[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 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. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 2454

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of brief 
comments on the debate on the pending amendment and say to my friend 
from Maryland, who I have the greatest respect for, that her allotment 
here is very fair and there is absolutely no criticism intended 
directly to the Senator. It is the process.
  My feeling is that when you have staff members on the Appropriations 
Committee essentially allocating these dollars rather than the formula, 
I think that is my concern.
  I say to the Senator from Maryland, her comments on the criteria were 
correct and I agree with her. It is not the criteria that is the 
problem. It is the formula, not allocating money according to that 
formula.
  I would just say as a reminder, in the Congressional Quarterly in 
July there was an article, in anticipation of this debate, in which 
Congressman Stokes on the House side had made a point of noting that 
the House did not include any special projects, no earmarks. Which was 
interesting, because normally it seems like it is the other way 
around--the House is more notorious for some earmarks than the Senate.
  But Congressman Stokes said in that article, at least he is quoted as 
saying ``I told Mikulski if she put them on her bill, I would do the 
same thing.''
  So I think that the point is that if somebody could just take the 
time to really evaluate this and look at it, I guess when you look at 
the population and the amounts and numbers of people who need housing 
and need help in the various States of the Union and you look at it--
and I will just use an example, not to single anybody out.
  If you look at West Virginia, approximately 4 million people; $19 
million; California, 25 million or 30 million people; $4.5 million. 
There certainly are large cities in California that have people who are 
in need of adequate housing and their need would certainly benefit some 
of these projects.
  I just think, when you look at it in that picture, it is unfair. I 
think the process should be changed.
  But I have made my point, Mr. President. I hope that my colleagues 
would look very carefully at the allocations that I will have down in 
the well at the time of the vote on this amendment. And, again, they 
should understand that this is not simply a matter of getting more 
money from the Federal Treasury. This is an allocation of money that is 
there. There is a formula for it. The formula was not followed. Special 
privileges were granted to certain projects.
  And I would say, as Senator McCain repeated, the issue is not that 
somebody in Shepherdstown, WV, is not in need of some of these dollars. 
It is a question of whether or not somebody in Los Angeles is also in 
need of those dollars. And I think the answer is, of course, they are. 
Should they get that much of a disproportionate share? This is what 
bothers me.
  I think it makes us all look bad. It opens us all up to the criticism 
of back-room deals. It is unfair. People are hurt by this. People in 
need are getting hurt.
  This is not a contract to build a missile in the Pentagon. This is 
money to be used to house people who need housing. That is one use for 
the money under this bill.
  So I think it is a case, as the article in the Congressional 
Quarterly says, that special projects get the red carpet treatment. And 
they are special projects because they are treated in a special way by 
special members of the Appropriations Committee. That is what the 
problem is, and I hope my colleagues will look at it. I think a vote 
here in the affirmative would say, without casting any aspersions at 
any particular Senator or any particular State, it is simply a bad 
process that ought to be reformed.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to debate this particular 
amendment any further or is he ready to move on to the next one?
  Mr. SMITH. At this time I yield back all time on this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from New Hampshire. As the Senator has stated, the amendment 
before the Senate would transfer the $135 million in funding for over 
100 earmarked projects to the Community Development Block Grant 
Program.
  Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to any 
individual project included in the committee report. After reviewing 
the list, I am certain many of the projects are very worthy and merit 
support. The question before us today is now we determine which 
projects are funded.
  Should the Senate make these decisions or should the local 
communities who know their needs make those decisions. It is my 
understanding that the meritorious projects on this list could be 
funded through the Community Development Block Grant Program.
  I firmly believe that we should put the money into the Community 
Development Block Grant Program which would allow projects to compete 
and ensure that funds go to the best and neediest project.
  The Community Development Block Grant Program is one of the best 
examples of community empowerment within the Federal Government. 
Federal dollars are given directly to local communities who review 
project applications and determine the most appropriate use of these 
funds. The block grant formula is based on population and poverty 
statistics to ensure that the money is distributed fairly among the 
states. Let me say again, the Program is designed to give local people, 
those most affected, the ability to decide how the money should be 
spent.
  I am sure my colleagues will agree that as the Federal budget becomes 
more and more constrained we must make every effort to ensure that 
Federal funds are distributed fairly and used for the highest 
priorities. Congressional earmarking distorts this process by 
prohibiting competition and skewing the proper allocation of Federal 
funds.
  Of the $135 million allocated under the special purpose grants, 31 
percent of the money will go to projects in three States. Only 21 
projects of the 102 are from States which do not have members on the 
appropriations committee or in the leadership. While I am not saying 
this is exactly why these projects are on the list, I must ask the 
question--is this the proper way to allocate scarce Federal resources?
  I urge my colleagues before they vote to consider how their states 
would fare, if the money was distributed through the Community 
Development Block Grant Program allocation instead of being earmarked 
for these specific projects.
  In the case of my home State of Arizona, we would receive an 
additional $1.5 million dollars in community development block grant 
funds to help impoverished communities.
  In the past, the proponents of Congressional earmarks have argued 
that we must continue this practice because the Federal bureaucracy is 
not responsive to our constituent's needs. That is not the case in this 
instance. Elimination of these earmarks will not result in our 
constituents having to lobby bureaucrats for Federal assistance. 
Transferring this money to the block grant program will allow our 
constituents to decide how to use the money themselves.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire's amendment clearly 
defines the issue of earmarks. Members can vote for the amendment, 
which would allow for funds to be used in a manner that is fair and 
will result in the most worthy projects being funded or, members can 
vote against this amendment, which would continue business as usual. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and bring some order to 
Federal spending habits.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from New Hampshire will recall, we had a 
unanimous consent agreement on the time.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator on the 
redistribution of CDBG be laid aside and we move to the next Smith 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, at this point I will withhold for 
approximately 5 minutes before taking the floor with that amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I seek recognition just to tell my 
colleagues what we are doing here. The Senator from New Hampshire will 
have one more amendment related to the water projects and EPA. Upon the 
completion of that debate, which we anticipate will not take more than 
15 or 20 minutes between both of us--we are making good progress; we 
are having a rational and civil discussion on these national issues--we 
will then go to a vote. There will be four votes back to back: the 
motion of the Senator from New Hampshire to recommit; the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey, that has been cosponsored by the Presiding 
Officer and myself, on abortion violence; then the two Smith amendments 
on the reallocation of funds away from designated projects.
  So we anticipate that we will be voting within half an hour. We are 
not setting a time, but we just want Senators to be aware of that. Then 
there will be four votes back to back.
  Then, Mr. President, with the exception, I believe, of an amendment 
by the Senator from North Carolina, we will be done and we will be 
ready to move on our managers' amendment. We hope the Senator from 
North Carolina will be ready to move with his amendment--he often has 
those of great national concern--unless the Senator has reconsidered 
offering his amendment.
  So I lay out for my colleagues that we believe the major substance 
has been debated. I once again want to note that our ranking 
Republican, Senator Phil Gramm, is at the Whitewater hearings. We thank 
his personal and professional staff on the committee for working with 
us. He has been consulted on all matters as they have been progressing 
throughout the day. I thank them for their courtesy.
  So we are making very good progress, and after the completion of 
those four votes and the managers' amendment, if all other Senators 
will withhold, we will be done. It is my hope--however, if Senators 
persist in offering amendments, or if a Senator does, acknowledging his 
right to do so--we would sure like to be done before 6 on this bill. I 
will have been on the floor for more than 30 hours, and I am ready to 
wrap it up and move to conference.
  So, is the Senator from New Hampshire ready?


    Excepted Committee Amendment On Page 60, line 7 through line 21

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside and the Senate consider the committee amendment 
on page 60.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendment No. 2455 to Excepted Committee Amendment beginning on Page 
                               60, line 7

(Purpose: To redistribute water infrastructure/State revolving funds on 
                          an equitable basis)

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the pending 
committee amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2455.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the pending committee amendment, strike all after 
     ``and,'', and insert the following: ``Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $500,000,000 made 
     available under this heading in Public Law 103-124, and 
     earmarked not to become available until May 31, 1994, which 
     date was extended to September 30, 1994, in Public Law 103-
     211, shall be available immediately for capitalization grants 
     for State revolving funds to support water infrastructure 
     financing, and to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4; 101 Stat. 7):''.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I will take very little of the Senate's 
time on this issue because it is the same issue, essentially, that I 
just debated a few moments ago; we are just looking at a different 
section of the bill. The previous one dealt with community development 
block grants for housing and aid for poor people in slums and other 
areas. This one is really talking about the EPA and the Clean Water 
Act. It is the same principle. It is exactly the same issue. It is 
earmarking again.
  The committee-reported amendment, the underlying committee amendment, 
earmarks $697.2 million for special water infrastructure projects. Here 
again we have a pool of money of $697.2 million for special water 
infrastructure projects. The amendment I am offering simply transfers 
this money back into the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund, so-
called SRF. That is where the money belongs. That is what the SRF is 
there for. That is why we have the Clean Water Act State revolving loan 
fund, so these dollars can be allocated in a fair and equitable way.
  We did not write the act and create the revolving loan fund to have 
people in the Appropriations Committee staff sit down and decide where 
these projects would go. It is the exact same argument, only a 
different section of the bill, the exact same argument I made a few 
moments ago in the previous amendment, trying to draw the attention of 
the Senate and the country to the fact we are not doing business in the 
right way.
  As I said under the previous amendment, let me say again: These 
projects that are funded very well may be worthwhile projects. I do not 
challenge that one bit. I challenge the process, the way that some 
States are going to get special attention, special privilege, special 
emphasis to the detriment of others.
  I would say again, as I said regarding the previous amendment, money 
needed to clean up water in one State is certainly as important as 
cleaning up water in another State. As a matter of fact, in some cases 
it may even be more important to clean up a project someplace else 
because the pollution could even be worse than it is in another State. 
That is why we have the Clean Water Act and that is why we have the 
revolving loan fund, because these people in the EPA are trained to 
look at that and know where the dollars should go.
  Earmarking by the Appropriations Committee staff is not the way to 
go. Compliance with the Clean Water Act is a national goal, and 
earmarks are local handouts that are not authorized. That is what they 
are pure and simple. They are not authorized by anybody. It is not that 
those who make these decisions on the staff of the committee and some 
Senators or Congressmen, whatever the case may be, it is not that they 
are incompetent or unqualified to look at these things. In some cases--
in many cases--the projects are worthwhile and the decisions were made 
in such a way that there was a need. But the issue is, are those needs 
more than someplace else and should those dollars be handed out to the 
detriment of others?
  Since all 50 States are affected by the Clean Water Act mandates, is 
it not fair to say that all States should receive equitable assistance 
through the SRF? By equitable assistance, I do not mean exactly the 
same number of dollars, because small States would not get the same 
number of dollars, but equitable on the basis of the need.
  According to the Association of State Water Pollution Control 
Administrators, which strongly supports my amendment, by the way, the 
clean water SRF Program is capitalized at a $1.2 billion level but has 
$200 billion in outstanding needs. Think of that, capitalized at a $1.2 
billion level that has $200 billion in outstanding needs.
  They also note that while funding the States for water infrastructure 
projects has remained somewhat constant, the mandates have increased, 
significantly increased. So it is obvious that the clean water 
revolving fund is where these scarce funds are needed. Let the fund 
decide, not people sitting in the back room of the Appropriations 
Committee somewhere.
  Again, let me refer to a letter that was sent to the subcommittee 
chairman, Senator Mikulski, on August 4. This came from the Association 
of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. They 
represent all 50 States and they are against the committee position, 
and they state it.
  So even the States that gain by the committee position, essentially 
through their leaders on this association, are saying that this is 
wrong. I give them a lot of credit for having the courage to say that. 
They deserve a lot of credit for having the courage to say that because 
it is wrong and they know it and because they are very much aware of 
the problems in each State, because they meet frequently and they talk 
about them. What they say is that they:

       * * * oppose diverting scarce Federal dollars away from the 
     national title VI program to support individual grant 
     projects in a few select communities.

  That is the language from their letter to the Senator from Maryland. 
They also say:

       We are alarmed by the earmarking of title VI funds for 
     other purposes and the shifting of programs into the 
     infrastructure account. Authorized programs need to be 
     supported in their own right. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, that 
     is, removing clean water funds to pay for drinking water 
     programs, will ultimately lead to a plethora of unfunded 
     mandates.

