[Pages S5338-S5380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator, the question
before the Senate is amendment No. 441 in the second degree to
amendment No. 427. The Senator needs to ask unanimous consent for that
to be set aside.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, shortly I think we will have some agreement on an
amendment that I will offer. I thought what I might do is take
advantage of this time to briefly summarize this for colleagues. I
appreciate the hard work of the majority leader and the bipartisan
spirit of this.
Senior citizens face a confusing world of rules, conditions,
exceptions, limitations, and even outright scams when choosing their
supplemental health insurance and grappling with the Medicare system.
Congress recognized the difficulty seniors face when it established a
program, which is really a wonderful program. It is sort of the best
example of grant money going a long way, and is called the Insurance
Information Counseling and Assistance Grant Program in OBRA 1990. This
was a recognition by the Congress that Medicare beneficiaries need
help, not help through a Washington agency, but person-to-person help
at a local level.
All 50 States have established insurance counseling and assistance
programs with the help of Federal grant dollars. As a result, these
programs provide local volunteer based assistance to Medicare
beneficiaries.
Mr. President, this grant program is a perfect example of a small
program--it is basically seed money--that has produced big results. Let
me repeat that--a small program that has produced big results.
Over 10,000 volunteers have been trained through the program, and
over $14 million is saved each year for beneficiaries just by good
counseling for senior citizens who have a difficult time.
I remember that both my mom and dad had Parkinson's disease and, in
the latter years of their lives, among their struggles was the struggle
of just wading through some of the paperwork that they had to do, and
some of the forms that they found bewildering.
In my own State of Minnesota, 300 volunteers have been trained, and
3,300
[[Page S5339]] beneficiaries were assisted in 1994 alone--just in the
State of Minnesota--and $867,000 was saved on their behalf.
Mr. President, I just simply want to make the case that what we are
trying to do here is restore $5.5 million that is part of the proposed
rescissions. What we are working on now is what the offset will be.
This is $5.5 million to be added on to what I think is now being
spent, which is also about $5.5 million, which wil go a long way.
Again, this is not a program centered in Washington, DC. This is a
program that uses a small amount of Federal dollars that goes a long,
long way. We train volunteers in each of our States, and I say to my
colleagues that I know if you just talk to people in your State,
especially senior citizens, you will find that there is a tremendous
appreciation for the Insurance Information Counseling and Assistance
Grant Program.
So I am just trying to restore $5.5 million. We are now working on an
offset. As soon as we have that offset--and I think it will be soon--it
is my hope that my amendment will have unanimous support.
Mr. President, I also want to say to my colleagues, the reason that I
have been working on this amendment is, at least for me, one of the
better reasons to be in the U.S. Senate--the need for this program
comes directly from a lot of senior citizens in the State of Minnesota.
People are really committed to this program. They feel it is not very
expensive. I am just trying to get $5.5 million back in here to provide
counseling assistance to seniors all across the country, and people
tell me it is a huge help to them.
I think this is a good example of public policy that is not overly
centralized, Mr. President, and not overly bureaucratized. It takes
place back in our States and local communities, and constitutes the
best example of using a small amount of money to get a lot of
volunteers to provide a lot of help to senior citizens working their
way through these forms, and it is a wonderful consumer protection and
prevention program against some of the scams that all too often,
unfortunately, happen to seniors.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. I hope soon we will have some
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside
the pending amendment if we have one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 576 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To restore $614,000 proposed for rescission from the Weir
Farm Historical Site, CT, and $700,000 proposed for rescission from the
Jefferson Expansion Memorial, IL, offset by rescissions of $700,000
from land acquisition for the Wayne National Forest, OH, and $690,000
from the Highway Trust Fund; and to prohibit the purchase of lands in
Washington County and Lawrence County, OH)

Mr. GORTON. 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 Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an
amendment numbered 576 to amendment No. 420.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 2, strike ``$11,297,000'' and insert:
``$9,983,000''.
On page 21, line 17, strike $3,020,000'' and insert:
``$3,720,000''.
On page 21, line 17, after ``rescinded'' insert ``and the
Chief of the Forest Service shall not exercise any option of
purchase or initiate any new purchases of land, with
obligated or unobligated funds, in Washington County, Ohio,
and Lawrence County, Ohio, during fiscal year 1995''.
On page 44, line 77, insert the following:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AID HIGHWAYS

(Highway Trust Fund)

(rescission)

Of the available contract authority balances under this
heading in Public Law 100-17, $690,074 are rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment includes five items, all of
which apply within the general direction of the Interior Committee
portions of this bill. They are at the request of individual Senators
and have offsets there for relatively small projects. They have
offsets. They have been cleared with the majority and minority parties.
They include elements in Ohio, Illinois--that is one in which
Missouri is interested--and Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Has the Senator from Washington sent the amendments to
the desk? Are they at the desk?
Mr. GORTON. They are.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, those amendments have been cleared on
this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 576) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Nevada
is prepared to offer an amendment. I wonder if we might agree to a 30-
minute time agreement on the amendment?
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may respond, Senator Bumpers is the
primary sponsor of this. I am trying to reach him. He will be here
momentarily. I am certainly agreeable in principle to the time limit to
accommodate the leader and move this along, but I am reluctant to agree
to a specific time until I speak with him.
Let me assure the leader I will try to ferret out the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas and will be in communication with the leader as
soon as possible.

Order Of Procedure

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just want to give my colleagues a status
report on where I think we are. I believe we are making progress, but I
am not certain because I see some additional amendments that have been
added, additional cost items, add-backs--about $60 million. Then the
offset has been reduced by about $60 million. It is about $120 million
that has sort of disappeared here without our knowledge on this side.
We are perfectly willing to discuss these items or look at offsets
that might be offered.
$46 million for Job Corps; I do not know where that came from. That
came out of the blue; never discussed it yesterday. TRIO, whatever TRIO
is; immigration and education; substance abuse and mental health--all
these things. There is already a great deal of money in the bill for
all of these programs.
Then the IRS offset disappeared. That was $50 million. Library is $10
million; maybe one or two others.
So we have sort of gone backwards on the deficit reduction and
forwards on spending more money. Now, maybe in the overall mix of
things, because this is about a $16 billion rescission package, we
should not quarrel about $120 million. But I think there may be
principle involved here, too.
If we are going to negotiate, then we ought to negotiate and finish
this bill, or finish it tomorrow. I am not going to stay here very much
longer tonight if we are not making any more progress than we are. So
we will come back tomorrow. But I hope before that decision is made we
can come to some conclusion on where these amendments came from. Why
were there not any offsets? Why did we lose some $60 million on the
offset side, savings side? Then I think we would be prepared to reach
some agreement.
[[Page S5340]] I know the Senator from Nevada has an amendment. I
know the Senator from Minnesota has an amendment. And I know there is a
managers' amendment. Then I think there was one additional amendment.
The Senator from Iowa has an amendment on CPB. I thought those were all
of the amendments. Then we discovered there are four more amendments
that have been added back without a vote or anything else. Then there
were some taken out of the savings side without a vote or anything
else.
I just say to my colleagues on the other side. We want to be
cooperative, but we cannot do business this way. I am prepared to see
if we cannot work something out in the next 30 minutes. If not, we will
recess for the evening and come back sometime tomorrow.
Are we yet in a position to get a time agreement? We are never going
to finish it unless some people are willing to give us some time
agreements.
Mr. FORD. Will the majority leader yield for just a moment?
Mr. DOLE. Sure.
Mr. FORD. We are doing our best to try to put things together. I
understand the push. I understand getting out in 30 minutes and coming
back tomorrow. But then you have a cloture petition filed. That ripens
Saturday. So we are trying to put it together, and people understand
that. The amendments that we have there, the new entrants, are the ones
that are the amendments that basically have been agreed to. We have
been trying to put--
Mr. DOLE. On your side.
Mr. FORD. On our side. We are trying to put it together where we can
get that agreement. It becomes very difficult. We understand that there
is no budget out here. We are trying to get rescissions in this year's
allowances. That cuts off a lot of money for people that already
started work. It does make it a little bit difficult.
I wanted to assure the majority leader that we are working. We are
sweating trying to agree to what he is offering here. I just wanted to
assure him. There was not anyone else out here to take it up.
Mr. DOLE. I am not quarreling with the Senator from Kentucky.
I will give you one example. The Senator from Mississippi, Senator
Cochran, has been following the Women, Infants, and Children program,
WIC, very carefully. He is very sensitive to that program. So we are
adding back $35 million, which he says we cannot spend, just cannot
spend it. But you know we added it back. So I assume it will not be
spent. So it is not really an add-on. I am certain there are other
programs which are the same.
But all I am suggesting is I think we are very, very close to getting
this done, except for these new add-backs that I was not aware of, and
then some of the deductions that have gone on that I was not aware of.
So, hopefully, we can resolve those matters very quickly. And one way
to do it quickly is to get Members to give us a time agreement.
I wonder if we not in a position to get a time agreement on the
Bryan-Bumpers amendment so we can move on to some other amendments and
so we are not just wasting our time waiting for the Senator from
Arkansas to give us permission to proceed. Is there another amendment
that we can proceed to?
Mr. BRYAN. I have just been informed that Senator Bumpers should be
here momentarily. Once he gets here, I am can assure the leader that we
are prepared to proceed and enter into a time agreement.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. HUTCHISON). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30
minutes equally divided on the Bryan-Bumpers amendment. In fact, we are
prepared to give Senator Bryan 20 minutes as the proponent of the
amendment and we will take 10 on this side.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the majority leader. That is agreeable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 461 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the market promotion program)

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for Mr. Bumpers, for
himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 461 to
amendment No. 420.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike lines 3-7 on page 4 of the Committee substitute, and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``deleting
`$85,500,000' and by inserting `$0.'''

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I
might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. BRYAN. I yield for the purposes of parliamentary inquiry. Will
that be on our time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, the Senator can have 5 minutes; 10 in
opposition, and take 5.
Mrs. BOXER. That is quite satisfactory. So the agreement is that the
Senator from California would have 5 minutes, and the Senator from----
Mr. DOLE. Wherever.
Mrs. BOXER. Wherever can have 5 minutes.
Mr. BRYAN. Is that satisfactory to the Senator from California?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 minutes, Madam President.
Madam President, this year Ralston-Purina will spend $13 million to
advertise its Chex brand cereal, and Brown-Forman Corp. has budgeted
$20 million to help sell California Cooler, and last year McDonald's
spent $7.7 million in advertising in Singapore alone.
The question arises, what do all of these companies have in common
besides each having multimillion-dollar advertising budgets? The answer
is that they are all recipients of taxpayer funds which is known as the
Market Promotion Program. This program was started in 1986 to promote
American agricultural produce.
Let me just say a word by way of background. The amendment which the
Senator from Arkansas and I have presently before the floor will zero
out funding for this program for this year. Last year, the
appropriators came up with $85 million for this Market Promotion
Program, and in the legislation we are acting on this evening, they
have increased the appropriation level to $110 million.
In my view, this program, which I am going to describe very briefly
in a moment, is corporate welfare. We have debated in this session of
the Congress where we can make cuts in the budget. We have talked about
Women, Infants, and Children and school nutrition programs. Everything
seems to be on the table except the sacred cow of American agriculture,
the Market Promotion Program.
Very briefly, Madam President, the history of this program dates back
a number of years. Currently, we are spending in the neighborhood of
$3.5 billion in America on export promotion--$3.5 billion. Of that sum,
$2.2 billion is set aside specifically for agricultural promotion.
Now, to put this in context, 63 percent of all the money that we are
spending for export promotion in America is devoted to agriculture.
Agriculture represents about 10 percent of the foreign exports from
America. So it is my view that is a disproportionate, indefensible
amount. But let us put that aside for the moment. We can debate the
merits or demerits of spending $2.2 billion in agricultural promotion.
I am talking about the Market Promotion Program. This is a program
which, as I have said, is corporate welfare. It is the equivalent of
food stamps
[[Page S5341]] for the largest corporations in America.
The way this program works is that advertising budgets of some of the
large corporations in America are supplemented by taxpayer moneys. Now,
Conagra, a good company, makes the kind of products that are household
names in America: Country Pride, Chung King, Wesson, Butterball, Swift,
Peter Pan, Armour, Banquet, Swiss Miss. Since 1986, this company has
received in taxpayer dollars $826,000. This company has, by 1994
financial data, $462 million in net profits. The advertising budget is
$200 million. The CEO receives compensation of $1.229 million annually.
How in God's world do we justify, Madam President, spending taxpayer
dollars to supplement this program? This is a company that is large; it
is successful; and they can effectively handle their own advertising
and promotion budget.
Jack Daniels, a product that is familiar to many of us, $2.41 million
is what they have received through the Market Promotion Program and its
immediate predecessor, TEA [Targeted Export Assistance]. The 1994
financial data: Net profits of $146 million, an advertising budget of
$74 million, CEO compensation of $703,000.
Again, Madam President, I suggest that it is indefensible to call
upon the American taxpayer to subsidize a company of this size.
McDonald's. Who among us does not enjoy a Big Mac? I know I do. But
this is a company that has received, since 1986, $1.6 million, taxpayer
dollars, all taxpayer money, to supplement a company that makes a net
profit, according to the 1994 data, of $1.2 billion, that has an
advertising budget of nearly $700 million, and CEO compensation of
$1.78 million.
In addition to this, it is not only American companies that receive
it. Here is a list--not a complete list--of foreign companies that
receive money from the American taxpayer.
The point to be made is that at a time when we are making some very
tough budget cuts--very tough budget cuts--we are talking about the
most vulnerable in our society who have been asked to step forward,
whether it is the WIC program, or whether it is school nutrition, or
aid to our schools in terms of drug assistance.
All of these programs have been hotly debated, but for some reason
these agriculture programs are sacrosanct. It is time to eliminate
these programs. First of all, they are indefensible in terms of
taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize them. And secondly, there is a
question as to its effectiveness.
The General Accounting Office has done an evaluation, and they find a
number of problems with this program. Number one, it is not clear
whether the taxpayer dollars that are going into the advertising budget
simply are being exchanged for advertising money that is already in the
corporate budget.
Secondly, there is no criteria as to who is eligible--big company,
small company.
Third, there is no criteria as to how long you stay in. Do you get in
and stay forever?
Now, there has been at least one reform that has been added that you
have to get out in 5 years. But that is 5 years from 1994, and that
means some of these companies have been in this program since its
origin.
There is no objective statistical data, absolutely none, to suggest
or to prove that in fact these dollars have assisted our export
promotion program. Madam President, I remind my colleagues that we are
spending separate and apart for this one agricultural promotion $2.2
billion. Now, you will recall agricultural exports represent 10 percent
of the exports from America. We are spending 63 percent of a total of
$3.5 billion that is being spent by the Federal Government on export
promotion.
There are other brand names that are household products. I think the
American taxpayer is entitled to be absolutely outraged when you look
at some of these companies, highly successful companies. I have no
quarrel with the companies. My quarrel with them is the fact that
American taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the corporate giants in
America.
Let me just give you some more information here. Welch's, marvelous
fruit juice, and others, they have received since 1986 $5.8 million;
Blue Diamond, these are the folks who are involved in nuts, $37
million; Dole fresh fruit, $9 million. If the Pillsbury Doughboy looks
a little chubby to you all, it is because the American taxpayer has
been subsidizing his diet pretty heavily. Pillsbury, it says, received
during this period of time $10 million.
So my point, Madam President, is that if we are serious about cutting
the deficit, if we are serious about making the hard choices, the tough
cuts, we have to begin with programs like this. Corporate welfare ought
to be on the line every bit as much as the other programs which have
been targeted in this Congress either for elimination or reduction.
Let me say this is not a liberal amendment nor a conservative
amendment that my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from
Arkansas, and I offer. This is an amendment on which those who are to
the political right in America, the Cato Institute, and those who are
the moderates in America, the Political Aggressive Policy Institute,
have taken a look at this program and both have reached the same
conclusion: This is a program that ought to be eliminated.
To conclude, Madam President, it is time to take these companies off
the taxpayer dole. They are capable of fending for themselves. They
have marvelous programs, sophisticated staffs. They pay their people
top dollar in terms of their promotion programs. The American taxpayers
ought not to be asked to spend their dollars to supplement these
advertising accounts. The time for action is now.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
I rise to oppose the amendment by my friend and colleague from
Nevada. We agree on many things. This is one on which we do not agree.
To zero out a program like the Market Promotion Program, which we know
is working--and, when my colleague says there is no statistical proof
it is working, I have other reports than he does on that matter. But to
cut a program that is working to increase our exports, when we are
approaching the 21st century mark and exports are crucial to our
economy--and promoting those exports is certainly crucial to that--I
think it would be a very radical move.
We have a budget that is coming up for review. We are going to look
at this program in that budget review. After we do that--and I am on
the Budget Committee--as my friend knows, we are going to take a real
hard look at all of these things in the various authorizing committees
and, of course, in the Appropriations Committee.
But to take this move today to eliminate this program, I hope that we
will not go along with it.

The Marketing Promotion Program is an important tool in expanding
markets for U.S. agricultural products from California to many other
countries in the world.
We talk today about redirecting farm spending away from price
supports. I support that. I think we should move away from price
supports. But we also should work toward expanding markets. I think it
makes a lot of sense to do that.
My friend from Nevada says there is no statistical data to show that
the Marketing Promotion Program is working. I would like to call to his
attention a U.S. Department of Agriculture study. They estimate that
each marketing promotion dollar results in an increase in agricultural
product exports of between $2 and $7.
Madam President, that is a very good return on our money. Indeed, any
business person would say if you put $1 in and it results in $2 of
increased sales and even up to $7 in increased sales, that is a very
sound program.
And my colleague talks about large beneficiaries. Well, I think he is
overlooking the number of small beneficiaries. We have seen much-needed
assistance to commodity groups comprised of small farmers who are
unable to break into those markets on their own. And I think that is a
very important point.
I have been to the fertile valleys of California. I have met with
those small farmers. I have seen those family farms. And alone they do
not have
[[Page S5342]] much power. But they come together as cooperatives, and
they work together as marketing groups, and with the Market Promotion
Program they have been successful in breaking into the export markets.
So I think it is fair to say to my friend that the small growers and
the small farmers have benefited greatly. And that is one of the
intentions of the program.
I also want to point out to my friend that last year a task force of
the U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council met for 2 days in
Leesburg, Virginia. Their function was to review the role of the
Marketing Promotion Program and other agricultural programs as part of
our overall trade policy. The task force concluded that the purpose of
the Marketing Promotion Program is to ``increase U.S. agricultural
product exports.'' It also concluded that the increase in such exports
helps to ``create and protect U.S. jobs, combat unfair trade practices,
improve the U.S. trade balance, and improve farm income.''
And I am directly quoting from that meeting.
So I would say to my friend, although he has not found any
documentation that this program works and it helps us and, in fact, is
a wise investment, there are certainly other groups that have found
that it is a wise investment. And it should be supported.
I would like to say to my friend, in closing, that we should look at
what other countries do. Sometimes we do not look at the fact that
other countries push for their exports, push for their agricultural
products, promote their products, and fight for their products. And
what do we do sometimes? We walk away from a program like this and let
our people twist in the wind.
Madam President, I see my time is up.
I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? If not, so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I will conclude here. I think that we would be making a big mistake,
as we move toward this global marketplace, to walk away from the
Marketing Promotion Program. Our competitors have programs that do far
more for their agricultural products than we do. And there is a reason.
They understand that exports are key to any country's success as an
economic power.
We do not have a level playing field out there. That is clear. So I
hope that my friend would agree with me that there is no level playing
field, and other countries are out there pushing hard for their
products, helping their farmers to push exports. This is our only
program that does that.
I hope we will defeat his amendment.
I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10 minutes 39
seconds remaining.
Mr. BRYAN. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas whatever time he
wishes.
Mr. BUMPERS. How much time remains for the proponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 31 seconds.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I will yield myself such time as I may
use, which I hope will be less than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. First of all, I want to thank my colleague and very good
friend, Senator Bryan, of Nevada, for his unstinting efforts in this.
In 1993, Congress directed GAO to prepare a report on the
effectiveness of the Market Promotion Program. The report that came
back was less than satisfactory. Subsequently, for Fiscal Year 1994, we
cut MPP from $147.7 million to $100 million. In Fiscal Years 1991 and
1992, the funding level had been at $200 million.
Last year, as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture and Rural Development, I made every effort to eliminate
this program. However, the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr.
Gorton, was successful in reinstating the program, both in the
committee and on the floor.
Madam President, I do not see how we can go through the agony we have
been going through in here in trying to cut spending, particularly in
light of the fact that we are cutting spending for school lunches and
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and for a host of other
things which, in my opinion, have great merit and go right to the heart
and soul of America. How we can cut spending for them and actually add
nearly $25 million to the Market Promotion Program? It was at $85.5
million for Fiscal Year 1995 and it now stands, by virtue of the bill
now before the Senate, at $110 million.
Senator Bryan and I now propose to eliminate the Market Promotion
Program and apply the savings toward deficit reduction. We are not
setting it aside for something else. I would love to take this and put
it in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but we chose to offer
this amendment and apply the $110 million for pure deficit reduction.
I do not believe any member of this body should be able to keep a
straight face and support some of the measures we are voting for when
we cannot kill a program, like MPP, that is a pure subsidy for some of
the biggest corporations in America and abroad. If we were solely
promoting an industry, an industry-wide product or an agricultural
product, as we do in the Export Enhancement Program, it might make a
little sense. But we are promoting brand loyalty. With MPP, we are
using federal funds to promote a large number of popular retail items
that most of us know as household words. MPP funds have been used to
promote McDonalds' products, Gallo Wines, and several popular items
produced in my State which we can all easily identify in grocery stores
across the Nation.
Look down the list of the people who benefit from this--143 foreign
firms. You inquire, what on Earth are we doing spending American
taxpayers' money subsidizing foreign companies and promoting their
brand loyalty? The answer: They use some American products. So if
foreign companies that use our products want to advertise their brand
and create a brand loyalty, we give them money, too.
And, in addition to 143 foreign corporations, Madam President, over
700 American corporations participate in this program just last year
alone.
I am not blaming them. When Uncle Sam throws a big trough full of
money out and says, come and get it, if I were one of these
corporations and I had a foreign presence, as most of them do, I would
get up there and apply for it, too.
Now, Madam President, I started off saying that the 1993 GAO report
gave us reasons to question the validity of this program. More
recently, another GAO report was prepared which I received in March of
this year, just a couple of weeks ago.
No Senator should vote on this amendment until they look at the March
1995 GAO report.
Here is what they say, and this is the meat of the whole argument:

The Foreign Agricultural Service has no assurance that
marketing promotion funds are supporting additional
promotional activities rather than simply replacing company
industry funds.

The GAO did not just reach that decision without substantial program
review. They studied it, and they said there is no evidence that this
money is going for additional promotional activities that the companies
themselves would not spend if we torpedoed this program. You cannot
find a more compelling reason to vote for anything around here than a
GAO report offers findings such as this.
If we were going to champion a program such as this--and I am not
prepared to do that yet--it ought to be for small business, or
companies new to market U.S. agricultural products abroad. Not big
businesses that have been in the export business for years.
So, Madam President, I hate to use the term corporate welfare because
big corporations make a contribution to this country, although members
of the national press have not hesitated to attach that label to some
results of the Market Promotion Program. I am not blaming them for
standing at the trough and getting this money. There are 716 domestic
and 143 foreign firms that received MPP funds in Fiscal Year 1994, and
some of these are among the largest commercial enterprises in the
World. Look down the list. It is shocking.
[[Page S5343]] Here is an opportunity to save $110 million, of which
it can be argued that the farmers of this nation are only the indirect
beneficiaries, if even that; $110 million in genuine deficit reduction,
much of which will otherwise go to some of the most affluent companies
we know.
I listened to some Senators on the other side of the aisle 2 evenings
ago talking about pork, talking about the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting being an outrageous waste of the taxpayers' money. Here is
an opportunity for everybody to quit talking and making partisan
points. We need to make better use of our limited federal resources. We
should join hands and eliminate this funding and allow these large
companies to float free and easy on their own and spend their own
money.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time
that the distinguished Senator from Nevada has.
Mr. COCHRAN. What is the situation with the time? How much time
remains on each side, allocated to individual Senators?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators in opposition have 5 minutes; the
proponents have 3 minutes 28 seconds.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. How much time on our side is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 28 seconds.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, let me, in the interest of moving this
debate forward, just express my appreciation to the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas for his efforts and make just a couple of brief
points, if I may.
He made the observation, which is absolutely correct, that there are
140 foreign companies. Here is a partial list of them right here. Some
of the names you may know and some, frankly, I have never heard of, but
140.
To make the point that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was
making, from 1986 to 1993, 20 percent--20 percent--of the budget for
this program for branded advertising--that is the McDonald's and the
rest of it--goes to foreign companies. Twenty percent, American
taxpayer dollars. I do not know how you justify and how you support
that.
The other point that I would like to make is the GAO report that the
distinguished Senator makes reference to has a very interesting piece
of testimony, and that is, one of the recipients of the program was
asked by the auditors, ``How did you all become involved in the
program?''
``Well,'' she said, ``we got a phone call. They said, `Would you like
to get some money?'''
As the Senator from Arkansas said, I do not fault the company.
She said, ``Tell me how.''
``Look, we are passing out money on this program called the Market
Promotion Program,'' and, indeed, the company did. The company,
Newman's Own, Paul Newman's food company. They just got a call which
said, ``Look, would you like help for your advertising bills? We will
reimburse you.''
This was the testimony of A.E. Hotchner, from Newman's Own.
``We would be delighted to take it.'' As the Senator from Arkansas
made the point, number one, it has not been established that it has
accomplished its desired purpose. It is not effective. Is that not a
prime reason to zero it out? And secondly, philosophically, I must say,
Madam President, it sticks in my craw. Companies like this, and good
companies--I am not maligning these companies--would get into the
public trough and get this kind of taxpayer dollar when everybody in
this Congress has talked a pretty good talk about reducing the deficit.
This ought to be a no brainer. This is not a difficult decision. This
is one in which we should say these companies ought to have the ability
to fly on their own.
I yield the floor and reserve any time I may have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 seconds left.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first of all, let me say putting the
sign of McDonald's on the floor of the Senate and suggesting this
program is designed to subsidize McDonald's, or any other particular
firm, is an outrageous distortion of this program.
Let me read to you a memo written by the Poultry and Export Council
about the McDonald's issue. It says in part:

Yes, our Council has used MPP to help McDonalds sell more
American chicken--but not to promote McDonalds. The facts are
that McDonalds franchises in other countries are foreign
owned and operated. They are under no obligation to buy U.S.
poultry or eggs and can readily find lower priced (and lower
quality) product in Thailand, Malaysia or elsewhere.
But by allowing McDonalds to apply for and receive matching
funds under MPP, requires their franchisees to be entirely
supplied with U.S. products. The point is, we are NOT
promoting McDonalds, we are getting McDonalds to advertise
U.S. chicken and eggs. And it has been quite effective. In
fact, the state of Arkansas has likely benefited more from
this activity than any other state.

