[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9868-S9874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now turn to consideration of Calendar No. 155, S. 1156, the District of
Columbia appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1156) making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the bill.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send to the desk a list of staff. I
ask unanimous consent they be allowed full privilege of the floor
during the consideration of S. 1156, the D.C. appropriations bill.
The list follows:
Mary Beth Nethercutt; Jay Kimmitt; Terry Sauvain; Neyla
Arnas;s Kate O'Malley; David Landers; Liz Tankersley; Quinn
Dodd; and Jim Hyland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year
1998 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate.
This budget is the first I have had the opportunity to present to the
Senate since becoming the chairman of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee. This is essentially a clean bill, with no
new policy riders.
I am very pleased that this budget was reported favorably by the full
Appropriations Committee by a vote of 27 to 1. This is a bipartisan
bill, and a bill that reflects the consensus of both the Financial
Control Board established by Congress and the city's elected
leadership.
This budget of $4.2 billion is a smaller budget than last year's $5.1
billion budget for two reasons.
First, the Federal Government is providing the city with fewer
Federal dollars. This past July, Congress enacted landmark legislation
restructuring the city's budget, transferring some city functions to
the Federal Government, and in exchange, cutting the Federal payment to
the District.
That legislation also added some important management reforms at my
urging. I'll have more to say about these structural changes and
management reforms in a moment.
Second, this is a smaller budget because it is the first balanced
budget submitted to the Congress by city officials since 1993. That one
proved very unbalanced. This one will be balanced.
As many of my colleagues know, the law enacted by Congress in 1995
creating a Financial Control Board included a timetable requiring the
city of Washington, DC to submit a balanced budget to Congress by next
year.
Fortunately, the Control Board and the D.C. Council managed to agree
on enough spending cuts to submit a balanced budget to Congress 1 year
ahead of schedule. That is essentially the budget before the Senate
today.
This balanced budget cuts roughly $85 million from last year's
operating budget, not to mention a reduction of over $500 million in
the direct Federal contribution to the city, from $712 million last
year down to $190 million this year.
Most agencies in the District of Columbia government have been cut.
One exception is the police department, which received a modest
increase reflecting a citywide effort--and I might say a nationwide
effort--to crack down on crime within the city.
Perhaps the most important point is that both the Control Board and
the D.C. Council have agreed to these cuts.
[[Page S9869]]
The Control Board and the D.C. Council worked together to craft a
consensus budget. That consensus has been incorporated into this bill.
I do not think it is necessary for the U.S. Senate to revisit every
spending decision that has been agreed upon by both the council and the
control board, especially since we have achieved a balanced budget 1
year ahead of time.
Such decisions are long overdue even if it took some prodding from
the Congress to get. I think it is the responsibility of the Senate to
ratify those decisions once they have been made.
In addition to being the first balanced budget in several years, this
budget pays for many of the structural changes and management reforms,
including the District of Columbia Revitalization Act, signed into law
on August 5, 1997.
For example, the Revitalization Act transferred the city's prison
system, the courts, and a huge unfunded pension liability of $5 billion
to the Federal Government. In exchange, the Congress will no longer
provide an annual Federal payment of $660 million or a $52 million
annual payment on the pension liability. Instead, this bill provides a
one-time Federal contribution of $190 million as authorized by the
Revitalization Act. Of that $190 million, the bill directs that $30
million be applied to pay down on the city's debt.
The Revitalization Act has been called a rescue plan for the District
of Columbia. I feel strongly that any rescue plan must first rescue the
city from terrible mismanagement, waste, and unresponsive and
irresponsible local government.
I insisted that the rescue plan, and the majority leader with me
insisted that the rescue plan include the Management Reform Act of 1997
to begin the process of cleaning house in each of the major city
agencies.
The Management Reform Act authorized the control board to hire
professional consultants to conduct a top-to-bottom review of nine
major city agencies to map out a plan for improving the quality of
services.
This District of Columbia appropriations bill provides $8 million to
pay for the consultants to go into the various city agencies.
The structural changes in the Revitalization Act provide the city
with a one-time windfall of $200 million. I am pleased that the mayor,
the council, and the Control Board agreed that this windfall should not
be used for a spending spree and that none of the funds should go
toward increasing the operating costs of the city.
Of the $200 million available, $160 million will be applied to pay
down the city's accumulated deficit. The remaining $40 million will be
used to make infrastructure repairs and the management changes and
productivity improvements suggested by the management consultants. The
infrastructure of the city is in dire need of much improvement.