  So, Mr. President, I am not questioning the worthwhile aspect of 
these projects. It is not in the best interest of the country to 
continue diverting money for special purposes from nationally 
authorized programs such as the clean water revolving fund.
  This debate is about the equitable distribution of funds versus 
special treatment for a few selected States. I ask unanimous consent to 
print in the Record the letter I recently referred to, sent to the 
Senator from Maryland from the Association of State and Interstate 
Water Pollution Control Administrators.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      ASIWPCA,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1994.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Chairwoman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
         Independent Agencies, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Chairwoman: The FY 1995 Clean Water Act 
     appropriation urgently needs your support to assure that the 
     Federal commitment to implementation is sustained. The 
     program is vitally important to the enhancement and 
     protection of the Nation's waters and natural resources. 
     Elimination or acute under-funding will surely result in 
     water quality degradation, jeopardizing the integrity of the 
     program, and undermining the trust of the American public.
       Clean Water Act reauthorization is extremely important to 
     States. The Association has gone to great lengths to work 
     with Congress and others interested in reauthorization in an 
     effort to foster and expedite the process. While we believe 
     that consensus is clearly possible on many issues which 
     supports the concept of a streamlined bill, there are 
     others--most notably wetlands--where consensus may not be 
     possible in this Congress. It would be tragic for the entire 
     Clean Water program to be victimized by a single interest 
     coalition. We are, therefore, concerned that postponement of 
     funds will result in a loss of momentum and the balance in 
     the State/Federal relationship may not be renegotiated next 
     year.
       ASIWPCA, therefore, urges Congress not to make the State 
     Revolving Loan Fund or Section 319 nonpoint sources (NPS) 
     appropriations contingent upon reauthorization. Although the 
     House Bill may be well intentioned, such action is not in the 
     best interests of the environment or the integrity of the 
     national program which has strong public support. There 
     should not be a double standard, where it is acceptable to 
     appropriate for unauthorized provisions (e.g. the Drinking 
     Water SRF), but not for the well established and effectively 
     managed Clean Water programs.
       A strong Clean Water Act depends upon sufficient baseline 
     funding.
       $2 Billion for the Title VI SRF is of utmost importance, as 
     the Senate Bill recognizes. Priority should be placed on 
     funding Title VI which has a highly successful and enormous 
     leveraging power. The 1987 Act that envisioned building the 
     SRF to revolve in perpetuity is achievable. If the SRF is 
     funded at the House level ($1.29 Billion) it will be 
     extremely difficult, if not impossible, to adequately 
     capitalize the SRF to meet over $200 Billion in needs.
       Grants: ASIWPCA opposes diverting scarce Federal funds away 
     from the national Title VI program to support individual 
     grant projects in a few select communities. The over $500 
     Million setaside in the House and Senate Bills should be 
     administered under the Title VI SRF. It has low 
     administrative costs, a 50 percent faster project completion 
     rate and lower project costs than a grant program. The SRF 
     has inherent incentives for local governments to take 
     ownership of their facilities, to be innovative, to reduce 
     costs, to develop appropriate user fee systems and to 
     efficiently operate constructed systems.
       Section 106 State Management should be funded at the 
     highest possible level, due to the $400 Million shortfall in 
     meeting 1987 Water Quality Act mandates.
       At a minimum, $100 Million should be allotted for the 
     Section 319 Nonpoint Program.
       We are alarmed by the earmarking of Title VI funds for 
     other purposes and the shifting of programs into the 
     infrastructure account. Authorized programs need to be 
     supported in their own right. ``Robbing Peter to pay Paul'' 
     (e.g. removing Clean Water funds to pay for drinking water 
     programs) will ultimately lead to a plethora of unfunded 
     mandates. The result of this funding shift is that it, in 
     essence, calls for the State to manage two statutes with the 
     funding they previously had available for Clean Water 
     programs alone. Priority programs, including the Title VI SRF 
     and the nonpoint source protection program, will surely 
     falter.
       The severely constrained Title VI SRF should not be cut to 
     provide $700 Million for a new Drinking Water SRF or $70 
     Million for State management of the Drinking Water Program 
     that was previously funded in the Abatement and Control 
     Account.
       Appropriations for new programs (e.g. the Drinking Water 
     SRF) should be entertained only after authorization occurs 
     and not at the expense of Clean Water funds. All funding 
     should be restored to the Clean Water Title VI SRF if 
     Drinking Water authorization efforts fail.
       The future of the Clean Water Act and a successful 
     reauthorized Act depends directly upon continued and adequate 
     funding in the FY 1995 appropriation. We ask your support to 
     continue program momentum. The Association appreciates your 
     commitment to Clean Water programs.
           Sincerely,
                                           Roberta (Robbi) Savage,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, again, I say to my colleagues, why should 
we allow the Clean Water SRF Program to be compromised? Why do we have 
it? It is simply not appropriate of the policy, it is not good policy. 
It might be good politics if you happen to be the State on the 
receiving end. But it is not good policy, it is not good for overall 
environmental cleanup. It is not in the national interest.
  I am on the authorizing committee for the Clean Water Act, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I do not recall authorizing 
any, not a single one of these projects. I have not seen them. To the 
best of my knowledge, unless someone on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee is also on the Appropriations Committee, I do not think 
they have seen them either.
  Why do we exist? Many times those of us on authorizing committees who 
are not on the Appropriations Committee ask ourselves frequently, why 
do we exist, to make priorities and watch them being changed by the 
Appropriations Committee? That is a common argument around here that 
does not necessarily pertain only to this committee, but from all 
authorizing committees we hear the same argument. Why should some 
States receive so much while others receive nothing?
  Here is the interesting thing. Under the Appropriations Committee 
amendment, 34 States--34--receive no special funding, nothing, zero. 
Under my amendment, 39 States receive increased funding for their SRF 
Program. Let me repeat that: Under the Appropriations Committee 
amendment, the underlying situation without my amendment, 34 States 
receive no funding, no special funding at all out of this money. Under 
my amendment, 39 States will receive increased funding for their 
program.
  I have a list of those States and the dollars involved. I will not 
read them in the interest of time. I read the States in the previous 
debate on the previous amendment. I have the same information available 
to my colleagues. Thirty-nine States are going to receive increased 
funding, 39 times 2--what is that, 78? Seventy-eight Senators.
  So I suppose if we look at the total fairness here, we should get 78 
votes, but do not bet the farm on it because the pressure of the 
appropriators is immense. I think you are going to see a lot less than 
78 votes if, indeed, we even see 50 votes. But sometimes the result is 
not always right. Sometimes the vote is not always right. It might be 
the total but it is not always right.
  In this case, I believe that fairness says that we ought to get 78 
votes if people really care about equitably distributing the money to 
clean up the water in the United States of America.
  A vote against my amendment is a vote against maintaining the 
integrity of the whole process, the whole Clean Water Act funding 
program. It absolutely just devastates the process and makes it 
worthless. If 34 States can get nothing under the underlying committee 
bill, and 39 States can get something, or an increase under mine, 
something is wrong somewhere. Big time wrong. It is the same issue, it 
is the same power, it is the same appropriators, same special 
privileges, same closed door meetings, the same no rollcall votes, no 
public input, no public observation. It goes on day in and day out, 
year in and year out, decade after decade in this place. Would it not 
be nice if we could change it just once?
  I, for the life of me, cannot understand why a Senator would want to 
vote against equitably distributing the dollars through this revolving 
fund to clean up the water, No. 1, just in that concept, just 
equitably; No. 2, would not want to vote for an amendment that would 
provide more dollars to his or her State. It puzzles me why that would 
not win with 78 votes. But it will not, I can assure you.
  So in conclusion, Mr. President, let me just say, the amendment is 
very simple. I urge my colleagues to vote for the interests they were 
elected to represent which, in this case--which in this case--is the 
national interest and it is also in the States' interest.
  Mr. President, at this point, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first I want to talk about the fact that 
one does not have to be an appropriator to have a water project under 
the State revolving fund. What we did was look at compelling needs, 
where a request had come from Senators. And we have had to respond 
after 2 years of not having an authorization on the Clean Water Act.
  First, the States which receive help that do not have members on the 
Appropriations Committee are Illinois, Massachusetts, Kansas, Michigan, 
and Georgia.
  I just want to take a moment and talk about Illinois.
  First of all, they do not have an appropriator. What they do have in 
Chicago is a deep tunnel that flooded out, breaking down a whole major 
part of the center of Chicago's economic activity. When the deep tunnel 
flooded, it made national news, but it also created unemployment lines. 
It was in the heart of Chicago's business district. It came to a halt 
for weeks while they tried to clean up from the flooding in the deep 
tunnel.
  Now, the two Senators from Illinois and the Chicago delegation have 
gone to the authorizing committee and said we need help for the deep 
tunnel. But they were not the only ones who went to the authorizing 
committee. Several other States have gone to the authorizing committee. 
But there has not been an authorization of the Clean Water Act despite 
its Republican and Democrat leadership in over 2 years.
  I salute the efforts of Senator Baucus, the chairman of the 
committee, and Senator Chafee, the ranking Republican member, but that 
committee is bogged down--no pun intended, but it has been bogged down 
in its own muck and mire, and for 2 years now we have been waiting for 
an authorization.
  Now, I will not ask the Senator from New Hampshire why they do not 
have one. I can only tell you they do not. Last year, the appropriators 
said we are not going to identify any projects. We are going to wait 
until the authorizing gets done.
  Well, we waited, and we waited, and we had fences, and we waited, and 
we waited. This year, we said, ``When are you going to reauthorize the 
Clean Water Act?'' ``We are working. We are working. We are working.'' 
Carol Browner came to the Democratic caucus lunch and urged us to pass 
this bill--and still no clean water authorization.
  Now, what are communities supposed to do, wait? We cannot wait any 
longer.
  Let me tell who is waiting. The Senators from Alaska talked about the 
$15 million needed for rural Alaskan villages where waste water 
treatment simply does not exist. I visited that project up in Alaska. I 
have been to an Eskimo village. I know about the need there. So when 
the Senators from Alaska talked to me about it, all they needed to do 
was remind me--and I had the pictures to show it--for $15 million what 
this means.
  The committee also provided a grant for Boston Harbor where taxpayers 
are paying an astronomical water and sewer rate, as much as $1,000 a 
year. When you talk to the senior citizens of Boston, they will tell 
you they are paying more for their water and sewer than they are paying 
for either their mortgage or utilities. President Bush made a 
commitment to clean up Boston Harbor. President Clinton has followed up 
on that request, and we are trying to clean up the Boston Harbor.
  Finally, we are going to talk about the colonias. These are those 
unincorporated towns along the borders of Texas, New Mexico, and 
Arizona. I visited colonias in Arizona. I visited them with Senator 
DeConcini, but I know of Senator McCain's great concern for the people 
there who have conditions that are like a Third World country within 
the United States of America. These are ordinary people with an 
extraordinary situation. Do we want them to be in conditions that breed 
pestilence, disease? We are not a Third World country.
  While we wait for an authorization, what are we going to do with 
these little kids, where I saw the water piling up and the fact that 
they had no way to deal with this? We have now children born with all 
types of problems. We have contaminated drinking water.
  I could go through every one of these 21 projects that were requested 
by Members on both sides. I know what the authorizers are up against in 
their difficulty to move a bill. We are involved in other issues--
mandates, unfunded mandates, funded mandates, what is a wetlands. 
Believe me, I know about wetlands problems. You cannot be a Senator 
from Maryland and not know of the concerns about the appropriate 
definition of wetlands.
  So I acknowledge the problems that the authorizers have had in moving 
a bill. But do not punish 21 communities because they have not been 
able to authorize the Clean Air Act. We have been trying to move ahead 
to meet these identifiable needs. These are what we call the needy 
communities. We did not fund, again, every request we got for sewer and 
water. We funded only that which we knew were needy areas, where there 
had been other promises made like the cleanup of the Boston Harbor by 
President Bush, and also those where actual public health and safety 
are at risk, like in Alaska and along the colonias, and also where the 
economic development of a great American city like Chicago would be 
placed at risk.
  So again these are not idle; they are not capricious. You did not get 
a designated project like this because you were a member of the 
Appropriations Committee. You got a designated project because you are 
a Member of the Senate, and you are a good Senator and you know how to 
make sure that where there is a compelling need we will work our best 
to meet it.
  So, Mr. President, I really hope we defeat the attempt by Senator 
Smith to reallocate this on the basis of the formula. I do not know 
when we are going to get an authorizing committee bill. I know, again, 
the chairman and ranking Republican are working very hard to do it. I 
look forward to that day and I will look forward to voting for it. But 
until that magic moment comes, I am ready to stick by what I have done 
in the Appropriations Committee to help 21 communities with their 
problems related to water, public health, and the other concerns that 
have great impact on the economic nature of their community.
  Mr. President, I could debate this. I think we have gone over it. I 
wonder if now, other than Senator Smith, and I--is the Senator ready?
  Mr. SMITH. Just a couple of brief comments, and I will be finished on 
this side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish the Senator would have those comments under the 
authorizing bill.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, again, the Senator from Maryland made a 
very compelling case on the worthiness of the projects that the 
Appropriations Committee funded. I do not dispute that. I indicated 
that before. The worthiness of the projects is not the issue. The issue 
is the equitable distribution of the dollars to deal with all projects 
in all 50 States. That is the issue.
  I know this sometimes gets complicated, but the State revolving fund 
is set up under the Clean Water Act so that the States--not Senators 
and staff sitting in an Appropriations Committee room in Washington, 
DC--can look around, the Governors and the officials of the States can 
look around their State and they can prioritize what is in their State 
that needs help, why do they need low interest dollars, which is what 
the State revolving fund is--dollars provided at a low interest to 
these communities to clean up the water problems in the various 
communities in their States.
  The States know better than a group of staff people in Washington, 
DC, what their needs are. That is why the fund was set up. That is why 
the fund was set up.
  So under my amendment, this $697 million would go into the State 
revolving fund, and it would be using the appropriate distribution 
formula--need, population, all the factors that are factored in there. 
Those dollars would go on a proportionate basis to the various States 
so that all 50 States would share--not necessarily equally but on the 
basis of need.
  It is not 50 divided into $697 million. But on the basis of need, 
these dollars would be going to those States where they need it--all 50 
States. That is not happening here.
  There are 17 projects totaling $697 million for special water, 
infrastructure projects. Are they good projects? I am sure they are. I 
do not dispute it one bit. I am sure there is need to clean them up. 
But is it fair to do it this way? The answer is no because we have the 
State revolving fund to prioritize these things to make the low-
interest loans to the communities so that they can get help to clean up 
their problems with clean-dirty water. But they are not getting it.
  This is a pool of money again especially targeted, special interest 
money, that is going to go to these 17 projects rather than spread 
around to the 50 States.
  I again would encourage my colleagues to read the list. I am not 
going to read the whole list. But we are talking in some States 
millions of dollars. I can just indicate the number of States that have 
nothing. I am just looking at the paper.
  Arizona has nothing under this. It gets $4-plus million. Some States 
go from zero to $8 million. Some States go from zero to $39 million.
  The State of Ohio gets absolutely nothing under the committee bill. 
Under my amendment, it gets $39.553 million. If you are out there in 
Ohio somewhere and you have some problems with clean water, and if you 
live in a community with one of these problems, I think you should say 
to yourself, ``Is there not a State revolving fund out there where we 
can borrow money at low interest to help us to clean their water up?'' 
The answer is yes. There is a fund. But here is the problem. The 
$39.553 million could go into that fund to help you in Ohio, but it is 
not going into that fund because it is being specially targeted to 17 
projects chosen by somebody here in Washington, DC. So the State has no 
say. It is really unbelievable.
  In conclusion, I would say to my friend from Maryland, it is 
interesting. There have been some feelings here that maybe I was 
singling her out. Obviously, I am not because in this amendment, in my 
amendment, the Senator from Maryland would gain $10 million for the 
State of Maryland under my ratio--$10 million more than they get under 
her ratio. I would say in terms of the Senator from Maryland I do not 
think she is special-interest oriented in terms of her State. But I 
believe that the process is wrong.
  Again, that is why we have a State revolving fund. That is why it is 
there. We have to put the money into the fund so that the States can 
loan it. It is not new money. Again, my amendment does not cut any 
money. It simply redistributes it.
  I will have a copy of all of the States that are impacted negatively. 
I will have that at the desk during the vote. I hope my colleagues will 
read it and realize how much money your State revolving fund is losing.
  Remember, this is not a special grant that is going into our State to 
some particular locality. This is money that you are not getting for 
your State revolving loan fund. If you had that money, your Governors, 
the people who administer this program, could then prioritize where 
that money could go.
  Again, when I look at the State of Ohio, using that as an example, 
could the State of Ohio use $39.5 million more in its State revolving 
loan fund than it has now? Could you use that money? If the answer is 
yes, it seems to me the Senators from Ohio should be for my amendment.
  Again, we could go on and on. There are numerous examples. 
Pennsylvania, zero to $27 million, and on and on. Some numbers are even 
more than that. It is incredible how this impacts each of our States.
  Again, Mr. President, I hope that reason will prevail, although I am 
not optimistic. Hopefully, I have made the case on both of these 
amendments regarding redistribution. And hopefully people will see that 
this is a bad process. It ought to be changed, and the best way to 
change it--with no reflection on any member of the Appropriations 
Committee--is to send that signal here on the floor of the Senate today 
that this is wrong. If we send that signal, those appropriators will be 
back, and they will do it the right way and we will all be winners.
  Again, I want to compliment those water folks for sending that letter 
and having the courage, even though some of them may lose a few 
dollars, to say that it is wrong, and that we ought to provide these 
dollars in the State revolving funds on an equitable basis based on the 
appropriate formulas.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield all remaining time on our 
side.


                           Order of Procedure

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we have had an excellent 
debate here characterized by reasonableness in this vote in terms of 
content, style, and time.
  Therefore, Mr. President, observing no other Senators who wish to 
speak, I now hereby ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote on 
the Smith motion to recommit; to be immediately followed by a vote on 
the Lautenberg amendment No. 2453; to be immediately followed by a vote 
on the motion to table on or in relationship to the Smith amendment No. 
2454; to be immediately followed by a vote on the motion to table on or 
in relationship to the Smith amendment No. 2455; and, that all of the 
above occur without any intervening action or debate; and, further, 
that all votes following the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in 
duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     vote on the motion to recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to recommit. On 
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 84, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--14

     Bradley
     Brown
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kohl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Smith
     Wallop

                                NAYS--84

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heflin
     Lott
       
  So, the motion to recommit was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2453

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2453. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heflin
     Lott
       
  So the amendment (No. 2453) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to 
lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to announce that I will not make 
the motions to table the Smith amendments. They will be up or down 
votes on both the amendments to change designation for water projects 
and designation for community development. So they will be straight up-
or-down votes.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2454

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2454. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Bennett
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Roth
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--71

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heflin
     Lott
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2454) was rejected.


                       vote on amendment no. 2455

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2455. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Baucus
     Boren
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Craig
     Dole
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Stevens
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Lott
     Riegle
  So the amendment (No. 2455) was rejected.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 2456 and 2457 En Bloc

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and 
ask unanimous consent that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, 
and that the motions to reconsider the votes be laid upon the table en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on 
both sides of the aisle. I therefore urge their adoption en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, both 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2456 and 2457) were agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2456

  Ms. MIKULSKI offered an amendment No. 2456.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 13, line 11, add the following: ``: Provided 
     further, that of the amount provided under this heading, 
     $7,100,000 shall be for design of a new medical center/
     nursing home in Brevard County, Florida and $6,900,000 shall 
     be for the Orlando, Florida, satellite outpatient clinic''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2457

  Ms. MIKULSKI offered an amendment No. 2457 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Insert at page 62, between line 13 and line 14:


    sense of the senate regarding the environmental self-evaluation 
                               privilege

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The intended effect of environmental protection 
     statutes passed over the past three decades is to improve and 
     protect the natural and human environment.
       (2) The President's National Performance Review concluded 
     that the environmental laws and regulations implemented over 
     the past decade have led to significant improvements in 
     environmental quality.
       (3) The National Performance Review further concludes that 
     many of these laws, however, place a very real cost burden on 
     local governments. Localities now struggle to comply with new 
     requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean 
     Air Act, and Superfund, with little or no prospect of 
     significant increases in federal grants and only limited 
     availability of loans in the future.
       (4) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates 
     that, by the year 2000, local governments will need to spend 
     nearly $44 billion annually to meet existing requirements.
       (5) The National Performance Review states: ``With the 
     opportunity to `reinvent' the way EPA works with state and 
     local governments, EPA has a chance to significantly increase 
     the effectiveness of our nation's environmental programs.''
       (6) The National Performance Review acknowledged that there 
     are numerous examples where the failure of EPA to devise 
     better ways to protect the environment affordably may result 
     in just the opposite of the intended effect.
       (7) To further the goals of protecting and improving the 
     natural and human environment, the States of Oregon, Indiana, 
     Kentucky and Colorado have passed laws establishing an 
     ``environmental self-evaluation privilege.''
       (8) The EPA is currently considering modifying its existing 
     environmental auditing policy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--
       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) The National Performance Review is correct in stating 
     that EPA must recognize that increased regulatory flexibility 
     offers tremendous opportunity for positive institutional 
     change at federal, state and local levels.
       (2) EPA must take advantage of these opportunities by 
     finding ways to allow flexibility without compromising 
     fairness, accountability and, above all, performance.
       (3) The EPA should seriously consider the ``environmental 
     self-evaluation privilege,'' as enacted into law by the 
     States of Oregon, Indiana, Kentucky and Colorado, as a low-
     cost opportunity to increase performance toward the intended 
     effect of environmental protection statutes to improve and 
     protect the natural and human environment.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, before we go on to other Senators who wish to offer 
amendments or speak, I would like to bring to Senators' attention that 
Senator Helms of North Carolina wishes to offer an amendment, and, upon 
the disposal of the Helms amendment, it would be the intention of the 
manager to begin to move to ending this, to coming to final passage on 
this bill.
  I ask any Senator who has an amendment to please begin to move to the 
floor so that upon the disposal of the Helms amendment we will be able 
to conclude any other amendments that Senators wish to offer and move 
to final passage.
  It would be the hope of the manager of the bill that we be finished 
by 6 o'clock. If I have the cooperation of the Senators, I believe we 
will be finished no later than 6 on this bill, and preferably sooner.
  I also ask both the Democratic and Republican Cloakrooms to see if 
there is a desire for a voice vote on final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to give what I believe is an important speech 
on the floor of the Senate about atomic veterans, a group of citizens 
in our country who I really believe have been much overlooked, and who 
want to make sure that we are concerned about what the effects of 
atomic testing were on themselves, their children, and their 
grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I have been working very closely with Senator 
Rockefeller and Senator Daschle on this issue, and we are going to have 
very important hearings tomorrow in the Veterans' Affairs Committee on 
this issue.
  Mr. President, the cover of every copy of the Atomic Veterans 
Newsletter, the official publication of the National Association of 
Atomic Veterans, contains a simple but eloquent statement: ``The Atomic 
Veteran Seeks No Special Favor * * * Simply Justice.''
  Mr. President, for some time I have been urging that there be a study 
by the Medical Follow-up Agency of the Institute of Medicine of the 
National Academy of Sciences to determine if there is any link between 
the genetic disorders and unfavorable birth outcomes affecting the 
families of atomic veterans and those veterans' exposure to ionizing 
radiation. Such a study would seek to determine whether those military 
personnel who took part in postwar atmospheric nuclear tests or in the 
occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the aftermath of the 
devastation of those cities by atom bombs thereby unwittingly 
jeopardized the health of their families and of generations yet unborn. 
This has long been a question of enormous concern to atomic veterans 
and their families. After 40 or more years, I hope you will agree that 
it is about time that these Americans who served this country with 
honor, patriotism, and devotion were given answers to questions that so 
far have not been a priority concern to their government.
  During the past 6 months, I have had a number of meetings with atomic 
veterans in Minnesota and here in Washington. Many of the veterans told 
me of their deep concern about their children and grandchildren who are 
suffering from serious illnesses and birth defects, conditions that had 
never occurred previously in the family of either parent. 
Understandably, they fear these conditions are an outgrowth of their 
exposure to radiation and wonder if future generations will also be 
affected.
  To me, one of the most shocking aspects of a public forum I held with 
atomic veterans in Minnesota, was how often veterans, widows of 
veterans, and those who wrote to me but were unable to attend, spoke of 
unfavorable birth outcomes--multiple stillbirths and miscarriages, 
occurring after but not before parental exposure to radiation. One 
widow of an atomic veteran who attended the forum was astounded to 
learn for the first time that the miscarriages she'd experienced could 
have been related to her late husband's participation in atomic 
testing.
  Many of the accounts I have heard from atomic veterans, their 
spouses, and survivors are heart rending. Let me cite a couple of 
examples:
  A Minnesota veteran, a former member of the Army's 216th Chemical 
Service Corps who participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper, a series 
of atmospheric nuclear tests held in Nevada in 1952, said that he and 
his wife were only able to have one child, a daughter who has had 
serious health problems throughout her life, including the following:
  At age 14, doctors discovered breast tumors and recommended a radical 
mastectomy;
  At age 18, doctors discovered cervical cancer and gave her 
cryotherapy;
  At age 28, doctors performed major kidney surgery;
  Last year, she was hospitalized for 2 weeks for bowel obstruction;
  A few months ago she was tested for a lump on her neck;
  Over the course of her life, she has had on-going, serious thyroid 
problems:
  Her son was born with a foot deformity and a skin disorder.
  Doctors have been unable to explain why she's had so many serious 
health problems, starting at such a young age. Her parents suspect that 
they are linked to her father's exposure to radiation.
  An atomic veteran from Phoenix, AZ, who had served in the Navy at the 
Bikini tests, termed by one scholar recently as ``America's 
Chernobyl,'' wrote about problems his wife had with every pregnancy. He 
noted that his wife had been in good health and doctors found nothing 
organically wrong with her to account for the problems. Permit me to 
quote directly from a passage in this veterans' describing his wife's 
pregnancy outcomes:

       1948--We lost a baby boy; he lived 20 minutes. This was a 
     5\1/2\-month pregnancy:
       1950--We had a premature baby boy. This was a 7-month 
     pregnancy. He has been classified [as a] manic depressive;
       1952--We lost our baby girl. She was stillborn with a short 
     umbilical cord. This was an 8-month pregnancy;
       1957--After a little over 2 months pregnancy, the doctor 
     classified this one as a missed abortion;
       1960--Our daughter was born with a cleft lip. This was an 
     8-month pregnancy.

