[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 4624, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill 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.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senators that the 
time for debate on the conference report and remaining amendments in 
disagreement shall be limited to 90 minutes to be equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, yesterday we had concluded a substantial amount of our 
debate on the VA-HUD conference report. The other side of the aisle 
asked for 90 minutes to be equally divided of the additional debate on 
the issues related to the VA-HUD conference report.
  I note that no one is here. I am prepared to either additionally 
debate the amendments to the conference report that are pending for 
votes this afternoon, and I am prepared to debate any issue related to 
the VA-HUD conference report. Not only am I willing to debate it, but I 
am also willing to discuss it. However, I do not wish to discuss it 
with myself.
  So, Mr. President, I would really ask that all who wish to further 
comment, question, agree with the conference report on VA-HUD join us 
on the floor. And in the meantime, I would like to just advise the 
Senate that we completed our conference report. There are amendments 
pending that I know will be discussed later.
  I must say this is a very important conference report. Why? Because 
the subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing is like no other 
subcommittee on appropriations. It was originally historically the 
subcommittee that funds independent agencies. The small, micro, 
independent agencies have now grown to either Cabinet or Cabinet level. 
The subcommittee that I chair funds all of VA, all of HUD, all of EPA, 
all of the National Science Foundation, the National Service Corps, and 
Federal Emergency Management. We range in far-ranging activity from 
funding the President's science office to looking out for what we need 
to do to preserve battle monuments around the world as well as 
Arlington Cemetery. Our subcommittee is the most complex of any 
subcommittee in appropriations. In terms of its overall expenditures, 
it ranks with Defense and Labor-HHS. When I say it is most complex, all 
appropriations are complex. But Labor-HHS, Defense, and VA-HUD and over 
30 other independent agencies are enormously complex.
  So in the subcommittee which I chair there is also something to fuss 
budget about. It is impossible to have 30 agencies and not fuss budget 
about at least one of them. While people want to ``fuss budget,'' I can 
tell you that I feel very comfortable that the budget and the 
appropriation that we have brought to the Senate meet compelling human 
need, strategic goals of both parties in the area of science and 
technology, and makes sure that promises made are promises kept to 
America's veterans. So I hope that we can speak to the amendments and 
defeat the amendments. I hope that we can pass the conference report 
and look forward to further conversation on this bill.
  I now note that we have been joined by the ranking minority of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Texas, with whom I must say this 
subcommittee enjoys a very cooperative way of operating. It is an 
excellent relationship, and it is something that I particularly enjoy.
  So, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas 
[Mr. Gramm].
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of our 
committee, the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. President, anytime you are writing a bill that is as big and 
complicated as the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations, 
you always have numerous compromises that first occurred in the Senate, 
and then in the House and then in bringing together the two.
  I think what I am most supportive of in this bill is the funding 
level that we have for science, for the space program, for the 
development of new technology that goes ultimately to the benefit of 
free enterprise which is the foundation of the American economy. I have 
been alarmed over the last quarter century as I have watched funding 
for basic research cut. I think it is an interesting commentary on 
American Government that at the same moment that Government spending 
has been exploding that our basic investment in science, in technology, 
and in the future has been declining. A quarter of a century ago 5 
percent of the Federal budget was spent on civilian research and 
development of new technology, on developing new science that 
ultimately produces in America competitive production technology and 
that helps the private sector produce the new products on which the 
future of the American economy will be based.
  I think it is very revealing about Congress and about the priorities 
of our Government that in the last quarter century, while Federal 
Government spending in the aggregate has grown very rapidly, our 
investment in science and technology for the future has declined from 5 
percent of the budget to less than 2 percent of the budget.
  One of the things that I am proud of in this bill is that we have a 
solid investment in the space program. We have gone through the space 
program and forced NASA to make tough decisions. We have I think been 
successful in bringing Russia into the space station so that we now 
have an international cooperative effort that includes the Europeans, 
the Japanese, the Canadians, and the Russians. We have a solid level of 
funding for the National Science Foundation and for investment in the 
future.
  So anytime you are writing an appropriations bill in this Congress, 
you are always torn between investing in programs that have big 
constituencies, constituencies that can be activated in the next 
election, versus investing in future generations where investments 
often take a long time to bear fruit but where the fruit that is borne 
represents an investment in the future of the country.
  Too often, Congress has invested in the next election and not in the 
next generation. I am proud of the fact that in this bill, despite the 
fact that we have had tremendous demands on funding levels, that we 
have provided adequate funding for the space program, for the National 
Science Foundation, and for the kind of long-term investment that does 
not create great political excitement but that I think represents an 
investment in the future of the country.
  So I want to commend our chairman. I want to thank her for all of her 
leadership on this bill. I intend to support this bill. It has been 
very difficult to write. It embodies compromises. If I were writing the 
appropriations bill by myself or if the Senator from Maryland and I 
could have written it without the inconvenience of having to deal with 
the House, we would have written a different bill. But I think given 
the Congress that we had to work with, given the competing priorities 
that we faced, that this represents as good a job as we could do. As I 
said earlier, I am especially proud of the fact that despite the 
clamoring of numerous political constituencies for their share of the 
funding in this bill, we were able to resist the siren song of 
investing in programs with big constituencies and that create instant 
gratification by spending the taxpayers' money on things that have 
effect immediately. Instead, I think we have made a sound investment in 
science and research, in technology, and in the future.
  In conclusion, let me say that I think there have been two hallmarks 
of American success economically. One has been free enterprise, where 
ordinary people with ordinary ability have had more opportunity and 
more freedom than any other people have ever had, and with that 
opportunity and with that freedom ordinary people have been able to do 
extraordinary things.
  The second has been that no society in history has ever been able to 
assimilate new technology the way the American system has. We have 
viewed science as the answer. We have viewed technology as the 
potential solution to our problems. We have been the most science-
friendly society in the history of the world.
  I would have to say I believe that is beginning to change. And I am 
alarmed about it. But this appropriations bill does not represent such 
a change. This appropriations bill, despite financial difficulties of 
the Government, represents a strong commitment and a very strong 
investment in science and technology in the future. I am proud of that 
investment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana. 
Who yields time to the Senator from Montana?
  The Chair would advise the Senator from Texas that the Senator from 
Texas controls time on that side. Does the Senator yield time to the 
Senator from Montana?
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Presiding Officer. I am very happy to yield to 
the Senator from Montana whatever time he might consume.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my ranking member.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of this subcommittee for 
her hard work on this appropriations. It has not been an easy one. I 
would want to associate myself with not only her words but my ranking 
member as we try to put together an appropriations that I think 
reflects the thrust of the American people and where they want the 
priorities to go.
  It contains funding for many important projects and new ones. Of 
course, those projects are going to be felt across the country. It 
funds the Veterans Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and independent agencies such as EPA, the NASA, and the 
National Science Foundation.
  I think there is nobody that has been further out front, as far as 
the appropriations is concerned, as our chairman. I serve on the 
authorizing committee of science and technology and NASA. It is truly a 
cooperation between the authorizing part of this bill and then the 
thrust of appropriating the money and putting it in the right place.
  Under the NASA budget, we are starting to take a look at hypersonic 
wind tunnel development research. $1.5 million is for research for wind 
tunnels. There are basic tools of obtaining technical and design 
information needed for hypersonic and supersonic aircraft. The United 
States, unlike its principal foreign competitors, does not have a wind 
tunnel capable of simulating these conditions. As we look at new 
technologies, especially in the aerospace industry, of new composites, 
new materials, we are taking a look at engines that will fly our 
supersonic airplane without any metal in them. They are looking at 
ceramics. We are looking at a whole array of new technologies that will 
be developed in this area. With the proper investment in this 
infrastructure, we have a great opportunity to maintain our lead and 
the cutting edge in aerospace.
  As you know, in my State alone we are converting from the old MDH 
programs in these programs, and we have the infrastructure set in my 
State in order to take advantage of some of that.
  In addition, we also are taking a look at working with the new 
technologies with EPA in other areas, especially in the areas of 
technologies of environmental cleanup as a result of closing military 
bases across this country.
  If there is one thing we are finding out in base closures, it is much 
more expensive to close these bases than once we had thought because of 
the environmental cleanup. New technologies located in my State of 
Montana are uniquely qualified to do that technology. They are working 
on it now.
  The National Science Foundation funding is something that we have 
worked on. I say to my friend in the chair that something that we 
worked on is telecommunications infrastructure among the tribal 
reservations in the Western and high plains of this country, not only 
in the State of Montana, but in North Dakota.
  We are working together community colleges to interact between those 
colleges and in our areas of higher learning, such as Montana State 
University and North Dakota State University at Fargo.

