May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7371 

Mr. President, CDBG has a proven 

track record. Our Nation’s communities continue to need our support. 

OPPOSITION TO TRANSIT CUTS

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I 

want to express my strong opposition 

to the Budget Committee’s proposal to 

eliminate Federal mass transit operating subsidies. 

The report that accompanies the 

Senate Budget Resolution calls for 

eliminating mass transit operating 

subsidies. Simply stated, these cuts 

will have significant consequences for 

our Nation’s communities by leading 

to increased fares, reductions in services, and losses in ridership. As a result, working people will find it more 

difficult and costly to get to their jobs, 

roadways will become more congested, 

and environmental quality will decline. 

Public transportation is a critical 

element of our economy. In 1990, 8.8 billion American took transit trips; 7.5 

million people ride public transportation every weekday. Of these trips 

54.4 percent are trips to work. An additional 20 percent of the trips taken by 

transit riders are to get to school or to 

access medical services. Trips to work 

are especially important uses of transit 

systems in large urban areas; use of 

bus service by elderly households to 

get medical attention is the largest 

component of rides in smaller communities and rural areas. 

A high proportion of transit riders 

are low-income persons or minorities, 

27.5 percent of the transit ridership has 

incomes below $15,000 compared to 16.9 

percent in the general population. African-American and Hispanic riders as a 

percentage of total ridership are more 

than two times the percentage of African-American and Hispanic individuals 

in the general population. However, the 

importance of transit for working people is underscored by statistics showing that 55 percent of the riders have 

incomes between $15,000 and $50,000. 

For most transit systems, operating 

revenues are a combination of fares 

and federal and state money. Assuming 

no increases in state contributions, 

fares would, on average, have to increase 50 percent to make up for the 

loss of revenue. Cuts in operating subsidies will also have disparate impacts 

on smaller communities. Federal operating subsidies make up 21 percent of 

total operating revenues for transit 

systems in communities below 200,000 

people compared to 13 percent on average for all transit systems. Fares 

would nearly have to double for these 

smaller systems. This assumes no cutbacks in services and no loss in ridership as a result of the fare increases. 

Many individuals faced either with 

increased fares or decreased service 

will either have to give up their employment or use their cars to get to 

work. According to an article by Neal 

R. Pierce in the National Journal on 

April 15 of this year, one study already 

puts the cost of traffic congestion at 

$100 billion a year in lost productivity. 

Fewer transit riders and more drivers 

will exacerbate this problem. More cars 

on the road and increased congestion 

will worsen air quality in metropolitan 

areas where environmental quality is 

already strained. 

I realize, Mr. President, that the 

Budget Resolution itself does not cut 

transit operating subsidies. Decisions 

with respect to the appropriate level of 

funding for operating subsidies are left 

up to the Appropriations Committee. 

However, I felt it was important to 

raise a voice in opposition to the recommendation in the Budget Committee’s report at this time and to urge 

my colleagues to begin to focus on the 

many cost to our citizens that would 

occur if the Budget Committee’s proposed cuts in transit operating subsidies were carried out. 

f 

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS 

ACT, 1995—CONFERENCE REPORT 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submit a 

report of the committee of conference 

on H.R. 1158 and ask for its immediate 

consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 

1158) making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance 

and making rescissions for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 

recommend to their respective Houses this 

report, signed by a majority of the conferees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the Senate will proceed to 

the consideration of the conference report. 

(The conference report is printed in 

the House proceedings of the RECORD of 

May 16, 1995.) 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? 

The Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I 

yield myself whatever time I require. 

Mr. President, the conference report 

before us reflects the agreement of the 

two Houses on H.R. 1158, a bill making 

emergency supplemental appropriations for the additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for fiscal 

year 1995, and for other purposes. 

This conference report is a culmination of several weeks of effort on a 

number of different fronts. It represents a balance between our responsibility to provide additional funding 

when necessary to address urgent national needs, on the one hand, and our 

responsibility to reduce funding for 

lower priority programs whenever and 

wherever we can, on the other hand. 

The Senate’s conferees on this measure 

present it to the Senate with a belief 

that it merits approval of this body, 

and I urge its adoption. 

The bill provides a total of 

$7,249,503,600 in additional appropriations, of which $6,700,000,000, equally divided between fiscal years 1995 and 

1996, is for FEMA for the disaster relief 

programs. We have fully funded the 

President’s request in this regard, and 

we concur with his designation of this 

funding as an emergency requirement. 

We also agree with the President’s 

request for additional emergency appropriations in response to the Oklahoma City tragedy and have provided 

$183,798,000 for that purpose. 

Finally, we are recommending 

$365,705,600 in nonemergency 

supplementals for fiscal year 1995. That 

latter figure includes $275 million in 

debt relief for Jordan as requested by 

the President and endorsed by the joint 

leadership of the Senate. 

In addition, the conferees reached 

agreement on rescissions of budget authority and other funding limitations 

totaling $16,413,932,975, and those reductions have been the focus of the debate 

throughout the consideration of the 

bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the 

supplementals and rescissions recommended in the bill be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

H.R. 1158, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSION BILL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT 

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance Conference 

Conference vs.—

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance 

TITLE I—SUPPLEMENTALS AND RESCISSIONS 

Emergency supplementals: 

FEMA disaster relief, 1995 ................................................................................ 6,700,000,000 5,360,000,000 1,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 ¥3,350,000,000 ¥2,010,000,000 1,450,000,000 

FEMA disaster relief, 1996 advance ................................................................. ................................ ................................ 4,800,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 ¥1,450,000,000 

Other emergency supplementals ....................................................................... 718,297,000 28,297,000 ................................ ................................ ¥718,297,000 ¥28,297,000 ................................

Subtotal, emergency supplements ................................................................ 7,418,297,000 5,388,297,000 6,700,000,000 6,700,000,000 ¥718,297,000 1,311,703,000 ................................

Other supplementals .................................................................................................. 434,672,000 85,471,600 306,915,600 365,705,600 ¥68,966,400 280,234,000 58,790,000 

Subtotal, supplementals ............................................................................... 7,852,969,000 5,473,768,600 7,006,915,600 7,065,705,600 ¥787,263,400 1,591,937,000 58,790,000 

Rescissions ................................................................................................................. ¥1,536,623,805 ¥17,187,861,839 ¥15,144,481,050 ¥16,247,831,476 ¥14,711,207,671 940,030,363 ¥1,103,350,426 

Reductions in limitations on obligations ................................................................... ................................ ¥201,791,000 ¥279,166,000 ¥166,101,500 ¥166,101,500 35,689,500 113,064,500 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

H.R. 1158, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSION BILL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT—Continued 

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance Conference 

Conference vs.—

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance 

Rescissions and other reductions ..................................................................... ¥1,536,623,805 ¥17,389,652,839 ¥15,423,647,050 ¥16,413,932,976 ¥14,877,309,171 975,719,863 ¥990,285,926 

Total title I .................................................................................................... 6,316,345,195 ¥11,714,093,239 ¥8,137,565,450 ¥9,182,125,876 ¥15,498,471,071 2,531,967,363 ¥1,044,560,426 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Travel and administrative reduction .......................................................................... ................................ ................................ ¥342,500,000 ................................ ................................ ................................ 342,500,000 

Forest Service timber sales ........................................................................................ ................................ ¥31,169,000 ¥31,169,000 ¥31,169,000 ¥31,169,000 ................................ ................................

Total title II ................................................................................................... ................................ ¥31,169,000 ¥373,669,000 ¥31,169,000 ¥31,169,000 ................................ ................................

TITLE III—ANTITERRORISM AND OKLAHOMA CITY 

Total title III .................................................................................................. 116,037,000 ................................ ................................ 183,798,000 67,761,000 183,798,000 183,798,000 

Bill total, budget authority ........................................................................... 6,432,382,195 ¥11,745,262,239 ¥8,511,234,450 ¥9,029,496,876 ¥15,461,879,071 2,715,765,363 ¥518,262,426 

Reductions in limitations on obligations .......................................................... ................................ ¥201,791,000 ¥279,166,000 ¥166,101,500 ¥166,101,500 35,689,500 113,064,500 

Bill total, budget resources .......................................................................... 6,432,382,195 ¥11,947,053,239 ¥8,790,400,450 ¥9,195,598,376 ¥15,627,980,571 2,751,454,863 ¥405,197,926 

Note.—Rescissions and other reductions: 

Rescissions ........................................................................................................ ¥1,536,623,805 ¥17,187,861,839 ¥15,144,481,050 ¥16,247,831,476 ¥13,607,857,245 2,043,380,789 ¥1,103,350,426 

Travel and administrative rescission ................................................................ ................................ ................................ ¥342,500,000 ................................ ¥342,500,000 ¥342,500,000 342,500,000 

Reductions in limitations on obligations .......................................................... ................................ ¥201,791,000 ¥279,166,000 ¥166,101,500 ¥279,166,000 ¥77,375,000 113,064,500 

Total reductions ............................................................................................ ¥1,536,623,805 ¥17,389,652,839 ¥15,766,147,050 ¥16,413,932,976 ¥14,229,523,245 1,623,505,789 ¥647,785,926 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe this is a good bill. I believe we 

should pass it, and I believe the President of the United States should sign it 

into law. I know that the President’s 

administration has objections to the 

final outcome reached by the conferees. But I hope the President will realize the conferees addressed many of 

his most pressing concerns, and we 

tried as best we could to reach an accommodation of his interests. The socalled striker replacement language 

which the administration indicated 

was the sole provision—I emphasize the 

sole provision—that would prompt a 

Presidential veto on its own was 

dropped. That was in a letter addressed 

to me as the chairman of the committee signed by Alice Rivlin, the Director of OMB. 

I wish to reiterate. In all of the period of this bill’s consideration, there 

was only one communication from the 

White House that indicated there was a 

proviso in the bill that would elicit a 

veto response from the President. I 

think that is very important to understand. And during that 2 months of the 

consideration of this bill and for the 

week and a half practically that we 

were in conference, the only other communications were verbal communications indicating categories of disappointment, and that is all I can call 

them. There were no specifics that 

were given to us. Account-by-account 

categories of disappointment that we 

had failed to reach the President’s 

funding request levels in a number of 

education matters, and so forth, but 

they were general. 

I wish to emphasize also that there 

were many days in which there was 

more than one encounter with Presidential representatives from the White 

House and not once did I, as the chairman of the committee, receive any 

kind of counsel requests that would indicate we had to comply with certain 

requirements of the White House in 

order to get a signature. There was always the striker replacement and categories of what I call disappointment. 

On any number of funding issues, we 

moved more than halfway toward the 

administration’s priorities as they 

were known to us. 

I would like to also indicate, having 

served on this committee over a number of years, this is the first administration that has not hovered in the appropriations process, hovered day by 

day, hour by hour, making known specifics, their requests, and what they 

considered to be the requirements of a 

compatible bill between the Congress 

and the President. 

In the past 2 days, we have seen indications that the President intends to 

veto this legislation. I suppose I should 

say that there have been more than indications since the President himself 

said as much in public remarks yesterday. 

I am very, very disappointed by that. 

I want very much to see this bill enacted. It is not the bill in all its particulars that I personally would craft if 

I were acting alone, but it is a most 

significant step in the direction of a 

balanced budget which we all, the 

President included, have endorsed as a 

common goal. 

Our conference agreement would 

achieve an estimated $3 billion in fiscal 

year 1996 outlays which may be a drop 

in the bucket compared to the enormity of the task ahead but is a good 

start, and get started we must. 

So I hope the President will reconsider and will sign this bill, assuming 

that we pass this report. And if he 

chooses to veto it, he will miss a great 

opportunity. Other opportunities may 

lie ahead, and I have always been ready 

to work with this or any other administration to seize those opportunities 

as they arise. But I hope the President, 

and his many advisors, will remember 

that the legislative exercise, particularly in matters of the budget, is an exercise in give and take and neither side 

can expect to have things entirely 

their own way. 

I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of my time for Senator COCHRAN. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference agreement on H.R. 1158 is the 

product of lengthy and difficult negotiations with the House conferees. The 

agreement we reached was the best we 

could do, under the circumstances. 

The President has expressed his dissatisfaction, and has indicated his intent to veto the measure when it 

reaches his desk. Despite the misgivings of some, I want to remind the 

Members of the time-sensitive and 

emergency nature of some of the items 

included in the bill. 

