[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11390-S11391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 AND FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy for allowing me to be 
heard.
  Mr. President, I want to draw Members' attention to the President's 
emergency funding request. Not so long ago the President sent up to 
Congress a communication requesting $1.1 billion in emergency funding 
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Members will find it in their offices. 
The communication of the President is dated September 17, 1996. Mr. 
President, I ask Members to review that communication because I have 
some concerns with it.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that Members will give these requests 
some careful review. All of us are concerned about terrorism, but I 
hope in exhibiting our concern that we will also recognize that we have 
an obligation to the taxpayers when considering these requests.
  I draw Members' attention to the fact that the President's original 
request in March of this year--not so long ago--was for exactly $27.9 
million. That is increased 4,000 percent, in a few months, in this 
request. Obviously, terrorism is a matter that deserves careful and 
full scrutiny and strong action on the part of the Federal Government. 
But I would suggest to Members also that a 4000-percent increase in the 
request for funding also deserves our attention.
  Mr. President, let me give some specific examples. In this enormous 
request under the banner of ``emergency,'' only 6 months after the 
original request, I think some questions need and should be asked. We 
looked through these requests and I hope Members will study them. We 
found huge increases in spending spread throughout the Federal 
Government.
  For example, the request includes an additional $34,000 for 
additional facilities for security expenses at the Office of the 
Inspector General under the Department of the Treasury. When we 
inquired or looked in the report for how this $34,000 was to be spent, 
the report indicates, and I quote, ``No further details provided.''
  So we ended up calling the Office of the Inspector General. We talked 
specifically to the budget officer who ends up coordinating these 
matters. Here is what he said and I'll quote this because I think it is 
imperative that his exact words be included in the Record. He said, 
``This is the first I have heard of any emergency supplemental 
funding.'' Now, this is the officer who controls the budget for that 
office. He said, ``This is the first I have heard of any emergency 
supplemental funding. I am not aware of any request for extra funding. 
I do not know what we need it for.''
  The OMB publication didn't spell out what it was for, and their 
budget director does not even know what it was for.
  From the Bureau of Public Debt at the Department of the Treasury, we 
received a request of $161,000 ``for additional facilities security 
operating expenses.'' Once again, no further details were provided in 
the report. We called the Bureau of Public Debt and asked them what 
this request would be used for. We simply wanted a justification and 
some simple facts. The budget officer was unaware of the emergency 
supplemental request. This is what the budget officer said, ``I'll be 
real honest with you. This is the first I've heard of it. We have not 
made a request for supplemental funding.''
  Now, this is an emergency funding request and the budget officer 
tells us that he has not even heard of it?
  Mr. President, the dilemma goes on.
  For the Federal Aviation Administration there is a $15.5-million 
request to acquire and install dual energy automated x-ray systems and 
quadruple resonance devices for screening checked baggage at U.S. 
airports. According to the FAA, these x-ray systems and resonance 
devices, and I quote, ``have not been certified by the FAA as meeting 
the U.S. national performance standards for explosives detection 
systems.'' We called the Financial Review Division at the FAA. We asked 
the manager of this division at the FAA why they needed emergency 
funding for x-ray systems and resonance devices that do not meet the 
U.S. performance standards and have not been FAA certified. Let me 
repeat that.
  The request is for machines that do not meet the U.S. performance 
standards. These machines are not FAA certified. Here is what the 
manager said, ``I don't know why we are asking for safety equipment 
that is not FAA certified.''
  Mr. President, the list goes on.
  Mr. President, we have a responsibility to take care of the important 
business of the public, and we ought to fund serious antiterrorist 
efforts. But ``I don't know'' is not a good enough answer. The American 
citizen deserves more. It is irresponsible for the President to ask for 
money when they do not even know how they would spend it. It is even 
more irresponsible for this Congress to appropriate it.
  My hope is that we give close attention to these requested matters 
and that we not fund matters where they have no clear idea how they are 
going to spend it, and that we take out of the emergency supplemental 
areas any clear waste out of areas where we, and they, simply don't 
have any idea where it will be spent.
  Last, Mr. President, if you were going to identify an area of abuse 
in spending over the past years, it would surely be in the area where 
we come up with an emergency supplemental where it does not receive the 
full review and investigation of the Appropriations Committee.
  I hope this Congress will not be derelict in its duty. I hope we will 
not write a blank check from the Public Treasury. Our responsibility 
and obligation to the American people is not to write blank checks for 
requests we know nothing about. Mr. President, I hope this Senate will 
act to make sure these ``I don't know'' requests from the President are 
denied.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleague from Colorado. The Senate will 
surely miss his wise counsel. I rise to express similar concerns.
  Mr. President, recent, tragic events have raised the fight against 
terrorism higher in the public consciousness. In response, President 
Clinton has submitted a request for $1.1 billion in emergency 
antiterrorism funding for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
  While it is imperative that we act in a timely way to fight terrorism 
and to preserve the safety of our citizens, it is also important that 
we not simply throw money at a problem for efforts that do little more 
than make us feel a little better for a little while.

[[Page S11391]]

  Indeed, it's important that we not let our actions be reduced to 
reactions.
  Unless these programs make a difference, we will be wasting the 
taxpayer's money. And when terrorists strike again, we'll be standing 
here once more, asking ourselves what went wrong with the programs 
whose appropriations we are debating today.
  I fear that the President's emergency request represents greatly 
increased spending without greatly increased thought.
  Do we know that this $1.1 billion will go toward effective measures? 
The President's proposal represents an increase in spending on 
antiterrorism measures of about 4,000 percent, from his earlier 
proposal of something under $50 million. I am not yet convinced that 
this spending is anything more than an expensive way to make the public 
believe that the Government is doing something constructive.
  I happen to think we have long since passed the day in this body when 
we can equate the expenditure of large amounts of public funds with 
results. It simply does not happen in too many respects.
  There is a significant difference between doing things that look 
effective and doing things that are effective. For example, it may look 
good to expand wiretapping authority, but is it necessarily a positive 
way to deal with the problem? What kinds of terrorists are we fighting? 
Will wiretapping even be effective to combat what we are going to be 
facing in the future?
  Would wiretapping have helped stop the Atlanta bombing? Would it have 
mattered in Oklahoma City?
  And just as important as that question is considering the price we 
may pay in the infringement on our personal freedoms.
  It is no small question to define what is a reasonable and acceptable 
infringement on our rights and privileges. Before we plunge into any 
cut back on our personal freedoms, we need to carefully consider what 
we are getting when we trade them away.
  Obviously, the President's request has arrived so late that we can't 
give it the scrutiny and possible revision it seems to need. So we are 
moving ahead and appropriating the funds he has asked for, hoping that 
they will do some real good.
  Mr. President, I submit that what we truly need is a thoughtful, 
coordinated, long-range plan about how to address the threat of 
terrorism. I fear that the administration's emergency request comes 
more out of reaction than it does from a careful examination of the 
problem.
  Cobbling together afterthought reactions is not sufficient to address 
this matter. And $1.1 billion is a great deal of money to spend with 
such little consideration.
  I don't take the matter of terrorism lightly. Indeed, none of us can. 
Everyone observing the proceedings from inside this Chamber has already 
gone through a metal detector to get in the Capitol, and then through 
another, stronger detector just be inside this room.
  House and Senate staff members wear ID badges, and they pass by 
guards every day as they come in to work. We are all aware of the 
threat--it is a part of daily life.
  Even so, extraordinary tragedy is always possible. I was in Atlanta 
this summer when the pipe bomb exploded at the Olympic games. It is 
profoundly disturbing to know that a determined individual can still 
penetrate even the most stringent security measures. So I appreciate 
the threat of terrorism and the need for swift action. At the same 
time, I submit that unless we carefully plan our tactics and strategy 
to counter this threat, we will have squandered our resources that 
could have made a real difference. Without planning, we will have 
nothing to show for our efforts.

  The President's request comes in response to the Atlanta bombing and 
the downing of TWA Flight 800 off of Long Island. Has President Clinton 
merely scraped together whatever ideas were at hand in order to appear 
tough on terrorism? We need to move forward to combat terrorism from a 
position of leadership and not simply reaction. We should not simply 
expand the power of the Federal Government after every act of 
terrorism.
  The proposal from 6 months ago for fiscal year 1997 was much 
different than the one we see now. It included a 40 percent cut in the 
Attorney General's counterterrorism fund. The new proposal calls for 
millions in security upgrades for Federal buildings. What are these 
upgrades? And, most important, will they make the people in those 
buildings any safer? And why were they not suggested in the original 
fiscal year 1997 proposal if they were needed?
  It is difficult to turn down the President's request at this late 
date. I remind my colleagues that if in a year or two this $1.1 billion 
appropriation turns out to be no more than a quick gesture to allay 
public fears, if these proposals are ultimately ineffective and hollow 
to the core, then we will be faced with the unpleasant fact that we 
spent $1.1 billion for simply being safe, or feeling safe for a few 
days or a few weeks in order to be able to say that we just did 
something.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  The Senate is currently in a period of morning business. The Senator 
has the right to speak for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator be kind 
enough to yield for a unanimous consent request that has been agreed to 
on both sides?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for yielding. This is an issue we have 
been working on for quite some time. We finally got it done. We would 
like to get it done before it becomes unglued.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the majority leader.

                          ____________________