The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE 1995 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S22-S24 on Jan. 3, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE 1995 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as 1996 begins, and the 2d session of the 104th Congress convenes, we need to take a close look at the record of this Congress' first year. In reviewing that record, one stunning failure stands out above all others. The majority in 1995 presided over perhaps the most bungled budget and appropriations process ever seen in Congress. The majority failed to meet every budget deadline set by law, and every deadline they set for themselves.
Rather than react responsibly to bring order to this process, Republicans instead chose to shut down the government twice. The most recent shutdown, now in its 19th day, is by far the longest in history. Both of these shutdowns have been unnecessary, wasteful of taxpayer funds, and have inconvenienced thousands of Americans who paid their taxes only to have basic services denied them.
Let there be no mistake: Despite some of the rhetoric we have heard, the responsibility for the shutdown falls squarely on the shoulders of Republicans in the House of Representatives. Nothing makes that clearer than the action by the Senate on January 2 to approve a continuing resolution that would fund the Government until January 12. The other body could take up and enact that legislation in a matter of minutes. Yet because of objections by self-proclaimed revolutionaries in the other body, the shutdown continues. These extremists plan to hold the Government and its workers hostage to force the administration to accept a budget that has already been rejected by the President and the American people.
A brief review of the botched budget process this year explains how Congress got into this mess. The Budget Act requires the Senate Budget Committee to report a resolution by April 1. The majority missed that deadline. The Budget Act requires Congress to complete a budget resolution by April 15. Again, the majority missed that legal deadline. By June 15, the Budget Act requires Congress to complete action on a final budget reconciliation bill. Today, over 6 months later, we are still discussing that legislation at the White House. In fact, they did not even complete work on the budget resolution until June 29.
The majority has missed every legal deadline for the appropriations process, as well. By June 10, the Budget Act requires the House Appropriations Committee to report all 13 appropriations bills. The majority failed to report even one of them by that date. By June 30, the Budget Act requires the House to complete action on all 13 appropriations bills. They had completed only two. By October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, all 13 appropriations bills are supposed to be enacted. On October 1, 1995, Congress had sent only two of them to the President.
Not only has Congress failed to meet its legal responsibilities. It is now failing to meet its constitutional responsibilities to properly fund the Government. Last year was not the first time the President differed with Congress on appropriations bills. When Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans controlled the White House, Democrats handled Presidential vetoes very differently than the majority does today. In 1990, President Bush vetoed the District of Columbia bill twice, and he also vetoed the foreign operations and Labor/Health and Human Services bills. He again vetoed the District of Columbia bills in 1992 and 1993, and the Labor/HHS bill in 1992. In each of these cases, Congress approved a continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown while Congress and the President worked out differences over these bills.
There is no reason that Congress cannot again this year approve stopgap funding while Congress and the President negotiate differences over outstanding appropriations bills that should have been completed long ago. In fact, the President has indicated that, with relatively minor changes, he would quickly sign the bills he has vetoed, and the Government could be put back to work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement, the veto messages of the President regarding the VA/HUD, Commerce/State/Justice, and the Interior appropriations bills be printed in the Record.
As these messages make clear, agreement is within reach if extremist riders are removed and limited funding for high-priority programs is restored. The only reason that this has not been done already is that certain leaders in the other body seek to impose their radical agenda on America by holding these bills hostage. The Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, expected more responsible behavior from leaders in Congress, and did not anticipate that Congress would renege on its basic obligation to maintain the functioning of Government because one faction expected to gain partisan advantage.
Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to review these veto messages, and begin working to bridge the differences by negotiating in good faith, and stop using coercive tactics to extract advantage. I hope very much that the House will act today on the clean continuing resolution approved by the Senate yesterday. Ending the irresponsible shutdown would be a good demonstration of leadership, and would clearly add a positive note to the bipartisan negotiations over balancing the budget that are now taking place.
There being no objection, the messages were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2099, the
``Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996.''
H.R. 2099 would threaten public health and the environment, end programs that are helping communities help themselves, close the door on college for thousands of young people, and leave veterans seeking medical care with fewer treatment options.