The point is this: The market promotion funds are made available
almost 97 percent to non-profit and related U.S. trade associations,
including state departments of agriculture. The National Cattlemen's
Association says these funds have helped them break into the market in
Japan, in Korea, and build market share.
We have seen the funds used in other countries for the same purpose,
to try to overcome barriers to U.S. trade. The program has helped
farmers, it has created jobs in America, and it has benefited every
community.
I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to print a copy of a letter
from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports in the Record,
which shows a listing of all of the agriculture and farm commodity
groups in America that benefit from this program because they can sell
what they produce more effectively with this program's promotion money
in overseas markets when they have to combat the unfair and competitive
subsidies from other countries.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:

Coalition to Promote

U.S. Agricultural Exports,

Washington, DC, March 28, 1995.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: We are writing to urge your continued
strong support for maintaining and strengthening funding for
USDA's export programs, including the Market Promotion
Program, when the Senate takes up the FY 1995 supplemental
appropriation and rescissions package.
As approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, the
package includes $24.5 million to restore funding for USDA's
Market Promotion Program to its authorized level of $110
million. Such an increase, we believe, sends a strong and
positive message that U.S. Policies and programs will remain
equally competitive with those of other countries as allowed
under the Uruguay Round GATT Agreement.
For this reason, we are very concerned over possible
amendments to reduce or even eliminate funding for the entire
program when the package comes to the Senate floor. Such
action would be devastating to U.S. interests--especially in
the face of continued subsidized foreign competition.
The GATT agreement, it should be emphasized, did not
eliminate export subsidies, it only reduced them. The
European Union (EU), which outspent the U.S. by 6 to 1 over
the last 5 years, will be able to more than maintain its
historical advantage. As export subsidies are reduced, they
and other competitors can be expected to redirect much of
those resources into other GATT allowable programs, including
market development and promotion, to maintain and expand
their share of the world market.
In fact, the EU and other competitors, including Australia,
Canada and New Zealand, are moving aggressively with their
farmers and ranchers, and other exporters, in support of
market development and promotion efforts. According to USDA,
total expenditures for such activities are estimated at
nearly $500 million--well above similar expenditures by the
U.S. and are expected to increase.
American agriculture is the most competitive in the world.
But, it is not enough to be economically competitive. U.S.
policies and programs also must be competitive. Many of us
supported the Uruguay Round agreement because of assurances
that U.S. policies and programs would continue to be
maintained and aggressively implemented to the full extent as
allowed under GATT and U.S. law. Without this commitment,
America's farmers and ranchers will be at a substantial
disadvantage in the new global trade environment.
[[Page S5344]] U.S. agriculture exports, which are
projected to reach as high as $48.5 billion this year,
account for as much as one-third of total production. In
addition to helping strengthen farm income, exports are vital
to our nation's economic well-being as highlighted below:
Jobs--Nearly one million Americans have jobs which are
dependent on agriculture exports. A 10 percent increase in
exports would help create as many as 100,000 jobs.
Economic Growth--U.S. agriculture exports help generate
approximately $100 billion in economic activity and account
for $8 billion or more in federal tax revenues.
Balance of Payments--U.S. agriculture exports result in a
positive trade balance of nearly $20 billion. Without
agriculture, the U.S. trade deficit would be even higher.
Again, such economic benefits can only be maintained to the
extent that U.S. policies and programs remain competitive
with those of our foreign competitors. America's farmers and
ranchers, and others engaged in international trade, can not
and should not be required to compete alone against the
treasuries of foreign governments.
USDA's Market Promotion Program has been and continues to
be an important element in our nation's trade strategy and in
helping U.S. agriculture build, maintain and expand export
markets in the face of continued subsidized foreign
competition. As a cost-share program, it has been extremely
cost effective with farmers and ranchers, along with other
participants, required to contribute as much as 50 percent of
their own resources in order to be eligible. It has also been
highly successful by any measure.
For these reasons, we urge your continued strong support
and that you oppose any amendment which would reduce or
eliminate funding for this important program.
Sincerely,
Ag Processing, Inc.
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Forest & Paper Assn.
Amerian Hardwood Export Council.
American Meat Institute.
American Plywood Association.
American Seed Trade Association.
American Sheep Industry Assn.
American Soybean Association.
Blue Diamond Growers.
California Avocado Commission.
California Canning Peach Assn.
California Kiwifruit Commission.
California Pistachio Commission.
California Prune Board.
California Table Grape Commission.
California Tomato Board.
California Walnut Commission.
Cherry Marketing Inst., Inc.
Chocolate Manufacturers Association.
Diamond Walnut Growers.
Dole Fresh Fruit Company.
Eastern Agricultural and Food Export Council Corp.
Farmland Industries.
Florida Citrus Mutual.
Florida Citrus Packers.
Florida Department of Citrus.
Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
Hop Growers of America.
International American Supermarkets Corp.
International Apple Institute.
International Dairy Foods Association.
Kentucky Distillers Association.
Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council.
National Dry Bean Council.
National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
National Cattlemen's Assn.
National Confectioners Assn.
National Corn Growers Assn.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Cotton Council.
National Milk Producers Federation.
National Peanut Council of America.
National Pork Producers Council.
National Potato Council.
National Renderers Association.
National Sunflower Association.
National Wine Coalition.
NORPAC Foods, Inc.
North American Export Grain Association.
Northwest Horticultural Council.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
Produce Marketing Association.
Protein Grain Products International.
Sioux Honey Association.
Southern Forest Products Assn.
Southern U.S. Trade Association.
Sun-Diamond Growers of California.
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California.
Sunsweet Prune Growers.
The Catfish Institute.
The Popcorn Institute.
Tree Fruit Reserve.
Tree Top, Inc.
Tri Valley Growers.
United Egg Association.
United Egg Producers.
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.
USA Rice Federation.
U.S. Feed Grains Council.
U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
U.S. Meat Export Federation.
U.S. Wheat Associates.
Vodka Producers of America.
Washington Apple Commission.
Western Pistachio Association.
Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association.
Wine Institute.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me give one example. The European
Community this year is going to spend $89 million just promoting wine
exports and subsidizing wine exports, a lot of that into the U.S. This
entire program is $85.5 million, and the sponsors of this amendment are
trying to knock out every dollar of it. We are not going to have any
funds left to help combat the unfair and heavily subsidized trading
practices of foreign countries if you take away this tool.
I am hoping that we can increase the funding. It used to be $200
million a year, and because of cuts in this and other programs, we had
to downsize the program. It is now only $85.5 million, and they are
trying to take away that.
The President and the administration requested additional funds to
help companies, to help farm groups and State departments of
agriculture deal with these competitors, to increase their market
share. The administration asked for an increase from $85.5 million to
$110 million, and this committee recommended it, the Appropriations
Committee agreed to it, and we ought to approve it.
I am hoping the Senate will reject this amendment. I yield whatever
time remains to the Senator from the State of Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 1 minute 7
seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a
program that I have not often praised in the past. The Market Promotion
Program (MPP) is designed to help U.S. agricultural producers develop
export markets overseas.
Most people do not associate Vermont with agricultural exports, but
in fact the state exported almost 122 million agricultural products in
1994. The food products industry is the fastest growing sector of the
state's economy. And profitable value added products make up a good
part of that total.
In my state, the Market Promotion Program has fulfilled its potential
to help small companies develop a niche in foreign markets. Thanks to
the program Mexicans have discovered the joys of Vermont maple syrup,
Canada is importing Vermont cheesecakes, Bermudans are drinking our
cider and finding that they like it, and our friends in the United
Kingdom are eating MacIntosh apples they never even knew Vermont
produced.
[[Page S5345]] Through MPP, the Vermont Department of Agriculture is
introducing Vermont companies to new opportunities in Europe, Canada,
Asia and Latin America. During the next year, Vermont companies will be
participating in trade missions and export seminars in Hong Kong,
Guangzhou, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. These opportunities would not be
available to Vermont agriculture without the MPP.
Unfortunately MPP dollars are not always as well spent. As Chairman
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I held oversight hearings on MPP
that uncovered a number of problems with USDA's management of the
program. And, in 1993 I worked for real reform of the program to
correct the abuses that were reducing MPP to a massive corporate
welfare program.
The Market Promotion Program has come a long way from where it was 3
years ago. The Clinton Administration has reformed the program to curb
abuses and focus the program where it should always have been
targeted--toward small businesses. MPP is far from perfect. We must
continue to look for ways to put scarce dollars where they are needed
the most. But eliminating the program is not the way to do it.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I find it simply incredible that almost
the only suggestion for the reduction in funds that we get from Members
who, by and large, have been voting to increase funds for all sorts of
income transfer purposes is to take away funds that help the United
States sell its agricultural products abroad.
This program does more to benefit hard-working American farmers and
food processors than almost any other program we have.
It helps to deal with a terrible deficit in our trade balance, the
largest this country has ever had. It is a more positive impact on what
we do to produce money for our farmers, for the people who work for
them, for those who process food, than practically any other program.
By all means, we should not turn down the opportunity to help our
economy become more and more competitive. We should reject this
amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, is there time left in opposition to the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from Nevada
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, Madam President.
Let me just say in response to my friends on the other side of this
proposition, I am not arguing with the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas that no agricultural promotion is defensible or justified.
We are spending $2.2 billion--$2.2 billion--on agriculture promotion
for exports aside from this program. What I am saying is this
particular program that subsidizes the wealthiest corporations in
America cannot be defended, particularly when we are spending $12.2
billion, 63 percent of all the money spent for promotion around----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment offered
by Senators Bryan and Bumpers and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 461 offered by the
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan]. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] would vote ``nay''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

YEAS--61

Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Leahy
Lott
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--37

Abraham
Bingaman
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Coverdell
Dodd
Faircloth
Feingold
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inhofe
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Moynihan
Nickles
Pell
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith
Thompson

NOT VOTING--2

Helms
Mikulski

So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 461) was agreed
to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me advise my colleagues I think we may
have an agreement here if we can have everybody's cooperation, and we
may be able to finish this bill tonight and we may be able to finish
all other business by voice votes including the defense supplemental,
the district board, kiddie porn and whatever else might be remaining.
So it would mean that my colleagues will be able to tend to other
business tomorrow either here or somewhere else.

Amendment No. 577

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself, Senator Daschle, and others, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself and Mr.
Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 577.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment will be printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.'')
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes
for debate on the Dole amendment to be equally divided in the usual
form and that no amendments be in order during the pendency of the
Dole-Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. DOLE. I am coming to the Senator's.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I further ask that the following amendments be the only
remaining amendments in order and limited to the following time
restraints where noted, all in the usual form. And I have been advised
by Senator Levin he will not offer the one amendment--he does have an
amendment that has been worked out; an amendment by Senator Wellstone
relating to seniors; a managers' amendment, a Hatfield/Byrd amendment;
and a Harkin handback for CPB, and on that there be an up-or-down vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
[[Page S5346]] Mr. DOLE. Excuse me. I did not give times on those
amendments: On Harkin, there will be 20 minutes equally divided; on the
Wellstone amendment, 20 minutes equally divided; and the Hatfield/Byrd
managers' amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an
amendment for which I do not need more than 10 minutes which I intend
to offer.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the
distinguished majority leader, on my amendment, I had initially asked
for 20 minutes on our side. I do not know how much time the other side
will take. I need 20 minutes because I have at least two other people
who want to speak on it. If I can just have 20 minutes, that is fine.
Mr. DOLE. Twenty minutes and we will take 10 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Whatever. The amendment is not only CPB. It is also an
add-back for the senior community appointment program.
Mr. DOLE. What is the total of the amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. The total of the amendment is $40 million.
Mr. DOLE. And it is offset?
Mr. HARKIN. It is offset by the cut in Radio Free Europe. Some of the
money goes to get CPB back up to the inflation increase, and then some
of it goes for the senior community appointment program. The Senator
did not mention it, and I wanted to make sure that it was in there.
Mr. DOLE. So that will be 20 and 10, 20 minutes for Senator Harkin
and 10 minutes in opposition.
Mr. HARKIN. That is fine. My concern, when the unanimous consent was
read, was that when I sent my amendment to the desk and it was also for
somebody in the senior community appointment program, it would not be
pulled out of order on this type of agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure where I
stand, Mr. President.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that,
following the disposition of the above listed amendments, the Senate
proceed to vote on the Hatfield substitute, to be followed by third
reading and final passage of H.R. 1158, as amended, all without any
intervention action or debate.
But before the Chair rules on that, I think it is best to have a
colloquy at this time with the distinguished Senator from New York with
reference to the amendment on Mexico, which would be critical to
winding up this package this evening, as I understand from the
Democratic leader and others.
So I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.
I recognize the situation and the dilemma that the Senate finds
itself in in confronting the necessity of moving forward with this
bill. I recognize that we are moving up against a time deadline.
Mr. President, I am going to say now that I am not going to pursue
this amendment for two reasons. Number one, I do not want to be accused
of scuttling a very difficult agreement that has been worked out, where
other of my colleagues have stepped back, and insist that I be the only
one that goes forward.
Having said that, I want to indicate very clearly that this Senator
is deeply troubled by the manner in which we are discharging our
constitutional responsibility as it relates to Mexico and the attempt
of this administration to help them.
And I want to help. But this Senator wants to see to it that the
dollars that we are committing are used appropriately. I think at the
very least we are entitled to the kind of accountability that we would
be if it were a foreign aid program and even more since it is a clear
circumvention of the manner in which foreign loans should be made.
To that extent, I suggest that the second-degree amendment which was
offered by Senator Murkowski is absolutely, totally appropriate; that
the legislative initiatives undertaken by Congressman Cox should be,
without question, something that is carried out in terms of making
information available to us as it relates to what preceded the crisis
in Mexico before it became public and the collapse of the Mexican
economy. What was our role and what has been our role since then? And
what do we anticipate as we move along?
Again, I will press this matter. I do not claim that the legislative
initiative that I have undertaken should be adopted in its present
form, but I do believe that when we are talking about sending billions
of dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to a program that may or may not work--
and the administration has testified before the Banking Committee that
it may not work--that we have an absolute obligation to know what is
taking place and how it is administered, at the very least.
I do not think that those who say this is without doubt within the
administration's prerogative would deny us that. I believe that is
giving tremendous latitude.
When we come back from our recess, undoubtedly billions of dollars
more of American moneys will have been placed into this program. The
question as to whether or not we will ever have repayment is a very
legitimate question. But how far do we go, in a very important but a
very risky undertaking; how far do we go before we say, ``Wait, this
may not be working''? Do we leave this just in the prerogative of the
Secretary of the Treasury to determine if it is working, or should we
not at the very least have that information?
Mr. President, I tell the majority leader that I will move forward by
way of legislation, if necessary, to at least obtain that information,
obtain the facts. And, in addition thereto, if we find, and if I am not
convinced, that the program is working or that there is a chance of us
recovering moneys, I will then move by legislative action again to
accomplish the things that I have said before on this floor and to cut
off further dollars.
By the time we come back, there is no doubt in my mind that we will
have committed directly from the United States probably in the area of
$10 billion or more. That is a lot of money. We are working on a
rescission package to try to save money. We certainly, at the very
least, are entitled to know that those dollars are being used wisely,
appropriately, and that there is some chance of success, a bona fide
chance of success. That is what troubles this Senator.
So with that statement, I will say that I do want to accommodate my
colleagues, but I also want them to know that there may be more
legislation moving through this Senate, and I reserve the right, as all
of us have that right, to move forward with this initiative. It will be
at a time when there is legislation that may be critical, that the
administration needs or that people are interested in. I will not move
on a piece of legislation that is not critical and therefore be denied
bringing this matter to a vote.
At some point in time, it is my belief that this Congress and this
Senate should be required to vote as to whether or not we should
continue this program.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending
amendment, amendment No. 427.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 427) was withdrawn.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have the agreement.
I think I did ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of
the above-listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the Hatfield
substitute, to be followed by third reading and final passage of H.R.
1158, as amended, without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
[[Page S5347]] Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator
from New York, I think he has raised a very important issue, and it is
not going to go away. Sooner or later, Congress is going to have to
become involved, because we are spending taxpayers' money. I think it
is safe to say that Speaker Gingrich and I indicated early on that we
wanted to support the administration, the President. That is what we
said at that time, and that is what I would say at this time, but with
one caveat: We should know precisely what is happening. And I think
that is the thrust of the Senator's amendment. It is an important
amendment.
We have a responsibility. We are talking about $5 million here in one
amendment we cannot agree on--$5 million. And you are talking about $5
billion. So I just suggest it is important, and I hope that we do not
lose sight of that.
I thank the Senator for withdrawing the amendment. That will permit
us to complete action on this bill, hopefully, tonight or tomorrow at
some hour. I would like to do it tonight.
I ask unanimous consent that all the votes that we order be stacked,
in effect, so we could have all the votes and then final passage, and
then see if we cannot get some agreement to do the rest of our business
by voice vote, if there is no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I also ask unanimous consent that, if there is more than
one vote, any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would also ask my colleagues, even though
they have 20 minutes or 15 minutes, different time allotments, that I
think we could save some time.
I want to thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his
cooperation throughout the day and throughout yesterday, and throughout
part of the night last night.
I believe we are within striking distance of concluding a bill that
now totals about $16 billion in rescissions--$16 billion. This bill
will go to conference and some of the issues that some people have
concerns about will be raised again in the conference. Regardless of
what your concern may be, if you think it is too much or too little, it
can be raised in the conference.
So I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation. I think we
have made progress. I can tell you that the end is in sight.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me also thank all of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in the effort that has
been made to bring us to this point. It has been a long day. There have
been a lot of people who have been responsible for bringing us to this
point, and I want to publicly commend them and thank them for that
effort.
We still have some very big decisions to make on amendments that are
going to be offered. I appreciate everyone's willingness to accommodate
a debate on each one of these issues, but I do think that we are
getting close, and I think that it is an agreement we can all support.
Obviously, people are going to come down on either side of the issue
when we come to final passage, but I think this accommodates Senators
in a way that allows us to get to that point.
So I think it is a good agreement, and I hope that we can work
through the amendments and get to final passage sometime tonight. I
yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 578 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To restore funds to the National Sea Grant's program on
research to control and prevent the spread of aquatic non-indigenous
species)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk which has been
cleared by both sides, reference to which was made by the majority
leader in the UC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Simon, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered
578 to amendment No. 420.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 9, line 16, strike ``$13,000,000'' and insert
``$15,000,000''.
On page 9, line 12, strike ``$37,600,000'' and insert
``$35,600,000''.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sending this to the desk on behalf of
myself, Senator Abraham, Senator Specter, Senator Glenn, Senator Kohl,
Senator Santorum, Senator Simon, and Senator Moseley-Braun.
This amendment will restore $2 million to the research program on the
zebra mussel, which is a pest which has infested the Great Lakes and is
now spreading through the tributaries from and to the Great Lakes.
It is a very important program for the fresh water supply of this
country. The reduction of $2 million will hurt the research program.
Many, many States benefit by it, and the offset for the $2 million
restoration comes from the NOAA construction money.
I understand that this has been accepted on both sides.
The $2 million rescission in the National Sea Grant Research Program
will limit Federal, State, and university research to help stop the
spread of the zerbra mussel, and other non-indigenous species.
Fifteen States' programs would likely continue efforts to educate
natural resource managers as to the devastating impacts of zebra
mussels if this $2 million is restored. They will study these pests'
life cycles to determine when and where they are most vulnerable to
pesticides or nonchemical control. The States that received funds in
fiscal year 1994 besides the Great Lakes States include California,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Texas,
Connecticut, and Florida.
This is not just a zebra mussels amendment. Sea Grant's Program is
crucial. We need to keep cataloging the ways nuisance species
reproduce. There are over 130 nonindigenous species in this country,
two-thirds of which entered the country since 1959, when the St.
Lawrence Seaway was opened.
Some of my colleagues may be familiar with some of the most
economically damaging exotic species that industries, municipal
sewerage and drinking water facilities, boaters, farmers, et cetera
have been forced to confront besides the zebra mussel, such as the
water milfoil, the water flea, purple loosestrife, the round Gobi, and
the ruffe.
But, the zebra mussel invasion provides the most compelling reason to
support research that will enable us to develop control methods and
prevent infestation. The mussel has now spread to 20 States and
continues to spread. Between July and September 1994, mussel densities
on the southern Mississippi River increased from 10/sq meter to 40,000/
sq meter.
A relatively new pest, the ruffe, is spreading throughout the far
reaches of Lake Superior threatening commercial and recreational
fisheries, and is heading toward Lake Erie's $800 plus million perch
and walleye fishery.
The sea grant performs high-quality, peer-reviewed science. It does
not duplicate other nonindigenous programs conducted by other agencies.
My bipartisan amendment would take an additional $2 million out of
NOAA's construction account and restore it to NOAA's National Sea Grant
Program for research on nonindigenous species.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues from the
Great Lakes region, on their efforts to restore needed funding for Sea
Grant's critical research on aquatic nuisance species.
As the cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I have worked
hard to protect and restore the economic and environmental health of
the Great Lakes. This aquatic ecosystem is home to nearly 30 million
Americans who depend on these waters as avenues of commerce, as sources
of drinking
[[Page S5348]] water, and as recreational playgrounds attracting
millions of visitors. Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 101-646) I sponsored in 1990, Sea
Grant is authorized to conduct critical exotic species research which
allows the Great Lakes to provide such a wide range of benefits.
Exotic species cause severe economic and ecological damage along our
Nation's marine coasts and freshwater systems. In a surprisingly short
time, the zebra mussel has spread to 20 States taking a heavy toll on
biodiversity of hosting systems and forcing private and municipal
waterworks and powerplants to withstand increased and costly
maintenance efforts. However, Sea Grant aquatic nuisance species
research is not exclusively dedicated to the zebra mussel. The
restoration of $2.0 million for Sea Grant's nonindigeous species
funding continues research on the serious Eurasian ruffe problem in
Lake Superior which threatens the region's $4 billion fishing industry.
The increasing number of harmful nonindigenous species and their
cumulative impacts continue to create growing economic and
environmental burdens for the United States. Sea Grants research and
outreach efforts complement other Federal programs and enable us to
adopt a national approach toward stewardship of our natural resources.
Reducing funding for the critical aquatic nuisance species research
conducted by Sea Grant will curtail ongoing research which benefits the
Great Lakes and the entire Nation.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct. This
amendment has been accepted on this side.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 578) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 579 to Amendment No. 420

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 579
to amendment No. 420.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Insert after page 7, line 18:

International Broadcasting Operations

(rescission)

Of the funds made available under this heading to the board
for international broadcasting in Public Law 103-317,
$40,500,000 are rescinded.
On page 27, delete lines 4 through 12.
On page 36, line 10, strike ``$26,360,000'' and insert
``$17,791,000''.
On page 36, line 12, strike ``$29,360,000'' and insert
``$11,965,000''.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 20 minutes; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment, offered on behalf of myself, Senator
Hollings, Senator Leahy, Senator Reid, and Senator Kennedy, would
rescind $40.5 million from the funding for the organization known as
Radio Free Europe. Of that money, we would take $26 million and put it
into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in America, and the other
$14 million would go for the Senior Community Service Employment
Program.
Again, Mr. President, I point out that adding this money, this $26
million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, still leaves the
CPB at $29 million less than what was appropriated last year. This does
not even bring it up to the fully appropriated level. It would allow
for only an inflationary increase for CPB.
But I want to point out very emphatically that this amendment does
not even bring the Corporation for Public Broadcasting up to what was
funded last year.
It does take $40 million out of Radio Free Europe, and I think it
reflects an important historical reality; namely, the cold war is over,
and it is time we take some of these old relics of the cold war and we
start defunding them.
Mr. President, right now we have a lot of people who are opposing
Federal funding for public radio and television in the United States.
The same opponents who rail against U.S. contributions to public radio
for Americans are willing to write, without question, a check of almost
equal amount to fund public radio for Europeans to fight a war against
an enemy that no longer exists. In short, sending U.S. taxpayer dollars
abroad to fund public radio in Europe is OK, but using U.S. tax dollars
to finance public radio and TV for Americans at home is not.
Our amendment attempts to correct that injustice by restoring
federally financed public radio for Americans and cutting a little from
U.S. financed public radio for Europeans.
I will also point out that this amendment, plus the $14 million that
is in the agreement, provides for a $54 million total cut in Radio Free
Europe. The Dole substitute, offered by the majority leader, had a $98
million cut in Radio Free Europe. So I am not even advocating cutting
as much from Radio Free Europe as the Senator from Kansas did in his
first proposal. He proposed to cut $98 million out of it. We are only
proposing to cut $54 million.
Even with this cut in Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Europe's funding
level will be $175 million. That is $100 million more than the $75
million the administration requested for this program in fiscal year
1996.
I point out further that President Clinton, in February of 1993,
proposed eliminating Radio Free Europe. He said the cold war is over;
there is no use to keep funding RFE.
Opponents of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are working to
phase out public broadcasting at home and are willing to sustain that
same service in Europe. Make no mistake about it, this is public
broadcasting in Eastern Europe; it is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. But
there are existing alternatives available to Eastern Europeans and
Russians--CNN, FM radio, AM radio, in addition to the Voice of America.
Mr. President, let me recite briefly the history of Radio Free
Europe. It started 40 years ago as a covert operation of the CIA
broadcasting shortwave signals behind the Iron Curtain. All three of
these--Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Voice of America--played a
tremendous role in bringing news and information to people in Communist
countries. They all played a critical role in fighting and winning the
cold war.
I would never have suggested this kind of amendment if the cold war
were still on, but the cold war is over. And yet our overburdened
American taxpayers are still paying more than $200 million for Radio
Free Europe--I have dubbed it ``Radio Expensive Europe''; it is not
Radio Free Europe, it is ``Radio Expensive Europe''--plus another $100
million for the Voice of America and another $2 million for the
administrative costs for the Board of International Broadcasting.
Mr. President, you will hear arguments against my amendment. They
will claim that RFE provides independent broadcasting, and therefore
performs a different role from the Voice of America. Who is kidding
whom? Radio Free Europe, created by the Central Intelligence Agency--
the board that runs it is appointed by the President of the United
States.
Second, Radio Free Europe continues to be funded to this day solely
by U.S. taxpayers. Why? Why not the Germans? Their mark, as we know
lately, is a lot better than the U.S. dollar. Why do the Germans not
come in and
[[Page S5349]] pay a little bit? Why do they not pick up the tab? Or
how about the French or the Norwegians or the Swedes or the Poles or
the Italians? Why do they not come in and contribute?
No, it is our U.S. taxpayers footing the whole bill for Radio Free
Europe. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I want to make my feelings known.
I think Radio Free Europe ought to be zeroed out. But I am not
proposing to do that in this amendment. I am still leaving $175 million
for RFE for Fiscal 1995. I think we ought to come back and zero it out,
maybe next year, but we ought to use some of this money to at least
provide an inflationary increase for public broadcasting here at home,
and restore funding for the senior citizen community employment
program.
Mr. President, let me just talk a little bit more about the Senior
Community Service Employment Program. As I said, the amendment I have
offered takes $26 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
It still leaves it $29 million less than what we appropriated last
year. And it takes $14 million and puts it into senior community
service employment, the only work force program designed to help
seniors, elderly, get jobs in community service.
I suspect all Members have gone to a senior citizens center providing
meal programs, and we know how much good this program does.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from
the Washington Post of January 27, 1995, titled ``A Federal Program
That Does It Right,'' and I also ask unanimous consent to insert a
letter from the National Council of Senior Citizens in support of this
program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1995]

A Federal Program That Does It Right

(By Judy Mann)

Let's say you run a small company and you need a filing
clerk. A 67-year-old Latino woman applies for the job and so
does a newly minted high school graduate. Which one would you
hire?
Precisely. And that's one of the reasons behind the Senior
Company Service Program, an organization that trains low-
income people 55 and older and helps them find jobs.
Participants usually receive minimum wage for 20 hours of
training, and then they go to work, often in community
service jobs that help the elderly. Those subsidized jobs
often serve as bridges into permanent positions.
By last June, the program had placed 27.3 percent of its
people in unsubsidized jobs such as bookkeeping in banks,
driving delivery vehicles, tutoring in schools and working as
health aides. That is a higher rate than the 25 percent job
placement rate in California's program for its welfare
parents.
The Senior Community Service Program is the backbone for
most meals-on-wheels programs and for many day-care centers
in rural areas. an essential feature of the program is that
it matches seniors with the service needs of each community.
The program also works closely with businesses to ensure that
enrollees are getting indispensable job skills.
The program is administered by the Department of Labor,
which contracts with national nonprofit organizations, such
as the National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC) and the
American Association of Retired Persons, to run them. About
70 percent of the enrollees are women, 56 percent are 65 or
older, a third have less than a high school education and
about 40 percent are members of a minority group--one of the
highest rates of minority participation for any domestic
program.
Chris Oladipo, who runs the NCSC program in Prince George's
County, says it is particularly helpful as a bridge for older
immigrants who have trouble earning a living because of
language barriers.
While most employment programs operate on the premise that
they get more for their money by concentrating on young
people, ``we look for the oldest and poorest people we can
find,'' says Andrea Wooten, president of Green Thumb Inc.,
which trains 18,000 people a year.
The programs have also played an important role in
retraining displaced workers, says Donald Davis, who directs
the programs run by the National Council on Aging. He tells
the story of a professional man in San Francisco who had
looked for a job for eight months after being laid off.
``We worked with him for three months. He is now heading up
a multilingual program and making $30,000 a year,'' Davis
says. ``Every study that's been done of this program says it
is one of the most effective ever developed by the federal
government.''
In the three decades since the senior community service and
job training program has evolved, it has enjoyed strong
bipartisan support. But it is in danger of getting caught up
in the current rush to decentralize welfare programs and to
fund them through block grants to states, where various
programs are having to compete with each other for fewer
resources.
David Affeldt, the former chief counsel with the U.S.
Senate Committee on Aging who developed legislation creating
the program, says it came about because block grant programs
historically have not served older workers well. He predicts
that, at a minimum, 15,000 to 20,000 older workers served
each year ``will get their pink slips'' if the program is
funded through block grants.
``One of the main problems that older workers have is that
they are not as visible or outspoken about their needs. . .
.The program has given these people hope and an opportunity
to help themselves while helping others, rather than be
dependent upon public assistance.''
The Senior Community Service Program, also known as Title V
of the Older Americans Act, costs $410 million a year and is
supposed to serve about 67,000 people. ``We actually serve
over 100,000 people because we've used this program to get
people up and out,'' ``says Sheila Manheimer, of the NCSC.
Half the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have
been elected since 1992, and many are riding a streamroller
called ``mandate for change'' without having a very good idea
of the territory they are rolling over. The Senior Community
Service Program serves the poorest of the elderly while
providing a wide variety of services that make our
communities livable. Far from a candidate for dismantling,
this is one federal program that everyone should look to as a
model of what works.
____

National Council

of Senior Citizens,

Washington, DC, March 30, 1995.
Dear Senator: The National Council of Senior Citizens
(NCSC), in behalf of our five million affiliated members,
asks you to vote in support of Senator Harkin's amendment of
H.R. 1158, the 1995 Rescission bill. This amendment is
expected to come before the full Senate today and your
support would be appreciated by seniors and families
throughout the nation.
This amendment would restore funding to many programs
important to the elderly, children and our communities,
including the Senior Community Service Employment Program
(SCSEP), the Child Care Block Grant, the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program, Drug Courts and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting.
The Council is particularly concerned about the $14.4
million rescinded under H.R. 1158 from the Senior Community
Service Employment Program. The SCSEP designs needed
community service programs and provides subsidized training
and part-time employment which maximizes the productive
contributions of older persons in these community services.
Senator, please note that the $14.4 million rescinded under
H.R. 1158 would result in the loss of jobs for almost 3,000
low-income senior citizens now staffing community service
programs nationwide under Title V of the Older Americans Act.
In a January 27 article in The Washington Post, which I
have attached, Judy Mann said it best when she said, ``Far
from a candidate for dismantling, this is one Federal program
that everyone should look to as a model of what works.''
Every study has shown the SCSEP to be one of the most
effective programs ever developed by the Federal government.
Again, please do right by the elderly, young and our
communities by supporting Senator Harkin's amendment
restoring funding to these critical programs. Short of the
changes included in Senator Harkin's amendment, the
Rescission bill does not merit support.
Sincerely,
Lawrence T. Smedley,
Executive Director.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of the 10 minutes allotted
yourself and another 10.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes or whatever more he needs to the
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Harkin and I are
offering would partially restore cuts to public radio and television by
reducing the appropriation for Radio Free Europe.
Radio Free Europe [RFE] is a World War II program, designed to
broadcast news to people living behind the Iron Curtain.
News flash--The Iron Curtain has fallen.
The Cold War is over. While the rest of the world is moving ahead
with satellite communication and other technological advances, we are
still using U.S. tax dollars to support broadcasts by shortwave radio.
I find when I go on the internet, I can reach people in Eastern
Europe. I think I can reach them quicker on internet than by shortwave
radio on Radio Free Europe.
I really cannot see, when we are cutting out our own public
broadcasting, why we are paying for this in Germany.
[[Page S5350]] We are shortchanging an American audience in deference
to overseas listeners.
Our amendment cuts $40.5 million from what U.S. taxpayer is currently
paying to support Radio Free Europe. This will still leave $175 million
for RFE.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would receive $26 million of
this savings.
This is not a total restoration of the cuts in this bill for public
television and radio--we understand that tough choices have to be made.
This restoration will support CPB at the 1995 level with a small
increase to compensate for inflation.
Continuing public television and radio programs are especially
important in rural areas where residents might not be able to afford or
have access to cable programs.
I hear from hundreds of Vermonters each week on how important Vermont
ETV and Vermont Public Radio are to their lives. For some, it is the
only news and educational programming they can get.
We should not be diminishing this valuable national resource.
The remaining savings from the RFE budget would restore cuts to the
Community Service for Older Americans Program.
The war against communism is over. We must focus our efforts on
another battle that is still being waged here at home:
Adoption of this amendment will send a clear signal that our priority
is to support programs that will help educate and enrich the lives of
Americans.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
to be included as an original cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is difficult to
cover the ground in less than 2 minutes.
Let me just make three points. First of all, I want to associate
myself with the remarks of the Senator from Vermont. Second of all, I
would like to focus on the import of this amendment, which is to
restore as much funding as possible for public television.
I go back to just one gathering in Appleton, MN, in southwest
Minnesota, where it is just crystal clear for anyone who wants to look
at public TV that it is far from a ``sandbox for the rich.'' Public
television is so important to the enrichment of lives of citizens in
our country, both urban and rural, but I think especially in the rural
communities it is vitally important.
Second of all, the community service for older Americans program is a
huge success. The way I define ``success'' is we are talking about low-
and moderate-income elderly people who, number one--it is kind of a
marriage--are able to have the dignity of being able to work; and
number two, their work is this service of community, whether it be
delivery of meals to homebound, whether it be taking care of children,
whether it be recreational services.
I remember in talking with citizens in Willmar, MN, we can get a
wonderful feel for how important this program is on the basis of
investment of really very few dollars.
I want to make it clear that I am in full support of this amendment
and proud to be an original cosponsor.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the leader would yield 5 minutes.
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment represents the
complicated dilemmas that can be presented. Of course, I am in favor of
senior citizens, and I also support public broadcasting. In fact, I
contribute and have contributed to public broadcasting through the
years.
As chairman of the Commerce Committee this year I have discovered
that public broadcasting could well become self-funding. I agree with
Al Gore that we need to reinvent and privatize wherever possible.
In talking to a lot of telecommunications people, I discovered that
they plan to get into video dial TV and so forth, and I asked them
where they are going to buy their programming? They would say from Arts
and Entertainment, the History channel, or Learning channel. I said,
``Why not buy it from public television or radio? They have all kinds
of public programming.'' And they said, ``Well, they do not try to sell
it.''
I came up with a plan, along with some House leaders, and an
agreement has been reached, or an informal agreement, with some of the
leading people in public broadcasting to move towards self-funding.
Where would the money come from? First of all, public broadcasting
can digitize and sell a lot of their programming. There is a good
market for that type of programming. They can sell it to the channels I
mentioned as the History channel, the Learning channel, Arts and
Entertainment. Nickelodeon is marketing a lot of children's programming
in France where it is dubbed--educational children's programming. There
is money to be made in this. Public television has taught that.
Second of all, the spectrums that public broadcasting has throughout
the country. Now we are finding that, with modern technology, we have
extra spectrum. They can sell it or rent parts of their spectrum and
make a great deal of money.
Third of all, they have a lot of overlapping spectrum that can be
sold or represented. For example, in the Washington, DC, area, many
homes get two or three public television signals with the same
programming or virtually the same programming. The taxpayers of the
country need some relief.
Fourth, the great bureaucracy that has grown inside the beltway here
and the excessively high salaries that are paid to foundations that get
grants directly from the corporation can be cut. There is great room
for efficiency there.
By the way, our States are not getting their fair share of the money.
In fact, our State legislatures support most of the public broadcasting
in this country as well as private contributors such as myself.
Finally, public stations could make money by getting a bigger
percentage of what is played on the free public platform. I have spoken
out about this, and indeed I commend the board of directors of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting because they passed a resolution to
start getting a bigger percentage of Barney and other programming that
appear on the free public platform provided by the taxpayers of this
country.
Mr. President, the States are not getting their fair share. My little
State of South Dakota, which is vast in geography but small in
population, gets $1.7 million, but they have to send $1 million back
immediately for programming, which they might be able to buy elsewhere
at a better rate.
The ``shields'' used by public broadcasting are children in rural
areas. Let me say the State legislature in my State voted against a
resolution to seek more funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting because it is such a charade they must go through.
So, I believe strongly in lowering the deficit. I believe in less
Government involvement. This is an opportunity, a plan has been
developed, and they are working with a big investment bank in New York
to privatize, to become self-funding.
There is not a need for taxpayers money here. If we are going to
transfer this money, we do not need to transfer it to the corporation.
The House leaders reached an agreement to privatize, to work toward
self-funding. I have outlined various sources of revenue the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get. I have not mentioned
additional advertisement. They already have a great deal of
advertising. They call it ``enhancements'' or something. That is fine.
Even without further advertising they sit on a treasure trove of
resources here. I recently wrote an article in the Washington Post
outlining the five ways public broadcasting can get more revenue
without any more advertising. They are sitting on a treasure trove of
spectrum, of overlapping spectrum. Inside the beltway here their
headquarters are bloated bureaucracies.
The States are really not getting the money that they are supposed to
be getting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post
article I mentioned printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.

