[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 136 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 VA AND HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the pending business, the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 4624, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 4624, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.


          privilege of the floor--h.r. 4624, conference report

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Chris 
Gabriel of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the 
consideration of the conference report to H.R. 4624.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this afternoon I am pleased to present 
the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill to the Senate.
  This conference report is a finely crafted compromise between the 
positions of the two Houses on spending decisions for fiscal year 1995 
for the agencies funded through this bill.
  It balances the competing interests and priorities in this bill and 
accomplishes the key goals which we set out to achieve at the beginning 
of this year:
  Meet our commitments to veterans;
  Fund a balanced U.S. space program;
  Address the highest priority housing areas;
  Continue our investments in science and technology to generate new 
ideas that will lead to new jobs;
  Preserve the environment of the United States and around the globe;
  Keep our commitment to national service and opportunity for young 
people to draw down their college debt while giving back to their 
community.
  In doing this, we faced a number of major hurdles which had to be 
overcome:
  First, a 602(b) allocation that fell nearly $600 million in outlays 
below that requested for the subcommittee in the President's budget;
  Second, shortfalls in the proposed administration budgets for 
veterans medical care, veterans medical research, and housing for the 
elderly;
  And third, pressure for increases in key areas like science and 
technology, the environment, national service, and community 
development banks.
  These competing pressures forced us to make very tough choices. 
Spending increases in some areas were less than we would have preferred 
and spending cuts in some areas were deeper than we would have liked.
  I would like to briefly highlight our efforts in some key areas.
  Mr. President, I use the terms ``we'' and ``our'' because it has been 
the tradition of this subcommittee to work on a bipartisan basis. We 
have done so, with my ranking minority, Senator Phil Gramm. Joining me 
today, I know, is the ranking Republican on the full committee, Senator 
Mark Hatfield.
  What we would like to talk about is veterans. We have provided a 
total VA appropriation of nearly $37.6 billion, about $900 million 
higher than 1994, and $460 million above the President's budget.
  This includes an additional $111 million for medical care above the 
budget request, an increase of more than $610 million above the 1994 
level.
  The agreement also includes an additional $41 million to the budget 
request for veterans medical and prosthetic research, providing a total 
of $252 million.
  We have also added $47 million to the budget request to address the 
serious backlog in the processing of veterans pension and disability 
claims. Our American veterans should not have to stand in line to get 
their disability claims adjudicated.
  In the area of housing, for HUD we have recommended $25.4 billion in 
new budget authority. This level will enable us to address the most 
pressing needs in community development, housing for the elderly, 
fighting crime in federally assisted housing, and reducing the problems 
of homelessness.
  It includes an increase of $200 million for the CDBG program, a total 
of $4.6 billion. It also contains $1.3 billion for elderly housing, 
restoring the administration's proposed budget cut, and providing funds 
for 9,700 new units in 1995.
  We have also added $125 million for the HOME program, for a total of 
$1.4 billion.
  And for the homeless, we have provided the full budget request of 
$1.25 billion, the cornerstone of the administration's strategy to end 
homelessness.
  In the area of space, for NASA, the bill proposes almost $14.4 
billion, more than $125 million above the budget request.
  Included in this recommendation is $2.1 billion for the space 
station, full funding for all major NASA space science initiatives, 
including the Cassini planetary mission to Saturn and the mission to 
planet Earth.
  In addition to NASA's core program, we have added $400 million for a 
new wind tunnel initiative in aeronautics. This effort is a must if we 
are to keep our domestic aeronautics industry competitive into the 21st 
century.
  In the area of the environment, for EPA we are providing a 
substantial increase. The conferees approved an appropriation of more 
than $7.2 billion for it, more than $600 million over last year and 
$250 million above the budget request.
  EPA's operating programs would grow by almost 7 percent over 1994. 
This includes important initiatives for States and localities to 
implement the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, as well as address 
environmental risks caused by lead, toxic waste, and other potentially 
harmful substances.
  We have also restored the Superfund program to a level of more than 
$1.4 billion, and have included almost $3 billion for water 
infrastructure activities.
  In science, for the National Science Foundation, we are recommending 
just under $3.4 billion. This is $343 million above last year and $162 
million above the budget request.
  During the past year, the Foundation has willingly accepted the 
challenges in strategic research which the committee set out for it 
last year. We believe that those efforts should therefore be encouraged 
and so have recommended the increases for NSF in this bill.
  These appropriations include nearly $2.3 billion for basic research, 
$606 million for science education, and $250 for research facilities 
modernization.
  For national service, we are providing $577 million, just $34 million 
less than the full budget request, but 58 percent more than the 1994 
level.
  In the area of community development banks, we have included $125 
million to initiate the President's Community Development Bank Program 
to help revitalize underserved areas.
  In summary, our efforts were made easier this year because, once 
again, we worked in a bicameral, bipartisan fashion in shaping this 
conference agreement. I am grateful for the cooperation I received from 
the subcommittee's ranking minority, Senator Phil Gramm, and for his 
help and support in this process. And I am also deeply appreciative of 
the cooperation I received from the full committee chairman, Senator 
Byrd, and his staff, as well as the committee's ranking member, Senator 
Hatfield, and his staff.
  We have not provided for all the needs for which requests were made, 
and many will be unhappy that our wallet was not as large as the wish 
list for those who sought funds to the VA-HUD Subcommittee. On balance, 
however, I think it addresses the high priority matters in a way that 
is fair and balanced, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
adoption of this conference report.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first, let me make an observation as the 
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am happy to 
report that as of last night, the conference on defense completed its 
work. So now we have this particular status with the 13 appropriations 
bills:
  We have five bills signed into law; we have four bills--their 
conference reports--that are awaiting Senate action; we have four more 
bills--their conference reports--that are awaiting both House and 
Senate action.
  So, in effect, as of today, the Commmittees on Appropriations of the 
Senate and the House have discharged their responsibilities. The 
leadership now is in the position of scheduling these conference 
reports as they may be approved by both the House and the Senate, and I 
also would like to say that the fiscal year ends this Friday night at 
midnight. So, in effect, this is the first of eight unfinished 
conference reports that we will, hopefully, complete today.
  Mr. President, I am substituting for Senator Gramm, of Texas, in 
offering a few comments on behalf of the minority.
  Needless to say, I am in agreement with the outline of this report as 
given by the Senator from Maryland, and I have frequently had the 
opportunity to recommend to the Senate a bill from the Appropriations 
Committee over my 20 years, or such, in the appropriations role. But 
seldom in my experience can I describe such a major piece of 
legislation as the product of any individual Member. But this one is. I 
am privileged to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maryland 
[Ms. Mikulski] for not only authoring this bill, but masterfully 
shepherding its consideration.
  Often we have been guilty at one point or another of being overly 
generous in our praise for a colleague. It is difficult, however, to be 
so today in reference to Senator Mikulski. Mr. President, when we began 
considering this measure this year, assessments of this bill were 
uniformly grim. Previously enacted constraints on discretionary 
spending of the Deficit Reduction Act, augmented by further cuts in the 
budget resolution and the 602(b) allocation, represented a reduction of 
more than $1 billion from the subcommittee's baseline.
  Let me underscore that by saying, in effect, that we had $1 billion 
less this year to appropriate to our various accounts than we had in 
the current fiscal year of 1994. Critical basic research, as well as 
math and science education initiatives of the National Science 
Foundation and technology development activities of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration were threatened by ongoing 
requirements for maintaining low-income housing assistance, veterans' 
benefits, and help to States and localities for environmental 
compliance and economic development. We had to balance all of these 
claims of need and of maintaining our levels of service.
  I am delighted, and, frankly, I am surprised that despite these 
dismal assessments, the measure we have before us today avoided 
sacrificing investments in our Nation's technological future. This bill 
firmly grapples with the spiraling costs of housing subsidies by 
reforming annual inflationary adjustments for section 8 contracts to 
eliminate excessive payments to landlords and providing for a more 
diverse eligibility mix of both working as well as welfare-dependent 
families in subsidized housing.
  These program improvements generated the savings necessary to sustain 
critical programs in space and basic research and also to accommodate 
major new initiatives in aeronautical research and development and in 
academic facility modernization. These two initiatives will help 
maintain our global competitive position in commercial aircraft 
development and will redress years of neglect in the research facility 
infrastructure of our universities.
  The leadership and diligence of the Senator from Maryland has been 
remarkable, and this good conference agreement is a testament to her 
hard work. However, as in any compromise agreement, some issues were 
settled in a fashion that any one of us individually might do 
differently. Frankly, I can only say that with respect to those issues 
that I have brought to the attention of the Senator from Maryland, she 
respected my assessment, the merits of each item, and conscientiously 
considered these needs in the context of a very constrained budget. I 
deeply appreciate her efforts to accommodate these proposals which help 
the people of my State and other parts of this Nation as well.
  It is very easy to be critical of congressional earmarks, and I 
appreciate the arguments of those who would choose a different 
mechanism to evaluate such items. I can only say that certainly with 
the projects that I recommended, and, I know, of other members of the 
minority as well we can say we are pleased to have been approved, they 
stand on their individual merits and are fully justified for funding.
  For these reasons, I strongly support this conference agreement and, 
again, wish to commend the Senator from Maryland for her outstanding 
work on this measure and the tremendous assistance she had from the 
majority staff, headed by Kevin Kelly, Carrie Apostolu, Juanita 
Griffen, Chris Gabriel, and by minority staff, Stephen Kohashi and Dona 
Pate.
  So, Mr. President, I urge the Members of this body on both sides to 
support this conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for those kind remarks.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the conference report be temporarily 
laid aside and that it be in order to proceed to the consideration of 
the remaining amendments in disagreement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I note that there were some Senators who had concern 
about some of these amendments. I would like to just proceed down each 
amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. That is fine with us.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business?