  These are areas where, yes, the native Americans feel like they have 
something to offer through their culture to the education system of 
America. To two-way interact is very important if we hook these 
community colleges together. If you can see what is happening on our 
reservations across America, it is that they just do not have that 
outlet in order to present their way of life, their culture, and add 
something to this great thing we call America, a country of many 
peoples.
  We have seven reservations in Montana. Each one of those, except one 
or two of them, I think, all have 2-year community colleges. We think 
this is going to close the gap, the cultural gap, with our major 
universities and colleges in the State, plus give those young people a 
sense of being and a sense to go on with their education.
  Also in the HUD budget is funding for research centers across the 
country that are particularly tuned in to women's health problems. We 
have a center in Billings, MT, that has been doing much research 
basically on women and the natural functions of aging, osteoporosis 
being one of those. Because the population in Montana is so static and 
people that are born there, live there, and they die there, the medical 
history of those people provides a great data base for research on 
those diseases. Of course, that area serves Montana, the northern half 
of Wyoming, as well as western regions of both North and South Dakota 
in that work.
  So in this area there are some new things that are providing a new 
direction as far as this appropriation is concerned. Women's 
opportunity and resource development programs are also funded in this, 
because we are seeing women coming into the marketplace. Some of them 
are young, single parents. They need help, and they are funded through 
this organization, through this appropriation, especially in the 
western part of the State of Montana.
  The VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill also contains 
vital funding for research being done across the country. Three 
agencies within the bill have programs called EPSCOR. Within the EPA, 
NASA, and the National Science Foundation is a program vital to the 
academic research being conducted in our smaller colleges across the 
country.
  These competitive based programs allow for smaller universities to 
conduct research and provide better educational opportunities for 
students. Five States in our country receive 44 percent of the 
university-based Federal research dollars. On the other hand, the 19 
EPSCOR States, including Montana, receive only about 6 percent support.
  So we are trying to take care of some of these areas and the smaller 
schools which have very fine research and development organizations 
within those schools of higher learning.
  It is for this reason that EPSCOR is vital in providing those 
research dollars to rural areas. These programs help the less 
competitive States, predominantly rural, meet the challenges of 
competing for research dollars. In order to ensure that we can continue 
to support nationally competitive academic research, maintaining the 
funding for EPSCOR is very critical, and this particular appropriation 
does that. I will be supporting this bill.
  Again, I want to congratulate my chairman and distinguished colleague 
from Maryland, and the ranking member, because this appropriations 
bill, since I have been in the U.S. Senate, probably shows more 
foresight of where the thrust should be going in this country, and 
that, of course, is through the new technologies and also in research 
and development. We keep hearing that we are getting beat on the 
competitive global market. We can ``out-tech" anybody. Our problem is 
getting those new technologies into the hands of the people that use 
them in everyday life, and we also take care of that through this 
appropriation.
  So I thank my chairman and the ranking member for their foresight in 
this bill. I shall be supporting it, and I congratulate them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 4624, the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and 
Urban Development, and independent agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1995.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $89.8 billion and new 
outlays of $48.4 billion to finance operations of the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science 
Foundation, and other independent agencies.
  Mr. President, the committee bill is within the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation. When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other 
adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $90.3 billion in 
budget authority and $92.4 billion in outlays. The total bill is under 
the Senate subcommittee's 602(b) allocation by $1 million in budget 
authority and outlays.
  This was not an easy task. The subcommittee has deferred funding for 
new housing initiatives that have not yet been enacted, and it has 
sought savings in some of the housing programs funded in the bill.
  However, the subcommittee also adopted several provisions that 
minimize near-term outlays; specifically, delaying the obligation of 
some funding in the bill until very late in the fiscal year.
  The subcommittee started with the President's request for a $771 
million obligational delay in VA medical care. They then added a $386 
million delay in the National Service account, a $132 million delay in 
NSF academic research infrastructure grants, and a delay of the entire 
$400 million for NASA aeronautic wind tunnel facilities. These actions 
push approximately $650 million in outlays into fiscal year 1996.

  I do not have to remind my colleagues that the Exon-Grassley 
amendment to the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution mandates a 
reduction in the fiscal year 1996 discretionary cap of $4.0 billion in 
budget authority and $5.4 billion in outlays.
  My colleagues on the subcommittee are well aware of this upcoming 
reduction. That is why they included an automatic rescission feature 
along with the delays in NASA and NSF, if the President did not choose 
to fund these initiatives next year.
  With these actions and some tough decisions, this subcommittee has 
provided the largest percentage of funding for the President's proposed 
investment initiatives. According to the most recent report from the 
Office of Management and Budget, the President's investment initiatives 
are almost completely funded in this bill. Apparently the 
administration is not overly concerned that 67 percent of the funding 
for their National Service initiative will not be available until 1 
month before the end of the fiscal year.
  I especially appreciate the consideration given by the distinguished 
chair of the subcommittee to my request for assistance in meeting the 
severe wastewater treatment needs of the South Valley in Bernalillo 
County, NM.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for the inclusion of $15.5 million in the 
bill through EPA's water infrastructure/State loan revolving loan 
program to meet the longstanding need of this community for adequate 
wastewater treatment facilities.
  The conferees retained the $12 million approved by the Senate for the 
South Valley project in New Mexico. An additional $3.5 million was 
provided for the South Valley project as part of the final bill, which 
is directed to Bernalillo County.
  This is an extremely serious situation in the South Valley and these 
funds will significantly resolve this longstanding problem.
  I thank my good friend from Texas and the ranking Republican member 
of the subcommittee, Senator Gramm, for his support for this important 
funding.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee for providing full funding for 
construction of the second ground terminal for NASA's Tracking Data 
Relay Satellite System [TDRSS] to complete this important link in 
NASA's space communications system.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the pending bill.


