[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to compliment the chair of the 
subcommittee on her fine work in fashioning this bill. The people of 
Maryland are lucky to have her representing them in the Senate, and I 
appreciate the consideration she has given the people of Connecticut as 
well.
  I am very pleased that this bill contains language which makes it 
clear that we ought to be looking at the aftereffects of what is known 
as radium nasopharyngeal treatment. This treatment, first developed in 
the 1920's, was used extensively in the 1940's and 1950's. Put simply, 
the treatment used radium in the nose to ``burn-out'' adenoid and 
lymphoid tissue. A large number of those treated were submariners and 
airmen--including many in my own State of Connecticut--servicemen who 
experienced sinus and adenoid problems after being exposed to rapid 
pressure changes. Estimates are that in excess of 35,000 servicemen and 
women had radium nasopharyngeal treatments.
  In addition, the treatments extended beyond the military. From the 
late 1940's through the 1970's, it is estimated that something on the 
order of 200,000 civilians, mostly children, received this treatment, 
generally for adenoid problems.
  In the late 1970's, the warning signals began to appear. In 1977, 
Johns Hopkins issued a public service bulletin stating that any patient 
who received this treatment should see a doctor. A 1982 Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute showed high rates of neck and head cancers in 
civilians who had undergone this procedure. In January 1992, a New 
England Journal of Medicine article calls for identification and 
medical surveillance of Navy submariners who had this treatment.
  In February 1994, the Submarine Survivors Group was formed by Mr. Jim 
Garrity, a former submariner and Mr. Stewart Farber, a public health 
scientist and radiation risk assessment specialist. Since that time, 
the Survivors Group has set up a hotline, based in Massachusetts, to 
take calls from people who have received this treatment. As of July 24, 
less than 6 months after the group was formed, the hotline has been 
contacted by over 41,000 individuals who believe they have undergone 
radium nasopharyngeal treatment. Of those calls, over 10,000 are from 
Connecticut. There have been 5,800 calls from California. Another 5,400 
calls from New York. From Maryland 1,000 calls. Texas accounts for 
nearly 4,000 calls, Missouri 2,200, Montana 2,200 and New Jersey 1,600.
  The Submarine Survivors Group is the brainchild of two individuals--
Jim Garrity and Stewart Farber. They are funding the hotline out of 
their own pockets. At the same time, it distresses me to report that 
Jim Garrity, who received this treatment, has been diagnosed as having 
incurable nasopharyngeal cancer.

  I applaud the work that these two individuals have done to identify 
people who have had this treatment. They have managed to get the word 
out to many--just last week I learned of a man in Connecticut who had 
had this treatment as a child. He read about the Submarine Survivors 
Group in a local paper. He went to his doctor at Yale-New Haven 
Hospital to be tested and he has thyroid cancer. Left undiagnosed, his 
cancer would have been untreatable in a matter of months, even weeks.
  So that is the kind of fine work that is being done by this group in 
getting the word out.
  All of which is to say, that I compliment the gentlelady from 
Maryland. She has been a learned and sympathetic friend on this issue. 
To complement the language which is included in the VA research 
account, I am proposing an amendment to allow the VA to spend $500,000 
for a study of veterans who received radium treatments for ear 
infections in the 1940's and 1950's. We need to gather all the data on 
this treatment we can, quantify the risk of this treatment and get the 
word out on the proper procedures to take if you have been exposed to 
this treatment.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I thank the 
Senator from Maryland, as well as her staff, for providing a 
sympathetic ear on this important issue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his 
good work on this issue.
  I intend to accept this amendment and in doing so I would like to 
state that I believe it is very important that the VA consider 
undertaking this study. The extent of this problem seems to be 
widespread. The VA study would help determine whether veterans who 
underwent radium nasopharyngeal treatment between the 1940's and 1950's 
are at increased risk of contracting head, neck, and brain cancers and 
thyroid problems.
  The Senator from Connecticut is to be commended for his dogged effort 
to get the word out about this treatment and its possible consequences. 
At the very least, there is anecdotal evidence that getting the word 
out will save lives. That is a goal that I can support and I believe it 
is a goal that my colleagues can support as well.
  Again, I strongly urge Veterans Affairs Secretary Brown to move 
forward with this study. The Senator from Connecticut informs me that 
Secretary Brown has been forthright and helpful in responding to 
inquiries on this issue. Conducting this study is a logical extension 
of the help Secretary Brown has provided to date and I hope that this 
study will begin sooner rather than later.


               regarding duck river watershed restoration

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the subcommittee chair, the distinguished Senator from Maryland 
for the excellent way in which she has handled this year's 
appropriations bill. As all Senators know, this has been a very 
difficult budget year. I am delighted that this committee's bill 
contains $400,000 for the Duck River Agency in Tennessee. Under the 
abatement, control, and compliance component of the EPA budget, the 
subcommittee provided funds to begin restoration of the Duck River 
watershed. As the Chair well knows, this is a project that I consider 
very important to my State, and one on which I have worked for several 
years. The Duck River is the longest and one of the most beautiful 
rivers in Tennessee, supplying water for many communities along the 
river while providing a home for wildlife and an abundance of 
recreational opportunities.
  Due to the deterioration of water quality in the Duck River Basin, 
mainly cause by nonpoint source pollution, the Duck River Development 
Agency, which was established to help protect and develop the natural 
and economic resources of the region, has crafted a watershed 
restoration plan to improve water quality and protect the unique 
ecosystem in the basin. This $1.2 million, 3-year plan consists of a 
number of pollution control and wildlife habitat restoration 
initiatives designed to restore the health of the Duck River ecosystem.
  It is my understanding that it is the committee's intention for the 
$400,000 for the Duck River project to go directly to the Duck River 
Development Agency to begin implementation of the comprehensive 
watershed restoration proposals. Is this correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his kind words. 
I agree with his understanding of the funding for the Duck River 
watershed restoration proposal. Throughout our discussions on this 
project, it has always been the intention of the subcommittee that the 
$400,000 in this year's bill go directly to the Duck River Development 
Agency to begin implementation of its watershed restoration program.


                  individual foreign refiner baselines

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to clarify a paragraph on page 105 
of the committee report. It reads:

       ``The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the 
     [Environmental Protection] [A]gency from implementing a 
     proposed rulemaking issued last April concerning foreign 
     refinery baseline requirements for reformulated gasoline.''

  It is my understanding that this proposal does not apply to any other 
proposal presented by U.S. independent importers and blenders, and 
being considered by EPA, to eliminate inequities in the final EPA 
reformulated gasoline rule issued last December. Is this correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. The committee's prohibition is limited 
to EPA's proposal to permit foreign refineries to establish individual 
baselines for reformulated gasoline. Thus, the provision does not 
prevent the EPA from making modifications to the reformulated gasoline 
program that will permit domestic independent importers and blenders to 
participate in the gasoline market on an equal basis with domestic 
refiners.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair for that clarification.


                     cleveland mill superfund site

  Mr. BINGAMAN. In my home State of New Mexico there is an important 
issue which I would like to see addressed in the immediate future. The 
Cleveland Mill Superfund site is outside of my hometown of Silver City. 
This site is on the National Priorities List and is therefore being 
cleaned up under the Federal Superfund Program. Lead, copper, and zinc 
tailings left after milling ore are sitting in piles. These tailings 
are threatening ground water sources and are contaminating a nearby 
creek.
  The record of decision [ROD] was signed in 1993 which identifies 
trucking the waste offsite for treatment as the best cleanup method. 
Citizens living in the area are very concerned about the transportation 
of these contaminated tailings down a small road called Little Walnut 
Road lined by an elementary school and other homes. Twenty four-ton 
trucks carrying between 4,000 to 8,000 loads would not only seriously 
congest the small road but prove dangerous to children going to school 
and living in the area. In addition, citizens are concerned that fine 
particles from these tailings will blow around while being loaded on 
the trucks and transported to the treatment facility and would prefer 
the waste be treated onsite.
  I have been advised that the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 
has made not made a decision to use Little Walnut Road for the 
transportation of the waste. They have also explained that leaving the 
waste onsite could prove dangerous because high levels of cadmium and 
arsenic could leach into the ground water if left onsite. This is 
essential information that the residents of this community should know. 
The EPA has acknowledged that there is misinformation in the community 
because they have not been diligent in communicating with Silver City 
residents. I understand that EPA is working to resolve the 
communication problem by setting up a citizens advisory council who 
would have input in decisions made regarding the Cleveland Mill 
Superfund site. I believe this advisory council should be set up as 
soon as possible so that local citizens can have direct input on the 
best way to address the waste at Cleveland Mill.
  Public participation in the Superfund process is essential. These 
sites directly affect those people living in the area and I strongly 
believe that EPA should ensure community participation and address 
health concerns in an open, inclusive process during the Superfund 
process. I am requesting that the EPA Regional Administrator in region 
6 provide me with a progress report on setting up the citizens advisory 
council within 30 days. In addition, I am requesting that EPA region 6 
hold a public meeting to update the citizens about the Cleveland Mill 
site within 60 days or once the council is founded, whichever is 
earlier. I would hope this group will be set up as quickly as possible 
so the voices of this community can be heard.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleague from New Mexico that public 
participation early in the Superfund process is critical. Addressing 
community concerns early ultimately expedites the cleanup process. 
Establishing a citizen advisory council to address concerns at the 
Cleveland Mill Superfund site will ensure that local citizens are 
heard. I agree that EPA region 6 should provide a status report on the 
formation of the council and hold a public meeting as my colleague from 
New Mexico has outlined. This will place a priority on providing 
accurate and current information to the residents living near the 
Cleveland Mill Superfund site.


      pennsylvania educational telecommunications exchange network

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues 
attention to an innovative program that is included in the Veterans 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies 
appropriations bill.
  This legislation provides support for a community development 
initiative called the Pennsylvania Education Telecommunications 
Exchange Network. Known as PETE Net, this initiative is the cooperative 
effort of 16 colleges and universities in Pennsylvania. This consortium 
would enable schools to develop new methods of sharing academic and 
technological resources with each other, and with elementary and 
secondary schools in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, this is the kind of innovative collaboration that 
should be encouraged. I strongly support the PETE Net program and 
appreciate the assistance of the members of the Appropriations 
Committee in providing funding for this important and innovative 
program.


                 pro bono legal representation program

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of full funding 
for the Pro Bono Legal Representation Program of the U.S. Court of 
Veterans' Appeals, which is administered by the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  Mr. President, this Program, which was developed by the Court and 
Legal Services Corporation, has two components--recruitment and 
training of pro bono attorneys and qualified non-attorney 
representatives who are matched with unrepresented appellants; and 
financial support for organizations already providing representation 
free of charge to appellants before the Court, so that these 
organizations may expand their efforts.
  According to recent studies, the current backlog of claims at VA 
regional offices is estimated at nearly 600,000 cases, with an average 
of 226 days required to make a decision on a veteran's claim. By 
September 30, 1994, if a veteran appeals a decision to the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals, that veteran will wait an estimated average of 5 
years for a decision.
  Mr. President that is simply not acceptable, and our Nation's 
veterans deserve better. The Pro Bono Legal Representation Program is a 
step in the right direction in remedying this situation. As a result of 
cases placed with pro bono attorneys by the Program in fiscal year 
1993, the percentage of appellants having representation more than 
doubled from 17.5 percent to 42.5 percent. Of the 52 pro bono cases 
completed by the Court through September 30, 1994, where representation 
was provided through the Program, 86.5 percent resulted in a finding of 
error and a remand to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for correction of 
the error. Finally, including those appellants who received only legal 
advice from the Program, two thirds of all appellants before the Court 
in fiscal year 1993 had received some form of legal assistance. These 
are very substantial accomplishments for what can be described as a 
modest program and budget.
  Mr. President, the commitment and dedication that all veterans make 
when they answered the call of service to their country must be matched 
by the same level of commitment and dedication from their government 
and the agencies established to serve them when they need our 
assistance. Veterans and their families must be able to rely on prompt 
and accurate disposition of their claims before the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals and the U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeal. Timely and accurate 
claims adjudication often means the difference between being able to 
meet financial and familial obligations and being required to make 
unnecessary and needless sacrifices. The seriousness of this situation, 
and the practical effect that it has on veterans and their families 
have been evident in my many encounters with veterans throughout New 
Mexico.
  Mr. President, we asked our Nation's veterans to risk the ultimate 
sacrifice for their country and it is imperative that we in Congress 
act now to ensure that when a veteran has a claim, he or she will 
receive prompt and fair consideration of that claim. The Pro Bono Legal 
Representation Program is an important step towards addressing the 
problems with the VA claims adjudication system, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the Program and to work with VA to develop 
further strategies for improving the system.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I congratulate the Chair of the HUD-VA 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, and the Ranking Member, 
Senator Gramm, for their efforts in crafting a remarkably fair and 
thoughtful appropriation for HUD, the VA, and the independent agencies. 
Your efforts deserve special praise because of the tight budget 
constraints facing the Appropriations Committee and, in particular, the 
HUD/VA Appropriations Subcommittee for fiscal year 1995.
  I want to emphasize several areas of special concern to me. In 
particular, I am very supportive of the $1.5 billion appropriation for 
fiscal year 1995 for the HOME Program. I strongly support the HOME 
Program which has become a key program in the Federal Government's 
commitment to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing to all 
Americans. The HOME Program provides formula funding to States and 
localities and relies on local decisionmaking to address local housing 
needs This program also leverages significant amount of additional 
resources in the creation of affordable housing. For example, since the 
publication of the final HOME rules in December 1993, some $1.2 billion 
in HOME funding has leveraged another $1.6 billion from other 
participants for HOME activities.
  I also highlight the Subcommittee's decision to fund fully public 
housing operating subsidies at $2.9 billion. This is the amount 
determined necessary to manage public housing under the performance 
funding system formula. This amount also represents an increase over 
the administration's budget request by some $400 million. I want to 
emphasize that the Housing Subcommittee and Banking Committee reported 
out on June 21, 1994 the Housing Choice and Community Investment Act of 
1994 which would provide, among other things, a number of critical 
reforms to the Public Housing Program. This is no time to shortchange 
the Public Housing Program.
  The Subcommittee also appropriates $1.3 billion for elderly housing, 
of which $387 million is to be used for the creation of supportive 
housing for persons with disabilities. This is a significant increase 
over the $553 million requested by the administration and represents 
the continuing commitment of this Subcommittee to recognize and address 
the housing needs of the elderly and the disabled.
  The fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill also establishes section 8 
Fair Market Rents [FMRs] at the 45th percentile of median rents for an 
area. Although this is current law, HUD has proposed the FMRs be 
reduced to the 40th percentile. The HUD proposal is an unacceptable 
reduction which runs counter to fair housing goals and would result in 
reducing the housing choices of low-income families assisted under HUD 
programs. I emphasize the need to provide housing choices to low-income 
families, not limit these choices.
  I also support a provision incorporated from the Housing Choice and 
Community Investment Act of 1994 which would allow the streamline 
refinancing of FHA-insured multifamily housing projects at low-interest 
rates without affecting the availability of credit subsidy under the 
General and Special Risk Insurance funds. This provision will help 
multifamily housing owners refinance projects at lower interest rates, 
thus reducing the risk of default to the Government.
  I also applaud the full funding of the space station and the wind 
tunnel project.
  Nevertheless, I do have several concerns regarding this legislation 
and may be offering several amendments to address these concerns. I 
also want to express concern over whether FEMA is adequately funded for 
fiscal year 1995. FEMA deserves the highest praise for its quick and 
effective response to the tragic flooding in 1993 in Missouri and much 
of the Midwest. In particular, Missouri was among the first 
beneficiaries of the new partnership that FEMA developed with the 
States under Director Witt. Missouri saw firsthand what it was like to 
work hand-in-hand with FEMA with daily conference calls with Director 
Witt on Missouri's needs and requirements. FEMA also deserves high 
praise for its quick and effective response to the tragedy caused by 
the earthquake in Los Angeles and, more recently, to the flooding in 
Georgia. (see attachment on FEMA)
  I am also concerned that the Senate HUD/VA appropriations bill does 
not provide funding for the Family Unification Program. This program 
fills an important gap in our housing assistance programs by providing 
needed housing assistance to prevent the unnecessary separation of 
children from their families. Under this program, eligible families 
must meet the section 8 eligibility criteria and also be at risk of 
having their children placed in foster care or being delayed in 
returning to the family from foster care, because of the families' 
housing problems. I pledge to work to have this funding restored during 
the conference.
  Again, I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Gramm for their fine work 
on this legislation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to comment on the pending measure, H.R. 
4624, the fiscal year 1995 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriation bill, and 
most particularly on title I, the part of the bill dealing with VA.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator 
Mikulski, and the other members of the subcommittee deserve tremendous 
credit for the extraordinary efforts evident in this bill. Last year, 
it was generally thought that the budget situation for the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee for fiscal year 1994 was difficult, but that was nothing 
compared to what the subcommittee faced this year. Tough choices does 
not even begin to describe what Senator Milulski confronted with 
respect to the subcommittee's allocation. The subcommittee's overall 
allocation was not only $316 million less than that of its House 
counterpart, it was $729 million less than the President's budget 
request.
  In light of these circumstances, I am enormously pleased with the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations in the bill for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. Despite the tightest of fiscal restraints, the 
subcommittee mark, endorsed by the full Committee on Appropriations, 
addresses many of the higher priority VA funding needs. These are 
programs that need to be funded under the most stringent of 
circumstances if we hope to continue seeking to meet the needs of our 
Nation's veterans and their dependents and survivors.
  At the outset, I note that in its report, the Committee on 
Appropriations identified four program areas under the VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies appropriation where funding was inadequate under 
the administration's proposal. Three of the four were VA programs: 
Veterans medical care, veterans medical and prosthetic research, and 
veterans benefits claims processing. I am particularly pleased to note 
that, in line with that conclusion, the committee has included in this 
bill additional funding above the administration's budget request for 
the programs identified by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in our 
submission to the Budget Committee.
  Mr. President, I specifically recognize that the bill provides the 
same amount for VA medical research--$252 million--that is included in 
H.R. 4624 as passed by the House. The amount appropriated by the 
committee is $41 million above the amount requested by the 
administration and allows the funding for research to remain at the 
fiscal year 1994 level. While this appropriation will not support any 
new research initiatives, it will salvage some 400 ongoing research 
projects, covering such critical problems as Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, 
and alcoholism.

  I also note that the report language directs an additional $5 million 
to medical programs for women veterans. This funding is necessary to 
respond to the unmet needs of women veterans and to implement 
provisions in the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994, S. 
1030, passed by the Senate in May. In addition to expanding the types 
of life-saving services offered to women veterans, S. 1030 would 
require that VA facilities furnish pap smears and mammographies that 
comply with standards at least as stringent as those that apply to 
other providers under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992.
  Mr. President, I acknowledge with enormous gratitude that the 
committee took into consideration many of the requests made by the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs concerning the funding of specific items 
in the medical care account, and I recognize that for a number of 
medical care programs, the bill provides additional amounts above the 
administration's budget request. Specifically, I note that the bill 
provides for increased funding above the amounts requested by the 
administration for the following purposes: to enhance medical care for 
women veterans; to increase funding for programs for homeless veterans; 
to increase funding for blind rehabilitation services; to establish up 
to five mental illness research, education, and clinical centers at 
existing VA medical facilities; and to support the installation of 
bedside telephone systems in VA hospitals.
  Mr. President, I continue to be concerned about funding for homeless 
veterans' programs. While I am pleased with the increase in the bill of 
$8 million above the administration's request, this amount is 
disproportionately low in relation to overall Federal funding for 
homeless programs. Veterans represent over one third of our Nation's 
homeless population and in recognition of that fact, I encourage HUD to 
direct an appropriate level of funding to homeless veterans programs.
  Mr. President, the bill's appropriation for VA's general operating 
expenses account is highly commendable as well. The administration 
proposed to cut 622 full-time equivalents from the Veterans Benefits 
Administration, at a time when the Department faces a claims backlog of 
well over 500,000 pending claims. As I have heard repeatedly from 
veterans in my own State of West Virginia and around the country, the 
current situation in the adjudication system is appalling. This cut in 
staffing not only would hinder VBA's efforts to reduce the backlog, it 
would likely serve to worsen what is already a devastating situation.
  I urged Senator Mikulski to increase the funding for staffing for the 
VBA in order to restore staffing to the fiscal year 1994 level. The 
Appropriations Committee clearly recognized the importance of the 
adjudication process, and has appropriated an additional $19.2 million 
to address the claims backlog, specifically directed to VBA staffing, 
overtime, and training. Nothing the backlog of vocational 
rehabilitation and counseling claims, the report language directs 
another $1.6 million specifically to vocational rehabilitation and 
counseling.
  The claims adjudication process is a core function of VA. VA 
desperately needs adequate funding and staffing to fulfill its 
obligation to provide all benefits to which veterans are entitled in a 
timely and efficient manner. While the additional funding will by no 
means solve the backlog problem, it certainly will help to avoid the 
situation becoming worse, and perhaps even begin to alleviate it.
  I also note with pleasure that the bill appropriates additional 
funding for major construction projects. Under the administration's 
request, VA construction was dealt a considerable blow and would have 
sustained a cut of $254 million, or 53 percent, from the fiscal year 
1994 level. The committee bill appropriates $92.5 million above the 
administration's budget request to this account.
  Mr. President, as a final note, I express my strong support for the 
committee's action to fully fund the Court of Veterans Appeals Pro Bono 
Representation Program. This is of utmost importance to our Nation's 
veterans. The Court requested an appropriation of $790,000 for this 
deserving program, which has been extremely successful in securing pro 
bono representation for veterans appearing before the Court of Veterans 
Appeals. The House appropriation bill cut that funding by $140,000, a 
decrease that could have been devastating to this program. I am pleased 
to see that the Senate Appropriations Committee has appropriated the 
full amount requested.
  Mr. President, I applaud the VA-HUD Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee for their fine work on the formidable task 
that was involved in crafting this measure. I truly appreciate the fact 
that the committee addressed many of the highest priority VA funding 
needs and that the Chair clearly considered the proposals made by the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for additional funding.
  Mr. President, I express my deepest appreciation to the chair of the 
VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, for her significant efforts 
concerning veterans' programs and for the tremendous cooperation 
between our respective committees. Over the years, Senator Mikulski has 
shown unfailing support for veterans' programs, and this year certainly 
is no exception. Her commitment to veterans is clearly exhibited in 
this appropriation bill. As always, I am also exceedingly grateful that 
Senator Mikulski and I and our respective committees enjoy such a 
tremendous spirit of cooperation during the appropriations process.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The committee has given special attention to a series 
of meritorious projects in the special grants account section of the 
committee report. I want, however, to call attention to one project, in 
Camden, NJ, which was not included in that list.
  The project in question, which involves the Southern New Jersey 
Regional Children's Hospital, needs $3 million in order to provide 
badly needed assistance to at-risk children. I have some statistics 
which document the urgent need this facility would address and I ask 
that this data be included in the Record.
  Southern New Jersey is the largest region on the east coast which 
does not have a regional children's hospital. The project includes the 
construction of a new 171-bed center, 85 percent of which will be 
financed through non-Federal sources.
  According to independent economic impact studies, the project would 
create over 2,700 new permanent jobs. Further, this facility will 
result in a capital infusion of $1.34 billion in the southern New 
Jersey economy over a 6-year period.
  Because of the pressing need of this facility--which will provide 
critical community outreach, preventative care, primary care, and 
tertiary care to impoverished and needy children in my State--I hope 
that you will understand the importance of this project and support 
efforts to direct funding to it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his continuing 
interest and support of such projects for children. My subcommittee has 
provided support for similar activities at other facilities that 
address pressing community development needs. We have, as the Senator 
knows, identified several projects in New Jersey for special 
consideration. I have looked at the data the Senator has presented in 
the context of the Southern New Jersey Regional Children's Hospital and 
when we go to conference, I will certainly give it every consideration.


        midnight basketball league training and partnership act

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention 
of the distinguished floor manager of the VA/HUD appropriations bill, 
my good friend from the State of Maryland, Senator Mikulski to what I 
believe is a very important crime prevention initiative that is crucial 
to the education of our youth--the Midnight Basketball League Training 
and Partnership Act; and to ask that this program be funded as part of 
the Community Partnership Against Crime [COMPAC].
  In recent years, our cities have been plagued by the ramifications of 
increased dropout rates of high school students and crime caused by 
adolescents. For instance in Chicago, the dropout rate for public high 
schools for the class of 1991 was 51.5 percent, up 5.6 percent from the 
graduating class of 1990. Also, Chicago, as well as most other cities, 
has been experiencing an increased level of violent crimes committed by 
urban youth.
  The midnight basketball league would promote youth development by 
providing young people the opportunity to play basketball from 10 p.m. 
to 2 a.m. This will keep youth off the streets at the times when most 
crimes are committed. In addition to this initiative, the organizers of 
midnight basketball would strive to achieve increased graduation rates 
of all participants. To accomplish this, players are required to take 
class directly after their games. These educational opportunities 
include GED classes, employment counseling, and other job training 
courses.
  Already, midnight basketball leagues have been established in 41 
communities across the Nation and graduation rates have been steadily 
increasing as a result of this program.
  Midnight basketball leagues would be eligible for grants ranging from 
$55,000 to $130,000 over a 5-year period. In addition the leagues would 
have to provide 35 percent in matching non-Federal funds for the first 
2 years of operation. In the years thereafter, the midnight basketball 
leagues would have to provide 50 percent of the matching funds. To 
ensure this funding, midnight basketball needs to be included as part 
of an existing source. Based on the nature of this program, funding 
should originate from the Community Partnership Against Crime [COMPAC].
  Therefore, during the conference consideration of the fiscal year 
1995 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill, I ask the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland to support funding in the Community 
Partnership Against Crime [COMPAC] for midnight basketball.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments 
regarding midnight basketball leagues. Since this program is under the 
jurisdiction of local public housing authorities, midnight basketball 
would qualify as a program that could be funded under COMPAC. As a 
result, I can assure the distinguished Senator that I will give every 
consideration to this project within the budget limitations that we 
will continue to face in conference provided that it is authorized by 
that time.


                               americorps

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief 
discussion with the Senator from Maryland regarding AmeriCorps. I know 
that the Senator from Maryland has been a strong supporter of 
AmeriCorps and I share with her the hope that this program meets the 
administration's goals. My concern is that we need greater confidence 
in AmeriCorps' success before we add additional funds to the program.
  During testimony before the Senator's subcommittee, Mr. Segal, chief 
executive officer for the Corporation for National and Community 
Service, stated:

       Again, I have no problems starting small or comparatively 
     small to make sure we have a mechanism for training people 
     properly, and doing all else that we can to make sure that in 
     a time of some cynicism about whether the Government spends 
     its money well we spend it well.

  I ask my friend from Maryland if she shares in my concern, and if she 
shares the need for caution expressed by Mr. Segal.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns of the Senator 
from Iowa about funding for AmeriCorps. During the hearings for 
AmeriCorps, I expressed my support for AmeriCorps proceeding with care 
to ensure the quality of the program. It is also important that we 
ensure the taxpayers' money is spent wisely. The cost effectiveness of 
AmeriCorps will certainly be considered in future funding decisions, as 
is the case for all programs under my subcommittee.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. To better educate the Congress and the public about the 
cost-effectiveness of AmeriCorps, I ask the Senator from Maryland to 
join me in requesting that the General Accounting Office [GAO] conduct 
a review of this program.
  Specifically, GAO's review would provide Congress a cost-per-paid 
participant and cost-per-service hour for the AmeriCorps program. GAO 
would report on the Federal Government's share of these costs as well 
as the total costs, to include all non-Federal funds. GAO would 
independently verify claims of participants and service hours of a 
representative sample of grantees. Overall, the intent of the GAO 
report would be to provide the Congress and the public a better 
understanding of the cost benefits of this new initiative and how the 
funds are spent. The review should be completed before August 1, 1995.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in requesting a 
GAO review of the AmeriCorps program. While I believe that the 
Senator's cost estimates for the demonstration programs are premature 
and cannot be directly compared to AmeriCorps, he has certainly raised 
some points of valid concern regarding costs that need to be closely 
reviewed by the GAO to help ensure that AmeriCorps is a successful, 
cost-effective program.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my friend from Maryland, and I appreciate her 
cooperation on this oversight effort.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would appreciate some clarification from the Senator 
from Maryland about report language concerning the loss of minor use 
pesticides. On page 94 of the committee report, the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] is directed ``to give high priority to this 
issue, including the implementation of as many of the provisions of 
Senate bill 985 as possible, where the Agency determines it already has 
sufficient legal authority to do so.'' As the Senator may know, the 
Agriculture Committee is concerned about this and is considering bills 
to address the minor use issue. Based on my reading, the Appropriations 
Committee report in no way changes current law under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA].
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The report 
language does not change the current statutory authority.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I also have been working with the EPA 
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] since February on a 
memorandum of understanding that would help get alternative pest 
management tools into the hands of farmers quickly when the EPA expects 
that regulatory action may be taken against a pesticide. This includes 
minor use pesticides that must be canceled because their manufacturers 
have decided not to reregister them. The memorandum, which should be 
signed shortly, would get the USDA to work right away on finding 
alternatives and involving growers in the process.
  One of the provisions of S. 985 seeks time extensions for data 
submissions for minor use pesticides. Of course, current statutory 
deadlines cannot be changed. But it seems to me that any administrative 
extensions are most appropriate where the affected agencies and growers 
are committed to an alternative process, such as the one being 
developed in the memorandum. Any time extensions granted should be used 
productively so that when they expire, growers will have a new tool 
available. Would the Senator from Hawaii agree?
  Mr. INOUYE. I also agree with the Senator from Vermont and thank him 
for clarifying this most important issue. I also wish to reiterate that 
the provisions of S. 985 are offered in response to economic 
considerations and not health, safety, or environmental issues. My 
concern is with those chemicals that are proven safe to applicators, 
consumers of foods treated by the chemicals, and the natural 
environment. Their unavailability simply stem from the high cost of 
registration or reregistration relative to the amount of chemical used. 
In view of my concerns, which are widely held by the 42 Senators who 
have cosponsored S. 985, I urge the Senator from Vermont to report out 
of committee the minor use amendments to the FIFRA during this session 
of Congress.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for her leadership 
on this measure, and for the firm commitment she has continually shown 
to our Nation's veteran population.
  The bill we are voting on today provides $37.4 billion in new 
spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]--an increase of 
$136 million above the level for VA spending approved by the House, and 
over $300 million above the President's request. The priority placed on 
VA funding in this bill goes a long way in ensuring that proper care, 
support, and recognition is provided to this country's veterans and 
their families.
  I am pleased to note that the committee bill also recommends an 
increase of $41 million above the President's request for VA medical 
research, a vital program that plays a key role in improving health 
care for veterans and all Americans. The bill also provides funding in 
support of the President's request to begin the first phase of 
construction for a long-awaited National Cemetery for Washington State 
veterans and their families in Tacoma.
  Let me take this opportunity to clarify with the Senator from 
Maryland a specific item of importance to the veterans of Washington 
State.
  The Senate report accompanying H.R. 4624 provides $750,000 for a 
veterans counseling center in Bellingham, WA. As the Senator from 
Maryland knows, achieving funding for veterans counseling centers in 
underserved areas of my State has been an extremely high priority for 
me since coming to the Senate. The Senator from Maryland has been 
extremely supportive of my efforts, and I thank her very much.
  For the record, I would like to clarify the committee's intention 
with regard to the $750,000 provided for veterans counseling in 
Washington State.
  With this funding, it is my view that two counseling centers could be 
funded in Washington State--one in Bellingham and one in the Yakima 
valley. Both areas are extremely underserved and remote--at least 150 
miles from other vets counseling services. The veterans population in 
the Yakima valley includes many Native Americans and Hispanics, a large 
proportion of whom are homeless.

  The $750,000 provided for by the Senate Appropriations Committee is 
adequate to provide the startup costs associated with a vets counseling 
center in each location--Bellingham and the Yakima valley--as well as 
meet the staffing needs of the two centers. Each center will require at 
least three full-time employees, which includes two full-time 
counselors.
  With regard to the needed full-time equivalency [FTE] positions 
required for the two centers to operate, I want to be clear that it is 
the intention of the Senator from Maryland that the VA is not to take 
the necessary FTE's from the existing FTE slots available for the 
Readjustment Counseling Service Program. Therefore, the required FTE's 
for the new vets counseling centers to open in Bellingham and the 
Yakima valley with fiscal year 1995 funds will come from the VA, 
exclusive of the Readjustment Counseling Service Program.
  Does the Senator from Maryland and the Chair of this subcommittee 
agree with my statement?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I do agree that the funds available are adequate for 
two centers in the State of Washington, one in the Yakima valley and 
one in Bellingham. I also agree that the required FTE's for the new 
vets counseling centers to open in Bellingham and the Yakima valley 
with fiscal year 1995 funds will come from the VA, exclusive of the 
Readjustment Counseling Service Program.
  The critical issue is that the Washington State centers get up and 
running during the next fiscal year and are adequately staffed, 
staffed, with not less than two full-time counselors.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Maryland very much, and I know 
the veterans in Washington State are extremely grateful for her ongoing 
support.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the distinguished chairwomen of 
the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for 
her excellent work in producing an outstanding bill under severe 
budgetary constraints. There is one issue in particular that I would 
like to address in a brief colloquy with the Chair: Funding for 
replenishment of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite [TDRS] system.
  TDRS satellites serve as the primary communications link for a 
variety of NASA and Defense Department low-earth orbit satellite users. 
These users range from NASA's Space Shuttle and unique scientific 
missions, to DOD's classified satellites in support of U.S. national 
security. I am proud to point out that all TDRS satellites have been 
built in my home state of California.
  Though most people agree that TDRS replenishment is needed, I am 
concerned about funding for the program. The bill we are considering 
today provides $25 million for TDRS replenishment, a $75 million 
reduction from the Administration's budget request of $100 million. The 
House VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill has proposed a $113 million general 
reduction from the Mission Support area of the NASA budget, but only 
identifies TDRS replenishment as a suggested area to cut.
  I recognize the constraints we face in today's budgetary environment 
and realize the NASA's budget has decreased from last year's level. 
However, my concern lies in the fact that the TDRS communications 
system is essential. When the United States failed to replenish the 
GOES weather satellite, we were able to borrow from the Europeans. That 
is not the case here; no other alternative to TDRS currently exists.
  Based on the existing TDRS life projections, a replenishment 
spacecraft must be on-orbit by early 1999 in order to maintain a 
prudent level of reliability. It takes 4 years to build a complicated 
TDRS satellite and it is now 1994. NASA has already issued requests for 
proposals for the TDRS replenishment satellites and I believe that the 
program should move forward in fiscal year 1995. I would hope that in 
the upcoming conference with the House on this bill, the Chair would 
consider supporting the maximum funding level necessary for 
replenishment of these vital communications satellites.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator from California that TDRS 
satellites provide vital communications needs for a variety of NASA and 
DOD programs. Though our subcommittee is under severe budgetary 
constraints this year, the Senator may be assured that we still review 
the TDRS program in conference and will assess the funding level 
required for TDRS replenishment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note the presence of the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, on the floor, and I am 
wondering if I might pose a question to the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia. I am sure Senator Byrd recalls that for 
many years there was a VA outpatient community-based clinic in 
Wheeling, WV. It was established at the end of World War II and was 
closed in 1979 by the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center, the hospital of 
jurisdiction. Since the closing of that VA clinic, veterans in the 
northern panhandle of West Virginia, and veterans in neighboring 
counties of Ohio and Pennsylvania, have had to travel long distances to 
receive medical care at a VA facility.
  My question is about the VA community-based outpatient clinic 
proposed for Belmont County, OH, included in the appropriations bill. 
This clinic placement in Belmont County, directly across the Ohio River 
from Wheeling, WV, would make it immediately available to veterans in 
West Virginia, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania. This would preclude 
the necessity for West Virginia veterans to travel to Pittsburgh for 
routine medical care and medical emergencies. Is this the understanding 
of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee?
  Mr. BYRD. I say to my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs, that he is correct. It is my understanding that the 
community-based outpatient clinic for Belmont County, OH will be 
located directly across the river from Wheeling, WV, so that it will 
provide ready access to West Virginia veterans, as well as veterans in 
Ohio and Pennsylvania. Presently, veterans in the northern panhandle of 
West Virginia are served by the Pittsburgh VA Medical Center and this 
creates significant travel problems for many West Virginia veterans. 
Many of them are having to travel extensive distances to receive 
necessary medical care.
  I would prefer the new community-based outpatient clinic be located 
in Wheeling, WV. But if that is not possible, then I would support a 
location that is directly across the Ohio River from Wheeling. Such a 
facility could be located just off the interstate, which would provide 
easy access for veterans from West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The distinguished Senators from West Virginia are 
correct. I am told that there are over 100,000 veterans in this 
catchment area, and I believe this outpatient care facility is indeed 
justified. It is the intent of the subcommittee that the facility be 
located immediately across the Ohio River from Wheeling, WV, so that it 
will be readily accessible to veterans from Ohio, West Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania. This was our clear intent, and I hope the Secretary of 
the VA will take note.


                            THE CLUSTER RULE

  Mr. CHAFEE. The committee report on H.R. 4624 discusses the so-called 
cluster rule for the pulp and paper products industry that was recently 
proposed by EPA. The rule would apply to both the surface water 
discharges and air pollution emissions of pulp and paper mills and is 
projected to impose significant costs on that industry. It is 
appropriate for the committee to express concerns that the rule be 
fully justified, but one sentence of the committee report does cause me 
concern.
  On page 95 of Senate Report 103-311, the committee states the 
following:

       Prior to issuance of a final rule, EPA is to demonstrate 
     that the requirements of the regulations that address risks 
     which are substantially significant and will produce benefits 
     which will not be exceeded by the anticipated costs.

  I would be concerned that some might interpret that language as in 
contradiction with provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air 
Act which have guided the Agency in proposing this regulation. Section 
112 of the Clean Air Act mandates that the considerable chloroform 
emissions from paper mills be reduced using best available technology. 
And sections 301 and 304 of the Clean Water Act establishes a series of 
considerations with respect to pollution control technology for 
industrial discharges including paper mills.
  I would seek from the distinguished manager of the bill, an assurance 
that this report is not intended, and could not affect, the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act that apply to 
this rulemaking.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. When the cluster rule for the 
pulp and paper industry is issued, the regulations must comply with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and nothing 
in the committee report can modify those requirements.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I wish to commend the chairperson's work 
as chairperson of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee. As chairman of the Senate Committee of Banking, Housing 
and Urban Affairs, I believe you have developed a strong package that 
addresses the needs of our Nation's most distressed communities. I 
commend your long-standing support for key programs--such as the 
Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME investment 
partnership and the new community development financial institutions 
fund--that help needy urban and rural areas.
  I would like express my support for a key initiative that is not 
included in S. 4624--Focus: HOPE of Detroit--and urge that $3 million 
be provided for it during conference on the bill. The funds will be 
used for the renovation and conversion of the former Michigan Bell 
Building in Detroit into a residential facility to house students and 
faculty of Focus: HOPE's Center for Advanced Technology.
  The Center for Advanced Technology [CAT] is a national project based 
on a historic 1989 Memorandum of Understanding among the Departments of 
Defense, Commerce, and Education. The memorandum declared a critical 
shortage of advanced manufacturing engineer-technologists at world-
class levels and pledged joint support to establish a national training 
demonstration. The center is developing comprehensive education 
programs for advanced manufacturing engineer-technologists including a 
6-year curriculum integrating hands-on manufacturing skill mastery and 
interdisciplinary engineering knowledge within an applications context. 
The center is expected to enroll 400 candidates within the next 3 
years. At-risk minority youth are the primary target of the center's 
enrollment.
  The Departments of Defense, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, 
Health and Human Services, and Labor have strongly supported the center 
by providing funding for the purchase of equipment, renovation of 
manufacturing and educational facilities, and development of 
educational programs. The Federal investment in the center to date--
$21.5 million--has been significantly matched by millions of dollars 
from the State of Michigan, private foundations, and corporations.
  The center has ushered in a new era of government-industry 
partnership. This partnership is focused on the development of 
manufacturing skills to make U.S. industry a leader in the global 
marketplace. The center has already drawn broad national attention and 
generated great excitement within the Clinton administration. Since the 
President's visit to the center in March, he has talked about its 
success all across the Nation. The renovation of the Michigan Bell 
Building will add an important missing dimension to CAT's 
implementation and further demonstrate the success of this important 
government-industry partnership.
  The Center for Advanced Technologies [CAT] is a bright spot in a city 
hard hit by the changing global economy. Detroit's economic base has 
been eroded over the past three decades as manufacturing processes have 
become more routinized, allowing firms to move their operations to 
other countries with less skilled work forces. The Center for Advanced 
Technologies will play not only a key role in assisting our national 
economy adjust to the changing global environment--but its success will 
be critical to Detroit's economic future.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am familiar with the work that Focus: HOPE has done 
in Detroit through the Center for Advanced Technologies. Although 
resources are very scarce this year, the Center for Advanced Technology 
is an innovative initiative that has gained national recognition. It 
deserves the support of Congress. When the subcommittee meets in 
conference with the House on the fiscal 1995 VA-HUD appropriations 
bill, I will make every effort to find an appropriation for Focus: 
HOPE.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I sincerely appreciate the chairperson's efforts to 
ensure that this very important project can move forward. I thank the 
Senator for her assistance on this matter.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I simply would like to echo the eloquent 
comments of my senior colleague from Rhode Island, and to thank the 
Chair of the subcommittee for her encouraging words.
  As my colleague has said, the problem we are facing with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs is exactly the sort of thing that makes 
people cynical about the Federal Government. The VA has spent $2.5 
million to purchase the vacant Our Lady of Providence [OLP] school 
building and to develop a design plan for its renovation--and for good 
reason. The project makes perfect sense. We will save money by avoiding 
the cost of building a new facility. Moreover, we will improve services 
to veterans by moving the VBA office next to the Medical Center and by 
expanding ambulatory care services.
  But as my colleague has recounted, the auspicious start to this 
project has given way to frustrating--and expensive--bureaucratic 
footdragging. It is now 3 years since the purchase of the OLP property, 
and we have no indication from the VA as to when--if ever--they intend 
to request funding to finish the job. Meanwhile, we are spending 
approximately $700,000 each year to maintain the vacant OLP property 
and continue to lease space for the VBA office.
  Mr. President, I have been involved with this project from the start. 
More than 4 years ago, I personally urged then-VA Secretary Derwinski 
to purchase the OLP building, and was thrilled when that purchase took 
place. I still believe that the project has great merit, and remain 
committed to seeing it through.
  I share my colleague's view that the OLP project is an ideal 
candidate for funding through the working reserve, as it is fully 
authorized already. However, I welcome any and all alternatives which 
will bring it to fruition, and I thank the Chair of the subcommittee 
for her kind assistance in this regard.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would be most appreciative if the 
distinguished chairperson and manager of the bill, Senator Mikulski, 
could give us some words of advice, and hopefully support and 
encouragement, regarding an important VA construction project in Rhode 
Island.
  The project, designated officially as ``Project 650-073 Renovate 
Building No. 31'', is based on a well-conceived plan to utilize 
existing structures to accommodate VA needs and avoid major new 
construction costs. Unfortunately, after an auspicious start, it seems 
to have become mired in bureaucratic complications.
  The plan was designed to meet two needs. One was to provide more 
space for an ambulatory care facility which currently shares space with 
the medical center's administrative services, and the other was to 
provide space for the Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office.
  A ready solution presented itself with the availability of a nearby 
church school, Our Lady of Providence High School, which offers 
sufficient space to house both the administrative offices of the 
medical center as well as the VBA Regional Office. And this in turn 
will free up sufficient space in the existing medical center to allow 
for the expansion of the ambulatory care facility.
  The plan makes a good deal of budgetary sense. It obviates the need 
for new construction of an outpatient clinical addition which was 
estimated in 1991 to cost approximately $40 million. And it would move 
the VBA Regional Office from current costly leased space to shared VA 
space in the former school.
  The VA purchased Our Lady of Providence High School in April 1991 for 
$1.75 million. The estimated costs of renovation are $12.5 million, and 
the prospective saving to the Government of proceeding with the project 
in lieu of building a new facility is estimated at $15 to $20 million.
  It should be noted at this point that the project has been deemed by 
the VA Assistant General Counsel to be fully authorized because it was 
partially funded prior to the enactment date of Public Law 102-405, 
which established the groundrules for funding such projects. The 
Providence project was thereby ``grandfathered''.
  Notwithstanding its obvious virtues, Project 650-073 has not come to 
fruition. Design development work has been completed and the VA advises 
that the project is ready to be considered for funding for 
construction. But now, 3 years after acquisition of the school 
building, no funding has materialized and we have on our hands a vacant 
building which incurs costly maintenance, a crowded VA medical facility 
and a VA regional benefits office housed elsewhere in costly leased 
space.
  Mr. President, this is a situation that just does not make sense. It 
reflects poorly on the Department of Veterans Affairs and on the 
Federal Government in general. Our constituents, particularly those 
veterans using the medical facility, cannot understand why their 
Government should start such a promising project, and buy up property 
only to leave it unused.
  The Rhode Island congressional delegation has vigorously pursued the 
matter with the Department of Veterans Affairs over the past 3 years. 
We have done everything we could using the usual channels of 
communication and liaison to secure action. But the responses from the 
department always seem to take us deeper into a bureaucratic morass.
  Most recently, we were told that the project would be considered for 
funding as soon as possible, based on the VA's scale of priorities for 
all pending projects. And here we learned that our project may be the 
victim of its own virtues: because it involves both administrative as 
well as medical facilities, it is scored as an administrative project 
and ranked lower on the priority list. This is ironic because one of 
the main objectives was to provide medical space and avoid the $40 
million cost of building an addition to the Medical Center. Clearly the 
project should not be penalized because of its multi-purpose nature.
  It seems to me that this is one of those occasions where 
Congressional intervention is necessary to accommodate a special 
situation which doesn't quite fit the bureaucratic guidelines. In this 
connection, I am very pleased to note that the House Appropriations 
Committee, in its report on this bill, ``urges the VA to proceed, from 
funds presently available, with the design of the regional office and 
hospital office project at the Providence VA Medical Center.''
  Mr. President, in this light, I would welcome any support and 
assistance which the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator 
Milkulski, could give us on this matter. I would be most appreciative 
if the committee could look into the matter of the classification and 
prioritization of such a multi-use project, particularly when the 
intent is to economize by freeing up administrative space to be used 
for medical purposes.
  Further, I would appreciate clarification as to whether some funding 
might be obtained by reprogramming from the working reserve, 
particularly in view of the fact that the project has already received 
partial funding to cover the school acquisition. Specifically, I would 
like to know if the VA could propose such a refunding of reserve funds 
in the context of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations cycle.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland for her attention to this matter 
and welcome any clarification she can provide.
  Ms. MILKULSKI. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Rhode Island 
raises some very good points about the Providence Medical Center 
project. I can well understand the sense of frustration and distress 
that he and his colleagues and their constituents must feel about a 
project that seems to be stalled midstream after the Government has 
already acquired a property which is supposed to be part of the 
solution.
  It seems to me that the Department of Veterans Affairs should try to 
be more responsive and more flexible in dealing with special 
circumstances. I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island that the 
project as described certainly appears to have a substantial medical 
purpose, and if that is the case, it certainly should be reflected in 
the priority assigned to the project. If upon further review the 
project receives a higher ranking, I see no reason why the department 
should not seek to reprogram existing funds to augment those already 
appropriated or amounts which might subsequently be appropriated. I am 
pleased to hear that the VA counsel has found the project to be fully 
authorized.
  I can assure the Senator from Rhode Island that the committee expects 
VA to provide a full report on this project and on all the questions he 
has raised, and that we will continue to monitor the project closely 
until it comes to fruition.


                      Second TDRSS Ground Terminal

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland would yield, I would like to take this opportunity to inquire 
about the funding recommendation for NASA's Second Tracking Data Relay 
Satellite System [TDRSS] Ground Terminal provided in the committee 
bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System 
[TDRSS] is a series of satellites that relay data from other satellites 
and the space shuttle to a ground station at the White Sands Missile 
Range in New Mexico. It is a vital facility that provides NASA its 
access to data transmitted from space. Without TDRSS, NASA would 
literally lose contact with its assets in space and the ability to 
receive data gathered in space.
  NASA has undertaken to construct a second ground station at White 
Sands to handle increased data transmission requirements. 
Unfortunately, the second TDRSS ground terminal has been plagued by 
cost overruns and technical difficulties. The NASA inspector general 
has issued a number of reports that raised serious concerns about the 
cost overruns. In response, appropriately, Congress capped the total 
allowable cost for the second ground terminal.
  The program now appears to be back on track, and the facility is 
expected to be completed in fiscal year 1995 at a cost under the 
congressionally imposed cap.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my friend from New Mexico is correct. 
The second TDRSS ground terminal is of vital importance of NASA. 
Unfortunately, it has been plagued by significant escalations in cost 
and technical difficulties. Until recently, the committee anticipated 
that the second ground station would not be completed within the 
congressionally established cap. In addition, the committee has been 
frustrated by an earlier inability to hold contractors responsible for 
meeting certain technical requirements.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I share Senator Mikulski's frustrations. However, it is 
my understanding that the program has resolved the issues that so 
concerned us earlier. In that regard, I recently met with the NASA 
Inspector General and the Associate Administrator for Space 
Communications. They have assured me that all the issues raised in 
previous inspector general reports have been addressed, that the 
technical issues have been, or are being, resolved, and that the 
facility can be completed within the cost cap.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I share Senator Domenici's understanding of the current 
situation. On July 21, the committee received a letter from NASA 
indicating that previous information provided the committee regarding 
an anticipated cost overrun was erroneous.
  The committee is relieved that these problems appear to be behind us. 
The committee funding level clearly reflects a frustration at the 
previous state of affairs at the second TDRSS ground station. Now that 
it appears that situation has been resolved, it is my expectation that 
it will be appropriate, when this legislation is sent to the President, 
to provide full funding for completion of the second TDRSS ground 
station.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I greatly appreciate the attention of the distinguished 
subcommittee chair to this important matter. May I inquire of my friend 
from Texas, Senator Gramm, if he would concur in this matter?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would certainly join my colleague from Maryland in 
conference to seek the funding needed to complete this important NASA 
facility.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chair and ranking Republican 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent 
agencies for their assistance on this issue.


           community development financial institutions fund

  Mr. RIEGLE. I wish to commend Chairperson Mikulski for her work to 
support the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. The 
managers' amendment includes a provision that increases--by $100 
million--the amounts provided for the fund in S. 4624, as passed by 
committee. In total, S. 4624 will provide $125 million for the fund in 
fiscal year 1995.
  As chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs, I have worked with the administration for more than a year to 
craft a program to promote innovation in community lending and 
investment through institutions with a primary purpose of community 
development. I am pleased that Chairperson Mikulski shares my 
commitment to this innovative initiative.
  Over the last 5\1/2\ years, many hearings held by the Banking 
Committee have revealed that discrimination and redlining are still 
significant problems in distressed and minority communities. This lack 
of credit thwarts community development efforts and the creation of 
economic opportunities for residents. However, the committee has also 
discovered that community development financial institutions have been 
successful, not only in filling credit gaps--but more importantly--
leveraging private investment and developing comprehensive 
revitalization strategies.
  President Clinton has made promotion of community development 
financial institutions a key element of his strategy to revitalize 
distressed urban and rural communities. The conference report to H.R. 
3474--the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 
1994--authorizes this new initiative. Community development financial 
institutions are unique because they serve as bridges between 
conventional lenders and unconventional borrowers. They open new 
markets for conventional lenders while giving borrowers access to 
previously unreachable sources of capital and credit. Because community 
development financial institutions are dedicated to revitalization and 
possess specialized expertise, commitment, and flexibility, they are 
typically able to underwrite more nonstandard and complex loans than 
conventional lenders. Generally speaking, they fill market niches that 
conventional lenders do not serve fully--or at all--and have proven 
themselves successful in tailoring loan products to meet the needs of 
low-income and minority communities.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I commend Senator Riegle's work to make the President's 
new initiative a reality. I recognize that the President has had a 
longstanding commitment to community development financial institutions 
stemming back to his days as Governor of Arkansas when he played an 
instrumental role in establishing a community development bank. I am 
aware that there is interest across the Nation in replicating the 
success of existing community development financial institutions. In 
fact, the Morris Goldseker Foundation is currently working with South 
Shore Bank Advisory Services to establish a community development bank 
to serve distressed neighborhoods in Baltimore.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Again, I commend Chairperson Mikulski for her support for 
this important new initiative. I urge her to retain $125 million in 
funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund as 
H.R. 4624 moves to conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I share Senator Riegle's desire to support President 
Clinton's efforts to revitalize distressed communities. When the 
subcommittee meets in conference with the House on the fiscal year 1995 
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, I will do my 
best to ensure that we retain $125 million in funding for the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I sincerely appreciate the chairperson's efforts to 
ensure this initiative can become a reality. I look forward to working 
with her in conference and I thank the Senator for her assistance on 
this important matter.


                          wind tunnels siting

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
Appropriations Committee decision to provide $400 million for the 
initial costs of two new wind tunnels recommended by the national 
facilities study. I commend the distinguished Chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for 
the leadership she has shown in this decision. The committee also 
recommends that a sight selection be made prior to January 1, 1996, and 
based on general principles of cost. I would inquire of the Senator 
from Maryland if the committee included this recommendation in its 
report to help ensure a fair and unbiased site selection process, based 
solely on the interests of the taxpayer?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
his remarks, and would assure him that it is the intention of the 
committee that the selection process be unbiased and without prejudice 
against any area of the country wishing to compete as a potential sight 
for the two new tunnels.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from Maryland.


         epa cluster rulemaking for the pulp and paper industry

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago during full committee markup of 
this bill, language was added to the report to require the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to undertake additional actions 
prior to issuing a final rule under the cluster rulemaking for the 
forest products industry. This rule proposes new air and water 
regulations for domestic pulp and paper mills and could have a 
significant impact on the operations and employment in my State, as 
Virginia has about 14 pulp and paper mills. In total, the forest 
products industry employs over 44,000 workers. It is third in terms of 
payroll income spending and second in new capital expenditures, 
spending over $313.7 million annually. Capital expenditures in many 
cases are used to make environmental improvements. For example, the 
Union Camp mill in Franklin, VA, has already made significant 
environmental improvements over the years. Union Camp and others will 
still have to pay additional costs for environmental improvements, yet 
the benefits are negligible.
  The pulp and paper industry is concerned that EPA is proposing 
requirements that will deprive manufacturers of the flexibility and 
cost-consciousness needed to effectively control pollution in the most 
efficient manner possible.
  As stated in the committee's report, EPA estimates that the 
rulemaking will cost industry over $4 billion. Industry estimates that 
the rule would cost over three times as much, at $11.5 billion and 
result in over 21,500 direct and 86,000 indirect jobs lost. These high 
costs are not even the total cost, because an additional portion of the 
rule remains to be proposed.
  Clearly, the excessively high cost of this proposal as anticipated by 
both EPA and the industry warrants a closer look by EPA. EPA should 
proceed with extreme caution when this many jobs are at risk. I am told 
the subcommittee will require this analysis to be conducted and 
presented to the committee. The steps outlined in the committee report 
will ensure that the cluster rule balances our economic interests and 
our environmental interests.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's remarks and trust that EPA 
will take this information into account as they move forward with the 
rulemaking.


                  pulp and paper cluster rule problems

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to compliment Senator Mikulski's 
subcommittee for including report language that requires the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to reevaluate industry data for 
the so-called cluster rulemaking to establish new air and water 
standards for the forest products industry.
  After getting off to a good start, with involvement from all 
interested parties, the cluster process seems to have run into some 
problems. The forest products industry claims that the cluster 
rulemaking, as envisioned today, will cost over $4 billion to implement 
and will result in the loss of over 4,500 jobs. They believe that EPA 
has not had the benefit of adequate industry data in formulating its 
approach to the rule. Many of us in Congress hope that the 
administration will take a new look at the cluster process and gather 
more input from citizens, groups, and corporations following its 
progress.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to detail some of the 
concerns I have heard about the cluster rulemaking from Arkansas. There 
are approximately 10 bleach mills in Arkansas that will be affected by 
the cluster rule. The forest products industry employs over 37,000 
people in our State and ranks as the second largest employer. It ranks 
first among our manufacturing industries.
  Examples of the potential economic impact of the cluster rule come 
from the International Paper Corp.'s plants in Camden, which is my 
hometown, and in Pine Bluff. The Camden facility in Ouachita County 
employs over 1,000 people, and the Pine Bluff plant in Jefferson County 
employs nearly 1,400. These plants are among the largest employers in 
Ouachita and Jefferson Counties, and they are the backbone of industry 
in southern Arkansas.
  International Paper estimates that the costs to these facilities, if 
the cluster rule is enacted, would be in excess of $298 million. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of a letter to me on this subject from 
Paul Henson, the resident manager at the Pine Bluff plant, be placed in 
the Record following this statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PRYOR. Another pulp and paper interest, the Georgia-Pacific 
Corp., has two mills in Ashdown and Crossett, AR that employ roughly 
4,300 people. Georgia Pacific estimates that the cost of the cluster 
rule to these plants would be over $250 million.
  The Potlatch Corp. also has plants in Arkansas that stand to be 
affected by the cluster rule.
  These are just a few specific examples of the economic impact in my 
home State, but there are more in Arkansas, and many more in other 
States, from Washington State all the way to Maryland.
  Mr. President, again, I wish to compliment Chairwoman Mikulski for 
her leadership in this area and to offer my support to her and to the 
administration as efforts are made to find a resolution to this 
situation which will achieve our goal of creating a cleaner environment 
while supporting economic growth and American competitiveness.

                               Exhibit 1


                                          International Paper,

                                   Pine Bluff, AR, August 2, 1994.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: We are very pleased to provide the 
     following information on the financial impact that the EPA's 
     proposed Cluster Rule will have on the Pine Bluff and Camden 
     mills. The Cluster Rule, as proposed, will significantly 
     reduce the profitability of both mills. The data below 
     compares the impact of the EPA's proposal with the industry 
     alternatives for the Camden and Pine Bluff paper mills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Industry  
                                             EPA proposal    alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed capital investment costs:                                         
    Camden................................   $106,597,000   $25,357,000 
    Pine Bluff............................    192,000,000    47,750,000 
Reducation in profitability:\1\                                         
    Camden................................    (13,231,000)   (3,803,000)
    Pine Bluff............................    (47,750,000)   (8,080,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on 1993 actual.                                                

       We fully support the goal in reducing the amount of waste 
     from the mills entering the air, water and soil. In fact, 
     International Paper has voluntarily invested more than one-
     half billion dollars since 1988 to reduce our impact on the 
     environment. As a result of this investment, the dioxin 
     levels are at non-detect at all our mills, including Pine 
     Bluff. Solid waste destined for landfills has been reduced by 
     more than 40 percent.
       We are hopeful that the Environmental Protection Agency 
     will consider alternatives such as that proposed by our 
     industry that will yield equivalent environmental benefits at 
     significantly less cost than the EPA proposal.
       Your interest and support are greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                      P.M. Henson,
                                                 Resident Manager.


        veterans' outreach and medical center in las cruces, nm

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that the 
4,000 veterans that live in Dona Ana County, and the many other 
veterans that live in southern New Mexico do not currently have a 
veterans' clinic or satellite outreach center available to them. 
Southern New Mexico is one of the fastest growing regions of New Mexico 
and the need for veterans' services has rapidly outgrown the available 
resources. Currently, veterans must travel to El Paso, TX, to visit a 
clinic and must rely on a counselor also from El Paso, who is available 
only one day a week in Las Cruces, to receive information on veterans' 
services and benefits. A veterans' medical clinic and satellite 
outreach center in Las Cruces would help to meet the vital needs of New 
Mexico's veterans, and it is my hope that the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs would study the need for these services and determine what 
resources can be made available to meet the needs of veterans for a 
medical and satellite outreach center in Las Cruces, NM.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that the need for these services in southern 
New Mexico should be studied by the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
that the Department should determine what resources can be made 
available to meet the needs of these veterans. I will be glad to work 
with the Senator from New Mexico and the Department to address these 
concerns.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Maryland.


                     Renal institute of the pacific

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has been most 
sensitive and helpful in addressing the unique concerns of my State. 
However, because of the budgetary problems we must all acknowledge, 
some projects that are most worthy have had to be set aside and not 
funded. One of these projects is a new state-of-the-art outpatient 
pavilion to house the operations of the St. Francis Medical Center's 
Renal Institute of the Pacific in Honolulu, HI.
  I hope the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, can 
provide the residents of Hawaii with some assurance that in the next 
appropriations cycle, she will once again give careful consideration to 
the St. Francis Medical Center's project.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am pleased to assure the Senators that it will not 
only receive my careful consideration, it will receive my high 
priority. But, as everyone knows, in the final analysis everything 
depends upon the availability of funds.

                          ____________________