     Amendment in Disagreement to the Amendment of the Senate No. 5

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the first 
amendment in disagreement.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$355,612,000''.

          amendment in disagreement to senate amendment no. 14

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report. The 
legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate No. 14 and concur therein with an 
     amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``to be added to and merged with the foregoing amounts there 
     shall be up to $400,000,000 of amounts of budget authority 
     (and contract authority) reserved or obligated in prior years 
     for the development or acquisition costs of public housing 
     (including public housing for Indian families), for 
     modernization of existing public housing projects (including 
     such projects for Indian families), and, except as herein 
     provided, for programs under section 8 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f), which are recaptured during fiscal year 1995 or are 
     unobligated as of September 30, 1994; and up to $100,000,000 
     of transfers of unobligated balances from the Urban 
     Development Action Grants program:''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment to 
Senate amendment No. 14.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to 
lay on the table was agreed to.


          amendment in disagreement to senate amendment no. 19

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the next 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 19 and concur therein 
     with an amendment:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$2,785,582,000''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment to 
Senate amendment No. 19.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion by lay on the table was agreed to.


          amendment in disagreement to senate amendment no. 20

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the next 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 20 and concur therein 
     with an amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed in said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the total amount provided for 
     rental assistance, a total of up to $400,000,000 may be made 
     available for new programs subject to enactment into law of 
     applicable authorizing legislation''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment to 
Senate amendment No. 20.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


          amendment in disagreement to senate amendment no. 28

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the next 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 28 and concur therein 
     with an amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding the language 
     preceding the first proviso of this paragraph $289,500,000 
     shall be used for special purpose grants in accordance with 
     the terms and conditions specified for such grants in the 
     committee of conference report and statement of the managers 
     (H. Rept. 103-715) accompanying H.R. 4624, except for the 
     grant of $500,000 for the Earth Conservatory for the 
     acquisition of land near WilkesBarre, PA''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum has been questioned. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask that consideration of amendment 28 
as a freestanding item be withdrawn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


amendments in disagreement to senate amendments no. 30, 51, 56, 58, 60, 
                   64, 71, 72, 98, 100, 111, and 117

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I now ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate in disagreement 
be considered and agreed to en bloc with the exception of amendments 
28, 84, and 123.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments in disagreement considered and agreed to en bloc are 
as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 30 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed in said amendment, insert: 
     ``$2,536,000,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 51 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
       The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended in each of 
     sections 6(c)(4)(A)(ii) and 8(d)(1)(A)(ii), by striking ``and 
     (V)'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``(V) 
     assisting families that include one or more adult members who 
     are employed; and (VI)''; and in sections 6(c)(4)(A)(ii) and 
     8(d)(1)(A)(ii), by inserting after the final semicolon in 
     each the following: ``subclause (V) shall be effective only 
     during fiscal year 1995;''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 56 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows:


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $1,730,000 are rescinded immediately upon 
     enactment of this Act.
       Resoloved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 58 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:


              community development financial institutions

           community development financial institutions fund

                            program account

       For grants, loans, and technical assistance to qualifying 
     community development lenders, and administrative expenses of 
     the Fund, $125,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, up to $10,000,000 may be used for the cost of 
     direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program: 
     Provided further, That the cost of direct loans, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be defined as in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $75,815,000: Provided further, That not more than 
     $39,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading 
     may be used for programs and activities authorized in section 
     114 of the Community Development Banking and Financial 
     Institutions Act of 1994.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 60 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and proposed by said 
     amendment, insert: ``$575,000,000, of which $386,212,000 is 
     available for obligation for the period September 1, 1995 
     through August 31, 1996''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 64 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided further, That not more than $14,175,000 of the 
     $145,900,000 for the National Service Trust shall be for 
     educational awards authorized under section 129(b) of the 
     subtitle C of title I of the Act''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 71 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:


                        research and development

       For research and development activities, including 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     and construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $350,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That not more than $55,000,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for procurement of laboratory equipment, 
     supplies, and other operating expenses in support of research 
     and development.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:


                   abatement, control, and compliance

       For abatement, control, and compliance activities, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; $1,417,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996: Provided, That not more than $304,722,500 of these 
     funds shall be available for operating expenses: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this head 
     shall be available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration pursuant to section 118(h)(3) of the Federal 
     water Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided further, 
     That from funds appropriated under this heading, the 
     Administrator may make grants to federally recognized Indian 
     governments for the development of multimedia environmental 
     programs.
       Resolved, that the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 98 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:

                    National Aeronautical Facilities


                         (including rescission)

       For construction of new national wind tunnel facilities, 
     including final design, modification of existing facilities, 
     necessary equipment, and for acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property as authorized by law, for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, $400,000,000, to remain 
     available until March 31, 1997: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be rescinded on July 15, 
     1995, unless the President requests at least $400,000,000 in 
     the fiscal year 1996 budget request for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for continuation of this 
     wind tunnel initiative.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 100 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert: 
     ``, to remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided, 
     That of the amounts made available under the heading 
     ``Research and program management'' in Public Law 103-211, 
     $18,000,000 are rescinded immediately upon enactment of this 
     Act: Provided further, That an additional $18,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1995, shall be 
     immediately available for research and program management 
     activities, contingent upon the enactment of the rescission 
     in the preceding proviso before October 1, 1994''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 111 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided further, That $131,867,000 of the funds under 
     this heading are available for obligation for the period 
     September 1, 1995 through August 31, 1996: Provided further, 
     That the funds made available in the preceding proviso shall 
     be rescinded on July 15, 1995, unless the President requests 
     at least $250,000,000 in the fiscal year 1996 budget request 
     for the National Science Foundation for academic research 
     infrastructure activities''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 117 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
       Sec. 518. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand it, 28 is the pending business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I note that the Senator from New Hampshire would prefer 
that the Senator from Arizona go forth first on his amendment to 84, so 
that I ask that amendment 28 be laid aside and that we proceed to 
amendment 84.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.


          amendment in disagreement to senate amendment no. 84

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the next 
amendment in disagreement.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 84 and concur therein 
     with an amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:


               water infrastructure/State Revolving Fund

       For necessary expenses 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, as amended, and the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
     $2,962,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $22,500,000 shall be for making grants under section 
     104(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $100,000,000 shall be for making grants under 
     section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended, and shall be available only upon enactment of clean 
     water authorizing legislation, but if no such legislation is 
     enacted by November 1, 1994, these funds shall immediately be 
     available; $52,500,000 shall be for section 510 of the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987; $70,000,000 shall be for making grants 
     under section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service Act; and, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $781,800,000 
     shall be available upon enactment of clean water authorizing 
     legislation, but if no such legislation is enacted by 
     November 1, 1994, the funds shall then be available for 
     making grants for the construction of wastewater treatment 
     facilities in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     specified for such grants in House Report 103-715: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, $500,000,000 
     made available under this heading in Public Law 103-124, and 
     earmarked to not become available until May 31, 1994, which 
     date was extended to September 30, 1994, in Public Law 103-
     211, shall be available upon enactment of clean water 
     authorizing legislation, but if no such legislation is 
     enacted by September 30, 1994, these funds shall then be 
     available for making grants for the construction of 
     wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with the terms 
     and conditions specified for such grants in House Report 103-
     715: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $1,235,200,000 shall be available upon 
     enactment of clean water state revolving fund authorizing 
     legislation, but if no such legislation is enacted by 
     November 1, 1994, these funds shall immediately be available 
     for making capitalization grants under title VI of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the grant awarded from funds appropriated under 
     the paragraph with the heading ``Construction grants'' in 
     title III of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 858), for construction of 
     wastewater treatment facilities for the towns of Ware Shoals 
     and Honea Path, South Carolina, and would include, but would 
     not be limited to, the construction of a connector sewer 
     line, consisting of a main trunk line and four pump stations 
     for the town of Honea Path, South Carolina, to the wastewater 
     treatment facility in the town of Ware Shoals, South 
     Carolina, the upgrade and expansion of the Ware Shoals 
     wastewater treatment plant, and the demolition of the 
     Chiquala Mill Lagoon, the Clatworthy Lagoon, the Corner Creek 
     Lagoon, and the Still Branch Lagoon.


amendment no. 2587 to the amendment in disagreement to senate amendment 
                                 no. 84

(Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of appropriated amounts to carry 
                   out certain programs and projects)

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to amendment No. 84 to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2587 to the amendment of the House to the amendment 
     of the Senate numbered 84.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading for 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATED 
                   AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act--
       (1) no amounts appropriated under this Act shall be 
     expended for a program or project that has not been--
       (A) specifically, authorized by law prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (B) funded under--
       (i) H.R. 4624, as passed by the House of Representatives on 
     June 29, 1994; or
       (ii) H.R. 4624, as passed by the Senate on August 4, 1994; 
     and
       (2) any amounts appropriated under this Act for a program 
     or project that does not meet the requirements of paragraph 
     (1) shall be distributed by the agency designated under this 
     Act to administer the funds according to an applicable 
     formula or an appropriate merit-based selection procedure.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
I am surprised and deeply disappointed that this body today is 
considering a bill that contains hundreds of millions of dollars for 
specific projects that were not approved in either the House bill or 
the Senate bill but were inserted in conference behind closed doors by 
a few select members of the committee without the input, and advice, or 
the consent of the Members of this body.
  Mr. President, last week, a very interesting poll was published, and 
it was done by Times Mirror, a very respected organization, and among 
many interesting statistics that this poll showed is that 20 percent of 
the American people believe we are on the right track. A very small 
percentage approve of Congress. In fact, the public, and I quote now, 
``is more supportive of a third major party today than it was a decade 
ago.'' Today, 53 percent of the American people would rather see a 
different party than the two that they have today.
  I just came back from visiting a neighboring State of mine. I 
traveled also around my State. I have recently visited many States 
giving talks, meeting with people, having discussions, and doing a lot 
of campaigning. Do you know what the common theme is which I hear from 
everybody I talk to in my State, and also in many Western States where 
I have been primarily spending my time? It is an anger, a disgust with 
the way Congress does business. Mr. President, they are tired of the 
pork-barreling that goes on and on and on, and it has to stop. It must 
stop.
  This bill before us has the unique quality that there is more money, 
hundreds of millions of dollars, $155 million in new special purpose 
grants, for example, that were not in the House bill, were not in the 
Senate bill, were never proposed, debated on the floor of this Senate. 
Now we find them coming out of the conference in the bill.
  Mr. President, I say to the members of the Appropriations Committee, 
do you know what you do when you do that? You deprive me of my vote and 
you deprive the citizens of Arizona of their representation because 
Members of Congress who were not on the Appropriations Committee were 
not able to fully consider these appropriations. All of the Members of 
this body and from the House that were sent here by their constituents 
were not able to review these projects. The only people who knew about 
it were the people from the Appropriations Committee. And astonishingly 
enough, guess what? Most of the money goes to the States and the 
districts of the members of the committee. Is that not a coincidence?
  Mr. President, I am going to detail some of these projects. Some of 
them may be good, some of them may be bad, some of them may be 
worthwhile, and some of them may not be worthwhile. But the fact is, 
this is the first time that the Senate, the overall 100 Members of the 
Senate, have had the opportunity to consider them when we really have 
little option. The only option we have is to amend an amendment in 
disagreement.
  I do not know if $155 million in new special purpose grants, which 
includes $300,000 to rehabilitate uninsured buildings damaged by fire 
and provide residential and commercial use in Auburn, NY, is something 
that is so critical because I have not had a chance to review it, or 
other Members of this body. I do not know if $450,000 for the 
construction of the Center for Political Participation at the 
University of Maryland is a worthwhile project. This is the first time 
I have seen it. I am all for political participation. But do we really 
need to spend $450,000 for the construction of that center at College 
Park, MD, without this body having considered it?
  How about $750,000 for the SciTrek Science Museum to create a 
mezzanine level in its building to increase exhibit space in downtown 
Atlanta? That may be crucial. It may be that the citizens of Arizona 
say, ``Please, Senator McCain. Give them $750,000 to construct a 
mezzanine level in their building.'' But where is the competition? 
Where is the judgment here? Who said that we needed it?
  What about $2.6 million to the city of Houston for community 
development activities? I believe that the city of Houston needs 
community activities. I have not been to Houston lately. But I think it 
is probably something that is very nice. Why could we not have 
considered an amendment for $2.6 million for the city of Houston on 
that bill?
  Mr. President, you know, one of the things that we spend the 
taxpayers' money on, which we do a lot of around here, is to print 
pamphlets. These are very important to educate the American people. I 
think that some of them are very worthwhile. One of them that I have 
used and sent to my constituents when they have asked for it is, of 
course, ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' It is an excellent publication. Do 
you know what it says in ``How Our Laws Are Made''? It says that the 
conference cannot add any extraneous or additional amendments that were 
not included in either the House or the Senate bill.
  So what we need to do, in my view, is either stop sending out this 
book or correct it and tell the American people the truth. Tell them 
what is going on here. In this case, hundreds of millions of dollars 
were added in conference which were neither in the House nor the Senate 
bill.
  I want to repeat. These may be good projects. In fact, there is a 
project included in this for my own state of Arizona which is an 
important project. I would like to see that project funded. But I do 
not believe it should be funded in this manner. I cannot stand before 
you and seek approval for a project in Arizona and disapprove of others 
throughout the country.
  The conference committee added more than $250 million in new 
earmarked wastewater treatment plants projects to the bill. I remind my 
colleagues that this was in addition to the more than $529 million in 
earmarks that were already in the bill. The money being directed to 
these special projects would otherwise be distributed equally to all 
States. I want to repeat. This $529 million was already approved, and 
then add on $250 million, and these are earmarked wastewater treatment 
projects that are going to go to specific States and districts. If they 
were not earmarked, then that money would go equally to all other 
States. So what we are doing is showing favoritism to some States over 
others in this legislation.
  It should come as no surprise that most of this money went to the 
home States of Members on the Appropriations Committee or in leadership 
positions. Estimates indicate that half the special purpose grants went 
to seven States represented by a dozen members of the conference 
committee. All of the State revolving fund earmarks went to States 
represented by either members of the Appropriations Committee or 
congressional leadership.
  Congressman Fawell in the House estimates that only $7 million of the 
special purpose grants had been properly authorized; $7 million of the 
$250 million. I ask my colleagues, in times of shrinking budgets and 
increasing demands, is this the proper way to do the Nation's business?
  I want to make it clear again that I am not opposed to any individual 
project included in this conference report. The amendment that I am 
offering is not about any one project. In fact, I am certain, as I 
said, that many of these projects are very worthy and may merit 
support. But the fact is that we have a limited amount of Federal 
resources to address pressing needs. A $4 trillion debt and the 
interest of good government demand that these resources be distributed 
favorably and according to our true priorities.
  The amendment which I have introduced today speaks directly to the 
practice by striking funding for any projects added in conference that 
has not been authorized. It is crucial that the Senate be heard on this 
issue. The conference report before the Senate contains millions of 
dollars in earmarks, as I said, that were added during the conference. 
This practice is having a damaging effect on the budget process.
  Mr. President, I realize this amendment will probably fail. The 
budget crisis affecting the Nation is a sickness requiring strong 
medicine. Unfortunately, when I or my colleagues have offered strong 
medicine, we have been rebuffed. During the appropriations process, 
several amendments were offered to either curb or eliminate these types 
of earmarks, and each time the Senate voted to keep it.
  One of the best examples of this was an amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire to take money for special purpose grants and 
place it into the Community Development Block Grant Program. The 
Community Development Block Program is one of the best examples of 
community empowerment within the Federal Government. This program 
allows for competition between and among projects. How do I know that 
an Arizona project is not more worthy than ones receiving earmarks. 
Unfortunately, under this bill, there is no opportunity for 
competitiveness.
  My amendment, I believe, will restore some fairness. As I said, I 
realize that one of the projects added in conference would benefit my 
home State of Arizona. The conference report contains $5 million for a 
regional water quality research project in Pima County, AZ. I believe 
it is a worthwhile project, and one that I would fully support. But its 
inclusion in the conference report, without consideration by either 
House or Senate, is not proper. I am sure that the more political 
response may be to say that we should go ahead with this. But I cannot.
  The practice of earmarking funds is seriously affecting the ability 
of Congress to set and fund our Nation's priorities. The process is 
skewed even further when the earmarks are added in conference. I want 
to repeat: This amendment would strike any earmark that was not 
included in either the House or the Senate bill and was not authorized.
  I do this, Mr. President, because I believe that the people of my 
State sent me here to have a voice in what this body does. They sent 
Members of the House of Representatives, the other body, so that they 
would have a voice. They do not have a voice when conferees join 
together in a room somewhere and put in projects that were not in the 
Senate bill, were not in the House bill, and the first time we see it 
is when a conference report comes out, which we know is very difficult 
to amend, if not impossible, and to debate.
  This practice must stop, Mr. President.
  The reason why the crime bill, which passed the Congress, was so 
strongly opposed by the American people was not because of the issue of 
the ban on assault weapons. In fact, the first time the crime bill 
passed this body by a vote of about 94 to 5. The reason why the 
American people--by the last poll I saw, 55 percent of them opposed the 
crime bill for the reason that they thought it was full of pork. They 
are right. This bill has many very important and vital projects in it.
  So instead of having a bill we can show the American people that we 
are proud of and which will address many of the pressing needs of our 
veterans and our housing needs throughout this Nation, instead we are 
now putting in these projects which may or may not be necessary. If 
they are necessary, let us go through the proper process that ``How Our 
Laws Are Made'' describes as to how this Congress should work. The 
American people want us to go back to legislating in a manner in which 
all of the Members of both bodies can participate. When we do it this 
way, we are being unfair to the American people.
  As I say, I do not believe this amendment will carry. We have lost 
other amendments. But I would like to say again to my colleagues that I 
will continue to fight unauthorized appropriations in a conference 
report every time it comes up. Maybe I will not prevail the first time 
or the second time or the fifth time or the tenth time. But I know the 
American people do not want this, just like several other issues I have 
been involved in. They do not want it. They do not believe that the 
