[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14281-S14307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2782

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my previous 
tabling motion be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Maryland be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I simply want to address the argument by 
my colleague that passing this amendment will not serve a purpose. The 
amendment will, in effect, enable HUD to implement a formula approach 
with respect to the homeless problems in the coming year. HUD could 
structure the formula approach so that State and local governments, the 
homeless assistance providers, the church groups, and the community 
groups could come in and anticipate their expected level of funding off 
a $1.1 billion figure. The Appropriations Committee itself has said 
they have to have more than $1 billion in order to make the formula 
approach work.
  They are going to negotiate regulations. That will take a good part 
of the fiscal year. The end result of all of this is a greater 
commitment to dealing with the homeless.
  I concede that we are taking money from the section 8 program. I 
think in the order of priorities, addressing the homeless ought to come 
ahead of that.
  Then people say, well, the following fiscal year the amount needed 
for section 8 is going to double from $4 billion to $8 billion. If it 
is that order of magnitude you will need an entirely new solution. You 
will not solve it by this $360 million here that is being held in the 
reserve.
  This money, though, could make an enormous difference with respect to 
addressing the homeless problem.
  Therefore, I very strongly renew my support of the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me just conclude this discussion by saying that under the system 
that has been suggested by my colleague from Maryland, which is an 
effort to solve the homeless problem, we are still in a budgetary 
quandary. We have not solved the budgetary problem.
  The Budget Committee will score the outlays during the year in which 
they occur no matter when they have been allocated. If, when the budget 
authority has been granted, if we move the funds to fiscal year 1997, 
as the amendment by my friend from Maryland would do, we will have that 
many fewer dollars to spend, that many fewer dollars in outlays to 
spend during fiscal year 1997.
  That is why I say that we have asked HUD to enter into negotiated 
rulemaking to try to get these funds out to deal with not only the 
funds we have appropriated in this bill but the funds, $297 million, 
made available in the rescission bill for the coming year, and utilize 
those funds to deal with the homeless problem.
  That is why again I regretfully say that moving money from one pocket 
to another does not overcome the appropriations and budgetary problems, 
and does not move us any further towards the goal of serving the 
homeless and those who need section 8 public housing assistance.
  Mr. President, is all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2783

 (Purpose: To require EPA to give priority to small businesses in its 
 ``green programs'' and to require EPA to perform a study to determine 
       the feasibility of making these programs self-sufficient)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Simon, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bumpers, 
     and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2783.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 151, line 11, insert:

     SEC.  . ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY SUPPLY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Priority for Small Businesses.--During fiscal year 1996 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall give priority in providing assistance in its Energy 
     Efficiency and Energy Supply programs to organizations that 
     are recognized as small business concerns under section 3(a) 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (b) Study.--The Administrator shall perform a study to 
     determine the feasibility of establishing fees to recover all 
     reasonable costs incurred by EPA for assistance rendered 
     businesses in its Energy Efficiency and Energy Supply 
     program. The study shall include, among other things, an 
     evaluation of making the Energy Efficiency and Energy Supply 
     Program self-sustaining, the value of the assistance rendered 
     to businesses, providing exemptions for small businesses, and 
     making the fees payable directly to a fund that would be 
     available for use by EPA as needed for this program. The 
     Administrator shall report to Congress by March 15, 1996 on 

[[Page S 14282]]
     the results of this study and EPA's plan for implementation.
       (c) Funding.--For fiscal year 1996, up to $100 million of 
     the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency 
     may be used by the Administrator to support global 
     participation in the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund and 
     for the climate change action plan programs including the 
     green programs.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will not take very long, and I want to 
thank the managers of the bill for agreeing to an amendment to our 
original proposal, which makes good sense and which I think improves 
the amendment. I appreciate their cooperation.
  I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
Chafee, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Simon, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lieberman, 
Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Leahy.
  What this amendment does is to restore the EPA Administrator's 
ability to fulfill our obligations under the Montreal Protocol. In 
addition, it will authorize the EPA Administrator to fund the 
successful green programs, including Green Lights and Energy Stars 
Building Programs.
  The net effect, actually, of this amendment as far as present 
spending will actually decrease because it will raise by fee some 
revenues to assist in the second program that I mentioned.
  I need not go into detail on the importance of the Montreal Protocol. 
Last year, the Congress appropriated $119 million for these important 
programs--$101 million for the green programs and roughly $17 million 
for the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund. This amendment will allow 
the Administrator to spend up to $100 million on these programs, 
actually a 13 percent decrease from last year's levels.
  Again, it is authorization to spend. It is not a specific authority 
for those programs. That will be up to the administrator.
  I will not go into detail on this. I do not want to take the time of 
our Members here for this.
  I will summarize now the green programs. There is no money for the 
green programs. I remember President Bush searching for alternatives to 
overregulation, command and control policies of the 1970's and 1985's. 
He longed to find a way to control production in a nonregulatory free 
market manner.
  His legacy through the environment is his success in developing just 
such a program which we are referring to this evening. The Green Lights 
Program and Energy Stars Program are a testament to the type of 
innovative programs we must implement if we wish to reduce the 
regulatory burden faced by industry today. The programs are volunteer, 
reduce energy use, save business money, and stimulate markets for clean 
alternative energy technologies and services. What more could you ask 
for?
  Green Lights is simple. EPA provides technical assistance to help a 
company survey its facilities and upgrade its lighting. Since its 
inception, Green Lights has saved companies hundreds of millions of 
dollars and dramatically reduced air pollution emissions, all without 
one regulation.
  I have to my left here a chart which shows--how often do you get to 
the cover of Time Magazine? This is an important public-private 
partnership. Just ask companies in my own State like IBM, our largest 
utility--Green Mountain Power, Jay Peak Ski Area, and many others, 
including small businesses.
  Now I had several Members that wanted to speak but due to the 
gracious acceptance of this amendment by the managers, I will yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Jeffords-Bingaman amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill, which 
would restore authority to the EPA Administrator to expend funds on 
their atmospheric pollution prevention programs, and on the Montreal 
Protocol Multilateral Fund.
  This amendment requires no new money of any offsets to H.R. 2099. It 
merely allows the administrator to use appropriated funds from the $1.6 
billion program and administration fund to continue what we believe is 
essential work going on at EPA. It does not affect the overall budget 
cuts prescribed in the bill.
  The Green Lights Program represents one of the best ideas of the past 
20 years in the field of environmental protection. As our framework of 
environmental laws has evolved since 1970, we have been shown the 
positives and negatives of command and control regulation. While strict 
standards have been successful in many ways at reducing pollution, they 
have also proven costly and unwieldy for complying companies in some 
situations.
  The Green Programs at EPA have done an exceptional job at saving 
energy and reducing pollution in a voluntary, flexible manner which 
should be emulated and expanded rather than zeroed out. In 1994 alone, 
Green Lights and Energy Star prevented $69 million metric tons of 
carbon equivalent, including 5.1 billion pounds of carbon monoxide, 
14.1 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 6 million pounds of nitrogen 
oxides.
  While these pollution reductions are a positive step, the more 
impressive fact is that these improvements are making money for State 
and local governments, companies, nonprofits and other organizations in 
almost every case. The Green Lights and Energy Star Programs saved $92 
million in utility bills in 1994 alone.
  Corporate welfare is a term one hears of often these days, both in 
and outside of this body. I am strongly supportive of reducing 
unnecessary subsidies to private industry wherever possible. However, 
labeling the EPA programs as corporate welfare is just plain wrong. No 
direct subsidies are given to corporations or any other participants. 
In fact, no direct marketing is done on behalf of any specific 
manufacturer or contractor. EPA merely alerts energy users to the 
financial savings and public relations benefits of the programs and 
gives them a long list of businesses that can do the work. All sales 
and contracting is the responsibility of the companies involved.
  I have heard many statements in this Chamber railing against the 
evils of environmental regulation. If the majority also eliminates 
cooperative, voluntary, non-regulatory approaches to environmental 
protection, what alternatives remain?
  Also restored in this amendment is the authority of the Administrator 
to expend Federal dollars on the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. 
Stratospheric ozone depletion from man-made chlorofluorocarbons [CFC's] 
is a real and pressing problem. Due to prompt action on the part of the 
Congress to phase out production of CFC's in the Clean Air Act, ozone 
depletion will likely peak in the year 2000, and restore itself 
gradually during the following 3 to 5 decades.
  The United States is enduring significant transition cost to 
accomplish the phase-out and must be assured that our progress is not 
undercut by rampant CFC use in developing countries. Our participation 
in the Montreal Protocol is essential for those recovery projections to 
be realized.
  I understand that the subcommittee chairman would like to see the 
Montreal Protocol funded by the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. It 
does not make a difference to me if the Senators from Missouri and 
Kentucky want to work out an arrangement. However, our treaty 
obligations to the Montreal Protocol are vital, and whether our 
commitments to it are met should not be subject to a squabble over what 
subcommittee should provide the funds.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, these programs are programs that I think are 
vitally in need of restructuring and reoriented and bringing in to the 
modern day.
  No question that Green Lights may have done some good for some big 
companies. This is really a distinguished group of companies. You can 
see Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, Warner Lambert, Phillips 
Petroleum, Whirlpool, Xerox, U.S. West, TransAmerica, all these 
companies have saved millions of dollars through the Green Lights 
Program. Great.
  What I think is that it is time to say enough corporate welfare. 
Start getting these people who are benefiting to pay for it. I have 
agreed with the sponsors of this amendment to accept their permissive 
language and to make some changes.
  No. 1, we say that there ought to be a priority for small businesses. 
During fiscal year 1996, the Administrator of the EPA shall give 
priority to providing assistance in its energy efficiency 

[[Page S 14283]]
and energy supply programs to organizations that are recognized as 
small business concerns under section 3(A) of the Small Business Act.
  Get out of the business of providing very scarce taxpayer resources 
to help very large companies save money on energy. They ought to be 
saving it. We have started the program. We have shown how they can save 
money. Let them pay for it.
  No. 2, we will include a study. The Administrator must determine the 
feasibility of establishing fees to recover all reasonable costs 
incurred by EPA for assistance rendered businesses in the energy 
efficiency and energy supply program. The study should include making 
the program self-sustaining, the value of the assistance rendered to 
businesses, providing exemptions for small businesses, making the fees 
payable directly to a fund that would be available for use by EPA as 
needed for this program.
  Nobody here is challenging the need for energy efficiency. It is 
vitally important from the environment standpoint, from a cost 
standpoint. It makes good sense. I do not believe that we ought to 
continue to have the Federal Government paying out this high-class 
corporate welfare.
  This is a significant step toward weaning those large companies away 
from that endeavor.
  Now, let me address the Montreal Protocol, and let me state to my 
colleagues that both of these are permissive. EPA is going to have to 
eat into its own budget to the extent it wants to use up to $100 
million to support the climate change program in the Green Lights 
program or the Montreal Protocol facilitation funds. I hope they will 
be careful in utilizing those funds because we need those funds to be 
used on cleaning up the environment here in this country, not providing 
foreign aid to other countries under the Montreal Protocol and not 
using up dollars in helping the largest corporations save money by 
instituting energy-efficiency programs.
  Let me tell you briefly about the Montreal Protocol funds. The fund 
received $116 million from the U.S. Government over the past few years. 
It is an international fund, managed through the State Department, to 
support developing countries in their efforts to phase out ozone-
depleting chemicals. It is a worthwhile goal, but I do not see why the 
EPA, which is strapped for funds, is going to want to spend much of its 
money on that. I think, if we really want to provide foreign aid for 
other countries to improve their environment, we ought to be looking at 
the State Department.
  I understand the Senator from Vermont had expressed concern about 
cuts in the foreign operations appropriations bill, the account which 
provides funding for the Montreal Protocol funds. That, I believe, is 
where it should be funded in the future. This subcommittee is not able 
to make up for shortfalls in other appropriations bills. We will allow 
the EPA, as a transition, to utilize those funds to the extent 
necessary. But I really believe the funds are better spent on 
environmental protection activities at home. We have provided the funds 
as available for these activities. We provided the Montreal Protocol 
funds some $116 million. I think the EPA can determine how to utilize 
its scarce resources and phase out the funding of these programs.
  The companies that have benefited from the Green Lights programs, we 
congratulate them and urge the EPA to move on to self-funding.
  With that, Mr. President----
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I might, I would just like to make a 
couple of comments on this. It is my understanding the distinguished 
floor manager is prepared to accept this?
  Mr. BOND. We are prepared to accept the amendment, and we appreciate 
the support of our colleagues for the program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
of the Appropriations Committee for accepting this. Let me just say a 
couple of words, if I might, about the Montreal Protocol.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, every single Member of this Senate, and 
indeed members of the Republican Party, should be extremely proud of 
the Montreal Protocol. Why? Because it was signed under the 
administration of Ronald Reagan. This is what President Reagan said on 
April 5, 1988, about the Montreal Protocol:

       The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a 
     product of the recognition and international consensus that 
     ozone depletion is a global problem.

  I am going to come back to that in a minute, because often it is 
said, only spend your money on domestic problems. But ozone depletion 
cannot be solved just by the United States alone. ``It is a global 
problem,'' as President Reagan said, ``both in terms of its causes and 
its effects. The Protocol is a result of an extraordinary process of 
scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business 
and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a 
monumental achievement,'' said Ronald Reagan, and he was absolutely 
right.
  With respect to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund, how does the 
money come about and who contributes? Let us just take what is 
happening right now. The United States is supposed to contribute $38 
million a year to this international fund. Where does it come from? 
Because of funding shortfalls in previous years, the State Department 
requested $27 million and the EPA requested $24 million. That is a 
total of $51 million for fiscal year 1996. The amounts in excess of the 
$38 million cap were requested to make up for past years. In other 
words, the request is up some. The point I am making is it is split 
between the State Department and the EPA.
  Who else contributes? There are 40 other nations that are 
contributing. The United States puts in a total of $38 million. Japan 
puts in $22 million, Germany $16 million, United Kingdom $9 million, 
Canada $5 million, and so forth.
  I am advised that the contributions to the multilateral fund have 
been at a higher rate--85 percent of the assessed amounts are 
contributed. This is the highest of any known U.N. trust funds. So it 
is working.
  I would just like to point out a quote from the July 14, 1994, 
journal of Science. That is the name of the journal. It published the 
findings of an international group of scientists who concluded that 
``methyl chloroform, one of the chief threats to the Earth's protective 
ozone layer, has begun to diminish. Other researchers confirm the 
finding, first reported 2 years ago, that chlorofluorocarbons, CFC's, 
have almost stopped increasing in the atmosphere.''
  You might say why have they not stopped completely? You have had this 
Montreal Protocol since 1987. The facts are, it takes a significant 
amount of time for the CFC's to go from the Earth up into the 
stratosphere where they do their damage. So, if we can stabilize--if 
our reports show they are stabilizing in the atmosphere, that means the 
efforts we have made to reduce the emissions are working and pretty 
soon the destruction of the ozone layer will go into a rapid decline 
from the activities that are taking place now. So, we can congratulate 
ourselves. Here is something that has worked.
  I want to just say how happy I am that we have worked out this 
agreement this evening; that both the distinguished ranking member and 
distinguished manager of the bill, the senior Senator from Missouri, 
have accepted these proposals. I am particularly interested in the 
Montreal Protocol side of it, having been connected with it for some 
years.
  Again, it is my view that the Republicans can pat themselves on the 
back for this measure, because it occurred under a Republican 
administration with a Republican President leading the way.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his efforts in 
connection with this this evening. I am glad we have reached a 
compromise and that the amendment of the Senator from Vermont has been 
accepted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter to me from the 
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy dated September 19, 1995, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S 14284]]

                                          Alliance for Responsible


                                           Atmospheric Policy,

                                Arlington, VA, September 19, 1995.
     Hon. John Chafee,
     U.S. Senate, 506 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of the Alliance for 
     Responsible Atmospheric Policy, I urge you to support the 
     appropriation of funds to fulfill the U.S. commitment to the 
     Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal 
     Protocol. The Multilateral Fund provides resources for 
     developing countries to comply with the Protocol's 
     requirements to phase out of the production of ozone-
     depleting compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 
     Appropriation of moneys to the Fund have been eliminated in 
     the EPA budget and substantially reduced in the State 
     Department's budget.
       The Alliance is the internationally recognized U.S. 
     industry coalition which is composed of producers of CFCs and 
     their alternatives; and several hundred manufacturers and 
     organizations whose products and services rely on CFCs and 
     their alternatives. The Alliance was organized in 1980 and 
     continues to assist government in the development of 
     reasonable international and U.S. government policies 
     regarding ozone protection. A list of Alliance members is 
     attached.
       Industry has worked diligently over recent years with 
     policymakers to seek sensible international requirements for 
     the phaseout of ozone-depleting compounds. We have done so 
     because the best scientific information has led us to 
     conclude that the concern for human induced alternation of 
     the ozone layer is a serious ``global'' environmental 
     concern. Unilateral requirements imposed on U.S. industry 
     alone would be neither fair nor environmentally beneficial in 
     solving the overall global problem of ozone depletion. 
     Therefore, the Montreal Protocol, ratified by 149 countries, 
     provides an unprecedented forum for all nations to work 
     together to solve this global environmental problem.
       The United Nations Environment Programme Science Assessment 
     Report shows that one of the few remaining obstacles to 
     recovery of the ozone layer is the growth of CFCs in 
     developing countries. Developing countries must be urged to 
     continue their transition to alternatives and phase out of 
     CFCs as soon as feasible. The Mulitlateral Fund helps to 
     ensure the success of the Montreal Protocol by providing 
     needed assistance to these developing countries. Without 
     funding for the implementation of CFC alternatives in 
     developing countries, these countries will continue to use 
     ozone-depleting CFCs because they are the best option 
     available to them as their economies grow to meet their 
     society's needs. Developing countries need assistance through 
     the Fund in phasing out of CFCs and utilizing new 
     technologies.
       Industry is proud of its accomplishments in ozone 
     protection, by its efforts to phase out of CFCs ahead of 
     schedule, and in its investment of several billion dollars to 
     identify and introduce ozone-protecting alternative 
     technologies. Therefore, it is critically important that 
     Congress provide as much oversight as necessary of federal 
     agencies, such as EPA, to ensure that U.S. interests and 
     alternative technologies are not disadvantaged or prejudiced 
     in the Multilateral Fund's CFC phaseout projects. In 
     addition, the Fund should not be used to implement any 
     acceleration of the phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
     (HCFCs) beyond the 1992 Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal 
     Protocol.
       The Multilateral Fund is an integral part of the effort to 
     ensure that alternative technologies are adopted globally. 
     The U.S. contribution to the Fund is only a relatively small 
     but important symbol of the U.S. commitment to this effort. 
     The U.S. agreed to the Fund assistance as part of its treaty 
     obligation; and it should not renege on this obligation. 
     Government and industry in the United States have shown both 
     strong leadership in ozone protection and a commitment to the 
     success of the Montreal Protocol. In order to fulfill this 
     commitment and continue U.S. leadership, we urge you to 
     support the funding of the Multilateral Fund.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Stirpe,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____


 1994/1995 Membership List Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

       3M Company.
       A. Cook Associates, Inc.
       Abbott Laboratories.
       Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp.
       Acme--Miami.
       American Electronics Association (AEA).
       Air Comfort Corporation.
       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute.
       Air Conditioning Suppliers, Inc.
       Air Products.
       Alliance Pharmaceutical Corporation.
       AlliedSignal.
       American Auto. Manufacturers Assoc.
       American Frozen Food Institute.
       American Pacific Corporation.
       American Refrigerant Reclaim Corporation.
       American Thermaflo Corp.
       American Trucking Associations.
       Amtrol, Inc.
       Anderson Bros. Refrigeration Service, Inc.
       Apex Ventilations.
       ARCA/MCA.
       Arizona Public Service Co.
       Arjay Equipment Corporation.
       Arrow Air Conditioning Service Company.
       Arthur D. Little, Inc.
       Ashland Inc.
       Astro-Valcour Inc.
       Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
       AT&T.
       Ausimont USA.
       Automotive Consulting Group, Inc.
       Bard Manufacturing Co.
       Beltway Heating & Air Conditioning Co. Inc.
       Beverage-Air.
       Big Bear Stores Co.
       Blue M Electric.
       Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA).
       Booth Refrigeration Services Conditioning.
       Bristol Compressors.
       c/o Moog Training Center.
       Carrier Corporation.
       Celotex.
       Center for Applied Engineering.
       Central Coating Company, Inc.
       Cetylite Industries, Inc.
       Chemical Packaging Corp.
       Chemtronics, Inc.
       Clayton Auto Air, Inc.
       Commercial Refrigerator Manufacturers Association.
       Copeland Corporation.
       Day Supply Company.
       Dow Chemical U.S.A.
       E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company.
       E.V. Dunbar CO.
       Eastman Kodak.
       Ebco Manufacturing.
       Electrolux/White Consolidated.
       Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
       Elliott-Williams Company, Inc.
       Engineering & Refigeration, Inc.
       Falcon Safety Products, Inc.
       FES Inc.
       Flex-O-Lators, Inc.
       Foam Enterprises, Inc.
       Foamseal, Inc.
       Food Marketing Institute.
       Foodservice & Packaging Institute.
       Ford Motor Company.
       Forma Scientific.
       Fox Appliance Parts of Augusta.
       Franke Filling, Inc.
       Fras-Air Contracting.
       Free-Flow Packaging Corp.
       Freightliner Corporation.
       Gardner, Carton & Douglas.
       Gebauer Company.
       General Electric Company.
       General Motors.
       Graineer.
       Gulfcoast Auto Air.
       H.C. Duke & Son, Inc.
       Hale and Dorr.
       Halocarbon Products Corporation.
       Halsey Supply Co., Inc.
       Harold Electric Co.
       Henry Valve Company.
       Highside Chemicals.
       Hill Refrigeration Corp.
       Howard/McCray Refrigerator Co., Inc.
       Hughes Aircraft Company.
       Hussmann Corporation.
       ICI Americas Inc.
       IG-LO, Inc.
       Illinois Supply Company.
       IMI Cornelius Company.
       Institute of Heating & Air Conditioning Industries.
       Institute of International Container Lessors.
       Integrated Device Technology Inc.
       International Assoc. of Refrigerated Warehouses.
       International Cold Storage Co., Inc.
       International Mobile Air Conditioning Assoc.
       International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Coalition.
       Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference.
       Johnson Controls.
       Joseph Simons Co.
       Keyes Refrigeration, Inc.
       King-Weyler Equipment Co., Inc.
       Kline & Company Inc.
       Kraft General Foods.
       KYSOR WARREN.
       LaRoche Chemicals.
       Lennox Industries.
       Liggett Group Inc.
       Lintern Corporation.
       Lorillard.
       Lowe Temperature Solutions.
       Luce, Schwab & Kase, Inc.
       Malone and Hyde Inc.
       Manitowoc Equipment Works.
       Marine Air Systems.
       MARVCO Inc.
       Maytag Corporation.
       McGee Industries, Inc.
       Mechanical Service Contractors of America.
       Merck & Co., Inc.
       Metl-Span Corporation.
       Miles Inc.
       Mobile Air Conditioning Society.
       Monsen Engineering Co.
       Montgomery County Public Schools.
       Moog Automotive Inc.
       Moran, Inc.
       Nat. Assoc. of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors.
       National Assn. of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
       National; Automobile Dealers Association.
       National Refrigerants, Inc.
       National Training Centers, Inc.
       NC State Board of Refrigeration.
       Neaton Auto Products Mfg., Inc.
       New Mexico Engineering Res. Instit.-U of NM.
       North Colorado Medical Center.
       Northern Illinois Gas.

[[Page S 14285]]

       Northern Research & Engineering Corporation.
       Northland Corporation.
       Norton Company-Sealants Division.
       O'Brien Associates.
       Omar A. Muhtadi, Inc.
       Omega Refrigerant Reclamation.
       Orb Industries, Inc.
       Patterson Frozen Foods, Inc.
       Peirce-Phelps, Inc.
       Pennzoil Company.
       Perlick Corporation.
       Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association 
     (PIMA).
       Polycold Systems International.
       Premier Brands Ltd.
       Ralph Wright Refrigeration.
       Rawn Company, Inc.
       Reeves Refrigeration & Heating Supply, Inc.
       Refrigeration Engineering, Inc.
       Refrigerant Management Services.
       Refrigeration Service Engineers Society.
       Refron.
       Revco Scientific.
       Rhode Island Refrigeration Supply Comp, Inc.
       Ritchie Engineering Co., Inc.
       Rite Off.
       RJR Nabisco.
       Robinair Division, SPX Corp.
       RSI Co.
       Rule Industries, Inc.
       SCM Gidco Organics.
       Scott Polar Corporation.
       Service Supply of Victoria, Inc.
       Servidyne Inc.
       Sexton Can Company.
       Sheeting, Metal Air-Conditioning Contractors National 
     Association (SMACNA).
       South Central Co., Inc.
       Southern Refrigeration Corp.
       Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI).
       Sporian Valve Company.
       Spray, Inc.
       Stoeiting, Inc.
       Sub-Zero Freezer Company, Inc.
       Superior Valve Company.
       TAFCO Refrigeration Inc.
       Tech Spray, Inc.
       Tecumseh Products Company.
       Tennessee Eastman.
       Tesco Distributors, Inc.
       Thermal Engineering Company.
       Thermo-King Corporation.
       Thompson Publishing Group.
       Thompson Supply Co.
       Thorpe Supply.
       Tolin Mechanical Systems Co.
       Tomen America Inc.
       Trane Company.
       Tropicana Products Inc.
       Tu Electric.
       Tyler Refrigeration Corp.
       Union Chemical Lab. ITRI.
       United Refrigeration, Inc.
       Unitor Ships Service, Inc.
       University of Maryland at Baltimore.
       University of Wisconsin-Madison.
       Valvoline Oil Company.
       Venable, Baetjer, and Howard.
       Vulcan Chemicals Co.
       W.A. Roosevelt Company.
       W.M. Barr and Company.
       Wawa, Inc.
       Weinberg and Green.
       White & Shauger, Inc.
       Willam F. Nye, Inc.
       Wynns Climate Control.
       York Division, Borg-Warner Corp.
       York International Corporation.
       Zero Zone Refrigeration MFG.
       Zexel USA.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
by Senator Jeffords, which would make $100 million available for 
participation by the United States in the Montreal Protocol 
Facilitation Fund and the Climate Change Action Plan green programs. 
This funding is critical if we are to protect the ozone layer from 
further erosion and continue our progress in helping American industry 
become more energy-efficient.
  The Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund helps implement the 
international phaseout of CFC's--chemicals that deplete the ozone 
layer. In turn, it helps make the lives of every American safer and 
healthier, protecting us from radiation that causes skin cancer.
  To date, the Fund has provided over $300 million for almost 900 
activities in 80 developing countries around the world. These projects 
have resulted in the elimination of over 55,000 tons of ozone-depleting 
chemicals--representing roughly 25 percent of the developing nation's 
ozone-depleting chemical use.
  Why does this effort merit the Senate's support? Let me suggest two 
reasons.
  First, developing countries are rapidly industrializing, making 
choices about the technologies they will employ to improve their 
standard of living. The choices they make will affect the health of 
everyone who inhabits this planet, and Americans are no exception.
  Developing countries can profit from the lessons of more developed 
countries and avoid the environmentally damaging mistakes that have 
already been made. Or, they can follow the path of least short-term 
resistance and make the current ozone depletion problem even worse. If 
developing nations chose to industrialize using ozone-destroying CFC's, 
then all countries could suffer, since the ozone hole will continue to 
grow.
  Second, American businesses benefit from the global market for ozone-
friendly equipment created by this international effort. To date, U.S. 
companies have sold millions of dollars' worth of equipment designed to 
prevent the release of ozone-destroying compounds as a result of the 
program. Clearly, further investment by the United States in this 
program is very much in our interest.
  In addition to eliminating funding for the Montreal Protocol 
Facilitation Fund, the VA-HUD appropriations bill cuts $90 million from 
the Climate Change Action Plan green programs. The Jeffords amendment 
would restore most of this funding.
  The cuts in this account primarily affect EPA's green programs. The 
Green Lights Program, for example, provides information, training, 
technical reports, and other assistance, but not direct financial 
assistance, to companies to encourage them to invest in highly energy-
efficient lighting, heating, and cooling technologies designed to save 
energy.
  In my view, these programs represent the type of public/private 
initiative we should be encouraging--a government and industry 
partnership that protects the environment and reduces our consumption 
of energy, thereby making domestic industries more competitive.
  Green Lights is so popular that businesses throughout the country 
have signed up. Nearly 2,000 businesses and other institutions 
participate in the program today.
  In my home State of South Dakota, Gateway 2000 and the State 
government both are participating in the Green Lights Program. It has 
been a great success, saving energy, reducing costs, and cutting 
pollution.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for offering this amendment 
and urge my colleagues to vote to restore the funding for the Montreal 
Protocol Facilitation Fund and the Climate Change Action Plan green 
programs.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Jeffords, in support of the Montreal Protocol Fund--an 
extraordinarily successful multilateral agreement to phase out the use 
of ozone-depleting chemicals.
  Since the early 1970's, scientists from both academia and the 
business community have warned us that the 
use of chlorofluorocarbons--commonly known as CFC's--as refrigerants 
and solvents damages the Earth's stratospheric ozone shell.
  This ozone shield absorbs some of the sun's harmful ultraviolet, or 
UV radiation. Increased amounts of this radiation will raise the risk 
of skin cancer and cataracts, impair the functioning of human immune 
systems, and could adversely impact the global food supply.
  As a direct consequence of CFC use, scientists identified literally a 
hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, in 1985.
  An intensive investigation concluded that this hole, which increased 
each consecutive year from 1990 to 1994, and which is expected to 
enlarge again this year to over 3.9 million square miles--roughly the 
size of Europe, was caused by chlorine from dissolved CFC compounds.
  The ensuing inquiry also detected falling concentrations of ozone 
over the North and South Temperate Zones--the former includes the 
United States incidentally.
  In response to this growing threat, 47 of the world's developed and 
developing countries joined together in September 1987, and formed the 
Montreal Protocol.
  This agreement bound the leading ozone-using countries to first 
freeze, and later phaseout, the use of these chemicals.
  At present, over 120 countries have voluntarily signed onto the 
Protocol, making it the broadest and most successful international 
collaboration in world history.
  Protocol member nations have accelerated the CFC phaseout schedule 
twice, and have agreed upon a complete 

[[Page S 14286]]
elimination of halons in 1994, and of CFC's by the end of this year.
  Protocol member nations also recognized that the disproportionate 
reliance upon ozone-depleting substances by the developing world 
threatens to eliminate any progress.
  Consequently, 30 developed nations formed the Montreal Protocol Fund 
in 1990, to provide technical assistance to developing nations, as they 
make the transition to less harmful technologies.
  To date, roughly $350 million has been committed for 900 projects in 
more than 85 developing countries. When fully implemented, these 
projects are anticipated to cut the developing countries' use of ozone-
depleting chemicals by almost one-third--55,000 tons.
  A recent report produced under the auspices of the United Nations 
Environmental Program indicates we are making some headway--since 1989, 
the rate of growth of major ozone-depleting substances in the 
stratosphere has declined significantly.
  Yet, further reducing CFC's remains critical. Earlier this year, the 
World Meteorological Organization reported that ozone levels were 10 to 
15 percent below long-term averages, with a 35-percent depletion over 
Siberia. In fact, the past 3 months saw the most depletion ever.
  Mr. President, the United States is responsible for a small portion 
of the Montreal Protocol Fund's resources. Yet, even though we have the 
most to gain, we are currently $28 million in arrears.
  Shrinking away from our commitment, going back on our word as the 
committee has suggested by eliminating the account, will severely 
hamper developing countries' transition to non-CFC technologies.
  Additionally, our industrial allies will likely refuse to adopt added 
measures to further reduce ozone-depleting chemicals which are not 
currently controlled.
  Many American businesses, which are now world leaders in the 
manufacturing of non-CFC refrigerants and solvents, will also suffer.
   Mr. President, regrettably, my home State of Delaware is one of the 
national leaders in terms of the incidence of cancer. Delaware ranks 
among the top 10 nationally in breast, lung, and bladder cancer.
  We have put a lot of work into identifying the causes, but we don't 
yet know what in our environment, or what aspects of our behavior, are 
leading to these cancer cases.
  For that reason alone, Mr. President--and perhaps it is a selfish 
reason and I make no apologies--I want to prevent the increase of 
cancer-causing UV radiation.
  Delaware is a coastal State, and during the summer months hundreds of 
thousands of people flock to our shoreline to enjoy our beaches. I 
don't want these people or anyone in America, to unknowingly be exposed 
to harmful doses of UV radiation because this Nation walked away from 
its responsibility.
  The Montreal Protocol is enormously successful, and we are making 
solid, substantial progress in decreasing the use of CFC's in the 
developing counties.
  This success needs to be continued. I urge my colleagues--support 
this worthy program and send a signal to the world community that 
America remains a leader.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as a 
cosponsor Senator Cohen, Senator Lugar and Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no further requests to be heard 
from any of the Members I am aware of.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the amendment on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I believe there is no objection on the other side. I think 
we are therefore ready to go to a vote.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2783) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2784

(Purpose: To strike section 107 which limits compensation for mentally 
disabled veterans and offset the loss of revenues by ensuring that any 
 tax cut benefits only those families with incomes less than $100,000)

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland will be set aside.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that we have discussed previously 
the possibility of a time agreement on this amendment.
  I understand the proponent of the amendment is willing to accept a 
30-minute time agreement, equally divided in the usual form, provided 
there is no second-degree amendment. Is that the understanding?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator is entirely correct.
  Mr. BOND. May I ask which amendment he just sent forward?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I wanted to lead off with the amendment relating to 
the mentally disabled veterans.
  Mr. BOND. And the second amendment?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would have to do with veterans' health care.
  Mr. BOND. Is the Senator agreeable to a 30-minute time agreement 
equally divided in the usual form for that amendment as well?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am indeed.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on these two 
amendments the time be equally divided, 30 minutes in the normal form 
on both sides with no second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2784.

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

       On page 16, beginning with line 20, strike all through page 
     17, line 5, and insert the following:
       Sec. 107. Section 105(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67 
     (104th Congress, 1st Session) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Certification.--(A) In the Senate, upon the 
     certification pursuant to section 205(a) of this resolution, 
     the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit its 
     recommendations pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving the recommendations, 
     the Committee on the Budget shall add such recommendations to 
     the recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and 
     report a reconciliation bill carrying out all such 
     recommendations without any substantive revision.
       ``(B) The Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall file 
     with the Senate revised allocations, aggregates, and 
     discretionary spending limits under section 201(a)(1)(B) 
     increasing budget authority by $170,000,000 and outlays by 
     $150,000,000.
       ``(2) Committee on finance.--Funding for this section shall 
     be provided by limiting any tax cut provided in the 
     reconciliation bill to families with incomes less than 
     $100,000.''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would 
strike a provision of the appropriations bill which seeks to limit 
compensation benefits to certain veterans who are disabled by mental 
illness, and offset the savings that would result from the enactment by 
limiting any tax cut under the budget resolution to families earning 
less than $100,000.
  Mr. President, the choice posed by my amendment is, again, simple 
and, I think, straightforward. Do we favor tax cuts for the wealthy or 
benefits for mentally disabled veterans? I trust the answer will be 
obvious.
  The Appropriations Committee would reenact a 1990 provision which cut 
off VA compensation benefits to mentally incompetent veterans who have 
no spouse, children, nor dependent parents, when the veteran's savings 
reached $25,000. Payments were resumed when the savings fell to 
$10,000. 

[[Page S 14287]]

This provision expired at the end of 1992. Attempts to reenact this 
provision were rejected by the House and Senate Veterans Affairs' 
Committees in both 1993 and again this year, 1995, in our 
reconciliation efforts. It is bad policy, and, in any event, it does 
not belong in an appropriations measure.
  Mr. President, some may argue that suspending compensation to 
mentally disabled veterans when their savings reach $25,000 prevents 
uncaring heirs from acquiring funds amassed through the receipt of VA 
compensation benefits. Indeed, that is usually the argument which is 
used against this. While it is undoubtedly true that this will happen 
in a few cases--that is, that individuals truly remote from the 
mentally incompetent veteran will receive moneys on the death of that 
veteran--it is equally true that it does not happen in the great 
majority of cases in which a mentally incompetent veteran dies without 
a spouse, child, or dependent parent. In fact, to the contrary, in many 
cases there are other family members--nondependent parents, brothers, 
sisters, uncles, aunts, or cousins--who have been involved with the 
veteran and the care of the veteran.
  Also--this is important to note--there is absolutely no reason to 
suppose that the situation of funds going to so-called remote heirs 
occurs any more frequently with mentally incompetent veterans than with 
other seriously disabled veterans who have acquired significant savings 
based upon their receipt of compensation.
  If there is indeed some interest in ensuring that savings derived 
from VA compensation not go to remote heirs, then the law should be 
changed to provide that the cutoff in compensation apply across the 
board to everyone. I do not believe that this is something the 
Government should do only for those who are mentally incompetent, 
disabled veterans.
  If we are to undertake this policy--and I would not favor that--it 
must be done in a fair, across-the-board fashion. Otherwise, we single 
out mentally disabled veterans and in that classic sense discriminate 
against them when, of course, they are unable to do anything about this 
themselves.
  Mr. President, on its face this provision discriminates against one 
small group of veterans: those who are mentally disabled. There is no 
sound policy reason for allowing a competent disabled veteran to save 
money that could possibly go to remote heirs upon the veteran's death, 
while limiting savings of a mentally incompetent, disabled veteran. 
There is a rather important matter of fairness involved here.
  This provision would do terrible harm to families who sacrificed to 
provide care for their mentally incompetent son or daughter. In many 
cases, parents who act in fiduciary roles build savings so that when 
the parents are deceased, there will be enough money to care for the 
disabled veteran. Under the proposal, families could not accomplish 
this goal.
  Another outcome of the 1990 provision was that many veterans and 
their guardians did very creative things to circumvent the law. For 
example, mentally incompetent veterans arranged marriages in order to 
avoid losing their compensation. Others made large purchases of 
unneeded property or cars to lower their savings or otherwise disburse 
their savings. Guardians in these cases often consented because it was 
better to expend those savings than to lose VA compensation altogether. 
We can expect more of the same if this proposal becomes law. By cutting 
off payments, the provision punishes the veteran whose guardian 
conscientiously administers the veteran's funds, while it rewards the 
guardian who allows the veteran to spend frivolously everything that he 
gets.
  Mr. President, I note that all of the major veterans service 
organizations oppose this provision, some of them very strongly. They 
generally believe, as I do, that there is no justifiable reason for 
singling out these veterans for discrimination solely because they are 
mentally disabled.
  Also, as I noted briefly earlier in my remarks, this provision is a 
clear example of authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill. 
That is not considered lightly around here. The Veterans Affairs' 
Committee considered this provision as part of meeting our 
reconciliation mandate under the leadership of Chairman Simpson, and we 
rejected it. That is the business of an authorizing committee. It 
should not be resurrected in the guise of an appropriations issue.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this amendment to remove this onerous provision from 
the appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, this is an effort again to deal with some very, very 
tight funding problems. We recommended, and the committee accepted, 
that the incompetent veterans provision included in the House stay in 
the Senate bill. It limits the provision, as we said earlier, in order 
to save $172 million in budget authority and $157 million in outlays.
  As a result of this provision, the subcommittee was able to provide 
an increase for VA medical care. It does say that where a mentally 
incompetent veteran has neither dependent children, dependent spouse, 
nor dependent parents, when the value of the veteran's estate exceeds 
$25,000, until the estate is reduced to $10,000, there will be no 
payments. These are for veterans whose needs are being fully cared for 
by the Veterans Administration. This is a veteran who has no 
dependents. This is the ultimate estate builder plan. These are 
veterans who are in very difficult circumstances. The people who will 
benefit from the payments made by the VA are heirs, not dependent 
heirs.
  Frankly, the offset provision which purports to deal with tax cuts is 
thin air. It is absolute vapor. It proposes some budget gimmickry, but, 
frankly, what this amendment does by raising spending by the amount of 
$172 million in budget authority and $157 million in outlays is to say 
to our children ``We've got you. We are going to put this estate 
builder program on your credit card.''
  This is a violation of the budget that is proposed and been adopted 
by Congress. If this provision were to succeed, it would have the 
impact of busting the agreement to achieve a zero deficit by the year 
2002.
  Imagine how difficult it would be to tell your children or your 
grandchildren, ``I just decided that we don't need to stop spending on 
your credit card. We're going to provide an estate builder plan for 
incompetent veterans, people who served the country well but who are 
being fully cared for by the Veterans Administration so their 
nondependent heir, not their wife, not the dependent child, not the 
dependent parent, but some farther away heir will receive the bonus 
that has been built up by these payments.''
  In September 1980, the Comptroller General, as written by the former 
chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, said, ``Congress 
intended distant relatives should not be enshrined to receive benefits 
of veterans or their immediate families. However, large estates 
consisting of VA benefits are evidently still enriching distant 
relatives who may have had very little to do with the veteran and were 
not affected by his service to the United States.''
  The VA inspector general conducted an audit of the VA's fiduciary 
program and recommended legislation to limit compensation payments. The 
IG found numerous instances of substantial estates being inherited by 
distant relatives.
  An incompetent veteran of World War I emigrated from Lithuania in 
1907 and died in 1978, leaving an estate of $87,900, of which $77,800 
came from VA benefits. The estate went to six nieces and nephews living 
in the Soviet Union.
  There are many other examples like that. But the basic argument is we 
have a very tight budget, and it was our decision in recommending to 
the subcommittee, which the subcommittee recommended to the full 
committee, which the committee recommended to this floor, we could 
better spend the $172 million in ensuring that current veterans receive 
medical care that they need. This was a very important part of the 
increase that we were able to give in veterans medical affairs.
  When the time comes, I will raise a Budget Act point of order to this 
measure. 