The conference agreement includes 

the full $6.7 billion request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

FEMA, disaster relief efforts. These 

funds are to be used to finance the relief costs associated with the 

Northridge earthquake, as well as to 

address declared disasters resulting 

from floods and storms throughout 

some 40 States, including the most recent, extraordinary rains and hail 

which occurred in Louisiana and some 

other States. These funds are needed in 

the next several weeks, or FEMA will 

run out of funds to assist in these disasters. 

With regard to the administration’s 

request for emergency supplemental 

appropriations in the wake of the tragedy in Oklahoma City, the conferees 

provided approximately $250 million for 

anti-terrorism initiatives and Oklahoma City recovery efforts. This included substantial increases above the 

President’s request for the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Firearms, and the Judiciary. Included in this amount is $67 million to 

meet the special needs of the General 

Services Administration created by the 

April 19, 1995, terrorist bombing attack 

at the Murrah Federal Building. 

With regard to the striker replacement issue, the Senate bill struck a 

provision which was included in the 

House bill and which would have prohibited the use of any funds in any appropriations act for fiscal year 1995 to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7373 

issue, administer or enforce any Executive order that prohibited Federal contracts with companies that hire permanent replacements for striking employees. The conference agreement deletes 

that provision. 

The conferees adopted a provision 

which I authored and which passed the 

Senate by a vote of 99 yeas to 0 nays. 

This provision will assure that the net 

savings in this bill, in the amount of 

approximately $9 billion, will be applied to deficit reduction only. 

Members will recall that under the 

Daschle/Dole joint leadership amendment, which was adopted when the 

measure was before the Senate, approximately $835 million was restored 

for various programs which assist children and improve education programs. 

Among those funds added back by the 

joint leadership amendment were a 

number of Presidential and congressional priorities, such as AmeriCorps, 

WIC, summer jobs, school-to-work, and 

Chapter 1. Despite numerous meetings 

and the strong efforts of the Senate 

conferees, the House conferees were adamant, and the Senate was not able to 

sustain many of the priority addbacks 

in conference. For example, of the $35 

million in the WIC restoration in the 

Senate, the conferees agreed to restore 

$15 million. With regard to Chapter 1 

funding for the education of the disadvantaged, the Senate was successful 

in preventing any funds from being rescinded. The House had proposed rescinding $140.3 million and the conference agreement fully restored these 

funds. The conferees also fully restored 

the House-proposed rescission of $16.3 

million for impact aid. Overall, for the 

programs of the Department of Education, the House had proposed rescinding $1.6 billion, the Senate had restored 

$1.3 billion, and the conferees agreed to 

rescind approximately $800 million. In 

other words, the conferees restored 

about $800 million or one-half of the 

education cuts proposed by the House. 

However, this still fell short, by about 

$500 million, of the Senate level of restorations in the education area. 

Members may also be encouraged to 

know that the Senate position prevailed in conference with regard to the 

1995 Summer Youth Program. The full 

cut of $867 million, as proposed by the 

House, was restored. The conferees did, 

however, rescind all funding for next 

summer’s program, although this issue 

can be revisited during the processing 

of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations 

bills. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference agreement now before the Senate provides important disaster relief 

and antiterrorism funding. The objectionable provision relating to striker 

replacements is deleted. The savings in 

the bill of about $9 billion will be applied to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, there are still substantial cuts 

in priority programs affecting children 

and improving education. The Senate 

conferees struggled to support the Senate positions, but, through the giveand-take of the conference process, 

were unable to sustain all Senate positions. Nevertheless, the rescissions 

agreed to in conference are more reasonable and responsible, in large part, 

than were contained in the original 

version of the House bill. 

Consequently, I urge the adoption of 

the conference report. If the conference 

report is adopted by the Senate and the 

bill is vetoed when it reaches the President’s desk, and if the veto is sustained, it remains to be seen if the Congress, in subsequent legislation, will be 

able to do any better in the areas of 

concern to the President. 

Mr. President, in closing, I compliment the chairman, Senator HATFIELD, for his leadership in bringing 

this legislation through the conference. 

I also compliment all of the Senate and 

House conferees. They worked hard and 

they worked diligently to resolve the 

issues in conference. Although I would 

have favored other outcomes in conference, I must commend the House 

conferees, under the leadership of their 

chairman, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and their 

ranking minority member, Mr. OBEY, 

for their fairness and cordiality. I 

think it is a good agreement and I intend to vote for it. 

I yield the floor. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this 

bill passed the Senate on a totally bipartisan vote of 99–0. I voted for it, 

along with every one of our Democratic 

colleagues. 

I had hoped I could vote for this conference report, especially given the 

hard work that the chairman, ranking 

member, and every other member of 

the committee put into the compromise that passed in the Senate. 

I particularly want to thank the 

ranking member for his efforts in 

bringing the bill to the point that we 

had it prior to the time it went to conference. And I would like to thank him 

as well for his efforts in the conference. 

Without his tireless effort, this conference report would lack even more 

than it does of the characteristics of 

the agreement we reached with the majority leader. I know that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 

the ranking member, did everything in 

his power to preserve that agreement. 

Unfortunately, despite those efforts, 

some key changes were made in conference at the behest of many of our 

Republican colleagues. 

As a result, I am unable to support 

this conference report today, and the 

President is absolutely right to insist 

that these changes be reversed. If they 

are not, the President, in my view, is 

right to veto the bill. 

This is a different bill than the one 

we supported when it passed the Senate. The bipartisan compromise we 

reached with the majority leader made 

it a bill that we could support and the 

President could sign. Unfortunately, in 

conference, that deal was undone. The 

priorities were changed. 

This is not a fight about deficit reduction. It is a fight about priorities. 

We all agree and have voted to cut over 

$16 billion as this bill proposes. We simply disagree about where the cuts 

ought to be made. 

The bipartisan deal we reached actually cut spending in the bill by $812 

million. The Dole-Daschle amendment 

restored $835 million for investments in 

children and education. It paid for 

these investments with $1.65 billion in 

additional cuts in lower priority programs. 

The deal cut spending by twice as 

much money as it added back for children and education. Yet, the programs 

for which we restored $835 million were 

cut $685 million in conference below 

the amount provided in the Senate bill. 

In other words, 80 percent of the funds 

for programs we restored were dropped 

in conference. 

Those cuts, while a small part of the 

overall bill, betrayed the agreement 

that we had in the Senate. Worse, in 

my view, they undermined our highest 

priority: America’s children and their 

families. 

The programs shortchanged by the 

conference agreement include child 

care, education, Safe and Drug Free 

Schools, child nutrition, and the President’s national service program. As a 

result: 

Fifteen thousand fewer adults will 

serve their communities and earn 

money for education as AmeriCorps 

members; 

Two thousand fewer schools in 47 

States will receive funds for comprehensive reforms that can boost academic standards; 

Several thousand young people would 

lose the opportunity to participate in 

apprenticeships in the School-to-Work 

Program; 

Nearly 20 million students and nearly 

90 percent of all schools would lose the 

benefits of antiviolence and drug prevention programs. 

We simply cannot accept this effort 

to undermine a bipartisan agreement 

we made to protect our investments in 

children and education. At the same 

time, we have no debate with the bulk 

of the provisions in this bill. We accept 

and have voted for the same level of 

cuts contained in it. 

We would prefer to have a rescissions 

package that we can all support. Disaster funding for FEMA, the President’s antiterrorism initiative, and the 

costs arising from the Oklahoma City 

bombing should not be held hostage because certain Members insist on cutting funds for children’s programs. 

It is not too late. There is still time 

for us to accommodate many of these 

concerns, and I hope in the coming 

days that discussion and perhaps resulting negotiations can bring about a 

better result. 

If this bill is vetoed, we should quickly revisit the issue and make the 

changes that can allow us to support 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7374 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

and the President to sign a better bill. 

We are going to have to put the pieces 

back together in some form that accommodates our concerns, but also addresses the bipartisan concern about 

the need for $16 billion in overall rescissions. Whether it is done before or 

after, it must be done. Many of us prefer it be done before. But if it is done 

after, let us get on with it, let us do it, 

let us do our job and do it right. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I 

want to say to my colleague from Arizona, I will be relatively brief, probably within 10 minutes. 

Mr. President, let me just thank the 

Senator from West Virginia for his fine 

work. In many ways, I look to him as 

a teacher, especially when it comes to 

understanding this process and also 

when it comes to wedding integrity 

with politics. I thank him. 

I rise, however, in disagreement with 

two Senators for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, because I 

hold the Senator from Oregon in the 

same high regard, in the highest regard. 

Mr. President, while I supported 

many of the cuts provided for in this 

bill, I really believe that what happened in conference committee, as the 

minority leader pointed out, really violates a basic standard of fairness. For 

example, I brought an amendment to 

the floor which put the Senate on 

record that we will take no action that 

would increase hunger or homelessness 

among children. The distinguished Senator from Oregon accepted that amendment as a part of this rescissions package that then went to conference committee. The amendment was dropped in 

conference. 

I understand why it was dropped, 

that we were simply expressing the 

sense of the Senate, and not the sense 

of the House of Representatives, too. 

But I also realize, based upon the cuts 

in this rescissions bill and based upon 

some of the votes that we have cast 

today, that it is going to be very important for me and other like-minded 

colleagues to work hard to make sure 

that we, in fact, will not take such action in the months to come as we move 

through this budget process. Mr. President, I think that is exactly what we 

are doing. 

Frankly, I was never quite sure of 

that bill we passed in the Senate. I 

worked about 12 or 15 hours. So did 

other Senators, right before the final 

vote which must have been about 10 

p.m. that night, to restore certain 

funding for key programs. 

I felt proud at that point, because 

while it was not all that I wanted, it 

moved us in the right direction. And 

when I got up in the middle of the 

night about 3 a.m. that night, I started 

thinking maybe I should not even have 

voted for that package. It was a close 

call. We have a lot of close calls, and 

we make our best decisions. 

However, I felt good about some of 

the work many Members had done together. We restored some of the funding for WIC, Women, Infants and Children Program, restored funding for 

child care. There was a counseling program for seniors, to make sure that 

they did not get ripped off, as all too 

often happens when it comes to some of 

the supplemental Medicare coverage. 

We worked hard to restore funding in 

Medstart, safe and drug-free schools, 

School to Work initiatives. 

In any case, Mr. President, I felt like 

we had done a good job of restoring 

some funding for programs that are not 

bureaucratic, but that makes a very 

important difference to a lot of young 

people in our country, especially children at risk. 

Mr. President, now what has happened is that more than 80 percent of 

the funds that we restored, most of 

that funding for the most vulnerable 

citizens in this country—children—

have now been cut again. Of the $835 

million we restored, $685 million was 

dropped in the final package. 

Mr. President, I believe that this rescissions packages just simply does not 

meet a basic standard of fairness. So 

many kids are in trouble in our country, and we have to be willing to reach 

out and invest in them, reach out and 

provide support for them. 

Not support that reinforces dependency, but support that is important to 

kids, that broadens their opportunities. 

Starting with making sure that a 

woman who is expecting a child has a 

decent diet. Making sure that a newborn infant has a decent diet. What are 

we doing cutting the Women, Infant, 

and Children Program? It is an unqualified success. 

Mr. President, there were never any 

cuts in the Pentagon budget. None of 

the big military contractors was asked 

to sacrifice at all. 

I think this rescissions package asks 

the very citizens who cannot tighten 

their belts, to tighten their belts. Especially children in our country. Especially low-income children, minority 

children. 

And it is for that reason I believe the 

President of the United States is absolutely right when he says we should 

make some changes in this bill, or he 

will veto it. And they don’t have to be 

wholesale changes, relative to the 

amount of funds in the whole bill. 

There are parts of this rescissions 

package I want to support. So do my 

colleagues. But when it comes to the 

disproportionate cuts that affect the 

most vulnerable citizens in this country, starting with children, it just simply is wrong. And the President of the 

United States of America is absolutely 

right to draw the line. To say, ‘‘I am 

not going to be a party to or agree to 

a package of cuts that basically focus 

on those citizens who do not give the 

big bucks, who did not have the political power. These are just cuts based 

upon the path of least political resistance, and I won’t be a party to them.’’

And let me observe one more thing 

about the President’s role in all these 

negotiations on this bill. It has been 

implied on the floor here today that 

the administration did not provide its 

full views on the rescission bill as it 

moved through the conference committee process. That is simply not 

true. I understand the administration 

provided its specific objections to the 

bill at each stage of its development, 

including a letter to the conferees on 

April 28. These objections are printed 

in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 

18, 1995 on pages H5339 through H5352. I 

commend this letter to my colleagues’

attention. 

Mr. President, let me finally say one 

more thing about this bill. I do not 

know that there is another Senator 

who has been more of a leader on issues 

that affect people in Indian country 

than Senator MCCAIN, and so I say this 

conscious of his important role. 

In many Indian communities there is 

no running water, sanitation facilities 

or indoor plumbing. Mr. President, 40 

percent of the American Indian population live in substandard housing, in 

substandard housing conditions, in deplorable conditions. 

Yet we are now poised to wipe out $80 

million that was duly appropriated last 

Congress, which could really make a 

difference in providing some affordable 

low-income housing. Mr. President, I 

cannot stand by in silence, while the 

Senate prepares to pass legislation 

which I think would have devastating 

effects on our first American citizens. 

Mr. President, as I review overall 

this rescissions package, I just think 

that we can do better. What has come 

back from the conference in the form 

of this conference report includes many 

of the cuts we restored for nutrition 

programs, safe and drug free schools, 

safe housing for children, child care, 

School to Work, AmeriCorps, 8 percent 

of that, has now been cut again. 

I speak tonight to express support for 

the President’s decision but, more importantly, to support some of the most 

important citizens in my State and in 

this country, and that is young people. 

Some of the kids who are having the 

most difficult time are the very kids 

we ought to be supporting right now. 

We can do much better. I think we 

will do much better. But only if we 

stand strong and only if the President 

remains firm in his commitment. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not 

intend to take the full 30 minutes as I 

have under the unanimous consent 

agreement, and also I would like to 

yield some of the time to the Senator 

from Pennsylvania. Also, if necessary, 

I would be glad to yield some of the 

time to my colleague from Iowa or the 

Senator from Mississippi in response to 

some of the concerns that I have. 

First let me applaud the Appropriations Committee for doing an admirable job and resisting earmarks and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7375 

other unnecessary spending, and I especially want to thank Chairman HATFIELD, Senator BYRD, Chairman LIVINGSTON, and other members of the committee. 

I also disagree with the President for 

stating that he intends to veto this 

bill. Certainly, the bill is not perfect, 

but it does, I think, contribute to our 

efforts to reduce unnecessary spending. 

There are several aspects of this bill 

that I have concerns about and, very 

frankly, Mr. President, when the President says there is pork barrel spending 

in the bill, I am sorry to say that I also 

have reached that conclusion. 

I just want to mention several aspects of the bill, and I would be glad to 

hear a response either from the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, from 

West Virginia, or the Senator from 

Iowa, if he so chooses. 

To begin with, there are several portions of the bill where money was 

added—added—in, and projects created 

without being in either rescission bill 

before it went to conference. 

Again, Mr. President, I find this practice unacceptable. I find it a deprivation of my rights as a Senator to vote 

and debate on authorization and appropriation, and that is why I would continue to raise especially these items 

that are put in conference without consultation with the rest of the Senate or 

even, very frankly, having been debated or discussed in the formulation 

of the bill on both sides. 

One, the bill’s text says: 

Of the funds made available under this 

heading in Public Law 103–330 and other 

Acts, $1,400,000 are rescinded; Provided that 

of balances available within this account, 

$12,678,000 shall be available for a grant to 

Iowa State University for the construction 

of the National Swine Research Center. 

And the manager’s statement says: 

The House bill proposed rescinding 

$12,678,000 from amounts appropriated for the 

National Swine Research Facility in Ames, 

Iowa. The conference agreement provides 

that the $12,678,000 for the National Swine 

Research Facility be provided as a grant to 

Iowa State University to construct that facility at Ames, Iowa. The conferees direct 

the Agricultural Research Service to convey 

ownership to Iowa State University. The 

conferees are aware of the interest and need 

for important swine research; however, financial constraints require difficult choices. 

The conferees expect that any future cost of 

operation associated with that facility be 

provided by sources other than the federal 

government. 

By the way, I noted that just last 

month the President of the United 

States went to Iowa and expressed his 

strong support for spending $13 million 

for a 13th Federal swine research center. 

What I do not understand here is, 

first, why does this action have to be 

taken in a conference that is on a rescission bill? That is No. 1. No. 2, why 

should it be given to Iowa State University? Are there other universities in 

the country that are qualified? Was 

there any competition? Was there any 

estimate made of the cost? Or did we 

just decide that $12,678,000 should be 

given to build a facility at Iowa State 

University? There may be very legitimate answers to these questions, but 

none of them have been discussed or 

debated by the entire U.S. Senate. 

There are several more, but two especially. One concerns Clear Lake Development Facility. 

The conferees agree to include an administrative provision which will enable the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to exercise an option to purchase the 

Clear Lake Development Facility, as modified for use as a Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. The facility is currently being leased 

by NASA. It is the intention of the conferees 

that the cost of the facility as modified by 

the current owner (or contractor) and delivered completely modified to NASA, will be 

no more than $35,000,000. 

The bill text says: 

SEC. 1008. The Administrator shall acquire, 

for no more than $35,000,000 a certain parcel 

of land, together with existing facilities, located on the site of the property referred to 

as the Clear Lake Development Facility, 

Clear Lake, Texas. The land and facilities in 

question comprise approximately 13 acres 

and include a light Manufacturing Facility, 

an Avionics Development Facility and an Assembly and Test Building which shall be 

modified for use as a Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in support of human space flight activities. 

This provision, which is in the bill 

text, and the report language was not 

in either the House or the Senate bills 

as passed by each body. Have there 

been hearings on this matter? The 

President’s budget request does not 

contain request for this purchase. 

It is my understanding that NASA 

must now, should this act become law, 

purchase this one certain parcel of 

land. What if there were other facilities 

that could be bought more inexpensively? 

Does NASA need the facilities described in the bill text? 

Why is NASA purchasing building facilities that it is then directed to convert into a buoyancy lab? 

Does NASA have any need for these 

additional buildings? 

It is my understanding that 

McDonnel-Douglas currently owns this 

facility. What is the fair market value 

of this facility? Have NASA and 

McDonnel-Douglas been negotiating 

this sale? 

Could not this purchase wait for the 

normal authorization and appropriation process to occur? 

It seems to me if we are going to 

make a purchase of $35 million from a 

private corporation of a piece of land it 

should not appear suddenly in the conference report of a rescission bill. As I 

say there may be perfectly legitimate 

reason to do so, but this is no way to 

legislate. 

The next one, of course, that I find 

very unusual is: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law or regulation, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) shall convey, without reimbursement, to the State of 

Mississippi, all rights, title and interest of 

the United States in the property known as 

the Yellow Creek Facility and consisting of 

approximately 1,200 acres near the city of 

Iuka, Mississippi, including all improvements thereon and also including any personal property owned at NASA that is currently located on-site and which the State of 

Mississippi to facilitate the transfer: Provided, that appropriated funds shall be used 

to effect this conveyance; Provided further, 

that $10,000,000 in appropriated funds otherwise available to NASA shall be transferred 

to the State of Mississippi to be used in the 

transition of the facility; Provided further, 

that each federal agency with prior contact 

to the site shall remain responsible for any 

and all environmental remediation made 

necessary as a result of its activities on the 

site * * * 

The Manager’s statement says: 

Yellow Creek Facility, Mississippi—The 

federal government has a long history of involvement in Yellow Creek, located near 

Iuka, Mississippi. The site, originally purchased by the Tennessee Valley Authority 

for use as a nuclear energy plant, was subsequently transferred to NASA after the nuclear energy plant’s cancellation. NASA intended to use Yellow Creek to build the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) and, 

after its cancellation, instead committed to 

use the site to build nozzles for the Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM). On May 

2, 1995, due to its current budgetary constraints, NASA terminated the RSRM nozzle 

production effort at Yellow Creek. The bill 

language included by the conferees on the 

transfer of the NASA Yellow Creek facility 

reflects the most recent commitment made 

by the NASA Administrator to the Governor 

of the State of Mississippi. The major investment by the State of Mississippi in facilities 

and infrastructure to support Yellow Creek, 

in excess of $100,000,000 is a key to factor in 

NASA’s agreement to turn the site over to 

the State of Mississippi. The main elements 

of the agreement reached between NASA and 

the State of Mississippi, which the conferees 

expect to be adhered to by the two parties, 

are as follows; The Yellow Creek facility will 

be turned over to the appropriate agency of 

the State of Mississippi within 30 days of enactment of this Act. All of the NASA property on Yellow Creek which the State of Mississippi requires to facilitate the transfer of 

the site transfers within the site to the 

State, subject to the following exceptions 

* * * 

And those exceptions are interesting, 

to say the least. But, also, and the 

final paragraph is also interesting: 

Within thirty days of enactment of this 

Act, $10,000,000 will be transferred from 

NASA to the appropriate agency of the State 

of Mississippi. The site’s environmental permits will become the property of the State of 

Mississippi. NASA will provide all necessary 

assistance in transferring these permits to 

the State of Mississippi. 

Again, Mr. President, this is a rescission bill. This provision was contained 

in neither the House nor the Senate 

bills nor accompanying reports. Again, 

this language is not in the President’s 

budget. 

Why are we forcing NASA to buy one 

parcel of land while we are forcing it to 

give another away at no cost? If NASA 

has been working with the State of 

Mississippi on this matter, why was 

this provision not included in the rescission bill when that measure was before the Senate? Is there some emergency, some reason why we are transferring this land to the State of Mississippi in this bill without waiting for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

NASA reauthorization and appropriations bills? 

Mr. President, there are numerous 

other provisions in this bill which I 

will make part of the RECORD as part of 

my statement. But here is the problem 

again. 

The problem is that we have authorization bills on which many issues are 

silent, like these two I just went over. 

Then we have an appropriations process here on the floor of the Senate 

where we are silent on these two major 

projects totaling well over $70 million 

here. 

And then out of the conference into 

the report, where no Member of this 

body can make any changes to it, appear these appropriations for as much 

as $50 or $60 million in this case. It deprives the Members of the Senate of 

the ability to debate and discuss issues 

and the expenditure of their taxpayers’

dollars. 

Especially egregious is when it is on 

a rescission bill. This is not a spending 

bill. This is a rescission bill. So instead 

of cutting funding we are adding 

money. 

Mr. President, as I say, there are 

probably good and valid and legitimate 

reasons for these areas and others I 

will highlight in the formal part of my 

statement. But I can assure you, there 

is no argument that can be made that 

this process is correct because it does 

not allow the Members of this body, 

who were duly elected but were not 

members of the conference on appropriations with the other body to have 

any input whatsoever into these decisions. We deserve that. And it is our 

obligation, since it is our taxpayers’

dollars being expended, to be a part of 

that. 

I hope this process will stop. I hope 

this process will stop. We are about to 

begin the appropriations cycle of some 

12 or 13 bills. 

I intend, I say to my colleagues, to 

continue to do everything in my power 

to stop this practice and return to the 

practices that we should follow in the 

U.S. Senate, which are hearings, authorization, appropriation, conference, 

and final signing of the bill by the 

President of the United States. 

Mr. President, I ask how much time 

I have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 5 seconds remaining. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will 

yield at the appropriate time, when he 

is ready, 10 minutes to the Senator 

from Pennsylvania, of my time remaining. 

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I 

thank very much the Senator from Arizona for yielding. I appreciate his comments. It is gratifying to know the 

Senator, not only on this bill but many 

other bills that come through here, is 

dogged in his determination to ferret 

out inappropriate things that are put 

in bills. I appreciate the Senator’s 

comments on that and congratulate 

him on his vigor. 

I wanted to first congratulate the 

Senator from Oregon, Senator HATFIELD, and the Senator from West Virginia, Senator BYRD, on plain, true 

leadership in this bill through the process. They went into the conference and 

they stood by the Senate positions as 

best they could. They negotiated, I 

think, a very good bill, a bill that 

strikes a good balance in a variety of 

different programs. They provided 

leadership. They provided leadership. 

They stood up, fought for what they believed in, and they were able to succeed 

in coming out with a compromise bill 

that I think will pass overwhelmingly 

on the Senate floor. 

I am not surprised by the comments 

of Senator HATFIELD. Senator HATFIELD said that in his entire tenure as 

a Member of the Appropriations Committee—which I am sure spans well 

over 20 years—that this was the first 

conference committee that he has been 

to where the administration had no 

input, had no one there, was providing 

no guidance, no leadership, no direction as to where to take this conference report and how to reduce the 

budget deficit. Absent, without leadership, AWOL again this time on a $16 

billion rescissions bill. It was not 

there. 

Now, after Senator HATFIELD, Senator BYRD, and Chairman Livingston 

over in the House worked so hard, put 

together and crafted a compromise 

that they could all live with, the President comes in and waves a white flag 

and, says, ‘‘Oh, no. I do not like this. I 

know this is bad. Of the $16 billion 

there, is almost $1 billion I do not like. 

I cannot sign it. I wish you would have 

told me.’’

That is not leadership. That is not 

taking a very serious problem, and the 

problem is the budget deficit, and 

doing something proactive coming into 

those conferences and providing direction. 

So now we see the veto threat coming out, that they are going to veto 

this bill that passed the House with bipartisan support, and passed the Senate with partisan support, and will now 

go to the President to be buried. It is 

something that did not have to happen. 

If there is a sad thing about what is 

going to occur in the next few days, it 

is it did not have to be this way. The 

reason it is this way is because the 

President refused to lead. But this 

should come as no shock to anyone in 

this Chamber. 

One of the reasons I am here tonight—and I have been for the past several nights—is to talk about the President’s lack of leadership with respect 

to the budget resolution. Now, 6 days 

ago, as I add the number 7 to the 

chart—7 days ago Senator DOMENICI’s 

Budget Committee presented a balanced budget resolution on the floor of 

the Senate. It has been 7 days with no 

proposal to balance the budget from 

President Clinton now, a week the 

President has sat on the sidelines. Yesterday was day 6, a potentially exciting 

day because there were reports that 

the President was actually going to 

come forward with a budget, that he 

said in some radio interview with National Public Radio in New Hampshire 

that he was really going to work on his 

10-year budget plan, that he thought 

we could get to a balanced budget in 10 

years, and he was going to offer something. 

But, again, not with a great amount 

of surprise, the President came out 

today, and according to the Washington Post: 

Clinton sidestepped questions about whether he was still committed to the time frame 

he outlined in a weekend radio interview 

with four New Hampshire reporters * * * 

He said, you know, I think all Americans should be committed to a balanced budget. 

That was his new comment that, you 

know, we should all be for this but, of 

course, he is not going to put anything 

forward. In fact, Michael McCurry, his 

spokesperson, his press secretary, said: 

Right now, to come forward [with an alternative budget] would be an idle exercise. 

Now I understand. Leadership, according to the White House, is an ‘‘idle 

exercise,’’ going to conference committee meetings to discuss reducing 

the budget deficit by $16 billion is an 

‘‘idle exercise’’ that is not worth the 

President’s time. Why should he get involved in anything such as cutting 

money or the balanced budget? This is 

an ‘‘idle exercise.’’ This, for a President who weeks ago had a debate with 

himself as to whether he was relevant 

to the process here in Washington. 

Mr. President, you are answering 

your own questions by your actions. 

So while he says, ‘‘Well, I am not 

now putting together a budget because 

it would be an idle exercise to do so,’’

we find out from senior spokespeople at 

the White House that the Office of 

Management and Budget is working on 

a budget. I do not know whether they 

are not telling the President they are 

working on a budget or the President 

does not want anybody to know he is 

working on a budget, or whether, you 

know, someone is just leaking it out 

that they are working on a budget so 

we think they are working on a budget. 

These are all very interesting things 

that could be going on. 

But the bottom line is that it is 7 

days and no budget, no plan; 7 days, no 

leadership, no direction, no ideas, 

walking away from one of the greatest 

and most important moments in the 

last several decades, which is balancing 

this budget. 

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. As I said before, I am going 

to come here every day, every day between now and October 1, and challenge the President to stop it; please, 

please stop it. Please stop me from 

coming here and having to put this 

chart up, having to print up more numbers. These get expensive. I do not 

want to print up more numbers. 

So I have to keep adding numbers to 

the chart here about how many days it 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7377 

has been since you have decided not to 

participate in the process. 

Today was an interesting day. It was 

an interesting day today. We had several Democratic Senators come forward with their balanced budget proposals. After, I am sure, imploring the 

Chief Executive Officer of the country 

to propose his budget that balances the 

budget, they decided to venture out on 

their own and introduce the budget an 

hour before the end of debate on the 

balanced budget resolution. 

We had 50 hours of debate on the 

budget, and 1 hour before the termination of debate, several Democratic 

Senators rushed to the floor with their 

idea sketched out—I do not know 

whether it was on the back of the envelope or the front of the envelope—but 

it was sketched out in very vague 

terms about how they are going to get 

there. We are going to have some tax 

increases. We knew that. I mean, that 

was a given. The question was, how 

much? They said $230 billion. The Senator from New Hampshire was suggesting maybe it is more like $400 billion, about a third of what they want 

to cut the deficit by. 

They want to do it over 9 years instead of 7. They want to use some of 

our cuts. They want to use some of our 

savings given by the Congressional 

Budget Office by balancing the budget, 

none of which has been scored by the 

Congressional Budget Office. They just 

want to throw this together with no 

specifics, no plan on how to get the $150 

billion in cuts they want to get out of 

Medicare, no plan on how they are 

going to restructure any of the programs that they want to cut in domestic discretionary or defense spending 

—no specifics, just some numbers, just 

some tax increases, and just a lot of 

rhetoric about, you know, we are for 

this too, we want to be relevant, too. 

After sounding somewhat critical, I 

congratulate them. I congratulate 

them for at least stepping from behind 

the shadows and moving forward, and 

saying, ‘‘We believe in a balanced budget, too. Here is how we are going to get 

there. We don’t believe we should fundamentally restructure Government as 

much as you think we need to do. We 

need to increase taxes some more because the American public does not pay 

enough to run this place. So we need to 

tax them some more.’’

That is fine, if they believe that. If 

that is what you believe, then come 

here and defend it. 

I congratulate them for having the 

courage to come up and defend it. I am 

hoping that when this debate is all—

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 

minutes allotted to the Senator has expired. 

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor. 

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. FEINGOLD], is 

recognized. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to thank my 

good friend, the senior Senator from 

Arizona, for his comments regarding 

various provisions included in the conference report of the rescissions bill. 

Let me first reiterate how pleased I 

am to be working with the Senator on 

a variety of congressional and budget 

related reforms. He and I share a number of common concerns regarding the 

impact of special interests on elected 

Government, and I was delighted when 

the Senator from Arizona approached 

me before this session began to see if I 

would be interested in working with 

him on some of those issues. 

That kind of bipartisan spirit is essential if we are to build anything 

truly meaningful and lasting in the 

104th Congress. 

Without that spirit, all that can be 

done is to advance an agenda that is 

hollow and transitory. Despite the understandably partisan tone of the 

statements often made in the Chamber, 

I know there are people of good will on 

both sides of the aisle who are willing 

to try to tackle problems together. 

I have often mentioned the KerreyBrown deficit reduction package that 

was developed in the last Congress as 

an example of that kind of effort. And 

I was happy to be a part of that bipartisan effort. 

I think the effort the Senator from 

Arizona and I are making is another 

such example of bipartisan work. 

There has been some progress made 

already this year. I was delighted that 

a measure to clean up the emergency 

appropriations process, which the Senator from Arizona and I sponsored, was 

included in the line-item veto measure 

that passed the Senate, and I very 

much hope that the line-item veto conferees will retain that emergency 

spending provision. And there will be 

others as well. 

Mr. President, one of the ongoing efforts that the Senator from Arizona 

and I agreed on was to undertake a 

look at the earmarked items in appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona has a long history of this already, 

of certainly some discomfort to some, 

but I believe it has had an impact. Just 

the knowledge that the Senator from 

Arizona will be asking questions about 

these kinds of appropriations can be a 

deterrent. I certainly hope this is the 

case. And I also hope that by joining 

him in this effort on a regular basis, we 

can discourage even more. 

So, Mr. President, that brings me to 

the rescissions bill. It is ironic that 

legislation intended to take a first step 

toward a balanced budget has become 

again a vehicle for a number of provisions that I think move us in the wrong 

direction. Not only does the conference 

report specify new spending, for which 

there is no compelling or immediate 

need, it also contains provisions which 

restore funding beyond the level which 

passed either House. 

My friend from Arizona mentioned 

some of these items. We have all read 

about the various earmarked transportation projects, courthouses and other 

building projects that somehow continue to endure. They are kind of like 

cockroaches; no matter what we throw 

at them or how many we kill, some of 

them still survive. 

Mr. President, there are other programs as well: $12.7 million for a National Swine Research Center. It is my 

understanding that, as I believe my 

friend pointed out, there are already a 

dozen such centers. Do we really need a 

13th swine research center? And if we 

do need a 13th swine research center, 

should there not be a competitive process to justify where the thing is sited? 

Another one: $1 million allocated to 

the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium. 

Mr. President, it is my understanding 

that one company is the principal beneficiary of this research funding. This 

has all the trappings once again of corporate welfare. I question whether we 

should be dedicating scarce revenues to 

the kind of applied research for which 

the private benefits clearly exceed the 

public benefits. 

And then, Mr. President, we find the 

following provision in section 1008 of 

the bill. It says: 

The Administrator shall acquire, for no 

more than $35 million, a certain parcel of 

land, together with existing facilities, located on the site of the property referred to 

as the Clear Lake Development Facility, 

Clear Lake, TX. 

The section goes on to explain that 

NASA is being directed to buy this 

property to use as a neutral buoyancy 

laboratory. 

One might well ask, Mr. President, 

what this provision is doing in a bill, 

the main focus of which is to reduce 

the deficit. 

But, Mr. President, just when you 

think you have seen it all, you read the 

very next provision, section 1009, which 

reads as follows: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law or regulation.* * * NASA shall convey, 

without reimbursement, to the State of Mississippi, all rights, title and interest of the 

United States in the property known as the 

Yellow Creek Facility and consisting of approximately 1,200 acres near the city of Iuka, 

MS. 

Mr. President, if you can believe it, it 

gets worse. Further down section 1009 

we find the following. 

Provided further that $10 million in appropriated funds otherwise available to NASA 

shall be transferred to the State of Mississippi to be used in the transition of the facility. 

Not only are we giving away this facility, Mr. President, the Federal Government is actually throwing in $10 

million to sweeten the deal in something we call a rescissions bill. 

Mr. President, in two consecutive 

sessions of the so-called rescissions 

bill, NASA is required to pay $35 million for 13 acres of land and facilities in 

Texas to establish a neutral buoyancy 

lab and to give away 1,200 acres of land 

and facilities in Mississippi along with 

a bonus of $10 million. 

My back-of-the-envelop arithmetic 

suggests that Federal taxpayers netted 

out losing $45 million and 1,187 acres 

from just those two sections alone. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

I am sure someone might be able to 

provide us with some reasons NASA is 

being required to make these deals, but 

nothing in this legislation before us 

suggests anything the least bit urgent 

about them. 

Mr. President, should we be asked to 

swallow these land deals as part of legislation intended to give us a good 

jump-start at deficit reduction and to 

provide emergency funding for some 

urgent problems? I do not think we 

should. If there are sound reasons to 

make these land deals, then those who 

advocate these arrangements should be 

willing to subject them to the scrutiny 

of the regular appropriations or authorization bills. These provisions 

argue strongly for the reform that the 

Senator from Arizona and I have introduced and that was included in the 

line-item veto measure we passed. 

Mr. President, by establishing a new 

point of order against adding these 

kinds of nonemergency measures to 

emergency appropriations bills and by 

prohibiting OMB from adjusting spending caps or otherwise relaxing the sequester process for emergency appropriations bills that include these extraneous measures, our proposal would 

limit the ability of some to circumvent 

the normal legislative process as I suggest may have occurred here. These 

provisions also argue for the line-item 

veto measure itself, and I very much 

hope we can make progress in moving 

that issue along as well. 

I just want to reiterate any thanks to 

the Senator from Arizona and his staff 

for their continuing vigilance on these 

issues. There are tangible costs to that 

work, as anyone reviewing the list of 

projects that has been rescinded can divine, but in the end, Mr. President, the 

only way we will end these abuses is 

for Members to follow the lead of the 

Senator from Arizona and reject these 

special provisions even when it means 

rejecting a project for one’s own State. 

So I thank the Chair, and I yield the 

floor. 

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRIST). Who yields time? 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senator 

from Iowa be allowed 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator 

from Arizona for the 10 minutes. 

Before I speak to the point that the 

Senator from Arizona brought up about 

the national swine center, I want to 

compliment everyone who worked on 

this rescissions bill which rescinds $16 

billion of expenditures, moving us 

more quickly to a balanced budget 

than waiting until the beginning of fiscal year 1996 which starts October 1 of 

this year. 

This gives us a 6-month head start on 

the efforts toward balancing the budget. Everybody, Republican and Democrat, involved in this process to bring 

forth this sort of change in the expenditures for our present fiscal year is to 

be complimented and to be considered 

fiscally responsible. I applaud them for 

that. 