[[Page S5351]]

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1995]

Reality-Based Broadcasting

(By Larry Pressler)

``Public broadcasting is under attack!'' ``Congress wants
to kill Big Bird!'' These and other alarmist cries have been
common in recent weeks. The problem is they are lies. That's
right, lies. I tried to conceive of a more polite way to say
it. I could not. With rare exceptions the press largely has
ignored the specifics of the position taken by members of
Congress seeking to reinvent public broadcasting.
I have struggled to make my position clear. Yet the
misrepresentations continue. I am convinced many simply do
not care to report the facts--facts they do not find as
interesting as the scenarios they create. That is too bad.
The average American taxpayer would find the facts extremely
interesting.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, I am not seeking to destroy public
television and radio. I am a strong supporter of public
broadcasting, both in my home state of South Dakota and
nationally. Pull the plug? Absolutely not. Rather, my plan
would expand opportunities and save taxpayer dollars.
Why do I seek change? Because times have changed. Today's
electronic media are vastly different from those of the
1960s, when the current system of federal subsidies for
public broadcasting was established. The old theory of
``market failure'' for educational programming is completely
untenable in today's environment. Educational and cultural
programs can and do make profits when their quality is good
and marketing astute. The only money losers in today's
arrangement are the taxpayers.
A Feb. 24 Post editorial stated it is time for the public
broadcasting industry to face reality. The issue no longer
should be whether federal subsidies for public broadcasting
will be cut. I could not agree more. Congress now is debating
when and how much. The House Appropriations subcommittee on
labor, health and human services already has cut the public
broadcasting budget. The House leadership promises more to
come. I fully expect the Senate to follow suit.
Instead of crying over public cash, it would be more
prudent for public broadcasting executives to use their
talents and resources developing the numerous potential
sources of revenue available to replace the federal subsidy
rather than continuing to fan the flames of fear and
exaggeration. As captains of a major corporation, their
responsibilities should be clear. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR) and the
Public Broadcasting System (PBS) need to learn to stand on
their own feet.
To help in that effort, I recently provided the chairman of
the board of CPB with a plan to end its dependency on federal
welfare in three years. Ideas to end CPB's addition to
taxpayer dollars include:

profits from sales

CPB should renegotiate sales agreements and improve future
agreements to get a larger share of the sales of toys, books,
clothing and other products based on its programming. In
1990, Barney-related products retailed at $1 billion! Steps
have been taken by the CPB board to improve its share of such
sales. More should be done.

make the most of new technology

Use of new compressed digitization technology would permit
existing noncommercial licensees to expand to four or five
channels where once they had only one. Public broadcasting
stations could rent, sell or make use of the additional
channels for other telecommunications and information
services.

end redundancy

At least one-quarter of public television stations overlap
other public television stations' signal areas. Public radio
also suffers from the inefficiencies of redundancy. Ending
this overlap and selling the excess broadcast spectrum would
provide substantial revenues to public broadcasting.

switch channels

Moving public television stations from costly VHF channels
to less costly UHF channels in certain markets would provide
a substantial source of new revenue.

team with other information services

CPB could increase commercial arrangements in the computer
software market and with on-line services.
These are only a few of the ways in which the CPB could
reinvent itself into a self-sufficient corporation for the
'90s and, indeed, for the next century. Ending federal
dependency does not end public broadcasting. Today's subsidy
amounts to only 14 percent of the industry's spending!
Indeed, my current plan asks the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting to end its dependency on federal welfare in
three years--that's one year more than what current proposals
would give welfare recipients to get off federal assistance.
It would be tragic if the public broadcasting industry
ignores its responsibilities when the federal budget is in
crisis. It also would be tragic if the industry spurns
exciting opportunities in new markets and technologies.
Perhaps most tragic of all, however, would be continued
retrenchment from public broadcasting executives crying, ``It
can't be done.'' It can be done. It should be done.
____

Mr. PRESSLER. So, let me conclude by saying that it may well be that
moneys could be transferred from here to there, but they do not need to
be transferred anymore for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The
committee level and the House level gives them more than they need.
I yield the remainder of my time to my chairman.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes; 5 minutes and 8 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains for the opponents of the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time was there originally?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. We have 5 minutes left. Will the Senator from Delaware
take 2\1/2\?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make it real quick. First of all, I
think the characterization of my friend from Iowa is bizarre. It makes
it sound like this is a CIA plot that is still underway. It is one of
the most noble undertakings that the Western World has ever engaged in.
If you ask any people in Eastern Europe, from Lech Walesa to Vaclav
Havel to Boris Yeltsin, and others, who in fact were there before the
Wall came down, they credit Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty more
than any single thing.
Number two, is it still needed? It is needed now. There is an enemy.
The enemy is called censorship, and if you wonder whether or not it is
true, some of us met this week with Mr. Gusinsky, the fellow who has
the media empire in Russia now who is criticizing the present
President. They are threatening to take down the television stations.
They are taking down the radio and television access to the news for
the people everywhere from Slovakia through Russia.
The third thing is this notion it is no longer needed. Mr. President,
25 million people still listen to it on a regular basis in Eastern
Europe and Russia. Anyone who thinks democracy has taken root and the
free market system is in place in those areas, I respectfully suggest
they take another close look. And the notion that they can watch CNN--I
would say to my friends, CNN is in English; it can be censored. It, in
fact, can be impacted upon. And CNN communicates international news,
not what is happening within those countries--as RFE/RL does. What we
are doing is fully emasculating the ability of Radio Free Europe or
Radio Liberty to continue to function.
I am a supporter, an unabashed supporter of public television. I
believe it should be more than it is now. But this is like having the
hearing impaired steal from the physically impaired, from those who are
unable to walk. They are pitting two very important functions of
government against one another. But we should not undermine Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty.
Again, those who think democracy is secure in those areas, please
stand and raise your hands and tell me that censorship is still not the
single biggest enemy of the prospect for freedom to flourish and
democracy to flourish in Eastern and Central Europe.
Let me give a few more examples. In Russia, we have heard about the
media courageously reporting on the war in Chechnya.
But that does not mean that Russia is now blessed with completely
free media.
Last year, the State Duma in Russia adopted a new media law which
requires that State-owned media must inform the public of activities of
the President, Government, and Parliament within 24 hours after any
noteworthy event.
And although the State Department reports that ``print media [in
Russia] functioned largely unhindered,'' this optimistic picture is
clouded by the situation in many provinces:

Regional political authorities [in Russia] resorted to
various devices to close down critical newspapers.

Last winter and spring, during the parliamentary campaign in
Kazakhstan, a television station went off the air for several days when
local authorities, upset by broadcasts critical of the mayor of the
capital, shut off electricity to the station.
[[Page S5352]] In Slovakia, as the Washington Post reported last
Tuesday, the newly elected Government has increasingly pressured--and
at times forced--television, radio, and newspapers to accept wholesale
changes or drop programs.
In my view, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are as important
today as they were during the past 40 years.
Because the establishment of free and independent media in the region
has been a slow process, RFE/RL today have a dual role: To provide a
model of how independent media should function in a free society, and
to keep honest those who seek to reestablish repression and to silence
the press.
This function is not one conceived in the abstract; the practical
reality lies in the public response: The people of the region continue
to tune in to RFE/RL.
In nearly every country in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union, the listenership of RFE/RL today equals or exceeds that of the
Voice of America.
It also exceeds the audience of the British Broadcasting
Corporation's World Service.
All told, some 25 million people in the region listen to RFE/RL on a
regular basis.
Surveys conducted last fall of leading citizens in the region found
that an average of nearly 75 percent supported the continuation of
western radio broadcasts.
Equally important, every leader of the new democracies in the region
continues to urge that these radios remain open.
Let me quote from a letter from Czech President Vaclav Havel to
President Clinton:

[RFE broadcasts] remain important to the development of
independent journalism and democracy in our country.

The Presidents of the three Baltic States expressed a similar view:

These broadcasts [are] an integral part of the continuing
development of [our] democratic institutions.

These are not leaders whose budgets benefit from RFE/RL--these are
leaders who recognize that RFE/RL still make a contribution to the
establishment of democracy.
This year, the administration proposes to spend $100 million on the
so-called ``Warsaw Initiative,'' a program to assist the new
democracies of Eastern Europe to modernize their militaries.
I would argue that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are as
important as this military assistance in helping to secure the
democratic foundation in the former East bloc.
Yet I predict that hardly anyone around here will blink an eye when
the Congress votes on the $100 million ``Warsaw Initiative.''

rfe/rl is cutting its budget

I agree with the Senator's belief that we need to reduce our
international broadcasting budget.
We are doing just that.
The State Department authorization bill, enacted last year, provides
for the consolidation of all U.S. international broadcasting.
The plan will reduce operations at both RFE/RL and the Voice of
America. By next October, VOA and REF/RL will have reduced their
combined broadcast hours to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
by 32 percent.
RFE/RL will reduce its budget by 67 percent--from $220 million to $75
million annually by fiscal 1996.
In terms of employees, RFE/RL will be cut by a similar amount--from
1,600 in September, 1993 to about 420 in fiscal 1996.
The research arm of RFE/RL has already been privatized: Its
operations have been taken over by the open media society--a project
funded by the philanthropist George Soros.
The new institute will undertake the restoration and preservation of
the invaluable archives owned by RFE/RL--40 years of material that
trace the dark era of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
This is a project for which no Federal funds were available. But
because of this public-private partnership, that important objective
will be realized.
The changes that I have enumerated will produce $400 million in
savings over the period from 1994 to 1997. All this is not a one-time
phenomenon--it is a permanent structural change.
In addition, Congress has directed RFE/RL to begin an effort to
privatize the radios--that is, that the funding should be assumed by
the private sector by the end of the decade.
The radios are taking that directive seriously. Their ongoing move to
Prague is a critical part of the effort to prepare for privatization.
Let everyone understand what this amendment will do--it will
emasculate Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
The fiscal year 1995 budget for the radios is $229 million. That
includes $103.5 million for one-time downsizing costs.
Nearly $67 million of those costs are mandated by German labor laws.
Restrictive German labor laws require RFE/RL to pay severance and
other benefits to the hundreds of employees who will be laid off--laws
that RFE/RL, as a private corporation operating in Germany, must comply
with. It is undisputed that RFE/RL, Inc. is subject to German labor
laws.
A recent case, decided in February in the D.C. Circuit (Mahoney v.
RFE/RL, Inc.), made clear that as a corporation with its principal
place of business in Munich, RFE/RL would violate the laws of Germany
if the corporation breached its collective bargaining agreements.
this will stop an important move to prague

In short, the effect of this amendment would be to place a dagger in
the heart of the radios--at a moment when they are in the midst of a
move from Munich to Prague, where they are preparing for the eventual
privatization of RFE/RL.
This would break faith with a decision that the President and
Congress jointly made last year.
Last January, the Senate voted to consolidate RFE/RL and the Voice of
America.
Last summer, the President sent a reprogramming to Congress which
provided for the move of the headquarters of RFE/RL from Munich to
Prague.
I do not recall any of my colleagues objecting at that time to the
continuation of RFE/RL.
But now the move to Prague is in motion. Four language services are
now being produced in Prague: Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, and the
South Slav service.
RFE/RL plans to be out of Munich by June 10.
Because Munich is one of the most expensive cities in Europe, the
move will achieve important savings. Per capita personnel costs will be
reduced by one-third.
The President of the Czech Republic, President Havel, made an
extremely generous offer to allow the radios to use the former
Czechoslovak Federal Parliament Building for a nominal fee of one Czech
crown per day--or 12 dollars per year.
The President of the United States accepted that offer last summer.
This amendment would obviously undercut that commitment.
That is why the Clinton administration is strongly opposed to the
Harkin amendment, as stated in the letter I read earlier from Joe
Duffey, director of the U.S. Information Agency.

rfe/rl and voa are not duplicative

It is not true that RFE/RL duplicates the Voice of America.
The two radios have different missions. The Voice of America's is
mandated to tell America's story.
By contrast, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radios provide news
and information about local events within the recipient countries.
In this manner, RFE/RL act as home service or surrogate radios in the
absence of fully free and independent media in the emerging democracies
of the Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
As a result of the broadcast consolidation, the amount of overlapping
broadcasts--that is, broadcasts by both RFE/RL and the VOA in the same
language at the same time--was reduced from 24 hours to zero.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the cable news network now suffices
for the countries of the former Soviet Empire.
In most countries, there are only two ways to obtain CNN--by staying
in an expensive hotel or to buy a satellite dish.
I do not have any data on how many such dishes are available, but I
cannot believe they are widespread.
More important, the news of CNN is in English, and it is
international news. The news on Radio Free Europe
[[Page S5353]] and Radio Liberty is in the vernacular--the local
language; and it focuses mainly on local news.
Do not take my word for it that these broadcasts are still needed.
Listen to the results of a survey conducted last fall in the region.
A poll of decisionmakers in each country--government, military,
media, and economic leaders--clearly demonstrates this point.
When the proposition was put to them that Western radio is needed
despite the new media freedom, some 75 percent of those polled
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
I sympathize with my friend from Iowa about the choice we face in
this bill.
I am in favor of restoring the cuts to the corporation for public
broadcasting--but not at the expense of one of the most valuable
instruments in American foreign policy.
The last point I will make is the administration is opposed to the
amendment of my friend from Iowa. And I hope I have done this within
2\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. Much as I would
like to see additional funding for public broadcasting, the
subcommittee of which I am the chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health, Human Resources and Education, has made a very careful
allocation and has in fact reduced considerably the rescission by the
House of Representatives for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The House
wanted to cut public broadcasting by $47 million. We limited the
rescission to $26,360,000 for fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1997,
the House of Representatives wanted to cut public broadcasting by $94
million, and our subcommittee limited that rescission to $29,360,000,
leaving public broadcasting at its current rate of $285,640,000.
That is fairly complicated arithmetic, but what it boils down to is
on the current mark, there has been substantial consideration given to
public broadcasting. The responses which the committee has heard from
those who are interested in public broadcasting is a sigh of relief
that their funding has been maintained at its present level.
I would like to see more funding for public broadcasting. But in
setting this mark we feel there has been a realistic and appropriate
balancing of priorities.
When the Senator from Iowa talks about employment for older Americans
and would like to add funding there, of course it would be fine to add
$14 million additionally to the $396 million recommended by the
committee. But here again, the Appropriations Committee has made a very
careful balancing of priorities. It is possible to pick apart the
appropriations bill in a thousand ways and to take accounts which sound
wonderful, like older Americans or public broadcasting, and take them
from accounts like Radio Free Europe which makes a great sound bite or
looks complicated when the Sunday papers reprint the vote. But this has
been very, very carefully worked out.
Senator Biden has made as good an argument as you can make in 2\1/2\
minutes. I am sorry he is not on the floor to compliment him, because
it is seldom that Senator Biden makes that good an argument in 2\1/2\
minutes. Usually it is longer and proportionately it may not justify
the additional time. I wish he were here to reply to that.
It is with some reluctance that I oppose my colleague, Senator
Harkin, who serves as ranking member on the subcommittee. We have
worked together for a very, very long period of time. But as the
allocations now stand, there is an appropriate allocation and balancing
of priorities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend this
debate for 10 minutes, to be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. If the time is extended for an additional 10 minutes--
Mr. HATFIELD. And I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 2 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I would want to reserve time until I hear from Senator
Harkin and reply, if I may.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the 10 minutes has been agreed to, 5 on
a side?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor and will reply to whatever additional
arguments remain.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Specter's argument on the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting is we are not hurting the
corporation nor public broadcasting as much as the House is. That is
not a very good argument.
Let me point out one thing. This body, I am pleased to say,
unanimously supported me in an effort to have an exemption to the
antitrust laws so that the television industry could get together on
the question of violence. The evidence is overwhelming.
The Presiding Officer is a physician. The American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of
Mental Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, all have
issued studies saying that television violence that glorifies violence
adds to violence in our society.
I am pleased to report to this body, thanks to your efforts and to
voluntary efforts in the industry, broadcast television has reduced
violence appreciably. Cable has moved very, very modestly. But one
network and one network alone provides violence-free television for the
children of America, and that is public broadcasting.
I think we have to put our vote where our mouth is on this. I think
we have to encourage the only network in this Nation that provides
violence-free television for our children. There is one children's
program, for example, that is broadcast in this country which is
produced in two versions. One is the violent version for the United
States of America, and the other is the nonviolent version for all the
other countries in the world. When the Christian Science Monitor asked
the producer why, she said, ``Well, the United States people demand
violence, and we get no complaints. We cannot sell it in other
countries with the violence in it.''
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is doing a superb job of
giving us violence-free television for our children, and we ought to be
supporting it and supporting them strongly.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment. If I am not
already, I want to be added.
I thank the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes and 39 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Iowa
for yielding to me. I congratulate him on trying to maintain a
semblance of culture, decency, and civility in this Nation.
The Senator from Illinois spoke just before I did. He spoke about the
fact that our children, by the time they graduate from high school,
will have seen 18,000 murders, to say nothing of the other unspeakable
violence they are going to see on network television. We have grappled
in the Senate with how to control children's exposure to violence in
light of the free speech provisions of the first amendment, and nobody
has been able to come up with a workable solution.
I was speaking with a Senator's wife about a week ago and she said,
``You know, Dale, we don't subscribe to cable at our house. We have a
12-year-old son. We do not want him exposed to MTV.'' I tell you, there
are an amazing number of people in this country who deplore what their
children are watching on television, and some of them are opting, as
she does, not to purchase cable television.
Mr. President, you can be assured that this is not the final
definitive debate on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is
an assault in the U.S. Congress on public broadcasting. With Newt
Gingrich leading the charge, the Republicans in Congress
[[Page S5354]] have decided to take dead aim at Big Bird, rather than
deal with the problems that really cause harm to our society.
Mr. President, we have heard the argument: ``CPB can be privatized;
let them do as everybody else does.'' Let me ask you about the
magnificent, unprecedented series on the Civil War which was so
poignant. 14 percent of Americans tuned in to see it. I promise you,
most Americans were in tears watching, but above all, learning about
the most defining moment in American history--13 hours on public
broadcasting. Can you imagine watching that series on one of the
commercial networks and being interrupted every 5 minutes with a car
being dropped on top of a mountain top, or a Budweiser beer commercial?
I cannot believe that the Harkin amendment is even being challenged.
If the Senator from Iowa prevails on his amendment, there will be $175
million left in the Radio Free Europe account. That is $100 million
more than the President requested. In addition, even if the Senator
from Iowa prevails, we will still be $29 million short of what public
broadcasting was supposed to get.
Mr. President, how many times during the balanced budget amendment
debate did you hear the argument, ``Senator, how can you vote against
the balanced budget amendment? Eighty percent of the people of this
country favor it. You are going against the wishes of the people.''
So, for the Senators here who are prepared to vote against the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa, let me remind you that between 65
percent and 70 percent of the people of this country do not want the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to be cut. Is it for dilettantes?
The statistics show that the average salary of the people of this
country who watch opera is $40,000 a year. Where else could they see
Pavarotti, Kiri Te Kanawa, all of the magnificent voices; are they to
be silenced? Are we going to say to the American people that other
countries of the world are willing to spend up to $38 per household for
the very same thing the American people are paying $1.09 for?
It is troubling to hear the assaults on things like the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio--I never move my
radio off NPR. When I get in the car in the morning, that is what is
on; and when I go home at night, that is what is on, because I want to
know what is going on in the world and I do not want all those
commercials interrupting it. I want a definitive, honest-to-goodness,
analysis of what is happening all over the world. I wonder what the
opponents of the Harkin amendment listen to in order to get their news.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes on this side.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my
colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on this amendment. I thank
them for their support.
Second, I want to again thank and congratulate my colleague, Senator
Specter, for doing a truly outstanding job in getting the provisions
through our Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee that he has
done in this bill. Having been in his position, I know it is a tough
job, a thankless job. I want to commend him for all the work he has
done. He has done a good job. I support him in that effort.
I point out, however, that in this case, Radio Free Europe is not in
our subcommittee. So I am not hanging that on his head. It is funded in
another subcommittee. Senator Specter and our subcommittee does not
fund Radio Free Europe.
Mr. President, I also want to say--and I do not have the time to do
this. The compensation package that was agreed upon for the employees
of Radio Free Europe because they are now moving to Prague,
Czechoslovakia, you ought to read it. Let me read a couple of its
provisions.
Employees having children shall receive a one-time payment in the
following amount: One month of gross salary, but in no event more than
deutsche mark 10,000--that is $7,500 in U.S. dollars--for every
dependent child aged no more than 27. How about that?
Employees terminated effective as of July 30, 1994, shall receive in
respective school fees for the children to go to school 10,000 deutsche
marks per child. So they can go to school. That is $7,500 a year.
What is going on here? This is criminal. Talk about a golden
parachute. And at the same time, we are saying we are going to cut
broadcasting for Big Bird and for our kids in this country. What
nonsense.
My friend from Delaware talks about censorship. If that is going to
be our guiding light, let us start Radio Free Asia, Radio Free South
Africa, Radio Free South America.
Mr. BIDEN. We have.
Mr. HARKIN. Censorship can rear its ugly head anywhere, anywhere--in
Uruguay and Paraguay, in Chile and Argentina, in any country in Africa.
But what we have is the Voice of America. Now, he talked about Lech
Walesa. I have some statements from other people I will put in the
Record telling about the Voice of America, the present Prime Minister
of Albania saying it was the Voice of America that brought them
through, not Radio Free Europe.
Second, Mr. President, here is a list--I ask unanimous consent to put
these in the Record--of every country in Eastern Europe and all of the
radio and TV stations they already have that are operating. I ask
unanimous consent to put that in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Ukraine: Russian TV programming is widely viewed.
Belarus: European music stations and BBC TV programs have
been on air since last year.
Latvia: 6 commercial stations broadcasting most of day.
Lithuania: Recent formation of an association of
independent TV and radio stations. TV programs broadcast;
also several TV and radio stations broadcasting in Polish.
Hungary: VOA and BBC rebroadcast on Kossuth, FM, a state
radio network.
Poland: RWE, Inc. broadcasts on Polish Program 4, a
nationwide mediumwave network; BBC and VOA rebroadcast
locally on both MW and FM. A National Broadcasting Council
has issued 3 private national licenses in addition to 115
local licenses. The first national private TV license was
recently awarded to Polsat over competing bids involving
well-established foreign firms such as Time Warner Inc.,
Bertelsmann AG, and Reuters.
Czech Republic: VOA and BBC broadcast on FM networks in
locations throughout the country; 2 public radio networks.
Many of the independent stations with music and news often
broadcast 24 hours a day.
Slovakia: Slovak Radio broadcasts despite financial
problems BBC broadcasts on FM networks throughout the
country.
Bulgaria: Numerous local independent radio stations operate
in Sofia and other major cities. VOA, BBC, Deutsche Welle and
Radio France International broadcast on FM in Sofia; VOA and
BBC in cities outside.
Romania: Romania Radio, with 3 national networks all due to
go on FM in the near future, is a less controversial
institution than state TV. Numerous local independent radio
stations operate in Bucharest and other major cities. VOA,
BBC, Radio France International and DW are currently being
rebroadcast on FM in Bucharest; BBC and DW also broadcast on
FM in other cities.
Azerbaijan: Iran and Turkey supply television and radio
programs to Azerbaijan; radio and TV cooperation between Iran
and Azerbaijan is expanding.
Georgia: ``Free Georgia'' radio reportedly has been set up
in Mingrelia by Gamsakhurdia supporters. Western and Turkish
TV is available in Tbilisi.
Kazakhstan: TV broadcasts from Russia. Almaty is home to
several independent radio stations. Print media are diverse.
BBC and VOA broadcast, but only in Russia.
Tajikistan: An opposition radio, ``Free Tajikistan,'' has
begun broadcasting 90 minutes a day. BBC and VOA broadcast in
Russian.
Uzbekistan: Voice of Iran and radio Saudi Arabia transmit
to Uzbekistan in Uzbek; other regional broadcasters can be
heard in Persian or Turkish. VOA broadcasts; BBC plans to
begin broadcasting in Uzbeck in later 1994.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Delaware says the administration is
opposed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
[[Page S5355]] Mr. HARKIN. I will take 30 more seconds. Here is the
OMB pass-back budget 1994:

Presidential decisions. The pass-back includes some
specific policy issues that were personally reviewed and
decided by the President and cannot be changed. BIB, RFE, RL
will be terminated in 1995, capital assets will be
transferred to and merged with USIA.

So if this is something new, then the President obviously has changed
his mind. But the President made a decision to personally zero it out.
I would also point out that even in this fiscal year the President
asked for $75 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. And this is $100 million more than the President asked
for.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield me
2 minutes?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I do not say this with any rancor, but it is clear the
Senator from Iowa is correct; he is uninformed on this issue. The
reason he is uninformed on the issue, Radio Free Europe or Radio
Liberty, the administration is not opposed.
I will submit the letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent it
be put in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Information Agency,

Washington, DC, March 31, 1995.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Joe: It is my understanding that the Senate may take
up an amendment that would rescind major funding for the
operations of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. We appreciate
your past and continuing support for RFE/RL and hope you will
join the Administration and me in opposing this amendment.
As you know, we are currently in the process of shutting
down RFE/RL in Munich and moving the newly configured
operation to Prague. We have managed to get major components
of the operation off the government budget and all of those
involved in this effort have proceeded in good faith on the
basis of reductions agreed to last year. The budget is being
drastically reduced.
The operation will be overhauled under the leadership of
Kevin Klose, President of RFE/RL, and a new Board of
Directors, chaired by David Burke, former Vice President of
ABC News. We have, however, let go more than a thousand long-
time employees in Germany and must meet major obligations
(legal obligations) there for German Government mandated
separation costs, pension and health costs, etc. A cut in
this year's budget of the one-time expense set aside for this
purpose will break faith with those who have moved ahead with
creativity and no little courage to help reinvent this old
institution and make it serve a new purpose in a new time. It
will also create a monumental management disaster in Munich
and Prague, which will cause operations to come to an abrupt
halt and create obligations and penalties for the U.S.
Government beyond the savings sought by the amendment's
sponsors.
I stand ready to met you in the Senate Lounge at any time
to talk with you about this, as does Mort Halperin, who can
express President Clinton's and the National Security
Council's strong opposition to the proposed amendment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph Duffey,
Director.

Mr. BIDEN. Let me clarify this for the Senator. At the beginning of
this administration, the President proposed terminating RFE/RL. That
decision was reversed in the spring of 1993. And that summer, the
President proposed consolidating all U.S. sponsored international
broadcasts. Congress accepted it. And we ordered budget cuts. We cut
the costs. The reason it is $175 million, $100 million more that the
request for Fiscal 1996, is that it costs more--in the current fiscal
year--to reduce the size of the radios. That is what it cost under
German law to reduce the operation. We are bound under German law. When
we lay off people and fire people under German law, we are required to
pay this severance pay. That is the reason why it is more money this
year and drops to $75 million next year.
Thirdly, I point out to my friend from Iowa, he did vote for and we
did vote for Radio Free Asia. We authorized the establishment of a new
service last year, and began appropriating money last year. We did it
because there is censorship in China and the other communist countries
in Asia; because there is a gerontocracy in Beijing that does not let
people express their points of view. We did do that. So he is ahead of
himself without even realizing it. We did in fact vote and have voted
to guarantee that where there is censorship in the world, we will be
involved to the extent that we can.
So, Mr. President, if we do not send troops, and we are not going to
send money, and we are not going to send information, and we are not
going to send access to the truth, what the heck are we going to do? I
resent the fact that this is being pitted against public television.
The reason public television is cut is not because of Radio Free
Europe. When we reach the point----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired..
Mr. BIDEN. When you reach the point your time has expired, you sit
down.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 9 seconds remain.
Mr. SPECTER. How much for the opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute thirty-two seconds. But the Senator
from Iowa yielded back his time.
Mr. HARKIN. No, the Senator did not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thought the Senator did.
In that event, 1 minute 32 seconds remain.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
When the argument is made by the Senator from Arkansas that there is
an assault on public broadcasting, I would remind him that the major
assault is on the deficit, and as chairman of the subcommittee we
looked at $5.9 billion of rescissions by the House, and we reduced that
to $3.05 billion, and asked public broadcasting to take a fair share,
leaving them with the same amount they had last year. And that has
received the comments of gratitude that they are able to function
without the larger cuts recommended by the House.
The amendment is an attractive one, obviously, when they move into
community service with older Americans, but that account already has
$410 million. So the $14 additional million, while making this
amendment look attractive, really is not very significant in the
overall picture.
The distinguished Senator from Delaware has spoken about Radio Free
Europe, but I think the point has not been made that the $229 million
is being reduced next year to $75 million, and $7 million has been
added this year for consolidation and wind-down purposes.
My colleague from Iowa, who was chairman and is now ranking member,
worked with me over these sheets, and I can understand his interest in
wanting more money for public broadcasting. And I understand the
Senator from Illinois, who has done outstanding work to try to combat
violence on television. But this is a fair allocation, and if we are
going to reach a balanced budget----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
If we are to reach the balanced budget by the year 2002, there is
going to have to be a fair share reduction on many items which we would
like to have. And I think it is a fair submission that the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting is able to tighten its belt and do the job
within the parameter of the existing budget, so additional funds should
not be added at the expense of another worthwhile account.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator give me 5 seconds?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. BIDEN. I would like to point out that in the Dole-Daschle
compromise we are cutting the international broadcasting account by $35
million. The Senator from Iowa proposes to cut $40 million from RFE/RL
in addition to what we are about to cut.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 30 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
[[Page S5356]] Mr. HARKIN. First of all, let us face it. The Voice
of America is broadcasting all over the world, in China, in Europe. The
Prime Minister of Albania said it was the Voice of America, not Radio
Free Europe that they listened to, plus we have BBC, German. These
countries all have other broadcasts. So it is just a question of
choices.
This is deficit neutral. This does not increase the deficit. But the
choice is just this. Are we going to privatize the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting or are we going to privatize Radio Free Europe?
Will we have a compensation package for the Germans that I just
mentioned or will we have jobs for our senior citizens here in America?
I would also point out, Mr. President, that the Dole substitute had a
$98 million cut in Radio Free Europe, much more than what we are asking
for here in ours.
Lastly, Mr. President, I would point out again, this amendment
provides $26 million more for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
It also provides $14 million for the senior community service
employment program.
I ask unanimous consent to put at the end of my remarks some
supporting documents regarding the senior community service employment
program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HARKIN. So, again, Mr. President, the choice is clear. Are we
going to spend our taxpayers' dollars for Radio Free Europe when the
Voice of America is already broadcasting? Or are we going to bring that
money here and make sure we have public broadcasting and jobs for our
seniors?
Exhibit 1

Examples of VOA Programming

general

They do news broadcasts (in English and native languages),
descriptions of US foreign policy, pieces on popular US
culture, information about studying in America, English
lessons including Special English broadcasts in slow English,
and editorials (which are criticized for being one-sided and
potentially damaging the credibility of VOA.)
You can think of VOA as the public relations arm of the US
Government for foreign publics.

specifics

During China's 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations and
massacre, VOA correspondents broadcast in real time back to
China eye-witness accounts of the massacre, and gave public
exposure in China to the demonstrators demands for democracy
and openness--information that Chinese authorities were
censoring.
During the Gulf War, VOA stepped up broadcasts in Iraq and
throughout the Middle East in English and Arabic to counter
misinformation by Sadaam Hussein, and explain US goals and
achievements in the world.
VOA reports on the Middle East peace process from the US
perspective so that Arab populations, who live in countries
where press is often censored, will hear additional views.
President Clinton broadcast an appeal for calm and non-
violence to Burundi in February 1995 just as ethnic violence
a la Rwanda is heating up between Tutsi and Hutu extremists:
in this case the President is using VOA to circumvent
hostilities without resorting to force or sanctions.
The Prime Minister of Albania, Dr. Alexander Meksi, praised
VOA for its role during 5 decades of totalitarianism and
during the 1990-1991 revolutions:
``On Voice of America we heard about the revolution in
Eastern Europe as well as about internal developments in our
own country. The role of the radio station was vital in the
democratization of Albania. Through interviews that VOA
conducted with prominent personalities in Albania we heard
the first public criticism of the communist regime from
within Albania.''
VOA correspondents were in Mogadishu to report on the US
feeding mission, getting out information about where the US
Marines were, what they are doing, and where feeding centers
were.
When the Congress voted to lift the trade embargo against
Vietnam, Vietnamese heard it on VOA along with appeals for
continued cooperation on POW-MIAs--which well reflected US
policy.
VOA broadcasts to Tibet news about international efforts
for their struggles that China authorities would not allow.
The Dalai Lama can address his people on Tibet on VOA.
English classes in the English Corner throughout the world.
It's a language lesson everyday on radio.
VOA also feeds its broadcasts to local FM stations to
expand distribution
____

10 Good Reasons to Support SCSEP

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
authorized under Title V of the Older Americans Act should be
preserved and expanded for the following reasons:
1. The SCSEP is our country's only workforce development
program designed to maximize the productive contributions of
a rapidly growing older population through training,
retraining, and community service. History has taught us that
mainstream employment and training programs like JTPA and
CETA are not successful in serving older workers. A targeted
approach is needed.
2. The SCSEP is primarily operated by private, non-profit
national aging organizations that are customer-focused,
mission driven, and experienced in serving older, low-income
people. These nonprofits work in close partnership with the
Governors, Department of Labor, aging network, and employment
and training system, actively participating in One Stop
Service initiatives designed to streamline and integrate
services.
3. The SCSEP is a critical part of the Older Americans Act,
balancing the dual goals of community service and employment
and training for low-income seniors. Many nutrition programs
and other services for seniors are dependent on labor
provided by the SCSEP.
4. The SCSEP has consistently exceeded all goals
established by Congress and the Department of Labor,
surpassing the 20% placement goal for the past six years and
achieving a record 135% of goal in FY 1993-94. Virtually all
appropriated funds are spent each grant year, in stark
contrast to similar programs.
5. The SCSEP provides a positive return on taxpayer
investment. One study found that the program returns at least
$1.47 for every dollar invested by empowering individuals to
become self-sufficient and productive members of their
communities.
6. The SCSEP is a means tested program, serving Americans
age 55+ with income at or below 125% of the poverty level, or
$9,200 for a family of one. The program serves less than 1%
of those who are eligible; long waiting lists are common in
most areas of the country.
7. The SCSEP serves the oldest and poorest in our society
and those most in need: 39% of enrollees are minorities--the
highest minority participation rate of any Older Americans
Act program; 72% are female; 32% are age 70 and older; 81%
are age 60 and older; 41% do not have a high school
education; and 9% have disabilities.
8. The SCSEP ensures national responsiveness to local needs
by directly involving participants in meeting critical human
needs in their communities, from child and elder care to
public safety and environmental preservation. The SCSEP has
been a major contributor to national disaster relief efforts,
most recently resulting from floods in the midwest,
hurricanes in the southeast, and the California earthquakes
and riots.
9. The SCSEP has demonstrated high standards of performance
and fiscal accountability unique to government programs. Less
than 15% of funding is spent on administrative costs--one of
the lowest rates among federal programs and despite a unit
cost that has not been adjusted for increased administrative
expenses since 1981.
10. The SCSEP historically has enjoyed strong public
support because it is based on the principles of personal
responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community.
In addition, the program is extremely popular among
participants, host agencies, employers, communities, and the
membership of our nation's largest aging organizations.
____

[From Green Thumb, Inc.]

Iowa SCSEP Case Histories

Donald Huntley of Boone county came to a Green Thumb pre-
app day last spring out of desperation. He had worked for
many years at a large turkey manufacturing plant that had
gone out of business. HIs annual income for a family of two
at the time was $1,380. Don had very good skills and life
experiences and a wonderful personality. He began his
assignment in June with the Iowa 4-H Education Center. Prior
to his orientation his Area Supervisor, Denise Juhl, told him
that this was a chance to prove to the agency that they
couldn't live without him. Don told her, ``consider it
done''. On January 1, 1992, Don became a permanent full-time
employee of the Iowa 4-H Education Center. His beginning
salary will be $18,400 with full benefits--an increase of
more than 13 times his salary when he enrolled in June! Way
to go, Don--we knew you could do it!
Jerry Burgett, a once very successful business owner and
entrepreneur, found himself physically disabled and as a
result lost his business. He had been a concrete sawer, which
took an extreme amount of physical activity. At age 55 he
experienced major back surgery and was unable to lift more
than five pounds. He became homeless, living with different
relatives. His life learned working skills were no longer of
value to him. At the intake and assessment, he indicated that
he wanted to learn computers and word processing. He was dual
enrolled in Green Thumb and JTPA to begin an eight week
course in computers and word processing. At the completion of
his course, he finished with a perfect attendance and top
scores in his class. Jerry began working for a local
greenhouse firm the day he finished classes. He is in charge
of a city wide satellite greenhouse system. He insures each
satellite is staffed and ready for business each day. Jerry
credits his new job to his recently acquired training. He now
has a small apartment and rediscovered self esteem and self
worth.
[[Page S5357]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has been a lively debate. I think
all of the issues have been aired. I think the accounts as they
currently stand express appropriate priorities as best we can determine
them, and I move to table the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order under the
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there was an agreement on an
up-down vote. I was not present at that time. I withdraw the motion to
table.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all yea and nay
votes will be stacked. We are ready for other amendments.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair the list of
the amendments that were incorporated in the unanimous consent
agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Wellstone seniors' amendment, the
Hatfield-Byrd managers' amendment, the Harkin add-back for Corporation
for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, so as far as the process of those
needing to be disposed of, we have the Wellstone amendment and the
managers' wrap-up amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have resolved the Wellstone
amendment. We are now putting that together with the managers' wrap-up.
Therefore, I believe that would complete the business at this point as
far as amendments are concerned; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator from Oregon yield for a moment?
Mr. HATFIELD. I withdraw the request for a quorum call.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to thank Senator Hatfield
for his graciousness in our negotiations. I wanted to say to the
Senator and to my colleagues that this program, the insurance
information counseling and assistance grant program, again, is a
program that we have in every single State, with seniors receiving
assistance from trained volunteers in dealing with all the Medicare
forms and the Medigap policies to provide really good protection for
people. It is a program, with very little by way of money, that has
gone a long ways. I thank my colleague from Oregon for all of his help.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield for a
question?
Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. FORD. The only amendment left now will be the managers'
amendment. When will that amendment be prepared to be offered and how
much time will it take for that amendment, could I ask the good
Senator?
Mr. HATFIELD. My estimate at this point is that we are in the process
of putting that together and of alerting our colleagues who are
involved.
I notice Senator McCain is here. He will have an amendment in that
wrap-up. Senator Wellstone will have one. Senator Jeffords will have
one.
In each case, Mr. President, I say to the Democratic whip, each of
these amendments that are in the wrap-up are totally offset amendments.
So they do not add to the deficit. And they have been cleared on both
sides. We should have that within the next few minutes.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I was not objecting
to that amendment. I understand it is basically agreed to and it has
complete offsets, so most people are satisfied with it.
The only thing I was trying to do is figure out how much longer it
would be and when you think the votes will be occurring.
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to make about a 4-minute statement.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, at this point, I
would say it should all be wrapped up, as far as the managers'
amendment, in about 15 minutes.
Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman very much.

Amendment No. 578, as Modified

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will now make a unanimous consent
request to make a technical correction. We had cleared the Levin
amendment No. 578, but I ask unanimous consent to correct a drafting
error by modifying it with the language that I now send to the desk.
What we are doing is we are, on page 9, line 12, striking one figure,
$37 million, and putting in $25 million; and one figure $35 million and
putting in $23 million. This does not change the basic content of the
amendment. It was inaccurately drafted.
I ask that it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 578), as modified, is as follows:
On page 9, line 16, strike ``$13,000,000'' and insert
``$15,000,000''.
On page 9, line 12, strike ``$25,100,000'' and insert
``$23,100,000''.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, that will appear in our wrap-up package
now that it is corrected. It is easier to correct it now than correct
it down the line. That is why I took the time to do that at this point.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I will be
brief. But I would like to make some comments on the compromise
amendment that has been so long in its gestation period today and
yesterday.
I want to start out by thanking the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee and all those Members of the Senate who have worked to
produce a good substitute rescission bill. I give them credit. I am
only sorry we had not been able to do more.
Over the last week, freshman Senators have led a noble fight, in my
view, to add new cuts to these bills. The amendment originally proposed
by my freshman colleagues would have called for cuts in the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, AmeriCorps $206 million, IRS, Foreign
Operations, Youth Build, and many other cuts that would have totaled
$1.3 billion. Obviously, they sought to have that amendment passed.
They were unable to do so for a variety of reasons which are not worth
going into now.
But I really want to comment, Mr. President, about the difference
that those freshmen bring to this body, which is the message of
November 8, which is that we have to make tough decisions. We have to
make difficult cuts in the budget and we have to do so because we have
an obligation to the American people to balance the budget. Mr.
President, we are not going to do that with this compromise amendment.
I especially thank Senator Santorum. I thank Senator Ashcroft, who is
in the chair. I thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and many
others who played such an important role in their efforts and came here
to succeed and maybe will succeed next time. Those cuts that they
proposed were difficult decisions. They alienated substantial
constituencies in all of their States. But the fact is, we needed to
enact those cuts and many more.
I have to say, Mr. President, I am a little bit disspirited because,
if we cannot enact these cuts, I wonder what is going to happen when we
take up budget reconciliation and we have to consider some really
important and difficult reductions in the Federal budget. I am not
positive we will have the courage to do so, particularly in light of
the rejection of the so-called freshmen amendment.
I point out, in the compromise amendment, there are some good
programs. I think they are very nice to have these programs. These add-
backs
[[Page S5358]] all have nice-sounding names to them, like TRIO and
substance abuse and mental health and Goals 2000 and school-to-work, et
cetera, et cetera. But Mr. President, the question is where the role of
Government ends and our obligation to the American people to balance
the budget begins.
I am particularly pained by the so-called offsets that are in this
amendment, because the majority of the offsets, about $1.2 billion of
the $1.6 billion, are contained in two so-called offsets. One is for
the HUD section 8 project reserves and the other is for airport
improvement. Both of those funds will have to be replenished within the
next 6 months.
So the fact is what we have done is add back $834 million and really
only subtract from that around a couple hundred million. So the offsets
are illusory. The offsets are not meaningful.
And it was interesting that Radio Free Europe and foreign operations
were two of the major so-called savings in offsets, neither of which
have any domestic constituencies. The other one that I see here was
Federal administration and travel, which is always a convenient one. If
anyone believes that there will be a $337 million reduction in Federal
administration and travel that is unspecified, I would say they have
more optimism about the Federal bureaucracy's reactions to the mandates
of Congress than I have seen in the past.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
Mr. McCAIN. I did not ask for unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are under controlled time.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry for taking so much time.
I believe it is important for us to recognize the effort that was
made by the freshman Senators. I think it is disappointing that they
did not succeed. I urge them to continue in their efforts, because I
think they best reflect the views, aspirations, and hopes of the
American people, as expressed on November 8.
I am disappointed in this so-called compromise. I hope that in the
future we will not agree to such compromises again.
Mr. President, I had yield back the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment no. 579

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for the Harkin amendment to
transfer $40.5 million from the Board for International Broadcasting
and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and the seniors community service program because I
believe they are higher national priorities than overseas broadcasting
is.
Last year I led the fight to reduce RFE/RL's budget from $220 to $75
million--by two-thirds--and to slash their outrageous management perks
because I believe that RFE/RL is a cold war relic, which also suffered
from terribly sloppy fiscal management in the past. I do have some
concerns about this formula, however,
During the debate on consolidation last year, we discovered that
because of contractual obligations that the BIB never should have
entered into on behalf of the U.S. Government, we have to spend some
money this year in order to cap RFE/RL at $75 million next year. It
seems to make little sense, but I have done the math many times, and
unfortunately, concluded that these sums are necessary if we are to
downsize. It actually demonstrates how this organization ran amok for
years under the guise of national security interests. In any case, I am
concerned that if BIB funds are rescinded this year, we may not be able
to reduce fully to $75 million next year.
At the same time, I think CPB is a far better investment that so-
called surrogate broadcasting--particularly when we already have radio
services to the transitioning democracies through the Voice of America.
I am carefully monitoring RFE/RL's budgeting and expenditures. If their
request exceeds $75 million next year, I will be the first to propose
their termination.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support the amendment to reduce
funding for Radio Free Europe and to restore $40.5 million for programs
cut in this bill before us. Specifically, this amendment would restore:
$26 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; $14.4 million
for the Community Services Program for Older Americans.
Mr. President, for many years, I have been a supporter of the
continued operation of Radio Free Europe. Every year as chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee, I supported the Board for International
Broadcasting's appropriations. But, now I look at this rescission bill
and I look at the reductions that are proposed for programs like the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, programs to prevent the use of illegal
narcotics, and programs that serve the elderly and children--all
programs that serve Americans here at home--and I can no longer support
the appropriations for the radios. Programs for Americans here at home
should and must have a higher priority.
I have listened to the attacks on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, on support for National Public Radio and Public
Television. The other side has argued that taxpayer funds should not be
used to support public radio and television. I disagree. Public radio
and television are among the finest investments made by this
Government. They are an investment in the education of our people. But,
if the other side is arguing against taxpayer support for public radio
for Americans, how can they justify taxpayer support for Radio Free
Europe. And, in this bill that the Appropriations Committee reported
they have even proposed supplemental funding for Radio Free Europe
while they are proposing rescissions in the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. That simply doesn't make sense.
One of President Clinton's first reinventing government proposals was
to phase out Radio Free Europe and to consolidate it with the Voice of
America. This country spends over $320 million per year for the Voice
of America's operations and facilities, and almost $230 million per
year for Radio Free Europe.
We did not phase-out Radio Free Europe. They conducted an impressive
lobbying campaign to continue their existence, and the administration
backed down. It agreed to reduce the Radios, but not to end their
operation.
But, times are changing. The world has changed. The cold war has
ended. Many of the nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union had developed their own media and radio stations, and without
jamming, they now had access to the BBC, CNN, Sky Television, and other
Western media. Just last week the Washington Post carried an article
discussing Russia since the fall of communism. While the article
bemoaned the outbreak of organized crime, it also noted that Russia has
developed a vigorous, and free mass media.
And, as everyone can see from this rescission bill, times have
changed here at home too. We have before us a $13 billion rescission
bill. We are cutting programs that Americans rely on.
Mr. President, in the budget game, in the appropriations business, we
are continually involved in a process of setting priorities--of
determining what is more important than something else. And, when I
look at the programs that Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, and Senator
Reid have suggested in this amendment, for this Senator, there is no
contest. They clearly are higher priority than continuing radio
stations for Europe.
There is no one in this room that does not think the Older Americans
Act Community Service Employment Program has been a success. The
average participant is a 68-year-old woman who has just lost her
husband and has little or no work history outside the home. There are
both elderly men and elderly women in the program, but this is the
typical situation. All of the participants are low income by
definition.

[[Page S5359]]

This program provides a grant to nonprofit organizations to train
participants and to place them in jobs. Initially, the program supports
them at the minimum wage. For those who have good work skills, it moves
them into full-time, unsubsidized employment. For the others, it
provides either formal or on-the-job training to prepare for
employment.
n any case, the work done by these seniors in libraries, home health
agencies, child care centers, and other public, nonprofit, and private
jobs is an absolute boon to the community and to the taxpayer. It would
be pennywise and pound foolish to send these low-income senior citizens
to the welfare line instead of letting them do work that is needed for
the minimum wage.
Furthermore, we are talking in committee about getting people off of
welfare and into work, and here on the Senate floor we are cutting a
program that does just that.
Mr. President, 16,000 elderly people are being supported at the
minimum wage nationwide through the Community Service Employment for
Older Americans Program. There are 900 in South Carolina alone, and we
will cut 106 if this amendment fails. The dignity of these elderly
people is certainly more important than overextending our past
commitment to taxpayer-funded European radio.
Mr. President, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, and Senator Snowe have proposed a major reorganization of
our international affairs agencies. They are, at this time, considering
major reductions in international affairs agencies. Their proposed
organization chart for the reinvented Department of State includes an
``America Desk.'' Well, it is clear to me that time has run out for
Radio Free Europe, and we could well help their reorganization effort
at this time. Clearly, Radio Free Europe no longer can pass the
``America Desk'' review.
I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, and Reid for bringing this
amendment to the Senate. Phasing out Radio Free Europe is a tough
decision to make. But, it is far preferable to the other reductions
that have been proposed in this rescission bill.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
pending amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa.
Let me first state that I fully understand the valid impulses that
give rise to an amendment such as this. It takes money from Radio Free
Europe, and puts it into a small number of other domestic spending
categories, some of them bringing benefits to children and to the
elderly.
The point being made is clear. It is one that we always hear whenever
we go to our town meetings. If a Senator such as myself stands up to
describe the vast increases in direct transfer payments to American
citizens--from the young worker to the older retiree--increases which
indeed have driven our deficit to near extremity, one always hears the
same old refrain in response: ``What are you going to do about foreign
aid? What about Congressional perks?''
Of course, spending on those two items amounts to less than 1 percent
of the budget. But as long as some of it is still there, one can always
gain a few more political points by taking a little bit more out of
international spending, and spending a little bit more on the domestic
side.
Now, I come to this issue from an unusual stance, which I would hope
the Senator from Iowa appreciates. Unlike some of my colleagues on the
Republican side, I fully support public broadcasting. I think it is
especially valuable in a rural State such as my own, where we simply do
not have the market power to make available to our citizens all of the
best that commercial programming has to offer in a cost-effective way.
But despite my general support for public broadcasting, I oppose this
amendment. It would take $40.5 million out of Radio Free Europe in
order to make it available for other domestic programs.
The first point I would make is that there has been a series of
amendments here from the other side of the aisle, each of them designed
to score big political brownie points by giving more money to children,
to the poor, to the elderly. They're trying to make the crude charge
stick, that somehow Republicans are wreaking havoc upon all these
programs.
It is a war of symbolism, and it is being waged by various feints,
jabs and deceptions. I would say to my colleagues over there on that
side that I believe this tactic is getting quite worn and tired. The
press, believe it or not, is beginning to figure this one out. They did
fall a bit for the school lunch sophistry, buying the notion that we
were snatching the food out of children's mouths, simply by giving the
States more control over that program. But increasingly they are
starting to understand what is a cut and what is a slower rate of
increase. That's what we are proposing with all domestic and welfare
spending generally--and if the American public can't figure that one
simple gem of logic out, then they are, all of them, going straight to
the poorhouse themselves.
So that's what gives rise to these partisan amendments. And of
course, if you want to get some money for the ragged and downtrodden,
there is no more politically popular place to get it than something
that smacks of the evil term ``foreign aid''--as in Radio Free Europe.
I would say that the U.S. is still getting a very fine return on its
investment in Radio Free Europe. One thing
that the collapse of the Berlin Wall has shown to us is the power that
Radio Free Europe had in beaming a message of hope and freedom to those
striving for democracy. It is said by some that, now that the wall has
come down, RFE has outlived its usefulness. But we have seen eloquent
testimony that this is not the case.

Indeed, Radio Free Europe has moved its base of operations precisely
because President Havel of the Czech Republic offered them various
forms of subsidy assistance if only they would relocate in Prague.
That's what he personally feels about Radio Free Europe's usefulness in
the post-Cold War World. If the charge was to be made that Radio Free
Europe was too expensive, then the people of Central Europe were
willing to chip in their own bucks and give some help in order to
enable it to stay.
Radio Free Europe has kept its operation up-to-date and relevant. It
remains a tremendous source of reliable information on many subjects of
international import, often giving more timely and profound coverage of
events that the commercial news services. They have managed to stay
ahead of the game in a number of areas of particular movement and
importance in recent years--reports on the evolution of ethnic tensions
as well as burgeoning controversies in economic and military matters.
They provide translations of articles in major international
newspapers, and academic analysis of events that cannot always be found
in commercial papers and broadcasts.
In a budget in which we devote less than 1 percent of our resources
to trying to affect the course of events beyond our borders in a way
that is beneficial to us, it seems to me to be very pennywise and pound
foolish, to take yet another whack at something which is so inexpensive
to the taxpayer--indeed becoming less expensive as a result of the
recent decision to move--simply to make the sudden, cynical political
point that the loyal advocates of the amendment stand for more spending
for the downtrodden.
So I regret to say to the Senator from Iowa that I cannot support his
amendment. I would say to him and to the rest of this chamber that if
we are squeezing funding for the programs that he has attempted to
provide for here, it is not spending on Radio Free Europe that has
caused the difficulty. Come the year 2013, unless we do something about
entitlement spending, we not only will not have money for Radio Free
Europe, but for national defense, highways, prisons--turn them all
loose--upkeep of the national parks--nothing. So we should turn the
spotlight onto the spending that got us here and we'll be looking for
the Senator's vote, otherwise we won't be able to fund any of the
programs that the Senator from Iowa or anyone else cares about.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take one or two moments at
this time, prior to the time that we are going to have a final vote on
this issue
[[Page S5360]] on the rescissions, to, first of all, express my own
deep personal appreciation for the leadership of Senator Daschle, on
our side, over the course of this debate and his perseverance in
pursuing the restoration of extremely important funding that had been
cut in the areas which were targeted on children and on education.
There is close to a billion dollars which has been returned to this
measure as a direct result of his strong commitment and work over these
past days.
Many of us were prepared to have extended debate on priorities, which
I think the rescission issue basically brings forward, to try and
reflect in this body what we think are the real priorities of the
American people with regard to children and with regard to education.
We know that over this year and in the future, we are going to have
to be much sharper in prioritizing this country's expenditures. Funding
in and of itself is not necessarily the answer to all of our problems,
but it is a pretty clear reflection of a nation's priorities.
This is particularly true when we are talking about a number of the
different items that were included in the measure which was supported
by Senator Daschle and others, including some Members from the other
side of the aisle.

I am speaking about the restoration of the funds at Head Start,
Chapter 1, and the day care programs, which are so important for
working families, particularly working mothers, and are an
indispensable part of our planning if we are trying to be serious about
welfare reform. I should also note the return of the funding on the
Goals 2000, which will help some 1,300 schools to move ahead in terms
of enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment.
Those were extremely important programs. Other important measures
that were restored include the School-to-Work Program, which will
provide additional opportunities for the 70 percent of the young people
that do not go on to college and are facing dead-end jobs when they get
out of high school.
Because of the School-to-Work Program that was passed last year and
strongly supported with the leadership of President Clinton, we were
able to work through a partnership with public and private sectors to
try to offer a greater opportunity for young people. That, I think, is
important.
I know that Senator Kassebaum is working through the restructuring
and reorganizing of our youth training programs, and the role of the
School-to-Work Program may very well be--I believe will be--the center
focus of reform of youth training. It will also help in redesigning the
outreach to the some 400,000 young people who drop out of school every
year. With this program and some of the other efforts, these dropouts
may be brought back into the educational system.
Finally, I want to mention the restoration of funding for the
national service program. While we have had some debate and discussion
on that measure, I wish we had had the chance to go into greater detail
on the extraordinary contributions that so many of the young people in
this country are involved in through community service.
If there was really a failing during the period of the 1980's, and we
all have our list of shortcomings in national policy, I think one of
the important areas was the failure to offer a vehicle and an avenue
for young people, particularly, to give something back to their
community in the form of voluntary service. We didn't give them an
opportunity to repay what the community has done for them.
Under the leadership of President Clinton, we have seen service
programs growing, not only in the AmeriCorps programs, but the other
programs which are creating an opportunity for service while students
are in school, from kindergarten through high schools. In my State of
Massachusetts, enormously impressive programs are taking place.
I was talking recently to the service learning director of the
community service programs, and she mentioned that Massachusetts is one
of the top States in taking advantage of the service learning programs.
We could go on about other programs restored--the TRIO program--and
about some that were not, such as the technology programs, which are so
important in making sure young people are going to be able to get the
best in terms of new technology, and not only technology but training
programs in the use of these technologies. All of these are enormously
important.
We are going to have debates on these measures as to funding levels
in the future. But we want to make very clear in this body and to the
country that there are going to be a number of Members that will stand
for the children, stand for education, stand for investing in the
future of this country by doing all that we can to strengthen the
support for the youngest and the most vulnerable. We will support
children in the Head Start programs and support strengthening our
education system. Another issue we will watch closely will be aid to
college students. We must ensure that young people that are taking
advantage of the student loan programs, work study programs, and other
higher education programs which have been targeted by Republicans over
in the House of Representatives are not hurt by Republican cuts. We
must make sure the Republicans bent on eliminating these programs are
not going to be successful.
I believe that there is a bipartisan coalition for education.
Perhaps, had we had more votes on education it would have been
reflected in the course of this debate, but I believe it is there. It
will be tested over the period of these future months.
I do think in this early skirmish that it is very clear that even
though the funding levels are not what I would certainly like to see in
these areas, the areas nonetheless where there has been the greatest
restorations have been in children and in education. I think that that
is what the American people would want. I know that these are what we
will want as we go through the process of prioritizing this Nation's
needs. We will keep them on the front burner.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, by my calculation, we should be voting by
now. Could I be advised why we are still talking?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We still have another amendment to be offered,
the managers' amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Is anybody entitled to time on the managers' amendment, or
are the managers entitled to time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of 15 minutes remaining on
the managers' amendment.
Mr. DOLE. I just say to my colleagues, if they want to stay here all
night, that is fine. But we are going to come back in the morning if we
cannot close this down in about 5 minutes.
It is about 10 o'clock. Most everybody is here tomorrow, and we will
come back if we cannot conclude this, come back tomorrow morning. If
everybody needs to talk, let them talk and we will come back and vote
tomorrow morning.
Mr. President, why can we not proceed to vote on the Harkin
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent provided that the votes
would be stacked.

Vote on Amendment No. 579

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to vote on the
Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Harkin amendment No. 579. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been requested, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD: I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
[[Page S5361]] Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--53

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Bradley
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

So the amendment (No. 579) was rejected.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent to make a technical correction
to an amendment previously offered by Senator Gorton and adopted by the
Senate. It is a technical correction because the amendment is flawed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will
suspend until the Senate is in order.
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.

Amendments Nos. 580 through 592, en bloc

Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, I would like to have the attention
of the body.
Mr. President, this is the last act for this bill except final
passage, and this is referred to as a managers' wrap-up. What we have
done is incorporate into this one action amendments that have been
agreed to on both sides. If there is any additional money, it is fully
offset. So it is totally deficit neutral. And instead of having them
offered one at a time, we are offering them en bloc. Let me enumerate
them because those of you who have such amendments make certain that we
have incorporated them. The following list: Hatfield has three,
Lautenberg, Burns, McCain, Jeffords, Pell, Kennedy, Akaka, Kempthorne,
Inouye, and Wellstone.
Now, that is our listing of all of the amendments that have been
agreed to, cleared.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be
considered and agreed to en bloc and that motions to reconsider votes
by which these amendments were agreed to be laid upon the table en bloc
and any statements with regard to the amendments be placed in the
Record at the appropriate place. And I yield to the ranking member of
the committee.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not
object, these amendments have been cleared on this side and they are
fully offset.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], proposes amendments
numbered 580 through 592, en bloc.

The amendments en bloc are as follows:

Amendment No. 580

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for himself and Mr. Byrd.)
On page 26, line 12, reduce the sum named by
``200,000,000''.
On page 26, line 20, reduce the sum named by
``$200,000,000''.
On page 27, line 21, strike ``$3,221,397,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof: ``$3,201,397,000''.

amendment no. 581

In Amendment number 437 to Amendment 435 strike the
following:
``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Laws 101-136, 101-509, 102-27, 102-141, 102-393, 103-123,
103-329, $1,842,885,000 are rescinded from the following
projects in the following amounts:''
and insert in lieu, thereof:
``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Laws 101-136, 101-509, 102-27, 102-141, 102-393, 103-123,
103-329, $1,894,840,000 are rescinded from the following
projects in the following amounts:''
and strike:
``Tucson, Federal building, U.S. Courthouse, $121,890,000''
and insert in lieu thereof:
``Tucson, Federal building, U.S. Courthouse, $80,974,000''.
amendment no. 582

On page 44 line 16 insert:
``: Provided further, Of the available contract authority
balances under this hearing in Public Law 97-424, $13,340,000
are rescinded; and of the available balances under this
heading in Public Law 100-17, $126,608,000 are rescinded.''

amendment no. 583

(Purpose: To restore funding for the purchase of buses and the
construction of bus-related facilities as authorized under section 3 of
the Federal Transit Act)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Lautenberg.)
On page 43, line 17, strike the numeral and insert
``$1,318,000,000.''
On page 46, strike all beginning on line 6 through the end
of line 11.
amendment no. 584

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Burns.)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
(a) Schedule for NEPA Compliance--Each National Forest
System unit shall establish an adhere to a schedule for the
completion of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments
within the National Forest System unit for which NEPA
analysis is needed. The schedule shall provide that not more
than 20 percent of the allotments shall undergo NEPA analysis
and decisions through Fiscal Year 96.
(b) * * * other law, term grazing permits which expire or
are waived before the NEPA analysis and decision pursuant to
the schedule developed by individual Forest Service System
units, shall be issued on the same terms and conditions and
for the full term of the expired or waived permit. Upon
completion of the scheduled NEPA analysis and decision for
the allotment, the terms and conditions of existing grazing
permits may be modified or re-issued, if necessary to conform
to such NEPA analysis.
(c) Expired Permits--This section shall only apply to
permits which were not extended or replaced with a new term
grazing permit solely because the analysis required by NEPA
and other applicable laws has not been completed and also
shall include permits that expired in 1994 and 1995 before
the date of enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 585

(Purpose: To address issues of equity in rehiring former Federal
employees)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. McCain.)
In title II--General Provisions, SEC. 2001 Timber Sales,
add the following to the end of subsection (6) SALE
PREPARATION: The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Secretary of the relevant Department,
shall provide a summary report to the governmental affairs
committees of the House and Senate regarding the number of
incentive payment recipients who were rehired, their terms of
reemployment, their job classifications, and an explanation,
in the judgment of the agencies, of how such reemployment
without repayment of the incentive payments received is
consistent with the original waiver provision of P.L. 103-
226.
This report shall not be conducted in a manner that would
delay the rehiring of any former employees under this Act, or
effect the normal confidentiality of federal employees.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments
to describe the intent of the amendment I have offered today to S. 619.
It addresses my concerns about the rehiring of former Federal employees
who received a voluntary separation incentive payment to leave the
Federal service, but now will be rehired under the provisions of this
bill.
Under the terms of the ``Federal Workforce Restructuring Act''--
popularly known as the buyout bill--Federal employees could receive an
incentive payment as high as $25,000 if they voluntarily agreed to
leave their agency. These buyouts will help achieve a reduction in the
Federal work force of approximately 275,000 employees, which will
significantly reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy and save
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
After receiving such a buyout, the Federal employee would be barred
from rejoining the Federal work force for 5 years. A special waiver
provision afforded former employees with unique capabilities to be
rehired by a Federal agency if no other qualified individual was
available.
I supported this legislation, and am pleased that it has already
helped reduce the Federal work force by some 30,000 employees. I am
concerned, however, by one provision of the recissions bill before us
today that would allow individuals who received a buyout payment to be
rehired without having to either repay their buyout, or meet the terms
of the existing waiver provision.
Mr. President, I recognize the need for highly qualified individuals
to be brought back to Federal service with
[[Page S5362]] the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to
assist with new timber harvests. They must be brought back quickly, and
are likely to be reemployed for a fairly short period of time.
I do believe, however, that the agencies rehiring these individuals
should advise the Congress on the extent of former Federal employees
who received a buyout and have been rehired. We have a responsibility
to ensure that the spirit of the buyout legislation is not abrogated by
this new rehiring authority. Furthermore, it would be wise for the
Congress to monitor that the taxpayers investment in this buyout
program is not improperly utilized.
My amendment is intended to allow the Congress to fulfill these
obligations. It would require OPM and the relevant Federal Department
to advise the Governmental Affairs Committees of the House and Senate
their use of the rehiring authority established in S. 619. More
importantly, it will require these agencies to explain how rehiring
buyout recipients without a repayment of their separation incentive
award is consistent with the original waiver provision of Public Law
103-226.
This requirement will provide the Congress with some idea of not only
how many former Federal employees who received a taxpayer funded buyout
have been rehired, but also whether their reemployment truly meets the
congressional requirement of highly skilled individuals, and a shortage
of similarly talented candidates. I do not want to see the expedited
rehiring authority established in this bill to be used in such a manner
that undermines the merits and purpose of the cash awards given to
individuals.
I think it is important that we treat rehired Federal employees
fairly in this regard, but we also need to ensure that taxpayers are
protected due to the fact that they have paid for the cash buyouts that
have been awarded. After all, these voluntary separation payments are
intended to downsize the bureaucracy, and save taxpayers money.
Individuals should not be able to take advantage of large buyout
bonuses and then reenter the Federal service except under very special
circumstances.
This amendment will help the Congress evaluate this rehiring program
as it proceeds, without hindering the Forest Service or the BLM in
their legitimate efforts to bring skilled individuals back into their
work force on a short-term basis.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton, Senator Hatfield, and
Senator Byrd for their assistance and acceptance of this amendment.
amendment no. 586

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield for Mr. Jeffords.)
On page 14, line 12 strike $81,500,000 and insert
``$71,500,000''.
On page 13, strike the figure on line 24 and insert
``$60,000,000''.

amendment no. 587

(Purpose: To provide continued funding for the national center for
research in vocational education)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield for Mr. Pell.)
On page 33, line 9, strike ``$236,417,000'' and insert
``$242,417,000''.
On page 33, line 14, strike ``$8,900,000'' and insert
``$14,900,000''.
On page 34, line 4, strike ``$60,566,000'' and insert
``$54,566,000''.
On page 34, line 7, strike ``$8,891,000'' and insert
``$2,891,000''.
Amendment No. 588

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Kennedy.)
On page 36 after line 5, insert:

``PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

(RESCISSION)

Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-333, $4,424,000 are rescinded.''
On page 34, line 18, Strike $57,783,000 and insert in lieu
``$53,359,000''.
On Page 35, line 2, strike $6,424,000, and insert in lieu
of ``$2,000,000''.

Amendment No. 589

(Purpose: To restore certain funding for the demonstration partnership
program which is administered by the Office of Community Services
within the Administration for Children and Families)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Akaka.)
On page 31, strike line 9 and insert the following:
``Public Law 103-333, $10,988,000 are rescinded.''.
On page 31, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-333 and reserved by the Secretary pursuant to section
674(a)(1) of the Community Services Block Grant Act,
$1,900,000 are rescinded.''
On page 32, line 5, strike $2,918,000'' and insert
``$4,018,000''.
amendment no. 590

(Purpose: To make an appropriation for the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations and to increase the rescission amount for
diplomatic and consular programs)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Kempthorne.)
On page 11, line 19, strike ``$2,000,000 are rescinded.''
and insert the following: $2,500,000 are rescinded.

advisory commission on intergovernmental relations

For the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
for purposes of section 306 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), $500,000.

amendment no. 591

(Purpose: To strike the provision that prohibits the application of the
Davis-Bacon Act to any contract associated with the construction of
facilities for the National Museum of the American Indian)

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Inouye.)
In chapter V of title I, under the heading ``construction''
under the heading ``Smithsonian Institution'' under the
heading ``OTHER RELATED AGENCIES'' strike ``: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act shall not apply to any
contract associated with the consideration of facilities for
the National Museum of the American Indian.''.

amendment no. 592

(Offered by Mr. Hatfield, for Mr. Wellstone)
On page 29, line 16, strike ``$2,185,935,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof $2,191,435,000''.

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
administrative expenses & travel shall further be reduced by
$5,500,000.
So the amendments (No. 580 through 592) were agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Market promotion

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage at the
provision in this rescission bill that would increase funding for the
Market Promotion Program by $25 million in fiscal year 1995. A
provision that would increase subsidies for major corporations, at the
same time that we are cutting billions from programs that are vital to
our Nation's children.
My opposition to the Market Promotion Program is long-standing. I do
not believe that the U.S. Government should be spending $100 million a
year to subsidize overseas advertising by large corporations.
In recent years, the Market Promotion Program has used taxpayer money
to subsidizes such corporations as McDonalds, Miller Beer, Sun Maid
Raisins, and General Mills: hardly struggling corporations in need of
Government largesse.
It would be a travesty for the Senate to increase spending on this
wasteful program while we are considering billions of dollars in cuts
from far more important programs in the fiscal year 1995 budget.
How can we cut housing assistance for low-income families and seniors
while we increase subsidies for large corporations?
How can the U.S. Senate cut the Head Start Program, the Youth
Training program, the National Service Program, the Safe and Drug Free
School Zones program, Child Care, Education, and so many other programs
that benefit our Nation's children and families, help hard-working
Americans, and prevent drug abuse and crime? How can we cut all those
programs and then turn around and increase funding for multinational
corporations?
Mr. President, this is wrong. Dead wrong. The market promotion
program should not be increased. It should be eliminated. If we can cut
funding for child nutrition programs and elderly housing, we certainly
can ask billion-dollar multinational corporations to do their fair
share as well.
I recently introduced legislation that would eliminate the Market
Promotion Program and several other wasteful subsidy programs operated
by the Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that the Senate has an
opportunity today to cut some real waste out of the Federal budget.
[[Page S5363]] I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join
with me in supporting the Bumpers-Bryan amendment.
funding for the united nations population fund [unfpa]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm my full support
for U.S. funding for the U.N. Population Fund [UNFPA]. President
Clinton resumed funding for the Population Fund last year after a 7
year suspension during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Last year,
Congress appropriated $40 million for the fund, and $50 million was
appropriated for 1995. Unfortunately--and I think unwisely--the House
rescinded $25 million of the funding in its emergency supplemental and
rescissions bill.
With Senator Hatfield's couragous support, the Senate did not rescind
any money for the fund in its bill. I am most appreciative of my fine
colleagues, Senator Hatfield and his efforts and longstanding support
for international population stabilization activities including the
UNFPA.
I do understand that funding for all programs across the board needs
to be reduced if we are to properly fund this supplemental bill.
However, I do not want to see population programs unfairly targeted for
larger reductions than other foreign assistance programs. Reducing the
Population Fund's money by one-half is surely an unreasonable reduction
in funding.
This huge reduction in funding will surely send exactly the wrong
message to the rest of the developed nations across the world. Last
year, the United States was seen as the world's leader on population
and development assistance at the International Conference on
Population and Development in Cairo. I was a congressional delegate at
the Conference aid I came away very much impressed with the leadership
and direction displayed by Vice President Gore and the assistance given
him by our former colleague, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth in
guiding the Conference and its delegates in developing a consensus
document on a broad-range of short- and long-term recommendations
concerning maternal and child health care, strengthening family
planning programs, the promotion of educational opportunities for girls
and women, and improving the status and rights of women across the
world.
We surely do not want to lose our moral leadership role and
relinquish any momentum by abandoning or severely weakening our
financial commitment to population and development assistance. The
United States needs to continue its global efforts to achieve
responsible and sustainable population levels, and to back up that
leadership with specific commitments to population planning activities.
That is why it is so very important that we show our support by
funding the U.N. Population Fund. The fund is supported entirely by
voluntary contributions, not by the U.N. regular budget. There were 101
donors to the fund in 1993, most of which were developing nations.
Japan and the United States are the leading contributors to the fund
with the Nordic countries not lagging far behind. UNFPA assistance goes
to over 140 countries and territories across the world. It would
certainly be a real shame if the United States were to back away from
its commitment to the world's largest source of material assistance for
population programs.
Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Wyoming
in expressing my strong support for the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA). There are many challenges to be faced in the next century with
regard to global population growth, and international programs such as
UNFPA are critical to the world's population and development assistance
efforts.
UNFPA, which receives funds from some 101 donor nations, has had a
somewhat tumultuous history in the US over the past decade. Indeed,
UNFPA funding was suspended altogether during both the Reagan and the
Bush Administrations.
Under the Clinton Administration, modest funding for UNFPA has
resumed. However, of the $50 million appropriated for UNFPA in Fiscal
Year 1995, $25 million--or one-half--was rescinded by the House of
Representatives in its Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions Bill.
Let me emphasize that in these difficult budgetary times, U.S.
federal spending, including U.S. contributions to international foreign
assistance programs such as UNFPA, need to be adjusted accordingly.
However, in this process we must ensure that programs are not unfairly
targeted for disproportionate funding reductions. Moreover, I believe
it is important in this instance to continue the U.S. leadership role
that was demonstrated at the 1994 International Conference on
Population and Development in Cairo.
For these reasons, I believe that a 50 percent cut in funding for
UNFPA is excessive, and thus unwise. I was pleased, therefore, to find
that the Senate rescissions package does not cut the U.S. allocation
for UNFPA. I particularly want to commend and thank the Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, for recognizing the
importance of this international effort.
UNFPA will continue only if member nations continue to provide it
with support. I believe that the United States has a clear interest in
the success of UNFPA and similar population and development assistance
efforts, and I join with Senator Simpson and my other colleagues in
urging the Senate to maintain U.S. support.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to take final
action on H.R. 1158, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to
the provisions of the bill and the Dole-Daschle amendment making
rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs. Along with my
distinguished colleagues, Senators Simpson, Chafee, Simon, and others,
I believe a direct and substantial benefit flows to the United States
from our modest investment in sustainable development and population
efforts. I am pleased the Senate bill rejects specific cuts to these
vital programs and instead attempts to minimize harm to on-going, cost-
effective foreign assistance programs.
Mr. President, I disagree with certain provisions of the bill before
us. Nonetheless, I want to commend the distinguished Chairman and
Ranking Democrat of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators
Hatfield and Byrd, and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Democrat
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senators
McConnell and Leahy, for their very commendable effort to make
equitable rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs.
It is significant that the cuts recommended by the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee are not based on a fundamental dislike for particular
programs. Nor are they driven by a belief that one or two foreign aid
programs are unnecessary. Rather, the Subcommittee's recommendation of
$100 million in general reductions to programs within its jurisdiction
reflects the laudable belief that deficit reduction can be achieved in
a manner which minimizes harm to all programs.
Over the next few weeks, as my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee take this bill to conference with the House, I urge them to
remain firmly committed to the Subcommittee's goal of making equitable
rescissions in foreign policy programs. More specifically, I urge them
to resist House efforts to target and cut vital population and
development programs.
Under the House-passed bill, population and development programs
would disproportionately bear the burden of foreign
policy rescissions. Development assistance would be cut by $45.5
million and population assistance would be targeted for $9 million in
cuts. In my view, these cuts are extremely shortsighted. In the long-
term, they could end up costing the U.S. far more than we would save in
fiscal year 1995. The Senate should remain firm in its commitment to
making foreign policy rescissions that are rationale and fair, and the
House rescissions should be rejected in Conference.
From my perspective, attention to global population issues and
support for world-wide development is critical to our future successes
here in the United States. Because I so strongly believe this, I joined
with Senator Simpson--and Congressman Beilenson and Congresswoman
Morella--to introduce legislation called the ``International Population
Stabilization and Reproductive Health Care Act,'' S. 1096, in the 103rd
Congress. Our bill, which we are revising for re-introduction in this
Congress, would have focused U.S.
[[Page S5364]] foreign policy on a coordinated strategy to help achieve
world population stabilization; encourage global economic development
and self-determination; and improve the health and well-being of women
and their children.
I believe these three objectives are inextricably tied to one
another. The way I see it, all U.S. efforts to help develop economies
and promote democracy around the world will be futile if we do not
first address the staggering rate of global population growth. How can
we expect under-developed countries to pull themselves up when the
world's population is growing at a rate of more than 10,000 people per
hour? When the women and men who make up a nation's workforce pool do
not even have the right to plan their families? And when millions of
women around the world do not have access to basic--and lifesaving--
reproductive health care or educational opportunities?
Fortunately, national and international awareness of two fundamental
concepts is growing: (1) population, poverty, patterns of production
and consumption, and the environment are so closely interconnected that
none can be considered in isolation; and (2) sustained economic growth,
sustainable development and population are fundamentally dependent on
advances in the education, economic status and empowerment of women.
Tonight, we in the Senate are re-affirming these principles, and we
are rejecting the House's attempt to drag U.S. foreign policy
backwards. I sincerely hope the Senate conferees carry this message
into Conference. I urge them not to waiver from the Senate's position
on this issue.
amendment no. 445

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of
the amendment proposed by the minority leader that would restore
funding for several important programs that address the needs of our
Nation's children.
Mr. President, the bill we are debating here today, H.R. 1158, would
rescind $13.4 billion in previously appropriated funds--including $600
million appropriated last year for Federal education programs.
Needless to say, I am vehemently opposed to taking this kind of giant
leap backward. In my view, it would be unconscionable for Congress to
reduce the Federal Government's share of public education funding which
has already fallen from 9.1 percent during the 1980-1981 school year to
5.6 percent during the 1993-1994 school year.
It is vital to the interest of our Nation that we maintain quality
public education for everyone. Education is not just a private benefit
but a public good. It is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and, as
a society, we all benefit from a well educated citizenry.
We are currently experiencing a new era in economic competition. All
over the world, barriers to trade between nations are falling. We are
witnessing the development of a truly global marketplace. I believe
that America can lead the way in this marketplace. But if we are to
succeed, if we are to retain our competitiveness into the 21st century,
there must be a renewed commitment to education in this country.
Several international institutions recognized the increasing
importance of education just a few weeks ago at the United Nations
summit on social development when they urged developing nations to
invest in education rather than on defense.
In fact, for the first time in history, over 130 world leaders also
agreed to a non-binding goal known as the 20-20 proposal which
recognizes that economic and social problems have global consequences
by creating immigration problems, epidemics, markets too poor to buy
exports, and economies too risky for investors.
This proposal encourages all donor nations and international
institutions to earmark 20 percent of their foreign aid for basic
social needs including education and health care. It also encourages
developing nations to allocate 20 percent of their expenditures to the
same underfinanced sectors.
Nonetheless, while leaders from around the world were recognizing the
increasing importance of education, Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives were busy passing H.R. 1158. If enacted, H.R. 1158
would rescind $17 billion--including $1.7 billion in education funding
for our Nation's children and $2.3 billion in job training funding for
our Nation's unemployed youth.
In fact, this legislation would also withdraw funding for all new
education initiatives--including the education infrastructure act which
I introduced last April to help local school boards ensure the health
and safety of their students.
Mr. President, I simply do not understand why some of my colleagues
are so determined to slash funding for programs that increase economic,
social, and educational opportunities for our Nation's children.
According to the Children's Defense Fund, every day in America: 3
children die from child abuse; 15 children die from guns; 27 children
die from poverty; 95 children before their first birthday; 564 babies
are born to women who had little or no prenatal care; 2,217 teenagers
drop out of school; 2,350 children are in adult jails; 100,000 children
are homeless; and 135,000 children bring guns to school.
Although S. 617 would reduce our investment in our Nation's children
by less than H.R. 1158, it still asks them to bear too much of the pain
created by this effort to pay for emergency spending.
The Daschle amendment would improve the bill by restoring $1.3
billion for some of the most important and successful education and job
training programs in this country. More specifically, the Daschle
amendment would provide: $42 million for the Head Start Program which
has successfully given hundreds of thousands of pre-schoolers the
chance to start school ready to learn; $100 million for the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program which is helping local school districts keep
drugs and guns out of our Nation's $72 million for the Chapter 1
Program which has helped States and local school districts meet the
educational needs of economically disadvantaged children for 30 years;
$69.6 million for the goals 2000 program which is helping States create
coherent frameworks for education reform founded on the national
education goals; $30 million for the school-to-work program which helps
States and local school districts improve the educational and
employment opportunities of our Nation's high school students who do
not plan to attend college; $8.8 million for the immigrant education
program which helps local school districts meet the educational needs
of recently arrived immigrant children; $16.3 million for the impact
aid program which compensates local school districts for revenue losses
incurred due to removal of Federal property from local tax rolls; $35
million for the WIC Program which provides important nutrition
supplements to 6.5 million women, infants, and children everyday--
including more than 3 million children under 5; $100 million for the
Youth Training Program which helps States prepare youth and young
adults for high skill, high wage careers; and $210 million for the
Americorps Program which provides a $4,725 scholarship to individuals
who serve the educational, environmental, public safety, and human
needs of our communities.
By providing this needed and long overdue support, the Daschle
amendment will begin to address our failure to adequately engage
resources in behalf of preparing our children for competition in the
emerging global economy. It will help our children to succeed--to make
a living, to participate in the community, to enjoy the arts, and to
understand the technology that has reshaped our workplace. This is in
our children's interest; this is in our national interest.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my
colleagues to support these investments in our Nation's children by
voting for the Daschle amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while there are a number of features of the
Daschle amendment which significantly improve this legislation, I would
like to draw particular attention to two provisions that reinstate
funding the original bill intended to rescind--$14.7 million for the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] and
$100 million for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--because it was
my intention prior to their inclusion in the Daschle
[[Page S5365]] amendment to offer amendments to restore these funds and
to offset the consequent additional costs by rescinding funds from
programs less vital to our Nation and its people.
SAMHSA funds both Substance Abuse Block Grants and the Children's
Mental Health Program. Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants are the
most important vehicle of support for substance abuse treatment efforts
in this country. Funding for these grants cannot be compromised if we
are to succeed in our efforts to reform welfare, reduce crime, and
contain health care costs. The grants account for over one-third of the
funding for public substance abuse treatment nationwide.
The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, July 1994
[CALDATA], found that each day of substance abuse treatment pays for
itself on the day it is received, primarily through reductions in
crime. The Rand Corporation reports that drug treatment is the most
cost-effective form of drug intervention, compared with other potential
drug strategy program options, such as interdiction or imprisonment.
Mr. President, every $1 invested in drug treatment saves taxpayers $7
dollars. There are several sources for this figure, including CALDATA
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
The heavy toll drug use exacts on the United States is most easily
measured by the criminal and medical costs imposed on and paid for by
the Nation's taxpaying citizens. One major study, conducted by Dorothy
Rice at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of
California at San Francisco, concluded that drug abuse costs taxpayers
$67 billion, alcohol abuse costs $99 billion, for a total cost to the
Federal Government of $166 billion per year. ``The impact of substance
abuse and addiction on Federal entitlements is equivalent to more than
40 percent of the Federal deficit for 1995,'' states Joe Califano,
former HEW Secretary and President of the Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. Ninety-two percent of
the funds spent by health care entitlement programs as a result of
substance abuse are used to pay for treatment of the consequences of
such abuse; only 8 percent is spent to reduce dependency.
The costs to the Federal Government do not begin to account for the
higher costs substance abuse wreak on the private economy. Every man,
woman, and child in America pays nearly $1,000 annually to cover the
costs of unnecessary health care, extra law enforcement, auto
accidents, crime, and lost productivity resulting from substance abuse,
according to a Brandeis University study.
The impact of substance abuse on crime is staggering. Substance abuse
is linked to between one-quarter and one-third of all suicides,
according to the Public Health Service, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse,
and Mental Health Administration. Substance abuse is linked to half of
all homicides, rapes, spousal abuse, and traffic fatalities. Substance
abuse is linked to two-thirds of all cases of manslaughter, drownings,
burglaries, robberies, thefts, and assaults.
According to a study by the National Association of State Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Directors [NASADAD], approximately 1 million people--40
percent of those in need--want and pursue substance abuse treatment at
this moment but do not get it: instead of helping them to help
themselves, the Government leaves them sitting on waiting lists across
the country.
These individuals--the vast majority of which are mothers, workers,
or professionals--are willing and eager to improve their lives and the
lives of those around them, but the government fails to extend a
helping hand. Not only taxpayers, but society at large, foots the bill
for this neglect.
SAMHSA also funds the Children's Mental Health Program, which
provides services for children with very serious emotional disturbances
[SED]. This program is targeted at the 1 million children with SED--out
of 7.5 million nationwide--who are in State-administered systems
encompassing child welfare, juvenile justice, and special education
programs. This amendment restores $1.3 million to this program that the
bill would have rescinded. This money goes to 22 service sites that
will not survive without the funds. The future of these children is at
stake.
Even in the face of all these facts, Mr. President, the rescissions
bill--prior to the Daschle amendment--would have taken a random,
unexplained, unjustifiable slice out of the budget for SAMHSA.
At the same time, it would have taken $100 million out of the Safe
and Drug Free Schools--Safe Schools--program.
Mr. President, on this subject, I would like to take a few moments to
talk about a reality that is very separate from the one in which my
colleagues and I live.
Someone who lives in this reality, Mr. President, wakes up worried
that today he could very well be killed. He realistically expects that
someone he knows might be shot this week, or stabbed, or beaten. He
goes through his day fearing everyone who passes by, constantly alert
for trouble and danger, always keeping an eye on the nearest exit or
hiding place. He might carry a weapon, purely for protection, and hide
it on his person--a crude knife hidden in his sleeve, a length of pipe
tucked into his boot, a makeshift handgun in his pocket, a box-cutter
taped to his stomach. One hand is probably always on this weapon, this
small piece of security. If he makes it back to bed at the end of the
day, he will be thankful, relieved, and certainly a little surprised.
This reality is not a war, and the people who inhabit this world are
not soldiers. This reality is only blocks away from this Chamber, and
is mirrored in towns across our country. And the participants in this
reality are not adults, they are children, they are as young as 5 and 6
years old, and rarely over the age of 18. I am talking about the
reality found in many elementary and secondary schools across the
United States, where 150,000 students bring a gun every day; where
shootings and stabbings are commonplace; where gangs are in control;
and where 3 million violent crimes are committed each year. I am
talking about a national disgrace, a monumental embarrassment, a
failure on the part of all who care about the future of this country
and the quality of life of our children.
I am talking about a state of events that we cannot tolerate, that we
cannot allow to endure.
In the Steven Speilberg film ``Schindler's List,'' a Nazi soldier
stands on the balcony of his home overlooking the busy center square of
a Jewish concentration camp. Calm and precise, he aims his powerful
rifle at random Jews passing through the crowded streets below, and
effortlessly pulls the trigger. His aim is never faulty, and he always
succeeds in ending a life. The people near the murder recoil in fright
only momentarily, then continue on their way, perhaps a little quicker,
perhaps a little slower, thankful for the moment that the gun was not
trained on them, fearful that the next shot will terminate their
existence. The bullet has struck them, too, and changed them
permanently, leaving them forever horrified, forever damaged, forever
in shock.
This sequence is brutally painful for so many reasons. The only
relief I expected to feel when I watched this sequence was the lack of
any connection between the events on the screen and present day reality
in America. But such a connection is exactly what I felt. Violence in
portions of our country has become so rampant and so deadly that almost
all of us live in a collective state of fear and acceptance. Our cities
and schools have become infested with random violence and bloodshed and
criminals with no conscience and no check on their destructive
impulses. And when this state of affairs has infected our Nation's
schools, then we know that our children are going to be conditioned to
accept this disease as normal. Not only are some of our children dying
in our Nation's schools, but the ones who survive are learning that
murder and violence are simply a part of life--in fact, the most
important part. Mr. President, we are permitting our Nation's youth to
grow up emotionally scarred, terminally frightened, and permanently
embittered.
Mr. President, the Safe Schools Program is a necessity if this
systemic child abuse and neglect is to cease.
A study examining the effects of the first 2 years of funding for the
Safe Schools Program showed increases in
[[Page S5366]] the number of school districts with formal drug and
violence prevention programs in every State and territory in the United
States.
The same study also showed increases in school-community
collaboration on drug prevention issues in 50 States and territories;
increases in parent involvement in drug education efforts in 49 States
and territories; increases in the degree of community involvement in
prevention programs for youth in 46 States and territories; and
increases in the number of high-risk youth served in drug education
programs in 38 States and territories.
Prior to the Daschle amendment, the rescission would reduce or
eliminate violence and drug prevention programs serving approximately
39 million students attending the schools operated by 94 percent of
local educational agencies in the Nation.
Also at risk would be every state Governor's drug and violence
prevention programs designed for youth not served by local educational
agencies. So would be the development and distribution of publications
on school violence and drug/alcohol prevention, which have been the
cornerstone of nationwide efforts to provide schools with information
on models and effective practices. The Parent's Guide on Drug
Prevention alone has been requested by over 30 million persons.
The original rescission would have eliminated assistance and model
development in the area of alternatives to expulsion. With expulsion
rates increasing dramatically in several regions, it is essential to
provide leadership in this area, or more and more kids will go straight
from the schoolhouse to the courthouse.
Consequently I commend the Democratic leader for his leadership and
his sensitivity to the importance of these issues. I appreciate the
opportunity to work with him to gain the inclusion of these important
provisions in his amendment. And I am pleased that the ultimate goals
of the amendments I intended to offer were realized. Since the House
version of the rescissions bill rescinded no funds from SAMHSA, fiscal
year 1995 funds for SAMHSA are now secure. I wish I could say the same
about Safe Schools funds. The House bill eliminated Safe Schools funds
altogether. I urge the conferees to the rescissions bill to protect
Safe School funds. We owe the children and the future of this Nation
nothing less.
amendment no. 448

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my
wholehearted support for the Sense of the Senate resolution proposed as
an amendment today by Senator Kennedy. As a member of the Finance
Committee, I offered an amendment to H.R. 831 that would have closed a
loophole that allows wealthy citizens who renounce their American
citizenships to avoid U.S. taxes. My amendment would have dedicated all
of the savings from closing this loophole to deficit reduction.
According to estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, my amendment
would have reduced the deficit by approximately $3.6 billion over the
next 10 years.
Unfortunately, although the Finance Committee adopted this amendment
on an undivided voice vote and the Senate approved it as part of H.R.
831, the joint House-Senate conference committee re-opened this
loophole. Senator Kennedy's resolution simply expresses the sense of
the Senate that in the interest of tax equity and in the face of on-
going Federal deficits, we must close this loophole.
Mr. President, the amendment that I proposed was fundamentally about
fairness. Not only is it fair to those who enjoyed the benefits of U.S.
citizenship to make billions and are now attempting to avoid paying tax
on such gain, it is also fair to those Americans who stay behind to
shoulder the burdens of citizenship. All my amendment would have done
is treat those who renounce their citizenship on par with Americans who
stay and pay their share of the tax burden.
While U.S. citizenship confers tremendous benefit, it also requires
responsibility. Although we may not always be happy about the amount,
most of us willingly pay our fair share of the tax burden. However, for
many Americans it becomes just too much when they have to pay not only
their share of taxes, but also an additional share for those few,
wealthy individuals who made their money in this country, but are now
trying to skip town without paying their portion of the tab.
Significantly, my amendment would have excluded pension income, real
estate assets, and the first $600,000 in gain. As a result, of the
roughly 850 U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenships in 1994,
only a handful would be affected by the closing of this loophole. In
fact, representatives from the Treasury Department testified that the
amendment would have affected only 24 Americans each year.
Mr. President, significant deficit reduction will be necessary to put
our country back on the right track. However, until we close these
special-interest tax loopholes for the few, we cannot ask for the
shared sacrifice from the many that will be necessary to reduce the
deficit. Therefore, I urge all of our colleagues to support the Kennedy
sense of the Senate amendment.
amendment no. 470--renewable energy

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the rescissions bill we are discussing
today, H.R. 1158, cuts $35 million from the Department of Energy's
solar, wind and renewables research and development budget. The
amendment I offer today will limit to $25 million the amount to be
rescinded from this account, thereby protecting vital renewable energy
programs. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator
Wellstone, Senator Chafee, Senator Daschle, Senator Roth, Senator
Campbell, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, Senator Kerry, Senator Pell,
Senator Kohl, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold.
Mr. President, this amendment is about creating jobs, reducing our
foreign debt, reducing our reliance on imported oil, making American
business more competitive, maintaining our commitment to these small
energy companies and continuing on the path of developing clean, cheap,
efficient energy.
Mr. President, we are proposing to restore $10 million to the
Department of Energy's solar, wind and renewables R&D budget. This
money is primarily used for research, joint ventures with small U.S.
companies, market development and commercialization. Federal support
for renewable energy research and development has been a major success
story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved and a domestic
industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in basic
research at our national labs and applied development to bring down
costs and work with industry.
The $10 million we restore to renewables will come from the $1
billion Army Corps of Engineer's construction account.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for clean domestic
energy, domestic jobs, reduced trade deficit and a stronger economy. I
would like to thank the managers of this bill for their support.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to express my appreciation
to the Senators from Oregon, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Louisiana
for their help in allowing this amendment to go forward. The amendment
decreases the recission from renewable energy research and development
by $10 million, paying for it by increasing the recission for the Army
Corps' general construction activities by the same amount.
This amendment reflects the growing recognition that funding for
research and development of renewable energy technologies is money
well-spent. The recission provided in the Committee Substitute was just
too high.
There is a nationwide movement toward funding only R&D that is going
to lead to commercially viable, economically realistic technology in
the relatively short-term. Renewable energy R&D fits that description.
Renewable energy R&D has been and continues to be a major success
story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a domestic
industry has been born. While the United States is currently the world
leader in renewable energy technologies, other nations are investing
heavily in this area. Given that many utilities are averse to investing
in new technologies, the continued strength of DOE's programs is
necessary to protect our position in the world market.
[[Page S5367]] The American people agree that renewable energy R&D
ought to be a priority for Federal R&D funding. According to a December
1994 survey by RSM Inc., when asked what energy source should be
highest priority for R&D spending, Americans overwhelmingly supported
renewables. The top finisher was renewable energy, receiving 42 percent
of the vote.
Again, I appreciate the help of my colleagues in making acceptance of
this amendment possible. It is time that our federal energy R&D dollars
reflect the public's funding priorities.
Amendment No. 490

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Feinstein, Senator Feingold, and Senator Simon.
The amendment will insure continued funding for the National Center
for Research in Vocational Education. The Center is a consortium of
institutions of higher education in California, Wisconsin, Illinois,
New York, and Virginia. The Center is widely recognized for the
important research work it does in vocational education, and it would
be very unfortunate, indeed, if funding to permit it to continue its
work were curtailed.
As my colleagues know, we will soon be considering reauthorization of
the Vocational Education Act. The work of the Center has provided the
authorizing committee invaluable information to help guide and
facilitate our work. But even more critical, their research efforts are
vital to improving the quality of vocational education throughout our
Nation.
I view the amendment as an important placeholder so that when the
Senate and House conferees meet on this legislation, they will have the
opportunity to give this matter full and complete consideration. I am
very hopeful they will ultimately decide to retain funding for the
Center, but without this amendment there will be no chance whatsoever
to provide continued funding for the Center and the important work it
does.
citizenship training and naturalization services

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I and my colleagues from California and
Illinois, Senators Feinstein and Moseley-Braun, had intended to offer
an amendment restoring $6 million dollars for citizenship training and
naturalization services that had been rescinded in the Senate, but not
in the House.
Although naturalization has been identified as a priority by the
administration in its immigration policy, naturalization services have
been chronically underfunded and naturalization backlogs begin to grow.
It is my believe--and I belief that of my colleagues--that these funds
are essential to the important goal of providing those who want to
naturalize with an opportunity to do so. Admittedly, $6 million dollars
is a small amount of money, but the program rescinded in the Senate is
crucial to the continued health of those providing citizenship
training.
In discussing my intention with the Honorable Chairman of the Labor/
HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter, I was impressed with
his willingness to attempt to resolve this problem in conference with
the House of Representatives, which, as I mentioned before, did not
rescind the $6 million in citizenship training money. I would like to
ask the Honorable Chairman if it is in fact his desire to take a second
look at the $6 million citizenship money in conference.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois. The committee's
intent, in recommending this rescission, was to revisit funding once
authorizing legislation has been enacted through the regular process of
Judiciary Committee consideration. There is some concern that adding
this responsibility to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the
Department of Health and Human Services could increase pressure on
already underfunded domestic resettlement activities, as opposed to
placing responsibility under the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. I believe this is an issue the authorizing committees need to
address. Nevertheless, it is indeed my intention to resolve this matter
in conference to the satisfaction of all those who--like myself--value
legal immigration and recognize the importance to our immigration
policies of an effective naturalization process. I look forward to
working with the distinguished Senate Appropriations Committee
Chairman, Mr. Hatfield; my counterpart in the House, Congressman
Porter, chairman of the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee;
and the other conferees to address this issue, and I thank Senator
Simon, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Moseley-Braun for their attention
to this important matter.
Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. His concern for
issues of legal immigration and naturalization has long been
recognized, and I am gratified that he will undertake to review
seriously, and hopefully restore, the $6 million Senate rescission with
our colleagues in the House.
The Mildgas Process Unit

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, this amendment has a simple
purpose--to restore $4.8 million in fiscal year 1995 fossil energy
research and development funds to help complete a small coal technology
testing facility, the Mildgas Process Unit.
I am joined in this amendment by my distinguished senior Illinois
colleague, my good friend, Senator Simon.
The Mildgas Process Unit is a facility that will test a technology
known as mild gasification, a process where lower-grade domestic coals
are heated at moderate temperatures and pressures to produce a variety
of gaseous fuels, liquid hydrocarbons, and a solid product known as
char.
Char, the primary product of the Mildgas facility, can be briquetted
into form coke, creating a new alternative to conventional coke now
used by American steel firms and foundries. This is particularly
important because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 imposed strong
restrictions on the emissions from coke ovens.
Those are two major reasons why my amendment is important, Mr.
President. For a modest investment today, the Mildgas experiment
promises hundreds of millions of dollars in new uses tomorrow for
Illinois Basin and Appalachian high-sulfur coals. And those new uses
solve a significant economic and environmental problem of our Nation's
iron and steel industries.
However, I am concerned that the decision to cut funds for the
Mildgas Process Unit has been based principally on deficit reduction,
and on a belief that this technology is unwanted and unneeded.
This year, overall Federal spending will be in excess of $1\1/2\
trillion, and it will take $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction to
achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Laid along figures of that
size, the $4.8 million we seek for the Mildgas project may seem to be a
small matter.
That is not to say that its relatively small size should not immunize
the Mildgas project from review. After all, to paraphrase a famous
Illinoisan who preceded me in the Senate, the Senate Republican leader
of his day, Everett Dirksen, ``A few dollars here, a few dollars there,
and pretty soon you're talking about serious money.'' What that means,
it seems to me, is that nothing can be off limits--not small items, not
large items, not any item.
I therefore agree that review of Federal support for mild
gasification technology demonstrations is both necessary and
appropriate. It is because my own review of the facts convinces
me that going forward is the right decision, the prudent decision, and
the right budgetary decision, that I am offering this amendment to
restore funding toward completing the Mildgas project.

It is worth noting, in this era of concern about earmarks and pork-
barrel spending, that this project did not originate with the Congress.
The Department of Energy originally selected this project in 1991 in a
competitive solicitation. The Mildgas project had to compete with a
number of other proposals.
In the years since the Mildgas project won that competition, over
$7.5 million has been provided by Congress--half of the Federal share.
The State of Illinois has funding that amounts to 20 percent of the
total cost. A team of participants, which includes Kerr McGee Coal
Corp., Southern Illinois University, and the Institute of Gas
Technology in Chicago, has broken ground at the Coal Development Park
in Carterville, IL, in preparation to test this technology.
[[Page S5368]] The contracts are now in place to turn this
demonstration into reality. Construction of the facility will end late
1995, followed by 1 year of testing, after which the project will be
shut down.
I am well aware that there are several similar projects currently
being funded by the Department of Energy. But, success cannot be
defined as simply demonstrating one example of a broad class of mild
gasification technologies. The spectrum of mild gasification techniques
is quite broad. There are different types of coals used, products
produced, and markets served.
That is why the Mildgas process unit is important. It does not
reinvent the wheel. It does not duplicate other mild gasification
technologies. It is unique.
Mildgas can use many types of coals. The Encoal clean coal
demonstration project in Wyoming, a project often compared to Mildgas,
utilizes only Western coal. Mildgas technology makes use of Illinois,
Wyoming, and West Virginia coals.
And although Encoal's primary product is a value-added fuel, its
market is still only a boiler fuel. Mildgas's product, char, creates an
entirely new market for high-sulfur and lower-grade coals, and solves
an environmental problem for the Nation's steel industry. And as aging
coke ovens are shut down and not replaced, Mildgas can provide American
steel industries with a domestically produced alternative to importing
coke from the same countries that are our steel-making competitors.
Encoal and the other mild gasification technologies have been, and I
hope will continue to be, successful, but their success will not
address the Illinois Basin and Appalachian coals that Mildgas will use,
nor meet the environmental needs of the steel industry like Mildgas
will.
Mr. President, the Mildgas Process Unit is based upon years of
detailed planning, investment, and careful research by industry and
scientists in close cooperation with the Department of Energy. It
deserves to continue.
Mildgas does not break the bank. For a minor investment today,
Mildgas can open hundreds of millions of dollars in markets tomorrow.
Mildgas can help the coal industry, by exploring a way to shift high-
sulfur coals from markets reduced by the Clean Air Act, to markets
opened.
And, Mildgas is unique. Mildgas uses coals, produces products, and
serves markets that other mild gasification technologies simply do not.
I think it is worth investing a few more years to complete this
experiment.
I strongly urge my colleague, the distinguished Senator from
Washington, to give every consideration in conference to providing the
necessary funds to complete the Mildgas Process Unit.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments
regarding the mild gasification facility planned for southern Illinois.
As I am sure the Senator knows, given the budget constraints that the
committee was forced to confront, we were simply unable to include the
funds needed to initiate construction of the Mildgas Process Unit. I
can assure the distinguished Senator, however, that I will give
appropriate consideration to this project within the budget limitations
that we will continue to face in conference.
federal emergency management agency

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise at this time to voice my concerns
with apparent inconsistencies in the administration of disaster
recommendations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
As my colleagues well know, H.R. 1158, the fiscal year 1995 Disaster
Supplemental/Rescissions Bill, contains $1.9 billion for outstanding
expenses accrued from previous disasters in 39 States, including recent
flooding in Southern California.
I am sure all of us have seen news footage of the raging winter
storms that have wreaked havoc across virtually the entire State of
California. The devastation families have endured is terrible. As a
result, the President--acting on recommendations made by FEMA--declared
many California counties disaster areas. This includes Ventura County,
which is located along the Southern California coast north of Los
Angeles.
There is one particular area of Ventura County I would like to call
to the attention of my colleagues. Homes located on a hillside in La
Conchita, CA recently sustained considerable damage. Because of the
President's declaration, private and public property damaged by the
disaster is eligible for four different kinds of FEMA assistance. These
homeowners rightfully have the hope of relief.
My concern is not with the fact that relief is being made available
to those affected by the La Conchita mudslide. Rather, I am concerned
with what I believe could very well be an inconsistent approach to
disaster recommendations made by FEMA.
Permit me to explain. Mr. President, geologists have known for
several decades that the La Conchita hillside has been moving for
23,000 years. In other words, La Conchita was a potential disaster
waiting to happen. Thus, FEMA is making relief available in response to
a disaster resulting from a preexisting condition. This is a policy
vastly different from one FEMA applied last July.
I see my colleague, the chairman of Appropriations Committee, is now
on the floor. I ask the Senator if he is familiar with a similar
situation that occurred in Lead, SD.
Mr. HATFIELD. No, I am not familiar with the situation. Could the
Senator from South Dakota please explain.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from Oregon for inquiring.
Last May, a slow moving landslide damaged homes, businesses, and
infrastructure. This landslide was exacerbated by excessive
precipitation. Despite a request by the governor of South Dakota and
the urging of the State's Congressional delegation, FEMA recommended
that the President deny South Dakota's relief request for the Lead
landslide. According to FEMA, the landslide resulted from a preexisting
condition and did not pose ``an immediate threat to public health,
safety, and improved property.''
The Lead landslide forced the community's only grocery store,
pharmacy, and discount store to close. Some of the stores
were forced to relocate to the community hall and church basement.

Clearly, the people of Lead suffered a great deal. This isolated
community has yet to reopen the only grocery store in the area.
Although the Economic Development Administration has offered a grant to
help mitigate the slide, the city will have to sacrifice vital repairs
to streets, gas lines, and water lines.
By contrast, the residents of the La Conchita hillside in Ventura
County will have access to expedited FEMA assistance. This lack of
consistency concerns me.
I would like to verify with the Senator from Oregon that monies
provided in H.R. 1158 will be used, in part, to assist the victims of
this winter's storms in California. Is this correct?
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from South Dakota is correct. The bill, in
its current form, provides $1.9 billion to FEMA for disaster relief
functions including expenses resulting from disasters in 39 States.
Report language accompanying this bill acknowledges that these funds
may be used to ensure unforeseen expenses associated with the recent
disaster in California resulting from winter storms.
Mr. PRESSLER. I also understand my concerns regarding the consistency
of disaster declarations are shared by others. As Chairman of the
Committee, I am sure the Senator from Oregon is very familiar with
questions regarding disaster declaration criteria. Does the Senator
from Oregon agree this is a common concern?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, I do agree with the senior Senator from South
Dakota. As he well knows, the General Accounting Office, the
Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office
recently released a comprehensive study of the entire relief process.
Mr. PRESSLER. Will the distinguished Senator from Oregon agree that
it is imperative that FEMA apply its declaration criteria consistently,
regardless of where the disaster is taking place?
Mr. HATFIELD. I could not agree more with my friend from South
Dakota. Consistency in the disaster declaration process should be a
reasonable expectation of all Americans.
[[Page S5369]] Mr. PRESSLER. I think it is clear, Mr. President, that
FEMA needs to take a close look at its current declaration policies.
The similarities surrounding the landslides in Lead and Ventura
County are striking. For the residents of Ventura County, FEMA's
response is reassuring. For the people of Lead, the response from FEMA
is disconcerting. I must stress a point I have made on this very floor
in the past: Disasters occurring in isolated rural areas do not seem to
capture the attention of the national media, Federal agencies, or the
President. Lead, SD, does not compare to Southern California glamour,
and it
certainly is not near a major media outlet.

However, as we all know, the size of a community or its media outlets
should not dictate whether or not Federal relief is granted or how fast
the assistance gets to those in need.
I believe the time has come for FEMA take a close look at its
policies. In the meantime, I have asked GAO to examine FEMA's
responsiveness to urban and rural disasters. I hope Congress will be
able to maintain an oversight role. If there is an inconsistency we
should not hesitate to consider legislation to ensure emergency
assistance is provided consistently and judiciously.
In fact, I believe it would be appropriate for the conferees of this
bill to include language in the accompanying report to direct FEMA to
report to Congress on how it found that disaster assistance could be
provided in response to the identified preexisting condition in Ventura
County, but came to a different conclusion with the preexisting
condition in Lead. I believe this instruction is an appropriate first
step in what I hope will be a comprehensive review by FEMA of its
current declaration policies and criteria.
Would the distinguished chairman of the committee agree that this
review is necessary?
Mr. HATFIELD. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that a
review of the disaster declaration process may be appropriate. His
concerns have merit. The people of Lead, SD, deserve to be assured that
they are being treated fairly by the federal government. The Senator
from South Dakota is to be commended for his diligent attention to the
needs of his constituents. The Senator can be assured I will deliver
this message to the conferees and will do my best to include a
directive to FEMA regarding its declaration policies and criteria in
the conference report to this bill.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my good friend the Senator from Oregon and
thank him for his leadership. I yield the floor.

health care financing research and demo projects

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the situation with
respect to funding of research and demonstration projects by the Health
Care Financing Administration. The Senate recommendation calls for a
rescission of $11 million, which would reduce fiscal year
appropriations to $45.1 million for research and demonstration
projects. This is an increase of nearly $2 million over the amount
needed to fund continuations of on-going activities, so that even if
the entire Senate rescission is enacted into law, the Health Care
Financing Administration should be able to fund about $2 million of new
projects. I would ask Senator Specter, the chairman of the Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, is that his
understanding.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, based on information supplied to me by the
Department of Health and Human Services, there would still be about $2
million available for new research and demonstration projects by the
Health Care Financing Administration, even after the Senate recommended
rescission.
essential air service

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a section in
chapter IX of this legislation that in my view could have an adverse
impact on the future of the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program.
Specifically, I am very concerned about the language affecting
``Payments to Air Carriers,'' otherwise referred to as EAS subsidies.
I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on
the floor. Would the chairman be willing to enter into a short colloquy
on this issue and explain the intent of this section of the bill?
Mr. HATFIELD. Certainly. I understand the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has always supported
EAS. Therefore, I would be pleased to explain the intent of these
provisions and answer any questions posed by the Senator from South
Dakota.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Oregon. First, I understand this
legislation would rescind $5.3 million in ``Payments to Air Carriers.''
What is the impact of this rescission?
Mr. HATFIELD. This rescission should have no real impact on the
program. The Appropriations Committee was informed sufficient funding
would remain available to continue the EAS program through the end of
this fiscal year. In other words, all communities currently provided
air service with EAS assistance will continue to be served through this
fiscal year.
Mr. PRESSLER. I understand about 79 cities rely on EAS to remain
linked to the national air transportation system. I am pleased the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee will continue to uphold our
commitment to these small communities.
Now, as my friend from Oregon knows, there are EAS agreements in at
least 13 States that will expire before September 30 of this year. The
committee amendment to the bill before us includes a provision to
prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Transportation [DOT] from
entering into any new EAS agreements beyond September 30, 1995. I am
concerned about the purpose of this restriction. In my view, it implies
congressional support for EAS ends September 30, 1995--the end of the
current fiscal year. My support for EAS will not end on that date.
Would the chairman explain the purpose of this specific provision?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. First, let me assure the Senator from South Dakota
this provision should not be read by any Member of Congress as an
attempt to jeopardize future congressional support for EAS. This
provision applies only to fiscal year 1995. Further, as the chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, I intend to work with my friend from South Dakota on
an appropriate level of EAS funding for Fiscal Year 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER. I am very pleased to know my friend from Oregon does
not view the provision in question as a threat to the future of EAS.
However, I still have strong concerns about the language in this bill.
Specifically, I remain concerned the most economic continuation of EAS
may be hindered by this provision. Permit me to explain.
As my friend from Oregon knows, when an EAS agreement is about to
expire, current law requires the Department of Transportation to invite
and consider competing proposals from any interested air carriers. The
objective of that policy is to maximize the carriers' incentives to be
efficient, to control costs effectively and to develop demand in the
EAS market. This process yields two primary benefits: subsidy burdens
are minimized and service to the community is often enhanced. That
process has served the EAS program very well.
As I mentioned, EAS agreements will expire in 13 states before
September 30th. Several already have expired. The practical reality of
the proposed restriction to limit contract commitments would result in
very short contracts at much higher costs in order to continue air
service to those 13 states for the remainder of this fiscal year.
I am concerned efficiencies will be jeopardized if the DOT is
prohibited from entering into any agreements beyond September 30th. I
do not believe new carriers would seek to serve any of these 13 states
for such a limited time period. In turn, those EAS carriers serving the
13 states will almost assuredly demand higher subsidies if they are
held into those markets through the end of the fiscal year.
Further, DOT already issues notification to carriers that subsidy
payments under EAS agreements are subject to the availability of funds
in future fiscal years. Therefore, EAS carriers already know their
subsidies are contingent on the annual approval of the Congress.
In my view, competition could be eliminated by this provision. In
turn,
[[Page S5370]] subsidy rates will go up. What is the view of the
Chairman?
Mr. HATFIELD. This language simply forces the EAS office to have EAS
contracts conform to the federal fiscal year. The office has had almost
twenty years to make this adjustment. When the Appropriations Committee
tries to get data from this office it often does not comport to the
fiscal year basis that the Committee must consider in its
deliberations.
Mr. PRESSLER. As the Chairman knows, I am prepared to offer an
amendment to strike all the language after the rescission provision. I
am willing to modify my amendment to further ensure the future of EAS
is not jeopardized. Would the Manager of the bill be willing to accept
my amendment?
Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to accept the Senator's amendment
which would strike lines 1 through 3 on page 42. As he knows, the
language which was provided by the Department had the effect of totally
canceling the EAS program which was not the Committee's intent.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chairman. I very much appreciate his
support for EAS and his leadership on this overall legislation. I also
thank him for his support of my amendment and urge its adoption.
colloquy on smithsonian institution funding

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when debate began on the House rescissions
bill I intended to offer an amendment prohibiting the Smithsonian
Institution from using appropriated funds to develop, plan, or build
any new museum before congressional authorization had been obtained.
After speaking with the distinguished chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, I chose to forgo proposing
the amendment. Senator Gorton assured me that the Smithsonian has no
intention of beginning any new museum without first seeking the
appropriate authorization from Congress.
Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Rules Committee, which is
the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the Smithsonian, I
have seen the Smithsonian initiate a new project without congressional
authorization and then come to Congress to authorize the project
bemoaning the waste of funds already spent should the project not be
authorized.
It is important to stress that any new project requesting taxpayer
funds, should first go to the committee that has authorizing authority
and then, if and only if, the project has been authorized should the
request go to the Appropriations Committee for funding.
The Smithsonian must not ignore this process.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina
yield?
Mr. HELMS. I welcome comments from the able Senator from the State of
Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the decision of the Senator
from North Carolina, Senator Helms, not to offer his amendment so we
can speed up debate on this important bill.
The issue that Senator Helms has brought to our attention is a
serious one that deserves emphasis. I am confident through my
conversations with the current Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr.
Heyman, that the Smithsonian intends properly to fulfill its
obligations as steward of this public trust. Secretary Heyman agrees
that no Federal appropriation will be used for projects that have not
yet been authorized by Congress.
Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for a point of clarification?
Mr. GORTON. I yield.
Mr. HELMS. Senator Gorton, I am not sure that all of our colleagues
realize that 72 percent of Smithsonian operating funds are public,
taxpayer funds.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Helms is correct.
Therefore, it is important for the Smithsonian, like all other
entities that receive taxpayer dollars, to take note of the budgetary
constraints under which we are working. It is a time for fiscal
responsibility and the careful allocation of increasingly scarce
resources.
I have been assured in all conversations I have had with Secretary
Heyman that he is aware of his institution's role and its attendant
responsibilities. The Secretary has underscored the importance of
prioritizing projects during his tenure.
Mr. HELMS. Will the distinguished subcommittee chairman yield for a
moment?
Mr. GORTON. Certainly. I yield the floor to the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I sincerely appreciate the work the Senator from
Washington has done in this area. The Senate Rules Committee has yet to
meet with the current Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. Heyman, but I
have been assured we will soon be given that opportunity. I will
welcome that important hearing.
NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY'S GREAT LAKES SCIENCE CENTER IN ANN ARBOR,
MI

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies in a brief discussion regarding the impact of S. 617
on the National Biological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center in Ann
Arbor, MI. The committee's report accompanying S. 617 recommends
rescinding $4.136 million less than was included in the House-passed
recission bill, H.R. 1158. That is almost exactly the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to maintain operations at the Great
Lakes Science Center. If the Senate approves the committee's
recommended recissions from funds already appropriated for NBS
research, will this center remain in business in fiscal year 1995?
Mr. GORTON. Yes. While there is not a correlation between the funding
levels rescinded by the House and by the Senate and the fiscal year
1995 appropriations level necessary for keeping the Great Lakes Center
open, it is the committee's intent to provide sufficient funds for NBS
research so that the Great Lakes Center and other NBS centers can
continue to operate in fiscal year 1995.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if the subcommittee chairman would answer
an additional question, I would like to know whether he will continue
to support funding to keep the Great Lakes Center open in fiscal year
1995, during the conference on S. 617 and H.R. 1158?
Mr. GORTON. I am aware that both of my colleagues from Michigan and
from elsewhere in the Great Lakes region strongly support the work
being done by the NBS Great Lakes Science Center. Hopefully, in
conference, we can arrive at a compromise which will prevent cuts in
the NBS research budget that would close or hamper operations at NBS
centers and cooperative units.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Washington for his
responsiveness to our concerns. As he may know, the Great Lakes Center
conducts fishery stock assessments that are relied upon by States,
tribes, and Canada. And effective management of fish stocks in the
Great Lakes is important to the $4 billion fishing industry in the
region.
Mr. LEVIN. I would also like to thank my colleague from Washington
for his assistance in this matter. As my colleague from Michigan has
indicated, the Great Lakes Center has important duties. Besides the
fishery stock management element of its activities, the center conducts
invaluable scientific research on preventing, controlling and
mitigating the impacts on nonindigenous species, such as the zebra
mussel. And, the center is conducting essential studies on the sources
and health effects of toxics in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
wic

Mr. LEAHY. I am very worried that the House Republican welfare reform
bill ultimately could throw millions of pregnant women, infants and
children off the WIC program [the Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children].
That part of the Contract with America guts strong competitive
bidding requirements which have put millions of pregnant women, infants
and children on the WIC program at no cost to taxpayers in recent
years.
These are provisions which I and my Senate colleagues from both sides
of the aisle included in child nutrition legislation in 1987 and in
1989 and which the Senate Appropriations Committee mandated in 1988
with strong bipartisan support.
I am concerned that this victory is eliminated by the House bill.
These efforts on the House side raise serious concerns about why
House
[[Page S5371]] members want to provide millions of dollars to the four
huge corporations that manufacture infant formula.
The details of this tragedy are set forth in articles in the Wall
Street Journal ``Four Drug Firms Could Gain $1 Billion Under GOP
Nutrition-Program Revision,'' Hilary Stout, February 28, 1995; the New
York Times ``Formula for Tragedy,'' Bob Herbert Op Ed, March 25, 1995;
and the Washington Post ``Food Program Defender Becomes a Dismantler,''
David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf, April 4, 1995.
WIC serves children at some of the most critical times of their
lives. It feeds mothers when they are pregnant or breastfeeding. And it
feeds children during their important, early development years.
WIC is a proven success story. A 1991 USDA study showed that for
every WIC dollar spent on a pregnant woman, between $2.98 and $4.75 was
saved in Medicaid costs for the newborn during the first 60 days after
birth.
Thus competitive bidding saves taxpayers doubly--first, it puts 1.5
million more eligible women, infants and children on the program at no
costs to taxpayers, and it saves millions in Medicaid and other Federal
costs, in addition to saving millions of dollars in family, local and
State medical costs.
The details of this system are easy to explain. At retail stores, WIC
participants exchange special vouchers for infant formula. The
recipients pay nothing; the State reimburses the store for the full
retail cost of the formula. The infant formula manufacturers then
rebate a portion of the retail price to the State. The States are
required to use the rebates to serve more persons who are eligible for
WIC.
Under current law States are required to use competitive bidding,
with certain exceptions, to buy infant formula for the WIC program.
USDA has calculated that this provision now saves $1.1 billion a year
and thus puts 1.5 million more women, infants and children on WIC at no
extra cost to taxpayers.
That provision is eliminated by the Contract with America. That
Contract should be renamed the ``Contract to Increase Profits of Drug
Companies.''
That part of the Contract is a sham. It contains an extremely weak
cost containment provision which will allow infant formula
manufacturers to make a killing off the WIC program while allowing them
to pretend to help WIC.
It will let drug giants donate small amounts of formula to State WIC
programs, in front of their cameras, while making hundreds of millions
of dollars in increased profits.
How have they been able to get this done in this Republican Congress?
The Washington Post article that I referred to earlier, ``Food Program
Defender Becomes a Dismantler,'' explains the influence of large
corporations on the House. A short history lesson is in order.
Some years ago these drug giants hired the former Republican Ranking
Member of the House Agriculture Committee and a former Republican
Assistant Secretary of USDA who was in charge of WIC to fight
competitive bidding at the State level.
Unfortunately, actions of the infant formula and infant cereals
manufacturers have made such mandatory competitive bidding language
necessary and
demonstrate why the House bill will be an invitation to drug companies
and cereal companies to siphon millions out of WIC.

As reported in Senate Hearing 101-979 (``Competitive Issues in Infant
Formula Pricing,'' May 29, 1990) efforts were made by two major
manufacturers Ross Laboratories--a division of Abbott Laboratories--and
Mead-Johnson--a division of Bristol-Myers Squibb--to prevent individual
States from using competitive bidding procedures. In 1985 three
States--Tennessee, Oregon and South Carolina--announced plans to
institute a competitive bidding system for the purchase of infant
formula for WIC.
A group called the Infant Formula Council, an association of formula
manufacturers, immediately opposed these cost containment ideas. The
IFC sent letters to USDA and State officials opposing the plans and
testified against this approach.
The Council retained a Washington law firm to raise legal concerns
with such attempts by States to buy formula more cheaply. The IFC
argued that State efforts to buy formula through competitive bidding
would disrupt commercial channels of distribution of infant formula.
Tennessee went ahead anyway and set a deadline for bids from the
companies to supply formula to WIC participants. However, not a single
company submitted a bid.
That is why I, and many of my Senate colleagues, are very worried.
Under the House Republican bill any State could fall prey to these same
practices today as already discussed in the April 4, 1995, Washington
Post article.
The former ranking Republican member of the House Agriculture
Committee, Congressman Wampler, was hired to oppose these State
voluntary efforts to use competitive bidding. Congressman Wampler was
one of several well connected lobbyists hired by Mead Johnson and Ross
Laboratories to persuade USDA either directly, or indirectly through
Congressional intervention, to prevent States from moving ahead with
plans to institute competitive bidding. Senate Hearing 101-979.
Mead-Johnson also hired the former Republican Assistant Secretary,
Mary Jarrett, to help make sure that States did not use competitive
bidding.
The new plan of attack by the companies was to only offer paltry cost
containment deals to States. This would include giving States some free
formula, or modest cash rebates, or free coupons instead of
participating in competitive bidding.
I am very worried that smaller States such as my home State of
Vermont could be easily victimized by the drug companies under the
House bill.
The lawyers hired by the formula manufacturers then raised legal
objections at the State and Federal level to competitive bidding. They
also tried to convince States not to use competitive bidding but to
instead offer States formula at discounted prices under a system then
called open bidding which is fully described in that report.
A full description of the efforts of Republican lobbyists and the
drug companies to promote cost containment instead of competitive
bidding is detailed in Joint Hearing Report 102-135--Pricing and
Promotion of Infant Formula, March 14, 1991.
Also, on Mach 6, 1990, Mead-Johnson sent letters to the other formula
manufacturers advising them that Mead would only provide a 75 cent
rebate for each can of formula purchased through WIC. Ross Laboratories
and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories--a division of American Home Products
Corporation--followed suit and put in much lower rebate bids at or
around 75 cents.
During the next 8 months, Mead submitted 75 cent rebate bids to 12
different States. In several States, Ross and Wyeth followed Mead's
lead. Ross bid 75 cents 9 times, and 75.7 cents once.
When one company bids a rebate of $0.75 and soon after another bids
$0.757, as Mead and Ross did in Wisconsin and Montana in early 1990, it
does not take a genius to see how this could frustrate competitive
bidding.
A very unusual development also took place which tipped off Federal
investigators with the Federal Trade Commission. The same companies
offered a better bid under what was called an open market system--
whereby all companies matching a discounted price could sell formula to
WIC in that State.
This higher rebate bid of $1.00 made no economic sense since the
companies would have made more money off the exclusive competitive bid
of 75 cents
rather than the open market bid. This apparently was done to
discourage states from using competitive bidding since it signalled
states that the companies would bid $1.00 in an open market setting but
only around 75 cents for a competitive bidding system. The chronology
of infant formula rebate bids for 1990 shows this point.

I asked the FTC to investigate allegations of price fixing and bid
rigging in the WIC program and the efforts to discourage states from
using the best system for purchasing infant formula. The Federal Trade
Commission found merit to the charges and filed actions against the
three companies. Also, several States filed actions against formula
companies for anti-trade activities which have been well detailed in
the press.
[[Page S5372]] In June, 1992, the Federal Trade Commission found
that three pharmaceutical companies tried to fix prices of infant
formula they supply to the WIC program.
The FTC also concluded that competition was reduced because Mead
Johnson announced in advance the amounts to be submitted in sealed bids
to provide formula to the WIC program. Also, it was alleged by the FTC
that Mead Johnson sought to limit advertising to the public and
provided information to competitors signalling bidding preferences.
Two of the drug companies consented to having a Federal court issue
relief against them. The companies--Mead Johnson and American Home
Products--were ordered to provide formula to the WIC program free of
charge as partial restitution.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed the harm to
States from the advance price signaling in 1990. It concluded that
after the Mead-Johnson letter announcing what it would bid in the
future that States were harmed by over $14 million by increases in
annual infant formula costs including the following: Indiana, $3.7
million cost increase; Minnesota, $1,811,000 increase; Mississippi,
$1.7 million increase; Oklahoma, $1.4 million increase; Kentucky,
$868,000 increase; Oregon, $867,000 increase; Colorado, $820,000
increase; West Virginia, $650,000 increase; Iowa, $539,000 increase;
and Montana, with a $324,000 cost increase.
I am very worried, as are many of my Senate colleagues, that allowing
these companies the opportunity to take more than one million
participants off the program so the drug companies can make more
profits is outrageous. The fact that the House cut $25 million out of
the WIC budget for fiscal year 1995 also raises some concern. We will
work to see that no one is taken off the WIC rolls in fiscal year 1995
because of funding limitations.
Senator Bumpers also took the lead in supporting and defending these
competitive bidding requirements. What are the views of the Senator
from Arkansas on this matter?
Mr. BUMPERS. I am also worried and concerned about the provisions in
the House bill that eliminate the current WIC competitive bidding
requirements. I have supported these efforts right from the beginning
and will strongly oppose efforts to eliminate competitive bidding.
I share Senator Leahy's concern that the new plan of attack by the
companies will be to only offer paltry cost containment deals to
States. This would include giving States some free formula, or modest
cash rebates, or free coupons instead of participating in competitive
bidding. This could mean that millions of infants, women and children
would be forced off WIC.
Senator Pryor has been a leader regarding child nutrition programs
and I would like his views on this issue.
Mr. PRYOR. As I said at an Agriculture Committee hearing, I am also
very troubled by the House efforts to cut child nutrition programs. The
worst aspect of their bill relates to efforts to give these drug
companies the opportunity to increase their profits at a high cost to
poor pregnant women and children.
The Senate reports show the efforts drug companies have exerted over
the years to sell formula at a high cost to WIC. Since WIC is 100
percent federally funded, the Federal Government should insist that it
get the best return on each dollar spent.
Competitive bidding, which is used by the Federal Government for much
of its procurement, should be required as under current law. Clever
efforts to hide profiteering under the cloak of weakened, so-called
cost-containment measures, will hurt the WIC program in my State, and
throughout the Nation. I know the drug companies may already be
celebrating, but the Senate took the lead in the past in standing up to
these corporate interests. I believe that despite all the money spent
by the drug companies to influence opinion, the Senate will do the
right thing.
Mr. DASCHLE. I fully agree with the views expressed by my fellow
Democratic colleagues. We cannot give the WIC program to the drug
companies and allow them to turn WIC into a formula for profit.
WIC is one of America's most effective child nutrition programs and I
intend to fight any efforts of the House to repeal the WIC program.
Senator Harkin led the fight against the practices of one infant
formula company that sold powdered formula to third-world countries.
Low-income families would mix the formula with contaminated water and
the formula would do more harm than good. I ask Senator Harkin what are
his views on competitive bidding?
Mr. HARKIN. I was very proud of my role in leading the fight against
companies that tried to push formula in the third-world. While I am a
very strong supporter of breastfeeding I recognize the formula does
play an important role in the WIC program.
I agree fully with the remarks that Senator Leahy has made about the
importance of competitive bidding for WIC infant formula, and the
comments of my colleagues on the subject, and I commend Senator Leahy
for his work on this issue as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry and now as ranking member.
To get the best deal for taxpayers I believe it is essential that we
require that competitive bidding be used for WIC infant formula so that
we can ensure that the States are not subjected to the kinds of
pressure tactics to eliminate competitive bidding that have been so
thoroughly documented. We owe it to taxpayers and to over a million and
a half additional people who are served each month with the savings
from competitive bidding. I do not want this provision watered down so
that companies can increase their profit margins at the expense of WIC
participants and taxpayers.
I have had a long involvement in the efforts to implement competitive
bidding for WIC infant formula. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Nutrition and Investigations, I worked to include the provision in the
1987 Commodity Distribution Reform Act that allowed States to keep a
portion of savings they achieved through competitive bidding in order
to cover the increased administrative expenses of bringing additional
participants into WIC.
Without that provision, the States could not have used the savings
from WIC cost containment to serve more people in the WIC program.
Unbelievably, the Republican Deputy Secretary of Agriculture wrote a
letter to Chairman Leahy officially opposing that provision in the
bill.
I also requested the study by the General Accounting Office that was
issued in October of 1987 demonstrating the savings that could be
achieved through competitive bidding for infant formula.
And in 1989, as Chairman of the Nutrition and Investigations
Subcommittee, I introduced the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization
Act of 1989, which included the provision requiring the use of
competitive bidding or equally effective cost
containment measures for WIC infant formula. Again, it was my
privilege to work with Senator Leahy, as Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, in getting this provision enacted into law.

The benefits of competitive bidding are simply too large to give up.
The national benefits have already been described. In Iowa, as of late
last year our State was gaining approximately $630,000 a month for its
WIC program through infant formula rebates, which allows approximately
12,000 additional Iowa women, infants and children to be served each
month without increasing spending.
WIC is one of our Nation's most successful and cost-effective
efforts. Competitive bidding makes WIC remarkably more cost-effective.
We hear a lot about the importance of letting States have more freedom
in administering programs. WIC already involves a partnership between
the Federal Government and the States--it is already administered by
the States, but it is funded entirely with Federal money. This proposal
to do away with the competitive bidding requirement stands the idea of
State flexibility on its head. It basically says that if the States
want to squander federal taxpayer dollars by lining the pockets of the
infant formula companies, that is just fine, have at it.
All I can say is that we have made too much progress and there is far
too much at stake for this Senator to stand by and watch a proven and
practical tool like competitive bidding be thrown out the window for
the sake of
[[Page S5373]] some half-baked, radical theory. Not without a fight,
not without a huge fight.
Finally, I am also concerned, as are my colleagues, about the
ramifications of the $35 million cut in WIC in this rescissions bill.
The Congress should be fully funding WIC as per the President's
proposals and should be very cautious about cutting the funding
available for carrying out WIC efforts in the States. I too will work
to see that no one is taken off the WIC rolls in fiscal year 1995
because of funding limitations.
I understand Senator Boxer also has concerns about the WIC program.
Mrs. BOXER. I also am very concerned about the Contract With America
and how it will seriously hurt the WIC program. I am very proud to
support the WIC program, and it is important to ensure that the
competitive bidding process stays in place so that the largest number
of women and children possible can be effectively served by this
enormously successful program.
student aid

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, students on college campuses throughout
Vermont have mobilized against cuts in student aid. The strong
opposition around the country to these cuts has prevented most student
aid programs from being included in the rescission bill we are debating
today. The next step will be to make sure that students do not get
short-changed in next year's budget.
On Monday, I had the pleasure of meeting with 19 exceptional college
students in my office in Burlington, Vermont. These students: John
Boyle of Landmark College; Stephen O'Keefe and Sean Brown of Southern
Vermont College; Terri Taylor of Lyndon State College; Eric Sorenberger
and Marlene Rye of Sterling College; Cecily Muller of Woodbury College;
Beth McDermott of the University of Vermont; Alison Maling of Trinity
College; Courtney Ryan of St. Michael's College; Kevin Canney of
Burlington College; Sue Jean Murray of Champlain College; Theresa
Morris of Vermont Technical College; John Wyrocki and Laura Whitney of
Green Mountain College; Jeff Albertson of Middlebury College; and
Darryl Danaher, Ryan Carter and Matthew Thornton of Norwich University
shared with me how cuts in student aid would affect them and other
Vermont students.
One student is the youngest of nine children and is holding two work
study jobs. Another is a mother of two and on welfare. Her daughter
also is in college. Another is the third child in her family to go to
school. Her mother went back to school to get a better job to help pay
her children's student loans. Another is the mother of four who had to
leave an abusive marriage. She relies on work study to help her stay in
school. She also will have loans to pay for her daughter's education.
Another is returning to school after having to change her occupation
due to major back surgery.
I could go on and on about what these students are going through to
earn their college degree.
These students are working hard to learn. Now, some Members of
Congress would like to pull the rug out from under them by cutting
student aid.
Earlier this week, the House Economic and Educational Opportunities
Chairman confirmed that Republicans are considering eliminating the in-
school interest subsidy on Stafford college loans.
If House Republicans are successful, 20,000 Vermont students will be
paying more for college. Individual student debt will increase by 15 to
50 percent, depending on the length of time spent in school. An
undergraduate student who borrows the maximum amount for a four year
college could owe an additional $3,407 in interest. This is an increase
of about 20 percent, on top of debt that already is tough to manage.
There also has been talk about eliminating campus-based aid including
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Perkins loans, and the
work-study programs. Eliminating these need-based programs would cause
hardship for students at 2-year and 4-year colleges throughout the
country. A student who receives an aid package that includes average
awards from all three programs would stand to lose $3,152.
Increasing the financial burden to students and their families will
discourage many students from attending college or enrolling in
vocational or graduate programs.
As we encourage people, both young and old, to pursue higher
education, we need to help them achieve this by providing realistic
funding options.
These students are our future. All of us know just how difficult it
is to pay for a college education these days. It is important that
these students and their families do not see the dream of higher
education slip beyond their grasp.
Decisions to cut student aid programs are based solely on short-
sighted politics.
I am concerned that the debate over next year's budget is going to
occur over the summer when many students are not on campus. I hope they
will continue to work together to speak out against cuts in student
aid.
restoration of defense cleanup funds

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of restoring $104.2
million to the Department of Defense accounts that are used to fund the
cleanup and redevelop of closing military bases. These funds were
authorized and appropriated by Congress last year and they now are
subject to a possible rescission.
Mr. President, less than a month ago the Secretary of Defense
announced the 1995 hit list of military base closings. This list
recommended closing 25 major bases. Communities with bases on this list
are currently working to convince the independent Base Closure
Commission to remove their hometown bases from the list and to spare
them the economic trauma of a base closing.
Unfortunately, many of these communities will be unsuccessful in
their efforts to save the base. In the first three base closure rounds,
in 1988, 1991, and 1993, the Commission approved the closing of
approximately 85 percent of the recommended bases.
These first three base closure rounds produced the closing of 75
major military installations and over 200 smaller installations
nationwide. Each of these communities are now focusing on beating
swords into plowshares. And to its credit, the U.S. military is trying
to do its part to quickly cleanup these bases and prepare them for
civilian use.
Mr. President, many have argued in the past that the federal
government should not help beat swords into plowshares--that we do not
have a responsibility to help the workers and communities that proudly
supported our bases for decades. However, we can not and must not turn
a cold shoulder to those who helped us win the cold war.
To be certain, base closings hurt. Communities that lose a base lose
much more than just the daily sights and sounds of the military's
presence. They lose the heart and soul of their local economy. In many
cases, the military is the largest employer in the region. As my
colleagues know, closing military bases causes an immediate economic
trauma in these communities.
But some good news is beginning to arise in a few of the towns that
lost bases in the early rounds. Lost military jobs are slowly being
replaced by civilian employment. The private sector is moving in and
jobs are being created at many old bases.
The local communities that are experiencing an economic revival have
told us that their successful efforts to beat swords to plowshares were
made possible only because the federal government, specifically the
U.S. military, decided to become a partner in this worthy effort.
In helping communities rebound, the military services are focused on
quickly cleaning up contaminated portions of the closing bases so
private sector businesses can move in and begin creating jobs.
In order to quickly prepare closing bases for redevelopment, the
DOD's base closure accounts, or BRAC accounts, must be fully funded.
It would be shortsighted to rescind funds for closing bases,
especially given that the Base Closure Commission is currently
preparing to add more bases to the closure list.
Cutting funds from the DOD base closure account will slow down the
process of returning these bases back to the communities. By doing so,
we would substantially damage the economic development efforts of base
closure communities nationwide.
[[Page S5374]] I urge my colleagues in the Senate, especially those
on the Senate Appropriations Committee, to restore $104.2 million to
the DOD BRAC accounts.

amendment no. 577

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if there had been a rollcall vote on the
Dole-Daschle amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' As my colleagues
know, I support many, if not all, of the programs that would benefit
from the funding restorations of the amendment. They are worthwhile,
meritorious programs that address important national needs.
But as I said at the outset of this debate, Mr. President, many of
the Appropriations Committee's recommended rescissions were reductions
in the rate of funding increases, not reductions in actual funding
below the previous year's level. I see no reason to add more money now
to simply increase the increase. The Appropriations Committee made a
considered judgment on these matters, and we found our recommended
rescissions to be reasonable. Further, we found them to be urgently
needed for the task of deficit reduction.
On that point, Mr. President, I believe this amendment is a serious
mistake. We do not have CBO scoring of this amendment as yet, but it
would appear to me that the recommended ``offsets'' of this amendment
reduce significant amounts of budget authority but very little in
outlays. The reductions are primarily drawn from accounts with annual
outlay rates as low as 1 percent, while the funding restorations occur
in accounts with outlay rates as high as 80 percent. In short, Mr.
President, it appears to me that this amendment may actually increase
the deficit. The bill that I brought to the floor on behalf of the
Appropriations Committee was a first step in the long march toward a
balanced budget. This amendment is a step backward.
FUNDING FOR ACIR'S MANDATES STUDIES

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to take note of an aspect of the
managers' amendment to H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations and
rescissions bill.
As my colleagues know, I helped write the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, which just became law. This law passed the Senate on
January 27 by an 86-10 vote. Part of this law requires the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to conduct studies on
unfunded mandates issues. The Senate passed my amendment giving these
studies to ACIR by a vote of 88-0.
The law requires ACIR to make recommendations to the President and
Congress about simplifying, consolidating, suspending or terminating
federal mandates. It also requires ACIR to examine the measurement and
definition issues involved in calculating the costs and benefits of
unfunded federal mandates.
The law requires ACIR to do these studies very quickly. It must issue
proposed and final criteria for its studies, hold hearings, and publish
a preliminary and a final report, all by March 22, 1995. The conferees
on the mandates bill recognized that ACIR needed further funding in
this fiscal year in order to do the studies. The conferees therefore
authorized an appropriation of $500,000 for fiscal year 1995.
The managers' amendment contains a provision that would appropriate
this money. I am glad that the senior Senators from Oregon and West
Virginia, Senators Hatfield and Byrd, have funded the mandate on ACIR.
I would like to thank them for accommodating the Senator from Idaho,
Senator Kempthorne, and the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, and
myself on this issue. And I look forward to helping ACIR carry out this
mission.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am supporting the Dole-Daschle compromise
and the final passage of the supplemental appropriations and
rescissions bill because I believe, on balance, the bill does take a
significant step towards fiscal control and economy in government.
I am particularly pleased that the compromise restores nearly a
billion dollars in House rescissions that would have jeopardized
programs that benefit children and education.
Head Start, Title I Education, impact aid, WIC, Goals 2000, School to
Work and Drug Free Schools are all programs that constitute investments
in our national future, and restoration of funding for them lends
balance and merit to the bill.
I am very pleased that the Senate bill restores funding for the
LIHEAP program and housing modernization, two programs that are
important to my State.
And finally I would note that the Senate bill would restore more than
half of what the House bill would cut from our foreign aid programs--
not a perfect outcome, but certainly far preferable to the House
version.
Mr. President, none of us are going to be completely satisfied with
the painful compromises that must be made in the current season of
downsizing of government. But this bill does what had to be done with
less pain than might otherwise have been inflicted. I commend the
managers and give the bill my support.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend the majority
leader, Senator Dole, and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for
the successful completion of the managers rescission amendment package
to H.R. 1158, the fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations bill for
disaster assistance and rescissions. I am particularly gratified that
the leadership has steadfastly retained, through a myriad of
negotiations, the restoration of section 8002 of the Federal Impact Aid
Program.
With funding of only $16.29 million, nearly 200 school districts
directly benefit from section 8002 payments in lieu of taxes for
Federal properties. As federally owned lands, these properties are tax-
exempt and contribute nothing to local tax revenues. These monies are
made available under strict criteria to help compensate local school
districts for revenues they might otherwise be receiving.
The impact aid section 8002 program has been authorized since the
inception of impact aid in 1950. For 45 years, the Congress has
recognized its responsibilities to compensate local schools for tax-
exempt Federal personnel and properties.
Furthermore, the entire impact aid program was just reauthorized last
year as a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is
no time to retreat from our longstanding commitment which is so vital
to federally impacted school districts.
I am supporting that impact aid restoration because the York County
School Division in the historic Hampton Roads region of Virginia is the
largest recipient of section 8002 funding in the Nation. I commend the
York County School Division finance director, Mr. Dennis Jarrett, as
well as superintendent Steven Staples for their careful work in
bringing this urgent matter to my attention.
This year alone, more than $1 million of the York County School
District budget is at risk because of the proposed rescission. I am
confident that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee had no
intention for the budget cutting axe to fall so heavily on only one of
some 200 school districts.
The restoration of the $16.29 million for impact aid will symbolize
our support of the communities across the Nation which house and serve
the U.S. Armed Services and their families.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and commend this small measure to
the support of my colleagues.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of
the agreement offered today on H.R. 1158, the rescissions bill. The
leadership can be commended for their hard work on this compromise.
This rescissions bill has been a drawn-out and difficult process. But
this hard-fought agreement represents good news for many South
Dakotans: it contains my amendment that would restore funds for Section
8002 of the Impact Aid Program, otherwise known as Section 2. The
inclusion of my amendment to save this important program is a
significant reason why I offer my whole-hearted support for this
agreement.
The impact aid program is not aid in the traditional sense. It is
called Impact Aid because the presence of the Federal Government is
having an adverse impact on nearby school districts. The adverse impact
is the loss of tax revenue to the schools, and the Impact Aid Program
is designed to compensate schools for that lost tax base.
In short, impact aid is an ongoing Federal responsibility. Impact aid
does
[[Page S5375]] not represent extra dollars for special programs. Impact
aid provides support payments for basic day-to-day operations. It is
neither a wasteful nor ideologically driven program--these funds go
directly to a school district's operating budget. Impact aid represents
fairness--to the schools and the parents and children they serve.
Section 2 of the Impact Aid Program is the lifeblood of many schools
across the Nation. This program provides support payments to school
districts for Federal land. Across the country, schools in 27 States
rely on Section 2 payments. It would be most unfair to federally
impacted districts and the children they serve if the Federal
Government opts to deny them both a tax base and Federal support.
If Section 2 payments had been terminated, the Pollock School
district in northern South Dakota would have closed, forcing
potentially displaced students to travel up to 50 miles in order to
receive an education. Pollock and similarly situated school districts
would have been forced into this drastic course of action because no
other revenue options are available.
Mr. President, federally impacted schools already have taken their
share of cuts. The Impact Aid Program suffered a $70 million cut last
year. If we were to add to this cut the elimination of Section 2
payments, federally impacted schools would be left without the
assistance they had planned on to pay teachers, buy textbooks, or as in
the case of Pollock, to even function.
Like my colleagues, I am committed to reducing wasteful government
spending. My voting record consistently has been in favor of a balanced
budget. I also appreciate fully the difficult nature of the
Appropriations Committee's job this year. We are all in the difficult
position of needing to cut bureaucracy and federal spending. However,
our leadership can be commended for realizing where our priorities must
lie.
Impact aid is a program that enjoys support on both sides of the
aisle. However, I especially would like to thank my distinguished
friends from New York and Virginia, Senators D'Amato and Warner, for
their leadership on this issue. These Senators and others on both sides
of the aisle were prepared to support my amendment to restore the
Section 2 payments. It is because of this bipartisan commitment to
education that the leadership has restored this important program. I
appreciate their help and support.

I hope this bipartisan support for impact aid will send a clear
signal to our colleagues and especially to the administration. Impact
aid is vital to our schools and it should continue to be fully funded.
It is my hope that we will not have to fight this battle again during
the budget negotiations for fiscal year 1996. President Clinton has
requested a $109 million cut in the Impact Aid Program for next fiscal
year. I hope it has been made clear that such a cut would be
unacceptable.
I would be happy to work with my colleagues to demonstrate why impact
aid is critical to so many school children. I also look forward to
working with my colleagues on the budget and appropriations committees
to maintain the vitality of the Impact Aid Program for many years to
come.

restore funding for the cdfi fund

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, one of the provisions in the
amendment the distinguished majority and minority leaders have offered,
would partially restore funding for the Community Development Financial
Institutions [CDFI] Fund. The full House and Senate Appropriations
Committee have both rescinded $124 million of the $125 million
appropriated for this bill in fiscal year 1995.
Although it is not clear when the Senate will have the opportunity to
vote on this amendment. I want to take a few moments to discuss why the
funding for the CDFI Fund is needed.
Clearly, the $36 million included in the Daschle amendment is an
insufficient amount compared to the $125 million appropriated last
year--but, this start up money will help the CDFI Fund get off the
ground. The importance of this Fund is its profound affect on the lives
of people who want to make their lives better and improve their
neighborhoods.
The CDFI Fund is bipartisan initiative passed in the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. I was proud to be a
cosponsor, along with many of my colleagues, of this legislation.
The Fund will support and expand existing Community Development Banks
and Financial Institutions [CDBFI] across the country. The CDFI Fund is
based on the simple proposition--helping the private sector to help
communities grow from the bottom up.
Over the last two decades, a diverse range of community development
financial institutions have emerged to provide new opportunities for
neglected communities. In urban, reservation-based and rural settings,
more than 300 CDFIs are providing credit, investments and comprehensive
development services. These institutions--working in 45 States--manage
more than $1 billion in primarily private sector capital. These
institutions have loaned more than $3 billion with a loan loss rates
comparable to some of the best banks in this country.
Mr. President, across the country, many rural and urban communities
are starved for affordable credit, capital and basic banking services.
The lack of jobs is a critical issue for any community. The lack of
jobs is also the crux of an important issue for the welfare reform
debate that the Senate will soon be considering.
What the Fund is all about is creating jobs in communities that
desperately needs jobs. What this amendment is all about is providing a
very, very modest amount of Federal money to spur entrepreneurship, and
assist small and microbusinesses in low-income communities to help
create those jobs.
Job creation is so important to the many critical issues that come
before Congress. It is also the crux of the welfare reform debate now
before Congress.
Almost everyone agrees that our welfare system needs major reform,
and almost everyone agrees that welfare recipients who can work ought
to be required to work. The question that remains is simple--where are
those jobs supposed to come from?
The basic truth that must be faced is that there simply aren't enough
jobs now in many communities where the poor are concentrated, are
dropping. My own home town of Chicago illustrates the problem.
Between 1972 and 1990, the City of Chicago lost over 146,000 jobs.
Between 1979 and 1990, the city lost over one-third of its
manufacturing jobs. Over the same period, the central business district
actually gained jobs over that period, which means that the impact of
the declining job base fell most heavily on Chicago's neighborhoods,
and particularly its poorest neighborhoods. In the decade of 1980's
alone, the south and west side Chicago neighborhoods--where many of the
City's low-income residents reside--lost over 82,000 jobs.
This results in a declining population in the city, and high
unemployment rates for those who want to stay, or who can't leave. For
residents in public housing in the inner cities, jobs are almost non-
existent. Of the households in the Robert Taylor Homes--the country's
largest public housing complex located on Chicago's southside--an
approximate 4 percent report any wage income at all.
The fact of the matter is--there is not enough economic opportunity
in poor communities. It's no secret that what is needed to create jobs
in any community is capital. However, poor communities, simply do not
have the access they need to our capital market. What this means is
that prospective homebuyers, oftentimes have difficulty getting
mortgage money. What it also means is that people who want to start
businesses--or expand businesses--in poor communities where all too
often cannot get access to the money they need. The creation of the
CDFI FUND is a crucial first step in helping low-income communities
help themselves.
The CDFI Fund will invest in community development banks and other
community development financial institutions which have a primary
mission of community development, lending and equity investment and
loan counseling services in distressed, underserved communities.
This capital assistance will serve only as seed capital that must be
matched by private funds. All types of new and existing CDFIs will be
eligible for assistance, including community
[[Page S5376]] development banks, credit unions, micro-enterprise and
revolving loan funds, minority-owned banks and community development
corporations.
One of the exciting aspects of the Fund is the Bank Enterprise
program will catalyze new community lending and investment activities
by conventional financial institutions--complementing community
reinvestment efforts by lenders.
Mr. President, the Fund will have an extraordinary impact on many of
this country's low-income neighborhoods. It will support financial and
technical support for new community development banks--which will
support thousands of new loans--which, in turn, can result in thousands
of new full-time jobs in low-income communities.
I have seen first hand what an important role community development
financial institutions can play in the economic development of
distressed communities and provide jobs to those who have relied on
public assistance.
South Shore Bank--the country's first community development bank in
my home town of Chicago--has had a tremendous impact in the South Shore
neighborhood of Chicago. Since 1973, the bank and its affiliated
community development activities have invested $450 million in its
target communities, financing the rehabilitation of 15,000 housing
units and hundreds of businesses. South Shore was once a rapidly-
deteriorating, inner city community abandoned by conventional lenders.
Today it is a stable community with access to a range of sources of
conventional credit.
Another example is the Women's Self Employment Project in Chicago
which has lent more than $800,000 to low income women--many of whom
relied on public assistance--to start and grow microenterprises. This
successful program has a repayment rate of over 94 percent.
Mr. President, these are just two examples of how community
development works. The list of success stories in community lending
goes on and on: the Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina; the
Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises in North Carolina; The
Coalition for Women's Economic Development in South Central Los
Angeles.
Mr. President, as I said in my opening remarks, the $36 million
included in this amendment is clearly not enough for the investment
that is needed in low-income communities now. But it is a start to help
the institutions I referred to, any many others throughout the country.
They will be able to expand their capacity through modest federal
investments provided by the CDFI Fund.
It is important to point out that the Fund does have an experienced
and knowledgeable transition team to begin setting up operations and
programs. While the Fund cannot issue regulations or take applicants
until the administrator is confirmed, this team is making significant
progress to ensure that the programs are up and running.
By using very little Federal money to leverage significant private
dollars, the Fund's investments will build partnerships between banks,
thrifts, credit unions, and CDFIs.
The results in every equity dollar invested in a community
development bank or loan fund can leverage at least $10 in new private
capital for development lending.
Community Development Banks and Financial Institutions provide
capital where it is critically needed--and jump start a local economy.
The CDFI Fund will support these institutions and represents an
essential part of what's needed to build and strengthen the economies
in many urban, reservation-based and rural communities.
In closing, let me add that the CDFI Fund, is a very good step in the
right direction in creating jobs. If the federal government is going to
succeed in reforming welfare, we must start by creating jobs and
economic growth in impoverished communities where they are needed most.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of success
stories be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

In North Carolina, the Self-Credit Union and its affiliated
Self-Help Ventures Fund made a $50,000 loan in 1985 to a
small, rural worker-owned sewing company threatened with
closing because it could not obtain credit from its local
banks. With Self-Help's technical assistance and a series of
working capital loans, the business now employs 80 people,
making it the second largest private employer in its county.
By 1992, the company had almost tripled its sales, to $1.8
million.
In Chicago, the Women's Self Employment Project set up an
entrepreneurial training and lending program to enable women
receiving public assistance and with little or no asset to
start their own income-producing enterprises. Seventy percent
of the 20 women participating in the pilot program in 1987
were able to move off public assistance permanently as a
result of their business activities. An expanded program now
includes 150 women. WSEP's three lending programs have lent
more than $500,000 to 350 low- and moderate-income women for
micro business ventures.
In Central Appalachia, the Federation of Appalachian
Housing Enterprises [FAHE] provides loans that make
homeownership a reality for very low-income families, many of
whom have previously lived in rented trailers without heat or
running water. FAHE has lent $3.2 million for more than 172
housing units, including loans to borrowers with incomes as
low as $5,000 a year.
The Coalition for Women's Economic Development in South
Central Los Angeles operates a 12-week training program in
Spanish and English, for low-income women seeking to operate
their own enterprises.
Santa Cruz Community Credit Union in California, which has
lent more than $27 million to small businesses, non-profits
and cooperatives, supplements its credit union lending with a
non-profit housing development subsidiary, Seascape Senior
Housing. Seascape developed and owns an 80 unit low-income
housing project.
The Quitman County Federal Credit Union in Mississippi is
located in one of the ten poorest counties in the United
States. As a community development credit union, the credit
union has been able to supplement the small savings of its
600 members with more than $1 million in nonmember deposits,
enabling the development of home improvement and minority
small business lending programs.
For years, the Delaware Valley Community Loan Fund was one
of the only lenders in Camden, New Jersey. Its successful
lending has led to a 7 bank multimillion dollar loan pool for
the disinvested area managed by the loan fund.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I understand that an agreement has been
worked out between the two sides on this legislation, but I want to set
the record straight on a few issues which I believe to be of particular
importance.
The initiative in question is the Corporation for National and
Community Service. In the last few days, several of our colleagues have
come to the floor and, for one reason or another, discussed this
initiative in a way which has deviated substantially from the facts. I
want to provide information for the record to eliminate some of the
misconceptions which may have been formed about National Service.
First, I would like all of us to be clear on the facts. Contrary to
what we have heard on the Senate floor in the last week, AmeriCorps
does not cost the taxpayer outrageous sums. Counting all costs, the
average annual cost per AmeriCorps member is $17,600. $4,725 of that
amount is an education award which is not given until after the year of
service is complete.
Additionally, the program has benefited the efforts of many private
organizations which depend on volunteers for their work. Many
charitable organizations, from Habitat for Humanity to the Red Cross
have resoundingly rebutted the argument that National Service injures
the ethic of voluntarism in this country. These groups have often
stated that the presence of AmeriCorps members has made their efforts
to attract traditional volunteers even more effective.
Charitable organizations are not the only ones who have seen
sufficient worth in the program to give it their vocal support. Many
businesses also have seen the value of AmeriCorps as an investment and
given it their own dollars to supplement those provided by the federal
government. These private partners range from Alcoa to Xerox, with many
others in between. I request unanimous consent that this information
regarding the cost per AmeriCorps participant and the number of
volunteers and business organizations supporting AmeriCorps be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. NUNN. My second point is that National Service is successfully
accomplishing its primary mission--performance of service. The
anecdotal evidence
[[Page S5377]] on this score is abundant. From helping clean up after
last year's floods in the Midwest to immunizing 105,000 children in
Texas, to building 60 homes for poor people in Americus, Georgia, these
youngsters are performing real work that is needed by our communities.
The independent research firm of Aguirre, International provides
confirmation. They did a study of 52 randomly selected AmeriCorps sites
across the country, and the findings from the study confirm that the
achievements of this program are many and varied. I ask consent that
the Aguirre International study be also printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, my final point is that this project should
not be a partisan issue. The debate on the original authorization was
not marred by the misinformation and partisan rancor that we have seen
during the last week. Indeed, the 1993 bill passed with the support of
a number of Republicans in both Houses. I would hope that we could
return the debate to that higher plane in the future. To that end, I
would hope that my colleagues, whether they agree or disagree with the
program, would take the time over the upcoming recess to visit an
AmeriCorps site in their states. To my colleagues who are willing to
make this visit, if you still have concerns about the program after you
have made this good-faith effort to see it in action, that will be
useful to an open, straightforward debate on the upcoming
reauthorization. I believe that the minds of my colleagues will be
changed when they see the results of this program.
In conclusion, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on this
matter, and I hope that we can continue the debate in an objective
fashion. I am fully aware of the funding constraints which face our
nation's government, but I am confident that the program will be judged
valuable to our nation if judged on its true merits and true costs. I
yield the floor.
Exhibit 1

AMERICORPS BUDGET AND MEMBERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget............ $376,000,000 $579,000,000 $828,000,000
[HUD/VA].......... [$318,000,000] [$516,000,000] [$750,000,000]
Members........... 20,000 33,000 47,000
Average cost per
Member........... $18,800 $17,600 $17,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average total cost per member by category

Health/child care 7%...........................................($1,200)
Grantee operations, planning, evaluation 23%...................($4,075)
State Commissions 3%.............................................($450)
Americorps' overhead 5%..........................................($850)
(Represents 1995 Costs)
Education Award 27%............................................($4,725)
Stipend 35%....................................................($6,200)
________________

Total.......................................................$17,600
Exhibit 2

AmeriCorps USA at Five Months

A Summary of Accomplishments from 52 Randomly Selected Sites

The following report aggregates and summarizes the bulk of
the accomplishments of 1,654 AmeriCorps USA Members serving
at 52 sites that were selected randomly from across the
nation. Listed accomplishments represent the efforts of
approximately 8% of AmeriCorps USA's operating sites during
the first five months of operation--from September, 1994
through January, 1995.
The accomplishments are grouped within AmeriCorps USA's
four issue areas: education, public safety, health and human
needs, and environmental and neighborhood restoration. The
list, while both long and diverse, is not exhaustive; not
every accomplishment has been captured. Nevertheless, the
list summarizes the major accomplishments of the selected
sites.

Education

The AmeriCorps Members helped children and youth from
impoverished urban and rural communities to succeed in
school. They taught in classrooms, established new learning
programs in and out of school, and prepared preschoolers for
the demands of school. Specific accomplishments include the
following:
Taught 1,430 and tutored 7,638 pre-school, elementary, and
junior high school students in basic educational skills.
Conducted enriched learning programs and initiated new
ones--such as computer-based reading instruction, peer
tutoring, scientific experimentation, and programs for
children with special needs--for 6,414 children.
Established after-school and vacation programs to reinforce
the academic involvement of 4,656 children.
The AmeriCorps Members helped at-risk children succeed in
school by assisting them and their families to develop their
sense of civic and community responsibility and to become
more stable, more self-sufficient, and more involved in the
community. Specific accomplishments include the following:
Organized and supervised community service projects for
4,469 at-risk children and youth. Projects included
neighborhood cleanups and providing food for elderly people.
Counseled, taught parenting skills, and/or provided problem
solving assistance to 390 families, 183 teen parents, and the
low-income families of 440 children at risk of failing in
school.
Provide literacy or employment-related training for 694
adults.
Provided intensive educational support--including regular
counseling--to 30 troubled teenagers living in group homes
and 33 low-income children, including 22 homeless
preschoolers.
Public Safety

The AmeriCorps Members started neighborhood safety
programs, mobilized neighbors, and improved community/police
relations, resulting in safer communities. Specific
accomplishments include the following:
Escorted 8,500 children to school through safe corridors.
Started 258 neighborhood safety programs and patrolled 250
vacant buildings to prevent violence, drug-dealing and other
illegal activities.
Initiated 2 programs to improve community/police relations,
including assisting a police mobile unit.
The AmeriCorps Members worked to prevent violence in school
by teaching mediation techniques, resulting in decreased
incidence of violence and negative behavior. Specific
accomplishments include the following:
Resolved 414 school conflicts that might otherwise have
ended in violence or with students dropping out of school
because of fear of violence.
Taught conflict resolution techniques to 8,119 school
children.
Counseled and taught alternatives to violence to 1,350
potential or actual gang members and 54 parents of children
at risk of becoming involved in gangs.
Initiated 3 programs to train school and community members
to implement violence prevention activities.
Secured donated materials and created a memorial garden and
mural in memory of 3 children slain in the streets.
The AmeriCorps Members worked to prevent violence and drug
abuse in families and communities and provided direct
assistance to victims of crime as well as referring them to
needed services. Specific accomplishments include the
following:
Conducted workshops for 220 at-risk individuals about
family violence prevention.
Answered crisis hotline calls and made referrals for 878
victims of sexual and domestic violence.
Provided each of 470 victims of sexual and domestic
violence with 30 days of counseling and assistance.
Counseled 35 elementary or high-school students in crisis
as a result of rape, violence, or home difficulties.
Counseled, 1,180 teenager about alcohol and drug abuse.
Conducted home visits about drug or alcohol abuse
prevention with 120 community residents.

Health and Human Needs

The AmeriCorps Members made independent living easier for
disabled, elderly, or hospitalized individuals by providing
direct support service and by recruiting and organizing
community volunteers. Specific accomplishments include the
following:
Helped 123 elderly persons, 50 visually impaired adults,
and 9 visually impaired children live independently.
Provided job-related training, independent living
assistance and/or medical referrals for 135 mentally ill or
developmentally disabled persons.
Organized weekly social activities for 400 elderly nursing
home residents.
Constructed wheel-chair accessible trails, ramps, or
sidewalks at 3 parks, 5 low-income homes, and 4 public
buildings.
Obtained donated materials, trained 58 volunteers, and
repair the homes 296 elderly persons.
The AmeriCorps Members provided emergency medical services,
as well as health training and education. Specific
accomplishments include the following:
Trained 1,144 inner-city residents in CPR.
Provided emergency medical services to over 1,500 people.
Screened 1,100 low-income children for lead toxicity and
other health risks.
Provided health counseling, education, or referrals and
transportation to 220 low-income families and over 5,000
individuals.
Disseminated health care information to 4,567 individuals.
Distributed 150 children's car seats to low-income
families.
Conducted immunization screenings--immunizing 158
individuals and notifying 500 others of their families' need
to be immunized.
Administered 301 HIV tests and counseled patients regarding
results.
Conducted workshops and distributed information on AIDS and
tuberculosis to over 7,000 people.
The AmeriCorps Members helped meet the basic needs of low-
income and homeless people for food and shelter. They
improved low-
[[Page S5378]] income housing, fed the hungry, and improved
the methods of service referral and delivery. Specific
accomplishments include the following:
Renovated 238 inner-city housing units and 99 rural homes;
began renovation of 121 more.
Refurbished 2 homeless shelters and began to renovate 3
buildings--one for seniors, one for battered women, and one
for the formerly homeless.
Distributed food to more than 16,625 low-income people and
packed 7,000 dinners and 32,000 breakfasts for the hungry.
Found shelter for 400 homeless families, and sorted and
distributed clothes to 350 homeless individuals.
Secured hospice housing for 27 people with AIDS and helped
feed (on a weekly basis) 1,250 people who have AIDS or who
are HIV positive.
Provided housing information or counseling to over 500 low-
income and homeless families.
Secured donated furniture, repaired it, and delivered it to
300 newly-housed families.
Environmental and Neighborhood Restoration

The AmeriCorps Members responded to emergencies, including
post-disaster environmental restorations, and worked to
improve emergency responses capacity in parks and public
lands. Specific accomplishments include the following:
Inspected and repaired 87 small dams, protecting 200 farms.
Provided disaster recovery assistance to 350 land owners
recovering from a flood; activities included sand and soil
deposit mapping, advice on pasture and hayland management,
watershed mapping, and computer simulations to plan
floodplain management.
Fought 2 major forest fires and saved 1 national park road
from washing out.
Joined at least 5 search and rescue efforts.
The AmeriCorps Members restored and stabilized the natural
environment and wildlife habitats. Specific accomplishments
include the following:
Planted 212,500 trees.
Restored 320 acres of wild land areas by repairing fire and
flood damage, re-planting to prevent erosion, and fencing off
wetlands to prevent illegal dumping.
Restored or stabilized 27 miles of riverbed and stream
banks to improve the habitat of salmon; fenced another 7
miles to keep cattle from destroying spawning grounds;
repaired three aquaculture tanks with a capacity to rear
1,000,000 salmon fry per year.
Removed 2,000 lbs. of trash from an urban river.
Monitored water quality in 2 parkland areas.
Surveyed 5,700 acres of National Forest land as part of
reforestation programs to monitor reforestation efforts;
conducted biological inventories on 12,000 acres of wetland.
Built, restored, or maintained 311 campsites, 88 miles of
parkland trails, 17 bridges, and 1 mile of forest service
road.
Cleaned up storm debris and trash on 3 beaches, protected
sand dunes on one beach, and built one wildlife observation
platform and 3 duck blinds.
The AmeriCorps Members improved neighborhoods, parks, and
recreation facilities by converting vacant lots, renovating
buildings, repairing public facilities, and conducting
recycling and conservation programs, resulting in a
heightened sense of community ownership. Specific
accomplishments include the following:
Renovated 11 community buildings, including an inner-city
medical clinic, community centers, and public schools.
Converted 29 overgrown lots into green space; built 7
community gardens; planted trees along 30 city blocks.
Cleaned 27 miles of road, restored 1 community reservoir,
removed illegally dumped garbage from one community; and
unclogged more than 14,000 storm drains.
Created 4 playgrounds, designed 1 picnic area, and improved
safety at 1 scenic overlook. Restored, repaired, or
maintained 19 historical landmarks and a traditional tribal
longhouse.
Completed 61 inner-city neighborhood clean-ups--including a
city-wide graffiti removal.
Distributed 1,375 low flush toilets and 1,700 water
conserving showerheads in low-income neighborhoods--along
with over 1,400 water conservation guides.
Recycled 920 inefficient toilets and 1,120 inefficient
showerheads.
____

AmeriCorps Community Partners

The following is a partial list of national and local
volunteer, charitable and service organizations through which
AmeriCorps is getting things done in over a thousand
communities across the nation.
4-H, Albany Police Department, American Red Cross, Arctic
Village Tribal Council, Arlington Police Department, ASPIRA,
Audubon Society, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Big Horn Police
Department, Boy Scouts of America, Boys and Girls Clubs, Camp
Fire Boys and Girls, Casper Police Department, Catholic
Charities, Chambers of Commerce, City of Decatur of Police
Department, Clearwater Police Department, Coalition of 100
Black Women.
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima, Dallas Police
Department, D.A.R.E., Ft. Worth Police Department, Girl
Scouts of the USA, Girls, Inc., Goodwill Industries, Habitat
For Humanity, Hart County Police Department, Head Start
Programs, Humane Society, I Have a Dream Foundation,
Independent Sector, Indianapolis Police Department, Jewish
Family Services, Jubilee Housing, Junior League.
Kickpoo Tribe, Lincoln County Sheriffs Department, Lions
Club, Literacy Volunteers of America, Knick Tribal Council,
Meals on Wheels, Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis,
Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth and Family Services, Navajo
Nations, National AIDS Fund, National Center for Family
Literacy.
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, National
Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, National
Council of LaRaza, National Council of Non Profit
Associations, National Endowment for the Arts, National
Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Organization for Victim
Assistance, Neighborhood Green Corps, New York University,
NezPerce Tribe, Northeastern University, Ouzinkie Tribal
Council, Parents Anonymous, Philadelphia Bar Association,
Pinelas Sheriffs Department, Points of Light Foundation.
Pompano Beach Police, Public Allies, Public Education Fund
Network, Rotary Club, Salvation Army, Seattle Police
Department, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Sierra Club, St.
Petersburg Police Department, Sunflower Girls, Teach for
America, Tuntutulkia Traditional Council, United Cerebral
Palsey, University of Texas, Austin, United Way of America.
Urban League, Visiting Nurses Association, Volunteer
Centers, Volunteers of America, Westin County Sheriffs
Department, YMCA of the USA, YWCA.
Dozens of colleges and universities, community health
centers, police and sheriffs departments, and hundreds of
elementary, junior and high schools.
____

AmeriCorps Investors

The following is a partial list of corporate giving
programs and corporate, independent and community foundations
that are investing in community service organizations that
are a part of the AmeriCorps National Service Network:
Alcoa, AlliedSignal, Allstate, Amelior Foundation, American
Airlines, American Express, Ameritech, Anheuser-Bush, ARCO,
Arizona Foundation, Arthur Anderson, Bank of Boston, Bank of
New Hampshire, Bechtel, BellSouth, Booth Ferris Industries,
Boston Foundation.
British Petroleum, Bullitt Foundation, Burnett-Tandy
Foundation, Cabletron Systems, California Community
Foundation, Capital Community Foundation, Capitol Cities/ABC,
Carnegie Corporation of NY, Amon G. Carter Foundation,
Chevron, Citizens Bank, Compaq, Cowell Foundation, Charles A.
Dana Foundation.
Digital Equipment Corporation, Echoing Green Foundation,
Enron, Entergy, Fannie Mae, First Deposit National Bank,
Fleet Bank, Ford Foundation, The Gap, General Electric,
General Mills.
Grand Rapids Foundation, Greater Cincinnati Foundation,
GTE, E. & W. Haas Jr. Foundation, Hall Family Foundations,
Healthsource, Hogg Foundation, The Home Depot, Houston
Endowment, IBM, JCPenny, J.P. Morgan, James Irvine
Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Johnson &
Johnson, Kansas City Community Foundation.
Kauffman Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Key Bank of
NY, Knight Foundation, Luce Foundation, MacArthur Foundation,
MBNA, McKesson, Meadows Foundation, Mellon Bank, R.K. Mellon
Foundation, Microsoft.
Millipore, Mobil, Monsanto, Morgan Stanley, Charles S. Mott
Foundation, NationsBank, NH Charitable Foundation, Nike,
NYNEX, Packard Foundation, Panhandle Eastern.
Patagonia, Pew Charitable Trust, Philip Morris, PNC Bank,
Polariod, Prince Charitable Trust, Proctor and Gamble,
Providian Bank, Prudential Insurance, Reebok, RI Hospital
Trust Bank, Winthrop Rockfeller Foundation, The Rouse
Company, Safeco Insurance, Sallie Mae, Joseph E. Seagram &
Sons, Shell Oil.
Skillman Foundation, Sony Corporation of America, Sprint,
Steelcase, Surdna Foundation, Tenneco, Texaco, Timberland,
Time Warner, Toyota, Union Pacific, United Way of America.
UPS, U.S. Health Corporation, Waste Management, Western
Resources, Lola Wright Foundation, Xerox.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dole-
Daschle amendment No. 577.
The amendment (No. 577) was agreed to.

amendment no. 420

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hatfield
substitute.
The amendment (No. 420) was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote yes on final passage of this
supplemental Appropriations/Rescission bill, but I do so with
reservations.
This bill provides 6.7 billion dollars for disaster assistance, more
than 70 percent of which will go to California earthquake and flood
victims. This is an urgent and necessary response to the heartbreaking
disasters California has faced.
[[Page S5379]] I regret that Republicans have played politics with
disaster assistance--for the first time in history--by using it as a
hook for their agenda to slash programs that benefit children,
education, working families, and the poor.
If the Senate were considering the House passed version of this
legislation, I would vote no, because that is a bad bill for both my
State and my country.
But the Senate bill is different in two significant ways:
First, the Senate Appropriations Committee added back funds in
critical education and housing programs.
Second, Senate Democrats were successful on the floor in restoring
funds for Head Start, Child Nutrition, Safe and Drug Free Schools,
Housing, and other programs that are so important to the well-being of
our children.
So I will vote to send this bill to conference with the House. But I
reserve the right to vote no on the conference agreement if it comes
back looking like the mean-spirited House bill. I cannot support any
bill that does not maintain funds for our children at the Senate-passed
level or higher.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to finish
consideration of a Rescissions bill that reduces the Operation and
Maintenance Account of the Bureau of Reclamation by $10 million. This
amount is identical to the sum rescinded by the House, and I support
it. As the former Chairman and current ranking member of the
Subcommittee with authorizing jurisdiction over the Bureau, I have seen
opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce spending. I have
no doubt that this cut can be absorbed, given the streamlining that is
now occurring within the Bureau.
I note, however, that the Senate has wisely avoided commenting on
particular operations. This has two benefits. First, it gives the
Bureau the flexibility to deal with this cut in the most effective and
appropriate manner. It won't be easy to cut this account, given that
the fiscal year is half over. The project managers need to be creative
and do not need legislative handcuffs.
Second, the House report suggests that one way to balance this
account is to stop a study of the San Joaquin River that was
established in law through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
This language is notably absent from the Senate report.
As the author of this landmark CVPIA law, I am surprised at the House
report language. This San Joaquin study is specifically ordered in this
public law and, in fact, has a statutory deadline for action by the
Bureau. Clearly, this statute is unaffected by any Committee Report
language, and the law remains binding on the Bureau.
Additionally, I am puzzled by this suggested target, since cutting
the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, either directly or through
report language if possible, would not save the taxpayer any money.
Indeed, the study is not even funded out of the Bureau's Operating
Account! The Plan was established in the statute and financed through a
surcharge on the sales of water from the Central Valley Project. In
fact, if these funds are not spent on this Plan, the law still requires
that the full amount be spent on other fish and wildlife restoration
efforts. There can be and will be no deficit reduction from stopping
this Plan.
Mr. President, in summary, I'm pleased with the Senate action.
Spending cuts will occur, as agreed with the House. And the San Joaquin
study will continue, as specifically directed in public law. The
restoration of the San Joaquin River would bring benefits throughout
California. We need to know if this restoration can occur and how it
would be achieved.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will vote for this rescission bill
because I believe it will greatly benefit the citizens of Michigan by
reducing the burden of Government spending and deficits on the economy.
Each dollar that Washington does not spend on Government programs means
$1 more than Americans can spend for their families.
While I did fight to restore funding for a few specific programs
slated for rescission because of their critical importance to
Michigan--such things as the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance
Program and the Center for Ecology Research and Training slated to be
located in Bay City, MI--I do believe that this rescission package is a
win for the people of Michigan because it is the first down-payment
toward reducing the size and scope of Government.
Specifically, this bill will reduce Government spending by $15
billion. That represents a reduction of 1 percent of the entire Federal
budget of $1.5 trillion this year--hardly a draconian reduction in
Government spending as some special interest groups have claimed.
Nonetheless, these spending reductions are crucial to our Nation, and
to Michigan in particular. This bill will help my State by reducing the
deficit, freeing up economic resources for the economy, and job
creation in particular. Moreover, American taxpayers send 25% of their
paychecks to Washington.
Furthermore, it is clear that we need to take immediate action to
reduce Government spending because projected deficits are getting
larger, not smaller, under President Clinton's budget policies.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Clinton's budget policies
have had almost nothing to do with the slight improvement in the size
of the budget deficit that has occurred in recent years. According to
the CATO Institute, almost all of the deficit reduction since 1992 is
attributable to three main factors: No. 1, the one-time sale of assets
and properties acquired by the Federal Government during the savings
and loan bailout of the late 1980's--which alone has accounted for
about $75 billion in deficit reduction in recent years; No. 2,
reductions in defense spending resulting from the end of the cold war;
and No. 3, the cyclical economic recovery that began well before
President Clinton took the oath of office.
Federal spending continues to spiral out of control. Under President
Clinton, the level of Federal spending as a share of the national
income is about 23 percent, near historic levels. According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, unless we take action to halt
the growth of Government spending, it will automatically rise from
$1.531 trillion this year to $2.202 trillion by 2002.
Under the President's budget plan, deficit spending would continue to
explode. The CBO reports that the annual deficit will rise from $170
billion this year to over $200 billion next year and to almost $300
billion a year over the next 4 years. Under President Clinton's
policies, $1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the national debt,
thereby increasing interest payments, crowding out private sector
investment, and reducing the economic well-being of America's children.
I am particularly concerned about the budget crisis occurring in the
Housing and Urban Development's subsidized housing program. The CBO
projects that the future obligations to renew the expiring section 8
contracts will add $20 billion to the budget by the year 2000. This $15
billion rescission package would partially offset these added budget
costs.
Mr. President, this rescission package is only a small example of the
kind of reductions in the growth rate of Government spending that will
be required to balance the budget. According to the CBO projections, if
we simply limit annual spending increases to 2.9 percent between now
and 2002, we can balance the budget. In other words, achieving a
balanced budget requires not absolute cuts in Government spending, but
rather reductions in the rate of growth of Government spending.
Mr. President, the best thing I can do for the citizens of Michigan
is to reduce the burden of Government and let them keep more of what
they earn. By reducing the growth rate of Government spending and
cutting taxes, we can strengthen America's and Michigan's families,
businesses, and voluntary organizations. This rescission bill is an
important first step in achieving the electorate's desire for smaller
Government. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with all the rhetoric spoken over the last
few days, some of us seem to have forgotten why we are here--to cut
unnecessary spending. Yes, there will always
[[Page S5380]] be differences of opinion as to priorities, but the
fundamental commitment to reassess every Federal program and reduce
Federal expenditures must be paramount.
I am pleased the Democratic leader and I have reached agreement,
supported by our colleagues, that will enable us to help keep our
promise to the American people. In the amendment, a very limited number
of programs which Members on both sides of the aisle support, have
received smaller reductions in their rate of increase. At the same
time, the amendment also contains a number of items that will result in
additional savings being achieved. Most important to this Senator,
overall the amendment will result in additional deficit reduction.
As a result of this amendment, the package we will send to the
conference will contain approximately $16 billion in savings. I repeat,
$16 billion--that's not over 2 years or 5 years, that's this year.
For all those who supported a balanced budget--rest assured we are
committed to achieving that goal even if it means making some tough
choices. Of course, the real hard decisions have yet to be made. And,
we will not be deterred by the hue and cry of the last few days about
all the so-called terrible things the Republicans have proposed. This
bill is certainly progress, but we still have a long way to go. While I
am pleased we were finally able to reach consensus--I caution everyone
that the real hard choices are yet to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the
engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if I could have my colleagues' attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. It is my understanding there will be no requests for a vote
on either side on the defense supplemental bill, no request for a vote
on the contract board, the District of Columbia, no request for a
record vote on child pornography, and the paperwork simplification
conference report is done, and other wrap-up material with only minor
changes in the Constitution.
But I just say for my colleagues, it will be our intention at 1
o'clock on Monday, April 24, to begin consideration of H.R. 956, the
product liability bill, and following disposition of product liability
it will be my intention to proceed to S. 652, the telecommunications
bill. Votes could occur during Monday's session of the Senate but will
not occur prior to the hour of 3 p.m. on Monday, April 24.
Mr. CHAFEE. How about tonight?
Mr. DOLE. This will be the last vote until hopefully April 24, after
3 p.m. There could be votes after 3 p.m. If we should decide in the
interim there will be no votes, we will try to notify you the earliest
possible time before you are in the air.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce [Ms. Mikulski] as necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting. [Ms. Mikulski] would
vote ``nay'',
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall vote No. 132 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Mikulski

So the bill (H.R. 1158), as amended, was passed.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
enrolling clerk, in making technical and clerical corrections to the
bill, may insert all amendments that have been adopted to the committee
substitute at appropriate places in the Senate amendment to the House
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, request
a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ashcroft)
appointed Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl,
and Mrs. Murray.

____________________