[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also wonder if the Senator could share 
with us when he would anticipate the Senate passing clean water 
legislation. The Senator outlined the process by which he would like 
all to operate, but the Clean Water Act has not been passed for 3 
years, and it just sits there. And then we in the appropriations 
committee run into these obstacles.
  Does the Senator anticipate that legislation will be passed in 1995 
and that some of those prickly issues could be resolved?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, I do not think so. I think the situation in the 
House is that it is not going to pass over there because of a variety 
of other reasons. But that, it seems to me, is not a valid reason for 
making these basic changes that were undertaken and included in this 
conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I do not want to debate that. I was just trying to look 
at next year. I hope that I will continue to chair the VA-HUD 
appropriations. In the absence of an authorizing bill, we will be in 
the same type of situation. I hope as the time goes forth that perhaps 
when we look at where we are around April or May, we could have a 
conversation so that we are not into these types of situations.
  But, Mr. President, this is exactly what happens to those of us on 
the Appropriations Committee. If the authorizers do not act, we 
oftentimes, because of the need and other things that need to be moved 
administratively--we have to fill the vacuum, and we have filled the 
vacuum. It is not like we filled the pork barrel. We have filled the 
vacuum in the absence of authorizing not 1 year, not 2 years, but 3 
years waiting for the authorization of the Clean Water Act.
  The very fine Senator from Rhode Island says to 1995, ``Well, not 
next year.''
  Well, if not next year, then what are we supposed to do? I believe we 
are now at a crisis in this institution and in the House. Either the 
authorizers have to act, or do not take the battle to us over the 
process. I recall that when the budget reforms went into place, 
authorizing legislation for new programs had to be done by May 15. If 
they were not quite done by May 15, then they could not be considered.
  I think we ought to, once again, go back to that so that there is 
some impetus and some sense of urgency and some sense of beginning to 
move together in the national interest to move these authorizations. 
For those who might be watching us on C-SPAN around the country and 
around the world, the authorizing process sets the policy and the 
recommended levels of funding. It is the Appropriations Committee, who 
have historically been the quiet guardians of the purse, who fund those 
at a level commensurate with what is available to be funded under the 
Budget Act.
  Once again, we are now taking on more and more of a role, and that 
could be questioned. But what really needs to be questioned is: Are the 
authorizing committees going to be authorizing committees, or are they 
so dysfunctional that that situation needs to be addressed?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the floor manager will yield for a question 
here.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, I will.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It seems to me the point that the floor manager is making 
is that there is no authorization of the Clean Water Act, so she cannot 
proceed with that, and she is suggesting that there is a hiatus here, 
or a failure by the authorizing committee to authorize. But then, at 
the same time, the chairman goes ahead with her subcommittee and 
appropriates in a whole series of other measures that are not 
reauthorized. None of this money that is being doled out at this 
tremendous clip, based on Lord knows what, except perhaps membership on 
the subcommittee or the overall committee, is authorized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to ask me a question?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am wondering what your rationale is. How can she 
implore the fact that the SRF is reauthorized, so she cannot 
appropriate there, but it is perfectly all right to make the direct 
grants to those that have not been authorized?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The so-called direct grants met the criteria for 
community development block grant funds, so they were not just out of a 
wish list.
  Let me, in the concluding hours of this debate, comment on the Smith 
amendment, which was not addressed in this morning's debate. I would 
like to, before we conclude for this morning, urge my colleagues to 
defeat the Smith amendment and to do that for three reasons:
  First, it seems to amend the Senate rules for an amendment to the 
conference report. It has not been the subject of hearing by the Rules 
Committee for consideration through the normal authorizing process. It 
is ironic that the sponsors of this amendment have raised questions 
about this year's appropriation and its need to pay closer attention to 
the authorizing process, but then they now wish to also further 
authorize on appropriations.
  I would recommend that they take their idea to the Rules Committee 
for a hearing next year, and if that is the wish of the institution, 
we, of course, will abide by it. The Smith amendment would ask that 
each side would publish their specific items, and everyone would be 
able to read them. Those are very nice intentions, and if that is what 
the body wants to do, fine. But if you do it on this bill, let me tell 
you what the consequences are. The consequences are that it would be an 
item in disagreement. That sounds so arcane, but the fact is that means 
it has to go back for a house vote, and maybe the bill will survive or 
maybe it will not. Maybe the projects will survive or maybe not. But 
with the meltdown that is going on in our institutions, once again, we 
might not be able to meet our deadline of October 1 for meeting these 
needs. I am really hot about the fact that I want my veterans 
appropriations to go through.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Paralyzed Veterans 
of America be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 1994.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
         Independent Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chair: On behalf of the members of Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America (PVA), 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 (VA). 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 with the demise of any meaningful health care 
     reform. As you know, proposals introduced in this Session of 
     the Congress would have corrected long-standing 
     irregularities in eligibility, streamlined the provision of 
     services and guaranteed a stable funding base for the system. 
     We realize health care reform has been pronounced dead for 
     this year. But this does not mean that these problems in the 
     provision of health care services for veterans will just go 
     away. If amendments are offered to the VA appropriation at 
     this time, the delays produced could very well call for 
     additional reductions in sorely needed funding.
       The VA needs every available dollar for the next fiscal 
     year to maintain services and momentum to play a meaningful 
     role in health care reform that must occur either 
     unilaterally or in conjunction with national reforms.
       Again, on behalf of all PVA members, we deeply appreciate 
     your efforts to oppose any amendment which will delay or 
     reduce needed funding for veterans health care programs and 
     services.
           Sincerely yours,

                                           Douglas K. Vollmer,

                                      Associate Executive Director
                                         for Government Relations.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. They talk about what the consequences of this amendment 
would be. I will repeat myself. We are talking about the fact that we 
are dealing with the VA backlog. Do we really want veterans standing in 
line? We already are wondering what happened to them because of Agent 
Orange, and we are wondering what happened to them in Desert Storm. We 
are really worried about what it means to their spouses and maybe to 
their children. I do not know what they are eligible for, but I tell 
you that I do not want them standing in line to find out what it is 
about, while we block and do this and that we talk about the process.
  I want to move this legislation. When we talk about these HUD special 
projects and then the fact that we want to send it back, those projects 
came from 45 States with one or more projects in this bill. The Senate 
voted 71-27 to retain those projects. They voted 60-30 something to 
retain the water projects. The Senate has spoken. The projects that 
were added were primarily from the House, or some projects that were in 
other authorizing bills that either have not passed both bodies or are 
pending. What we added in VA came primarily from what the Veterans' 
Administration wanted and the veterans authorizing committee wanted. 
What we did in EPA were those projects that were pending for 3 years in 
the clean water projects. If you look at those projects, they do not 
belong to one party, or whether somebody is on the Appropriations 
Committee or not.
  So, Mr. President, while we are talking about reforms and we are 
talking about process, those are things that should wait for another 
day. This bill is the result of months of work, putting together 
delicate balances, and making tough choices. Much has been said about 
these projects.
  This committee, this subcommittee, received 1,100 individual requests 
from Senators for line-item projects. That totaled $96 billion. This 
entire appropriations is $88 billion to fund VA, space, and all the 
other programs I mentioned. We said ``no'' to 90-some billion dollars' 
worth of projects. We could say ``no'' to the individual projects. We 
did not pig out or pork up. We think we have done a great bill.
  So we would hope that this afternoon when the Senate returns from its 
party conferences and the rollcalls are had, that we would defeat the 
Smith amendment, we would defeat the McCain amendment, and that we 
would agree to the conference report.
  Mr. President, I could say more, but I think that summarizes my 
argument. In concluding this morning's activity, I would like to thank 
the Presiding Officer, too, for his leadership in developing the 
framework for the mainstream coalition. His work on the Finance 
Committee is well known. In that coalition, we look forward to working 
with him in 1995 to truly reform health insurance.
  I do not want the morning to conclude without really a tip of the hat 
to George Mitchell, who really tried his darndest to shepherd a bill 
through, who operated in the spirit of civility, comity, and tried to 
fashion a bill by listening, and so on.
  The clock has run out. But those of us with major sports teams in our 
States know that even though the clock runs out, the game continues. I 
know there will be other times and opportunities. I think we need to 
return to the tradition of good sportsmanship and respect for one 
another and, hopefully, we will be able to pass health insurance.

                          ____________________