                       South Valley Water Problem

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased this bill included $12 
million funding for the South Valley of Bernalillo County, NM. In 
addition the conference report includes another $3.5 million for 
Bernalillo County. This funding should help solve one of the most 
serious waste water problems in New Mexico. By removing many of the 
septic tanks and hooking homes up to central sewer or other waste 
disposal systems, the quality of the drinking water should also 
improve.
  This area has been settled since the 1700's and includes the three 
historic villages of Atrisco established in 1692, Los Padillas 
established in 1703, and Pajarito established in 1699. The South Valley 
is home to 12,000 people. The vast majority are Hispanic and many are 
poor. More than half of the children attending the area's two main 
elementary schools were eligible for free lunches through the Federal 
School Lunch Program, indicating household incomes under 130 percent of 
the poverty level.
  For almost 30 years the South Valley community has suffered the 
health hazard of inadequate sewer and water facilities. Drinking water 
wells and septic tank leach fields are practically on top of each 
other. I am sure you can appreciate the tremendous health hazard this 
represents.
  The septic tanks in the South Valley are contributing significantly 
to the aquifer's depletion and pollution. This is very serious because 
the aquifer is the water supply for the entire Albuquerque area. The 
water table in the aquifer has dropped 30 feet during the last decade. 
These facts support the conclusion that the problem is getting worse 
and so is the general quality of life in the South Valley.
  I am aware that it would take more than $10 billion to help every 
community in need of a sanitary wastewater treatment system. The 
Appropriations Committee last year made $500 million available for 
wastewater treatment for communities with special needs. That money is 
scheduled to become available this fall for projects that have been 
authorized. Thus far this year, the House passed VA-HUD appropriation 
bill leaves available, subject to authorization, the fiscal year 1994 
$500 million communities with special needs account.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee made wastewater treatment a 
higher priority, and identified specific projects that would receive 
funding in both fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. I am pleased 
that they included $12 million in fiscal year 1995 for the South 
Valley, and another $3.5 million for Bernalillo County where the South 
Valley is located.
  For almost 30 years this community has suffered deteriorating housing 
stock, and the health hazard of inadequate sewer and water facilities.
  The situation is so critical that there is a moratorium on building 
desperately needed multifamily housing units. These are units that 
could greatly improve the housing stock and quality of life in the 
South Valley neighborhoods.
  The wastewater needs for the South Valley are diverse and will 
require several different approaches. While these are the starkest 
examples, the valley's problems are diverse. Some parts of the valley 
are semiurban and could be hooked up to the Albuquerque City system. 
Other sections of the South Valley would be best served by ``community-
cluster style'' systems like the vacuum systems and constructed 
wetlands. In the least densely populated areas of the South Valley it 
makes sense to continue onsite water wells and wastewater disposal 
systems.
  Making lemonade out of a lemon. Two elementary schools and a 
community center in the South Valley were having to pump their septic 
tanks daily in order to avoid sewage rising to the ground surface. 
Bacteria were found in the well of one of the schools about 2 years 
ago. One of the schools, Los Padillas School, had been using bottled 
water to drink and to prepare school lunches. The teachers used this 
dire situation to get the students interested in science. All of the 
kids learned about the dangers of unsafe drinking water. They learned 
about the constructed wetlands vacuum technology to treat their waste 
and to provide them with clean healthy drinking water.
  Helping those who help themselves. In these tight fiscal times, it 
can be said that Congress helps those who help themselves. If this is 
the test, South Valley should be helped. This community has been 
untiring in its efforts to help itself. So many times its efforts have 
been ignored or rejected.
  Nevertheless, its leaders should be commended. They never gave up.
  The leaders of South Valley and I have been meeting on a regular 
basis for 9\1/2\ years to develop an action plan to address this 
problem. I particularly want to mention the hard work in New Mexico at 
the State legislature and in local government. Speaker of the House, 
Ray Sanchez; Senate President pro tempore, Manny Aragon; State 
Representative Kiki Saavedra; State Representative Delano 
Garcia; former county commissioner, Orlando Vigil, county commissioner, 
Al Valdez, and county manager, Juan Vigil have all worked tirelessly.

  Their hard work has led to successes at the local level. These 
include the following: In 1991, the Bernalillo County Commission 
adopted a one-eighth cent tax on gross receipts in and for the 
unincorporated area of the South Valley to finance solid waste, water, 
and sewer. In the 2 years that this levy has been on the books, $1.5 
million has been raised in annual revenue and $900,000 has been 
designated to assist residents in hooking up to water and sewer systems 
already in place. Some of this $900,000 has been used to upgrade 
substandard onsite wells or septic systems.
  A partnership in the making. The city of Albuquerque, in partnership 
with Bernalillo County, has contributed its resources in the areas of 
research planning and education. The University of New Mexico, 
Institute of Public Law, provided a joint study for the New Mexico 
legislature which led to an appropriation of funds for this project.
  The New Mexico legislature appropriated $4 million in 1992; $5 
million in 1993; and $8 million in 1994 demonstrating the seriousness 
of the problem and the State's commitment to a solution.
  Users of a new system will also bear a portion of the burden for the 
improvements. If the city is the provider, total user fees may total 
almost $3,500 for hookup to both water and sewer service. These costs 
do not include the cost to extend lines from the house to the water 
meter and sewer stubout. While average incomes range from $18,000 to 
over $40,000 per household it would be difficult for most homeowners to 
pay these substantial costs out-of-pocket to ensure a sanitary liquid 
wastewater disposal system and safe drinking water supply.
  Given the magnitude of the costs, grants, and direct appropriations 
are needed in order to keep rates from being prohibitively high. The 
Revolving Loan Fund has not been used because there is no way the 
residents could pay back the loan; the rates would be so high that the 
people who need the wastewater system could not afford it. The South 
Valley is not part of Albuquerque City and city officials that the city 
is already subsidizing the South Valley residents.
  In addition, the Revolving Loan Program cannot make a long-term 
commitment for future funding of a phased project. The funds for both 
water and sewer problems are eventually needed. I realize that your 
committee's jurisdiction is mainly the wastewater part of their 
problem, and we are trying to secure funding for wastewater first. My 
point, however, is that the loan fund is not the answer for all of the 
above reasons.
  Clearly the legislature is doing its part in this worthy partnership 
which would use both State resources and Federal resources. Even with 
the State appropriations the South Valley still needs $35-$40 million 
to meet its water and sewer treatment needs--$25 million for the 
wastewater portion which falls within the jurisdiction of your 
committee.
  Dozens of programs on the books but none of them can help the South 
Valley. Over the years, the community has investigated using the state 
revolving loan fund, Economic Development Administration Programs, 
rural development programs under the Department of Agriculture, all of 
the EPA Programs, HUD Programs, and the Community Development Block 
Grant Program. The South Valley is ineligible for all of them because 
it is either too close to Albuquerque and therefore not rural enough, 
or too close to Albuquerque and therefore, when viewed as a region, is 
not poor enough. Or the needs of the South Valley are too big and would 
swallow up entire programs' nationwide budgets. Frankly the existing 
programs, with their restrictions about being too urban or too well off 
aren't the important criteria. It has simply been too long since the 
Federal Government joined the State and local partnership.
  The Senate has passed a South Valley authorization. Action is needed 
in the House. Last year, the Senate passed S. 1685 which authorized 
this project. That bill is being held at the House desk.
  This authorization, if it is enacted into law, will end 30 years of 
frustration, denial and avoidable health problems in this community.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


consortium for international earth science information network [ciesin]

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, 
and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair 
of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on 
an issue of importance to our State, to the Nation, and to the world--
the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network 
[CIESIN].
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleagues from Michigan on that subject.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year, in the fiscal year 1994 
conference report for the VA-HUD Appropriations Act (Report 103-273, p. 
30), the conferees stated their expectation ``that beginning in fiscal 
year 1995, the National Science Foundation will establish, through a 
competitive process, a Center for the Human Dimensions of Climate 
Change at a level of approximately $6,000,000 annually.''
  That direction resulted because of an agreement reached in the Senate 
regarding CIESIN during the Senate's consideration of the fiscal year 
1994 bill. A colloquy on the matter took place between Senator 
Mikulski, as Senate manager of the bill, and Senator Riegle and me on 
September 22, 1993. During that colloquy, the subcommittee Chair 
indicated her intention to support the development of a competitive 
grant of about $6 million annually to be awarded by the National 
Science Foundation to a center for the conduct of CIESIN-like 
activities. These activities were described by my colleague, Senator 
Riegle, and me, earlier in the colloquy. Our intent and understanding 
was that CIESIN would have the opportunity to compete for selection as 
this center.
  Is that also the understanding of the Senator from Maryland?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I stated at that 
time that I thought it would make good sense to develop such a grant 
proposal for this kind of center. While I noted that I could not commit 
future Congresses, I indicated that I would work with the Senators from 
Michigan and the administration to carry out this agreement.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has great 
foresight in attempting to fashion programs that build upon the 
Nation's investments in science, as is the case with CIESIN. I thank 
the Senator from Maryland for carrying forward with her agreement of 
last year.
  I ask the distinguished chairwoman, the gentlelady from Maryland, if 
the center on page 50 of fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD Conference Report 103-
715, described as a ``center or consortium for the human dimensions of 
global climate change,'' and for which $6 million was recommended by 
the conferees for fiscal year 1995, is the center talked about during 
the debate on the fiscal year 1994 bill, as described by Senator Levin?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. That was my 
intention and the intention of the conferees. I join the Senators from 
Michigan to encourage the NSF to carry forward with the competitive 
process and with the award for this center early in fiscal year 1995. I 
am aware of the serious funding constraints placed upon CIESIN in 
fiscal year 1995, and I would like to see them have the opportunity to 
compete. However, I want to make clear that this $6 million item in the 
NSF's appropriations is to be awarded under the framework of a 
competitive, peer-reviewed process. Of course, no applicant for these 
funds should be given consideration outside of this competitive 
selection process.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Maryland for 
this clarification and her assistance on this important matter.
  Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I thank my friend from Texas. In a short 
time, we will be voting on my amendment and also Senator Smith's 
amendment, I believe, on another attempt--possibly a futile one--to 
remedy this credible problem we face of unauthorized earmarks added in 
conference. Neither the House nor the Senate have approved these 
appropriations.
  I congratulate the subcommittee, because this is the highest number 
that was added in any appropriations bill. We count up about $400 
million, higher than any other appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Citizens Against Government Waste be printed in the Record at this 
time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                       Council for


                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1994.
       Dear Senator: In the just-released 1994 Congressional 
     Ratings by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste 
     (CCAGW), the average score for Senators was 45.76% in support 
     of cutting government waste. The average House score was 
     52.72%.
       This ``spending cuts gap'' is demonstrated in the 101st 
     Congress and 102d Congress as well, and as you can imagine, 
     House members are making much of their better voting record 
     on eliminating waste and halting pork-barrel spending.
       Today and tomorrow, you will have a chance to narrow the 
     House-Senate spending cuts gap by approving Senator John 
     McCain's amendment to eliminate earmarks and pork in the FY95 
     VA/HUD appropriation.
       Two weeks ago, the House blinked, 189-180, and failed to 
     eliminate pork projects added to the bill. CCAGW strongly 
     urges you to correct the mistake and demonstrate that you 
     have some regard for American taxpayers.
       We have seen a list of the earmarked projects, and while 
     many appear to be well-intentioned, suitable endeavors, 
     virtually all are unauthorized. Moreover, the targets of 
     Senator McCain's amendment were all added in conference, the 
     kind of back-door spending that outrages the average American 
     who sees the practice as yet another indication of Congress 
     sneaking around, spending their tax dollars.
       Of all the votes you cast this year, none more clearly will 
     define your record on porkbarrel spending. Shamefully, the 
     House blew its opportunity to put principle above election-
     year politics, but we count on the Senate to approve the 
     McCain amendment and halt the gluttony.
       Your vote on the McCain (or any tabling) amendment will 
     certainly be among those tabulated in our final 1994 
     Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Joe Winkelmann,
                                   Director of Government Affairs.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote from this letter. By the way, 
this amendment is supported by the Citizens For a Sound Economy and the 
National Taxpayers' Union.
  Citizens Against Government Waste says:

       Today and tomorrow, you will have a chance to narrow the 
     House-Senate spending cuts gap by approving Senator John 
     McCain's amendment to eliminate earmarks and pork in the 
     Fiscal Year 1995 VA-HUD appropriation.
       Two weeks ago, the House blinked, 189-180, and failed to 
     eliminate pork projects added to the bill. Citizens Against 
     Government Waste strongly urges you to correct the mistake 
     and demonstrate that you have some regard for American 
     taxpayers.
       We have seen a list of the earmarked projects, and while 
     many appear to be well-intentioned, suitable endeavors, 
     virtually all are unauthorized. Moreover, the targets of 
     Senator McCain's amendment were all added in conference, the 
     kind of back-door spending that outrages the average American 
     who sees the practice as yet another indication of Congress 
     sneaking around, spending their tax dollars.

  Mr. President, I hope that we can this time recognize that this kind 
of thing is not possible anymore. I was pleased to see that the House 
acted on the Transportation conference report. Unfortunately, our 
efforts over here to take similar action were defeated.
  I saw a letter, as I arrived at my desk, Mr. President, from the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America. The letter is addressed to the honorable 
Barbara Mikulski, chairman of VA-HUD.

       Dear Madam Chair: On behalf of the members of Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America, I am writing to request your assistance 
     in opposing any amendment to be offered to the fiscal year 
     1995 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
     Amendments at this late date jeopardize and delay the final 
     approval of this necessary appropriation and will curtail the 
     VA's ability to meet the health care demands of veterans.
       Delays and foot-dragging have already dearly cost VA health 
     care this year--

  [blah, blah, blah].
  I have great sympathy for Douglas Vollmer, the associate executive 
director for Government relations for the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America. I have had excellent relations with them. Unfortunately, they 
do not know that we have had an opportunity for an entire year to get 
this bill up. It is not this side who is proposing the amendment that 
caused this appropriations bill to come forward at this late date. 
Probably, Mr. Vollmer does not realize that when we earmark in an 
unauthorized fashion moneys for specific projects, that Paralyzed 
Veterans all over America suffer. Perhaps Mr. Vollmer does not realize 
that the best way to get the kind of assistance that all of our 
veterans need is to have a fair and equitable distribution of the money 
and not have unauthorized earmarks which specifically go to the States 
and districts of members of the Appropriations Committee.
  I do not think any veteran in Maryland has a higher calling on the 
tax dollars of the American taxpayer than a veteran in Arizona, or a 
veteran in New Hampshire, or in any other State. But we find in this 
bill 400 million dollars' worth of earmarking--worth of earmarking--
that goes on and on and on and on. Many of them are very worthwhile, 
many are important projects--none of them scrutinized by the Members of 
this body. None of them, of the nearly $400 million.
  When I say nearly $400 million, Mr. President, next year when we go 
through this, perhaps if we adopt the Smith amendment, at least we will 
be able to identify them instead of having our staff having to leaf 
through page after page of this document and try to uncover it 
themselves. What happens is that long after the bill is passed is when 
we finally find out what exactly they were.
  I will not go through too many of these. I have a very long list 
here. I have many pages of these earmarks. Some of them sound 
reasonable to me. Some of them, to me, are hard to understand. But 
there is one common thread that runs through these, and that is that 
they seem to be awarded almost uniformly to the States and districts of 
members of the Appropriations Committee: $1.7 million to the city of 
Little Rock, AR, for community development activities; $1 million to 
Cibola County, NM, for the development of the multiagency visitor 
center; $1 million for a residential and commercial sewer 
rehabilitation project.
  I am sure all of these are very important. I am sure that Cleveland, 
OH, needs all of the funding going to Cleveland, OH. I am sure it is 
just a coincidence that, according to an article in Congressional 
Quarterly entitled ``A Cleveland Cornucopia,'' if that is the proper 
pronunciation, Metropolitan Cleveland was a conspicuous winner when 
House conferees added special-purposes grants to the housing section of 
the VA-HUD appropriations.
  A chairman of the subcommittee represents Cleveland's east side 
suburb, and the conference report includes nearly $10 million in 
projects for the area. I am sure they are worthwhile projects, Mr. 
President, but they were not scrutinized by the Members of the House or 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I have gone on and on on this issue for a long, long 
time. I will continue, probably, unfortunately to go on and on on this 
issue. But if we ever expect to regain the confidence of the American 
people we better have an orderly process here, as described in the 
pamphlet printed at Government expense, called ``How Our Laws Are 
Made.''
  ``How Our Laws Are Made'' says that the Senate passes a bill and the 
House passes a bill and they conference on items of disagreement, 
period. The very unhealthy and unsavory practice of adding in 
appropriations that were not authorized at any time into these bills, 
continues apace. And in this case in this bill, the estimates we have 
are about 400 million dollars' worth.
  Mr. President, I cannot go back to Arizona and tell the people that I 
am truly representing them if in a conference $400 million of special 
projects is added on which I am not a member of the conference. 
Yesterday, the Senator from Maryland suggested that maybe I become a 
member of the Appropriations Committee. I do not think that would solve 
the problem. I think what solves the problem is an orderly process 
where the Members of both bodies scrutinize both bills and that we 
abide by the rules of the Senate, which is that the conferees address 
items in disagreement.
  Mr. President, I hope we can win this vote and I believe in those who 
are worried about inordinate delays. I say we can go back to conference 
and in 1 New York minute we can clean out those earmarks and bring it 
right back and have a 100 to 0 vote on the floor of the Senate. All we 
have to do is take out the earmarks and bring the bill back and I am 
sure we can pass it very quickly.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, ordinarily, we alternate back and forth, 
but I am happy for Senator Durenberger to proceed and for the Senator 
from Texas to yield. I will move into my rebuttal and wrapup. In 
today's atmosphere we need a little bit more comity with each other to 
move our legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the Senator from Texas 
controls 15 minutes. The Senator from Maryland controls 39 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague from Maryland about comity, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak on behalf of the amendment by my colleague from Arizona. I 
certainly endorse every comment that he made and I intend to add a few 
of my own.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Arizona. The bill allocates more than $1.2 billion to 
projects in about 40 cities. It is clear that those funds come at the 
expense of the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund Program that 
serves the needs of all the States.
  By every measure the State revolving fund--or SRF Program as it is 
called--has been a great success.
  Notwithstanding that success, the Appropriations Committee has for 2 
years in a row slashed the President's SRF budget request to finance 
direct grants for selected cities. It would be one thing if the SRF had 
failed to meet its objectives or if there was a segment of the 
interested parties which believed that major reforms in the program 
were needed. But that's not the case. The program is universally 
popular.
  It is my purpose today to make the case against these direct grants 
by making the case for the alternative--for the SRF--by setting forth 
the history of wastewater treatment financing under the Clean Water 
Act.


              early history of the clean water act grants

  Mr. President, Federal aid to build wastewater collection and 
treatment systems began in 1956 with enactment of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act. For most of its history this program provided 
direct Federal grants to local governments. Cities and towns used the 
money to lay sewer pipes, to build sewage treatment plants and to 
replace sewage facilities that had worn out.
  In the first years the grants were relatively small, $20 million to 
$50 million per year. But in 1972, the program was dramatically 
expanded. That was the year that Congress completely rewrote the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to address the water pollution 
problems that had become a national scandal. Rivers caught fire, the 
Great Lakes were dying, urban rivers like the Potomac were so polluted 
they were no longer suitable for recreation. And the American people 
demanded that our rivers and streams, lakes, harbors, and bays be 
cleaned up.
  Although it was not officially called the Clean Water Act until 1977, 
it was the amendments of 1972 that signaled the big change. 
Authorizations for the wastewater treatment construction grants program 
were increased to nearly $5 billion per year with the 1972 legislation. 
The Federal share of project costs was increased to 75 percent. States 
were instructed to prepare priority lists of projects for Federal 
funds. A massive construction program was begun.
  That level of effort was continued through much of the 1970's. At the 
end of that decade, the Federal Government was providing about $5 
billion per year in aid to local governments to build sewage treatment 
and collection facilities. More than $26 billion had been invested at 
that point.


                           the reagan reforms

  In 1981 when President Reagan came to office he appointed David 
Stockman as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. 
Stockman was very critical of the construction grants program. He felt 
that many of the communities that received Federal assistance could 
well afford to build their own wastewater treatment facilities.
  He also argued, and with some justification, that the very low 
contribution made by local governments to the cost of these plants 
encouraged overbuilding. Cities designed plants with capacity well 
beyond their current needs because the cities contributed on average 
only 5 percent of the construction costs.
  As it happened the construction grants program was up for 
reauthorization in 1981 and President Reagan made it clear that he 
would request no funds for 1982 unless significant reforms in the 
program were made.
  And the Congress responded with reforms. The Federal matching rate 
was cut from 75 percent to 55 percent requiring local governments to 
shoulder a larger share of the burden. Projects that were growth 
related were no longer eligible for Federal funding. Priority was given 
to construction that would bring cities into compliance with Federal 
water quality standards. It was agreed that the program would be 
extended, but for only 10 additional years at an authorization level of 
$2.4 billion per year. At the end of the 10-year period, the Federal 
role in wastewater treatment was to be terminated.
  There was logic to the commitment of $2.4 billion per year for 10 
years. Those of us in the Federal Government often hear complaints from 
our colleagues who serve in State and local governments that the 
Congress imposes mandates without funding them.
  The laws that Congress enacts can have major cost impacts for State 
and local government. Since they are governments that must get their 
tax dollars from the same people that the Congress taxes, they argue, 
rightfully in my view, that Congress has an obligation to consider the 
impacts of its action on State and local spending and taxes.
  Well, we always have in the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the 
construction grants program was to help pay for a Federal mandate. 
Publicly owned treatment works, the sewage treatment plants owned by 
towns and cities and counties, must meet a level of pollution control 
set forth in the Clean Water Act. It is called secondary treatment. It 
requires that about 85 percent of the pollutants in the wastewater be 
removed before the water is discharged to a river or lake. In 1981 when 
the Congress and the administration agreed to provide another $2.4 
billion per year for 10 years for construction grants it was projected 
that this amount of money would roughly pay for the cost of complying 
with that Federal mandate.
  And today, most communities are either complying with the requirement 
or have under construction the sewage treatment facilities necessary to 
comply. The Federal Government has by now made grants totaling more 
than $61 billion to achieve this goal--to pay for the sewage treatment 
plants that are necessary to comply with the requirements of the Clean 
Water Act.


                       state revolving loan funds

  When the grant program came up for reauthorization again in 1985, 
further and very significant reforms were made. At that time we were 
looking at the end of the Federal role in 1991. The principal question 
was how to wind down the Federal role in sewage treatment plant 
construction once the job had been accomplished. The legislation we 
developed converted the construction grants program was into a 
permanent infrastructure investment program at the State level.
  Rather than make outright grants to local governments for 
construction, the 1987 Water Quality Act authorizes grants to the 
States. Each State places its grant in a revolving loan fund. It 
matches the Federal grant with some of its own funds. The money in the 
fund is then loaned to local governments for wastewater treatment 
construction projects. Local governments pay the money back over 20 
years at interest rates less than the market would charge and money is 
then reloaned to build new sewage treatment facilities in other towns 
and communities.
  These State loan programs are called State revolving funds or SRF's. 
The first SRF's were established in 1989 and 1990. Today every State 
and Puerto Rico has established a revolving loan fund. They have all 
received grants from the Federal Government to capitalize their funds. 
Loans have been extended to hundreds of local governments through State 
revolving funds.
  The States have done a truly extraordinary job in setting up these 
funds. States are required to match the Federal dollars with some funds 
of their own. Many States have gone well beyond the required match. And 
a dozen States have leveraged their funds. They have used the Federal 
grant to backup bonds issued by the State the revenues from which are 
deposited in the fund and are also used to make loans.
  For instance, the State of New York has leveraged its Federal grant 
and state match at a 3-to-1 rate. For every dollar of Federal grants it 
receives it is able to loan out more than $3 to local governments. This 
means that Federal dollars in states using the leverage of SRF's can 
reach much farther than they would as a direct Federal-local grants.
  The advent of the SRF has brought about another significant reform. 
Because local communities are required to pay back the loans, the 
planning and design of the wastewater facilities that are built is 
likely to be much more in tune with the actual needs of the community. 
Cities and towns will seek efficiencies and technologies that can save 
costs and save on water consumption, because ultimately they will have 
to pay the sewerage charges that finance the facility.
  But there is still a substantial benefit for local governments. The 
State of New York estimates that local government saves $250,000 in 
interest costs for each $1 million borrowed from an SRF as opposed to 
the bond market. And in some States, no interest loans are offered to 
communities that cannot afford even the 2 to 5 percent rate that is 
typically charged for an SRF loan.
  So, what we have here is a great success story. Since 1956 the 
Federal Government has invested more than $61 billion in local sewage 
treatment and collection. It is an example of the Congress financing a 
mandate that is has imposed. Today, there are 16,000 functioning sewage 
treatment plants owned and operated by local governments across the 
country.
  Plants serving more than 144 million Americans meet secondary 
treatment--the Federal standard for clean water. That is up from 85 
million in 1972. And the quality of the Nation's rivers and streams, 
lakes, harbors, and bays has improved dramatically as a result.
  State revolving funds have magnified the impact of Federal dollars. 
The money will be available in perpetuity as local governments repay 
their loans. Many states have leveraged the Federal dollars to extend 
the reach of the SRF's. And the dollars are applied more efficiently as 
the discipline of repayment is applied to the design and construction 
of these facilities.


               clean water act reauthorization proposals

  Mr. President, although the intention in 1987 was to terminate the 
Federal role in wastewater treatment financing, the tremendous success 
of the State Revolving Fund Program has caused a change of heart. 
President Bush and the environmental leaders of his Administration 
including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Bill Reilly, 
came to see the SRF as one of the most valuable environmental programs 
carried out by the Federal Government.
  Although the phaseout of the SRF funding is scheduled to begin in 
1991, President Bush proposed continuation of the program at levels 
exceeding $2 billion per year and in his last budget proposed funding 
at levels not seen since the 1970's. The success of the program and the 
continuing needs for wastewater investment convinced even the Office of 
Management and Budget that this program should be extended.
  In late 1993 President Clinton released his own Clean Water Act 
initiative that proposed a reauthorization of the SRF program through 
the year 2000 at approximately current funding levels--levels well 
above the amounts for the SRF now included in this Appropriations 
conference report.
  It is interesting to note that President Clinton also proposed an SRF 
for the Safe Drinking Water Act. New drinking water regulations have 
imposed substantial costs--estimated to be more than $8 billion--on 
local government across the Nation. Many small communities are having a 
difficult time finding the capital for drinking water supply 
improvements that will be necessary to comply with these regulations. 
Because the SRF program has worked so well under the Clean Water Act, 
the mechamism is proposed as a solution for the serious troubles of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  In February of this year, the Environment and Public Works Committee 
of the Senate reported legislation, S. 2093, that would reauthorize the 
Clean Water Act and that would extend the SRF capitalization grants 
through the year 2000.


              the 1995 water infrastructure appropriation

  Mr. President, this 1995 appropriations bill is out-of-step with the 
long and successful history of the Clean Water Act.
  The conference report undercuts the State Revolving Fund Program and 
returns to an era of direct Federal-local grants setting aside the many 
reforms imposed by Congress after careful oversight of the program.
  While the bill appropriates $1.238 billion for Clean Water Act State 
Revolving Funds in 1995, it provides a larger amount, $1.282 billion, 
in direct grants to approximately 40 cities for sewage treatment, 
stormwater, and water supply projects.
  The conference report includes many more grants than were 
contemplated in either the Senate or House passed bills. The Senate 
bill included $368 million in grants for 1995. The conference report 
comes back to us with $782 million in grants for a long list of 
projects never mentioned in either the House or Senate report.
  Of course, the amount to be appropriated to the Clean Water Act SRF 
shared by all the States has been reduced to make room for these new 
earmarks. This is the second EPA appropriations bill that has been the 
full responsibility of the Clinton Administration. Both have contained 
substantially less money in the Clean Water Act SRF account than was 
provided in bills passed under Republican Presidents. Because most 
States don't benefit from the direct grants, the Clinton budgets have 
made them losers. Looking back at the bill passed by the Senate, it is 
clear that the loss in this case is directly attributable to this long 
list of earmarks.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the amendment offered by 
Senator McCain.
  Mr. President, I think I just finished the last meeting of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and I have been at that now for 
I think it is about 12 years of serving on that committee.
  So, among other things, I know a little bit of something about water 
infrastructure grants that are included in H.R. 4624. I know a little 
bit of something about the origin of the Clean Water Act, a little bit 
of the history of the clean water bill which is set forth in my 
statement. There is an early history of the Clean Water Act grants, 
which I think will endorse everything that my colleague from Arizona 
said about what has happened to what has turned out to be pretty good 
intergovernmental policy--the relationship between Federal, State, and 
local government--in implementing the environmental objectives in water 
cleanup, what happened to them in the last 2 years on the path through 
the Appropriations Committee.
  Let me forgo the early history of the big buildup in 1972 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977. We first called it, I 
guess, the Clean Water Act, and it was at that point that we jumped up 
to 75 percent Federal money. By the time Dave Stockman got here with 
President Reagan in 1981, we figured we were shoveling an awful lot of 
money out into local government in a lot of communities in which maybe 
the need was not all that great and/or where they could have committed 
some local funds to meet those same needs.
  So starting with--I almost called him President Stockman--but 
starting with OMB Director Stockman's recommendation in 1981, the 
committee and this Congress, the House and the Senate, began to review, 
revise, and to implement some reforms in the whole way the program was 
authorized.
  In 1985, when the reauthorization came up, there were further and 
very significant reforms that were made at that time, looking toward an 
end to the Federal role in all of that. That was the year that we came 
up with a concept of State revolving loan funds. As the local 
communities would begin to repay funds these would be gathered at the 
State level and they could be used in conjunction with State funds for 
further grants.
  What happened with the State revolving loan fund program, which was 
established in I think about 1989 or 1990, every State and Puerto Rico 
has established a revolving loan fund of some kind. They have received 
grants from the Federal Government which capitalizes their own funds, 
and those loans then have gone out into a variety of local government 
projects.
  So what you have, in effect, with this relatively small amount of 
Federal money, which is in effect recycled in part by repayment, is a 
cooperative effort between the State and the local governments to 
determine which wastewater treatment plants and projects are the ones 
that are most appropriate, and which ones may be less appropriate and 
have to go on some back burner for a while. That, in effect, for the 
last year or so, has saved the demise of the Federal participation in 
these treatment plants.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the State revolving funds 
have magnified the impact of Federal dollars. The money now will be 
available, in effect, in perpetuity as local governments repay their 
loans. Many States have leveraged the Federal dollars to extend the 
reach of the SRF, applying them more efficiently, more appropriately. 
They are beginning to discipline the repayment where people are falling 
behind, getting their money back inappropriately. There is now an 
intergovernmental discipline which does not have to be exercised here 
at the Federal level.
  So, Mr. President, as I have watched this process go through the 
natural evolution of what is the appropriate Federal role, what is the 
State role, and what is the local role, this is one of those programs 
where a relatively small amount of Federal money is achieving a very 
important national purpose by enhancing the relationship between State 
and local government and, in effect, we do not need an Environment and 
Public Works Committee to determine what projects work and which ones 
do not; we do not need an Appropriations Committee at this level to 
make the determinations about the wisest expenditure of funds.
  So I conclude, Mr. President, by saying that the 1995 appropriations 
bill appears to me to be out of step with the very long and successful 
history of the Clean Water Act. The conference report undercuts the 
State Revolving Fund Program. It returns us, in effect, to an era of 
direct Federal-local grants, setting aside many of the reforms imposed 
by Congress after careful oversight of the program.
  While the bill appropriates $1.238 billion for Clean Water Act State 
revolving funds in 1995, it provides a larger amount, $1.282 billion in 
direct grants, to approximately 40 cities for sewage treatment and 
storm water and water supply projects.
  The conference report includes many more grants than were 
contemplated either in the Senate- or the House-passed bills. The 
Senate bill, for example, included $368 million in grants for 1995; 
that is, directs grants. The conference report came back to us with 
$782 million in grants for a long list of projects never mentioned in 
either the House or the Senate report.
  The amount to be appropriated to the Clean Water Act State revolving 
fund shared by all the States has been reduced to make room for these 
new earmarks. So, in effect, this evolution of a more responsible 
system, using the recycled, repaid funds is now being taken apart in 
order to bring the decisionmaking back here to the national level.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to take the advice 
of our friend from Arizona. I do not know which States are the ones 
that benefit from the new largess of the Appropriations Committee. I do 
not know which ones get housing money. I am only here to say that I 
think the good policy which has evolved over time in terms of how to 
wisely see the expenditure of these moneys at the local level is being 
put into reverse by the action of our colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I am sure there is desperate need in these 40 projects; there is no 
question about that. I am here only to speak for my colleagues, as my 
friend from Arizona has done, about the logic of reversing a very, very 
good change in Federal policy which has enhanced the relationship, the 
intergovernment relationship, between State and local government, which 
has made a few billion dollars go an awful lot further than they would 
have gone under the original Federal grant program, under the Clean 
Water Act.
  So for whatever reason my colleagues might have to support this 
particular amendment by my colleague from Arizona to send this back to 
the committee, I suggest that good public policy is at the root of it. 
The Clean Water Act and the SFR fund is a good example of that, and I, 
as strongly as I can, urge my colleagues to support his amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, much has been said about this conference 
report this morning, some complimentary and some critical.
  I would like to just try to present the facts as they are. First, in 
response to the Paralyzed Veterans' letter raising concern that an 
amendment to the bill would put it back in the House and could possibly 
delay us meeting our October 1 deadline, it was indicated that perhaps 
this subcommittee foot- dragged. I really take exception to that 
because the whole leadership of this subcommittee has moved in a steady 
way. We on the Appropriations Committee are very clear that we have a 
due date. We on the Appropriations Committee know when that due date is 
and we organize ourselves, through both our hearings, waiting for House 
action, bringing to the Senate and then moving our bill in a steady 
way.
  We had completed our conference before we broke in August. Every 
deadline for this subcommittee was met and met in a prompt timely way. 
Our hearings were completed in June, which is the schedule for the 
Senate. The House acted. We took up our bill in July and then met in 
conference before the break. Then we were ready. There was a report 
here September 1.
  We are part of everything else that is going on in this institution.
  My bill was ready to come to the floor the minute we got back from 
the August break. We were ready to go. We were ready to go. So it is 
not that we have foot dragged. We have been part of this gridlock that 
is going on where my legislation and I believe some of the other 
appropriations bills are stacked up like planes over LaGuardia Airport 
waiting to land in the midst of a storm.
  So, I want to assure both the people of Maryland and the people of 
America that the subcommittee working with both sides of the aisle has 
met its deadlines. We are here this week because that is the way the 
schedule fell because of other things. We were ready to go last week, 
but the hours and hours and hours of debate, and I might add some might 
say fruitless debate on campaign finance reform, is one of the ones 
that delayed that.
  I was willing yesterday to come from a sick bed--I also canceled an 
appearance some place else--to be on the floor to move this bill.
  So this subcommittee does not foot drag. It might be criticized for 
content but do not criticize it in that way.
  The second thing is there is much discussion that has gone on today 
about the authorization committees. I am a member of an authorizing 
committee. I know what they are up against. But I will tell you many of 
the things that we were in suspended animation on were because the 
authorizing committees could not act.
  Now, the authorizing committee in VA waited to act to see how we are 
going on health insurance reform and how perhaps the VA needed to be 
restructured should we pass health insurance reform.
  When that possibility dimmed, the authorizing committee moved in a 
very straightforward way under the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, 
with the cooperation of Senator Murkowski, but because our bill had 
already moved through the Senate, projects that were authorized in VA 
were not included here, and we added some in the conference because 
that was the will of the institution. It was a question of how to 
coordinate the timing.
  Now, the Senator from Minnesota spoke about the clean water bill and 
how this is going to jettison the process and he really spoke in his 
usual style about good government. But we might have good Government, 
but when you have gridlock, deadlocked government, it is hard to do 
good government.
  He referred to the 1987 clean water bill. Mr. President, that is the 
last time we had a clean water bill. This subcommittee has been waiting 
for not one, but 3 years for the Clean Water Act to be reauthorized. 
They cannot get it out for whatever reasons and for whatever the 
disputes are. The authorizing committee is stymied in bringing a bill 
to the floor, and in the meantime we have needy cities in many States 
of which there are Members who are not even on the Appropriations 
Committee, as often indicated.
  So we acted because things do affect the communities that would be 
included. I can go over that.
  When we talk about this, it is one of the reasons we tried to pace 
ourselves to give the authorizing committees a chance to act. Guess 
what? Some did; some did not. Some I never know whether they will.
  But we have an obligation, I might say a duty, to move this 
legislation particularly in those areas that affect not only the 
environment but could have a serious impact on public health or public 
safety.
  So when we talk about the processes, we did not foot drag. When we 
talked about the fact not everything is authorized that is not my 
fault. I am not pointing fingers and I am not saying who is at fault. 
Some waited because of health insurance reform, and others have been 
stymied because other people have other agendas.
  I also might want to talk about this process, implying that we met in 
some back room with the small group of people maybe wearing black coats 
and looking like Darth Vader reruns, that could not be farther from the 
truth. We met in open session, public session. I might add we met 
during regular business hours, and we have the active participation on 
a bicameral bipartisan basis.
  The process was out in the open. Any Member of the Senate could 
attend. Any Member of the Senate could have their staff attend. Any 
Member of the Senate who wanted to know more could do so.
  So I wanted to talk about this process and indicate to those within 
the Senate who are following this debate in their offices about the 
process.
  I also want to talk then about my bill. The Senator from Arizona 
talked about the $400 million that was added. Mr. President, that is 
one-half of 1 percent of the bills's funding. The remaining 99.5 
percent is not.
  What is this bill? Well, I will not go through the other 99.5 
percent, but I would like to say to the American people what we have 
here is funds that support the following agencies:
  Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, the American Battle 
Monuments Commission in which there was substantial funds for the D-day 
commemoration, chemical safety hazards support, communities development 
financial institutions, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the 
Corporation on National Service, the Office of the Inspector General 
for RTC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Veterans' Administration, 
the Arlington Cemetery, EPA, the consultative office on both 
environmental quality for the President and the science adviser, FEMA, 
the Consumer Information Center, the Office of Consumer Affairs at HHS, 
the space agency, the Science Foundation, the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation, the FDIC, Resolution Trust Corporation, with certain 
things before the passing of reform legislation, and even Selective 
Service.
  One might recall during our debate there was an attempt to terminate 
Selective Service, and it was this subcommittee that had a staunch 
defense for the preservation of Selective Service, not knowing what the 
new calls will be for the U.S. military and that while others, 
misguided, well-intentioned but misguided with the end of the cold war, 
failed to realize the need for Selective Service.
  So our funds maintained 172 VA hospitals, 135 nursing homes, 360 
outpatient clinics all already in operation. They serve 27 million 
veterans. It has the people, the training, and the equipment to be 
there. We have been dealing with a backlog in terms of prosthetic 
devices. We have funded VA medical research because of its important 
impact on clinical care.
  We have dealt with the backlogs where American veterans often have to 
wait months and even years for their disability claims to be processed. 
It is the subcommittee's strong and affirming principle that the U.S. 
veterans should not have to stand in line to have their disability 
benefits processed in a timely, effective, and fair way.
  Also, my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Texas, talks about 
investments in new technology and scientific research. We tried to look 
to the next generation, and that is why we fund the National Science 
Foundation, which supported important investment in civilian research 
and development and also in NASA.
  We are also trying to rebuild America's infrastructure by using 
community development block grant money, cleaning up water pollution 
and through those projects--and those are all authorized and some quite 
frankly were not, but we were able to provide jobs to hardworking 
people who want to work in the construction industry, and then also 
getting a dual use for them in terms of rebuilding our infrastructure, 
modernizing VA facilities, new outpatient facilities, and also clean 
water.
  We could go on with other issues related to that, but I think my 
colleagues get the point about how complex this bill was and also other 
stresses placed on this appropriations that were not of our making.
  I know that the Senator from Arizona advocates a balanced budget 
amendment and fiscal conservatism, and actually the new I believe 
Republican manifesto has elements in it that I think both parties 
should take a look at. And I commend him for his work in those areas. 
But I would like to point out that if his amendment is agreed to, when 
this bill works, it would strike out projects that meet really very 
important needs. Because what it would do in VA, the facility 
construction is working its way through and it would jeopardize 
veterans' health care, it would jeopardize the funding for housing 
authorization, which has been unable to move through, and also these 
EPA wastewater projects. These are things that we had talked about.