  The veteran also stressed that at Bikini he had worked on small boats 
that were later sunk because of contamination by radiation. Like other 
atomic veterans, he and his buddies were never informed that the 
ionizing radiation they were exposed to could cause any problems. There 
is now considerable evidence that the Navy had been informed of the 
hazards resulting from the detonation of the world's first underwater 
atomic bomb. For example, Los Alamos scientists warned the Navy that 
``the water near a recent surface explosion will be a witch's brew,'' 
that there would likely be ``enough plutonium near the surface to 
poison the combined armed forces of the United States at their highest 
wartime strength,'' and concluded that an ``underwater test against 
naval vessels would contain so many hazards it should be ruled out at 
this time.'' The Navy chose to ignore these and other warnings, and 
also chose to conceal from the men they were placing in harm's way the 
serious risks that they faced.
  Mr. President, you may well wonder as I did why the study I am 
recommending was not performed years ago. It certainly wasn't because 
the Government was unaware of the concerns of atomic veterans. Pat 
Broudy, national legislative director of the National Association of 
Atomic Veterans, informs me that she has testified at 13 congressional 
hearings over the years and each time has urged that the Government 
fund a study of the children of atomic veterans. Unfortunately, all of 
her eloquent pleas went unanswered.
  Why did this occur? Let me suggest a few possible explanations. 
First, atomic veterans have lacked the political clout and resources 
that, regrettably, are often essential if a group is to be taken 
seriously either by the Congress or the executive branch. Second, they 
were in some ways victims of the pervasive climate of secrecy during 
the cold war years. Thus, atomic veterans were often denied access to 
their own service health records on the grounds that they were 
classified, and there is evidence that the Navy, at least for a time, 
kept two sets of service health records, one unclassified and the other 
classified. Thus, a Navy safety regulation issued in 1947 mandated that 
data from physical exams required of both military and civilian 
personnel who might soon be exposed to radiation be made part of 
``special medical records separate from the normal individuals' health 
records'' and classified as confidential. Needless to say, this secrecy 
made it difficult if not impossible for atomic veterans to pursue 
compensation claims or to learn whether their exposures to radiation 
posed a threat to the health of their loved ones. Finally, since there 
was no possibility of VA compensation for the dependents of atomic 
veterans even if it could be demonstrated that their health problems 
were related to the veterans' exposure to radiation, both the VA and 
the Congress apparently saw little point in studying the issue.
  It would be unconscionable for us to allow this situation to 
continue. As a father and grandfather, I know that nothing is more 
important than the health of one's children and grandchildren. Imagine 
the pain and fear of atomic veterans and their wives who for years have 
lived with uncertainty about whether they would have children and 
grandchildren who could lead normal, healthy lives. While I fervently 
hope that the results of the study I am proposing will serve to allay 
their fears, I obviously have no way of knowing whether this will turn 
out to be the case. At a minimum, however, the study should answer a 
fundamental question that has tormented atomic veterans for so long: 
Did their dedicated service to the country they love place at risk 
their family members and children yet unborn? By having a study 
conducted we will ensure that these deserving veterans and their 
families finally receive an answer to this gut-wrenching question. We 
cannot and must not turn our backs on atomic veterans and their 
families.
  Recently, the Senate passed by a voice vote an amendment to the 
defense authorization bill that mandated a series of studies of the 
health consequences of service in the Persian Gulf war with $20 million 
provided in funding. I wholeheartedly supported this measure, in part 
because I was determined that Persian Gulf veterans would not have to 
undergo the agony of atomic veterans who had to wait decades before the 
Government that placed them in harm's way sought to investigate the 
source and nature of their ailments and has yet to investigate the 
health problems of their families. I was particularly gratified that 
the amendment authorized a study of the health effects on the spouses 
and children of Persian Gulf veterans that may be linked to the 
veterans' service in Southwest Asia, including birth defects in their 
offspring.
  Atomic veterans, their families, and survivors have stressed to me 
that they are pleased that the Government is making a concerted effort 
to determine whether the health of families of military personnel who 
served in the Persian Gulf is imperiled as a consequence of that 
service. Without exception, atomic veterans emphasize that they in no 
way begrudge Persian Gulf veterans the attention they've received in 
recent months from the Congress and the administration. However, atomic 
veterans believe that as Americans who were also placed in harm's way 
by their Government, without being informed of the dangers they faced, 
and without adequate protection, they are equally entitled to the 
attention and concern of the Government they served bravely and without 
question. The study I am proposing is intended to ensure that the 
Government will accord equal priority to the health of atomic veterans' 
families by ascertaining whether a parent or spouse's exposure to 
radiation decades ago has had and is continuing to have serious 
consequences for his or her loved ones.
  Mr. President, I wish to convey my appreciation to my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Daschle, for their interest 
in and support for holding a hearing that will focus on the health 
problems of atomic veterans' families. I am particularly pleased to 
note that Senator Rockefeller has scheduled a hearing of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee that will focus on the health of the families of 
atomic, agent orange, and Persian Gulf veterans. While these three 
groups of veterans served their country at different times and under 
vastly different circumstances, they share deep apprehensions that the 
toxic exposures they experienced while on active duty may have 
seriously damaged the health of those near and dear to them and 
imperiled future generations. I commend Senator Rockefeller for 
providing these men and women who have made so many sacrifices for this 
Nation with a unique forum to air their concerns and those of their 
loved ones.
  Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may be aware, I had 
considered offering an amendment to the pending appropriations bill to 
require that the study I have been proposing be conducted. However, 
concern has been expressed to me by some of the people involved in 
other VA study projects who fear having to compete for scarce research 
dollars.
  I have therefore decided that the wiser course to pursue would be to 
introduce separate legislation which would authorize and mandate such a 
study and to enlist the assistance of the Veterans Affairs' Committee 
chairman to achieve the result we are all seeking.
  I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would agree that his would 
be the most expeditious way to proceed to see to it that the study is 
performed.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Senator from Minnesota is 
aware, our committee will be conducting a hearing this week on the very 
subject he has been discussing. I have already secured the agreement of 
VA Secretary Brown to arrange for a panel of experts to review the 
science to determine whether a study would be feasible and if so, how 
it might be conducted. I am happy to work with my colleague from 
Minnesota to ensure this review is conducted by a panel of experts 
outside of the VA. In the event the panel concludes that such a study 
would be feasible, it would be my intention to incorporate the 
provisions of Senator Wellstone's legislation--requiring that the study 
go forward--into other legislation to be reported by the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee this year. Once we determine that such a study would 
be feasible, I assure the Senator I will be as committed as he is to 
seeing to it that the study is undertaken as soon as possible.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can the Senator give me any assurances about whether 
there will be adequate funding available to finance the study?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have discussed this matter with the distinguished 
chair of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, who will work with us 
to make sure that funding is available for this study.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


                           amendment no. 2458

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending committee 
amendments are temporarily set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2458.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED TO PROTECT THE 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Finding.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The GATT Treaty provides for the entry of the United 
     States into the World trade Organization, which may have a 
     major, permanent and adverse impact on American Sovereignty.
       (2) The GATT Treaty binds the United States to a permanent 
     international trade organization for decades to come.
       (3) In the World Trade Organization, the United States will 
     have only 1 out of 117 votes and will lose the veto power it 
     had in the GATT Organization that the World Trade 
     Organization replaces.
       (4) Under the GATT Treaty, the United States will pay 20% 
     of the budget of the World Trade Organization, but will have 
     less than 1% of the voting power.
       (5) The World Trade Organization has the potential of 
     overriding domestic U.S. law.
       (6) Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution provides 
     that the President has the ``Power, by and with the Advice 
     and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-
     thirds of the Senators present concur''.
       (7) Despite the dictate of section 2 of Article II of the 
     Constitution, the GATT Treaty is scheduled to be considered 
     by the Senate under ``fast-track'' procedures, as an 
     executive agreement.
       (8) Under the ``fast-track'' rules, Senators are prohibited 
     from amending the agreement and debate is limited to 20 hours 
     on the Senate floor.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) The leadership of the Senate should protect the rights 
     and prerogatives of the Senate and insist that the GATT 
     agreement be submitted as a Treaty as stipulated by the U.S. 
     Constitution, and
       (2) an extension of the ``fast track'' should not be 
     included in any implementing legislation for the GATT 
     Treaty.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it occurred to me that I may have a problem 
on the drafting of the pending amendment.
  I believe it is not drafted as a first-degree amendment. We can work 
this out simply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Exon). The amendment if and when submitted 
will be inserted in the appropriate place as requested by the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. So what the Chair and the Parliamentarian are saying is it 
is in order and it will be treated appropriately; is that correct? If 
not, I will be glad to modify it. The yeas and nays have not been 
obtained on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair assumes that the Senator from North 
Carolina wishes this to be treated as a first-degree amendment. If so, 
it will be so treated, if the Chair understands properly the request of 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Do I need unanimous consent for that, I ask the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. He is very accommodating.
  Mr. President, this amendment brings to mind a relationship I have 
had in the past with giants in this Senate, including the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Robert C. Byrd. I do not know how 
Senator Byrd is going to vote on this amendment, but I do know that he 
is devoted to the protection of the constitutional prerogatives of the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I still have a nagging in my mind about the drafting 
of this amendment. I do not want to proceed until I can consult with 
the Chair and with the Parliamentarian to make sure that everything is 
in order.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I was in the process of reflecting upon my 
own experiences that have meant so much to me through the years, an 
association with giants in the Senate like Senator Russell of Georgia 
and Senator Walter George of Georgia, Senator Sam Ervin, and others. 
They instilled in me a passion to protect, as best I can, the 
constitutional prerogatives of the Senate, not to mention the 
constitutional rights of the American people.
  Mr. President, that is the reason I have this amendment before the 
Senate. This amendment simply proposes that the instrument improperly 
identified as the GATT trade agreement be considered by the Senate for 
what it really is--a treaty. It is not just a mere agreement, it is a 
treaty. Furthermore, Congress should certainly not extend the ill-
conceived fast-track authority.
  I never have liked the fast-track procedures--20 hours of debate, 
with no amendments being in order, and an up-or-down vote. That is no 
way to legislate a treaty. It is not an appropriate way to legislate an 
agreement.
  I wonder how many Senators even know what is in this massive document 
by whatever name, treaty or agreement or whatever. How many Senators 
have considered the implications of the New World Trade Organization, 
of which we will inescapably become a member?
  The Senate has held but one brief hearing--that is all--on the 
question of a potential assault on the sovereignty of the United States 
of America.
  Mr. President, this document creates the new international 
institution called the World Trade Organization. It replaces the old 
GATT organization--GATT stands for the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade.
  The United States automatically--automatically--becomes a permanent 
member of the World Trade Organization. This new international 
organization will administer a broad array of provisions regarding 
intellectual property rights, agricultural commodities, financial 
services, textiles, and it will supervise the settlement of most trade 
disputes. The World Trade Organization will have expansive authority 
over most areas of the international economy.
  I think it would be fair to describe the new World Trade Organization 
as a United Nations for world trade, combined with a world court.
  Mr. President, history will demonstrate that this Senate has rejected 
the concept of a world court time and time again. Take a look at the 
history; take a look at the precedents. The United States joined the 
World Bank by treaty. The United States joined the United Nations by 
treaty. The United States joined NATO by treaty.
  Yet, here we are proposing to rush this GATT instrument through on 
that fast-track--20 hours of debate, no amendments, an up-or-down vote, 
bang, bang, bang. I may be shouted down, voted down, all the rest of 
it, but in the judgment of this Senator, this instrument, this treaty, 
should be considered for what it is: a treaty requiring unlimited 
debate and a two-thirds vote among Senators present and voting.
  There are many apprehensions about this new, powerful World Trade 
Organizations.
  For openers, I confess to unalterable opposition to world 
government--always have and always will--and also to any organization 
where the United States has one vote and no veto, but pays 20 percent 
of the cost of operating the organization. And that money comes from 
the pockets of the American taxpayers who are going to be gypped in the 
end, I fear, by this instrument which is being rushed through the 
United States Senate on a fast-track.
  Mr. President, for the record, let me try to identify just a few of 
the reasons why I think the World Trade Organization should be 
considered as a treaty.
  First of all, the State Department acknowledges eight factors that 
should be used to determine whether an agreement should be considered 
by the Senate as a treaty. Now, this is the State Department. They put 
out a little pamphlet. If you do not have one, call down there and they 
will send one up.
  Here is what the State Department specifies in terms of whether an 
instrument should be treated by the Senate as a treaty:

       1. The degree or commitment or risk for the entire Nation.

  Mr. President, I have to say the WTO certainly contains substantial 
commitments in that regard.

       2. Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws.

  Well, that is an absolute given. It is going to happen.
       3. Whether the agreement can be given effect without 
     legislation by Congress.

  Obviously, the World Trade Organization will have permanency and 
authority on its own.

       4. Past United States practice as to similar agreements;
       5. The preference of Congress;
       6. The degree of formality desired;

  A new international organization is pretty formal, I would say.

       7. The proposed duration of the agreement;

  The World Trade Organization is going to be around for a long time, 
interfering in the sovereign rights of the United States of America and 
its States and its people.

       8. The general international practice as to similar 
     agreements.

  I do not know of another country that has approved this except as a 
treaty. There may be one, there may be more, but every country I know 
about who is already a member of WTO will do it by treaty. But here in 
the United States we are going to do it by fast track, we are going to 
do it as an agreement, we are going to rush through it in 20 hours and 
bang-bang, we are going to have an up-or-down vote and everybody goes 
home for Christmas.
  Obviously, most of these criteria speak for themselves and support my 
feeling, at least in my own mind, that the WTO ought to be treated as a 
treaty.
  Mr. President, I have a copy of an excellent letter from Mr. Laurence 
Tribe, a constitutional expert in the view of a lot of people. 
Sometimes I do not agree with him but I respect him, and in this 
instance I believe he is right on target. The letter was written to 
Senator Byrd and is dated July 19. Let me read a couple of paragraphs. 
He said:

       Dear Senator Byrd, I write to express my concern that in 
     the rush to achieve a major advance in the regime of 
     international trade, some proponents of the Uruguay Round of 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] appear to 
     be ignoring vital constitutional safeguards for the role of 
     the Senate as a deliberative body and for the sovereign 
     authority of the 50 States as semiautonomous entities within 
     the Federal system.

  I am going to have the whole letter printed in the Record in just a 
minute. Later on he said:

       As I wrote in the 1988 edition of my treatise, ``American 
     Constitutional Law,'' that the power to conclude executive 
     agreements coincides perfectly with the treaty power seems 
     untenable, since such a conclusion would emasculate the 
     Senatorial check on executive discretion that the Framers so 
     carefully embodied in the Constitution.

  That is exactly what I am saying. Mr. Tribe, you and I agree 
absolutely. That is on page 229 of his book entitled ``American 
Constitutional Law.'' Then I continue, and I am quoting from Tribe's 
letter:

       To be sure, what is proposed in this instance is not simply 
     an executive agreement but an agreement that is to be 
     implemented by congressional legislation. Thus, my problem is 
     not with any circumvention of article I, under which the 
     Congress is empowered to regulate foreign commerce, but with 
     the circumvention of article II, section 2, clause 2, under 
     which the power to make Treaties is expressly conditioned on 
     the proviso that ``two thirds of the Senators present 
     concur.''

  Later on in his letter Mr. Tribe says.

       * * * it is hard to imagine what kind of agreement must be 
     regarded as a Treaty, and subjected to state ratification as 
     such through the Senate, if the Uruguay round is not to be so 
     regarded. However inconvenient, the structural safeguards of 
     the Constitution must not be ignored.

  Finally, in his letter to Senator Byrd, a copy of which was sent to 
me, he said,

       * * * I thought it important to share with you, and with 
     your colleagues, my very grave misgivings about how the 
     Clinton administration appears to be proceeding with this 
     matter, insofar as the role of the Senate is concerned.
       Sincerely, Laurence H. Tribe.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. A third point, to get back to my dissertation, Mr. 
President, is that the World Trade Organization sets up a formal, 
permanent voting structure very, very similar to the United Nations. 
However, the United States has only 1 of 117 votes in the World Trade 
Organization, and the United States has no veto, which is the main 
difference with the United Nations.
  Many important votes will be cast in the next 10 or 25 years, by the 
World Trade Organization. There are certain to be votes to amend and 
votes to interpret the provisions of the WTO. But this treaty--and I 
use the word ``treaty'' advisedly because I believe that is how it 
should be considered by the Senate of the United States--this treaty 
will affect our sovereignty and therefore should be considered under 
the constitutional treaty provision. The laws of the United States 
could very well otherwise be overruled by the World Trade Organization. 
And I do not think any Senator wants that to occur.
  The World Trade Organization requires that any trade dispute covered 
by the GATT provisions must be brought before a World Trade 
Organization dispute settlement panel, which is equivalent to an 
international court. I have already paid my respect to the concept of 
an international court, as have many other Senators.
  Mr. President, just envision these World Trade Organization panel 
decisions. They will be automatically adopted unless the winner agrees 
to drop the case, and that is highly unlikely to happen. It is a 
stacked deck, do you not see? And we ought not to walk blindly into 
it--20 hours of debate, no amendment, one up-or-down vote.
  If the United States loses a case before a World Trade Organization 
panel, then we either change our law, pay compensation--a payoff--or we 
face retaliation. So the United States will face incredible pressure to 
change our laws which may offend somebody somewhere else in the world--
Third World countries or whatever. It is like having a gun held to the 
head of Uncle Sam: ``Change your law, give us money, or we will 
shoot.'' It seems to me that the sovereignty of the United States is 
unquestionably at risk.
  Some claim that there is no sovereignty problem--you will probably 
hear that later this afternoon--because the United States can then just 
simply ignore a bad decision and not change our law.
  What kind of reasoning is that? Our sovereignty, it seems to me, is 
affected when the courses of action that the United States can take are 
so restricted. I think Newt Gingrich bounced around all over the lot a 
little bit on this question, but at a hearing, Gingrich once said:

       We are transferring substantial power to an international 
     body that can coerce us to change our behavior.

  Of course, Newt Gingrich was right.
  Mr. President, a brief comment about this fast-track business. The 
fast-track law requires trade agreements to be considered, as I have 
said several times, under strict time limitation, no amendments and 20 
hours of debate. And only the members of the Finance Committee or the 
Ways and Means Committee can add amendments to the draft implementing 
bill. When it gets out on this floor, forget it. All Senators are 
equal, but some are more equal than others, particularly in a matter 
like this.
  Mr. President, the administration is seeking a 7-year extension of 
fast-track authority which would apply also to labor and environmental 
matters. I am fully aware that the Senate draft implementing bill does 
not include any fast-track extension, but I am concerned that it may 
somehow be stuck in the bill when the unofficial conference committee 
meets. I hope that my fears are unfounded in that regard because it 
should not be allowed to happen.
  In my opinion, the fast-track law is an abdication of congressional 
responsibility, and I will go to my grave believing that. At the very 
least, we should debate the extension of the fast-track law. It should 
not be slipped into the GATT implementing bill which is, itself, 
subject to the fast-track. So we are hemmed in.
  How can we represent the people of the United States in a fashion of 
this sort? In summation, this World Trade Organization proposal is so 
important that it should be considered as a treaty so that it does not 
sail through like a ship passing in the night.
  I urge the Senate to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to 
retain the constitutional prerogative of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                Harvard University Law School,

                                     Cambridge, MA, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: I write to express my concern that, in 
     the rush to achieve a major advance in the regime of 
     international trade, some proponents of the Uruguay Round of 
     the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) appear to 
     be ignoring vital constitutional safeguards for the role of 
     the Senate as a deliberative body, and for the sovereign 
     authority of the fifty States as semi-autonomous entities 
     within the Federal System.
       As I understand the GATT implementing legislation, which 
     would become federal law once approved as a fast-track 
     executive agreement by simple majorities in the House and 
     Senate, the resulting legal regime would entail a significant 
     shift of sovereignty from state and local governments to the 
     proposed World Trade Organization (WTO), in which the 
     interests of these entities would be represented exclusively 
     by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Having read the 
     December 15, 1993, version of the Final Act Embodying the 
     Results of the Uruguay Round, and having examined the letter 
     of July 6, 1994, sent by some forty-two state attorneys 
     general and the attorney general of Puerto Rico to President 
     Clinton, I do no pretend to have mastered all of the details 
     of how the new trade system would work. However, I share a 
     number of the concerns expressed by the attorneys general 
     and, more importantly, I see no way to avoid the conclusion 
     that the legal regime put in place by the Uruguay Round 
     represents a structural rearrangement of state-federal 
     relations of the sort that requires ratification by two 
     thirds of the Senate as a Treaty.
       As I wrote in the 1988 edition of my treatise, American 
     Constitutional Law, ``[t]hat the power to conclude executive 
     agreements coincides perfectly with the treaty power seems 
     untenable, since such a conclusion would emasculate the 
     Senatorial check on executive discretion that the Framers so 
     carefully embodied in the Constitution.'' (Pg. 229.) To be 
     sure, what is proposed in this instance is not simply an 
     executive agreement but an agreement that is to be 
     implemented by congressional legislation. Thus my problem is 
     not with any circumvention of Article I, under which Congress 
     is empowered to regulate foreign commerce, but with the 
     circumvention of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, under which 
     the power to make Treaties is expressly conditioned on the 
     proviso that ``two thirds of the Senators present concur.''
       Even after the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, 
     making the Senate a popularly elected body rather than body 
     composed of individuals chosen by the State Legislatures, the 
     Senate remains the principal body in which the States qua 
     States are represented in our National Government. Article V 
     continues to provide but one exception to the general 
     proposition that the Constitution may be amended whenever 
     proposed changes are ratified by three fourths of the fifty 
     States: ``no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of 
     its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'' That singular exception 
     bespeaks the enormous structural significance of the Senate 
     as a forum for protecting the rights and interests of the 
     several States and their local subdivisions.
       Thus if there is any category of international agreement or 
     accord that must surely be submitted to the Senate for 
     approval under the unusually rigorous two-thirds rule of the 
     Treaty Clause, that category must include agreements like the 
     Uruguay Round, which represents not merely a traditional 
     trade agreement but a significant restructuring of the power 
     alignment as between the National Government and the States.
       I am, of course, aware that we have, as a Nation, fallen 
     into an almost habitual pattern of regarding trade agreements 
     as proper subjects for enactment through the concurrence of 
     the President and a majority of both Houses of Congress. By 
     and large, that pattern has served us well--and, in most 
     instances, it may be fully consistent with the letter and 
     spirit of the Constitution. But it is hard to imagine what 
     kind of agreement must be regarded as a Treaty, and subjected 
     to state ratification as such through the Senate, if the 
     Uruguay Round is not to be so regarded, However inconvenient, 
     the structural safeguards of the Constitution must not be 
     ignored.
       As you may recall, I was a strong supporter of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and testified in the 
     Senate that the federal courts cannot constitutionally compel 
     the USTR, when submitting the NAFTA for consideration by 
     Congress, to accompany that instrument with an environmental 
     impact statement, even assuming such a procedure to have been 
     mandated by Congress in the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA). On that occasion, while I was most sympathetic with 
     the environmental concerns of those who sought judicial 
     compulsion to obtain an environmental impact statement, I was 
     unwilling to sacrifice basic separation-of-powers principles 
     to achieve environmental aims.
       So too here. For while I am likewise a strong supporter of 
     the free trade principles of the Uruguay Round and would be 
     sad to see those principles receive a setback in the Senate, 
     the issue is not one of policy preference; it is one of 
     fidelity to the Constitution. As such, I thought it important 
     to share with you, and with your colleagues, my very grave 
     misgivings about how the Clinton Administration appears to be 
     proceeding with this matter insofar as the role of the Senate 
     is concerned.
           Sincerely,
                                                Laurence H. Tribe.

  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to the manager, Senator 
Mikulski, that I will not be offering either a crime amendment or an 
amendment on Bosnia. They are on the list. I am not going to offer 
those amendments.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I will wait until the next bill.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would now rise to address the important issues raised 
by the Senator from North Carolina in the amendment which is now 
pending, the sense of the Senate regarding the need to protect the 
constitutional role of the Senate. I think we could all agree on that.
  I, however, will state, not in extensive form, the simple fact that 
the Uruguay Round legislation, which has just been approved by the 
Committee on Finance and which is being approved by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, which will be transmitted to the President and returned 
to us as a statute which we will vote upon under the fast-track, as it 
is called, arrangements, is entirely an exercise in the constitutional 
role of the Senate, is quintessentially such. The Constitution gives 
the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, 
and the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
concerns commerce with foreign nations.
  The present arrangements, Mr. President, go back to 1934 with the 
enactment of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. We have 60 
continuous years of experience under this arrangement in which the 
President negotiates trade agreements and, as has been the case under 
the fast-track provision, the Congress embodies those agreements in 
legislation which we consider and debate and vote on. Indeed, the one 
distinctive feature of the present arrangement is that Congress, 
actually in the form of the two committees with jurisdiction over 
trade--Finance in the Senate, Ways and Means in the House--draft the 
legislation, send it to the President, and he sends it back to us.
  The Senator from North Carolina, my friend and long-time colleague, 
is particularly concerned about the World Trade Organization and 
whether or not that requires approval in the mode of a treaty. And he 
introduces a letter from Laurence H. Tribe, who is the Ralph S. Tyler, 
Jr., professor of constitutional law at the Harvard University Law 
School, in which Professor Tribe indicates in his opinion that it ought 
to be considered such.
  I would state with equal confidence that confining the World Trade 
Organization to a treaty is to exclude the House of Representatives, 
which has equal authority in these matters, concerning trade and 
tariffs. And inasmuch as tariffs are a revenue, it is the 
constitutional prerogative of the House that they should originate in 
the House.
  The Department of Justice was apprised of Professor Tribe's views.
  May I say that it is a pleasing experience to hear the Senator from 
North Carolina citing Laurence Tribe. It is not every day that we have 
that here in the Senate.
  The Department of Justice, the Assistant Attorney General in the 
Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Walter Dellinger, has prepared a 
memorandum for the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, on the 
subject of whether the GATT Uruguay round must be ratified as a treaty. 
They say emphatically no. This is an executive agreement for which we 
will enact a statute. The World Trade Organization simply formalizes 
the informal negotiation setting and dispute resolution arrangements 
that have been in place in the GATT since the failure of the Senate to 
approve the International Trade Organization in 1947, if I am correct.
  The Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 established three economic 
institutions for the post-war period: The International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development, which we know as the World Bank; the 
International Monetary Fund; and the International Trade Organization. 
The latter died in the Finance Committee, and 2 days ago it came to 
life again. That is perhaps not a very accurate metaphor. But in any 
event, what we set out to do 50 years ago at Bretton Woods is now soon 
to be accomplished.
  The memorandum of law from the Assistant Attorney General notes:

       As this office pointed out nearly 40 years ago when first 
     considering the constitutional issues posed by the GATT, it 
     has been a well established principle of our constitutional 
     law that the Congress, as distinguished from the Senate 
     alone, may direct and participate in the making or 
     implementation of certain international agreements!

  That was a memorandum for the Attorney General from J. Lee Rankin, 
then Assistant Attorney General. This was the Eisenhower 
administration. When this issue first came up, they said it is 
perfectly straightforward.
  The measure we will have before us in a few weeks comes to us because 
the Senate directed the President--authorized, if you like--to 
negotiate this trade agreement, not once but twice--under President 
Reagan who first proposed it, then President Clinton who needed an 
extension last July.
  I cannot think there is any question of this matter. We have 60 years 
of practice. We have opinions that go back to the Eisenhower 
administration. We have the Supreme Court in the Curtiss-Wright 
decision in 1936.
  I will not delay the body with two such distinguished persons here, 
the ranking member, former chairman of the Committee on Finance, and 
the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. President, I urge rejection of the amendment and in time will ask 
that it be tabled.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I join my good friend and distinguished 
colleague, Senator Moynihan, chairman of the Finance Committee. And 
Senator Pell, I believe, is going to speak to this issue, also.
  There is no strict constitutional definition of what a treaty is and 
what an agreement is. Over the years, just since 1946, the United 
States has concluded 732 treaties and 12,968 other international 
agreements.
  You could attempt to parcel and divide these and put one on one side 
and one on the other and say this is a treaty and this is an agreement, 
and you would be hard pressed to find any distinguishing lines between 
some of them as to when one is a treaty and when one is an agreement.
  The Israel Free-Trade Agreement, was an executive agreement. The 
Canadian Free-Trade Agreement was an executive agreement. The North 
American Free-Trade Agreement, was an executive agreement. The 
principal difference being that a treaty is submitted only to the 
Senate and takes a two-thirds vote, and an executive agreement has to 
be passed by both the House and the Senate and takes only a majority 
vote.
  So why are things in some cases submitted as treaties and in some 
cases submitted as agreements? It is not whether there is something in 
it that is going to diminish our sovereignty, and if we are going to do 
that, that should be a treaty. It is not whether we are permanently 
binding or not permanently binding ourselves to something.
  As a matter of fact, for those who are worried about the Uruguay 
round agreement and the so-called World Trade Organization, which we 
used to call GATT--perhaps we made a mistake in calling it the World 
Trade Organization. GATT did not seem to excite anybody. The General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was hardly a frightening dragon. The 
World Trade Organization has a certain world body concept to it that 
many have expressed concern with. But it is the same organization.
  But for those who are worried about it, who think we are giving up 
our sovereignty, we can withdraw with 6 months' notice. Six months and 
we are out. It is not as if we have permanently placed our army under 
the command of some U.N. authority. It is not as if we have given--and 
our good friend from North Carolina talks about 117 to 1--the Supreme 
Court of India the power to permanently alter the laws of the United 
States. There is no overriding decision of the World Trade 
Organization--if they voted against us 117 to 1, that cannot change a 
single law in the United States unless Congress changes it. This 
organization does not have the power to change U.S. laws.
  Are we always going to win every argument in the World Trade 
Organization? No. We have lost some in GATT. As a matter of fact, in 
the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, in the United States-Canada Free-
Trade Agreement, there is a binational panel. There is a binational 
panel between Canada and the United States to resolve disputes.
  There is one dispute with which I am very familiar. It involves 
softwood lumber, a big product in my State. We have had an argument 
with Canada as to whether or not they are unfairly subsidizing their 
lumber. It has gone to a binational Canadian-American panel. The panel 
has decided against the United States. But we always maintain our 
sovereignty. We can get out of the Canada-United States Free-Trade 
Agreement anytime we choose. That panel cannot force us to change U.S. 
law. Are we in good conscience bound to observe it? Probably in good 
conscience we are because many times the panel is going to rule in our 
favor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Yes. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would he not agree that it is in our national interest 
to observe it?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. The Senator has asked me a tough question because my 
State of Oregon did not like the outcome. Trade with Canada is in our 
national interest, and I have heard my good friend say many times that 
our trade with the Province of Ontario is bigger than our trade with 
any country, including Japan; just one Province, the Province of 
Ontario in Canada.
  Is my State prospering generally from the agreement with Canada? Yes, 
we are. Are we prospering from the agreement with Mexico? Yes, we are.
  I will give you an example. Freightliner, which make those big trucks 
on the highways, have a large plant in Portland. They are the biggest 
manufacturer of those trucks, bigger than International Harvester. They 
have plants in the Carolinas. Prior to the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement, they used to send their trucks in kit form to Mexico to be 
assembled because of domestic content laws and what not. With the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement, they are going to make the trucks in the 
United States, send them down whole, and sell them through a 
distribution network. They have just recently announced a major 
expansion in the Portland plant. Is it good? Yes. Is it working out 
well? Yes.
  I have a company in Medford, OR, called Sabroso that makes fruit 
purees. They are the principal maker of the basic baby foods for Heinz, 
Gerber, and Beechnut. They take peaches and apples, and they make the 
puree. They also make a fruit kind of soda pop.
  They are not even on the main railroad. Medford is a good size town. 
If you want to go overseas, you have to go to San Francisco or Portland 
and get on another plane. About 60 percent of their sales are foreign 
sales. In their factories they are making labels in Portuguese, 
Italian, and Spanish. You think of this company that makes baby food 
and you think of the Latin American market. They regard this as a 
bonanza out of Medford, OR.
  So is trade good for the United States? Yes. Could this have been 
submitted as a treaty? Probably; yes. It has been submitted as an 
agreement. It is hard to distinguish one from the other.
  The principal reason trade agreements have traditionally been 
submitted as agreements is that they heavily involve implementing 
legislation, usually involve tariffs, and from the standpoint of 
comity, involve the House of Representatives. And if the House were not 
involved in it to start, it could play havoc if the Senate forced down 
their throats a major trade agreement and we said to the House of 
Representatives, no-no, we are only going to do it in the Senate. It 
does not make sense.
  So out of necessity and comity, frankly, we need the House on this. 
This is not a unicameral legislator. They are submitted as agreements 
and the House must approve it.
  So I hope that we will table the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of 
the Senator from North Carolina. Does he have a theoretical point that 
this could have been either? Yes. Should this agreement be defeated 
because we choose to consider it as we have considered every other 
trade agreement? No.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment raises several issues of 
concern to the Foreign Relations Committee. First, it suggests there is 
a potential threat to U.S. Sovereignty posed by the World Trade 
Organization. The committee held an extensive hearing on this subject, 
and I am fully satisfied that the WTO does not present any threat to 
U.S. sovereignty.
  The WTO does not affect Congress's sole right to change U.S. law nor 
does it create a new powerful international organization. The WTO 
reaffirms current GATT practice of making decisions by consensus. In 
the rare instances that the WTO would vote, the voting procedures in 
the WTO would strengthen the hand of the United States and weaken the 
power of smaller countries by requiring a higher majority for decisions 
than is currently required in the GATT. In addition, under the rules of 
the WTO, any provision or amendment affecting substantive U.S. rights 
and obligations expressly requires U.S. approval.
  Second, the amendment suggests that existing procedures under which 
trade agreements are treated as executive agreements rather than as 
treaties be changed. It is my view that Congress has been well served 
by the current practice of considering trade agreements as executive 
agreements and placing them in the primary jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee. In addition, in terms of the impact of U.S. law, there is no 
difference between an executive agreement authorized under fast track 
procedures and a treaty.
  Finally, the amendment recommends terminating the current fast-track 
procedures that have been followed for trade agreements for decades. 
These fast-track procedures have served the United States well by 
facilitating the negotiation of trade agreements and giving the United 
States credibility that agreements made at the negotiating table will 
not be reopened. If the United States did not have the fast-track 
authority, I cannot imagine we would have the Uruguay round agreement, 
which took 8 years to complete, today.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Helms amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations for his thoughtful, accurate 
statement. The committee did indeed hold hearings on this matter.
  Before moving to table, I want to point out that--inadvertently, I am 
sure--the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina suggests that 
under the GATT agreement, the United States will pay 20 percent of the 
budget of the World Trade Organization. We will pay 15 percent. That 
represents our share of world trade. The amount of moneys involved are 
$8 million, $9 million. Also, my friend from North Carolina mentioned 
the concerns of the attorneys general of the United States--of the 
various States--about the matter, and they were properly concerned. 
They are vigilant with respect to States' rights. They have met with 
our Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, and they have agreed with 
changes we made in the implementing legislation, which is how the 
process works. It is a statute to fully satisfy their concerns.
  I ask unanimous consent that at this point a letter from Michael 
Carpenter, attorney general of Maine, chairman of the National 
Association of Attorneys General, and some of his colleagues, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         State of Maine, Department of the Attorney General,
                                       Augusta, ME, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Michael Kantor,
     U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Kantor: As the Attorneys General of our 
     respective states and as the leadership of the National 
     Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) workgroup on trade 
     issues, we write to express our satisfaction with the 
     proposed amendments to the GATT implementing legislation and 
     statement of administrative action that our respective staffs 
     have developed over the last ten days. The NAAG workgroup on 
     trade issues has convened nearly daily since our July 15 
     meeting in Washington with your General Counsel, Ira Shapiro, 
     to review the provisions which have been negotiated by our 
     staffs.
       The document which has been developed not only meets 
     essential needs of the states but has also had the important 
     byproduct of fostering the type of productive communication 
     and interaction between your office and the states that gives 
     us confidence that not only the letter, but the spirit, of 
     this agreement will be adhered to.
       The specific benefits of our agreement for sates 
     importantly include:
       the right of states to specific notice, information and 
     participation in key proceedings affecting their state laws;
       substantial protections for the states that level the 
     playing field between state and federal government where the 
     federal government seeks to overturn state law in U.S. 
     District Court, including a bar on retroactive relief; and
       the elimination of the private right of action so as to bar 
     either the private sector or foreign governments from 
     preempting state or local laws.
       We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the fine work 
     that U.S. Senator Kent Conrad has done in championing these 
     issues. His contribution to the process has been 
     immeasurable.
       The major points of our agreement should not belie the 
     importance of the dozens of specific provisions which give 
     clear and effective meaning to these federal obligations. In 
     summary, in a separate communication, we are strongly 
     recommending to our colleagues, the Attorneys General of the 
     other states who joined us in initiating this dialogue, that 
     this comprehensive agreement be supported as one that 
     effectively preserves for the states a meaningful role and 
     significant opportunity to defend and protect state law.
           Sincerely,
     Michael E. Carpenter,
       Attorney General of Maine, Chair, NAAG Trade Workgroup,
     Charles W. Burson,
       Attornery General of Tennessee, NAAG President,
     Heidi Heitkamp,
       Attorney General of North Dakota, Vice Chair, NAAG Trade 
     Workgroup.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
memorandum of law from the assistant attorney general concerning 
Professor Tribe's letter be printed in the Record as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Justice,


                                      Office of Legal Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
     Re whether the GATT Uruguay round must be ratified as a 
         treaty.

     Memorandum to Ambassador Michael Kantor, U.S. Trade 
         Representative.
     From: Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
         Legal Counsel.

       This is to provide you with the views of the Office of 
     Legal Counsel on the question whether the Uruguay Round of 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) requires 
     approval as a treaty by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. In 
     our opinion, the Uruguay Round may constitutionally be 
     adopted in the manner in which trade agreements of this kind 
     are ordinarily approved--that is, by passage of implementing 
     legislation by simple majorities of both Houses of Congress, 
     together with signing by the President.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In a recent letter to Senator Robert Byrd, Professor 
     Laurence H. Tribe took the position that ``if there is any 
     category of international agreement or accord that must 
     surely be submitted to the Senate for approval under the 
     unusually rigorous two-thirds rule of the Treaty Clause [U.S. 
     Const., Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2], that category must include 
     agreements like the Uruguay Round, which represents not 
     merely a traditional trade agreement but a significant 
     restructuring of the power alignment as between the National 
     Government and the States.'' See ``Leading Scholar Says 
     Uruguay Round Must Be Ratified As Treaty,'' Inside U.S. Trade 
     at 1-2 (July 22, 1994) (Tribe Letter). Professor Tribe 
     contends that the legal regime that would ensue from the 
     enactment of the GATT implementing legislation ``would entail 
     a significant shift of sovereignty from state and local 
     governments to the proposed World Trade Organization 
     (WTO), in which the interests of these entities would be 
     represented exclusively by the U.S. Trade 
     Representative.'' Id. at 1. Professor tribe concludes that 
     ``the legal regime put in place by the Uruguay Round 
     represents a structural rearrangement of state-federal 
     relations of the sort that requires ratification by two 
     thirds of the Senate as a Treaty.'' Id.
       We disagree. As this Office pointed out nearly forty years 
     ago when first considering the constitutional issues posed by 
     the GATT, ``it has been a well established principle of our 
     constitutional law that the Congress, as distinguished from 
     the Senate alone, may direct and participate in the making or 
     implementation of certain international agreements.'' 
     Memorandum for the Attorney General J. Lee Rankin, Assistant 
     Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, re: Constitutional 
     Aspects of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 24 
     (November 19, 1954) (Rankin Memo). In particular, Congress 
     has frequently enacted major international trade agreements 
     that apply to the States, including agreements that raise the 
     possibility that State law might be challenged as 
     inconsistent with our international obligations.\2\ ``Every 
     recent trade agreement entered into by the U.S. has imposed 
     obligations on the states. This includes the Tokyo Round 
     (1979), the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (1988) (CFTA) 
     and the North American Free Trade Agreement (1993) (NAFTA) . 
     . . [U]nder NAFTA, the states assumed the obligations of the 
     trade agreement, including the possibility that a state law 
     could be challenged, as inconsistent with U.S. obligations, 
     in dispute settlement proceeding[s] brought by Canada or 
     Mexico.'' Memorandum to Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney 
     General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Ira Shapiro, General 
     Counsel, United States Trade Representative, at 1 (July 24, 
     1994) (Shapiro Memo).\3\ See also The Constitution of the 
     United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. 
     Doc. No. 16, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 523 (1987) (``the most 
     copious source of executive agreements has been legislation 
     which provided authorization for the entering into of 
     reciprocal trade agreements with other nations''); 
     Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the 
     United States Sec. 303(2) (1987) (``the President, with the 
     authorization or approval of Congress, may make any 
     international agreement dealing with any matter that falls 
     within the powers of Congress and of the President under the 
     Constitution'').
       The Constitution itself recognizes the possibility of 
     international agreements other than ``treaties'' in the sense 
     of Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2. In limiting the powers of the 
     states, it provides that ``[n]o State shall enter into any 
     Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation,'' but continues that 
     ``[n]o State shall, without the consent of Congress . . . 
     enter into any Agreement or Compact . . . with a foreign 
     Power. . . .'' U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, 3. Thus, 
     while a state may not enter into a ``Treaty'' with a foreign 
     power, it may (with Congress's approval) enter into an 
     ``Agreement or Compact'' with one. ``Unless, therefore, 
     the position is taken that the Federal Government does not 
     have the power to use techniques of agreement made 
     available to the states . . . the conclusion is 
     inescapable that the Federal Government was intended to 
     have the power to make `Agreements' or `Compacts.''' 
     Rankin Memo at 26. Accordingly, from the beginning of the 
     Republic to the present, Presidents and Congresses have 
     elected enter into international agreements in preference 
     to formal treaties.\4\ The State Department advises us 
     that from January 1, 1946, to December 31, 1993, the 
     United States concluded 732 ``treaties'' (in the sense of 
     Article 2, Sec. 2, cl. 2) and 12,968 other international 
     agreements, the overwhelming majority of which were based 
     at least in part on Congressional legislation, principally 
     legislation delegating to the President the authority to 
     conclude international agreements.\5\
       Further, the Supreme Court has recognized ``the power to 
     make such international agreements as do not constitute 
     treaties in the constitutional sense. United States v. 
     Curtiss-Wright Corp.,  299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936); see also 
     Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 20, 30 n.6 (1982) ``We have 
     recognized . . . that the President may enter into certain 
     binding agreements with foreign nations without complying 
     with the formalities required by the Treaty Clause''); Dames 
     & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 679 (1981) (although 
     settlements of U.S. nationals' claims against foreign 
     countries ``have sometimes been made by treaty, there has 
     also been a longstanding practice of settling such claims by 
     executive agreement without the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.'').\6\ In Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), the 
     Court sustained legislation that authorized the President 
     to impose tariffs in order to secure reciprocal trade with 
     other countries. The Court summarily rejected the claim 
     that the legislation represented an unconstitutional 
     delegation to the President treaty-making powers, id. at 
     694; see also Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 
     394, 410-11 (1928). The Court has also stated, in holding 
     that a later Act of Congress may override a treaty, that 
     the participation of the House of Representatives in 
     enacting such legislation ``does not render it less 
     entitled to respect in the matter of its repeal or 
     modification than a treaty . . . If there be any 
     difference in this regard, it would seem to be in favor of 
     an act in which all three of the bodies [i.e., the 
     President, the Senate and House] participate.'' Head Money 
     Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 599 (1884) (emphasis added). See also 
     Edwards v. Carter, 580 F.2d 1055, 1064 (D.C. Cir.), cert. 
     denied, 436 U.S. 907 (1978) (treaties and legislation are 
     alternative, concurrent means provided in the Constitution 
     for disposing of territory belonging to the United 
     States).\7\
       Accordingly, ``it is now widely accepted that the 
     Congressional-Executive agreement is a complete alternative 
     to a treaty: the President can seek approval of any agreement 
     by joint resolution of both houses of Congress instead of 
     two-thirds of the Senate only. Like a treaty, such an 
     agreement is the law of the land, superseding inconsistent 
     state laws as well as inconsistent provisions in earlier 
     treaties, in other international agreements or acts of 
     congress . . . [T]he constitutionality of the Congressional-
     Executive agreement is established, [and] it is used 
     regularly at least for trade and postal agreements.''\8\
       We do not understand Professor Tribe to be arguing that 
     trade agreements must in all cases be approved by two-thirds 
     of the Senate. Rather, he appears to be claiming that the 
     GATT Uruguay Round has some specific feature that requires 
     that it--unlike other trade agreements--be ratified in the 
     manner prescribed by the Treaty Clause. See Tribe Letter at 2 
     (``the Uruguay Round . . . represents not merely a 
     traditional trade agreement but a significant restructuring 
     of the power alignment as between the National Government and 
     the States''). We are hard pressed, however, to identify with 
     any certainty what is assertedly distinguishing feature of 
     the GATT Uruguay Round is, or why it should entail the 
     constitutional consequences that Professor Tribe seeks to 
     draw from it.\9\
       Conceivably, Professor Tribe might mean only that the GATT 
     Uruguay Round will change the relative balance of control 
     over various trade-related matters between federal and state 
     governments. But such a shift would in itself raise no 
     serious constitutional issues: it has long been settled that 
     if federal legislation is within the substantive scope of a 
     delegated relations.\10\ To deny that the GATT Uruguay Round 
     falls within the substantive scope of Congress's combined 
     powers under the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clause, 
     U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3, would be a radical 
     attack upon the modern understanding of federal power: it 
     would be an attempt to carve out of the scope of the 
     Commerce Clause matters that are part of or closely 
     related to that Clause's core meaning, which is that 
     Congress can control the conditions of all trade and 
     commerce that affect more states than one. We doubt that 
     Professor Tribe is taking so extreme a stance.
       While Professor Tribe says little about the specific nature 
     of ``restructuring of the power alignment as between the 
     National Government and the States'' that, in his view, 
     triggers the application of the Treaty Clause, he does claim 
     that enactment of the GATT implementing legislation ``would 
     entail a significant shift of sovereignty from state and 
     local governments to the proposed World Trade Organization 
     (WTO), in which the interests of these entities would be 
     represented exclusively by'' USTR. Tribe Letter at 1. We 
     assume, therefore, that it is this particular feature of the 
     GATT Uruguay Round that, in Professor Tribe's opinion, 
     implicates the requirement for Senate approval under the 
     Treaty Clause. Professor Tribe thus appears to be arguing 
     that because the GATT Uruguay Round would diminish state 
     sovereignty while augmenting the authority of the WTO--a 
     foreign forum in which the states would be unable to 
     represent themselves--that agreement can only be adopted in 
     accordance with a procedure that provides maximum protection 
     to the states. That procedure is found in the treaty 
     ratification process, in which the states, by virtue of their 
     equal representation in the Senate, are peculiarly well 
     positioned to defend their own interests.
       We do not dispute that ``the Constitution's federal 
     structure imposes limitations on the Commerce Clause.'' 
     Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 547 
     (1985). We also agree that state sovereignty within the 
     federal system is ``protected by procedural safeguards 
     inherent in the structure of the federal system.'' Id. at 
     552; see also American Constitutional Law at 315, 480. 
     Finally, we agree that among the procedural devices in the 
     Constitution for protecting the rights and interests of the 
     states, the equal representation of the states in the Senate 
     is particularly important. See Garcia, 469 U.S. at 551-52; 
     Tribe Letter at 1 (Senate has ``enormous structural 
     significance . . . as a forum for protecting the rights and 
     interests of the several States and their local 
     subdivisions'').
       We do not understand, however, why the asserted transfer of 
     state authority to the WTO (even were this the case) should 
     require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, rather than 
     a majority of both Houses of Congress.\11\ As Professor Tribe 
     himself has pointed out, Garcia ``strongly . . . reaffirm[ed] 
     a broad view of federal power.'' American Constitutional 
     Law at 394. Congress's powers vis-a-vis the States are no 
     less ``broad'' under the Foreign Commerce Clause than they 
     are under the Interstate Commerce Clause.\12\ If the 
     Constitution permits Congress, when acting under the 
     Interstate Commerce Clause, to affect the scope of state 
     authority by majority votes of both Houses (together, of 
     course, with Presidential approval), we see no reason why 
     the states should be entitled to a different and more 
     protective procedure when Congress affects them by acting 
     under the Foreign Commerce Clause.\13\ In both contexts, 
     the states may rely on their influence on the legislative 
     process. See Garcia, 469 U.S. at 556 (``[t]he political 
     process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States 
     will not be promulgated''); see also American 
     Constitutional Law at 315-16.
       Furthermore, we understand that the federal-state 
     relationship under the proposed WTO agreement is not 
     relevantly different from what it was under previous trade 
     agreements. The scope and obligations of the WTO agreement 
     are largely equivalent to those of the NAFTA. The dispute 
     settlement procedures in the two agreements are also quite 
     similar, and are quite close to those included in the CFTA. 
     Moreover, ``the relevant statutory provision[s] in the 
     [Uruguay Round implementing legislation] are virtually 
     identical to those of the NAFTA and CFTA, and largely the 
     same as those of the 1979 Act implementing the Tokyo Round.'' 
     Shapiro Memo at 2.\14\ Accordingly, we find no reason here 
     that requires Congress to proceed in this case by the treaty 
     process, rather than by bicameral consideration, as in the 
     case of the earlier trade agreements.
       An examination of the dispute resolution procedures in the 
     GATT Uruguay Round Agreement shows that those provisions do 
     not represent ``a significant shift of sovereignty from state 
     and local governments'' to the WTO. Tribe Letter at 1. Annex 
     2 of Uruguay Round Agreement sets forth rules and procedures 
     to be followed in disputes over covered agreements. See Final 
     Act Embodying The Results Of The Uruguay Round Of 
     Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Marrakesh, 15 April 1994, 
     Annex 2. A Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is established to 
     administer the rules and procedures. In certain 
     circumstances, disputes are referred to expert panels, 
     which report their findings and conclusions of law to the 
     DSB. Appeals from panel cases are available. ``Where a 
     panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is 
     inconsistent with a covered agreement, it shall recommend 
     that the Member concerned bring the measure into 
     conformity with that agreement.'' Annex 2, art. 19(1) 
     (emphasis added). Should a Member fail to bring the 
     measure into compliance, it may be required to negotiate 
     compensation for the complaining party or parties. Art. 
     22(2). If no satisfactory compensation is agreed upon, a 
     complaining party may be authorized to suspend application 
     of concessions or other obligations under the covered 
     agreement. Art. 22(2), (6). Suspension of concessions or 
     other obligations is only to be applied until compliance 
     is secured, or the Member complained against ``provides a 
     solution to the nullification or impairment of benefits,'' 
     or ``a mutually satisfactory solution is reached.'' Art. 
     22(8). Of particular relevance to the states, ``[t]he 
     dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements 
     may be invoked in respect of measures affecting their 
     observance taken by regional or local governments or 
     authorities within the territory of a Member. When the DSB 
     has ruled that a provision of a covered agreement has not 
     been observed, the responsible Member shall take such 
     reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure 
     its observance. The provisions of the covered agreements 
     and this Understanding relating to compensation and 
     suspension of concessions or other obligations apply in 
     cases where it has not been possible to secure such 
     observance.'' Art. 22(9).
       These provisions make it clear that a decision by a DSB 
     panel or Appellate Body is non self-implementing, and in 
     particular that a panel decision does not operate directly 
     upon the states to invalidate or supersede local law. Rather, 
     the question whether to conform state law to a recommendation 
     included in a panel report is purely a matter to be decided 
     domestically. In the first instance, the state legislature 
     itself might decide to apply the panel recommendation to its 
     own law. Alternatively, Congress might achieve that result by 
     a specific act of preemption, or the federal government might 
     bring suit under the implementing legislation. This is not an 
     enlargement of federal power at the expense of the states, 
     since Congress might independently take these actions under 
     the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses, U.S. Const., Art. II, 
     Sec. 8, cl. 3, Art. VI, Sec. 2, even in the absence of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreement. Further, rather than choosing to 
     displace state law, the federal government might agree to pay 
     compensation to the complaining party, or devise some other 
     mutually satisfactory solution that did not affect state law. 
     As another alternative (albeit not the preferred one), the 
     federal government might submit to retaliatory measures by 
     the complaining party, in the form of the suspension of 
     concessions or other trade benefits. The affected states may 
     of course seek to use their influence on the legislative 
     process to secure the outcome most satisfactory to them--
     which may consist in the federal payment of compensation or 
     in the loss of trade rights, rather than the alteration of 
     state law.
       Professor Tribe might be taken to be arguing that the GATT 
     Uruguay Round gives Congress legislative authority to 
     displace state laws that Congress would not have had in the 
     absence of that executive agreement. Given the breadth of 
     Congress's authority under the Interstate and Foreign 
     Commerce Clause, however, we can see nothing in this 
     agreement that would add any lawmaking power to those 
     Congress already possesses, since the matters covered by the 
     agreement appear to fall within the regulation of commerce. 
     While it may be true that the agreement provides Congress 
     with reasons to enact legislation that it had not previously 
     had (e.g., the desire to maintain a particular regime for 
     international trade), that is not to say that Congress's 
     powers to legislate under the Commerce Clause have been 
     augmented.
       Thus, the Uruguay Round agreement's dispute resolution 
     procedures do not, in our judgment, represent a loss of state 
     sovereignty either to the federal government or to an 
     international trade organization. Even assuming that the 
     states may not represent themselves before a DSB panel or 
     Appellate Body, it is Congress, not the DSB, whose decision 
     with regard to state law is dispositive Accord Shipiro Memo 
     at 2. Nothing in these arrrangements requires Congress to 
     deal with the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement as a ``treaty'' 
     rather than as a trade agreement like NAFTA or CFTA.


                               footnotes

     \1\It is important to note that the implementing legislation 
     for the GATT Uruguay Round provides that Congress 
     specifically ``approves'' the trade agreement negotiated by 
     the President. This was also the case for earlier trade 
     agreements, including the Tokyo Round, the U.S.-Canada Free 
     Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement, 
     and the North American Free Trade Agreement. See, e.g., North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 
     103-182, Sec. 101(a), 107 Stat. 2057, 2061; United States-
     Canada Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. 
     L. No. 100-449, Sec. 101(a)(1), 102 Stat. 1851, 1852, 
     reprinted as note to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2112; see generally 19 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2903(a).
     \2\Professor Tribe acknowledges that ``we have, as a Nation, 
     fallen into an almost habitual pattern of regarding trade 
     agreements as proper subjects for enactment through the 
     concurrence of the President and a majority of both Houses of 
     Congress.'' Tribe Letter at 2.
     \3\The U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement may also be 
     mentioned here.
     \4\See Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 173 
     (1975).
     \5\In our judgment, the longstanding practice of regarding 
     trade agreements as subject to the ordinary procedures of 
     bicameral passage and presentment to the President offers 
     significant support for the conclusion that it is sufficient 
     here. Even prior to the Trade Act of 1974, ``approval of 
     trade agreements had taken one of three forms: as a treaty 
     made with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the 
     Senators, as a congressional-executive agreement authorized 
     in advance by omnibus legislation, or as a congressional-
     executive agreement authorized after negotiation by a joint 
     resolution or by implementing legislation approved by a 
     majority of both houses . . . [T]he drafters of the 1974 Act 
     created a new legislative mechanism. Known commonly as the 
     `fast-track' procedure, this device structured the 
     President's discretion to negotiate trade agreements in 
     exchange for a congressional commitment to approve or 
     disapprove those agreements quickly and without amendment.'' 
     Harold Koh, Congressional Controls on Presidential Trade 
     Policymaking After ``I.N.S. v. Chadha'', 18 N.Y.U.J. Int'l L. 
     1191, 1201-02 (1986). Like other major post-1974 trade 
     agreements, the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement is proceeding on 
     the ``fast-track'' procedure, which of course involves 
     bicameral passage.
     \6\The Court in Rossi and Dames & Moore was apparently 
     referring, in the statements cited above, to international 
     agreements that the President entered into on the basis of 
     his inherent powers alone. Such ``sole'' executive agreements 
     may function much as treaties do, and can even preempt 
     inconsistent state law. See United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 
     203 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937).
     As Professor Tribe notes, the GATT Uruguay Round proposal 
     involves an executive agreement that was negotiated pursuant 
     to Congress's authorization and that would be implemented by 
     legislation enacted by both Houses. See   Tribe Letter at 1 
     (``what is proposed in this instance is not simply an 
     executive agreement but an agreement that is to be 
     implemented by congressional legislation''). Such 
     international agreements would, if anything, be even more 
     likely to prevail over inconsistent state law than ``sole'' 
     agreements. See Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board of 
     California, No. 92-1384, slip op. at 31-32 (June 20, 1994) 
     (declining to address whether ``the President may displace 
     state law pursuant to legally binding executive agreements 
     with foreign nations made `in the absense of either a 
     congressional grant or denial of authority, [where] he can 
     rest only upon his own independent powers''' (quoting 
     Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. 579, 637 (1952) 
     (Jackson, J., concurring))).
     \7\Presidents and members of Congress have also maintained 
     that the same objects can be achieved by legislation as by 
     treaty. ``When the Senate failed to ratify a treaty for the 
     annexation of Texas, President John Tyler advisor the House 
     of Representatives: `The power of Congress is, however, fully 
     competent in some other form of proceeding to accomplish 
     everything that a formal ratification of the treaty could 
     have accomplished. . .'''. Louis Henkin, Constitutional 
     Conflicts between Congress and the President 227-28 (1991). 
     President Tyler's view accorded with that of Senator John C. 
     Calhoun, who asserted that the annexation of Texas could be 
     accomplished by legislation. ``It is now admitted that what 
     was sought to be effected by the Treaty submitted to the 
     Senate, may be secured by a join resolution of the two houses 
     of Congress incorporating its provisions. This mode of 
     effecting it will have the advantage of requiring only a 
     majority of the two houses, instead of two-thirds of the 
     Senate.'' Quoted in Myres S. McDougal and Asher Lans, 
     Treaties and Congressional-Executive or Presidential 
     Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy; 
     I, 54 Yale L. J. 181, 181 (1945). See also Pub. Papers of 
     Harry S. Truman 323 (1947).
     \8\Foreign Affairs and the Constitution at 175-76; see also 
     John H. Jackson, The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     in United States Domestic Law, 66 Mich. L. Rev. 250, 253 
     (1967) (``[i]t is generally settled that under our 
     Constitution international `treaty' obligations can be 
     established . . . [by] an executive agreement of the 
     President, acting under authority delegated by an act of 
     Congress''); Treaties and Congressional-Executive or 
     Presidential Agreements, 54 Yale L. J. at 239 (``practice 
     under the Constitution . . . has confirmed beyond doubt . . . 
     that the treaty-making power is no barrier to Congressional 
     authorization or sanction of agreements''); Congressional 
     Controls on Presidential Trade Policymaking After ``I.N.S. v. 
     Chadha'', 18 N.Y.U.J. Int'I L. at 1195 n. 13 (``[t]reaties 
     and congressional-executive agreements are now generally 
     treated as interchangeable instruments of U.S. foreign 
     policy'').
     We need not consider here whether treaties and legislation 
     are interchangable instruments in all contexts. The State 
     Department informs us that in 1949, the Legal Adviser opined 
     that ``[t]he correct test to be applied in determining 
     whether what are called `executive agreements' are an 
     acceptable constitutional alternative to treaties, is whether 
     constitutional authority other than the treaty making power 
     exists for the President to negotiate and conclude the 
     agreement and for Congress to enact any legislation which may 
     be necessary fully to carry out the agreement.'' In the case 
     of trade agreements such as the GATT Uruguay Round, such 
     authority plainly exists: in the President, by reason of his 
     authority to conduct the United State's international 
     negotiations, see, e.g., Dep't of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 
     529 (1988) (Supreme Court has ``recognized `the generally 
     accepted view that foreign policy was the province and 
     responsibility of the Executive.''') (quoting Haig v. Agee, 
     453 U.S. 280, 293-94 (1981)); Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. 
     v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 705-06 n. 18 (1976) (``the 
     conduct of [foreign policy] is committed primarily to the 
     Executive Branch''), and in Congress, by reason (among 
     others) of its power to regulate foreign commerce, see, e.g., 
     California Bankers Ass'n v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 59 (1974).
     \9\We note that the leadership of the National Association of 
     Attorneys General (NAAG) workgroup on trade issues; which 
     represents the state Attorneys General on this matter, has 
     written to the U.S. Trade Representative to say that the 
     implementing legislation and statement of administrative 
     action that will be submitted to Congress ``meet essential 
     needs of the states.'' Letter to Honorable Michael Kantor, 
     U.S. Trade Representative, from Michael E. Carpenter, 
     Attorney General of Maine, Chair, NAAG Trade Workgroup (July 
     27, 1994).
     \10\See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150-54 
     (1971); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 118-29 (1942), 
     Darby v. United States, 312 U.S. 100, 114-15 (1941), Steward 
     Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 587-90 (1937). Professor 
     Tribe, of course, recognizes this fact: ``So long as Congress 
     act within an area delegated to it, the preemption of 
     conflicting state or local action--and the validation of 
     congressionally authorized state of local action--flow 
     directly from the substantive source of power of the 
     congressional action coupled with the supremacy clause of 
     article VI; such cases may pose complex questions of 
     statutory construction but raise no controversial issues of 
     power.'' Laurance Tribe, American Constitutional Law 479 (2d 
     ed. 1988) (emphasis added).
     \11\We are aware of no evidence in the Framers' or Ratifiers' 
     debates or in The Federalist that the requirement of two-
     thirds Senate approval for treaties was bottomed on the 
     desire to protect the sovereignty of the states. ``President 
     Washington stated in [1796] that it was `well known' that 
     powers such as the treaty power were granted to the Senate on 
     the insistence of the smaller States, which claimed that 
     their sovereignty and political safety depended on equal 
     participation in those powers.'' The United States Senate 
     (1787-1801), S. Doc. 19, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1985). But 
     Washington was apparently referring to the small states' fear 
     that the larger states might combine together to obtain 
     treaties for their own commercial advantage, see id. 
     (reviewing original materials). Thus, requiring treaties to 
     be approved by a Senate supermajority seems to have been a 
     device for protecting the smaller and less populous states 
     from trade arrangements that favored the larger states, 
     rather than a means of guarding state sovereignty from 
     usurpation by the national government.
     \12\``In `the unique context of foreign commerce,' a State's 
     power is further constrained because of `the special need for 
     federal uniformity.'''. Barclays Bank, slip op. at 11 
     (quoting Wardair Canada, Inc. v. Florida Dep't. of Revenue, 
     477 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)); cf. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447, U.S. 
     429, 437-38 n.9 (1980) (``Commerce Clause scrutiny may well 
     be more rigorous when a restraint on foreign commerce is 
     alleged'').
     \13\Indeed, if this were so, then all trade agreements 
     affecting state sovereignty would have to be submitted to the 
     Senate as treaties--a conclusion we have considered and 
     rejected above.
     \14\Indeed, if anything, the implementing legislation for the 
     GATT Uruguay Round may well build in greater protections for 
     the states than earlier trade legislation. See Shapiro Memo 
     at 3-4.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I will soon move to table the amendment, but I do not 
want to interfere with the time of the distinguished former President 
pro tempore.
  Mr. THURMOND. I would like to speak on this matter.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Then I will withhold my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pyror). The Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Thurmond] is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President; I rise today in support of the amendment 
by my friend from North Carolina. Recently, I offered an amendment to 
the foreign operations appropriations bill regarding a similar subject. 
As I stated then, I have serious concerns over the World Trade 
Organization, known as the WTO and the effect that it will have on the 
sovereignty of our Nation.
  The WTO will be the arbitrator of trade disputes between signatory 
countries. While the WTO will not have the authority to change our 
laws, it will be able to pressure the United States enough to make us 
change our laws. The decisions handed down by the WTO will be voted on 
by the member countries. Each country gets one vote and, except in some 
cases, a majority vote rules. While the WTO has been described as a 
United Nations of trade, the U.S. will not have veto power over WTO 
decisions. All decisions are final.
  The U.S. will have four choices of action if the WTO rules against 
our country. We can either: First, leave the WTO, Second, pay tariff 
penalties to other countries, Third, not enforce our domestic laws, or 
Fourth, change our laws to comply with the WTO ruling. Most of the 
Federal, State, and local laws that would be contested have been 
enacted to protect the rights, safety, and health of our workers and 
the environment of our country.
  One argument used to justify the WTO is that other countries would 
not impose harsh penalties against the U.S. since we have such a 
lucrative market-place. However, I do not think any of us can really be 
sure how the developing nations of the world, which account for 83 
percent of the WTO membership, will vote when a situation arises.
  I want to repeat that--how the developing nations of the world, which 
account for 83 percent of the WTO membership, will vote with when a 
situation arises.
  Mr. President, those of us who were serving the Senate during some of 
the previous GATT rounds have heard many of the same arguments that the 
Clinton Administration is making with regard to this agreement. In 
fact, the claims regarding the Uruguay round are strikingly familiar to 
those made by the Carter Administration at the close of the Tokyo round 
talks in the late 1970's. At that time, we were told that bold new 
steps, such as those incorporated into the Tokyo round, were needed to 
eliminate our trade deficit and to make America more competitive in the 
global marketplace. Yet, Mr. President, the exact opposite happened. I 
repeat. The exact opposite happened. After implementation of the Tokyo 
round, the United States trade deficit grew from $14 billion in 1979 to 
over $115 billion in 1993. Further, we saw a major decline in the 
steel, textile, apparel, and electronics industries. During this same 
time, these industries were struggling to survive due in part to the 
closed markets of other countries.
  Mr. President, I think this amendment is a good amendment, and I hope 
my colleagues will see fit to support it.
  Now, this amendment provides under the findings after paragraph 3 
that in the World Trade Organization the United States will have only 1 
out of 117 votes. I want the Senate to hear that. It will have only 1 
out of 117 votes and will lose the veto power it had in the GATT 
organization that the World Trade Organization replaces.
  Mr. President, it also provides in paragraph 4 under the GATT treaty, 
the United States will pay 20 percent--I repeat, 20 percent, of the 
burden of the World Trade Organization. We will have less than 1 
percent of the voting power. We will pay 20 percent of the burden and 
have 1 percent of the voting power.
  The World Trade Organization has a potential of overriding U.S. law. 
Do we want that to be the case? Do we want the World Trade Organization 
to override domestic law? Mr. President, that is what it will do. Why 
should we relinquish that power to any World Trade Organization, or any 
other organization to override our laws?
  Now, under the Constitution we have a right to make treaties. Why not 
let the President submit this as a treaty and let the Senate consider 
it? We think that is the right way to do it.
  I also wish to remind the Senate that under the fast-track rules, 
Senators are prohibited from amending the agreement and debate is 
limited to 20 hours on the floor. We will not have the opportunity to 
make an amendment under the fast-track. You vote for it or you vote 
against it.
  And we think that is a mistake to pass this under the fast-track 
rule. We think it is a great mistake and, therefore, we feel that this 
WTO organization which has 117 members can pass a law that will 
override the laws of the United States and we do not even have a veto. 
I repeat, and Senators better wake up here and see what they are doing. 
We pass a law that will override the laws of this country and do not 
even give us a veto. Are we not foolish to do such a thing? I repeat. 
This is a dangerous situation, and I would hope that the amendment of 
the Senator from North Carolina will be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while we are waiting for one more 
Senator to come and speak on the Helms amendment, as the manager of the 
VA-HUD appropriations, I wish to announce to my colleagues that knowing 
of no other amendments it would be my hope to move to third reading 
after the disposition of the Helms amendment. I will have a committee 
amendment, en bloc.
  So, therefore, if Senators have anything else they want done, they 
have to tell us right this minute, and I would hope that Senators will 
stay on the floor so we could complete our action on both the Helms 
amendment and my bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for his pursuit of this important 
matter. I strongly support his amendment. The agreement that has been 
negotiated by the executive branch is far-reaching in its scope and 
establishes a powerful new international institution which impacts on 
our Nation's economy, its laws, and, indeed its sovereign powers. It 
impacts on this institution also. I have grave institutional concerns 
in regard to this matter. It needs the full attention of every Senator 
and ought to be debated at length.
  The World Trade Organization, which is established by this 
international agreement, apparently has the potential power to affect 
U.S. laws. Will this organization, which would include the United 
States as a member with 1 vote among 117 countries, be able to overturn 
U.S. laws, environmental laws, fuel efficiency regulations, and many 
other laws? That is the accusation made by the growing number of 
critics of this agreement. Senators need to fully understand the 
implications of the mandate being given to this new organization.
  The cost of the agreement will be very large. The Congressional 
Budget Office puts the cost at $40 billion over 10 years, and $10 
billion over the first 5 years because of lost tariff revenues. So 
there is a very significant negative economic impact, certainly in the 
first decade.
  This body, under the fast-track procedures--which I voted against--
will have no ability to amend the agreement. It rolls through here with 
a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the Senate floor.
  There are serious economic, institutional, trade, and constitutional 
issues at stake here. Most Senators, I believe, have not had the 
opportunity to examine the details and the implications of the 
agreement.
  Some Senators have raised the question as to why it should be 
considered in the form of a treaty, rather than an executive agreement. 
It binds the nation internationally in a way that has many serious 
implications for our Nation, and in matters of this weight the Framers 
intended that a higher standard, super-majority was needed.
  Why should this body rush into approving this agreement this year? I 
hope that the administration will not send up the agreement this year. 
Congress can wait, and I think it ought to wait, until next year, next 
spring, after a full investigation of the ramification of this 
agreement. In any case, implementing legislation is not needed until 
July of next year. Most other nations, I understand, have not approved 
this agreement. I understand that many other nations are treating this 
agreement as a treaty in their constitutional processes. I wonder how 
many of them have these ``fast-track" procedures.

  The Senator from North Carolina is rightly concerned over the way 
this body is being forced to handle the agreement. We are being forced 
to handle it partly through our own fault, too, may I say to my friend. 
I agree with him. However, I do think that most Senators should not be 
forced to vote on his amendment at this time because they do not now 
have sufficient information to make a judgment on the matter. I do not 
have sufficient information to make a judgment on this matter, and I am 
sure there are others in my same predicament. It will take further 
study, serious study and reflection on their part to make a decision on 
whether to support the GATT agreement.
  So I respectfully suggest to the Senator that he withdraw his 
amendment at this time and that the Members of this body make a major 
effort over the next weeks and months to understand the implications of 
their vote.
  I am concerned that if we have a vote today, it will certainly have 
the effect of locking some Senators in on their vote, Senators who may 
not have had an opportunity to study the implications. Others have 
studied it and they have made a decision. I respect their decision, 
those who disagree with me on it. But, as one Senator, I certainly have 
not had the opportunity.
  I will vote with the Senator, if he persists in going through with 
the vote, but I hope and respectfully urge that he will not press this 
to a vote today and that he will withdraw his amendment.
  He made a good statement. Others have made statements on it. I 
respectfully recommend that he not pursue the matter further and that 
he withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senate has just heard how and why the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia has earned the respect and 
admiration of so many of us. When I list the truly great Senators with 
whom I have had contact and served, I always begin with the name of 
Robert C. Byrd.
  Frankly, he and I have discussed exactly what he has proposed. I 
agree with him. We have made our case and it is a matter of record.
  I might add, Mr. President, that more and more Senators every day are 
looking into the World Trade Organization. We have had at least two 
luncheon meetings attended by 30 or 35 Senators, most of whom left 
absolutely astonished.
  I think it is wise to defer further consideration and to give time 
for the Senate to think about it and specific Senators to learn about 
the World Trade Organization.
  Having said that, I thank the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia. He has been a wonderful friend to me and I appreciate what he 
said.
  I will withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has that 
right. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2458) was withdrawn.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
withdrawing of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate now is the 
first excepted committee amendment.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining committee amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and 
that the motions to reconsider the votes be laid upon the table en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  So the excepted committee amendments were agreed to en bloc.


                         clean fuel technology

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, recent interest over gasoline additives 
and clean-fuel vehicle requirements in California and the northeast and 
mid-Atlantic States have renewed debate over the ever-expanding clean 
fuel technology issue.
  Electric vehicles have received strong endorsements this year from 
both the California Air Resources Board and Ozone Transport Commission, 
representing the 12 northeast and mid-Atlantic States and the District 
of Columbia. Zero emission vehicles, of which electric-powered vehicles 
are the only practical means available, are a critical part of these 
States' efforts to achieve improved air quality for their citizens. It 
is time that we move seriously to not only support greater research and 
development in clean fuel vehicles, but to stimulate fleet purchases of 
these vehicles, aid the critical infrastructure development and support 
our States' efforts to deal with the Clean Air Act requirements to 
improve their air quality.
  I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a copy of a recent 
article in the New York Times titled, ``The Truth About Electric 
Cars.'' This article dispels some of the myths that no one will buy 
electric vehicles because they will be too expensive and because 
motorists want to drive more than 100 miles in a day. That is not the 
case. Electric vehicles--buses, cars, and utility vehicles--will 
provide an important part of our comprehensive plan to clean up 
tailpipe pollution. People will buy them, too, some perhaps because 
it's a good thing to do for the environment but also because consumers 
will want this ``clean'' technology: no oil filters, smelly fuel pumps, 
and broken fan belts.
  All one has to do is see the people on the street of Santa Barbara, 
CA, wave on the diesel transit buses so they can catch a ride on the 
clean electric buses to know that there is a market for electric 
vehicles in America's cities.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record.

                     The Truth About Electric Cars

                            (By Noel Perrin)

       Thetford Center, Vt.--In 1998, New York State is to join 
     California, Maine and Massachusetts in requiring auto makers 
     begin selling electric cars. Not many--just 2 percent of the 
     cars a manufacturer sells in the state that year. But that's 
     still too many for the oil companies, which don't want to 
     lose any part of their gasoline market. In their campaign to 
     prevent the New York regulations from going into effect, 
     these companies have been running scare ads.
       The ads focus on money. They could hardly focus on quality, 
     because the quality of modern electric cars is too high. When 
     Popular Science test-drove a General Motors Impact earlier 
     this year, a prototype, it reported that the vehicle was 
     ``not so much a surprisingly good electric car, but possibly 
     the best-handling and best-performing small car that G.M. has 
     ever turned out.''
       A Mobile ad I saw in June quoted a study asserting that 
     electric cars could cost at least $10,000 more to manufacture 
     than comparable gas-powered cars, and maybe as much as 
     $27,000 more. Who would pay that much? Almost no one. 
     Therefore, the ad maintained, the auto companies will 
     artificially reduce electric-car prices to the level of 
     gasoline-powered cars--and lose money on every one. They'll 
     then recoup their losses by raising prices on all other cars.
       The Mobil ad predicted that if the new regulations go into 
     effect, everyone in New York buying a gasoline car in 1998 
     could get zapped an extra $600. Forty-nine conventional-car 
     buyers all handing over $600 to subsidize one environmental 
     maniac who wants an electric car. Even the math is a little 
     funny here. When I multiply $600 by 49 people, I get $29,400. 
     I thought the maximum difference was $27,000, and the more 
     probable difference around $10,000. If it's $10,000, the zap 
     per gasoline-car buyer drops to $204.
       But never mind the math. The whole premise is absurd.
       Take my electric Audi, my beautiful, steel-gray commuter 
     car. Last year I paid $10,250 for it. I can and do drive to 
     work in it, zipping down the interstate at 60 miles an hour. 
     True, I can't drive very far--about 45 miles before 
     recharging overnight. But that gives me enough power for 
     short trips around town, and the cost of recharging is 
     negligible. No one has given me a subsidy. Granted, mine is 
     an old Audi, built in 1983 and converted to electric in 1992 
     (not by me). But it's unlikely that I could find a 1983 
     gasoline Audi in perfect order for $250.
       Or take the current stock in trade of Green Motorworks, an 
     electric-car dealer in southern California. Its cars start at 
     $9,995.
       But Mobil isn't talking about used electric cars nor about 
     converted gasoline cars like my Audi, or like the Electric 
     Leopard at Green Motoworks. It's talking about new electric 
     cars, built from scratch in 1998. It's claiming they will 
     cost from $10,000 to $27,000 more than comparable cars with 
     combustion engines.
       Can this really be true for a car that is simpler in 
     design? That does not yet enjoy the economic advantages of 
     mass production but will well before 1998? Compare a gasoline 
     engine and an electric motor sometime and see which has more 
     moving parts. Consider which vehicle needs a catalytic 
     converter on the tailpipe--and which one needs a tailpipe at 
     all, or a muffler, or a fan belt, or antifreeze, or motor 
     oil.
       Oh, I admit the oil companies are getting some support from 
     Detroit. There's a man at Ford, and a very high-ranking one, 
     who says that a decent electric car would cost $100,000 to 
     build. Chrysler is selling a few electric vans right now. The 
     price: $100,000 each. Scary.
       But Detroit is not the only place where cars are built. 
     There's France, for example, where automobiles got their 
     start 100 years ago. Both Renault and Peugeot Citroen will 
     begin production of electric cars next year. Peugeot Citroen 
     plans an initial run of 10,000 cars.
       Now listen to Jean-Yves Helmer, the head of Peugeot's car 
     division. ``The production cost of an electric car is lower 
     than a standard car,'' he said in an interview in Automotive 
     News this spring. Mr. Helmer expects to be selling electric 
     Peugeots and Citroens in France next year for $10,700. He 
     thinks he could price them the same in the United States. 
     What about the scare-figures thrown around by Mobil and Ford 
     and Chrysler? ``Their cost estimates seem to be highly 
     inflated,'' he says politely.
       And an electric Peugeot at $10,700 is still not going to be 
     the cheapest electric vehicle in the world. There's a company 
     in Taiwan that expects to be making and selling an electric 
     car for just under $5,000. (I admit it's a smaller vehicle 
     than I have any interest in owning--about the size of a golf 
     cart.)
       So whom do you believe? The oil companies with their somber 
     predictions? Or Mr. Helmer, who will be ready to sell 
     inexpensive electric cars next year?


                       gorton amendment no. 2449

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I thank the chairman and ranking 
Republican for accepting my amendment, which is designed to allay the 
fears of thousands of retired Americans in my State and across the 
Nation who live in 55 and over communities. I have received nearly 
2,000 letters from concerned residents of 55 and over communities in 
Washington about a proposed rule published by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development on July 7, 1994.
  The rule proposes to enforce a provision of the Fair Housing Act that 
requires private 55 and over communities to provide their residents 
with ``significant facilities and services designed to meet the 
physical and social needs of older persons.'' I believe, as do my 
constituents, that the Department's proposed rule goes too far in 
mandating that all 55 and over communities provide expensive facilities 
and services and make these services accessible to older persons with 
mobility, visual, and hearing impairments. HUD's proposed rule would 
require these communities to have facilities and services more extreme 
than those required under current law and above and beyond those 
required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
  The list of examples published with the Department's proposed rule 
includes adult day health facilities, outpatient treatment facilities, 
congregate dining facilities, and counseling and support services for 
diseases affecting senior citizens. Not only are the items on this list 
extremely expensive to provide, but the list is taken directly from 
section 202 supportive housing for the elderly--a federally funded 
public housing program. Clearly, Mr. President, privately owned and 
operated 55 and over communities catering to low- and moderate-income 
seniors cannot be expected to have the same facilities and services as 
federally funded housing projects. I understand that this list is 
intended only to provide examples of those facilities and services 
which will meet the new requirements, but, my constituents are rightly 
concerned that it will simply be used as a checklist by fair housing 
investigators.
  While I understand that the Department, in publishing the proposed 
rule, is complying with section 919 of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992, I am not certain that it was truly the intent 
of Congress to mandate these expensive facilities and services for 
communities catering to retired Americans. My constituents rightly 
believe that they have the intelligence to decide for themselves 
whether they need to live in a community with facilities and services 
designed for the ailing and disabled without the assistance of the 
Federal Government.

  The residents, owners, and operators of 55 and over communities 
throughout the Nation are justifiably concerned that HUD's proposed 
rule, if enacted, will regulate them out of existence. Most of the 
retirement communities affected by the Department's proposed rule are 
low- to moderate-income mobile home parks and condominium complexes. 
The residents of these communities can clearly not afford the 
extravagant facilities and services the Department provides as examples 
of those meeting the requirements of the proposed rule. My constituents 
have informed me that if the proposed rule is enacted, they will be 
forced drastically to increase rents, or give up their exemption from 
the Fair Housing Act.
  The Department, in anticipation of these concerns, has scheduled a 
number of public hearings to provide the owners, operators, and 
residents of 55 and over communities the opportunity to express their 
specific concerns. This is the right thing to do. I thank the 
Department for its cooperation and consideration in responding to my 
concerns and those of my constituents. I am pleased that the Department 
has agreed to hold a hearing in Washington State and another in the 
northeast in addition to those already scheduled in California, 
Florida, and Arizona.
  The purpose of my amendment, then, is simply to allow for a greatly 
extended public comment period to provide the residents of these 
communities an opportunity to inform the Department of their specific 
concerns, to provide the Department ample time to take these concerns 
into consideration, and to allow Congress time to decide whether it 
truly intended that such strict requirements be placed on America's 
retirement communities. To accomplish this end, my amendment will 
withhold funding for the publication, implementation, and enforcement 
of HUD's proposed rule until July 1, 1995. I believe this to be a 
reasonable request, given the amount of anger, frustration, and fear 
raised by the Department's proposed rule. I thank the chairman and 
ranking Republican for accepting my amendment, and I hope that they 
will make every effort to hold the amendment in conference.


epa's green lights program: a model for government-industry cooperation

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are considering today the 
appropriation bill for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee 
which includes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 
As chairman for the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit coalition of 
business, government, environmental, and consumer groups dedicated to 
the efficient use of energy, I am very familiar with energy efficiency 
programs and would like to highlight one exemplary program that is 
contained in the bill before us today--the U.S. EPA's Green Lights 
Program.
  Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, alliance co-chairman, and I 
believe the Green Lights Program is a model program for all agencies 
because it is cost-effective, builds partnerships with U.S. businesses, 
and secures voluntary commitments from industry to prevent pollution 
and save resources. This is the kind of partnership building President 
Clinton has urged all agencies to pursue to achieve the goals and 
missions of this administration.
  Since the inception of EPA's Green Lights Program in 1991, the number 
of projects undertaken by U.S. businesses has grown from 258 in March 
1992 to more than 6,000 in March 1994. This increase is remarkable. It 
shows that U.S. businesses prefer to work with Government in a way that 
encourages cooperation and consultation rather than adversarial and 
regulatory approaches.
  The Green Lights Program creates jobs and export opportunities for 
American companies by expanding the market for energy efficiency and 
environmental technologies. Here are a few statistics on the growth of 
equipment and hardware installed by the Green Lights Partners in the 
past 2 years between March 1992 and March 1994. EPA shows an 
approximate 18.8 percent growth in energy efficient lamps; 
approximately 23.7 percent growth in electronic ballasts; and a 245-
percent growth in occupancy sensors. Every time a homeowner and 
business buys new efficient technologies, they are helping an installer 
or factory worker earn a living.
  The Green Lights Program is improving the environmental and economic 
competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Investing in pollution prevention 
lowers energy costs for U.S. business and can decrease the amount of 
emissions causing acid rain and smog that pollute our air and water 
systems. Upgrades completed by Green Lights Partners have already 
prevented approximately 385,000 tons of CO2, 1,300 tons of 
Nox, and 24.5 tons of SO2. With a combined budget of only 
$22.4 million for 1993 and 1994, EPA's Green Lights Program has avoided 
an investment of $161.5 million in new utility powerplants and saved 
its partners $43.4 million in electric bills per year.
  The Green Lights Program demonstrates how voluntary partnerships 
between Government and industry can accomplish more than command and 
control measures. Together, this unique partnership is helping the 
environment and our economy by manufacturing equipment, installing 
hardware, saving energy, and reducing emissions.


                           FAIR MARKET RENTS

                        HOUSING PROJECT LOCATION

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address two issues 
regarding the Department of Housing and Urban Development. No. 1, which 
the good manager of the bill has already raised, is that of fair market 
rents. HUD had proposed, and the subcommittee had originally included, 
a change in the calculation of the fair market rent for the section 8 
certificate program. The change would have reduced the fair market rate 
ceiling from the 45th percentile to the 40th percentile. I, along with 
others, contacted the chair of the subcommittee when it was brought to 
my attention that this change would have devastating effects on the 
housing authorities in New Mexico.
  In the case of the Bernalillo County Housing Authority, for example, 
the cap on fair market rents for two-bedroom apartments is currently 
$450. The HUD proposal would have dropped that cap to less than $400. 
In Bernalillo County, which is enjoying an economic boom, 
correspondingly high occupancy rates, and increasing rents, this change 
would have dramatically reduced the available suitable housing for 
subsidized tenants.
  I am, therefore, relieved that, in response to my concerns and those 
of other Senators, the manager of this legislation has decided not to 
adopt the HUD recommendation in this area. I greatly appreciate this 
decision, and believe that it will help hundreds of families in New 
Mexico secure safe, affordable housing.
  The second issue I would like to raise, and perhaps take up again 
when this body considers the Housing Choice and Community Investment 
Act of 1994, is the issue of housing project location. In the South 
Valley of Bernalillo County, an application for funding to construct 
affordable housing was recently rejected by HUD. The reason given for 
its rejection was that it was situated in a minority area. Although I 
understand the intent of HUD is to prevent the concentration of public 
housing solely in minority areas, this intent must be balanced against 
the legitimate needs of the community to be served. In the case of the 
South Valley, the majority of the population is Hispanic, and it is 
therefore impossible to locate public housing in a nonminority area of 
the community. Yet, the residents of the South Valley wish to live in 
safe, affordable housing within that community. They do not wish to 
leave the community for other areas of Bernalillo County, nor do they 
wish to move to Albuquerque. They want their housing needs to be 
addressed within their own community.
  I have contacted Secretary Cisneros about this issue, and it is my 
hope that it can be resolved quickly. If not, however, I believe that 
we may need to revisit this issue when we consider housing 
authorization legislation later this session. Ensuring that our housing 
programs meet the needs of our communities is simply too important an 
issue not to address.
  Again, I thank the good Chair for keeping the needs of New Mexicans 
in mind during the development of the legislation before us. I yield 
the floor.


                       South Valley water problem

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased this bill 
includes $12 million in funding for the South Valley of Bernalillo 
County, NM, and I thank the distinguished chair for the subcommittee 
and the ranking Republican member for their favorable consideration of 
this urgent funding. The South Valley area has been settled since the 
1700's and includes the three historic villages of Atrisco established 
in 1692, Los Padillas established in 1699. The South Valley is home to 
12,000 people. The vast majority are Hispanic and many are poor. More 
than half of the children attending the area's two main elementary 
schools were eligible for free lunches through the Federal school lunch 
program, indicating household incomes under 130 percent of the poverty 
level.
  For almost 30 years the South Valley community has suffered the 
health hazard of inadequate sewer and water facilities. Drinking water 
wells and septic tank leach fields are practically on top of each 
other. I am sure you can appreciate the tremendous health hazard this 
represents.
  The septic tanks in the South Valley are contributing significantly 
to the aquifer's depletion and pollution. This is very serious because 
the aquifer is the water supply for the entire Albuquerque area. The 
water table in the aquifer has dropped 30 feet during the last decade. 
These facts support the conclusion that the problem is getting worse 
and so is the general quality of life in the South Valley.
  I am aware that it would take more than $10 billion to help every 
community in need of a sanitary wastewater treatment system.
  The Appropriations Committee last year made $500 million available 
for wastewater treatment for communities with special needs. That money 
is scheduled to become available this fall for projects that have been 
authorized.
  Thus far this year, the House-passed VA-HUD appropriation bill leaves 
available, subject to authorization, the fiscal year 1994 $500 million 
communities with special needs account.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee made wastewater treatment a 
higher priority, and identified specific projects that would receive 
funding in both fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. I am pleased 
that they included $12 million in fiscal year 1995 for the South 
Valley.
  Taking 10 billion dollars' worth of need and prioritizing the top 
$500 million or even top billion dollars worth of projects is a 
thankless job.
  If the test is: Congress should help those who help themselves, the 
South Valley residents should be helped.
  If the test is: first projects to get an authorization passed by 
either body, the South Valley should be included in your bill because 
S. 1685 passed the Senate in November of last year. In fact, it passed 
the Senate twice and authorized $25 million for the South Valley.
  If the test is taking a lemon and making lemonade, the South Valley 
should be at the head of the line.
  If the test is emergency, the South Valley check should be in the 
mail.
  The situation is so bad there is almost a daily story in the New 
Mexico newspapers.
  ``South Valley Residents Blame Water for Girl's Illness.''
  ``Residents Learn to Live in Sewage.''
  ``Living in a Cesspool.''
  For almost 30 years this community has suffered deteriorating housing 
stock, and the health hazard of inadequate sewer and water facilities.
  The situation is so critical that there is a moratorium on building 
desperately needed multifamily housing units. These are units that 
could greatly improve the housing stock and quality of life in the 
South Valley neighborhoods.
  The wastewater needs of the South Valley are diverse and will require 
several different approaches. While these are the starkest examples, 
the valley's problems are diverse. Some parts of the valley are 
semiurban and could be hooked up to the Albuquerque city system. Other 
sections of the South Valley would be best served by community-cluster 
style systems like the vacuum systems and constructed wetlands. In the 
least densely populated areas of the South Valley it makes sense to 
continue onsite water wells and wastewater disposal systems.
  Making lemonade out of a lemon. Two elementary schools and a 
community center in the South Valley were having to pump their septic 
tanks daily in order to avoid sewage rising to the ground surface. 
Bacteria were found in the well of one of the schools about 2 years 
ago. One of the schools, Los Padillas School, had been using bottled 
water to drink and to prepare school lunches. The teachers used this 
dire situation to get the students interested in science. All of the 
kids learned about the dangers of unsafe drinking water. They learned 
about the constructed wetlands vacuum technology to treat their waste 
and to provide them with clean healthy drinking water.
  Helping those who help themselves. In these tight fiscal times, it 
can be said that Congress helps those who help themselves. If this is 
the test, South Valley should be helped. This community has been 
untiring in its efforts to help itself. So many times its efforts have 
been ignored or rejected.
  Nevertheless, its leaders should be commended. They never gave up.
  The leaders of South Valley and I have been meeting on a regular 
basis for 9\1\/\2\ years to develop an action plan to address this 
problem. I particularly want to mention the hard work in New Mexico at 
the State legislature and in local government. Speaker of the House, 
Ray Sanchez; Senate President pro tempore, Manny Aragon; State 
Representative Kiki Saavedra; State Representative Delano Garcia; 
former county commissioner Orlando Vigil, county commissioner Al Valdez 
and county manager Juan Vigil have all worked tirelessly.
  Their hard work has led to successes at the local level. These 
include the following: In 1991, the Bernalillo County Commission 
adopted a one-eighth cent tax on gross receipts in and for the 
unincorporated area of the South Valley to finance solid waste, water, 
and sewer. In the 2 years that this levy has been on the books, $1.5 
million has been raised in annual revenue and $900,000 has been 
designated to assist residents in hooking up to water and sewer systems 
already in place. Some of this $900,000 has been used to upgrade 
substandard on-site wells or septic systems.
  A partnership in the making. The city of Albuquerque, in partnership 
with Bernalillo County, has contributed its resources in the areas of 
research planning and education. The University of New Mexico--
Institute of Public Law--provided a joint study for the New Mexico 
Legislature which led to an appropriation of funds for this project.
  The New Mexico Legislature appropriated $4 million in 1992; $5 
million in 1993; and $8 million in 1994, demonstrating the seriousness 
of the problem and the State's commitment to a solution.
  Users of a new system will also bear a portion of the burden for the 
improvements. If the city is the provider, total user fees may total 
almost $3,500 for hookup to both water and sewer service. These costs 
do not include the cost to extend lines from the house to the water 
meter and sewer stubout. While average incomes range from $18,000 to 
over $40,000 per household, it would be difficult for most homeowners 
to pay these substantial costs out-of pocket to ensure a sanitary 
liquid wastewater disposal system and safe drinking water supply.
  Given the magnitude of the costs, grants and direct appropriations 
are needed in order to keep rates from being prohibitively high. The 
revolving loan fund has not been used because there is no way the 
residents could pay back the loan; the rates would be so high that the 
people who need the wastewater system could not afford it. The South 
Valley is not part of Albuquerque city and city officials believe that 
the city is already subsidizing the South Valley residents.
  In addition, the Revolving Loan Program cannot make a long-term 
commitment for future funding of a phased project. The funds for both 
water and sewer problems are eventually needed. We are trying to secure 
funding for wastewater first through the committee's efforts to address 
such problems in communities with special needs. My point, however, is 
that the loan fund is not the answer for all of the above reasons.
  Clearly the legislature is doing its part in this worthy partnership 
which would use both State resources and Federal resources. Even with 
the State appropriations the South Valley still needs $35 to $40 
million to meet its water and sewer treatment needs--as much as $25 
million is needed for the wastewater portion of the project.
  Dozens of programs on the books but none of them can help the South 
Valley. Over the years, the community has investigated using the State 
revolving loan fund, Economic Development Administration programs, 
rural development programs under the Department of Agriculture, all of 
the EPA programs, HUD programs, and the Community Development Block 
Grant Program. The South Valley is ineligible for all of them because 
it is either too close to Albuquerque and therefore not rural enough, 
or too close to Albuquerque and therefore, when viewed as a region, is 
not poor enough. Or the needs of the South Valley are too big and would 
swallow up entire programs' nationwide budgets. Frankly the existing 
programs, with their restrictions about being too urban, or too well 
off, aren't the important criteria. It has simply been too long since 
the Federal Government joined the State and local partnership.
  The Senate has passed a South Valley authorization. Action is needed 
in the House. Last year, the Senate passed S. 1685 which authorized 
this project. That bill is being held at the House desk. I have urged 
the House to pass this or include similar language in one of the bills 
now being considered. This authorization, if it is enacted into law, 
will end 30 years of frustration, denial and avoidable health problems 
in this community. Thank you, Mr. President.


                               twin lakes

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would like to bring a matter to the 
attention of the Chairman, my colleague from Maryland. We have, in 
Sheridan, WY, one of the most egregious situations of unelected Federal 
bureaucrats imposing their will on the citizens they are supposed to 
serve, that I have seen.
  Let me briefly outline the situation. In 1987, under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, EPA began threatening the city of Sheridan, WY, 
with large fines if they continued providing raw tap water to residents 
in Big Goose Valley. EPA, for the first time in its history, chose to 
mediate the Safe Drinking Water violations.
  That mediation process included representatives from EPA, in addition 
to the State, county, and city officials, and water users. They all 
determined that Twin Lakes enlargement was the best water supply option 
for the regional system.
  An administrative order signed by all the parties in November 1988, 
specifically supported the regional water system concept and the 
funding application to the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Twin 
Lakes enlargement was the water supply component provided in that 
system and the funding application.
  EPA then strong-armed the city of Sheridan into passing a capital 
facilities tax in order to pay for the project. I quote from a July 19, 
1989, article in the Sheridan Press entitled ``EPA To File Suit if Tax 
Is Rejected.'' Al Smith, regional counsel for EPA's Denver office said 
``If the tax fails, immediately the EPA will file a lawsuit in Federal 
court in Cheyenne.''
  Sheridan responded to the Federal threat and passed the tax, even 
though they have a history of rejecting such things. Twin Lakes 
enlargement was the firm water supply option the people assumed during 
that vote.
  However, now that the water supply component is urgently needed to 
complete the project, the same EPA which bludgeoned the city under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act is obstructing the project under the Clean 
Water Act.
  However, they are not doing so in a straightforward manner. The Army 
Corps of Engineers is actually in charge of issuing the 404 permit 
pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The Corps originally recommended 
against issuance of the permit for Twin Lakes enlargement because it 
would inundate 23 acres of wetlands. Since the Governor of Wyoming 
objected to the recommendation, the final decision was bucked up to 
Colonel Schaufelberger, Omaha Division Commander for the Corps, who has 
been working with Sheridan to come up with a plan that was actually 
permittable.
  Colonel Schaufelberger and the Corps have worked with Sheridan 
officials to minimize the impact on wetlands even further and finally 
found an acceptable alternative which would only inundate 9 acres of 
wetlands and which avoided three large areas of the highest quality 
wetlands.
  After all this work and expense--and I can assure you that Sheridan 
has spent a whole lot of money just trying to comply with Federal 
dictates--EPA said no to the new plan because it inundates 9 acres of 
wetlands. Because EPA said no, the Corps will not issue the permit.
  Sheridan area residents are in the unfortunate position of not being 
able to even talk with or receive feedback from the real decisionmakers 
for this permit. EPA has been hesitant to meet with State or local 
officials because ``this is a matter between the applicant and the 
Corps,'' they say. That would be fine, except for the fact that all EPA 
has to do is threaten a veto, as they are doing here, and the Corps 
refuses to issue a permit.
  After having said all that, I understand that EPA now will meet with 
the permit applicants in Denver next Thursday. But quite frankly, based 
on prior behavior it is hard to hold any hope for quick resolution of 
this matter.
  There is, however, a real need for a quick resolution. There are 
people online right now in need of a water supply. The only way the 
city can meet their needs is to continue to buy temporary water while 
they try and deal with the Federal hurdles being thrown in their way.
  Let me make it perfectly clear that this is not a disturbance of 
pristine land. Twin Lakes is a enlargement of an existing reservoir in 
a previously disturbed area. There is no environmental opposition. In 
fact, local environmentalists are supportive of the idea.
  Under the latest plan, the revised proposal would impact 
approximately 9 acres of wetlands. That's 9 acres of wetlands located 
9,000 feet above sea level and frozen solid nine months out of the 
year. The impact on these wetland can and will be mitigated. The 
Sheridan Area Water Board has invested a lot of time and money coming 
up with a good mitigation plan. But that is not good enough for EPA.
  EPA, by the position it has taken, is forcing Sheridan to take 
agricultural rights out of use. That alone has a detrimental effect on 
the tax base on also would result in wetlands being destroyed. EPA 
doesn't seem to care. EPA has been rigid, unyielding, and unreasonable 
in this situation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I fully appreciate the Senator's point of view and I 
can assure him that I do not think the Federal Government should be 
allowed to deal with State and local officials and water users in such 
a way. The city of Sheridan has real and immediate water supply needs 
that must be met. I would propose that EPA join all interested parties 
in resolving this matter by October 1, 1994, or they report to me and 
to my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Wallop, as to why this is not 
possible.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Chairman for her help on this matter. I am 
confident that if EPA makes a good-faith effort to help, rather than 
hinder this process, then the Sheridan Area Water Board can work with 
the State of Wyoming and the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
project, meet the water needs of the citizens, and mitigate the impact 
on wetlands. Sheridan residents should no longer suffer the expense and 
frustration they have suffered at the hands of EPA.


                              wind tunnels

  Mrs. BOXER. I want to call Senators' attention to a provision of the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill that provides $400 million for initial 
construction of two new wind tunnels. This project was recommended by 
the recently completed national facilities study conducted jointly by 
the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Transportation, and NASA.
  These wind tunnels--one subsonic and one supersonic--will provide 
facilities for flight testing and simulation that are unmatched 
anywhere in the world. When operational, these wind tunnels will give 
our Nation's ailing aerospace industry the edge it needs to compete in 
this highly competitive global market.
  It should be emphasized that the $400 million appropriated in this 
bill will not complete construction of this project. In fact, NASA 
estimates that the total cost will approach $2.5 billion. I strongly 
support the committee's view that the Federal Government cannot be 
expected to bear this cost alone.
  The wind tunnel project must be a cooperative effort between 
Government and industry. It is simply too large and expensive for 
aerospace manufacturers to undertake alone. I believe that the national 
interest in completing this project is so important that the public 
should be willing to contribute a fair share.
  The committee appropriately urges NASA to move ahead quickly on this 
important project. The report accompanying this bill directs NASA to 
determine wind tunnel site selection criteria and to establish a budget 
plan, including cost-sharing agreements, by March 1, 1995. It is my 
hope that this accelerated timetable will encourage NASA to give this 
project the attention that it deserves.
  On the issue of site selection, I should report that a number of 
Californians have been working hard to bring this project to the NASA 
Ames Laboratory in the bay area. I believe that NASA Ames would be an 
excellent location for wind tunnel construction because of its 
proximity to aerospace engineering centers on the Pacific coast and its 
location in the Silicon Valley, the hub of the most advanced high-
technology projects in our Nation.
  I look forward to working with NASA and bay area economic leaders to 
bring this important project to California.
  Finally, I want to take this opportunity to commend the committee for 
its wisdom in pressing ahead with this important project.


                                earmarks

  Mr. BROWN. Before this amendment is adopted, I would like to address 
a question to my distinguished colleague, Senator Mack. I continue to 
be very concerned about earmarks and pork that is contained in 
appropriations bills. I believe that many earmarks skew spending 
priorities and force the administration to expend taxpayer dollars on 
nonpriority projects. The managers amendment now at the desk contains 
language mandating funds from the Veterans Affairs construction budget 
be spent to begin construction on a medical center/nursing home in 
Brevard County, FL, and a satellite outpatient clinic in Orlando, FL. 
It is my understanding that the Appropriations Committee had intended 
to note its support for these projects in its committee report and that 
due to some error, they were omitted. Further, I am informed that the 
Veterans Affairs Department has stated that building such facilities is 
one of its top priorities and would be funded as a priority even 
without a specific reference in the bill. I ask of the Senator from 
Florida, is that the case?
  Mr. McCAIN. I join my colleague in posing that question.
  Mr. MACK. To answer the Senators from Colorado and Arizona, that is 
indeed the case. As my friends can see, this is not an earmark that 
circumvents the normal merit-based and competitive selection process. 
The Veterans Affairs Department attests that these facilities should be 
built expeditiously and that they are the department's top priorities 
and these projects would be funded if the Appropriations Committee made 
no recommendations on this issue.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank my friend. I know he shares the concerns of 
Senator McCain and myself regarding potentially harmful earmarks and I 
appreciate him clarifying that this amendment in no way reprioritizes 
the spending of VA money contained in this act. I thank the Senator 
from Florida and the managers for their cooperation .


                            epa cluster rule

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have watched with great interest the 
development of regulatory procedures at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, especially as they relate to areas important to my State. In my 
opinion, the concept of regulation contained in the cluster rule 
process held great promise. At the outset, I saw this procedure as a 
way to most efficiently and effectively incorporate all environmental-
related activities of a particular industry within a common framework 
necessary for environmental protection and, at the same time, be 
sensitive to economic realities.
  Therefore, it was by no coincidence that my curiosity was heightened 
when the first industry selected for cluster rule proceedings was the 
pulp and paper industry. In Arkansas, the pulp and paper industry 
reaches from the forested delta bottomlands along the Mississippi River 
across the State to the west. The industry in Arkansas employs more 
than 37,000 people and is the second largest employer in the State.
  There are 10 bleach mills in Arkansas, but the effect of the cluster 
rule goes far beyond these few facilities and their employees. It also 
touches on the thousands of individual landowners who may own 50 or 60 
acres of forested land that rely on the pulp and paper industry as 
their market. In many, many cases, these individual landowners look 
upon their relatively small tracts of land as their retirement program, 
or their investment to make sure their children can go to college. 
Without a viable market for their forest products, these people's hopes 
for their children's education and perhaps their very retirement is at 
risk. That is another reason the implementation of the cluster rule in 
this instance is important to me and my State.
  In addition, there are thousands of other jobs in the service sector 
and other areas that are directly or indirectly tied to the pulp and 
paper industry. In many cases, these jobs are part of the small 
business community. I serve as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and I know very well how sensitive these small 
businesses are to shifts in an area's overall economy and what can 
happen in the jobs market when a major employer is forced to scale back 
or shut down it's operations.
  As this brief description reveals, the pulp and paper industry is an 
integral part of my State's economy and it is reflected in job 
opportunity, quality of life, and the generation of revenues that help 
provide services at the Federal, State, and local levels of government. 
To me and to the people of Arkansas, protection of the environment is 
also an integral part of our values, and we exercise that protection 
from our pristine mountain streams to our extensive wetland resources 
in areas of bottomland hardwoods. Our soil, our water, and our air are 
next to our children, most precious. After all, it is those children 
and grandchildren who will inherit those natural resources and we will 
be judged largely by how well we have conserved and protected them from 
unbridled, short term economic gain.
  Now comes the cluster rule process at the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the imposition of that process on only one industry, the 
pulp and paper industry. No one would, or should, argue with the notion 
that this industry, like any other industry, must properly contribute 
to environmental protection. As I stated earlier, I thought the cluster 
rule would give this industry and the regulatory agency a meaningful 
tool that would benefit all parties and, most importantly, the 
environment. For these reasons, it is extremely important that the 
Environmental Protection Agency proceed with the cluster rule with the 
best information available. This rule, in this instance, is a test 
case. If the cluster rule doesn't work for the pulp and paper industry, 
it will be considered a failed effort that we cannot afford.
  Senator Mikulski, the distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on HUD and Veterans Affairs, has included language in the 
committee report directing the Environmental Protection Agency to 
review all data and information provided by industry and to reassess 
the costs and benefits which will be obtained the development of the 
cluster rule. I commend the chairwoman for her work and wish to 
associate my remarks with the action she has taken and reaffirm my 
sentiment that the Environmental Protection Agency has much at stake 
and cannot afford to make a mistake.
  We have heard a lot lately about risk, cost/benefit, and other 
factors to be considered in the promulgation of regulations related to 
health and the environment. We in the Congress and those in the 
regulatory agencies have a serious responsibility to ensure protections 
to the health of our citizens and the health of our environment. We 
also have a responsibility to be fully informed when we make decisions 
in order to avoid unnecessary burdens to the regulated community or 
counterproductive results when those decisions are finally executed.
  The language offered by the distinguished chairwoman is common good 
sense that simply states that the Environmental Protection Agency 
should make fully informed decisions. If the pulp and paper industry, 
or any industry, is required to spend billions of dollars in capital 
improvements in order to comply with Government regulations, it is 
simply fair to ask the agency developing those regulations to make sure 
those levels of investment are necessary to achieve the goal which we 
in the Congress have directed them to pursue. This is especially true 
when the cost of compliance is so great that enlightened business 
decisions within the affected industry may require the closing of 
facilities, the end of employment opportunities, a downturn in regional 
economies, and a ripple effect that extends to small individual 
landowners and small individual businesses.
  We all hear from our constituents about the burden of Government 
regulation. We hear about the cost of new requirements in the debate of 
unfunded Federal mandates and we hear about the oppressive paperwork 
necessary to apply for a single loan guaranteed by the Federal 
Government. The cluster rule, if properly executed, can do much to help 
streamline the regulatory process in a manner consistent with the 
principles of good Government. The Environmental Protection Agency has 
before it an opportunity to show it can work cooperatively with 
industry in a way conducive to true environmental and economic 
protection. I want to see that cooperative effort succeed.


                     thunder child treatment center

  Mr. SIMPSON. The Thunder Child Treatment Center is a native American 
residential substance abuse treatment center located near Sheridan, WY. 
The leadership and administration of this private, not-for-profit 
center is comprised of representatives from each of the 10 tribes in 
the Montana-Wyoming region. It is the first and, to this date, the only 
coalition of area tribal representatives working closely together to 
promote alcohol and drug abuse treatment services for all of the tribes 
in the region. It should be noted that the center has achieved a 95 
percent completion rate in its programs. This figure is truly 
astonishing when compared with the 37 percent completion rate that is 
found at non-native specific centers.
  Since 1971, Thunder Child has been housed at the Veterans 
Administration Center in Sheridan, WY. In recent years, however, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs has notified Thunder Child that it needs 
to reclaim this space. That is why there is such an urgent need for new 
facilities at this time.
  The Thunder Child Treatment Center authorized for $2 million under 
the Indian health service amendments of 1992. Congress subsequently 
appropriated $1 million for Thunder Child in 1992 through a special 
purpose grant in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations 
bill. At that time, you were very instrumental in obtaining these 
funds. At the same time, Thunder Child has also been raising matching 
funds for the project through a capital campaign development program. 
To date, over $2 million has been raised in contributions and pledges 
to construct a new facility. However, an additional $1 million is still 
needed to complete construction of this project. The Senator's 
assistance in securing these funds would be deeply appreciated.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I certainly understand the value of funding this 
project. As indicated, there will be discussions regarding the 
allocation of these special purpose grant funds when this bill goes to 
conference. I assure the Senator that I will do my very best to try to 
find additional funding for this worthy effort.


                coordinated tribal water quality program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the committee for its 
hard and diligent work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate an 
earmark of $500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program 
for fiscal year 1995.
  Twenty-six tribes participate in the model Coordinated Tribal Water 
Quality Program. This program is an important investment in tribal 
personnel infrastructure providing significant benefits not only to 
Washington State, but to the entire Pacific Northwest. The tribes are 
using these funds to restore health to watersheds in the Pacific 
Northwest through intergovernmental planning approaches.
  It is my understanding that the $500,000 earmark in the committee 
report is not intended to preclude the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality 
Program from applying for additional funds through the normal 
administrative grant process.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. The $500,000 is intended to be 
a floor for multi-media funding for the Coordinated Tribal Water 
Quality Program. I know that the program has received significant 
funding during the last 2 years and want to ensure that it receives at 
least $500,000 in fiscal year 1995. I am aware that last year the 
committee did not direct funding to specific multi-media projects and 
that the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program still qualified for a 
grant of more than $2 million. The committee has no intention of 
precluding the program's ability to apply for more multi-media funding 
through EPA's grant process and wish it success in that effort.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Maryland for the clarification 
of this matter.


                   community investment demonstration

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my concern over the $350 
million appropriation for the section 8 community investment 
demonstration contained in H.R. 4624, the HUD-VA fiscal year 1995 
appropriations bill. This program was enacted as part of the HUD 
Demonstration Act as a demonstration to examine the feasibility of 
attracting pension fund investment for the development of affordable 
housing through the use of section 8 project-based assistance.
  While I do not support zero funding of this demonstration, I 
emphasize that this program is a demonstration and not a permanent 
program that has received the full endorsement of Congress as a 
permanent policy choice. We need to look at a number of issues in this 
demonstration, including the cost to the American taxpayer and the 
measure of risk to pension funds that invest in this demonstration. 
Most significantly, pension funds represent the security of retired 
individuals and that our first obligation is to ensure that these funds 
are protected from risk of loss. In addition, I stress that this 
demonstration should not be viewed as a first step to requiring the 
investment of pension funds in social welfare programs. I know that 
this policy has been suggested by several Members of the House of 
Representatives; it is a suggestion that I vehemently oppose.


             community investment demonstration initiative

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all I would like to commend 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Gramm for their commitment and work in 
developing this legislation under very tight fiscal restrictions.
  The bill proposes to significantly increase the authorization for a 
program that was authorized as a demonstration program, the section 8 
community investment demonstration, from $100 million to $350 million. 
While I support creative ways of providing affordable housing for low-
income tenants, I understand and share many of the concerns that have 
been raised today by Senator Cohen and Senator Mack.
  I understand that this program was authorized as a demonstration last 
year. This program should continue to be administered as a 
demonstration, as intended. There remain many questions and issues that 
must be examined before this program should be assumed a full and 
ongoing program. First of all we must be certain that we are aware of 
the risk posed to pension funds and the nature of that risk. We must 
not rush into a new program without proper assurances that we are not 
posing unneeded risk to pension fund programs around the country.
  While I understand the many benefits of this program, I will work to 
make sure that a responsible study is done on this demonstration that 
will help Congress make funding decisions on this program next year and 
in the future.


                   Community Development Bank Funding

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, things are finally beginning to turn 
around in urban America. We have finally taken some small, tentative 
steps to give children a safe and nurturing environment, to help 
communities repair themselves, to help individuals find and get to 
jobs, to help poor people develop assets for the future, and to restore 
strong financial institutions that help communities save their own 
money, invest, borrow, and grow.
  Communities are pulling together around their applications to become 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities, through which we will 
invest $1 billion for six of the innovative programs I proposed. 
Community schools will be an important part of the crime bill. And in 
this bill, we have finally made a small downpayment to bring basic 
financial institutions back to impoverished cities and rural areas, 
along the lines of the Community Capital Partnership Act that I 
introduced a year ago. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland, who chairs the subcommittee, for including $125 million for 
the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for fiscal year 
1995. I am confident that by the time this appropriations bill comes 
through conference, we will have completed action on the legislation 
authorizing this fund.
  Most of us take basic financial institutions for granted. We have 
savings and checking accounts, our bank lends our money to businesses 
in our communities, and we borrow ourselves when it comes time to buy a 
home or we have an inspiration to start a business. But in most 
American cities, the only financial institution they know is the check-
cashing cubicle, which charges up to 5 percent just to cash a 
government check, and takes the money back out of the community. People 
who want to save have nowhere to go and businesses have no access to 
capital. Within the 165 squares miles that make up the areas most 
affected by the Los Angeles riots, there are 19 bank branches, as 
compared to 135 check cashing establishments.
  People who want to borrow have even fewer opportunities. They can buy 
a car or furniture on time, or on a rent-to-own plan, but if they want 
to borrow to get ahead, by starting a small service business or a 
store, they're out of luck. The McNeil-Lehrer Newshour recently 
interviewed some ambitious entrepreneurs in rural Arkansas, one of them 
a woman named Jesse Pearl Jackson, who owns a beauty salon. She needed 
a loan for new equipment, and when she went to a bank, she says the 
loan officer ``laughed me clean out the door. She said, `You want money 
for what?' She said, `You don't walk in here and ask me for an 
application for a loan. That's not the way you do it.' I said, `Well, 
if you'll tell me what to do, then I'll come back, and I'll do it right 
the next time.' She was laughing so hard and making fun of me so bad I 
never went back.'' There is money to be made here, for any bank willing 
to take entrepreneurs like Ms. Jackson seriously, but large financial 
institutions without roots in the community are unlikely to see those 
opportunities.
  But there are islands of hope for people who want to save and invest 
in troubled communities. Last year I visited La Casa de Don Pedro, 
which operates a credit union in a very poor section of Newark. La Casa 
is a multi-purpose community organization that just happens to have a 
credit union. While I was there, a stream of members poured into the 
small building which houses the credit union, day care center, and 
other programs, depositing $20, $50, and $100 at a time. I did not see 
any banks in the vicinity of La Casa. If it were not for the credit 
union, many of the community's residents would have no place to deposit 
their money, secure small loans, or take advantage of other services we 
often take for granted.
  This fund does not, and should not, seek to create organizations that 
will be perpetually dependent on government for support. Instead, it 
seeks to reach in at a point of leverage in capital-starved communities 
and get them started. It does not set development strategies for either 
the institutions or the communities they serve. Instead, it lets those 
involved in the struggle for economic recovery find their own path.
  I am pleased that there has been such widespread support for the idea 
of expanding community financial institutions, even though it is a 
relatively new idea to many people. I still hear some wariness, though, 
about this investment from people who argue that poor people do not 
save and that distressed communities do not have the resources to 
support economic development.
  The evidence contradicts this cynical view. In Paterson, NJ, last 
year, I visited one of the few banks that had not left that city. I 
struck up a conversation with a customer, who volunteered that she was 
depositing $1 hundred. Surprised, I asked her how much she generally 
saved in a week. She told me that she and her husband had five children 
and earned $20,000 last year--below the poverty line. But even on this 
income they saved $3,000 that year, for health emergencies, for 
college, or to give their children a chance at a better life. Their 
experience tells me that saving for the future is a fundamental value 
of our country, not limited to the middle class, and that if we all had 
access to the institutions that make capitalism work, we could all be a 
part of vital, self-sufficient communities.


                         a victory for ethanol

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, yesterday's vote to table the Johnston 
amendment was a great victory for agriculture. As a result, the United 
States will be able to meet competitively future energy needs with 
cleaner burning fuels. The administration is to be congratulated.
  I have not always agreed with the administration on various issues. 
The President delivered on his words to farmers to promote ethanol. I 
praise President Clinton for his leadership, hard work, and support for 
ethanol.
  The new EPA's renewable oxygenate standard [ROS], was developed to 
allow renewable fuels, such as ethanol, a competitive role in the 
reformulated gasoline market. The proposed standard is the result of 
years of work and countless staff hours. Simply put, the rule is 
designed to develop fuels that are environmentally sensitive, 
renewable, and good for the economy.
  Mr. President, ethanol is one of this Nation's most efficient sources 
of energy. The EPA has stated that the renewable oxygenate standard has 
both immediate and long-term environmental benefits.
  USDA studies have shown that the renewable oxygenate standard can 
reduce farm program costs by $2.3 billion between 1995 through 1999. 
These savings are projected to accrue from higher prices for corn as a 
result of the standard. Our farmers need higher prices for their crops.
  Increasing ethanol use will provide additional markets for South 
Dakota corn growers, benefit the State's agricultural economy, and 
decrease the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. If other States follow 
South Dakota's lead, ethanol production and consumption will benefit 
the economies of communities nationwide.
  Ethanol will help us meet our Nation's future fuel needs. Ethanol is 
good for the economy. It is good for agriculture. It is good for the 
environment. I will continue fighting as hard as I can to ensure that 
our ethanol industry continues to grow.
  Also Mr. President, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague 
Senator Grassley in the strongest terms possible. Probably no other 
Senator worked harder or with more commitment that my friend Senator 
Grassley. He has devoted countless hours during these past weeks to 
help defeat the Johnston amendment.
  As modest as he is, I know he would not take credit for yesterday's 
victory. Yet credit is what he deserves. He deserves the gratitude of 
Senators supporting ethanol and of all farmers.


                      the 55-and-over communities

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like briefly to thank the chairman 
and ranking Republican for accepting my amendment today. To date, I 
have received nearly 2,000 letters from constituents who are deeply 
concerned about the implications of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's proposed rule on 55-and-over communities. The owners, 
operators, and residents of 55-and-over communities across the Nation 
are fearful that the Department's proposed rule, if enacted, would 
regulate their communities out of existence.
  I believe that the concerns raised by my constituents are justified. 
In response to these concerns, my amendment will allow for a greatly 
extended public comment period to provide the residents of 55-and-over 
communities an opportunity to inform the Department of their specific 
concerns, to provide the Department ample time to take these concerns 
into consideration, and to provide Congress time to decide whether it 
truly intended that such strict requirements be placed on America's 
retirement communities. This is a reasonable request, given the amount 
of anger, frustration, and fear raised by the Department's proposed 
rule.
  I believe that individuals are better suited to make decisions about 
how to live their lives than is the Federal bureaucracy.
  Clearly, retired Americans have the intelligence to decide whether or 
not they need, or even want, these additional resources. Seniors have 
earned their retirement, and they have earned a right to live in the 
communities of their choice.
  I thank the Department for its cooperation and consideration in 
responding to my concerns and those of my constituents. And I am 
pleased that the Department has agreed to hold a public hearing in 
Washington State in addition to those already scheduled in California, 
Florida, and Arizona.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking Republican for accepting my 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, for her work, under difficult 
circumstances, on the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations 
bill. Faced with a tight Senate budget cap and besieged by diverse 
constituencies, she has managed to distribute funding in this bill 
equitably. It is quite an achievement.
  As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have 
a particular interest in this bill's appropriation for the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and I would like to highlight the EPA 
funding today.
  The bill provides $7.4 billion for EPA in fiscal year 1995. This is 
$295 million more than the President's budget request, $465 million 
above appropriations provided by the other body, and $833 million above 
EPA's current budget. I know that Senator Mikulski's subcommittee 
worked diligently and made difficult choices in winning this increase 
in the EPA budget, and I commend them all for their good work.
  These achievements are particularly significant in light of the fact 
that the Environmental Protection Agency currently suffers from budget 
shortfalls that prevent it from fulfilling many of its 
responsibilities. Underfunding has resulted in the following problems: 
Large backlogs in EPA permit programs; weak or nonexistent penalties 
for environmental lawbreaking due to lack of funds for enforcement; 
decaying laboratory infrastructure; failure to complete review of 
pesticide and generic chemicals; and unmet statutory deadlines for 
promulgating regulations.
  All this creates risks to public health and to the ecology. It also 
creates enormous uncertainty for business, making it more difficult for 
industries to conduct long-range planning. Senator Mikulski's work on 
this bill will help us to mitigate these problems, making our people 
healthier and our firms more profitable.
  I would like to highlight two areas in which the subcommittee's 
decision to make EPA funding a top priority will help.
  Sound Science--Many Senators have raised concerns about the EPA's 
need to use better quality science as it writes regulations. For 
example, one of our top concerns in reforming the Safe Drinking Water 
Act was to promote greater use of sound science. With the funding this 
bill provides, the Agency will be able to upgrade its laboratories and 
produce the high-quality science our colleagues are demanding not only 
in the drinking water program, but in all areas.
  Unfunded Mandates--Many State and local officials complain that the 
Federal Government requires them to do too much and pays for too little 
of those requirements. Many of these claims are exaggerated.
  But there is no question that the Federal Government should provide 
more funding to local governments to implement Federal programs. The 
increase in EPA's appropriations this year will help address the 
problem by providing additional grants and loans to local governments.
  Once again, Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Mikulski for her 
fine work on this bill. I appreciate her efforts and I will support the 
bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I urge that the VA-HUD appropriation 
conferees consider increasing the FHA base loan limit toward the House 
position of $101,575. Under current law, the base limit is $67,500. 
That has been the limit for 15 years, since 1979. Raising the limit 
will allow many moderate income families to buy their own homes. 
Historically, the considerable majority of the families that use the 
Federal Housing Authority guarantees are first time home buyers.
  In Iowa, their is a strong need to build single family housing in 
inner city areas on single vacant lots. That is important to eliminate 
blight and to develop a balance between rental and family owned 
housing. I believe that providing that balance is an important goal. It 
is difficult to convince builders to build such new housing without the 
availability of FHA guaranteed mortgages at a level that can cover the 
realistic price for developing such homes.
  Again, I urge that the members of the VA-HUD Subcommittee consider 
the need to raise the FHA base loan limit to the House level.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now in the final minutes of the 
VA-HUD appropriations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank 
my colleagues for their cooperation. I would like to thank the majority 
leader, Senator Mitchell, and his staff, as well as the Republican 
leader and his staff, Howard and Elizabeth Greene.
  I would also like to thank the members of my own subcommittee staff: 
Kevin Kelly, Carrie Apostolou, Chris Gabriel, and Juanita Griffin for 
all of their help. And special kudos to Stephen Kohashi and Steve 
McMillin of the staff of the ranking minority member, Senator Phil 
Gramm.
  The Senator from Texas, the Republican minority member, has been tied 
up in Whitewater. I have had the full cooperation of the other side of 
the aisle, and other members of the subcommittee also helped me to do 
some of the heavy lifting. I am very appreciative.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to 
the bill. Therefore, Mr. President, I move the adoption of the 
committee amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendments have been agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If there are no further amendments, I now ask for third 
reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further amendments, the 
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of 
the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask that we go to final passage, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], and the Senator from Tennessee 
[Mr. Sasser] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] 
and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--9

     Brown
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kohl
     Roth
     Smith
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Breaux
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Lott
     Sasser
  So the bill (H.R. 4624), as amended, was passed.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate insist upon 
its amendments to H.R. 4624 and request a conference with the House on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer [Mr. Pryor] 
appointed Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
Kerrey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Nickles, 
Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hatfield conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.


                       Correction of Vote No. 261

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, on the previous rollcall vote, No. 261, I 
was present and went up to the clerk to record my vote ``no.'' The 
official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my 
vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I highly commend the chairlady of the 
subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], 
for the truly outstanding job that she has done in shepherding this 
bill through the committee and in managing the bill on the floor.
  The VA/HUD appropriations bill is in many ways the most complex of 
the 13 appropriations bills. It provides funding for a broad range of 
activities, covering activities that are as diverse as consumer 
information, Federal housing, NASA, the space program, and the National 
Science Foundation, EPA's programs, including environmental cleanup, 
and veterans' programs.
  Senator Mikulski assumed the chairmanship of the VA/HUD subcommittee 
in 1989, the same year that I became chairman of the committee. She 
immediately went to work to master the issues and the difficult task of 
balancing the competing priorities that are necessary in order to forge 
the necessary consensus for enactment of this major appropriations 
bill.
  Without exception--without exception--each year Senator Mikulski has 
brought to the Committee on Appropriations and to the Senate a bill 
that is the best that could possibly be expected under the fiscal 
constraints that the subcommittee must face. This year, as I said, is 
no exception. The 602(b) allocation of the VA/HUD subcommittee in 
outlays was $316 million below that of the House subcommittee, and yet 
the distinguished chairman was able to provide necessary resources to 
fund the priorities within each of the departments and agencies over 
which the subcommittee has jurisdiction.
  Once again, I want to commend Senator Mikulski for her excellent and 
masterful handling of this legislation. She is entitled to the 
admiration and thanks of every Member of this body. I admire her for 
her spunk, for her courage, and for her willingness to take on the 
tough battles. I think of her as one who, in Roman times, if she were 
asked to guard a gate, would be there, alive or dead, when the hour 
came. I commend her.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his kind words. I have had an excellent teacher with Senator Byrd 
as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I hope I can continue 
to live up to the traditions of the committee.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
DeConcini], is seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent I be 
recognized immediately upon the conclusion of his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I thank my friend from Vermont for letting me have a few minutes. 
Before the Senator from Maryland leaves, I wish to add my commendations 
and congratulations to her. She has a tough, tough bill, a tougher one 
every year. It takes, I would like to say, almost as big a hit as the 
Treasury does in the budget allocation, but because her bill is so much 
larger dollarwise, indeed, it is a tougher bill, I must say, in the 
allocations.
  I thank her and her staff for the consideration they have given to 
this Senator, but I also thank her on behalf of this body for taking on 
this bill and putting together a very, very difficult legislative 
appropriation that does, indeed, set priorities, and one of those 
priorities that the Senator from Maryland has never forgotten is the 
veterans of our great Nation. Under severe, difficult times of 
allocation, she and the ranking member have continuously been able to 
eke out, and sometimes add to, the recognition of the need of the 
veterans of our country. I thank her for that. I know she is recognized 
in that community as well as many other areas she deals with in this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I do thank my friend from Vermont.


                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. Friday, August 5, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 527, H.R. 4606, the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________