At the same time, I think it is irresponsible for the President to take the 

position he has when there was so 

much of an effort in the Senate to accommodate the White House in the 

first instance of the passage of this legislation. 

I hope the President will change his 

mind, sign the bill and help move us on 

to a balanced budget much quicker 

than would otherwise happen. 

My good friend from Arizona has 

raised a lot of issues, on this bill and 

on other bills, that raise the question 

about the wise expenditure of public 

moneys. I compliment him for doing 

that. He is a responsible watchdog of 

the taxpayers’ money. There are not 

enough of those in this town. 

One of the issues that he raised previously was on the National Swine Research Center located at Iowa State 

University, one of the major universities in my State. I want to speak to 

that point, because I think he raised 

some legitimate questions about it. 

The first question raised was whether 

or not it was a conferenceable item—

was it in one of the bills before it went 

to conference or was it amended in conference? 

It was a conferenceable item. Under 

the rules of the House and Senate conference, it was something that could 

have legitimately been dealt with in 

the conference. It was not something 

that was added after the fact by the 

conferees in an effort to sneak something through. 

The next question that was legitimately raised was why a swine research center and why at Iowa State 

University? 

I suppose the latter one is the easiest 

to answer. It is there because our State 

is the leading pork producing State in 

the Nation. And some of the best scientists in animal husbandry are there, 

some of the best researchers. So you 

put a facility where outstanding people 

are located to do the research when 

you have a national goal to do research 

in a particular area. 

The whole issue of swine research, 

the whole issue of agricultural research, is not questioned any more as a 

good public policy of our Government. 

It is something that has been promoted 

by the Federal Government going back 

to 1862. More specifically, in this century, a lot of legislation was passed 

that has the Federal Government, 

through the Agriculture Research 

Service, very much involved in agricultural research; not to benefit just the 

farmers, but to make sure that there is 

an adequate supply of food and highquality food available for consumers. 

Why do we have a National Swine Research Center? Well, there was careful 

consideration given to the formation of 

this. A long time ago, a national peer 

panel recommended the establishment 

of a Swine Research Center. They did it 

because the needed research was not 

being conducted in any other State or 

Federal laboratory nationwide. This 

peer review panel made very definite 

that this program of research not be 

duplicative and they made a determination it would not be duplicative. 

They did that through defining the 

mission, the mission of the research 

center. That mission is to develop technology to ensure that the U.S. pork industry operates as an environmentally 

sound and efficient animal production 

system. 

In that particular statement from 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we 

ought to put emphasis upon environmentally sound as a lead purpose of the 

swine research center in Iowa as opposed to the other swine research centers that the Senator from Arizona 

mentioned in the question about why, 

when you have some, do you need others. We need a national swine research 

center because we have not had adequate research in that area and we 

need it. 

The emphasis, of course, is on the environmental aspects. But also like 

other research centers, the environmental research and determinations 

have something to do with the efficiency of the animal production system. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

through their directives on this particular National Swine Research Center, says that it will help maintain and 

increase the competitiveness and efficiency of U.S. pork production and 

marketing. These are national goals, as 

well. Agriculture is one of those areas 

of production in America where we are 

most efficient and where we are without a doubt competitive with any other 

country in the world. 

The exports of our agriculture products give us a very positive, favorable 

trade balance in agriculture. Without 

that positive favorable balance in agriculture and in food products we would 

have yet a bigger deficit in our overall 

trade. So, a research center that is 

going to continue to keep us competitive has a very good overall economic 

benefit to our entire Nation, as we try 

to keep our trade deficit down. 

Now this compromise before us allows the laboratory of the national 

swine center to be built at a cost of 

$12,678,000 by the Agriculture Research 

Service. 

Mr. President, we have appropriated 

these funds in other fiscal years for 

this project, in fiscal year 1992, $1.8 

million; fiscal year 1993, $1.5 million; 

fiscal year 1994, $4.5 million; and fiscal 

year 1995, $6.2 million. 

Twelve million dollars completes the 

project. I am sure that the Senator 

from Arizona would not suggest that 

we should throw the work already done 

down the drain by not completing this 

project. 

Now, the legitimate question is asked 

by the Senator from Arizona about why 

is this project given to Iowa State University. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7379 

The pork industry of the United 

States of America, probably the researchers involved, and Iowa State 

University, would rather not have this 

given to Iowa State University. Traditionally, this would continue to be a 

Federal facility with the operation 

costs paid, because it is a national research center in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, fulfilling a national service. 

A lot of those operational costs over 

the ensuing years would be paid for by 

the Federal taxpayers. But, it is one of 

the compromises, in order to go ahead 

and get this facility finished, that Iowa 

State University would assume the 

operational costs of the laboratory and 

any additional construction costs 

above that figure. The Agricultural Research Service, then, would turn the 

completed structure over to Iowa State 

University. 

Where continually there would be an 

ongoing cost every year for decades 

into the future for the operation of 

this, the answer to the Senator from 

Arizona is it was given to Iowa State 

University so that the Federal taxpayers would not be saddled with the 

operation of it into the future. 

Iowa State University, the National 

Pork Producers and even the Agriculture Research Service will work to 

make sure that there is no duplication 

of research other places, that there are 

efficiencies made elsewhere at the 

other facilities for swine research, and 

to make sure that we consolidate Federal swine research activities so there 

is no duplication. 

This was a demand from the chairman, particularly on the House side, 

for us to meet, to satisfy the leaders on 

the other side of the Hill that this 

would not be an ongoing cost and this 

would be the end of it if they completed it. This was all a general agreement to get this activity completed. So 

it is completed. 

I hope that I have satisfied the Senator from Arizona—without trying to 

discourage him from asking legitimate 

questions, which he has—that the completion of this is necessary so that the 

$12 million is not wasted and, in addition, that this will not be an ongoing 

cost to the taxpayers of the Federal 

Government. That it was only given in 

ownership to Iowa State University, 

not just because the Federal Government just gives away things willynilly, but because Iowa State University is accepting the cost of the operation not for only the short term but 

long term. 

I hope that my colleagues see that as 

a good deal for the taxpayers, a good 

deal for agricultural research, a good 

deal for the pork industry, a good deal 

for our balance of trade, a good deal to 

assure an adequate supply of quality 

food to the consumers of America. All 

of these are good public policy; all of 

these have been followed in a lot of 

areas of agricultural research in the 

past, maybe even a lot of research generally that our National Government 

conducts. 

So I ask my colleagues to consider 

these points of view and let this facility be completed once and for all. 

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want 

to thank the Senator from Iowa for his 

very lucid and informative explanation. I regret we have to go through 

this kind of a drill. I think we could 

probably avoid it in the future under 

different circumstances of authorization and appropriations process. 

I also thank my friend and colleague 

from Wisconsin, Senator FEINGOLD, for 

all he has done and all he will continue 

to do. I appreciate the opportunity of 

working with him on a bipartisan 

basis. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I regret 

that my friend, the senator from Arizona, has chosen once again to criticize 

funding for the National Swine Research Center. He attacks this conference report because it does not rescind funding for the center provided in 

previous measures. 

Let us be clear that the rescissions 

bill passed by the Senate did not include any provisions pertaining to the 

National Swine Research Center. It 

was only in the measure passed by the 

House of Representatives that funding 

for the center would have been rescinded. So if the senator from Arizona 

is criticizing the Senate conferees for 

supporting the Senate’s position and 

not receding to the House on this 

point, I believe his criticism is misplaced. 

We debated funding for the center on 

the floor of the Senate earlier this 

year. My colleague from Iowa, Senator 

GRASSLEY, and I discussed the development of plans for the center, the need 

for the research that it will conduct 

and the justification for construction 

of this new facility. 

The Agricultural Research Service 

has stated that the research at the 

Swine Research Center will not be duplicative of other research. There is no 

other facility now equipped to carry 

out the research that is planned for the 

Center. That research will emphasize 

odor and water quality research. The 

goal is to help the pork industry improve its competitiveness and efficiency in an environmentally sound 

manner. 

This Center was peer reviewed. It has 

been identified by ARS as a high priority. It is a product of joint planning 

by ARS, the National Pork Producers 

Council, the Iowa Pork Producers and 

Iowa State University. 

Because agricultural research is so 

important to our Nation, and because 

pork production is such a large part of 

our Nation’s agricultural economy, I 

believe there is ample justification for 

using Federal funds to construct the 

National Swine Research Center and to 

support the operation of the center and 

its research in future years. 

But the House conferees on this bill 

said that their leadership was adamant 

about not letting the plans for the 

Swine Research Center go forward as 

originally developed. I strongly disagreed with the position of the House 

conferees, and I worked with them to 

improve report language they had first 

recommended that would have been 

quite damaging to the future of the 

center. In the end the House conferees 

agreed that the $12.678 million which 

had been appropriated would not be rescinded, but they insisted on report 

language specifying that once the facility at Ames, Iowa is constructed it 

would be conveyed to Iowa State University and further stating that future 

costs of operating that facility at Ames 

are expected to be provided by sources 

other than the Federal Government. 

The language also states that Iowa 

State University should work in collaboration with the pork industry to 

cover research and additional construction costs associated with the center or 

to offset those costs through the consolidation of Federal research activities. Again, I strongly disagree with 

the report language insisted upon by 

the House conferees, but it was the 

best that could be obtained under the 

circumstances. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe 

I have about 7 minutes remaining. I 

yield the remainder of my time to the 

Senator from Rhode Island who has a 

statement to make. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank 

the distinguished Senator from Arizona 

for letting me have some time at the 

final part of this evening. 

It is with some reluctance that I will 

vote against the conference report on 

H.R. 1158, the pending rescissions bill. 

The report has much to commend it. It 

would provide needed disaster relief to 

Americans across the country who are 

still recovering from a series of tragedies, of course the principal one of 

those is in Oklahoma City. 

In addition, the report would provide 

for more than $16 billion in savings to 

the Federal Treasury. Although I cannot say I agree with each of the places 

where the report would make these 

cuts, nonetheless it represents a really 

solid first step toward reversing the 

pattern of unconstrained Federal 

spending. 

Mr. President, notwithstanding the 

benefits of the funding provisions of 

the report, it is the general policy provisions that are the ones that have led 

me to conclude I cannot support the report. As those who have read the report 

carefully will note, it is replete with 

measures that would override or revise 

substantially environmental laws in a 

variety of contexts. I am especially 

concerned about those relating to Federal timber sales and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, sometimes referred to as NEPA. 

My concern with the bill’s timber 

sales provisions have been evidenced 

ever since I voted against a motion to 

table a substitute amendment during 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

the floor debate on the Senate version 

of the bill. I recognize the need to address expeditiously risks arising from 

the poor health of certain public forests. 

However, this provides no ground for 

throwing environmental considerations 

overboard. The conference report has 

only added to my concerns. 

Why do I say this? First, the report 

retains so-called ‘‘sufficiency language,’’ with respect to salvage and option 9 timber sales. This language provides that an agency’s compliance with 

certain minimal obligations in the carrying out of a sale is ‘‘deemed sufficient’’ to satisfy the requirements of 

all applicable statutes. 

This language would disallow any 

meaningful site-specific challenge to a 

sale under the environmental laws, especially given that the report would 

also would eliminate administrative 

appeals of timber sale decisions. 

In addition, Mr. President, another 

provision in the report expressly would 

revise the agencies’ analytical obligations with respect to salvage timber 

sales. The provision in question would 

make the duty to consider environmental effects of salvage timber sales 

solely discretionary. I think this is an 

important point, Mr. President. Under 

the revisions that have been made in 

connection with this rescissions bill, 

the agency would make the duty to 

consider environmental effects of salvage timber sales to become discretionary; in other words, you do not 

have to do it. 

This approach, I believe, is shortsighted and unwise. Conducting environmental analysis can be especially 

important in carrying out salvage sales 

because candidate sites usually have 

experienced significant disturbances. A 

salvage sale has arisen because there 

has been significant disturbances in 

the area—a tremendous hurricane or 

tornado, earthquake, or something as 

formidable as an explosion, the volcanic action of a mountain, as took 

place in the State of Washington about 

15 to 18 years ago. 

Such sites, therefore, are often especially sensitive to further disturbance 

caused by timber harvests. 

Is this me talking or some expert? 

Well, let us see what the dean of the 

Duke University School of Environment, Norman Christensen, said in 

March 23 of 1995, just 2 months ago, in 

a letter to Appropriations Committee 

Chairman HATFIELD. He explained the 

possible serious adverse effects of poorly carried out salvage sales. 

This is what he said: 

Improperly used, however, [salvage and 

thinning] can cause serious, long-lasting 

damage to resources including soils, streams, 

wildlife, fish and residual trees. The timing 

and manner of their application requires at 

least as careful analysis and monitoring as 

other types of logging. 

In other words, there is not something unique about salvage sales, winds 

fall and timber; you can just go in and 

take it away. 

Done poorly, the productivity and biological integrity of public forests may be permanently compromised. 

And finally, Mr. President, environmental effects of sales encompassed by 

the report could be substantial, particularly in light of two factors: No. 1, 

the conferees extended by a full year 

the period during which sufficiency 

language would apply. This extension 

would nearly double the sufficiency period that was in the Senate bill. 

We passed a bill at a certain length of 

time. They doubled it in the conference, and this could translate into 

an additional 2 billion to 4 billion 

board feet of timber being harvested 

with minimal environmental analysis. 

This is not a case of rushing in and 

picking up some timber that has just 

fallen down in a certain area. This is 

big activity. 

No. 2, while numerical timber volume 

targets have been removed from the 

bill, the managers’ statement includes 

a so-called ‘‘volume requirements.’’

This is a classic example of trying to 

have it both ways. The managers’ volume numbers exceed by far what agriculture Secretary Glickman has said 

the Forest Service can achieve while 

meeting substantial requirements of 

applicable law. 

Mr. President, I have concerns over 

what is done to the National Environmental Policy Act, so-called NEPA. 

But, Mr. President, in this late period 

in the evening, I am not going to debate the merits of the report’s NEPA 

provisions as much as to highlight that 

there has not been real debate on them 

at all. These actions take place in the 

Appropriations Committee, and I do 

not think the Congress should be in the 

routine of using appropriations bills to 

bypass or bar compliance with environmental statutes in ways that will have 

significant environmental effects. This 

is an improper practice that must 

cease. For me, that means now with 

this report. 

I want to thank the Chair and yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise 

today in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1158, the Emergency Supplemental and Rescission 

Act. I am proud of the fact that my 

colleagues and I on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 

cut more spending in this bill than in 

any rescission bill in the history of this 

country. I want to compliment Chairman HATFIELD and Chairman LIVINGSTON for their leadership on this legislation. 

The bill cuts $16.4 billion in spending 

and provides supplemental funding for 

disaster relief and increased anti-terrorism funding to respond to the Oklahoma City bombing. I, for one, am outraged that President Clinton announced last Wednesday that he intends to veto this rescission bill. The 

President should sign the rescission 

bill and join our efforts to put the Federal Government on a budget like everybody else. When President Clinton 

vetoes a $16 billion cut in Government 

spending to protect a few pet programs, 

he is putting the interests of his administration and his part in front of 

the interests of the people of America. 

I would like to comment briefly on 

the supplemental funding provided for 

the FBI and the Justice Department in 

the Commerce, Justice, State section 

of the bill. The President requested $71 

million for the Justice Department’s 

response to the Oklahoma City bombing and to enhance Federal law enforcement’s ability to respond to domestic terrorism. The conferees were 

concerned that, in many cases, the 

President’s request failed to provide 

the true, full-year cost of hiring additional FBI and other Justice Department personnel, since the President assumes that many of these new personnel will be hired late in the fiscal 

year. 

As a strong supporter of federal law 

enforcement, I wanted to ensure that 

the FBI and the Justice Department 

have the resources they need to prosecute and convict the violent criminals 

who committed the Oklahoma City 

bombing. I also wanted to begin the 

process of strengthening Federal law 

enforcement so that we can do everything possible to prevent anything like 

this terrible crime from ever happening 

again. 

To accomplish these goals, the conferees have provided $113 million for 

the Justice Department, including $90 

million for the FBI, and an additional 

$16.6 million for increased security at 

Federal courthouses. These amounts 

are within the parameters set for this 

bill by the full committee chairmen, 

and I intend to provide additional resources for these purposes when I 

present my recommendations for the 

fiscal year 1996 Justice Department appropriation. 

I am dismayed that, in many cases, 

the additional resources requested by 

the President to respond to the Oklahoma City bombing are for items previously requested by the FBI and the 

Justice Department in their regular 

budget requests, but previously rejected by the Clinton White House. 

Under the Clinton administration, 

the FBI endured a nearly 2-year hiring 

freeze, while normal attrition reduced 

the number of special agents by 765. 

The FBI crime laboratory has been 

forced to curtail the services it provides State and local law enforcement 

agencies due to budget constraints. As 

chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the FBI, I am 

committed to reversing this trend, and 

I am confident that these efforts will 

have the strong support of the American people and the vast majority of 

the Senate. 

Finally, I am proud that the conference agreement on the Commerce, 

Justice, State section of the bill includes more new spending reductions 

than either of the House- or Senatepassed bills. The budget resolution currently under consideration in the Congress will build on the good work of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7381 

this rescission bill and ultimately lead 

us to the first balanced Federal budget 

since 1969. When we complete our work 

on these measures, we will have fulfilled the promise Republicans made to 

the American people last November, to 

put the Federal Government on a budget, to say not to more Federal spending, and to allow more families to say 

yes to their own spending priorities for 

their own children. 

NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VETERANS ARMISTICE

DAY

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, included in H.R. 1158 is language that 

will designate July 27 of each year, 

from 1995 until 2003, the 50th anniversary of the end of active conflict in the 

Korean war, as National Korean War 

Veterans Armistic Day. This important 

designation could not have been 

achieved without the assistance of my 

good friend and colleague, the senior 

Senator from Alaska, Senator STEVENS. I would also like to point out 

that our initiative to put this language 

in H.R. 1158 is a one-time exception due 

to the timeliness of the matter—the 

Korean War Veterans’ Memorial will be 

dedicated this July. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join 

with my distinguished colleague, the 

senior Senator from Virginia, in this 

proposal to formally honor those brave 

Americans who fought in the Korean 

war. This is an initiative which is both 

important and necessary. 

On June 25, 1950, without warning, 

armed forces of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea invaded their 

neighbors to the south, the Republic of 

Korea, initiating the Korean war. 

Shortly thereafter, at the request of 

the President of the Republic of Korea, 

President Harry S Truman directed 

American forces to enter into the war. 

The American involvement was spearheaded by the Army’s Task Force 

Smith. 

Subsequently, a U.N. command was 

created which, by the end of active 

combat, had incorporated military 

units from 21 member nations, under 

U.S. leadership, in the struggle. The 

fighting continued, with American 

forces bearing the brunt of the action, 

until July 27, 1953, when a cease-fire 

agreement ended active combat. 

Mr. WARNER. Under the command of 

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and, later, Gen. Matthew B. 

Ridgeway, U.N. forces repelled the invasion and restored the integrity of the 

Republic of Korea along with the freedom and independence of the South Korean people. During 3 years of active 

hostilities, our Armed Forces, enduring 

the rigors of combat in the extremes of 

a hostile climate and the most trying 

of conditions, engaged in some of the 

most significant battles in our Nation’s 

history. Those battles included the Inchon landings, the Pusan Perimeter 

breakout, and the battle of the Chosin 

Reservoir. 

Over 5.7 million American service 

people were involved directly or indirectly in the war. Of those, 54,246 died; 

33,629 of whom died in battle. An additional 103,284 were wounded and 8,177 

were listed as missing or prisoners of 

war. There are 329 American prisoners 

of war still unaccounted for. 

Mr. STEVENS. Unfortunately, the 

Korean war has come to be known as 

America’s forgotten war, and our veterans from that era deserve the recognition they earned through their 

valor and sacrifices. The following Senators served in that war: my friend 

JOHN WARNER, as well as BEN

NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, JOHN CHAFEE, 

JOHN GLENN, and ARLEN SPECTER. 

Mr. President, for that reason, the 

distinguished senior Senator from Virginia and I proposed establishing a National Korean War Armistice Day. We 

believe that this Nation should never 

forget the service rendered, and the 

sacrifices made, by those brave Americans who fought, and in particular 

those who died, in the Korean war. 

Mr. WARNER. The distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and I are also 

pleased that, as a result of congressional and Presidential authorizations, 

the Korean War Veterans Memorial 

will be built, in Washington, DC, to 

recognize and honor the service and 

sacrifice of those Americans who participated in the Korean war. By establishing July 27 as National Korean War 

Veterans Armistice Day, we will build 

upon and enhance that long-due recognition for Korean war veterans. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise 

to speak against the conference report 

that is before us this evening. Six 

weeks ago, we spent nearly a week here 

on the Senate floor debating the merits 

of cutting funding for education. Many 

believed that the rescission bill made 

too many cuts in important education 

and training and children’s programs 

that benefit working families and children. 

After many days of debate, the Senate reached an agreement that rearranged the Senate’s priorities and restored funding for children and for education. Under the leadership of Majority Leader DOLE and Minority Leader 

DASCHLE, the children and education 

cuts were limited to $400 million. In 

the end, the Senate took a strong position in support of students and children, a position that we expected would 

be held in conference. 

Head Start, WIC, Safe and Drug Free 

Schools, Title I, Goals 2000, School to 

Work, Immigrant Education, Trio, and 

National Service all received important infusions of funding that made the 

final Senate package—with $405 million in education cuts—stand in stark 

contrast to the House package, with 

$1.6 billion in education cuts. The Senate’s intention on education could have 

not been more clear. 

Two weeks later, 34 Senators, Republican and Democrat, reaffirmed that 

position, and sent a letter to Senator 

HATFIELD explaining why the Senate 

had made the changes, and asking that 

‘‘We strongly urge you to support students and education and the Senate 

level of education rescissions.’’ I ask 

unanimous consent that this letter be 

entered into the RECORD. 

Despite an unmistakably clear message to the conferees, the conference 

agreement has now come back with 

$950 million in cuts to education programs and we are being asked once 

again to cut education. 

I don’t think I need to repeat again 

the effect of these harsh rescissions—

reduction or elimination of violence 

and drug prevention programs for 39 

million students; elimination of school 

reform grants to 4,000 schools; reduction in reading and math assistance for 

135,000 at-risk children; elimination of 

a promising start on technology in 

schools—all of this and more will be 

gone if the conference report is adopted 

and the President signs the bill. 

One point cannot be overemphasized—schools across the country are 

counting on these funds. States have 

already been notified of the amounts 

they will receive in July. If these rescissions go through, children will be 

dropped from services, teachers will be 

laid off, computer orders will be canceled. 

I think the record of the U.S. Senate 

on education rescissions is clear. I urge 

my colleagues to reject this report, and 

to vote to sustain a veto if President 

Clinton vetoes this bill, which I believe 

he should and will. 

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have an 

order for the disposition of debate 

under the rescissions supplemental appropriations bill. I wonder if the Senator will permit us to complete that 

action, and then there will be a period 

for morning business set aside for the 

Senator to speak. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains? 

Mr. COCHRAN. Only 3 minutes remain with this Senator. I am advised 

the Senator from West Virginia has 8 

minutes, and he authorized us to yield 

back that time. So the Senator can 

speak very quickly. We will be in 

morning business very soon. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Very well. 

Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 

myself the remainder of the time under 

the order. 

Mr. President, the Senators from 

Wisconsin and Arizona complain about 

two provisions in this conference report dealing with NASA. They are administrative provisions, and they are 

clearly and fully explained in the committee report on pages 132 and 133. 

Let me add to the Clear Lake development facility issue by saying that 

the authority to enter into this transaction was previously passed by the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Senate last year on the NASA authorization bill on October 5. 

This purchase saves taxpayers’ funds 

and makes needed facilities available 

to NASA on a timely basis. It was considered carefully by the Senate conferees and was found to be not only in 

the public interest but in the interests 

of the Federal Government. That is 

why it was included and approved. 

Insofar as the Yellow Creek Facility 

in Mississippi is concerned, time does 

not permit a long narrative to expand 

on the provisions of this conference report itself, describing the history of 

this facility. 

Let me just quickly say from my own 

personal recollection, the Federal Government came into this northeast corner of Mississippi, condemned property 

to build a huge nuclear facility for 

TVA. Halfway through the construction phase, after everybody had been 

stressed and strained in terms of accommodating the Federal Government’s interest or this agency’s interest, they canceled the facility, putting 

a lot of people out of work who had 

moved to the area who helped build the 

facility, and finally NASA decided they 

would take the land. 

Transfers were authorized by Congress for NASA to build an advanced 

solid rocket motor facility on the property. People moved into the area—scientists, technicians and all the rest—

schools were built, roads were built, infrastructure developed, by the State, 

by local governments, taxes were 

raised, to help pay for this Federal facility and accommodate the interests 

of the Federal Government. 

