April 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5553 

addresses in suitable illustrated book-length 

editions; 

Whereas between 1988 and 1994, Senator 

Byrd meticulously supervised preparation of 

4 volumes, including a 39 chapter chronological history, a 28 chapter topical history, 

a compilation of 46 classic Senate speeches, 

and a 700 page volume of historical statistics; 

Whereas volumes in the series have received national awards for distinction from 

organizations such as the American Library 

Association and the Society for History in 

the Federal Government; 

Whereas the 4 volume work, entitled ‘‘The 

History of the United States Senate’’, is the 

most comprehensive history of the Senate 

that has been written and published; 

Whereas Senator Byrd has devoted tireless 

energy and tremendous effort to the preparation and publication of the historical books, 

enabling citizens of the United States to better understand the history, traditions, and 

uniqueness of the Senate; and 

Whereas a better understanding by people 

of the Senate and the role of the Senate in 

our constitutional system of government 

will foster respect and appreciation for the 

democratic traditions of the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States Senate 

extends congratulations and appreciation to 

Senator Robert C. Byrd for completing ‘‘The 

History of the United States Senate’’, a monumental achievement that will educate and 

inspire citizens of the United States about 

the Senate for generations to come. 

f 

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO 

MEET 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND

FAMILY POLICY

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security and 

Family Policy of the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Friday, 

April 7, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in 

room SD–215, to conduct a hearing on 

1995 Board of Trustees annual report of 

the Social Security and disability trust 

funds. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA 

∑ Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise 

to join my colleagues who have expressed their congratulations to our 

counterparts in the House who this 

week completed work on the ‘‘Contract 

With America.’’

In the past few days, Mr. President, I 

have heard some powerful and stirring 

remarks from the other side about the 

nature of the ‘‘Contract With America.’’ I have heard allegations that Republicans are plotting to break ketchup bottles over children’s heads, to 

snatch their school lunches from their 

grasping mouths, and to send the seniors of America into the streets to forage from garbage cans. 

Of course, this is an attempt to cast 

a judgment on the substance of the legislation that was brought forth under 

the contract. I would instead prefer to 

focus my remarks on what I consider 

to be the real point of the contract, 

which was a commitment by newly 

elected leaders to—hold on to your 

hats—to keep their campaign promises. 

Small wonder that this effort has 

produced so much discomfiture and 

fury on the other side. I remember a 

Presidential election in 1992, in which a 

Democratic Presidential candidate 

campaigned against the Bush policy in 

China, against the Bush policy in Bosnia, promised massive tax cuts—then 

delivered unprecedented tax increases—and on and on and on. And 

this is, to the mindset of the other 

side, what ‘‘responsibility’’ is all about. 

You don’t keep your campaign promises, because it would be ‘‘irresponsible’’ to do so. 

My view is rather quite different. My 

view of responsibility is that, while 

campaigning, one only makes promises 

that one intends to keep. But apparently it is a novel idea in Washington, 

and is described by phrases such as 

‘‘pandering’’ and ‘‘irresponsibility.’’

Now also, before discussing the substance of the contract itself, let me 

also commend by House colleagues for 

adhering to the principle that, whether 

or not the votes were there to pass 

these items, these matters should be 

brought forth for a vote. That was the 

real point of the contract—to bring 

matters up for a vote. 

I need not tell American citizens why 

that is so important, but I would like 

to refresh my colleagues’ understanding of that point. The point is 

simply that the American public has a 

right to know where its representatives 

truly stand on these issues. That is a 

fundamental responsibility of representative democracy. 

This principle should be supported by 

all legislators, whether or not they 

agreed with all of the substantive content of the ‘‘contract.’’ Clearly, these 

were matters of importance to the 

American people. Many legislators—on 

both sides of the aisle—have run for office claiming that they supported such 

measures. They would say that they favored balanced budgets, favored the 

line-item veto, favored term limits, favored holding Congress accountable to 

the laws that it passed—and yet these 

measures were never passed. Those who 

voted for these legislators had a right 

to know who really favored these measures and who did not. 

I think it is a measure of how truly 

‘‘out of touch’’ Washington has become 

if the definition of ‘‘responsibility’’ has 

become—‘‘refusing to vote on matters 

of importance to the American people.’’ What House Republicans have accomplished, essentially, is to demonstrate that they believed that Americans did have a right to know where 

their legislators really stood, instead 

of Congress’ engaging in the age-old 

practice of refusing to bring matters to 

a vote simply because it was feared 

they would pass. That is not my idea of 

representative democracy—gimmicking the system to avoid having to cast 

a politically unpopular vote. And we 

saw a terrible lot of that in the House 

for 40 years. 

Finally, I would like to address the 

rather silly charge that the ‘‘Contract 

With America’’ was a special boon for 

rich Americans only. 

If we run down the various items of 

the contract—and I do not support 

every single one of them—we see several measures that have nothing to do 

with being ‘‘rich’’ or ‘‘poor.’’ We simply 

see measures designed to give Washington some long-overdue accountability to the people we represent. 

For instance—the Congressional Accountability Act. I do not understand 

why it would be catering to the ‘‘rich’’

to make Congress accountable to the 

laws that it passes. 

Nor do I understand why a halt to unfunded Federal mandates is a special 

benefit for ‘‘the rich.’’ It is an irrelevant, nonsensical argument to say that 

somehow it is the height of egalitarianism for Washington to send endless unfunded mandates on to the 

States. 

The balanced budget amendment; 

there’s another one. Simply the proposition that Government should live 

within its means. I would be very curious to know what tenet of economic 

theory holds that it is necessary for 

Government to go into hundreds of billions in debt every year in order to 

treat ‘‘rich’’ and ‘‘poor’’ appropriately. 

Even many of the attacks on the proposed tax cuts struck me as disingenuous, at times even hypocritical. Many 

Congressmen and Senators waxed eloquent about how unfair it was to give 

any sort of tax break to the ‘‘rich,’’ but 

when it comes to shelling out billions 

in Federal entitlement benefits to the 

‘‘rich,’’ they are strangely silent. If it 

is unjust to have any sort of tax relief 

affecting anyone of means, please explain to me why a billionaire should 

get a full Social Security COLA, or to 

have 75 percent of his Medicare part B 

premium paid by the taxpayer. If you 

want to know where we have really indulged the ‘‘rich,’’ it’s not through the 

Tax Code. It’s through Government 

spending. 

So this was never about ‘‘rich’’

versus ‘‘poor.’’ It was about big Government versus small Government. 

In the end, Mr. President, many of 

the attacks on the Republican legislative effort are nothing more than the 

same shopworn, trite, ridiculous rhetoric of class warfare that got us into 

this spending nightmare, and most assuredly will not get us out. 

We will hear much more of it in the 

weeks to come. 

When we attempt to hold the growth 

of Government spending to a reasonable level—not to cut it, but just to restrain its growth—we will hear how we 

are ‘‘cutting’’ and ‘‘slashing’’ and so 

forth. 

I just cannot believe—and I say this 

in all earnestness to my Democratic 

colleagues and their pollsters—that the 

American people will swallow that one. 

I remember those charges during the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 7, 1995 

Reagan years. Last I looked, we had a 

Federal budget of, now, $1.6 trillion. 

Doesn’t look like a lot of ‘‘slashing’’

and ‘‘cutting’’ to me. Does anyone seriously believe that the American public 

will buy the notion that we are tearing 

spending to ribbons when we have a 

Federal budget of $1.6 trillion? Something just doesn’t add up there. 

The reality is that we have programs 

like Head Start that are going up 140 

percent over the course of 6 years—and 

the opposition comes down here, still, 

to charge that it is being torn apart by 

Republican budget cuts. 

It is a mode of argument that simply 

will not work anymore. There is simply 

too much clear evidence to the contrary. 

There is still much to do to bring our 

Government’s house into order. But by 

any measure, the first 100 days of this 

Congress have been a darn good start. 

We owe the House our rich congratulations.∑ 

f 

SHORTSIGHTED RESCISSIONS 

∑ Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the rescission bill approved by the Senate last 

night included a very short-sighted 

cut, which I strongly opposed. The bill 

we sent to conference with the House 

rescinds $93.5 million for the base realignment and closure account for the 

1993 round of military facility closures, 

and another $10.6 million for the base 

realignment and closure account for 

the 1991 round of facility closures. 

These BRAC accounts provide the 

funds to close and realign military 

bases including, most urgently, to 

clean up an environmental contamination that the military services caused 

while they occupied those facilities. 

During consideration of the bill, I 

voted for the Mikulski amendment, 

which would have restored funds for 

cleanup of closing bases and funds for 

other important national programs. 

Now, I strongly encourage the conference committee to restore these 

funds. 

When we voted for base closures over 

the last 5 years, we also committed to 

complete environmental restoration 

and remediation at those facilities 

quickly, in fact within a maximum of 5 

years from the time closure was approved. I consider that a solemn commitment from us, and from President 

Clinton to the affected communities, 

which spent years as good neighbors to 

the military, providing all kinds of 

support. Each of those communities 

was serving our country with their support of local military facilities. The 

President and Department of Defense 

have tried to keep this commitment by 

requesting full funding for BRAC activities. We appropriated most of what 

was asked for last year. It would be a 

mistake to rescind more funding. 

Mr. President, not only is it wrong to 

renege on the commitment we made to 

cleanup swiftly the military bases we 

have ordered to close, so that reuse 

there is possible. Underfunding this activity by rescinding fiscal year 1995 

BRAC funds is also short-sighted. It’s 

probably not even penny-wise, but it is 

certainly pound-foolish. 

In many cases, Federal and State 

laws require this cleanup. At some 

bases, consent agreements now dictate 

specific cleanup activities and deadlines, the cost of which must be paid 

from the BRAC accounts. So BRAC rescissions are false savings. We still 

have to complete these environmental 

restoration activities. When we delay, 

it becomes more expensive, because the 

contamination in many cases gets 

worse. Soil and groundwater contamination can spread. And if consent 

agreements are violated because of 

lack of funds, the Federal Facilities 

Compliance Act says the Federal Government may be subject to fines and 

penalties. 

The Governor of California, Pete Wilson, recently wrote to the Secretary of 

Defense on this subject, saying: 

The continued erosion of cleanup funding 

inevitably will threaten the health of armed 

services personnel and civilians who work at 

military bases where contamination is 

present. It will also exacerbate economic suffering in communities that are struggling to 

redevelop closing bases. And, if the federal 

government will not meet its cleanup obligation, how can we expect private industry to 

do so? DOD is contractually obligated to 

seek sufficient funding to permit environmental work to proceed according to the 

schedules contained in those agreements. 

California will not hesitate to assert its 

right under those agreements to seek fines, 

penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD 

to conduct required environmental work. 

The attorney general of Texas expressed similar sentiments in a letter 

to the Pentagon, saying: 

If, in other words, the DOD and the federal 

government do not comply with all applicable cleanup laws, then other entities may 

begin to question why they should comply 

with cleanup laws. Hopefully, we have not 

reached the point of the federal government 

taking the position of ‘‘do as I say, and not 

as I do.’’

I would ask that the entire letter of 

January 25, 1995 from Governor Wilson 

to Secretary Perry, and the December 

29, 1994 letter from Attorney General 

Dan Morales to Under Secretary of Defense Sherri Wasserman Goodman be 

printed in the RECORD. 

SACRAMENTO, CA, 

January 25, 1995. 

Hon. WILLIAM PERRY, 

Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY PERRY: I would like to 

express may deep concern about recent actions at the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and in Congress regarding cuts in funding for 

environmental restoration of military bases. 

The recent decision by Congress to cut $400 

million from the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Account (DERA) for FY95 continues a disturbing trend begun last year 

when Congress rescinded $507 million from 

the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Account. California was reassured that the 

BRAC recission would not affect environmental work at closing military bases, but 

work was indeed scaled back at several California military bases due to the cut. The 

DERA cut presumably means that DOD will 

seek to postpone or eliminate environmental 

work at operational military bases. 

At the same time, the DOD Comptroller 

has announced an additional $437 million in 

cuts for cleanup programs through FY97. 

Such actions can only encourage members of 

Congress who would like to redirect DOD environmental spending into more traditional 

defense programs. 

The continued erosion of cleanup funding 

inevitably will threaten the health of armed 

services personnel and civilians who work at 

military bases where contamination is 

present. It will also exacerbate economic suffering in communities that are struggling to 

redevelop closing bases. And, if the federal 

government will not meet its cleanup obligation, how can we expect private industry to 

do so? 

California expects DOD to comply with the 

federal/state cleanup agreements it has 

signed at California military bases. DOD is 

contractually obligated to seek sufficient 

funding to permit environmental work to 

proceed according to the schedules contained 

in those agreements. California will not hesitate to assert its right under those agreements to seek fines, penalties and judicial 

orders compelling DOD to conduct required 

environmental work. 

I would be happy to work with you to 

strengthen support in Washington for full 

funding of DOD cleanup work. One way to reduce oversight costs would be to delist military bases from the National Priorities List 

and give states the exclusive responsibility 

for overseeing base cleanups. Please do not 

hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in these areas. 

Sincerely, 

PETE WILSON. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Austin, TX, December 29, 1994. 

Re additional comments to the Defense environmental response task force fiscal year 

1994 annual report to Congress. 

Ms. Sherri Wasserman Goodman, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. GOODMAN: I continue to believe 

that much progress has been made in the 

cleanup program of the Department of Defense (‘‘DoD’’) as a result of the work done 

by you and your office. It is important, however, that the policies declared at the headquarters level continue to permeate down 

through the Services to the base or facility 

level. I am not quite sure at this point, in 

other words, that all of the policies and efforts set forth at the headquarters level have 

been fully embraced or implemented at the 

facility level. 

Because of possible adverse effects on future cleanups at closing bases, I am deeply 

concerned about recent action taken by the 

DoD Comptroller with regard to the DoD environmental remediation and compliance 

budget. I understand that the Comptroller 

desires to cut over a half-billion dollars from 

the DoD’s request for environmental cleanup 

and compliance. Not only would such a cut 

be short-sighted, I firmly believe that it 

would be unlawful if it is the case that all of 

the legal requirements facing the DoD could 

not be met (as a financial or budgeting matter) in accordance with Executive Order 12088 

(Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards (Oct. 10, 1978)) and the many federal facility and state cleanup agreements 

entered into in good faith by the DoD. While 

saving taxpayers’ money and ensuring military readiness are surely critically important objectives, the compliance by DoD with 

all applicable laws purposed at protecting 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS