Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I say to my friend that this certainly is a possibility. We have to have a few minutes because of the time designated, or, at least, a time estimate for a vote. We have to get notice to some of our colleagues who perhaps have left the Hill. But I would be willing to yield back all of my time and move to a vote as rapidly as possible.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think that is obviously a hypothetical question, but it was not a hypothetical response to that problem because what we are proposing to do today is to meet the emergency at the time. I think the Senator makes a good point in the matter of how we have handled the emergency declaration. I say to the Senator that I will be happy to work with the him to set up a criteria on how we should apply that emergency declaration. I do not think we ought to do it on an ad hoc basis, on the basis of need today. That is a matter we should deal with in terms of an overall long-term--we can do the job quickly, but it should not be applied on an ad hoc basis of this current emergency. I think, also, that we realize that the disasters that happen early in the fiscal year--from all practicality, not hypothetically, the disasters that happen early in the fiscal year are going to have more opportunity to be offset than those that happen late in the fiscal year, as to the spend-out we have had during that fiscal year of those accounts that would be taxed or offset. So, I think, again, the whole principle of offset is unsound at this point in time, unless we add criteria, criteria firmly established that we were going to apply. Let me say that the gulf war was so-called promised on the part of our allies to be paid back. But let us remember we did not have that in hand at the time we made the declaration any more than we had any kind of a payback plan for Somalia and the other programs that we put declarations of emergencies to in order to meet the needs of those people at the moment. If we are going to have to measure somehow the suffering, or we are going to find some better way to establish the declaration--and the Senator himself was a member of that conference and that so-called summit that adopted the very language of the declaration of emergency, as I was a member of that conference and that summit of that time. So that is sort of ex post facto in terms of the pattern in which we have followed the declarations of emergency and of the conditions that exist today, the call for this declaration of emergency. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I think that those votes, as they are being stacked or joined, linked, probably would occur somewhere between 8 and 8:30, assuming all the time is used. I do not plan to use all the time on my side on this matter that is pending. Madam President, the Gramm amendment proposes to offset the so-called emergency supplemental the President asked for and that was approved by our committee to cover the losses and the damages, in part, that have occurred during the floods in the Northwest and other parts of the country. I am not sure that we need to have a replay of the suffering and the tragedy that has beset so many people in these types of disasters, whether it is an earthquake or a hurricane or a flood or a fire. I think that is why the budget agreement of 1990 very precisely empowered the Congress of the United States to visit these problems on an ad hoc basis and make a judgment in accordance with the needs created by these disasters and why there is no formula for that, there is no basic criteria. That is within the prerogative and the discretion of the U.S. Congress. My colleague from Texas tried to compare this to a family disaster of Johnny breaking an arm, and what would they do? I will tell you what they would do. They would go down and get that arm fixed, and they would charge it on their credit card because they did not have the money, cash in hand. They would take an attitude that this is worthy of an indebtedness because we have an emergency that has to be dealt with. Madam President, I believe that is true with the Nation as a whole and under the very concepts that set up FEMA, the Federal Emergency Act to deal with these emergencies. The Senator from Texas also said why is it we do this only for nondefense programs? Aha, we put the gulf war in an emergency declaration. Over $20 billion we were willing to march down the aisle to say, ``We support the President. We support this war for oil,'' even in spite of all the propaganda that somehow we were trying to support an emergency of a little country like Czechoslovakia being overrun by the big brutal neighbor, Hitler. So, the gulf war was an oil war, pure and simple. And we declared an emergency. Why is it that we can find it easy to declare an emergency to make war, but we find it a gnat strangling us in trying to swallow in declaring an emergency related to people in need? I suppose it is a philosophical debate to some degree. I think it is also a value and a priority debate as well. I think it is poor procedure, in addition. Bear in mind that this amendment says that we reduce appropriations in the nondefense area, both in this bill and already enacted, the legislative branch bill, the Treasury bill, the transportation bill, the agricultural bill, the energy-water bill, the foreign operations bill, all having been passed, and now we are going to go back and reduce those commitments for those programs in spite of the fact that there is a different spendout probably for each one of those accounts in most of those bills. That then is going to fall disproportionately heavily on those that have had a slower spendout in order to recoup that percentage reduction. That kind of fiscal management is irresponsible--irresponsible. It is an easy way to follow the rules about offsets, but we do not have any consideration as to the impact of that disproportionate reduction in these accounts across the board. It even undoes the action we took yesterday of adding moneys back to the Labor-HHS for educational purposes. We have to revisit that. That may not be a high priority for some. It is a very high priority for me. But it only means again that there are no sound criteria being used to recover the offset in order to say, oh, I can vote for the disaster relief for those people who drowned, have been drowning, or people whose homes have been drowning or their farms have been drowning or the levees that have broken through that need repair to prevent another storm totally eliminating communities in my State, or the Small Business Administration that had expended or obligated its funds to be replenished in this bill, to give assistance for the reconstruction and the restoration of small enterprise under our great capitalistic system. We can find lots of help for the big corporations in all sorts of tax breaks, but I do not find that there is that easy access to tax breaks for small enterprises, the small businessperson, which, after all, is the soul of the capitalistic system, not the Fortune 500. So, consequently, it seems to me that we are being again very inequitable in making these applications. Let me say that on the foreign operations, Israel--Israel, in its time of need--will also be reduced, the Israeli need that exists today that we have voted overwhelmingly to support. I have a strong feeling that we are really almost playing games with people in distress. I heard the recitation of all the times we have adopted the emergency declaration. Again, Madam President, I do not accept the sins-of-the-fathers- being-visited-upon-the-children concept. I am not saying that every one of those declarations had high support or could be validated by criteria. I can tell you, having visited farms that will take 2 years to restore in my State, at least 2 years for productivity--my colleague, Senator Wyden and I, had first-hand direct exposure to people who had been absolutely wiped out. Their milk cows stacked in piles waiting to be burned or disposed of, losses that cannot be replaced even if they had the money to do it because there is not that availability. People whose hopes were just washed away, totally washed away and; at the same time, to replace those hopes and to be able to restore those levies to protect them in the future is being threatened by this particular action at this time. Let me say, we have stretched this every way possible to find offsets for adding through the actions yesterday, and other actions, moneys to increase the level of funding. We have done it for a variety and many different accounts, fitting almost anybody here on the floor in the body, here as a total body, the needs or priorities. At the same time, the Appropriations Committee is the only committee in the U.S. Congress that has taken specific actions for budget reductions and spending reductions--$22 billion we have taken in the Appropriations Committee. We could not get the reconciliation through the President's veto but I have not seen too many subsequent actions taken by authorizing committees to deal with the problem under the current circumstance we had. There is no committee that can stand on the floor of the Senate and say they have done something specific to try to move toward a balanced budget by the year 2002, except the Appropriations Committee. We have a record. We have a unique position. Always, I will defend our action. Sure, we can say we can do more, maybe $24 billion instead of $22 billion. It is very interesting when we come to the floor we face a barrage of amendments to add back, add back, add back; and at the same time that we have offset, offset, and offset, there comes a limit to how much you can offset and make viably authentic a plan you have for funding the U.S. Government. Another thing that had made our problem difficult is we protect the defense spending. That is sacrosanct. That is jobs. That is this. That is the other things. The Russians are not coming any longer, so now perhaps Saddam Hussein is coming. I grew up at a time when Communists were behind every door, according to some politicians, to scare the people into more spending for military; or that the Russians were coming. As I have said before on this floor, the greatest enemy we face today, externally, is the viruses are coming. The viruses are coming. We better be more defensive of our people against the viruses through medical research than for the so-called hardware buildup. I can remember when we used to be able to separate people's philosophy because it was easy, oversimplified--a hawk and dove. Doves vote to lessen military spending and the hawks want increased military spending. I can remember when the Republicans controlled the Senate in 1980 and we were faced with a Reagan massive buildup of military weaponry. Do not let anybody try to sell you the proposition that caused the decline of the empire of the Soviets. I will not give them that much credit. Their system was flawed to begin with. It was doomed to failure. It was just a matter of time. Nevertheless, the point is we justified every kind of dollar at that time, build up, and up, and up and deficit go up, up, up--one of the most conservative Presidents in the United States in modern history building the greatest deficit we have had in modern history. So these labels of conservative and liberal and moderate and fiscal conservatives, all that is a very superficial kind of labeling. All I am saying is we have never found a problem to find more money to spend for military hardware, but when we come to trying to meet the needs of flood victims and people of disasters who have suffered disasters, we are, oh, so concerned about our fiscal future and our fiscal present. This is a legitimate declaration of emergency. I urge my colleagues-- I do not know in what way we will move at this time. We are checking the point of order possibility that exists and we will have to have that confirmed. If it is confirmed, I will make a point of order. Otherwise, I will move to table the amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. As the Senator knows, we operate on an October-through- October fiscal year. What would the Senator do if an emergency occurred or disaster of some kind occurred on September 28?

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I propound a unanimous-consent time agreement. I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour for debate on the pending Gramm amendment--30 minutes under the control of Senator Santorum, 5 minutes under the control of Senator Gramm, 25 minutes under the control of myself--and following the debate, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Mikulski be recognized to offer an amendment regarding national service, and that there be 1 hour for debate to be equally divided in the usual form, that no amendments be in order to either amendment, and following the debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Gramm amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment. I believe this has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on my time.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, a year ago today, my good friend, Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie joined the Senate family by becoming the 61st Senate Chaplain. I was fortunate to have known him before he became the Chaplain and now 99 other Senators have had the opportunity to be enriched by his friendship. But it is not just Senators who have been fortunate to experience the ministry of Chaplain Ogilvie. Following the example of his predecessor, Richard Halverson, Dr. Ogilvie has ministered to everyone he encounters. I cannot speak for all of my colleagues, but I have thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Ogilvie's morning invocations. It is one of the highlights of my day. Each prayer is a poetic weaving of theological wisdom and spiritual encouragement. When I hear the Chaplain's resonant voice, I feel as if the Heavenly Father himself has entered our midst and is speaking to us here on the Senate floor. The Chaplain has the voice of God, but he is also a man after God's own heart. He has said that he sees himself as an intercessor for the Senators, and I know that he is faithful in his prayers for this body and its Members. I have appreciated Dr. Ogilvie's careful efforts to keep the chaplaincy nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian. His concern is genuine and he ministers indiscriminately to all who need encouragement. He is keenly aware of the spiritual needs of this body, and he makes himself readily available to address those needs. We are fortunate to have Dr. Ogilvie among us. While I know that Dr. Ogilvie feels a special calling to his ministry as Chaplain, he has made some sacrifices to be with us. Before becoming chaplain, Dr. Ogilvie was a prolific writer, authoring over 40 books. This literary passion has taken a backseat to the pressures of the Senate. But you will hear no complaints from the Chaplain. He is engaged in his new ministry and he is committed to his new parish. I want to congratulate the Chaplain for his year anniversary and thank him for his invaluable ministry. I am grateful for what he has done for us in the past year and I am excited about the many years ahead.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, our states, which border each other and have suffered from the same natural disaster, have similar and shared problems. I would inform the Senator that section 1101 of chapter 11 of title II of this bill gives cabinet secretaries of involved departments authority to waive or specify alternative requirements of any statute of regulation to expedite the provision of disaster assistance to affected areas. I believe that the Secretary of Agriculture can and should use this authority to provide cost sharing assistance to clear lands enrolled in the CRP reestablished cover.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I cannot agree to that, relating to the second-degree amendments.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, this bill provides funding for the corps to address problems such as those raised by my good friend, the Senator from Washington.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I believe, in the previous conversation, the Senator from Nevada indicated he would need 40 minutes for the presentation of his amendment. I have just cleared on our side the additional 40 minutes for the opposition, so that would be a total of 1 hour 20 minutes to be equally divided, or 40 minutes each. Will the Senator from Nevada agree to that as a time limit?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate begins consideration of H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill, providing funding for the departments and agencies normally covered for the five regular fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. These are appropriations bills that have not yet become law, and this legislation is necessary because the existing funding authority under the provisions of Public law 104-99 expires this Friday, March 15. After I have concluded my opening remarks, I will offer a substitute amendment on behalf of the Appropriations Committee incorporating the text of S. 1594, as reported from our committee last Wednesday. Senate report 104-236 explains the committee's recommendations on the measure. We are taking the unusual step of reporting an original bill to be offered as a substitute to the House to expedite the Senate's consideration of this necessary legislation. Mr. President, the committee substitute provides funding that would normally be included in the five regular fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills that have not become law. These are Commerce, District of Columbia, Interior, Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. Three of those five--Commerce, Interior, and VA-HUD--were vetoed by the President. The committee has attempted to respond to the President's objections listed in his veto message and to modify objectionable language in the two bills remaining before the Congress in hopes of clearing procedural roadblocks and earning the President's approval, finally bringing an end to our fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. For example, in the Commerce portion of our committee substitute, we have responded to the President's concern about the Cops on the Beat Program by earmarking $975 million, within the $1.9 billion block grant, exclusively for that program. An additional $25 million was earmarked for drug courts. Additional funding was also provided for the Legal Services Corporation, the Ounce of Prevention Council, and the GLOBE Program in NOAA, all in response to objections raised by the President in his veto of the Commerce bill. In the Interior bill, the committee recommends modifying the timber salvage language and the language concerning the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, attempting to, again, address the President's concerns in those areas. And for the VA-HUD bill, we have recommended additional funding for National Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Program, all in specific response to objections raised in the President's veto message. All of these adjustments have been made within the constraints of our existing funding allocations under the budget resolution. I might say, Mr. President, that the funding reductions achieved in discretionary appropriations for nondefense programs constitute the only deficit reduction achievement in the 104th Congress. Our committee has more than done its share. In addition to these funding adjustments, the committee recommends contingent appropriations for certain programs if, and only if, a subsequent agreement is reached between the President and the Congress with respect to Federal expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and future years. For some months now, there has been discussion on both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress about providing additional funding for certain discretionary programs in the context of a larger agreement on the budget. Republican budget negotiators offered an estimated $10 billion in budget authority and $5 billion in outlays last December. The administration has come forward recently with $8.1 billion in budget authority and an estimated $3.5 billion in outlays. Title IV of our committee substitute would provide $4.7 billion in budget authority and something in the neighborhood of $2 billion in outlays in additional funding beyond that provided in title I of the bill if--that two-letter word--if agreement can be reached on how to provide those additional resources. Let me add parenthetically that we are the Appropriations Committee and we are not the negotiating committee on the long-term budget solution. So we have not, in any way, attempted to prescribe how that agreement should be reached. That is not in our jurisdiction. Our committee did not view its responsibility to come up with those additional resources with offsets derived from programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. It is not for us to decide whether to extend the ticket tax or impose a new banking fee or require the formation of a new uranium enrichment corporation, nor is it our proper role to stipulate the specifics of a potential agreement between the President and the Congress. That is the leadership responsibility. It is our responsibility, however, to recommend what we believe to be appropriate levels of funding for programs within our jurisdiction, and we have done so. If an agreement can be reached, our committee recommends additional funding for the Advanced Technology Program, contributions to international organizations and peacekeeping efforts, for energy conservation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for job training, education and health programs, and for several housing programs. These recommendations are detailed in an explanatory statement that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, all of these changes and new recommendations represent the committee's best effort to respond to the legitimate concerns of the administration, changing circumstances, and the view of our colleagues so that we can bring fiscal year 1996 to a close at last and begin our work on fiscal year 1997. Despite the absence of enthusiastic support from the administration and its comments on our efforts to date, I remain hopeful that the President and his advisers will look favorably upon our recommendations. We have made a sincere effort to respond to the President's concerns. I believe we have gone about as far as we can. If there are the votes to do more, we will, but it is imperative that we move on and, I must add, stay within the budget resolution parameters. Whatever additions over and above have to be, obviously, offset. If those offsets can be found, that will be the requirement on any amendment that would be offered to expand beyond the scope of this bill. Finally, Mr. President, I should not overlook the supplementals provided in the bill our committee recommends to the Senate today. Slightly over $2 billion is recommended in supplementals for disaster relief and for United States operations in Bosnia. Approximately $1.2 billion is provided for disaster relief, all recommended with an emergency declaration under the terms of the Budget Act and subject to a subsequent request from the President. Funding in the amount of approximately $1 billion is provided for Bosnia operations, partially offset by $820 million in defense rescissions. In addition, $70 million is recommended in response to the President's request for aid to Jordan. This is a major piece of legislation, and like all omnibus packages, it contains many things that various Senators will support and a number of various Senators will oppose. I do not ordinarily support such measures in the appropriations process, but I do believe the committee substitute represents the best option available to us at the time. I hope the Senate will proceed expeditiously and adopt the committee substitute in the earliest possible time. Exhibit 1 Title I and Title IV Add-Backs (and list of dropped/modified legislative riders) In addition to the $4.7 billion contingency funding contained in Title IV, the Committee proposes increased funding from conference levels in Title I of the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations bill in efforts to address concerns and priorities expressed by the Administration. We are trying to come up with a package that we can all agree upon. It is critical that an Omnibus bill is signed--provisions must be made for these agencies that have been in limbo for the last six months so that they can do their jobs and we can move on to the FY 97 cycle. That is why we are so earnest about working with the Administration to devise a plan that can be cleared by Congress and that the President will sign. This is our last, best effort. Failure to enact this bill will likely result in an extension of the current C.R. until September 30th. No one likes this prospect. We must not lose sight of efforts to balance the budget, and that is why some increases are contingent upon a balanced budget agreement with the President. However, in Title I, we are recommending increases in response to the President's concerns; we have augmented dozens of conference funding levels with absolutely no strings attached. We are making a good-faith effort to accommodate the President's requests. Programs whose conference levels that have been increased in response to the Administration's requests for add-backs include: Community Oriented Policing [COPS] Program (Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance): $975,000,000. This program received no direct funding in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill. Drug Courts: $25,000,000 for Drug Courts, which also did not receive funding in the conference report to accompany

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, they have no monetary impact. There is no budgetary problem on this matter. It is to clarify, in two instances--let me take them separately. One is on behalf of Senator Dole, Senator Hatch, Senator Gregg, and Senator Hollings. This amendment broadens the definition of ``educational expenses'' covered under the Police Corps Program in the section of the bill dealing with the Commerce appropriations bill. The second one is a Hollings-Inouye amendment to grant USIA multiyear contract authority for the Tinian Relay Station. Again, I emphasize, they have been cleared on both sides. They have no budgetary impact. They are technical in character. I urge the adoption, en bloc, of these amendments.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I offer two amendments that have been cleared on both sides, technical in character. I will explain.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to affirm the statement made by the Senators from North Dakota regarding the fact this has been worked out to the satisfaction of both sides of the aisle and the subcommittee and the full committee. Again, I reiterate, a similar action was taken on behalf of the people of Washington, Idaho and Oregon, who faced correlated and similar problems during recent floods as well, so it is not establishing any unique precedent. It is well established. I commend the Senators from North Dakota for being so quick to recognize the needs of their people and to respond to those needs. It was a pleasure to work with them, to be helpful in this particular instance, as in previous instances--railroads, whatever it is. The Senators from North Dakota have always been very cooperative.