Patriotism was rampant because of 

the new pride in that part of the State 

to do something for our Federal Government and our space program. NASA 

abandoned ASRM when the House 

voted it down one night and canceled 

all the authority for the funds. Then 

they worked out a program to have a 

nozzle facility built to take the place 

of this other facility. Now it has been 

canceled, just recently. 

Finally, they say in Mississippi, 

‘‘Look, get the Federal Government 

out of here. Let the State government 

try to do something that is predictable 

that makes sense.’’ This is after $100 

million had been invested by local and 

State interests, local taxpayers. People 

have lost money building housing in 

this area, doing things in anticipation 

of the result that would come from 

these Federal Government activities. 

Now, finally, we are just saying in 

this provision, this is an emergency 

supplemental bill, too, not just a rescission bill. It provides funds for disaster assistance, to disaster victims. I 

challenge anybody to find anyone who 

has been victimized any more than the 

people of this part of the State of Mississippi by actions of the Federal Government. This provision has been requested by NASA, it was considered 

carefully by conferees on both sides. It 

is included here, because it is in the 

public interest. There ought to be more 

included here to deal with the victims 

of that disaster. 

I will not belabor it. I congratulate 

the Senator from Iowa for his comments about the facility. They complain about being in the bill, in the 

conference report now. We defended the 

position of the Senate. The Senate authorized this to continue to be a Federal Agriculture Research Service facility. We had to compromise with the 

House. 

The Senator, complaining that we 

should not have compromised, I suppose. It does not make logical sense to 

me to complain about the actions of 

the conferees who were bound to defend 

the position of the Senate. The Senate 

entertained an amendment of the Senator from Arizona and voted it down. 

We are obligated to take up for the 

Senate and we did. But we had to compromise with the House and we worked 

it out, and the Senator fully described 

the result. 

I am proud of the work our conferees 

did. We worked hard and brought back 

a conference agreement that I hope the 

Senate will approve when we vote on it 

tomorrow morning. 

Mr. President, the fiscal year 1995 

Agriculture, Rural Development and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

provided $297 million in cost-of-money 

lending authority for telephone loans 

of the Rural Utilities Service, formerly 

the Rural Electrification Administration, at a subsidy cost of $60,000. There 

is a 7-percent interest rate cap in that 

program, and when rates exceeded that 

amount at the beginning of the fiscal 

year, the cost-of-money program was 

substantially curtailed because of inadequate subsidy. Because of the cap, 

when long-term Treasury rates exceed 

7 percent, the interest rates on individual loans require a subsidy. The 

$60,000 subsidy was appropriated to satisfy the loan loss reserve requirement 

of the Treasury Department, not to 

subsidize interest rates. 

The conference report accompany 

H.R. 1158, incorporates a provision included in the Senate-passed bill which 

removes the interest rate cap for fiscal 

year 1995 in this program. This action 

will allow the Rural Utilities Service 

to utilize the entire $297 million in loan 

authority provided for this program. It 

is my understanding that the Rural 

Utilities Service has already approved 

seven loans during this fiscal year, totalling $3.2 million. However, none of 

the funds on these loans have been 

drawn down by the borrowers. Since interest rates on these loans are fixed at 

the time of draw down, not at the time 

of approval, there will be no interest 

rate subsidy associated with these 

loans upon enactment of H.R. 1158. 

Fortunately, the long-term Treasury 

rate is now around 7 percent again, 

rather than almost 8 percent that existed early in October. This means that 

borrowers will receive a reasonable 

rate of interest at no cost to the Treasury for any loan in this program approved during fiscal year 1995. However, if interest rates do rise, the program will still continue at the authorized levels, without an interest rate 

subsidy, as Congress intended. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise 

in support of the conference agreement 

accompanying H.R. 1158, the second 

supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill for fiscal year 1995. 

I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 

for his efforts to complete congressional action on this bill. I regret that 

after significant work, the President 

now states that he will veto the final 

bill. 

Such action will even further delay 

the provision of emergency disaster assistance requested by the President for 

California and 40 other States that 

have experienced natural disasters. 

Such action will delay the availability of funding to pursue the investigation of the tragic Oklahoma City 

bombing. 

Such action will delay the provision 

of funding requested by the President 

to fund a new counterterrorism initiative. 

The funding in this bill to respond to 

these requests by the President totals 

$6.95 billion. 

These emergency funds include disaster aid of $3.35 billion to be available 

for the remainder of fiscal year 1995, 

and $3.35 billion as a contingency appropriation, which can be obligated by 

the President beginning in fiscal year 

1996 with specific notification of the 

Congress. 

The bill includes rescissions totaling 

$15.4 billion in budget authority and 

$0.4 billion in outlay savings for fiscal 

year 1995 to provide deficit reduction as 

the Congress seeks to move toward a 

balanced Federal budget. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

bill. It will put a downpayment on the 

significant deficit reduction that will 

be required to balance the budget, and 

begin to alleviate the burden of debt we 

are leaving to our children and future 

generations. 

Now is the time for Congress to embark on a serious journey to get its fiscal house in order. This bill is but a 

first step on what will be a long and 

difficult, but necessary, journey. 

I urge the adoption of the bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the 

RECORD at this point two tables showing the relationship of this bill to the 

section 602 allocations of the Appropriations Committee and to the current level which displays congressional 

action to date for fiscal year 1995. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7383 

H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS CONFERENCE 

[FY 1995, in millions of dollars, CBO scoring] 

Subcommittee Current status 1 H.R. 1158 2 Subcommittee 

total Senate 602(b) allocation Total comp to allocation 

Agriculture—RD ......................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 58,117 ¥82 58,035 58,118 ¥83 

OT ......... 50,330 ¥30 50,300 50,330 ¥30 

Commerce-Justice 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 26,693 ¥291 26,402 26,903 ¥501 

OT ......... 25,387 ¥99 25,288 25,429 ¥141 

Defense ....................................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 241,008 .............................. 241,008 243,630 ¥2,622 

OT ......... 249,560 .............................. 249,560 250,713 ¥1,153 

District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 712 .............................. 712 720 ¥8 

OT ......... 714 .............................. 714 722 ¥8 

Energy-Water .............................................................................................................................................................................. BA ......... 20,293 ¥234 20,059 20,493 ¥434 

OT ......... 20,784 ¥52 20,732 20,749 ¥17 

Foreign Operations ..................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 13,537 117 13,654 13,830 ¥176 

OT ......... 13,762 241 14,003 14,005 ¥2 

Interior ........................................................................................................................................................................................ BA ......... 13,577 ¥282 13,295 13,582 ¥287 

OT ......... 13,968 ¥79 13,889 13,970 ¥81 

Labor-HHS 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................ BA ......... 265,870 ¥2,883 262,987 266,170 ¥3,183 

OT ......... 265,718 ¥252 265,465 265,731 ¥266 

Legislative Branch ..................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 2,459 ¥16 2,443 2,460 ¥17 

OT ......... 2,472 ¥12 2,460 2,472 ¥12 

Military Construction .................................................................................................................................................................. BA ......... 8,735 .............................. 8,735 8,837 ¥102 

OT ......... 8,519 .............................. 8,519 8,519 ¥0 

Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................................ BA ......... 14,193 ¥2,624 11,568 14,275 ¥2,707 

OT ......... 37,085 ¥22 37,063 37,072 ¥9 

Treasury-Postal 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ BA ......... 23,589 ¥588 23,001 23,757 ¥756 

OT ......... 24,221 ¥39 24,182 24,225 ¥43 

VA–HUD ...................................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 89,891 ¥8,495 81,396 90,257 ¥8,861 

OT ......... 92,438 ¥112 92,326 92,439 ¥113 

Reserve ....................................................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... .............................. .............................. .............................. 2,311 ¥2,311 

OT ......... .............................. .............................. .............................. 1 ¥1 

Total appropriations 6 ................................................................................................................................................... BA ......... 778,674 ¥15,378 763,296 785,343 ¥22,047 

OT ......... 804,957 ¥457 804,501 806,377 ¥1,876 

1 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the 

Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would be available only upon an official budget request from the President designating the entire amount as an emergency requirement. 2 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,491 million in budget authority and $441 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and/or the 

Congress. 3 Of the amounts remaining under the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee’s 602(b) allocation, $22.1 million in budget authority and $1.6 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 4 Of the amounts remaining under the Labor-HHS Subcommittee’s 602(b) allocation, $45.4 million in budget authority and $8.2 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 5 Of the amounts remaining under the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee’s 602(b) allocation, $1.3 million in budget authority and $0.1 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 6 Of the amounts remaining under the Appropriations Committee’s 602(a) allocation, $68.8 million in budget authority and $9.9 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

FY 1995 CURRENT LEVEL—H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY 

SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS BILL 

[In billions of dollars] 

Budget 

authority Outlays 

Current level (as of May 5, 1995) 2 ......................... 1,233.1 1,216.2 

H.R. 1158, emergency supplemental and rescissions, conference agreement 3 ............................. ¥15.4 ¥0.4 

Adjustment to conform mandatory items with 

budget resolution assumptions ............................ (1) (1) 

Total current level ....................................... 1,217.7 1,215.7 

Revised on-budget aggregates 4 .............................. 1,238.7 1,217.6 

Amount over (+)/under (¥) budget aggregates ..... ¥21.0 ¥1.9 

1 Less than $50 million. 

2 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, the total does not include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in outlays in 

funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would be available only upon an official 

budget request from the President designating the entire amount requested 

as an emergency requirement. 3 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,491 million in budget authority and $441 million in outlays in 

funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the Congress in this bill. 4 Reflects revised allocation under section 9(g) of House Concurrent Resolution 64 for the Deficit-Neutral reserve fund. 

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Mr. BOND. The President recently 

announced his intention to veto the rescission bill recently agreed to by the 

joint House-Senate conference committee. In part, he decried the agreement on the basis of the rescissions 

proposed for HUD. This is outrageous. 

This President wants to take a mouthfull of popular political rhetoric on 

budget constraint and responsibility, 

but still can’t bring himself to inhale. 

You can’t stop spending until you halt 

the growth in programs which generate 

it. This stuff may be hard to swallow, 

but unless we get beyond the political 

posturing, our Nation and our economy 

will gag on the unpaid bills of our irresponsibility. 

Some have questioned why HUD is 

being cut more than $6.3 billion, nearly 

three-quarters of a total rescission of 

$8.5 billion for the Subcommittee. The 

answer is simple: The cut is roughly 

proportionate to that Department’s 

available budgetary resources. Although HUD received new appropriations for fiscal year 1995 of $25.7 billion, 

about 39 percent of the funding for our 

four major agencies, it also carried 

into this fiscal year $35.2 billion in unobligated prior year balances. In other 

words, it more than doubled its total 

available budgetary resources with this 

massive influx of unspent, unobligated 

funding. 

We must cut HUD, and we must begin 

now if there is to be any hope of surviving the very constrained ‘‘freezeminus’’ future for discretionary spending reflected in both the House and 

Senate reported budget resolutions. 

The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the President’s original budget submission for subsidized 

housing demonstrated a 50% expenditure increase over the next five years. 

Unless we act now to curb the spiraling 

growth in outlays, we will have to 

make truly draconian cuts in the near 

future. 

The solution is simple: Turn-off the 

pipeline of new subsidized units. That 

is the fundamental focus of the rescission bill. We have also restored cuts 

proposed by the House in CDBG, modernization, and operating subsidies, 

and redirected available resources toward another urgent aspect of restoring budgetary sanity to this out of control Department: demolish the failed 

housing developments, and put the rest 

on a sound footing to survive the competition and subsidy reductions coming 

down the pike. 

Amid all the debate over the future 

of HUD, it’s important to keep in mind 

that over 4.8 million families receive 

Federal housing assistance, and over 

half of them are elderly or disabled. 

It’s also important to note that such 

housing assistance is expensive, as I 

said $26 billion in fiscal year 1995 outlays, and current costs are rising. In 

fact with the long-term contractual 

commitments previously made by 

HUD, the Government is currently obligated to pay over $187 billion over the 

life of these contracts, some stretching 

out 40 years. 

Given the long-term nature of these 

obligations and commitments, halting 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

the budgetary growth of the Department can only be accomplished with a 

focused, determined, multi-year effort. 

Unless we begin now, with this bill, we 

will lock ourselves into another multibillion dollar chunk of long-term budget obligations. And this is only a first 

step, one of many in which we will go 

beyond the limited fixes and cuts that 

can be accomplished in a rescission 

bill. We must enact major reform legislation later this year, but this is a 

good, and very necessary beginning. 