  But the other thing that the Senator talks about is that you have to 
be on the committee to get something. I would really point out that 
those HUD special purpose grants serve 27 States. I believe 19 of those 
States were not members of the committee, they were those projects that 
did meet needs. And then in VA medical care, there are four or five 
projects that were not there but what VA themselves asked for. It was 
not that a Senator asked for it, it is what the VA asked for.
  So these projects were not added under the cloak of midnight or in 
some secret room. They were done in broad daylight, again, as I say, 
during regular business hours in an open conference.
  The consequences to the Senator's amendment is that this would send 
it back to the House in an item of disagreement. I am not sure what 
would happen in the House, but as of October 1, the fiscal year ends, 
this legislation could go on a continuing resolution, and the 
consequences of that is that certain reforms that were made, for 
example, moving over the $50 million in VA medical care, which is why 
the paralyzed vets wrote their letter, I say to the Senator from 
Arizona, that that $50 million would essentially not be there, and it 
would have really serious effects on both the acute care and outpatient 
visits.
  So I really urge my colleagues to defeat the McCain amendment. We 
believe that we acted properly. We believe we acted in a timely way. 
And we believe that these projects were either authorized or were 
pending in bills waiting for authorization and, therefore, it is not 
something that we made up. To talk about how some of these projects are 
pork is really not to describe them in an accurate way.
  So, Mr. President, I could say more on this. I know we have about 
another 30 minutes of debate.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland controls 23 minutes 
45 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side controls 6 minutes and 35 
seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I now yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make sure that my friend from 
Maryland understands me. I have the highest regard for her work. I have 
the highest regard for her efficiency and her dedicated service to the 
people of Maryland and this country.
  So there will be no misconception about my remarks, I believe she, in 
chairing the subcommittee, has done outstanding work. She has labored 
hard under very difficult circumstances in perhaps one of the most 
complex pieces of legislation that this body faces.
  My disagreement lies not with the outstanding work that she does. My 
disagreement lies with the process that has given us the $400 million, 
which I am trying to eliminate because I have very grave concerns and 
disagreements in the process itself.
  I, again, want to reiterate my respect and admiration for the Senator 
from Maryland and the outstanding work she does.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is the Senator short of time? What is the situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 5 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me yield the Senator 5 minutes. I will 
yield him the remainder.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. CHAFEE. First, I do not want to travel under any false colors. I 
am against your side on this. I think I need about 12 minutes perhaps.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have but 5 minutes and 15 seconds to 
give, and so I give that 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas.
  I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona. I am deeply troubled by the grants for water projects that are 
included in this conference report. The bill allocates more than $1.280 
billion to specific projects in 40 cities. And what it does is it takes 
it out of the State Revolving Fund, a program that serves all the 
States. By every measure, the State Revolving Fund, the so-called SRF, 
has been a great success. The revolving fund was created by the 1987 
amendments to the Clean Water Act.
  When it was created, it was our intention to terminate Federal 
assistance for local sewage projects with the 1994 appropriation. There 
was to be an end to the Federal sewage grants. This revolving fund was 
conceived as a transitional device, and the revolving fund has worked 
so well that there is now virtually universal support for its 
extension.
  Despite all this, Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee has 
slashed the funding for the revolving fund and used the dollars to make 
grants to selected specific cities. This flies in the face of the whole 
Clean Water Act.
  The Federal Government started financing local sewage projects in the 
1950's. Over the years, Congress has managed this program very 
carefully in order to assure that the funds were used efficiently and 
effectively. It appears that the Appropriations Committee has 
disregarded all of that legislative history and the environmental and 
the fiscal and the performance safeguards that we put in place. It 
seems to me that the conference report is a slap in the face to the 
States that have worked so hard to make the revolving fund a resounding 
success.
  Under the revolving fund, the States can leverage their revolving 
fund grants with State bonds and appropriations to get the most out of 
the Federal investment in clean water facilities. In New York, for 
example, for every dollar in revolving fund grants received from the 
Federal Government, $3 is invested in water projects.
  There are five points I would briefly like to make. Most States are 
going to be the losers under this proposal. Under the Clean Water Act, 
the revolving funds were distributed to all the States based on a 
formula reflecting the need for wastewater treatment infrastructure. 
The law required EPA to survey the States every 2 years and report to 
Congress on the relative needs of each of the States for wastewater 
treatment, but not at all under this legislation.
  What they do is they just allocate the money from the Federal 
Government directly to the cities, not based on any criteria of need. 
But a cursory review of the project makes it clear that membership on 
the Appropriations Committee is the most important criterion to 
determine how these grants are going to be allocated. So that is the 
first big problem.
  Second, the environment and public health will be at greater risk. 
These grants for specific projects are made without any consideration 
of their water quality or their public health benefits. This is a list 
of projects recommended one at a time by Members of the House and the 
Senate, and what it does, it drains dollars off from the Revolving Fund 
Program and surely means that projects with greater requirements for 
environmental or health benefits will not be built.
  Third, the conference report means less money for water quality. 
Because it bypasses the revolving fund project to make these direct 
grants that I mentioned, we will not get the benefit of the leveraging 
that I previously touched on.
  Fourth, there is an increase potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. 
There is virtually no fiscal accountability when Congress makes a 
direct appropriation for a specific project. The Appropriations 
Subcommittee sat there and said, ``We are going to send this money to 
city A, B, or C,'' not going through any accountability process.
  When Congress decides that a particular city will get a specific 
amount of money, merely because the amount was requested by a Member 
representing that city, no executive oversight, either at the Federal 
or State level, is brought to bear. The project may be poorly designed. 
It may be oversized. It may be technologically inappropriate. It may 
benefit only a few, or maybe the pipe dream of some local planner or 
politician whose vision is never realized in actual development. Or the 
community that builds the project may lack the financial and managerial 
sophistication necessary to operate the complete facility.
  Fifth, these direct grants imperil the Clean Water Act itself. At the 
time that the Senate first considered this appropriations bill, Senator 
Smith, of New Hampshire, offered an amendment to strike the direct 
grants that it contained. The distinguished manager of the bill and the 
chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee argued in the absence of 
reauthorization for the revolving fund, she was forced to respond to 
the needs of these communities and the requests of their 
representatives as best she could.
  The implication left by her remarks was that reauthorization of the 
Clean Water Act was a necessary step to secure support for the SRF 
Program from the Appropriations Committee. In the absence of a 
reauthorization, the resources made available through the budget and 
appropriations process would be allocated to projects of committee 
members instead. In other words, her argument is that the blame for 
slashing the SRF is to be laid at the door of the authorizing 
committees for failing to enact legislation to extend the SRF Program.
  It is my judgment that the Clean Water Act is not in need of major 
amendment. It works quite well. It is our most successful environment 
statute. If the price we have to pay for reauthorization is a weaker 
wetlands protection program--or risk assessment language that 
undermines the technology-based standards that have meant so much 
progress under the Act--or a requirement that we pay off every property 
owner affected by a regulation, then I would staunchly oppose 
reauthorization. Based on her record, I am sure that the manager of 
this conference report would be of a similar mind.
  But appropriations measures like this conference report will make it 
much more difficult to protect the Clean Water Act. This kind of action 
will surely heighten the demand for a reauthorization of the SRF 
Program. If one does not have a member on the Appropriations Committee, 
one's Federal assistance for water infrastructure projects is about to 
disappear. The message is clear. Without an SRF reauthorization, the 
plan of the Appropriations Committee is to dole out the money directly 
to the cities they select in their annual bills.
  Mr. President, if this conference report contained a few grants for 
cities facing very high sewerage rates, like Boston, or communities 
where sanitary facilities simply do not exist, like the colonias along 
our border with Mexico, I would not be here making these points. I am 
not, in principle, opposed to the occasional direct appropriation that 
responds to a real need that has not been addressed in authorizing 
legislation.
  But this conference report is of a different character. It reflects 
the wholesale conversion of an existing program that is successfully 
meeting the needs of all the States into direct congressional grants 
without regard to environmental or public health priorities, without 
fiscal or performance oversight and in contravention of sustained 
efforts by the Congress to make the Clean Water Act and effective and 
efficient means to protect this Nation's waters.
  The Senate should reject this approach to water infrastructure 
financing. It hurts the States represented by most Members. It results 
in spending on projects of lower priority and less dollars for clean 
water in the long run. It runs the risk of wasteful or fraudulent 
projects unchecked by executive oversight. And it strengthens the hand 
of those who want to roll back the Clean Water Act and our other 
environmental laws.
  This is not just a debate about spending or pork. The conference 
report reverses 40 years of policy judgments made by the Congress on 
the right approach to water project funding. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has consumed all 
of his allotted time.
  The Senator from Maryland controls the remainder of time between now 
and 12:30.

                          ____________________