The Management Reform Act also called for the immediate dismissal of
the heads of nine major city agencies and called on the Mayor to either
nominate new officials or renominate the current officials to head each
of the agencies, with each nomination subject to the consent and
approval of the Control Board. In other words, a final decision rests
with the Control Board.
In order to preserve the checks and balances between the executive
and the legislative branches and the District of Columbia, section 133
of this appropriations bill makes clear that the D.C. Council does have
official responsibility for confirming the Mayor's nominations to head
those agencies. But then again, I reiterate, the final decision rests
with the Control Board.
Some Members expressed concern to me that funding for the homeless
may be reduced by a consequence of this very tight budget. Section 146
of the bill directs the District government to maintain homeless
services at the same level for fiscal year 1998 as the level for fiscal
year 1997. I think this can be accomplished in a manner that is
consistent with the spending restraints needed to maintain a balanced
budget.
Perhaps no issue received more attention in recent weeks than the
inability of the District's public schools to open on time. It was a
local and a national embarrassment. As the new chairman of the D.C.
subcommittee, I am going to make sure that such a delay does not happen
again.
Section 147 of this bill directs the Control Board and General
Becton, the CEO of the D.C. public schools, to report to the House and
Senate appropriations and authorizing committees for the District of
Columbia no later than April 1, 1998, of any and all necessary measures
to ensure that the schools open on time in the fall of 1998.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Senator
Boxer, the ranking member, and Senator Hutchison of Texas.
I also thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator
Stevens, and our distinguished ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their
leadership and assistance on this bill.
In summary, as I said, this is a consensus bill and the first
balanced budget the District has seen in some time. This one truly is
balanced. This bill funds the tough medicine of management reforms as
well as restructuring of courts and corrections enacted by the Congress
and signed into law by the President. It is a good bill and it is a
bipartisan bill.
With that, Mr. President, I yield to our ranking member, my good
friend, Senator Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank the chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Faircloth. I thank him for the hard work he has put into this bill. I
thank his staff, and I thank the staff on our side. I think it is very
fair to say they worked beautifully together.
We do have basically a consensus bill here. There are a couple of
provisions that I am sure Senator Faircloth isn't enamored with and I
am sure there are a couple of provisions that this Senator isn't
enamored with. I do believe in local control --that cities and counties
should be able to make their own policies in terms of how they spend
their own health funds, how they spend funds that they raise.
There are a couple of problems in this bill. But Senator Faircloth is
correct, there are no new riders here. The problems that I have with
this bill this year were in this bill last year. So I just hope that as
we take up this last appropriations bill--this is the 13th one--that we
will have a relatively easy time of it.
I hope that any amendments that are offered here will be
noncontroversial amendments that both sides can agree to.
Unfortunately, I am hearing that may not be the case, that this bill
may become the vehicle for some very controversial amendments.
If that happens, so be it. Senator Faircloth and I will be on our
feet, and we will manage that in the best way we can with the
cooperation of colleagues. But I really do hope that Senators from both
sides would refrain from those kinds of amendments, because this bill
was a long time in coming. This kind of consensus over the District of
Columbia was a long time in coming. We put so much work into it,
particularly the chairman.
I see that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has joined us to sit
in on this debate. There was a tremendous amount of work on her part in
getting us to reach this consensus.
I have heard that it is possible we are going to have an amendment on
vouchers. I want to make the point right here as the minority ranking
member that I have discussed this amendment with my colleagues on this
side. We are not going to look kindly upon any amendment that would
look at helping 2 to 3 percent of the children in Washington, DC, while
leaving 97 to 98 percent of those children without anything at all.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I will yield in a moment so I do not lose this track. I
will absolutely yield.
I say to my colleagues who may or may not be listening to the opening
of the debate, should we be faced with that, we will have an
alternative that will help 100 percent of the children--that will help
100 percent of the children. We are working on that because we are here
talking about people's lives, not about philosophy of education, not
about trying somebody's pet idea. We should not be doing that. We
should be in fact reaching out to all the children.
[[Page S9870]]
Again, I say to my colleagues, I could offer a number of amendments
here that would be controversial. I do not really want to do that. I
know other colleagues could as well. I know that I feel as strongly as
any colleague on certain of these matters. But this is an
appropriations bill. This isn't an authorization bill. This isn't the
education authorization bill where we can debate, from morning till
night, what helps kids most--making sure that our public schools are
the best in the world or taking a small segment of children and saying,
Well, if you draw the lucky straw, you can run away from a public
school, instead of making that public school the greatest it could be.