The program reforms and initial reductions contained in the rescission 

bill are desperately needed to avoid a 

budgetary train wreck with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

The President has criticized a number of specific actions contained in the 

conference agreement. Frankly, there 

are a number of recommendations in 

the conference report which are troubling to me. But this bill is a compromise with the House-passed measure which contained much larger rescissions, and I believe the agreement 

goes a long way towards minimizing 

adverse program impacts while increasing our contributions to deficit 

reduction. 

For example, the rescission agreed to 

for National Service was increased to 

$210 million from the $105 million Senate-passed level. While many of us are 

dubious of the whole premise of paying 

people to become ‘‘volunteers,’’ regardless of their financial resources, and we 

have heard of instances where excessive payments have been made, the 

conferees decided to maintain this program at the pre-existing funding level 

established for fiscal year 1994. I might 

add that the rescission is half the 

House-passed rescission of $416 million. 

The President’s statement also says 

we cut funding for housing AIDS victims. While a $30 million rescission was 

approved, it is only a small fraction of 

$186 million included in the House bill. 

Moreover, the rescission simply provides the identical funding level requested by the President for this fiscal 

year! Since the President didn’t request this appropriation in the first 

place, it is at least ironic that he 

should now protest its rescission. 

The conference agreement includes 

the full $6.7 billion requested by the 

President for the disaster relief fund. 

This will enable FEMA to respond to 

needs in California resulting from the 

Northridge earthquake and disasters in 

other states. 

Mr. President, I would also note that 

citizens of my own State are enduring 

yet another flood on the Missouri 

River. Thankfully, this flood does not 

compare to the devastation wrought by 

the Midwest Flood of 1993, but a number of communities still have suffered 

significant damage, and thousands of 

families have been dislocated. Missouri’s governor already has stated 

that he anticipates a formal request for 

assistance within days, and that need 

has been echoed by the many local officials who have contacted my offices in 

recent weeks. 

Yet FEMA tells me that they will 

only be able to respond for a few more 

weeks without additional funding. 

Where will that leave the victims of 

the latest flooding in the Midwest 

when the President chooses politics 

over people? 

Mr. President, I would also note that 

the conference agreement contains $5 

million requested by this the Administration to enable FEMA to initiate 

flood mitigation activities authorized 

by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. So this bill not only 

provides the resources to help flood 

victims recover from these disasters, 

but we are also taking steps to help 

avoid such flood damage in the future. 

With appropriations contained in this 

bill, FEMA will also be able to meet all 

needs arising as a result of the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. I am 

pleased that the conference agreement 

includes $7 million for FEMA to train 

and plan for any future terrorist incidents, and to beef up security in several locations. We commend FEMA for 

its compassionate, timely and professional response to the Oklahoma City 

attack. FEMA has earned the confidence and respect of the American 

people, and has come a long way under 

the leadership of James Lee Witt. 

The conferees agreed to rescind $81 

million from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $50 million 

from excess personnel costs and $31 

million from excess project reserves. 

This rescission will not impact VA’s 

ability to provide patient care in any 

way. The rescission to personnel costs 

does not affect staffing. Simply, VA’s 

budget included $50 million more than 

they now estimate they need to pay 

salaries. Despite the erroneous assertion in the President’s statement, no 

funding is being rescinded for medical 

equipment needs of VA hospitals and 

clinics. 

In terms of the construction account, 

funds are rescinded from projects 

which are costing less than what was 

originally appropriated. Rescinding the 

funds ensures VA carefully manages its 

construction budget. 

The conferees rescinded a total of $1.5 

billion from EPA. Of the total, $1.3 billion is rescinded from the drinking 

water state revolving fund. Because 

this program has not been authorized, 

EPA has been unable to obligate the 

funds. While I support the need for this 

program, until it is authorized no funds 

may be spent. 

Within the Superfund program, $100 

million is rescinded. Because EPA fails 

to obligate on average $100 million in 

Superfund appropriations each year, 

this rescission is not expected to have 

a dramatic effect on program activities. On the other hand, it is intended 

to slow program spending pending enactment of major reform legislation 

which will likely change the scope and 

nature of clean-up activities previously 

planned. 

Although the total rescission for 

EPA is slightly greater than the total 

rescission contained in either the 

House or Senate versions, the conference agreement is entirely within 

the scope of the differences between 

the Houses for each budget account of 

the agency. No new or extraneous 

items were rescinded. 

The conference agreement contains a 

number of legislative provisions impacting EPA programs. Provisions impacting EPA’s automobile inspection 

and maintenance program are intended 

to ensure EPA is flexible in reviewing 

states’ plans for I/M programs and considers assigning additional credits for 

effective decentralized programs. 

Two provisions contained in the Senate-passed version of the bill have been 

retained: first, a moratorium on new 

Superfund site listings for the balance 

of this fiscal year, unless requested by 

the governor or unless reauthorization 

legislation is enacted, and second, a 

prohibition on EPA from enforcing vehicular trip reduction programs were 

agreed to in conference. 

Finally, the White House has indicated that it seeks to restore $14 million for the $88 million rescission for 

the yet to be established Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

program. This is despite the fact that 

the conference agreement adopted the 

funding level contained in the Daschle 

democratic leadership compromise 

amendment. 

Mr. President, the conference agreement on this supplemental and rescission package is a good one. Rescissions 

for programs under the jurisdiction of 

the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee total $8.5 billion. 

The contribution towards deficit reduction is $1.6 billion more than the level 

originally passed by the Senate, but is 

$800 million less than that passed by 

the House. It is a compromise, but one 

which fairly balances the differing priorities of the two Houses and still 

maintains funding for critical activities. 

Mr. President, I hope the White 

House reconsiders its ill-advised initial 

reaction to this bill. If this bill is vetoed, it will mean further delays which 

may disrupt timely delivery of assistance to disaster victims in 41 States, 

including my own, as well as the Federal response in Oklahoma City. Perhaps equally important, delay also 

means that Federal agencies will obligate even more of the funds we have 

identified for rescission, making the 

task of saving money in low priority 

programs even more difficult. 

The stated objections of the White 

House to this emergency supplemental 

and rescission bill are nothing more 

than spurious. And the matters that 

they have demanded be changed can 

only be described as a grab-bag of politically appealing items, which aren’t 

needed, or couldn’t be effectively utilized, or simply increase current spending when we all know that spending 

must be reduced to get our budget back 

in balance. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7385 

Mr. President, this is a responsible 

bill. It cuts funding and contributes to 

deficit reduction. It provides emergency funding which is urgently needed 

to assist victims of disasters. It makes 

long overdue reforms and corrections 

in programs which need fixing. And 

this bill needs to be enacted without 

further delay. I urge the White House 

to set politics aside, and begin working 

with us to make this conference agreement law. 

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would 

ask the Senator from Missouri three 

questions about the provisions in this 

bill on the auto emissions inspection 

and maintenance program required by 

the Clean Air Act. The bill would prevent EPA from apply an automatic 50 

percent discount in emissions credits 

for State programs that included testand-repair, as opposed to test-only, stations. It is my understanding that the 

bill requires EPA to examine each program a State has submitted and assign 

the appropriate emissions credits. 

Based on various features of a State’s 

program, EPA might assign emissions 

credits equal to 100 percent of a testonly program. Or EPA might find the 

appropriate credit is only 75 percent or 

25 percent, depending on how a State 

program is structured. Is that a correct 

reading of the bill? 

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. 

EPA is to examine the entirety of each 

State inspection and maintenance program and is to assign the appropriate 

emissions credits based on the actual 

program the State submits. No automatic discounting factors should apply 

and the determination of the appropriate emissions credits should be 

based on good science and engineering 

analysis. 

Mr. CHAFEE. The report language 

accompanying this bill indicates that 

EPA may give a State up to 2 years to 

make a demonstration that justifies 

the credits it is seeking. Is EPA required to grant a 2-year demonstration 

period to every State that requests it? 

Mr. BOND. No. The 2-year period to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of a 

State program may be granted by EPA, 

if the Agency believes it to be reasonable. This allows the Agency to implement the inspection and maintenance 

requirements in a more flexible way. 

But unreasonable proposals that surely 

would not merit the emissions credits 

claimed need not be granted a 2-year 

demonstration period. It is not an 

automatic extension for any and all inspection and maintenance programs 

that may be submitted by the States. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, I would ask 

whether this provision affects any 

other aspect of the plan submissions 

and attainment demonstrations that 

States are to make under the Clean Air 

Act? 

Mr. BOND. No. The sole purpose of 

this language is to prevent EPA from 

requiring States to adopt enhanced inspection and maintenance programs 

based on the I/M240, test-only model 

and to prevent EPA from automatically discounting programs that use 

test-and-repair stations by a factor of 

50 percent. The language has no other 

effect on State obligations under the 

Clean Air Act. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask 

first of all to yield back the balance of 

time under the order of the Senator 

from West Virginia. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Does that conclude 

the authority under the conference report, under the order previously entered? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 

are still 6 minutes for the Senator from 

Minnesota, Mr. WELLSTONE. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I 

yield the time back on behalf of the 

Senator from Minnesota. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that there now be a 

period for the transaction of routine 

morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes 

each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO LES ASPIN 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I 

knew Les Aspin for 25 years. In 1970, I 

was a junior in high school in Janesville, WI, when I signed up as a volunteer on Les’ first campaign for the 

First Congressional District seat in 

Wisconsin. He won that election after a 

tough recount in the primary, defeated 

the incumbent Congressman. 

I then interned in his Janesville, WI, 

Post Office basement office in 1971 and 

in 1972 during the summers. During the 

next quarter century, we had a continuing friendship, as he carved out a 

distinguished career in the United 

States House of Representatives, eventually rising to become the chairman 

of the Armed Services Committee 

while I prepared for and began my own 

career. 

By temperament and training, Les 

Aspin was a man who listened to ideas 

and demanded facts. His mind was 

trained at some of the best educational 

institutions in the world: Yale, Oxford, 

and MIT. 

Sometimes the conclusions he 

reached after thoroughly probing a 

problem were not welcomed by all who 

heard them, but they were always the 

product of a rigorous and honest intellectual process. Les Aspin enjoyed the 

successes and endured the setbacks 

common to all Members who choose a 

career in public service. 

His service was marked by unflagging 

dedication. I believe he always did 

what he thought was right and he always did his best. 

One thing was readily apparent. He 

came from our strong Wisconsin reformist tradition. He was long an opponent of waste and fraud and abuse in 

Government, including but certainly 

not limited, to the military. 

He fought against junk telephone 

calls as well as junkets. He unearthed 

cost overruns in big-ticket weapons 

projects, punched holes in corporate 

propaganda campaigns, and dragged 

some highly questionable foreign business practices out into the spotlight. 

He also criticized the insular environment that enveloped the Defense 

Department and the defense industry 

that fostered the waste of taxpayers’

money. 

Along the way, Les Aspin became 

recognized as one of the Congress’ leading experts on military policy. I would 

say one of the leading experts of any 

time in the history of our Congress. 

Les Aspin served his country diligently in many capacities. As an Army 

captain, he worked as an analyst in the 

Pentagon; he served on the staff of 

President John Kennedy’s Council of 

Economic Advisors; he represented 

Wisconsinites for 22 years in Congress; 

he enthusiastically took on the giant 

task of steering the Defense Department into the uncharted waters of the 

post-cold war era. 

When Les Aspin suffered his fatal 

stroke, he was chairing the President’s 

Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, 

working with his friend and colleague, 

CIA director John Deutch, on needed 

reforms in our intelligence communities. 

Mr. President, Les Aspin was a man I 

deeply respected and admired. As I 

look back at the fact that my own 

entry into politics began in his first 

campaign for office in 1970, I feel a profound sense of loss at his passing. He 

was a good friend and a dedicated public servant. Far too soon we have lost 

an exceptional human being. 

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. 

f 

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? 

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before 

turning to today’s bad news and it is 

terrible about the Federal debt, let us 

go through our pop quiz routine once 

more. You remember—one question, 

one answer: 

Question: How many million dollars 

in $1 trillion? While you are arriving at 

an answer, let us acknowledge that it 

was the U.S. Congress that ran up the 

Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion. 

To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 23, the 

Federal debt—down to the penny—

stood at $4,885,334,984,188.51, meaning 

that every man, woman, and child in 

America now owes $18,544.81 computed 

on a per capita basis. 

Mr. President, how many million in a 

trillion? There are a million million in 

a trillion, and the Federal debt now exceeds four million million, 885 billion 

dollars. Get the picture? 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS