch (Astragalus clarianus)
Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi)
White sedge (Carex albida)
Ash-gray Indian paintbrush (Castilleja cinerae)
Vine Hill clarkia (Clarkia imbrieata)
Gowen cypress (Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana)
Southern mountain wild buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyl var.
austromontanum)
Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium partalinum ssp. pitkinense)
Yadon's piperia (Piperia vadonll)
Callstoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys strictus)
San Bernadino bluegrass (Pos atropurpurea)
Napa bleugrass (Poa napensis)
Hickman's potentillia (Potentilla hickmanll)
Kenwood Marsh checkemallow (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida)
California dandelion (Taraxacum californicum)
Hidden Lake bluecuris (Trichostema austromontanum ssp.
compactum)
Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum)
Monterey (=Del Monte) clover (Trifolium trichocalyx)
San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha licifolia)
Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera)
Otay tarweed (hemizonia conjugens)
Willowy monardella (Monardella linoides ssp. viminea)
Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinll)
Vail Lake ceanothus (Ceanothus ophiochilus)
Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum)
Dehasa bear-grass (Nolina interrata)

Colorado (1) note: 0 on map

Jaguar, US population (Panthera onca)

Florida

Mussel, fat three-ridge (Amblema naisteril)
Slabshell, Chipola (Elliptia chipolaensis)
Bankclimber, purple (Ellptoideus sloatianus)
Pocket, shiny-rayed (lampsilis subanguiata)
Gulf, moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus)
Ochiockonee, moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus)
Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme)

Georgia

Mussel; fat three-ridge (Amblema neisteril)
Bankclimber, purple (Ellptoideus sloatianus)
Pocket, shiny-rayed (Lampsilis subanguiata)
Gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus)
Ochiockonee, moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus)
Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme)

Hawaii

Wahane (=Hawane or lo'ulu) (Pritchardia aylemer-robinsonll)
Amaranthus brownli (plant-no common name)
Lo'ulu (Pritchardia remota)
Schledee verticillata (plant-no common name)
Delissea undutata (plant-no common name)
Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides)
`Oha wal (Clermontia drepanomorpha)
Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoldes)
Hau kuahiwi (hibiscadelphus gitfanlianus)
Hau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalalensis)
Kokl'o ke'oke'o (Hisbiscu waimeae ssp. hannerae)
Kaua'i Kokl' o (Kokia kauaiensis)
Alani (Melicope zahibrucknerl)
Myrsine llnearifolla (plant-no common name)
Neraudia ovata (plant-no common name)
Kiponapona (Phyilostegia racemosa)
Phyllostegia veluntina (plant-no common name)
Phyllostegia warshaureri (plant-no common name)
Hala pepe (Pleomela hawaliensis)
Loulu (Pritchardia napallensis)
Loulu (Pritchardia schattaueri)
Loulu (Pritchardia viscosa)
Schiedea membranacea (plant-no common name)
`Anunu (Sicyos alba)
Nani wai `ale `ale (Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis)
A'e (Zanthozylum dipetlum var. tomentosum)
Aisinodendron viscasum (plant-no common name)
Haha (Cyanea platyphylla)
Haha (Cyanea recta)
Oha (Dollssea rivularis)
Phyllostegia knudsenll (plant-no common name)
Phyllostegia wawrana (plant-no common name)
Schiedea helleri (plant-no common name)
Laulihillhi (Schleda stellarioides)
Haha (Cyanea remyi)
Hau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodll)
Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolla)
Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana)
Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos)
Ha'iwale (Cyrtandra subumbeilata)
Ha'iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora)
Fosberg's love grass (Eragrostis fosbergil)
Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifollum)
Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae)
`Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula)
Kotea (Myrsine juddil)
Lau `ehu (Panicum nilheuense)
Platanthera holochila (Plant, no common name)
Schiedea hookeri (Plant, no common name)
Schiedea nuttallii (Plant, no common name)
Trematolobella sinoularis (Plant, no common name)
Viola cabuansis (Plant, no common name)
Achyranthes mutica (Plant, no common name)
Haha (Cyanea dunbarii)
Ha `lwale (Cyrtandra dentata)
`Oha (Delissea subcortata)
`Akoko (euphorbia haelaeleana)
Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium)
Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis (Plant, no common name)
Lobelia monostechya (Plant, no common name)
Alani (Mellcope saint-johnll)
Phyllostegia hirsuta (Plant, no common name)
Phyllostegia parviflora (Plant, no common name)
Loulu (Pritchardia kaatae)
Sanicula purpurea (Plant, no common name)
Ma `oli `oli (Schiedae kealiae)
Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides)
Haha (Cyanea (=Rollandia) humboldtiana)
Haha (Cyanea (=Rollandia) st-johnll)
Lysimachia macima (=tenmifolia) (Plant, no common name)
Schladea kaualensis (Plant, no common name)
Schladea sarmentosa (Plant, no common name)
`Akoko (Chamaesyca herbstll)
`Akoko (Chamaesyca rockii)
Haha (Cyanea koolauensis)
Haha (Cyanea acuminata)
Haha (Cyanea longiflora)
Nanu (Gardenia mannii)
Phyilostegia kallaensis (Plant, no common name)

illinois

Snake, northern copperbelly water (Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta)

indiana

Snake, northern copperbelly water (Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta)

kansas

Shiner, Arkansas River (native population only) (Notropis
girardi)

kentucky

Snake, northern copperbelly water (Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta)

[[Page S4178]]

Elktoe, Cumberland (Alasmidonta atropurpurea)
Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidans)
Mussel, oyster (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
Rabbitsfoot, rough (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata)
Eggert's sunflower (Hellanthus eggertll)

louisiana

Jaguar, US population (Panthera onca)

maine

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) distinct pop. in seven Maine
rivers.

michigan

Snake, northern copperbelly water (Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta)

montana (1) note: 0 on map

Parish's alkali grass (Puccinellia parishll)

nevada (2) note: 1 on map

Sodaville mild-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var.
Piscinensis)
Spindace, Virgin (Lepidomeda mollspinis mollispinis)

new mexico

Parish's alkali grass (Puccinellia parishll)
Spindace, Virgin (Lepidomada mollspinis mollispinis)
Jaguar, US population (Panthera onca)

ohio

Snake, northern copperbelly water (Nerodia erythrogaster
neglecta)
Snake, Lake Erie water (Nerodia sipadon insultarum)

oklahoma

Shiner, Arkansas River (native population only) (Notropis
girardi)

oregon

Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisetta)

tennessee

texas (4) note: 7 on map

Salamander, Barton Springs (Eurycea sosorum)
Jaguar, US population (Panthera onca)
Shriner, Arkansas River (native population only) (Notropis
girardi)
Pygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous (Glaucidium brasillanum
cactorum)

utah

Spindace, Virgin (Lepidomada mollispinis mollispinis)
Least chub (Lotichthys phlegethontis)

virginia

Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidans)
Mussel, oyster (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
Rabbitsfoot, rough (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata)
Bean, Purple (Villosa perpurpurea)

washington

Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisetta)

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, most of the 239 species are from
California and Hawaii; 25 other States have from 1 to 9 species
proposed each. If I may, I would like to just reference this chart and
show you a sampling of what we are talking about.
In the State of California, you see ready to be listed 123 species.
In Hawaii, there are 79. In State of Arizona, 8. Texas, 7 species.
Alabama, 8. Georgia has 6. Florida has 7. Tennessee has 7 species.
Kentucky has 6 species.
I am concerned that the President will decide to waive the
moratorium. I am concerned for the people whose lives will be affected
by an additional 239 species being placed on the list. These people,
and those species, would fall victim to a law that does not work.
If this language passes, I urge the President to not waive the
moratorium language. I hope that he will agree with me that it is
better to consider these species for listing under a new reformed bill
that we have worked together to create. In 23 years, since the
Endangered Species Act first became law, we have made significant
progress in science that has been identified, and techniques that have
been utilized, and in management practices.
I remind the President that if there are species that are in imminent
danger of extinction, he can still use the emergency authority to list
them. Rather than exercise the waiver, I believe the administration
would be wiser to accelerate negotiations with Congress on a
comprehensive reform of the Endangered Species Act.
Now, should the President choose to waive the moratorium on these 239
species, there are other considerations. I think under the current law
we can expect these newly listed species to be the subject of many
lawsuits. The $4 million that we have provided to accomplish emergency
listing activities, to manage petitions, and deal with existing
lawsuits would soon be totally exhausted. Waiving the moratorium would
leave us worse off than before.
I met with my negotiating partners this week. We made a commitment to
continue our talks. We have made a commitment that we are going to do
everything possible to reach a reformed Endangered Species Act that
will have bipartisan support. I sincerely hope the possible lifting of
the moratorium on listings will not change that commitment. Now I urge
all of the Members of the Senate to join Senators Chafee, Baucus, Reid,
and myself, in reforming the Endangered Species Act this year. This is
a task we must accomplish so that endangered and threatened species can
be protected for future generations and, also, so that future
generations will have the quality of life that goes with a strong
economy. We can and, I believe with all sincerity, we will save species
without putting people and their communities at risk.

Disaster Relief

Mr. President, contained in the omnibus bill is disaster relief for a
number of States that have experienced recent disaster. In the State of
Idaho, in February, 10 of the northern counties were deemed national
disasters because of the onslaught of flooding. As of yesterday, Mr.
President, 6 of those 10 counties have, once again, by the Governor of
Idaho, been declared disasters because the rains, once again, are
hitting. In a 24-hour period, one river rose 4 feet. So, once again, we
are right back in it. Therefore, these funds are so critical and the
timing of this is absolutely important.
While we can rebuild and we can put back into place the
infrastructure for these communities, and while people can see their
homes restored, I have to point out that one of the other provisions
that was lost in this omnibus bill is the fact that we no longer have
the timber salvage language in there. They dropped the Senate additions
made during the March conference.
I can show you in the State of Idaho miles upon miles the acres of
blackened forest from forest fires. We simply wanted to get in there
and be able to remove up to 10 percent of the dead trees because there
is still economic value in those trees. We also wanted to remove them
because they simply become new fodder for future forest fires.
That is what that language provided. It also provided jobs to the
people that live in those areas that have been so devastated by the
floods. Yes, we will rebuild the infrastructure. But I do not know what
kind of a future is upon us now.
That is one of the implications of the passage of this omnibus bill.
It concerns me deeply. And, therefore, again I urge all Members of the
Senate, let us work together to find a solution to this so that we, the
stewards of this land, can demonstrate our love and appreciation for
this environment but also so that a good, strong environment also can
produce a good, strong economy. They are not mutually exclusive.
With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________