I have to say that I went to public schools from kindergarten through
college. Some of the people who like me could say, Well, look what
great things public schools can do, and some who do not, could say, You
see, those public schools aren't very good. But the bottom line is,
whatever you think of an individual who did get that chance, we do know
that we have the education in this country that we can give to our
children so they can be the future Senators, they can be the future
leaders of the world.
When we lose that because we decide we are going to abandon our
children because of some political theory, I think it is a sad state
for us. So I am very much hoping that we do not get into that debate.
But if we do, as you can see, we are prepared for it.
I will be glad to yield to my friend from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you.
I actually was prepared to put a question to the Senator from
California.
I want to commend the Senator for her stewardship and working with
the Senator from North Carolina on this issue because getting this
appropriations passed for the District of Columbia is not only
important but long overdue. It is unfortunate that the District winds
up being a guinea pig of sorts for every kind of experiment that we
have.
I just commend the Senator from California for the poignancy of her
statement and her plea that amendments not be brought to this bill that
would delay its passage.
It is kind of open knowledge that the schools in the District of
Columbia, many of them, have been closed because they were crumbling
and falling down. The courts would not allow children to attend schools
in that kind of condition. And they have just recently reopened.
In fact, we had working in my office two young high schoolers from
the District of Columbia. Pursuant to a project that Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton put together for all the displaced children of
the District, we took two of them into our office as interns while the
schools were closed down.
The schools have now reopened and those children are back where they
ought to be, in a classroom, but it just seems to me to further
displace all of those children because of a filibuster or an argument
around an experiment with the District of Columbia schools would be
cruel to say the least, and certainly an unfortunate development.
So I commend my colleague for her plea in the first instance that we
not have this battle because there is so much at stake, but also to put
the question to her whether or not it is her opinion that the District
can afford to delay further to wait for this appropriation to be
finalized?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, clearly, all the work that the
chairman has done, along with Congresswoman Norton, Senator Hutchison,
myself, all of our staffs, this has been hard. As Senator Faircloth has
said, we have a balanced budget submitted here. As a part of the
agreement on the balanced budget plan of 1997, signed into law, the
President forwarded to Congress a series of budget amendments to
implement the Revitalization Act for Washington, DC.
So we are moving along. It has not been easy. I think every Member of
the Senate--at least it is my feeling--would like to see us turn this
Capital around. I think we have great pride in this Capital. We are
very concerned about some of its problems. I think we are on the road
to addressing them.
So my colleague, in asking her question, is implying that a delay
would send the wrong signal to Washington, DC, residents, would send
the wrong signal, frankly, to the whole country, that we are backing
off, and here they go again, adding extraneous matters to a DC
appropriations bill.
What I hear around is not very promising. I hear that these
controversial amendments are coming. I make this plea to whoever might
be listening to this opening debate on both sides: That we refrain from
controversial amendments. This is the last bill we are getting together
here. We should move it forward, keep it free of this controversy, move
forward, do our business, do our work and get on with the Senate's
business.
Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia
appropriations bill was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee
on September 9, 1997, by a vote of 26 to 1. I commend the chairman of
the subcommittee, Mr. Faircloth, for his efforts to produce a
bipartisan appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. While the
bill contains a few provisions I do not support, in most respects, I
think we succeeded in producing a consensus bill.
I will speak briefly about the three principal aspects of this bill:
Federal funds in the bill; District of Columbia funds in the bill; and
general provisions in the bill.
federal funds
The bill includes $820 million in budget authority in Federal funds
for the District of Columbia. These funds are to be used to implement
the provisions of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, which was incorporated into the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and enacted into law on August 5, 1997.
Subsequently, on August 14, 1997, the President forwarded to Congress
a series of budget amendments to implement the provisions of the
Revitalization Act. The bill fully funds the President's revised budget
and, in addition, provides $8 million for management reforms, $30
million for the full authorization of $190 million for the Federal
contribution and $5 million for a reimbursement to the National Park
Service for Park Police services.
district of columbia funds
In response to the Revitalization Act, the District government,
including the mayor and the city council, and the control board,
submitted to Congress a consensus and balanced budget, incorporating
the changes made by the Revitalization Act.
The revised District budget for fiscal year 1998 is $4,693,637,000.
The committee adopted the consensus balanced budget without change.
general provisions
Most of the general provisions included in the bill have been
included in previous years and restate existing law.
With regard to section 134, which restricts the use of funds for
abortions, the bill states that no funds--Federal or local--may be used
for this purpose.
As I said during committee markup, I believe this provision to be an
unwarranted intrusion in the affairs of the District of Columbia and I
may offer an amendment at the appropriate time to allow the District of
Columbia to use its own funds to pay for abortions for poor women.
Another general provision prohibits funds being used by the District
to implement its domestic partners law. Again, I believe this is an
unwarranted and inappropriate intrusion by the Federal Government into
matters under local control.
One general provision was included in the bill at my request. It
would provide that the D.C. initiative homeless services in the
District of Columbia be maintained in fiscal year 1998 at the fiscal
year 1997 level.
My amendment prevents a reduction in services to the homeless which
had been recommended in the consensus budget from the District.
Again, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Faircloth,
for his efforts to produce a bipartisan bill. I would also like to
express my thanks to the Appropriations Committee staff--Terry Sauvain
of the Democratic staff and Mary Beth Nethercutt of the majority--for
their assistance in helping us bring this bill to the floor today.
Finally, Mr. President, with respect to amendments that may be
offered to this bill, I hope my colleagues will refrain from proposing
amendments that
[[Page S9871]]
are not germane to this measure. The new fiscal year begins in only a
few days, and the District of Columbia desperately needs to have its
new budget in place. So I hope we can quickly pass a bill with broad
bipartisan support and send it to the President for signature.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending measure is S. 1156, the
fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia appropriations bill.
This appropriations bill provides Federal payments to the District of
Columbia totaling $820.0 million. The bill provides $190 million for
the Federal contribution to the District of Columbia, $169 million to
operate the District's correctional facilities for felons, $302 million
to build new correctional facilities to replace the Lorton facility,
$146 million to operate the District Court System, $8 million to
implement management reform initiatives, and $5 million to the National
Park Service to support U.S. Park Police operations in the District.
This appropriation is in addition to the resources allocated to the
District by the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997. Combined, the two laws provide tax breaks and mandatory spending
worth $4.5 billion over 10 years. Because the cost of taking over the
District's $5.8-billion pension liability is largely delayed until
after this period, the total bailout is worth substantially more to the
District.
This appropriation bill is at the subcommittee's revised 302(b)
allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
D.C. APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 820 ....... ......... 820
Outlays..................................................... ....... 500 ....... ......... 500
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 820 ....... ......... 820
Outlays..................................................... ....... 500 ....... ......... 500
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 777 ....... ......... 777
Outlays..................................................... ....... 479 ....... ......... 479
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... .......... ....... ......... .......
Outlays..................................................... ....... .......... ....... ......... .......
Senate-Reported bill compared to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.......................................... ....... .......... ....... ......... .......
Outlays................................................... ....... .......... ....... ......... .......
President's request:
Budget authority.......................................... ....... 43 ....... ......... 43
Outlays................................................... ....... 21 ....... ......... 21
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.......................................... ....... 820 ....... ......... 820
Outlays................................................... ....... 500 ....... ......... 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Amendment No. 1248
(Purpose: Technical amendments on the part of the managers of the bill)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which
is a series of technical amendments, on behalf of myself and Senator
Boxer, and I ask they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for
himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1248.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, strike all after the word ``Authority'' on line
11, to the end of line 12.
On page 2, line 22, before the colon, insert: ``, which
shall be deposited into an escrow account held by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, which shall allocate the funds to the
Mayor at such intervals and in accordance with such terms and
conditions as it considers appropriate to implement the
financial plan for the year''.
On page 4, line 4, strike ``$116,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$103,000,000''.
On page 4, line 15, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$43,000,000''.
On page 29, strike all after ``the'' on line 16, to the end
of line 25, and insert: ``District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
(Authority). Appropriations made by this Act for such
programs or functions are conditioned only on the approval by
the Authority of the required reorganization plans.''.
On page 33, strike all after ``Financial'' on line 19, and
insert: ``Responsibility and Management''.
On page 41, strike all after ``(B)'' on line 24, through
``$129,946,000'' on line 25, and insert: ''$4,811,906,000 (of
which $118,269,000''.
On page 42, line 16, after ``Assistance,'' insert:
``Authority''.
On page 17, after the period on line 25, insert:
Correctional Industries Fund
For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the
District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment
Act, approved October 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-
622), $3,332,000 from other funds.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I ask
for its immediate adoption.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This has been cleared. We urge adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1248) was agreed to.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, we were expecting some other people to
offer amendments and I assume they are coming down.
In the meantime, 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. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Legislative Branch Appropriations
Conference Report
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 5:45 p.m.
tonight the Senate proceed to the legislative branch appropriation
conference report and at that time a vote occur on adoption of the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I ask that it be in order now to ask for the yeas and
nays on the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1249
(Purpose: To provide scholarship assistance for District of Columbia
elementary and secondary school students)
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Coverdell and Mr.
Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1249.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oregon is waiting
to bring forward an amendment and I will not take but just a few
minutes. We have sent the amendment to the desk as the pending
business. It will be debated tomorrow. Senator Lieberman and I are
joining as cosponsors in offering this amendment. I have a number of
Senators, I think on both sides of the aisle, that wish to speak to it.
There will be ample time for them to speak tomorrow on the amendments.
They do not need to be concerned about rushing over here now. We did,
however, want to have the amendment introduced so it is the pending
business when we begin tomorrow.
In brief summary, the amendment provides opportunity scholarships for
children in the District of Columbia in grades K through 12 whose
family income is 185 percent or below the poverty level. The
scholarships can be used for tuition costs of public or private
scholarships in the District of Columbia, and adjacent counties in
Virginia and Maryland. Scholarships are available for tutoring of
students who attend public schools in the District.
The legislation creates a District of Columbia Scholarship
Commission, a seven-member private, nonprofit corporation, to
administer the scholarship program and certify institutions that will
be eligible to participate in the scholarship program. One board member
will be appointed by the mayor of
[[Page S9872]]
Washington, DC, and the remaining six are to be appointed by the
President, three from the list of nominees provided by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and three by a list of nominees provided
by the majority leader of the Senate, both in consultation with the
minority. Members must be residents of the District of Columbia and may
not be Federal Government employees.
Students whose family incomes are below the poverty line may receive
a scholarship of up to $3,200. Students whose family incomes are above
the poverty line but below 185 percent of that level may receive the
lesser of 75 percent of the cost of tuition, and mandatory fees for and
transportation to attend an eligible institution, or $2,400. Students
receiving tutoring assistance are eligible for up to $500. Both of
these figures are indexed for inflation.
If there are not sufficient funds available for all of the eligible
applicants, scholarships are to be awarded on a random basis by a
lottery selection. The lottery is required to the extent practical to
award an equal number of tuition scholarships and scholarships for
fees. In other words, there will be no skimming of the green, there
will be no biasing of the selection. If there are more scholarships
than students, then, of course, every student would receive a
scholarship that requested one. It is on a voluntary basis. If there
are more students than scholarships, they will be awarded on a random
basis. The amendment authorizes $7 million for spending in fiscal 1998
out of the Federal contribution earmarked to repay the cumulative
Federal fund deficit for the District of Columbia. This total is $30
million. This $7 million earmark would leave $23 million remaining for
that specific purpose of deficit fund reduction.
I point out that that is above the amount recommended by the
administration. The administration requested a total Federal
contribution for the District of Columbia of $160 million, and the bill
before us, the D.C. Appropriations bill, contains $190 million.
In summary, then, we are not taking a dollar or a penny away from the
D.C. public schools. We are not taking any money away from the current
operating requirements of the District of Columbia that we are funding.
In fact, we are adding $30 million for the purpose of reducing the
general fund deficit. Of that additional $30 million, we are earmarking
$7 million for these opportunity scholarships.
In the interest of time, I will not continue here. I will have much
more to say about this tomorrow. I am looking forward to offering this
amendment, together with my counterpart, Senator Lieberman. This is a
bipartisan effort. We are hopeful that we can begin the process of
providing alternatives to students and their parents, who do not feel
they are getting an adequate education. Our goal is not to undermine
the school system of the District of Columbia; it is to improve it. Our
goal is to move from the status quo, which is failing many, many
students. We think this is an opportunity to do that. We look forward
to debating this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oregon will yield,
I would like to ask for a time agreement of 30 minutes for the
discussion of the amendment Senator Wyden has. Is that agreeable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is proposing a
30-minute time agreement.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I need 30 minutes on my side.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 30
minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to a 1-hour time limit
equally divided?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be
temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1250
(Purpose: To eliminate secret Senate ``holds'')
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mr.
Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1250.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE ``HOLDS.''
(a) Standing Order.--It is a standing order of the Senate
that a Senator who provides notice to leadership of his or
her intention to object to proceeding to a motion or matter
shall disclose the objection (hold) in the Congressional
Record not later than 2 session days after the date of said
notice.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today on behalf of
myself and Senator Grassley of Iowa. Mr. President, one of the most
significant personal powers of a U.S. Senator is the power to
effectively block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming
to the floor of the U.S. Senate. This power has become known as putting
a ``hold'' on a measure or bill that a Senator opposes. It is a power
that a U.S. Senator can exercise in secret. The name of the Senator
placing a hold on Senate business is now held confidentially by party
leadership.
This extraordinary power was once used rarely by Senators, usually as
a matter of common courtesy. In the last 20 years, however, the hold
has become a special tool for influence and leverage. It is especially
valuable at this time--at a time when we are moving toward the end of
the session--because it allows a Senator, secretly, to exercise an
enormous amount of clout over a matter when time is short.
Mr. President, the record is replete with statements of Members of
this body who have indicated that there have been abuses of the hold,
and that this is a procedure that has completely gotten out of hand.
Let me read from the words of Senator John Glenn during the final hours
of the 101st Congress. Senator Glenn said:
I find it deplorable that, suddenly, anonymously, a Senator
or a combination of Senators on the Republican side can stand
against the strong desire of the President and the Office of
Management and Budget for this legislation.
Lest anyone think that this be a partisan matter, Senator Thurmond
said:
I think abuse does arise out of that.
Senator Hatch said:
We get victimized by holds, especially at the end of a
session.
Senator Leahy of Vermont, another senior Member said:
There should not be any holds at all.
He said we just should not have any holds.
Well, I am not proposing anything like that. But I do think that
every Member of the U.S. Senate ought to be held publicly accountable.
I think when one Member of the U.S. Senate moves to effectively block
the consideration of a bill or a nomination, they ought to make it
clear to their constituents that they are the individual blocking this
matter.
Mr. President, as I have worked on this issue with Senator Grassley,
on a bipartisan basis, for a year and a half, I have found that very
few Senators are aware of how extensive some of these abuses are until
it happens to them. For example, I learned last year that, often, a
member of the staff places a hold on a measure and the Senator whose
name in which the hold is placed isn't even aware of it. So what you
have are secret holds, not just by someone with an election
certificate, but by someone who doesn't have an election certificate at
all--a member of the staff.
So I believe that it is time to ensure that the rights of Senators
and the rights under the Senate rules afford substantial opportunities
for Senators to make sure that they are heard and, to represent their
folks, are accompanied by responsibilities. I want to make it clear to
each and every Senator that I, in no way, would limit the right to
filibuster. I would, in no way, limit the right to ensure that they can
speak at length on a motion to proceed. And, in fact, I am not even
going so far as to put any limits on the right to place a hold on a
measure or a matter, other than that a U.S. Senator be public about
what they are doing.
As I have talked about it with my constituents, they raise serious
questions about whether one Member of the U.S. Senate should be able to
effectively block consideration of Senate business at all. So I think
that the
[[Page S9873]]
American people will consider this a very modest reform. I see no
evidence that citizens want this kind of information held confidential,
held secret. So I want to make clear to my colleagues that what I am
against is the secrecy. It is the secrecy that is wrong, not the
question of whether a Senator wants to exercise their rights.
Let me also say that I think it is particularly appropriate for the
Senate to move now. I have discussed this, over the last 15 months, on
a number of occasions with the majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator
Lott, to his credit, has taken several steps to improve the procedures
of the Senate and in dealing with the holds that I think are very
constructive. But what has not been done is there has been no change in
the Senate rules to deal with the issue that I bring up today. A hold
can still be kept secret. A hold can still be kept confidential with
the party leadership.
So, in my view, Senator Lott's proposal and the proposal that he made
on January 27 of this year is a constructive one. It puts in place a
number of sensible changes, such as disallowing what are known as
``block holds,'' where a Senator would put a hold on a block of bills.
But it still keeps this procedure and the use of one of the most
extensive personal powers a U.S. Senator has secret. So I hope that as
the Senate considers this legislation--and it is only one sentence
long, it is not a complicated amendment; it is only one sentence long.
I hope that the Senators will see this for what it is, which is to
bring sunlight to the debate over the Senate's rules.
I will be speaking for a few additional minutes, Mr. President, but I
understand that the chairman of the subcommittee has asked to make a
change in the time for the vote that he had arranged earlier. I am
happy to yield to him at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Legislative Branch Appropriations
Conference Report
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, speaking for the leader, I ask
unanimous consent that the vote on the legislative branch
appropriations conference report now occur at 6 o'clock today, rather
than 5:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 1250
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this effort that Senator Grassley and I
have pursued for many months has been endorsed by a number of groups
that are seeking to try to make the U.S. Senate more open in the way it
conducts its business. Common Cause, for example, is an organization
that has sought to have public disclosure of this particular procedure.
What we are talking about here is if a Member of the U.S. Senate is
going to exercise this extraordinary, unilateral power, there should be
sunshine; sunshine, we all know, is the very best disinfectant. It is
an opportunity for all Members of the U.S. Senate to have a chance to
be part of the debate because at least they will know who they are
debating with. What is the most ironic part of the use of the hold is
that the Senate, in which every Member takes pride, an institution to
foster debate about important issues, doesn't in many instances allow
for a Member of the U.S. Senate to even know who they are debating with
because one Member of the Senate has anonymously blocked the issue. So
let me be clear with respect to what this legislation does. This
applies to a Senator who is digging in and making it clear that they
object to a measure or a nomination.
This is not an individual who perhaps needs to know when an amendment
is coming up, or perhaps have an opportunity to come over to the Senate
floor to speak on a measure or matter. That is not what is being
discussed here. What is being discussed here is making sure that when
there is a full court press to oppose a bill or a nomination that that
kind of opposition be brought to light.
We had some recent experience with how influential polls can be. For
example, we saw that in the last Congress, to quote USA Today on the
matter, ``A skulk of faceless Senators is using a series of
parliamentary holds to dry gulch legislation extending health insurance
to millions of Americans.''
That wasn't 20 years ago. That wasn't 30 years ago. That was an
anonymous hold that was used to influence an important piece of health
care legislation in the last session of the U.S. Congress. The fact is,
Mr. President, that this procedure, which was once a matter of common
courtesy, is now so widely used that it has become one of the most
frequent ways to prevent any public disclosure of Senate business.
I hope that as we look to these last few days of this session--I
bring this to the floor now because I believe that the abuse of the
hold is most likely during these last few days of the session--that we
take this opportunity to make the U.S. Senate more open and more
accountable.
Right now, if a Senator seeks to personally block a measure or
matter, there is no cost to them. They face no disapproval because no
one would know who they were disapproving of. The fact is that this is
a process and a power, an enormous power, held by the U.S. Senate that
is exercised in the dark. It seems to me that it carries the odor of
back room deals, abuse of privilege, and a body that cares more about
individual personal desires than those of the American people.
This isn't cutting off the right of any Member of the U.S. Senate.
Every Senator can still filibuster. Every Senator can still exercise
their rights with respect to a motion to proceed. It simply says that
it has to be done publicly.
Let me also say that it has been the experience of Senator Grassley
and myself that you can do this, and, as Senator Grassley has told me,
it doesn't hurt. For example, just a week ago Senator Smith and I felt
strongly, on a bipartisan basis, about issues with respect to a C-130
crash that carried Oregonians who were reservists. At that time,
because we were seeking answers from the military and given the fact
that the appointment of the new head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was
forthcoming, I put a hold on that nomination for a brief period of
time. I made it clear on the floor and in other forums that I was the
Member of the Senate who did it. I published it in the Congressional
Record, just as my amendment calls for.
So, during that period, there was, over a short few days, an effort
to have a public discussion about this matter. There were also
bipartisan discussions with Senator Thurmond and Senator McCain, and
others were extremely helpful in the efforts that Senator Smith and I
made on this matter. And early the next week the hold that I had, which
was public, I lifted. The needs of my constituents were addressed, and
the American people saw a good man--a good man--General Shelton,
confirmed to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, Mr. President, what we have done, Senator Grassley and I, is we
have practiced what we preach. We don't believe that it abridges our
rights in any way. All we are saying is that there is no reasonable
place for protracted ongoing anonymous delay. That is what we think is
wrong. There is no place, as the New York Times recently said, for
``the hold as currently practiced.''
So I am not suggesting today, Mr. President and colleagues, that the
hold be abolished. I am not suggesting that the filibuster be changed
in any way. I am not suggesting that on the motion to proceed there be
any change. All I am saying is when a hold is put on a matter so that a
Senator digs in to personally effectively block the consideration of a
measure or a matter, that within 2 days of that time they notify party
leadership that they are the individual seeking to prevent
consideration of that measure or matter on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, and that they just put a little notice in the Congressional
Record. No big procedure, no hassle, just a notice, just a notice
identifying that Senator as the Senator who has put a hold on a measure
or matter.
Mr. President, my guess is that if my amendment passes, there may be
a variety of ways that Senators may still seek to vitiate the spirit of
what Senator Grassley and I are seeking to do. But I do think that
passage of this amendment will put the U.S. Senate on record. We will
be on record for sunshine. We will be on record as being opposed to
secrecy, and especially we will be taking steps so that at this time of
the session as the session moves into the last few weeks when history
shows
[[Page S9874]]
that you are most likely to have abuses of the hold, we will have shown
that we are willing to make changes that hold the U.S. Senate and each
Member here publicly accountable for their actions.
Mr. President, none of us got here easily. Like many other Senators,
my campaign and my election was something of a trial by fire. No Member
of this body lacks fortitude. I think we can stand some extra added
light. I think we can stand some extra added sunshine. I think that we
can take the secrecy out of the hold procedure and still make sure that
each and every Senator is able to exercise their rights and protect
their constituents.
I believe that the passage of this amendment, at a time when millions
of Americans are especially cynical and skeptical about Government,
will cause citizens to say that the Senate is doing the right thing,
and we will see constituents have a bit more respect for this body as a
result of Senators being willing to be held publicly accountable. This
amendment is not about getting rid of the hold. It is not about doing
anything to a hold other than saying that a Senator has to be publicly
accountable when that one Senator effectively moves to block the
consideration of a bill or a nomination.
Mr. President, I have not been here as long as some, but I read the
statements of Senators who have been here for quite some time--Senator
Glenn, who called it deplorable; Senator Thurmond, who said that there
has been an abuse; Senator Hatch, who said that every Senator has been
victimized by it; and, Senator Leahy, who went far far farther than
anything I would be talking about. He said there shouldn't be any holds
at all.
In fact, in my conversations with Senators, I have been told that
some Senators find this procedure so abhorrent that they will not
exercise it at all, and they are especially frustrated by their
colleagues who do.
So, in closing, Mr. President, let me go back to just how great the
abuse is.
It is one thing if Chairman Faircloth or Senator Boxer or another
Member of U.S. Senate puts a hold on a matter. All of the Senators are
directly responsible to their constituents. What I found is a lot of
Senators didn't even know that a hold had been placed on a bill in
their name.
One senior Member of the U.S. Senate came to me last session, and
said, ``I am for your bill. I think it is a good idea. We need some
public disclosure of these holds. And the reason I am for it is a few
minutes ago a Senator came up to me and said, `Why do you have a hold
on my bill?' And the person who was sympathetic to what I have been
trying to do said, `I don't have a hold on your bill.' '' It turned out
that a staff person had done it in their name.
So what we have is a situation where not just are holds by Senators
kept anonymous and kept confidential, but now we have staff that
doesn't have an election certificate putting holds on these matters as
well.
The hold started out many years ago. I gather from historians that it
is well over 100 years old. It started out as a matter of common
courtesy. It was something that Senators did to accommodate each other
to make sure that an individual could be present to speak on an
amendment, to ensure that they would have an opportunity to be heard if
they had some sort of glitch in their time schedule. That is not what
this amendment addresses. That is not what this amendment addresses at
all.
This amendment is about ensuring that when a U.S. Senator uses all of
their power, every bit of their power, to block a measure or a
nomination, and they exercise those extraordinary rights that each of
us has, that it be accompanied by a responsibility to the American
people. That responsibility to the American people is to tell them,
tell your constituents, when you exercise this extraordinary power that
you are the one who did it. You are the one who blocked a bill or a
nomination.
Let's bring some sunshine here.
I will tell leadership--let me say that Senator Daschle and Senator
Lott have talked with me about this. Both of them have been very
gracious. Senator Daschle indicated that he is in support of this. I
believe that what I am proposing in this amendment complements the
useful changes that Senator Lott, the majority leader, made this
January.
The majority leader, Senator Lott, implemented a number of changes
that I think are constructive, but they still allow for the secrecy.
They still allow for one Senator to effectively block consideration of
a measure or matter.
I gather that the vote on this amendment will be tomorrow.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to be able, prior
to the vote tomorrow, to speak on this amendment again for up to 10
minutes, to be able to ensure that Senators prior to the vote----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. There is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, will the Senator from
North Carolina be open to a question at this time?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. I am proposing that an amendment be accepted by the Senate
that would modestly change one of a Senator's most extensive powers,
the power to secretly block a measure or matter from coming to the
Senate floor. Does the Senator believe that it is not appropriate to
have 10 minutes of discussion of it tomorrow before it comes up?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It might be all right to have 10 minutes, but we will
have to decide it tomorrow. I am not ready now to agree to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON. I will not use the full 10 minutes.
____________________