The bill includes no funds for the highly successful National Service program. If such funding were eliminated, the bill would cost nearly 50,000 young Americans the opportunity to help their community, through AmeriCorps, to address vital local needs such as health care, crime prevention, and education while earning a monetary award to help them pursue additional education or training. I will not sign any version of this appropriations bill that does not restore funds for this vital program.
This bill includes a 22 percent cut in requested funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including a 25 percent cut in enforcement that would cripple EPA efforts to enforce laws against polluters. Particularly objectionable are the bill's 25 percent cut in Superfund, which would continue to expose hundreds of thousands of citizens to dangerous chemicals and cuts, which would hamper efforts to train workers in hazardous waste cleanup.
In addition to severe funding cuts for EPA, the bill also includes legislative riders that were tacked onto the bill without any hearings or adequate public input, including one that would prevent EPA from exercising its authority under the Clean Water Act to prevent wetlands losses.
I am concerned about the bill's $762 million reduction to my request for funds that would go directly to States and needy cities for clean water and drinking water needs, such as assistance to clean up Boston Harbor. I also object to cuts the Congress has made in environmental technology, the climate change action plan, and other environmental programs.
The bill would reduce funding for the Council for Environmental Quality by more than half. Such a reduction would severely hamper the Council's ability to provide me with advice on environmental policy and carry out its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The bill provides no new funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions program, an important initiative for bringing credit and growth to communities long left behind.
While the bill provides spending authority for several important initiatives of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Community Development Block Grants, homeless assistance and the sale of HUD-owned properties, it lacks funding for others. For example, the bill provides no funds to support economic development initiatives; it has insufficient funds for incremental rental vouchers; and it cuts nearly in half my request for tearing down the most severely distressed housing projects. Also, the bill contains harmful riders that would transfer HUD's Fair Housing activities to the Justice Department and eliminate Federal preferences in the section 8, tenant-based program.
The bill provides less than I requested for the medical care of this Nation's veterans. It includes significant restrictions on funding for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that appear designed to impede him from carrying out his duties as an advocate for veterans. Further, the bill does not provide necessary funding for VA hospital construction.
For these reasons and others my Administration has converyed to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot accept this bill. This bill does not reflect the values that Americans hold dear. I urge the Congress to send me an appropriations bill for these important priorities that truly serves the American people.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 18, 1995.
____
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1977, the
``Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996.''
This bill is unacceptable because it would unduly restrict our ability to protect America's natural resources and cultural heritage, promote the technology we need for long-term energy conservation and economic growth, and provide adequate health, educational, and other services to Native Americans.
First, the bill makes wrong-headed choices with regard to the management and preservation of some of our most precious assets. In the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, it would allow harmful clear-cutting, require the sale of timber at unsustainable levels, and dictate the use of an outdated forest plan for the next 2 fiscal years.
In the Columbia River basin in the Pacific Northwest, the bill would impede implementation of our comprehensive plan for managing public lands--the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. It would do this by prohibiting publication of a final Environmental Impact Statement or Record of Decision and requiring the exclusion of information on fisheries and watersheds. The result: a potential return to legal gridlock on timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and other economically important activities.
And in the California desert, the bill undermines our designation of the Mojave National Preserve by cutting funding for the Preserve and shifting responsibility for its management from the National Park Service to the Bureau of Land Management. The Mojave is our newest national park and part of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act--the largest addition to our park system in the lower 48 States. It deserves our support.
Moreover, the bill would impose a misguided moratorium on future listings and critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act. And in the case of one endangered species, the marbled murrelet, it would eliminate the normal flexibility for both the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to use new scientific information in managing our forests.
Second, the bill slashes funding for the Department of Energy's energy conservation programs. This is short-sighted and unwise. Investment in the technology of energy conservation is important for our Nation's long-term economic strength and environmental health. We should be doing all we can to maintain and sharpen our competitive edge, not back off.
Third, this bill fails to honor our historic obligations toward Native Americans. It provides inadequate funding for the Indian Health Service and our Indian Education programs. And the cuts targeted at key programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' are crippling--including programs that support child welfare; adult vocational training; law enforcement and detention services; community fire protection; and general assistance to low-income Indian individuals and families.
Moreover, the bill would unfairly single out certain self-governance tribes in Washington State for punitive treatment. Specifically, it would penalize these tribes financially for using legal remedies in disputes with non-tribal owners of land within reservations.
Finally, the bill represents a dramatic departure from our commitment to support for the arts and the humanities. It cuts funding of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities so deeply as to jeopardize their capacity to keep providing the cultural, educational, and artistic programs that enrich America's communitties large and small.
For these reasons and others my Administration has conveyed to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot accept this bill. It does not reflect my priorities or the values of the American people. I urge the Congress to send me a bill that truly serves the interests of our Nation and our citizens.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 18, 1995.
____
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2076, the
``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996.''
This bill does not meet the priorities and needs of our Nation and people. It would undermine our ability to fight the war on crime; decimate technology programs that are critical to building a strong U.S. economy; and weaken our leadership in the world by drastically cutting funding for international organizations, peacekeeping, and other international affairs activities.
First, the bill represents an unacceptable retreat in our fight against crime and drugs. It eliminates my COPS initiative (Community Oriented Policing Services) to put 100,000 more police officers on the street. Already, this initiative has put thousands of police on the street, working hand-in-hand with their communities to fight crime. The block grant that H.R. 2076 would offer instead would not guarantee a single new police officer. That's not what the American people want, and I won't accept it. As I have said, I will not sign any version of this bill that does not fund the COPS initiative as a free-standing, discretionary grant program, as authorized.
The bill also eliminates my ``drug courts'' initiative. And it unwisely abandons crime prevention efforts such as the Ounce of Prevention Council and the Community Relations Service. I am also disappointed that the funding levels in the bill fall short of my request for the Drug Enforcement Administration, and OCDETF (Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force). This is no time to let down our guard in the fight against drugs.
Second, the bill constitutes a short-sighted assault on the Commerce Department's technology programs that work effectively with business to expand our economy, help Americans compete in the global marketplace, and create high quality jobs. As we approach a new, technology-driven century, it makes no sense to eliminate an industry-driven, highly competitive, cost-shared initiative like our Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which fosters technology development, promotes industrial alliances, and creates jobs. Nor does it make sense to sharply cut funding for measures that will help assure our long-term growth and competitiveness--such as our National Information Infrastructure grants program, which helps connect schools, hospitals, and libraries to the information superhighway; the GLOBE program, which promotes the study of science and the environment in our schools; the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small manufacturers meet the hi-tech demands of the new marketplace; Defense Conversion; or the Technology Administration. And I oppose the bill's harmful cuts for the Census Bureau and for economic and statistical analysis.
Third, I am deeply concerned that this bill would undermine our global leadership and impair our ability to protect and defend important U.S. interests around the world--both by making unwise cuts in funding for international organizations and peacekeeping activities, and by cutting programs of the State Department, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the United States Information Agency. These cuts would impair our ability to support important activities such as the nonproliferation of weapons, the promotion of human rights, and the control of infectious disease like the Ebola virus.
Moreover, sections of the bill include inappropriate restrictive language, including language limiting the conduct of U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam, that I believe infringe on Presidential prerogatives. And I cannot accept the provision that would cut off all funding for these agencies on April 1, 1996, unless the State Department Authorization Act and related legislation had been signed into law.
Fourth, the bill includes three additional provisions that I cannot accept.
It cripples the capacity of the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC) to fulfill its historic mission of serving people in need--slashing its overall funding, sharply limiting the administrative funds LSC needs to conduct its business, and imposing excessive restrictions on LSC's operations. LSC should be allowed to carry on its work in an appropriate manner, both in its basic programs and in special initiatives like the migrant legal services program.
Section 103 of the bill would prohibit the use of funds for performing abortions, except in cases involving rape or danger to the life of the mother. The Justice Department has advised that there is a substantial risk that this provision would be held unconstitutional as applied to female prison inmates.
The bill also includes an ill-considered legislative rider that would impose a moratorium on future listings under the Endangered Species Act by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies. That rider not only would make bad policy, it also has no place in this bill.
Finally, I would urge the Congress to continue the Associate Attorney General's office.
For these reasons and others my Administration has conveyed to the Congress in earlier communications, I cannot accept this bill. H.R. 2076 does not reflect my priorities or the values of the American people. I urge the Congress to send me an appropriations bill that truly serves this Nation and its people.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, December 19, 1995.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