majority of these projects should be earmarked for members of the 
committee or the congressional leadership. They believe there should be 
a fair and honest and open competition for projects using their hard-
earned tax dollars. Maybe we need a mezzanine, a science museum 
mezzanine, and maybe the city of Houston needs $2.6 million for 
community development activities. But we will never know because it has 
not been open to competition.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote be held tomorrow at a time set by 
the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time for the vote will 
be set by the majority leader.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thank you very much. I rise in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  First, I am going to deal with an issue raised by the Senator in his 
debate. The sponsor of this amendment inferred that because some 
projects were added in conference, that this is somehow an underhanded 
process that was not subject to full and open disclosure. That is 
simply not true.
  In the first instance, adding projects in conference does not violate 
Senate rules and is not subject to any points of order.
  Second, our conference was open to the public and held during normal 
business hours. I repeat that. Our conference was open to the public 
and held during normal business hours. Anyone could have attended. 
Anyone could have sent their staff. We received no notes that came in 
in opposition to what we were doing. Copies of the conference 
committee's annotated conference notes with the disposition of all 
items in disagreement--which really ran 88 pages of single-spaced type 
for the entire bill--were given to all members of the conference 
committee on both sides of the aisle.
  Our conference report was filed on September 1. Members of the Senate 
and their staffs have had more than 3 weeks to review the decisions 
made by the conferees. We were bipartisan, and we were bicameral in our 
approach to projects. There were no sharp elbows. There were no efforts 
to exclude or preclude members on the Republican side of the aisle from 
this process. In fact, during the meetings held in conference, the 
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Texas, 
was present at all times. His staff was involved.
  So this is not like something that was done in the middle of the 
night. This is not where someone held a conference from 3 in the 
morning to 5:30 in the morning to be cute or to be tricky, and so on. 
Nor is it characteristic of this Chair of the subcommittee to do 
anything underhanded, behind the scenes, or in a backhanded, 
underhanded way. I think we need to realize that. We followed the 
rules, and we met during normal business hours. The Senate has had the 
time to review these projects.
  Let me go into the projects. None of the projects we added were done 
in an arbitrary way by this Appropriations Committee. Every item 
proposed by the House was requested by a Member of the House. Every 
item proposed by the House was requested by a Member of the House, and 
most of them had a Member of the Senate requesting them as well.
  I received 1,100 requests for projects in this bill. I received 1,100 
requests for projects in this bill, with a total dollar amount of $96 
billion. Shocking, is it not? But that is what we on the Appropriations 
Committee do. We say ``no'' more often than we say ``yes.'' It is not 
like these are just a few items that have come to us; 1,100 requests 
came to me and, I know, to the distinguished Senator from Texas, and it 
totaled $96 billion just on individual projects in a variety of things.
  You have no idea of the number of outpatient clinics people wanted to 
build, how many wings on art museums they wanted to build, and how many 
other items, where we felt we were going to not do wings on our 
museums, but we were going to come in on a wing and a prayer. This 
list, compared to what we have, is skimpy. The criterion we used was 
that it had to meet a real need to have the concurrence of a House or 
Senate Member.
  I will note that the Senator from Arizona made no request of the 
1,100. But what we did do, when we talk about authorizing, is that we 
have done things for Arizona that were not authorized, and we went 
ahead and did them knowing they were going to be authorized. There is a 
much-needed VA facility in Arizona due to the changing population there 
that was requested by the other Senator from Arizona. We knew it was 
pending in VA authorization. We were not sure when the VA authorization 
would move forth, but we knew it had been requested by the Veterans' 
Administration, that it met a need, and by the other Senator from 
Arizona, and that it was in the VA authorizing bill. We went ahead and 
moved it. It has subsequently been authorized. But we did not wait for 
it to be authorized because we would not have been able to meet that 
need in this fiscal year.
  The compelling subject of the colonias that both Senators from New 
Mexico have spoken to me about, both Senators from Texas have spoken to 
me about, is also in Arizona. We know the issue of colonias. We helped 
with the colonias bill in another fiscal year. It was not authorized 
but it sure met that need.
  Also we have the request then from both Senators from New Mexico, one 
a member of the party not mine.
  So we have tried to work together in anticipation of what has been 
authorized, but I think we need to face facts. There has been a 
collapse of the authorizing process for a variety of reasons which we 
will not discuss in this debate to it, and then it falls on the 
Appropriations Committee to do that and then we are taken to the 
woodshed because of the fact that there is gridlock in the authorizing 
committees.
  I just wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues and perhaps 
now when we return to it next after this year's election perhaps the 
distinguished Senator who offers this amendment would like to join the 
Appropriations Committee because I know the Senator from Arizona knows 
currently the appropriation is not there.
  It is a very tough job being on the Appropriations Committee, and we 
wish that the authorizing committees could get their legislation done.
  Let me just give you an example of the HUD projects. Everybody says 
it is going to only the members of the Appropriations Committee or to 
the leadership of the Appropriations Committee. In the HUD projects in 
this bill they go to 45 States. We do not focus on projects which will 
benefit just for members of the Appropriations Committee. In this bill 
we funded HUD projects in 19 States that have no members of the 
Appropriations Committee. Among those States that have no members of 
the Appropriations Committee are: Kansas, Alabama, Connecticut, 
Illinois, Georgia, Indiana--where both Senators are from a different 
party so it does not tilt to one party--Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, 
Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
  I want to bring that to the attention of my colleagues. This subject 
was considered for debate in the Senate's original consideration of the 
VA-HUD bill. I know the Senator from New Hampshire offered an amendment 
to strike the projects and we had I felt a very civil and rational 
debate. The Senate voted 71 to 27 to support the inclusion of HUD 
projects in this legislation and then voted by a vote of 60 to 37 to 
include EPA wastewater projects in this bill.
  In terms of the HUD projects, as the sponsors of the amendment know, 
the Senate Banking Committee reported out comprehensive housing 
legislation on July 13, more than 2 months ago. But the leaders of that 
committee have not been allowed to bring that bill to the floor for 
either a vote or amendments.
  There will be little likelihood to get any projects authorized on 
that vehicle. The House, therefore, felt that it should bring those 
items to the VA-HUD conference, and they were added there.
  These projects were the subject of full and vigorous debate when the 
VA-HUD conference report was considered on the House floor. The House 
approved those projects by a vote of 189 to 180 on September 12.
  So each body has voted on these items at least once and approved 
them.
  This procedure for accommodating House HUD special purpose grants is 
nothing new. In fact, it is the exact same approach which was used on 
the last three VA-HUD bills that had HUD special projects, fiscal years 
1993, 1992, and 1991.
  This not a new procedure. We have done it this way in the past and 
the Senate has approved this approach.
  We should then also turn to the VA construction projects. When the 
House and Senate initially passed the VA-HUD bill, there was still the 
chance that a substantial health care insurance reform bill would pass.
  The projects added in conference for VA facility construction were 
all requested by the administration as part of the veterans' component 
of health care legislation.
  Since the decision to postpone comprehensive health care reform was 
made after Senate action on the VA-HUD bill, the conferees believed 
that we should permit the VA to proceed with these four additional 
ambulatory care additions which were requested.
  We did not want to penalize the veterans of the four places where 
these projects will be located--Florida, Virginia Connecticut, and 
Puerto Rico--simply because health insurance reform was not passed.
  Each project has been included in the VA-HUD construction 
authorization bill that passed the Senate prior to the August recess.
  Lastly, I would like to address the EPA wastewater projects. These 
are projects focused on so-called called needy cities, areas with 
severe water pollution problems which cannot afford to bear the entire 
cost of the facilities needed to correct these problems under the Clean 
Water Act.
  As I said, the Senate voted in favor of including EPA wastewater 
projects by a vote of 60 to 37 on August 4.
  The House approved the conferees action on them just 2 weeks ago.
  Many might wonder why we waited until conference to add some projects 
in EPA. The answer is simple--out of deference to the authorization 
process. Could they do it? The answer is no, they could not. That is a 
no-fault comment of mine. There are a variety of reasons why, but they 
could not. We know that both in the House and the Senate the 
authorizers could not move a bill and we waited and we waited and we 
waited.
  EPA's Clean Water Act programs have not been authorized since fiscal 
year 1992. For the last 3 years we have waited to see if the clean 
water bill would pass the Congress.
  So, you can see that is where these items arise.
  I would just like to then say in summary if we adopt the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona we will run the risk of delaying 
the enactment of this important legislation until after October 1 and 
force the amendment to go back to the House for a separate vote, and it 
probably means we would not get this bill passed before the start of 
the fiscal year at midnight on Friday. And this kind of delay will have 
negative cost consequences for VA funding, the space program. The 
committee included a provision that allow VA to use $50 million in 1994 
for veterans' medical care that otherwise lapses on October 1.
  Delaying action on this bill is not simply making a $50 million cut 
in VA. It would cut it and its effect would be 9,800 veterans will be 
denied medical care, and 83,000 outpatient visits to doctors will not 
take place, and it would have a very serious impact.
  I could go through the impact on other items but let me say this: For 
many years we went into something called the continuing resolution, and 
for those colleagues who did not serve in the House--I know the Senator 
from Idaho has and the Senator from New Hampshire has--but I say this 
to the Senator from Arizona. It was awful here. We would be here until 
after October 1. The Appropriations Committee moved at a different pace 
than now.
  Now really we have stepped up to the responsibility of meeting our 
responsibilities in a way that meets the times. I have been waiting 
since we came back from the so-called August break to move my bill, but 
we worked very hard to be able to make sure that we were ready to go 
for the fiscal year and we worked hard, as I said, in public meetings, 
regular business hours, and so on.
  So I know that the Senator has concerns, and I think that there is 
some merit to his concerns. But I think to pass this amendment, send it 
back on October 1, place this bill in a continuing resolution, really 
would jeopardize some of the things related to the core programs and 
really hurt, actually hurt people in terms of things like veterans' 
medical care, and housing for the elderly, and other things, and so 
forth.
  I know we could debate this at length. I just wanted to bring some of 
these items to my colleagues' attention. And of course I am prepared to 
discuss this further but for now I will yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I shall make a couple brief remarks.
  One is ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' I would hope that we could run 
another printing. Because how our laws are made under authority of 
conferees it says:

       The conferees are strictly limited in their consideration 
     to matters in disagreement between the two Houses. 
     Consequently, they may not strike out or amend any portion of 
     the bill not amended by the Senate. Furthermore they may not 
     insert new matter that is not germane to the differences 
     between the two Houses.

  Clearly we are misinforming the American people very badly, and I 
think we ought to have a reprint of this because we are deceiving them 
because what actually happens is that we spend hours of debate on a 
bill here in the Senate. They do not in the other body because of the 
difference in rules. And the hundreds of requests for special projects 
that the Senator from Maryland mentioned should be considered I would 
hope rather than stuffed in this in a conference which is not in 
keeping with the law as we know it but more importantly deprives the 
rest of us from any input into it.
  I would also repeat that this amendment says that it will strike only 
those appropriations which are not authorized. The Senator from 
Maryland mentioned that there is money for 9 VA ambulatory care 
additions at the VA medical center in Phoenix. That is an authorized 
project and would not be subject to this amendment. Whether it was or 
not, it is the process that we are trying to change here not the 
individual projects.
  I note that the proponents of doing business this way do not address 
the process, but they address the virtues of some of the projects 
themselves. I do not intend to get into that debate. The virtues of 
those projects should be addressed when we are considering the 
legislation originally, not having the 80-some other Members of this 
body that are not members of the Appropriations Committee presented a 
fait accompli into which we have had no input.
  And it is wrong. Everybody knows that it is wrong. The outside 
watchdog groups that observe the legislature in action, the National 
Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Citizens 
for a Sound Economy, every objective observer knows this process is 
wrong.
  As I said, sooner or later, if we ever hope to obtain a modicum of 
confidence from the people we represent, it has to stop. It just has to 
stop.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the yeas and 
nays on this amendment be set by the majority leader at some later time 
today or later tomorrow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought it would be an opportune time 
this afternoon, with the debate of the Senator from Arizona, to present 
to the Senate, to the chairman from Maryland, the ranking member from 
Oregon and all that are interested in this process, as we all are, an 
editorial that appeared in Investor's Business Daily today that I 
thought was very fitting to the debate in the context of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona. The title of the editorial is 
``Putting Principle First.''
  The reason I thought it was appropriate is because it places in 
context the jeopardy--I use the word ``jeopardy''--that I believe both 
political parties are placing themselves in the business-as-usual 
attitude that we constantly work at here, failing to recognize what I 
believe the American people are beginning to say very loudly about that 
business-as-usual attitude.
  Let me for a few moments refer to portions of the editorial.
  And I also ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Putting Principle First

       Voter anger and cynicism continue to grow because our 
     political leaders refuse to change anything but their 
     rhetoric. Their talk shifts with the wind, but Washington 
     goes on as usual.
       Until the parties put forth policies based on principles--
     and actually follow them--anti-incumbent fever will continue 
     to rage.
       The failure to comprehend this is most obvious at the White 
     House, where President Clinton blames his declining 
     popularity on poor communications and fears fanned by special 
     interests that oppose his policies.
       In fact, Clinton is unpopular because he has changed little 
     in Washington in two years.
       Expert and popular opinion agree, for example, that the 
     just-passed crime bill won't reduce crime--let alone put 
     100,000 more cops on the street.
       The declining budget deficit is mainly the result of 
     defense cuts and accounting tricks. The entitlement-spending 
     time-bomb guarantees the deficit will boom again before the 
     end of the decade.
       Clinton's biggest initiative by far was his health-care 
     reform plan--an audacious bid to increase government power 
     while talking up market reform.
       His chief allies in this battle were the Democratic 
     congressional leadership--reactionaries hoping to recover the 
     glories of the New Deal and the Great Society.
       The same alliance has led him to put off welfare reform, 
     oppose term limits and gut potentially beneficial measures 
     like ``reinventing government'' and proposals on education 
     and job-training.
       Washington's Republicans are no better. They collude in 
     ignoring the entitlement mess, shy away from specific 
     spending cuts and secretly fear term limits. Above all else, 
     they are scared to admit to the voters that government can't 
     cure all ills, even under Republicans.
       The GOP faces a choice between the Reaganauts and the 
     Nixonites. Nixon perfected the art of channeling voter anger 
     at his opponents during campaigns, but he exacerbated the 
     root causes of that anger while in office.
       Nixon first nationalized the crime issue but did nothing 
     about it. He appealed to concerns over moral decline and 
     economic insecurity, but expanded the welfare state and 
     instituted wage and price controls.
       Reagan, an American optimist, said the federal government 
     was the problem, not the solution, and did his best to govern 
     by that philosophy. It is no coincidence that public distrust 
     of government fell as Reagan tamed an ambitious bureaucracy.
       Bush wrapped himself in Reagan's aura, but soon showed he 
     lacked guiding principles. He successfully exposed Michael 
     Dukakis' liberalism, but in office offered only a watered-
     down version of the same. Taxes, spending and regulation all 
     boomed as the economy sank.
       On Tuesday, House Republicans will unveil an agenda for the 
     next Congress, including such goodies as modest welfare 
     reform and a cut in the tax on capital gains. GOP Senate 
     candidates have already endorsed a similar list.
       But as Jack Kemp has already pointed out, there's no grand 
     vision--no serious income-tax cut, no challenge to the 
     perverse incentives of the welfare-entitlement state.
       In other words, it's hard to see how big Republican gains 
     in November will bring any more change to Washington than did 
     the arrival of Bill Clinton.
       Both U.S. political parties should look at what's happened 
     to their counterparts throughout the West. Recent elections 
     have crippled or destroyed parties in Japan, Canada, Italy, 
     France and Australia. Britain's Tories are on the ropes, 
     saved only by the sorry state of England's Left.
       The same fate may await the Democrats this fall.
       Republicans may benefit short-term from Clinton's failure. 
     But they will have to elaborate some closely held beliefs and 
     craft policies to reflect them or they will be the next.

  Mr. CRAIG. The editorial starts out by talking about:

       Voter anger and cynicism continue to go grow because our 
     political leaders refuse to change anything but their 
     rhetoric. Their talk shifts with the wind, but Washington 
     goes on as usual.
       Until the parties put forth policies based on principles--
     and actually follow them--anti-incumbent fever will continue 
     to rage.
       The failure to comprehend this is most obvious with the 
     White House, where President Clinton blames his declining 
     popularity on poor communications and fears fanned by special 
     interests that oppose his policies.
       In fact, Clinton is unpopular because he has changed little 
     in Washington in 2 years.

  We have changed little in the budget process in the last 2 years. We 
have talked about budget control and deficit control and yet the 
deficit continues to grow and the debt becomes even larger and the 
American people become increasingly angry.
  The editorial goes on:

       Expert and popular opinion agree, for example, that the 
     just-passed crime bill won't reduce crime--let alone put 
     100,000 more cops on the street.

  ``The declining budget deficit''--while it is declining a little 
bit--``is mainly the result of defense cuts and a few accounting 
tricks. The entitlement-spending time bomb guarantees the deficit will 
boom again before the end of the decade.''
  While the editorial goes on to be critical of President Clinton and 
the process, I would not be fair to the editorial or the premise of my 
argument if I did not drop down and read this. It says: ``Washington's 
Republicans are no better. They collude in ignoring the entitlement 
mess, shy away from specific spending cuts''--of the kind we are 
talking here today--``and secretly fear term limits. Above all else, 
they are scared to admit to the voters that Government can't cure all 
ills, even under Republicans.''
  In other words, the article was critical of both parties. And it was 
critical of both parties because we will not stand for reform, we will 
not talk about the principles on which we believe better Government 
could run. And so for the next few moments I would like to tell you 
that there are some who are trying to do that.
  Just this week, Phil Gramm and those who are running for the Senate 
here--Senate challengers--brought out seven principles that they say 
will be key to the debate if another party, my party, is in the 
majority in the U.S. Senate: Enactment of a balanced budget amendment. 
Is that a principle? You are darn right it is a principle that many of 
us have been debating for and agreeing on for many years but never get 
the two-thirds majority necessary.
  Now, I will tell you, if we had a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, I doubt that the Senator from Arizona would be on the 
floor today offering an amendment to cut nonauthorized provisions out 
of an appropriations bill. And the reason is that would not be allowed. 
There would not be any margins of hundreds of millions of dollars 
laying around inside a budget because we would have to adhere to the 
very strict guidelines of a budgetary process that would probably come 
if we enacted a balanced budget amendment.
  Those Senators or candidates who stood before a podium last week on 
Capitol Hill to talk about the seven principles that would guide a 
Republican Senate talked about doubling the income tax exemption for 
children. In other words, shifting away from Government and shifting 
back to families and allowing them to have a greater priority of the 
use of their own money instead of the Federal Government taking it away 
from them and reprioritizing its spending outside of what a family 
believes is best for themselves and their children. That is a 
principle. That is a principle that we used to adhere to years and 
years ago, until we, in a very creeping and methodical way, decided 
that Government could do more for people than the people themselves and 
especially the family unit. And we starved that unit down so that now 
it is almost impossible for it to operate in the context that we once 
believed a family unit in American society could operate.
  Well, we have debated health care and health care reform, and we will 
get back to that in another year, hopefully guided by principles of a 
marketplace in which real people make real decisions about their health 
instead of a Federal bureaucracy built on making decisions of what is 
good for people.
  I hope we get there. That is a principle that this Government and 
this Congress ought to be geared toward and that we ought to debate. 
And it is something that the Investor's Business Daily spoke of today 
as principles in Government that Americans want to see their two-party 
system talk about instead of what we have been currently involved in.
  There were other issues involved, but let me, in closing, talk about 
another approach that I and Senator Ben Campbell in a bipartisan way 
this last week, now signed on by nearly 10 Members of the Senate, 
believe is part of why we ought to be talking about principle.
  We offered for this Senate to review what we call a Common Cents 
Budget Reform Act. And I think the Budget Committee will begin to look 
at this next year. The Budget Committee chairman has talked about a 
hearing on October 5. Well, that is just a few days before adjournment, 
and I would not expect that we could enact any of these policies this 
year, but it begins to move us toward principle again.
  Baseline budget reform. In other words, look at the budgets as they 
are each year and decide on what we add or want to add to them, not 
this automatic escalator that is built into our system when we cut $200 
billion out of a budget and somebody says it is a real cut when in fact 
it is only a reduction in the rates of increase, a 4- or 5-percent 
increase instead of a 10 or 12 percent increase. My goodness, that 
confuses the American people. They do not understand what we are 
talking about.

  We tell them that the budget is cut, and yet the budget is more than 
it was the year before and they say, ``Where are the principles in 
budgeting? Why are we here talking about projects that were 
unauthorized to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?''
  I am not condemning the chairman or the ranking member, because that 
is the way it has been done. That is the way the process has worked. Is 
it right or is it wrong? I will not judge it, but the American people 
are judging it. They are confused. They are growing angry. And as the 
editorial spoke of today, there is a growing malaise of cynicism across 
this country that says something is wrong in Washington and nobody 
wants to fix it. We know what happens when nobody here fixes it. Those 
folks outside the Beltway fix it because they send new faces with new 
messages and a new idea.
  In that Common Cents Budget Reform Act that we introduced last 
Friday, we talked also about guaranteeing that a cut is a cut. In other 
words, when you cut a budget it does not go over somewhere else and get 
spent, it actually goes against the deficit. Is that not an exciting 
idea?
  I have served on a few conferences when I would be willing to cut 
something, only to find another Member grabbing it and adding it to 
another program. And the American people say then why do you cut? The 
reason that goes on is because for years the way you got elected was 
who could deliver the greatest amount of pork to their district or 
their State. It was a test of their ability as a governing politician. 
And, thank goodness, the American people are beginning to say, ``No, 
no, that is not going to be a test anymore.''
  The crime bill, ``How much pork can I deliver to my urban area?'' The 
American people, by a poll of now nearly 60 percent said, ``Wrong, you 
misjudged us. We did not want a pork bill. We wanted a crime bill. We 
wanted criminals off the street. We did not want midnight basketball. 
We did not want a lot of other things that belonged to the 
responsibility of the municipality or the State where law enforcement 
has always been the primary responsibility.''
  In other words, ``Washington, you really cannot judge us very well as 
a citizenry, as a community. Let us do for ourselves what we think is 
best. But pass some national laws that get tough on criminals and keep 
them off the streets. That is what will make America safer.'' That is 
part of this debate.
  Has it anything to do with the amendment of the Senator from Arizona? 
Yes, it does in some way, because it is clearly part of that growing 
cynicism, as I mentioned, that the editorial in that newspaper talked 
about.
  I also, along with Senator Campbell, introduced the modified line-
item veto expedited rescission approach. I trust this President or any 
President to have the right to pull out his pen and walk across an 
appropriations bill and say, ``No, that does not fit my agenda, my 
spending priorities.''
  I might happen to disagree with it. But I do, then, believe it is the 
responsibility of this Senate and the House to be able to vote up or 
down and say, ``Yes, the President is right,'' or, ``No, the President 
is wrong.'' It gives an opportunity to air, maybe, some of these 
special items the Senator from Arizona is talking about today that 
somehow creep into a budget because it is a special project for a 
special politician who serves on the right committee. It is now in the 
Record, and I commend to my colleagues' reading, this editorial from 
Investors Business Daily called ``Putting Principle First.'' It is 
really something we ought to be about and, hopefully, in the new year 
and for years ahead we will get to the business of being about.
  It comes in the form of budget reform, the balanced budget amendment, 
the responsibility to stay within the spending limits, willingness of 
the taxpayers to pay for it instead of borrowing ourselves into nearly 
$5 trillion worth of debt that is costing nearly 40 percent of the 
American taxpayers' tax dollars just to pay interest on principal.
  Those are important issues that ought to be debated. When we cannot 
debate them and when we cannot guide ourselves in those kinds of 
straight lines, then my guess is we will see, year after year, 
amendments like that of the Senator from Arizona that in just some 
little way, tries to pull back a few hundred million dollars and allow 
it not to be spent, drop the deficit down a little bit, and hopefully 
get ourselves to a sense of fiscal responsibility so the American 
citizenry will begin to say: You know, for the first time in decades 
the Senate of the United States is starting to put principle first and 
taxpayers first, over the idea of a little more Federal program for a 
few more people.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support. I am an 
original cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, 
Senator McCain. The list of these projects is extremely lengthy. I have 
counted the ones in just the HUD section of the bill and there are 159. 
There is also a long list under the EPA projects.
  The question again goes to whether or not this is right. I cannot 
recall who said it, but whoever said it makes a very valid point when 
he or she, whoever it was, said that if one could see how laws and 
sausages are made, they would probably be sick.
  I think that is very accurate. The Senator from Arizona mentioned 
this booklet, ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' I used to teach civics in high 
school for a number of years and, frankly, I did not teach it the way 
we are doing it today. I took these books to mean what they said. 
Unfortunately, I was wrong. With some humor I say that. I do not have 
any personal animosity. I think my colleagues know this, the Senator 
from Oregon and the Senator from Maryland. This is a process issue. It 
is a question of whether it is right or whether it is wrong. I could 
add more. Here is the book called ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' Senator 
McCain has already pointed out that we, in essence, have violated that.
  This is the Senate Manual. It is in the desk of every Member. It has 
my name inscribed on it. It says: Senate Manual, Standing Rules. . .of 
the United States Senate, 1993 * * * . Constitution of the United 
States of America.
  I would turn to page 52, paragraph 28.2. It says:

       Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is 
     inserted in the report or if matter which was agreed to by 
     both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may 
     be made against the report.

  So, you see, we are not only violating in essence the booklets that 
we put out in this Congress which tell the American people how laws are 
made, or explain how laws are made, on top of that we are violating the 
rules that we use right here in this great, big, thick book--which I am 
sure all Senators have read.
  We have violated the rules of the U.S. Senate. We are violating them 
right now. It is a process. It has been going on--certainly it is not 
the fault of the Senator from Maryland per se. My goodness, this 
process has been going on--it went on when the Republicans had the 
Senate. The same thing happened then. So we are talking about process.
  I think the Senator from Arizona has tried to point out the question: 
Is this right? He was honest about it when he said there may be 
projects from Arizona here, there may be projects from New Hampshire. 
The point is that is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right to 
add in conference by conferees, projects and expenditures that were not 
in the report when it came through the House, that were not in it when 
it came through the Senate. So, what happens--if I could put on my 
civics teacher hat for 30 seconds, as I used to explain to my classes, 
I used to say: ``Whatever goes into the House bill is then sent to 
conference. Whatever is in the Senate bill is then sent to conference. 
In the conference, differences are resolved.''

  There is nothing in the Senate manual, and there is nothing in this 
document, and there was nothing that I taught in my civic classes about 
adding things that the conferees feel ought to be added that the rest 
of the Senate or the House never had an opportunity to look at.
  So I say to the American people who are watching this debate, listen 
very carefully to what is happening. Do you want to know why the 
national debt is $4.7 trillion? Do you want to know why we cannot 
balance the budget? This is why. Because we do not play by our own 
rules. We spend money like water. It is your money, the taxpayers' 
money. It is not authorized. It is added by a select few group of 
people, and I will tell you--and Senator McCain has said it and I will 
repeat it--many of those projects are good projects. I do not want to 
get into that. That is not the issue. If they are good, then they 
should stand the scrutiny of the light of day and the light of day says 
that they ought to be debated on the floor of the House or at least 
provided in the bill when it runs through the House and the same thing 
in the Senate, and whatever those differences are should be resolved. 
But adding new projects, good or bad, that have nothing to do with what 
was in the original bill is wrong.
  We have had this debate before, and I am not going to prolong it. But 
I just say to you, there is a certain amount of attitude, I guess for 
want of a better word, around here, where everybody says, ``Well, we'll 
get through this.'' All of those who are on the Appropriations 
Committee and all of those who are afraid to take on the Appropriations 
Committee for fear they may lose something, will say, ``Well, OK, 
they'll have the debate. We'll lose and we will move on and we will 
keep things the way it has always gone.''
  Change is very difficult to make happen around here. But if you want 
to know why the American people rank us way down there, low on their 
list in terms of how we get the job done, or do not get it done, this 
is one of the reasons.
  This is a very interesting debate that we are having here, and we 
have had it before. We are violating the manuals that we pass out on 
how laws are made. We are violating the Senate manual, our own rules. 
We are adding hundreds of millions of dollars in projects--some good, 
admittedly, some bad--but nobody approved them except the conferees. 
That is not to say that the conferees who did it are bad people. That 
is not the issue, either. The process is bad. It should not happen.
  Every Senator who is not on that committee, every House Member who is 
not on the conference committee, should be upset by this process. And 
the reason the debt is going to continue to rise and the reason the 
deficits are going to continue and the budget is not going to be 
balanced is because of things like this. Until the American people 
understand it fully and realize what is being done and pass judgment on 
those of us in here who do it, it is going to continue year after year 
after year.
  Who determines that a project in Oregon or any other place is better 
than a project in New Jersey or New Hampshire or Massachusetts, or any 
other place? Who determines that? Twenty people. Was it voted on in the 
House? No. Was it voted on in the Senate? No. Did it violate the rules 
of the House and the Senate? Yes. But it is there, and this debate will 
go on tomorrow. There will be a recorded vote, and we will lose, 
probably 75 to 25, if we are lucky, and everything will just roll 
along. And we will be the naysayers, the troublemakers.
  Let me tell you, it is going to catch up. It is going to happen one 
of these days. One of these days, the American people are going to get 
control of the people that they elect and it is going to stop and it is 
going to come crashing down real hard, and rightfully so.
  This is a very serious debate. I want to compliment the Senator from 
Arizona. He has taken a lot of heat for it. He takes a lot of heat for 
standing up here and taking these positions. It is not pleasant to have 
to do this. Sometimes you lose a project in your own State. So be it. 
It is not right.
  How can anybody say it is right to add hundreds of millions of 
dollars in a conference committee without any authorization from the 
Senate or the House? How can that be right? How is that fair? You say, 
``Well, there is a wonderful project in Texas that gets this money.'' 
Sure, and there are probably 100 wonderful projects in Montana that 
deserve some money, too, but they did not get a chance.
  I will conclude on this point, not to belabor it. What really baffles 
me as a civics teacher now, not just as a U.S. Senator, but as a former 
civics teacher: I do not understand how others in good conscience can 
approve this. How can you in good conscience do this when you know that 
there are many things in your own State that are getting cheated by 
this process? You have no say in it, none whatsoever, unless you met 
privately with one of the conferees and said, ``Here, put this in.'' 
Maybe that happens. It could be. I do not know. We do not know.
  It is true, the meetings are open, but it happens. Everybody is busy 
around here, and trying to attend all the conference committee meetings 
that go on around here--it is hard enough to attend the ones you are 
required to attend that you know about. It is not exactly a highly 
publicized matter.
  So I hope that some day, somehow, some way, we will win a vote on one 
of these things and stop this terrible process. I am going to talk a 
little more about it on my amendment, No. 28, which will follow the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill, the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we have had a good debate on 
this amendment. I now ask that amendment No. 84 be temporarily laid 
aside, and we now take up amendment No. 28. I believe the Senator from 
New Hampshire has an amendment on that one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


Amendment No. 2588 to the Amendment in Disagreement to Senate Amendment 
                                 No. 28

   (Purpose: To require that the joint explanatory statement of the 
    conference committee on an appropriations bill specify whether 
 earmarked expenditures in the conference report or joint explanatory 
  statement were contained in the House bill or committee report, the 
      Senate bill or committee report, or added by the conferees.)

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 28 that I send to the 
desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2588 to the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate numbered 28.

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.  . IDENTIFYING THE ORIGIN OF APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS.

       It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives to consider a conference report on an 
     appropriations bill unless the joint explanatory statement of 
     the conference committee on an appropriations bill specifies 
     whether earmarked expenditures in the conference report or 
     joint explanatory statement were contained in the House bill 
     or committee report, the Senate bill or committee report, or 
     added by the conferees.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is really a very simple amendment. It 
simply requires--and I want everyone of the 75 or so who voted the last 
time against what Senator McCain and I are trying to do to listen very 
carefully. Maybe we can win a couple of votes here. This amendment is 
very simple. It requires only--only--that the conference reports on 
appropriations bills label the earmarks.
  This is going to be a very interesting vote tomorrow. That is all I 
am asking, is that we say in the report when we get it at the desk--and 
we have to debate this--it says this is what the House passed, it is 
listed; this is what the Senate passed, listed; and here is what was 
added, listed. It is simply listed so that we do not have to go through 
this thing and figure out what was in the House and what was in the 
Senate.
  I would like to offer my colleagues a little quiz since I am a former 
teacher. I hope I can have your indulgence. We have in this special 
purpose grant quiz that I have here, over on the left-hand side, the 
House bill funding--this is in this bill we are talking about--was 
zero. The House put no projects in their bill. Over on the right, it 
says the Senate bill funding, and we have $135 million worth of 
projects in there.
  So we have on the House side, zero. They did not put any in, to their 
credit. On the Senate side, it is $135 million. Now, as I used to say 
when I was teaching civics, the House bill, the Senate bill comes in to 
conference. How much was appropriated in the conference report?
  All of you out there who are following along and taking this test--I 
hope some of the civics teachers out there are taking this test along 
with me: A, was it zero? B, was it $67.5 million, which is half of the 
$135 million? C, was it $135 million, which was in the Senate, 
contrasted to the zero in the House? Or D, was it $290 million?
  I will give you a chance to think about it for a minute. It seems 
logical. But here is the answer: $290 million of your tax dollars. It 
was not the zero figure that the House had. It was not the $135 million 
that the Senate had. It was not half of the difference. It was $155 
million more; 155 plus 135 equals $290 million.
  So again, as I said in the last amendment, you violated this one in 
our civics books with which we teach throughout colleges and high 
schools and elementary schools in America, and we violated the Senate 
rules which, as I said, and I will repeat it for the purpose of debate 
on this issue, ``Conferees shall not''--that is n-o-t-- ``insert in 
their report matter not committed to them by either House.''
  Now, if I could have that placard put back up there one more time. 
Shall not put--shall not put--something in there that was not committed 
to them by either House.
  Well, here is the zero and here is the 135. Those are the only two 
things that were committed. Since the answer is $290 million, we have 
obviously violated the Senate rules.
  We have obviously, as Senator McCain already pointed out, violated 
the civics handbooks and textbooks that are used throughout America. I 
hope that some of the teachers and students who might be listening to 
this debate would read how a bill becomes a law or how our laws are 
made, or civics in America, whatever the name of your textbook, read 
the section on the part where two bills come together from the House 
and Senate and see if it does not say essentially the same thing and 
then perhaps as a classroom project you could take a look at this and 
see if it works the way your civics book says it works.
  If you do not think it does, take a look at the recorded vote on this 
amendment tomorrow and look at the 75 or so people who are going to 
vote against me. Why not write them a letter and ask them why they 
voted against this? It might be interesting to hear how they explain 
the vote. I would like to hear it. As a matter of fact, if you get a 
response from them, I would appreciate it if you would send it back and 
share it with me because I would like to hear their rationale because I 
have not heard anything that makes any sense yet.
  So this is a very simple amendment here that I have. I am not asking 
you to cut anything in this amendment. I am not asking you to do a 
thing except write it down.
  I want, in addition to this column zero, which would be a list--and 
since there is a zero there, there is no list--and this column 135, I 
am asking in the report, in the Senate bill funding, to list those 
projects. And then I am asking that the other $155 million that was 
added by the conferees, I am asking that you list those projects 
without us having to pull them all out and figure out which ones were 
added and which ones were not added.
  That is all I am asking. That is my amendment. That is it, pure and 
simple. It does not say you cannot add them. We just debated that issue 
on the McCain amendment. I think we should. But this amendment simply 
says write it down so we can see it.
  Now, it does not even say that you should not add an item in the 
conference committee, although my colleagues know where I stand on that 
issue. So if you are going to add items, let us print it in a readable 
manner--not so that we have to go through each one.
  See, that is the difficulty. They are all there. We have the report. 
It is right here. There are about 14 pages of projects in this report, 
all outlined. The difficulty, I would say to my colleagues and to the 
American people, and especially the civics teachers out there, is that 
we have to go through them and figure out which ones were added in 
conference that were not originally authorized. And they do it on 
purpose. They do it on purpose, believe me, because it makes it easier 
to sell them. So the American taxpayers should not have to get a copy 
of the House report and then a copy of the Senate report, and then 
trace the line items back and forth and see if they made the conference 
report.
  This is simply a public disclosure amendment. I am going to be 
watching very carefully on this because, again, the issue is not 
whether you put in the money or whether you do not put in the money. 
The issue is, if you put it in, are you willing to write it down in the 
conference report so that all of us can understand it and see it? That 
is all we are asking to do.
  So it will be very interesting to see what happens. It does not 
attack the worthiness of one project. If there is a project in there 
for Kentucky or Maryland or New Hampshire, Massachusetts, wherever it 
is, it does not attack it. It does not say a word about it. Nothing.
  So by my estimate this special purpose grant section of this bill 
under my rules, if my amendment were to pass, would include 159 
earmarks that were added in the conference committee. So over here on 
the right would be earmarks added, and there would be $155 million 
listed and over here a little bit to the left of that would be $135 
million worth of projects, whatever number of projects that was 
totaling up to, be listed.
  So here we are. I would ask my colleagues, tomorrow, before casting 
your vote, to simply ask yourself if it would be reasonable and honest 
to list the add-ons and identify them as add-ons. That is all I am 
asking.
  We know from past experience and past votes here in the Chamber that 
because of the pressure put on many members, frankly, by the 
appropriators, who have a lot of power--they are the most powerful 
committee in the Senate. With all due respect to everybody else, the 
Appropriations Committee is the number one power over here. They 
supersede the authorizing committee all the time. They control the 
purse strings, and it is tough to take them on. You pay the price 
sometimes when you do it. We know that.
  But the issue is, are you willing to simply not take them on, not say 
no on projects, not cut any money but simply write it down, right here, 
so all of us can see it? It is going to be fascinating. I cannot wait 
for the vote tomorrow just to find out how many will break into that 75 
who voted against this when we tried to cut them or when we tried to 
redistribute them, which we have tried to do. I tried to do that; 
redistributing the projects based on the formula, the accepted formula. 
That did not work. That went down to big defeat, 75 to 25, something 
like that, maybe worse. Senator McCain now has one which says we ought 
to cut them. We had one in the past, and that went down big. Now we 
will see if you are willing to write them down and show them to your 
colleagues and list them.
  That is all my amendment does. So it is basically a truth in 
conferencing amendment. That is what I am going to label it, truth in 
conferencing. We have truth in labeling. We have truth in everything 
around here. But this is a truth in conferencing amendment which simply 
requires that those reports be printed in a clear, understandable 
fashion so all can see. I am not going to hold my breath hoping there 
might be unanimous consent to approve this amendment, but I am really 
looking forward to the vote because I wish to see if even the 
appropriators and the friends of the appropriators--and there are 
many--are willing to just write it down so all of us can see it and 
understand it. Those 80 of us who do not have the opportunity, for 
whatever reason, to sit in on the conference committee and see what 
goes on in the conference committee, if you just write it down for us 
so we can better understand it, so we can explain it to our 
constituents and to the American people.
  So I am looking forward to it tomorrow.
  Mr. President, excepting whatever unanimous consent as been agreed to 
or will be agreed to to have this vote tomorrow by the majority leader, 
under that heading I would ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Smith 
amendment. This amendment seeks to change the Senate rules and set new 
terms for consideration of the conference report. Essentially, with the 
changing of the Senate rules, really, this amendment could border on 
legislating on appropriations. That is why I know the Senator from 
Kentucky, who chairs the Rules Committee, will be talking about that.
  Much has been said in this discussion, both on the previous amendment 
and on this amendment, about the Senate rules. Well, this amendment 
changes the Senate rules, and it changes them by setting new terms for 
the consideration of conference reports.
  If we want to change the rules of the Senate, then we need to do it 
by going through the regular authorizing process for Senate rules 
change. I would recommend that for those who would support the 
direction that the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to go in with his 
amendment that they do it through an authorizing process and not 
parachute this now on this particular Senate appropriations.
  Both during this debate and on the previous amendment, much has been 
said about principles and much has been said about process. I 
acknowledge what my colleagues have said. There is the discussion on 
principles, and there are many points that they have made on principles 
that I would support. However, as we talk about the cynicism of the 
American people, let me tell you what I think is the root of the 
cynicism of American people.
  First of all, they want the U.S. Senate to be able to go by the same 
rules as the private sector. They want us to be accountable under ADA, 
under OSHA, under every other kind of rule for personnel and other 
practices that we put on the private sector. I support that initiative. 
I would always support it. I believe in the McConnell and Lieberman 
initiative on that as well as the one by Senator Nickles of Oklahoma. I 
support that because they feel that we have one set of rules for 
ourselves and one set of rules for them. So if we are going to talk 
about changing the rules, that is where we should focus the rules--on 
that reform package.
  The other thing that I think I believe the American people are 
cynical about is campaign financing. They really believe that one of 
the things that we need to change in this country is campaign 
financing. That is why I have been a strong supporter of campaign 
finance reform. The American people have to believe that we are un-
bought and un-bossed and the way we can begin to make the important 
steps to convince them of that is by the campaign finance reform 
legislation that was debated for 30 hours the other day, which was ably 
represented by another Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Boren. We cannot 
get to really being able to vote on campaign finance reform because of 
the use of the techniques of the Senate. We are now into a rolling 
gridlock on campaign finance reform.
  So if we want to talk about process, if we want to talk about 
principle, and if we want to talk about restoring confidence of the 
American people in this institution, let us show them we are un-bought, 
un-bossed, not up for hire except to them, and we are not for rent 
because of any particular amendment. Let us pass campaign finance 
reform.
  While we are at it, I think we need to pass the lobbying reform bill. 
I believe that by passing the lobbying reform bill we once again say to 
the American people it is not special interests that are out here 
determining the course of action on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that 
it is not the course of action being determined by those who are high-
paid lobbyists with golden letterheads and great expense accounts, that 
it is the U.S. Senate interacting with our constituents, listening to 
the American people as I know my colleagues do on the other side of the 
aisle.
  So I believe if we want to restore confidence in the U.S. Senate, let 
us pass campaign finance reform, let us pass lobbying reform, let us 
pass gift reform, and let us also pass the reform that enables us to go 
by the same rules that we ask the private sector.
  On to this conference committee. Much has been said about the 
environment in which we did the conference committee. I will come back. 
What we did was in open, public session, during regular business hours, 
with both political parties in the room from both the House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate. This was not some midnight 
appropriations basketball where we were slam dunking these projects in 
the dark of the night with no supervision. We had supervision. We had a 
lot of supervision in doing that. We as I said met under the rules of 
the Senate, and we moved this legislation.
  So, when we look at this, let us be very clear how this legislation 
occurred.
  Let us look at the consequences of the Senator's amendment. It is not 
only on content, which I think is worthy of debate, and it is worthy of 
debate. If the Senate passed that under the authorizing committee after 
hearings on the consequences, after hearings of pros and cons, the 
debate on the Senate floor and so on, we would go by those rules. But 
we have operated under them.
  If the Smith amendment is adopted, this will put us in disagreement 
with the House of Representatives. The American people can say, ``So 
what? More gridlock.'' Well, we do not want that because the 
consequences of not passing an appropriations bill by October 1 is that 
we will go into a continuing resolution, meaning that we will have, 
with the fiscal year beginning October 1, things in this bill that need 
compelling human needs to not be there.
  I will come back and remind my colleagues that if we are not passing 
this legislation by October 1, the VA medical care will stand to lose 
$50 million because of the way we are bridging it, and it cannot be 
accommodated in a continuing resolution. It will have the effect of a 
$50 million cut. That means 8,800 veterans will be denied care next 
year. That means that 3,800 vets who need in-patient care will not get 
it, and thousands of outpatient visits to VA doctors will not take 
place. So I would really say let us look at the consequences of what we 
do.
  This amendment will cause delays in the space program. We would be 
permitting NASA to use $18 million in civil service funds that would 
otherwise lapse on October 1--meaning just evaporate--to be able to 
bridge it so that we can make wiser use of dollars in fiscal years. 
Without these funds we will force NASA to RIF people, as many as 600 
people working in the space program.
  So when we vote on this amendment tomorrow, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to not legislate on appropriations, No. 1, on this bill with 
this amendment; not cause the October 1 delay by the Senator from New 
Hampshire who has made some very excellent points over this as part of 
the authorizing.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I see the Senator 
from Massachusetts. I will only be a minute.
  I have a freestanding bill, I say to the Senator from Maryland, which 
I have introduced to provide that Members of Congress live under the 
same rules as others. There are not a heck of a lot of cosponsors on it 
at this point. I do not believe the Senator from Maryland is on it. But 
she may want to take a look at the bill because it does exactly what 
she expressed would be her interest. I also intend to offer a 
freestanding bill along the lines of this same issue. I would hope that 
I would have the Senator's support on that to make the changes.
  In conclusion, the third point I want to make is it is unbelievable 
as we listen to the debate, the response from the Senator from Maryland 
was that somehow, with all due respect, simply taking this report and 
having it published with the list of the added projects is somehow now 
going to take away $50 million in VA benefits, and it is going to 
interrupt the space station and NASA--I mean, my goodness. Where does 
all that come from? All I am asking is that this simply be written down 
so that we know what the projects are. I will be happy to write it down 
at no cost to the Government if that is a problem. I am not trying to 
stop VA benefits or the space station. I support both, as a matter of 
fact, wholeheartedly. So I am amazed that that logic would be used. 
That is not my intention. All I am trying to do is to be fair to the 
Members of the Senate who have to vote on this thing.

  All I am asking is that these add-ons be so listed and so indicated 
along with the other items from the House and Senate, and that is all. 
That is all I am requesting. I think that it does not violate any rules 
to do that, in my opinion, and that we are violating rules by not doing 
it, in my opinion.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the arguments of the Senator from New 
Hampshire are interesting. He said all he wants to do is this and all 
he wants to do is that. If we pass his amendment, or any other 
amendment, this bill goes back to the House. And underlying here is 
delay, trying to delay everything this Congress is trying to do. 
Whatever piece of legislation comes up, there is delay. We stayed here 
all night the other night, and he was one of those that spoke trying to 
delay the operation of this institution.
  Mr. President, this is legislation on an appropriations bill, pure 
and simple. It violates the process; therefore, it violates the rules. 
If you want to change the rules of the Senate, apply a rule. But the 
essence of this amendment is to delay this piece of legislation, delay 
this conference report, and send it back to the House. That is, pure 
and simple, what it is.
  I can stand here and say it is just 159 items that we have to list, 
and I have a halo--you know, it is wonderful. Sometimes they get 
tarnished, and tarnishing the halo here is to delay the conference 
report and delay the help to the veterans and delay the help to housing 
in order to send it back to the House and delay it a few days longer 
and try to show that we cannot get anything out of here. Well, I 
understand the rules of the Senate about as well as most--not as well 
as some but as well as most. So this approach is, first, change the 
rules--and they make it sound so simple, so easy, you know, it is all 
you have to do--second, delay the conference report. What is new about 
a conference report? What is new about what is going on here? For 6 
years we watched you all do it. We watched the other side of the aisle 
do it. Then all of a sudden, it is wrong. We have been doing this 
process for the 20 years I have been here. I think it has worked very 
well.
  I think the integrity of the conferees was above reproach. I think 
the integrity of both parties, both Democrat and Republican, who sat at 
the table in daylight, was above reproach. And now we are trying to 
condemn them on this floor by amendment, saying that the conferees were 
somehow misusing the taxpayers' funds. We have to account for those the 
same as everybody else. We have to account for this. Our vote on the 
Senate floor is recorded. Our vote on these items and what is in this 
legislation, we are accountable for that. I do not think you or anybody 
else makes me accountable for anything. So I want to be careful in what 
I say. The Senator does not have to make me accountable for my 
constituency. I am already there.
  I think the underlying process here is wrong. It is as wrong as it 
can be. I hope the vote is 75-25. In fact, I hope it is 80-20, or 90-10 
to prove to our colleagues that our conferees on the Appropriations 
Committee did it right. They were aboveboard and they were there during 
daylight. There was nothing sinister, as is being implied here.
  I hope my colleagues, first, will not allow them to, by any other 
name, change the rules; second, not allow legislation on an 
appropriations bill; and third, support the conferees of both parties 
who signed this conference report and thinks that the Senate ought to 
pass it and send it on to the President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wanted to make a brief 
comment in response, I would be willing to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. SMITH. Yes; I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I will make a 
brief response to the Senator from Kentucky. I want to make it very 
clear--and I do not think the Senator was on the floor at the time, but 
I made it very clear that this process had been ongoing when the 
Republicans were in power as well. I did not say it was a partisan 
issue at all. I made that very clear that this was an ongoing issue 
that took place when we were in the majority. That is No. 1.
  Also, for the Senator to imply that somehow this thing has to be 
delayed for days and days because I am asking that something be written 
down for all to see is preposterous. Maybe it indicates that I have 
scored a point or two, since the chairman of the Rules Committee saw 
fit to come to the floor and challenge me. I am hopeful we may go a 
little better than the 75. The truth of the matter is that it would 
take about 15 minutes for the House and Senate to say, OK, we are going 
to write these things down. Why is that going to delay veterans' 
benefits.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SMITH. I am taking the time of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FORD. But this is an amendment on a conference bill and it has to 
go back.
  Mr. SMITH. That is true, but we can do it quickly.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are not under a time agreement, are 
we?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________