[[Page S 14288]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, how many minutes would the Senator from Wyoming like?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Seven minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, one of these difficult issues that 
are filled with emotion. I have chaired the Veterans Affairs' Committee 
for several years. Senator Cranston chaired the committee, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Rockefeller. It is a remarkable committee that does 
tremendous things for veterans, and I very much enjoy having Senator 
Jay Rockefeller as the ranking member. We work closely together. His 
staff and my staff work closely together.
  This is an honest difference of opinion, but again it is one of those 
that have a ring--a tug at the heart--and I have been through a lot of 
these through the years, because if you resist this, then it will go 
out on the wavelength that somehow you do not care about veterans; you 
are cold and mean spirited and heartless.
  This one you want to pay close attention to. This is a serious issue 
that is not leaving any single veteran unattended.
  We are talking here about an incompetent veteran. We are talking 
about a person that cannot manage their assets. They have a conservator 
or a guardian.
  What we are providing here, it seems to me to make eminent common 
sense. We are going to suspend the VA disability compensation payments 
in the case of an incompetent veteran with no dependents whatsoever.
  If you really want to get a look at what we are talking about, we are 
talking about a person perhaps in a nursing home or some other 
institution who is totally incapable of functioning, with not a single 
person that comes to see them on Christmas or New Years or Easter, not 
a single dependent ever shows up at the door.
  We are talking about not including the value of a home in computing 
the size of the estate, and we are talking about the fact that if a 
person in that status accumulates over $25,000, we stop. And the 
purpose of stopping is so that a nondependent heir does not inherit 
something which is totally a windfall--because the veteran did not need 
it at all. The veteran's necessities as an incompetent are totally 
taken care of--food, shelter, clothing. This is for expenses that he or 
she did not need. That is why it accumulated in a bank account, and 
that is why it should not go to a nondependent relative who had no 
desire to care for or even see the person.
  So if you want to get into the emotion of it--and we always usually 
do--then remember this is a pretty tragic situation. So we are saying, 
I think in a very magnanimous way, if it gets above $25,000, we are 
going stop it so it will not get up to $100,000 and go to somebody who 
does not care about the veteran. The veteran will be totally taken care 
of; every single need will be taken care of. I know that and you know 
that. And then here is the key.
  If this drops below $10,000, you start the money coming again. Now, 
that is what we have here, to save $170 million. If it drops below 
$10,000, it starts again. If it gets above $25,000, it stops.
  And what is the money for? The veteran. And he is not using it, so 
why let it go to $60,000, $70,000, or $80,000. And it only affects 
veterans who are not competent in any way to handle their money. These 
payments are made to provide for the living expenses of disabled 
veterans. They are not being used for that purpose. The money is not 
paying for clothes or food or shelter. It is a accumulating, and it 
will be ultimately passed on to nondependent heirs.
  This provision does not affect the standard of living or the 
condition of living of any veteran because the veterans involved are 
not now spending the money. If the benefit money is being expended to 
support the veteran, then the money would not be building up in the 
bank, and the provision in the bill would not kick in. It is that 
clear.
  The amendment is actually an assault on the budget resolution. The 
cost of this amendment would be offset by reducing the amount available 
to the Finance Committee to reduce the tax burden imposed on the 
American people and the American economy. We will hear over and over 
and over in these next days that Senators must either vote for a tax 
cut for the rich or vote for disabled and helpless veterans, one or the 
other.
  That is a sad choice and quite an extraordinary rigging of the 
amendment. But we will see a lot of those in the days to come, many, 
many of those. I personally do not favor a tax cut for the rich or the 
poor. So at least I am on record on that because we are going to deal 
with the $5 trillion debt limit in the next few days. And we will deal 
with Medicare and Medicaid and let that go up 6.4 percent, and that 
will be called a savage cut from coast to coast.
  We do not do veterans any favor if we use them as a point man. I was 
in the infantry. I do not know where others served, but it was not fun 
to be a point man to begin to do any kind of military activity. And 
certainly you cannot use veterans as point men to begin dismantling the 
national effort to try to bring the deficit under control and provide 
some relief to Americans aged between 18 and 45 who will have nothing 
in 30 years. And nobody talks about them and that period of time.
  We always talk about 1 year. We have a Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
a Cabinet Member, who will not go past 1 year in his dealings with 
telling the American veterans what is going to happen to them.
  And so these are the troublesome things. We do veterans no favor at 
all if we use them as point men for including spending for a program 
without at the same time reducing spending in another program. We do 
veterans no favor if we enact legislation that really has the effect of 
enriching only their nondependent relatives after their death, people 
who have not cared a whit about them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 7 minutes 
43 seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed 
Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I want to congratulate him on his advocacy for veterans. I thank him 
for coming here this evening to offer his amendment, the kind of 
cultured cooperation we have here in the U.S. Senate. And I 
particularly want to thank him for his advocacy for veterans health 
care.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Rockefeller amendment to strike 
the provision contained in the committee bill which would deny benefits 
to those veterans who have become mentally incapacitated.
  The bill before us reinstates a provision of law that was expired in 
1992.
  The provision contained in this bill suspends benefits to veterans 
who are mentally incapacitated with no spouse or children when their 
estates reach $25,000. It would allow payments to be resumed when the 
value of the estate falls to $10,000.
  Section 107 of the committee bill discriminates against a small group 
of veterans, those who have become incapacitated as a result of mental 
illness or disease.
  There simply is no sound policy reason to single out these veterans 
and deny them their benefits.
  The provision contained in the committee bill is an affront to 
veterans.
  By including this provision, the committee is going after those 
veterans who have become completely incapable of defending themselves, 
taking their benefits, and then using their money to cover even deeper 
cuts in the VA medical care budget.
  Aside from the fact that this provision discriminates against a small 
group of veterans, it also: denies parents who are caring for the 
disabled veteran the ability to accrue savings needed to care for their 
son when the parents dies; experience has shown that guardians and 
trust officers responsible for the care of these disabled veterans are 
unwilling to continue their responsibilities if benefits are 
interrupted; and the provision, when it was law 

[[Page S 14289]]
under the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act, led to a variety of 
unintended consequences that were destructive and demeaning to veterans 
such as arranged marriages to avoid the law, and the purchase of 
unneeded property or cars in order to keep the estate value down.
  Mr. President, we've seen enough to know that this is bad policy and 
bad law.
  If we don't stand up for these veterans, who will?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller amendment.
  I want to make one point perhaps that has not been discussed in the 
debate, which is about the parents of the mentally incompetent veteran.
  You see, parents are very much concerned about their--primarily their 
son, sometimes their daughter--who is disabled and the need to keep 
some type of saving to care for their son or daughter when these 
parents die. Experience has shown that guardians and trust officers 
responsible for the care of these disabled veterans are unwilling to 
care for them if benefits are interrupted.
  The other thing that happens is that in order to keep some kind of 
asset base, they kind of get into phony, manipulatory things. They will 
want to try to buy a car or a new property and so on. This is not the 
veteran. This is not the people who fought at Iwo Jima or Pork Chop 
Hill or the Mekong Delta. These are honorable men and women who do 
that. And I think that what we need to do is make sure that we do not 
have bad policy become not good law. And I really support the Senator's 
amendment. These are people who have come to a point in their life 
where they are unable to think for themselves and in many instances 
unable to care for themselves. We are asking that a safety net be 
provided. And when they join the U.S. military, it is not an asset 
test.
  So I hope that the Senator's amendment prevails, and I hope his 
advocacy continues.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This Senator thanks the distinguished colleague from 
Maryland.
  Mr. President, I will use my remaining time to say the following. In 
1992, Senators Hatfield and Domenici and Kasten wrote to the President 
of the United States, President Bush, about precisely this subject. And 
they said in a letter, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the 
Record, the following:

       . . . based on ``irrational discrimination against the 
     mentally disabled . . . the virtually exclusive, if 
     unintended result is impermissible discrimination against 
     mentally incompetent disabled veterans.''

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1992.
       Dear Mr. President: On February 3, 1992 the U.S. District 
     Court for the Southern District of New York temporarily 
     restored the right of mentally incompetent veterans to 
     receive disability compensation. These benefits were being 
     denied to this select group of veterans because of a 
     provision in FY '90 OBRA.
       We believe that the ruling of temporary injunction by Judge 
     Shirley Wohl Kram should not be appealed. We agree with her 
     statement that the current statute is based on ``irrational 
     discrimination against the mentally disabled. . . . the 
     virtually exclusive, if unintended result is impermissible 
     discrimination against mentally incompetent disabled 
     veterans.''
       Mr. President, we ask that you recognize the harm caused by 
     this discriminatory provision and urge you to withdraw your 
     appeal of this temporary injunction.
           Best regards,
     Robert W. Kasten, Jr.
     Mark O. Hatfield.
     Pete V. Domenici.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, people talk about people with remote 
heirs and people who may care for mentally disabled veterans as if they 
did not really care. They say, why would one care for a mentally 
incompetent veteran? Well, I am sorry, but there are people who do 
care. And there is nothing in the law which says that you have to care 
to 20 percent or 70 percent or 90 percent for this to be fair.
  There is no justification for singling out mentally disabled people 
for discriminatory treatment. None. We have not said they are entitled 
to compensation only if they are poor. The law does not say that. We 
have not said they are entitled to compensation only if they have 
savings less than $25,000. And we have not said they are entitled to 
compensation only if they have no money from anywhere else, like so 
many Members of this body do who do not have to worry about things like 
this. These are people who have people who care about them. To assume 
they do not is not in line with thinking about family values.
  We have said that they are entitled to compensation for their 
disability based on their disability. And that is what my amendment 
asks for.
  Are we prepared to say now that for some reason the mentally disabled 
are somehow less entitled solely because they are mentally disabled? Is 
that what those who oppose this amendment would do? The Senator from 
West Virginia will not join such an effort.
  I hope very much that my amendment will be accepted. I think it is 
right, fair, reasonable, just, and nondiscriminatory.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has yielded 
back his time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I urge adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. How much time is remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes 6 seconds left remaining of 
the time for the opponents of the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I yield the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I hope this debate does not come down to 
who cares more about disabled veterans or homeless people or the lesser 
in society. That is not what this amendment is about. That truly is a 
mind-boggling thing to think that there are some people in this Chamber 
who care less about other people in society. We all have the same level 
of care toward the lesser in society.
  Since I have chaired this committee, we have doubled the veterans 
benefits. The veterans budget when I came to this Chamber 17 years ago 
was about $20 billion, and we are going to do something which puts it 
close to $40 billion. And the veterans population is declining. And if 
anyone can say that we do not take care of veterans, it is usually 
nonveterans or people who were never overseas or never involved with 
veterans who say that.
  And I am not making a reflection on anyone. When I came to this 
Chamber, I heard the most stirring debate I ever heard about what we 
did not do for veterans by a person who had never been in the civil air 
patrol. I had to listen to one-half hour of unmitigated guff about what 
we were doing for veterans. Now, that is a tiresome argument, and I do 
not think it fits in any way of what we do for these fine people, now 
26 million, now declining 2 percent per year, who have given much, and 
we have given them much. And we will continue to do so.
  This is a very isolated incident. If we are talking about caregivers 
and the conflict of interest, is it a conflict of interest for a 
caregiver to put aside $100,000 if they know they are going to get it? 
Let us apply this to everybody, competent veterans and incompetent 
veterans. That will seem to cover it pretty well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. The adoption of the pending amendment would cause the 
Appropriations Committee to breach its discretionary allocation as well 
as breach revenue amounts established in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
resolution.
  Pursuant to section 302(f) and 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, I 
raise a point of order against the amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to waive the application of 
the Budget Act to the pending amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the motion 
to waive be set aside.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Objection is not heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14290]]



  Amendment No. 2785 to Committee Amendment on Page 8, Lines 9 and 10

(Purpose: To increase funding for veterans' medical care and offset the 
  increase in funds by ensuring that any tax cut benefits only those 
               families with incomes less than $100,000)

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the second amendment I propose is 
also very simple. It would provide funding for VA medical care at the 
level requested by the President--that is, $16.96 billion--and would 
offset the cost of this increase, approximately $511 million, by a 
reduction in the amount set aside in the budget resolution to cover the 
revenue loss from any tax cut.
  The choice represented by the amendment is simple: Should VA health 
care be funded at a level which allows it to continue to meet health 
care needs and demands of those veterans who seek care from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, or should medical care be cut so as to 
fund a tax cut?
  The Senator from Wyoming indicated this comparison would be made on a 
number of occasions, and he is entirely correct. The values implicit in 
this argument, and how one comes down on this argument, are profound. 
Obviously, to me the answer is self-evident.
  Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand some of the ways 
that the level of funding included in the appropriations bill will 
affect the people who use the VA health care system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair asks the Senator to withhold so that 
the clerk can report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2785.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 8, line 10, strike ``$16,450,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,961,487,000''.
       On page 22, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 111. Section 105(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67 
     (104th Congress, 1st Session) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Certification.--(A) In the Senate, upon the 
     certification pursuant to section 205(a) of this resolution, 
     the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit its 
     recommendations pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving the recommendations, 
     the Committee on the Budget shall add such recommendations to 
     the recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and 
     report a reconciliation bill carrying out all such 
     recommendations without any substantive revision.
       ``(B) The Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall file 
     with the Senate revised allocations, aggregates, and 
     discretionary spending limits under section 201(a)(1)(B) 
     increasing budget authority by $511,487,000 and outlays by 
     $511,487,000.
       ``(2) Committee on finance.--Funding for this section shall 
     be provided by limiting any tax cut provided in the 
     reconciliation bill to families with incomes less than 
     $100,000.''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator asks permission to continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Under the bill as reported, VA would be forced to 
operate at a level below current services. In human terms, 113,000 
eligible veterans would be denied inpatient and outpatient care in 
1996. In terms of VA's capacity to provide a full range of health care 
services nationwide, the equivalent of four VA hospitals would have to 
be shut down; 6,500 VA health care professionals would lose their jobs.
  I spent most of the day in the Finance Committee, and people there 
say that a reduction in the increase in the amount of money put aside 
for health care is not a cut. They are, of course, entirely wrong. 
Health care is not like a loaf of bread. A loaf of bread is subject to 
normal inflation; it goes up a couple pennies a year, whatever. Health 
care is subject to entirely different influences. It is subject to 
technology. It is subject to the fact that veterans are aging.
  The Senator from Wyoming made the point that there are fewer 
veterans, but he did not make the point that, in fact, demand for 
veterans' health care, even with fewer veterans, is increasing. Are we 
to deny them that? My amendment would seek to try to deny them less.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to focus on these repercussions in 
human terms. I fear too often we hear numbers and we become numb. We 
lose sight of the human element in what we are doing. If we do not 
appropriate funds for VA medical care at the level sought by the 
President, which is a modest level, in my estimation, and which only 
covers the cost of inflation--not medical inflation but inflation--real 
people, veterans who answered our country's call, will not receive the 
health care that they need, the health care that they deserve, the 
health care that they have been promised.
  One can ridicule all one wants the commitment to our Nation's 
veterans, but it was made, and it is justified. This is not pulling on 
heart strings. This has to do with whether veterans get treatment for 
different kinds of conditions which might range all the way from 
prostate problems to Alzheimer's to other long-term care problems or 
immediate problems. They are real problems and real people.
  I do not say that any person in this body cares for people less than 
any other person, but what they do about what is available to those 
people may differ substantially, and in what they do is the judgment 
about what they feel, in terms of their priorities.
  Every VA medical center furnishes vital care to veterans in the 
geographic regions served. We know that. We stopped all new 
construction in the Veterans' Committee. We have stopped any major 
renovation of our current veterans hospitals, many of which were built 
75 years ago. The Senator from Maryland mentioned a psychiatric 
hospital which is literally crumbling on its foundations, but are we 
doing anything to build that up, to restore it, to improve it? No. So 
we are not doing that. We are talking here about veterans health care 
as it exists, to be made available to veterans who need it.
  We will deny service to my constituents who are veterans and to the 
constituents of others who are veterans. Some have disabilities from 
their service; others were able to complete their service without 
injuries but are now unable to afford the cost of health care. What do 
they do if they are unable to afford the cost of health care? We have 
40 million, 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance. To 
deny veterans health care is wrongheaded. We must avoid it, and my 
amendment will help us to do so.
  Mr. President, I find it very ironic that we are being asked to cut 
VA health care funding below current services, thereby turning veterans 
away from their health care, just as we conclude a great national 
celebration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, 
an enormous emotional outpouring.
  I remember staying up late one night a couple of weeks ago to watch 
President Clinton out in Hawaii. C-SPAN did something at 2 or 3 in the 
morning for an hour, or hour and a half. We have had people talk about 
it on the floor of the Senate, Senators discussing their service with 
each other. Powerful, powerful testimony. We have all agreed that these 
people saved the world.
  One thing came through very loud and clear to me during those recent 
celebrations, and that is how the victory belonged to the GI's--not to 
me, I was 5 years old, but to the GI's--who fought the battles from 
Normandy to Iwo Jima. Oh, how we love to talk about that, and ought to 
and are inspired by it, made better by it.
  Mr. President, these are the same GI's who are now veterans in their 
seventies seeking care from the VA. Not everybody is rich. They say a 
third of the Members of the Senate are millionaires. Well, we may be 
out of touch. A lot of those folks out there are not, and they are 
broke and they need VA, and that is what the VA is there for, to serve 
them. These same GI's could be turned away from the care they need if 
the cutback envisioned by the Appropriations Committee is enacted. That 
hardly seems like a fitting or worthy tribute after all the speeches 
that we have heard.
  I also find it ironic that there are proposals to cut VA below 
current services at the very time that cutbacks 

[[Page S 14291]]
are being proposed in Medicare and Medicaid. Now, why do I say that? 
There is every reason to suspect that as individuals are pushed out of 
those programs because of the changes that are being contemplated, the 
veterans who have relied on either Medicare, which is being diminished 
by $270 billion, or Medicaid, which is being diminished by $182 
billion, will have to turn to VA for needed health care. I find that 
ironic.

  Mr. President, VA health care is at a crossroads, and many innovative 
and dynamic changes are happening within the system. We have a lot of 
improvements that we can make, and they are being done--not all, but 
some.
  Some, as I have indicated, suggest that the number of veterans is 
declining, and that that, therefore, justifies cutbacks in VA health 
care. People even laugh at that. Well, it is true that the overall 
veteran population is coming down. It is now just over 26 million. A 
few years ago, it was close to 27 million. It is also true the demand 
for VA health care continues to increase. The question is whether we 
will meet it under the obligations that we have.
  This is a phenomenon--this demand for more health care--that is easy 
to understand once one realizes that as the population continues to 
age, the demand for health care services actually is on the rise.
  As our veterans age, we must make sure that the promises a grateful 
nation has made will not be undone as we rush to balance the budget.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who will yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, it is not hard to see how this Congress has gotten 
into the habit in the past of spending more money than we take in, of 
running deficits of $200 billion or more, putting burdens on our 
economy and terrible burdens on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren. When we talk about cuts, as my friend from West Virginia 
has--about draconian cuts in Medicare, when under the budget resolution 
Medicare will rise per recipient faster than the rate of inflation in 
coming years, only in Washington, DC, is that a cut.
  My colleague from West Virginia is complaining about the draconian 
cuts in veterans medical care. Our increase in medical care for the VA 
is the largest in this bill. It will be an increase of $285 million 
above fiscal year 1995--that at a time when every other aspect of this 
budget is being cut.
  Now, we have a clear choice. We have a clear choice on these two 
amendments. Neither one of them are offset. There is language in the 
amendment which purports to change the congressional budget resolution 
that has been adopted months ago. We cannot do that. This is simply a 
budget buster. It feels good. If you do not care about the fiscal 
impact of your irresponsibility, then you can move to waive the Budget 
Act so that we can go on spending like money is going out of style, 
because it will go out of style and this second amendment is just 
another in the same direction.
  We have tried to work with the Veterans Administration for the past 
several months on ways to trim VA's budget, so that the budget of VA 
will be used to serve the veterans. Unfortunately, the secretary has 
completely stonewalled and refused to cooperate with it. The secretary 
of the VA has done everything in his power to torpedo efforts of the 
Congress to reform the VA medical system, to bring it into the 21st 
century, to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, and to make sure that 
we use modern techniques to serve our veterans with the high quality of 
care that this country is capable of providing, but I fear in too many 
instances does not provide through the VA.
  The secretary has sent computer e-mail messages to every one of VA's 
220,000 employees decrying the congressional budget resolution and its 
devastating impact on veterans health care. He has sent messages out to 
each employee on their pay stubs saying: ``The administration's plan is 
much better for veterans and their families.''
  He has made speeches across the country, talking about bed closures 
and patients being denied air care. He has impugned the motives of 
Congress and the congressional budget resolution.
  I think it is very, very disappointing that the secretary has chosen 
to use his efforts on politics rather than on finding ways to serve the 
veterans better.
  He has cited statistics that are overstated, as the GAO has found, or 
need to be put into context. For example, the secretary said that this 
measure will result in hundreds of beds being closed. But what the 
secretary has not acknowledged is that the VA has been, and plans to 
continue absent any budgetary constraints, to close hospital beds 
because of the demand for care on an outpatient basis--rather than 
hospitalization. Since 1989, VA has closed almost 20,000 hospital 
beds--and the budget has increased each of the years since 1989.
  In a September 12 letter to the House Veterans, Affairs Committee 
Chairman Stump, GAO found serious flaws in VA's analysis of the 
possible impacts of the House budget resolution. VA overstated the 
funds it would need to maintain its current level of services because, 
according to GAO, it based its projected funding needs on assumptions 
that there will be an increase in VA workload in fiscal year 1996, and 
that it will be maintained for the outyears; it limited savings from 
increases in the efficiency with which services will be delivered, and 
steadily increasing costs, workload and staffing due to facility 
activations.
  Frankly, the Veterans Administration stands for the status quo. 
Despite medical practices changing dramatically across this country, 
despite the declining veteran population, despite mismanagement, the 
secretary does not want the VA to change.
  Mr. President, I am tired of the rhetoric. It is not serving anyone--
particularly not our Nation's veterans.
  There are few experts on VA who believe that the current quality of 
management of VA hospitals is adequate. GAO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the VA Inspector General, and the veteran service organizations 
have advocated major changes to the way VA operates.
  They have pointed out scores of opportunities for management 
improvements, which would result in hundreds of millions of dollars of 
savings--which would improve, rather than hinder quality of patient 
care.
  You can save by shifting from inpatient to outpatient care. The 
veterans, in their independent budget, recommend shifting inpatient 
care to an outpatient basis for savings of up to $2 billion. VA 
estimates it could save $761 million.
  The inspector general testified that ``VA does not always receive the 
best price for pharmaceuticals, for which VA spent close to $1 billion 
in fiscal year 1994, and millions of dollars in annual cost savings are 
not realized.''
  VA is overpaying in its fee-basis program for outpatient care. Again, 
the IG audits say the VA could save $25 million.
  All of these reforms, like not spending too much on affiliations with 
medical schools, not providing surgical services at every VA facility, 
when it is far safer for the veterans to be served in areas where 
surgical services are performed on a regular basis--all of these are 
savings that could go to the bottom line of better care for veterans.
  Let us be clear. This bill provides an increase for VA medical care. 
It is an increase. It is $16.45 billion to care for fewer than 3 
million veterans--about $5,500 per veteran. The bill seeks only to 
reduce the rate of increase in VA medical spending by forcing the VA to 
adopt modern health care delivery methods, reduce bureaucracy and 
improve management. There is adequate money in this budget--without 
busting the budget, without destroying the congressional agreement to 
achieve a zero deficit in 2002--to provide the quality of care that our 
veterans are entitled to.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes twenty seconds are left on the 
opponents' side, and 6 minutes 12 seconds are left for the proponents.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

[[Page S 14292]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Rockefeller 
amendment, which would restore funding to veterans medical care.
  This amendment is about promises made, it's about keeping our 
commitments.
  This amendment is for the GI Joe generation--the World War II 
generation--our fathers who fought on the battlefront overseas and our 
mothers who fought on the homefront here in our communities.
  This amendment is for the men and women who fought in Korea in an 
undeclared war; the soldiers who served in Vietnam in an unpopular war; 
the veterans from the high-tech Gulf war; and, the new veterans from 
humanitarian missions in Somalia and Haiti.
  I have always fought to get them the care they deserve--and they 
deserve the best.
  Although this bill increases the funding level for veterans medical 
care by $235 million over last year, it is still $511 million below the 
President's request and $327 million below the House number.
  When we compare this year's number to last year's it looks as if the 
vets are getting a deal. But that is not true. This increase does not 
keep up with the skyrocketing increase in the cost of health care 
delivery. The increase does not allow the VA to keep pace with the 
number of veterans needing treatment--particularly the long term care 
requirements for the aging veteran population.
  It is inevitable that the quality of the health care we promised to 
our veterans will decrease.


                     impact of senate fy 1996 mark

       Medical care--Assuming an increase of only $285 million 
     above the 1995 appropriation, the impact in 1996 would be the 
     following.
       A reduction of $511 million from VA's request:
       A reduction of 6,500 FTE
       113,000 fewer vets treated
       46,000 less inpatients treated
       1,000,000 less outpatient visits
       Closing the equivalent of 4 medical centers with an average 
     of 300 beds each.

  Mr. President, I recognize the need to balance the budget. But it 
rubs against everything I believe in to do that on the backs of the GI 
Joe generation, especially while we pile money up in a slush fund so 
that we can dole out a tax break to people who are making 6 figure 
incomes.
  So, I think it would be only fair to live up to the long-standing 
commitments we made with our veterans before we start making new 
commitments with the wealthiest of Americans.
  I certainly hope this Senate will recognize the commitment our great 
nation has made to its veterans and stand by that commitment by 
supporting the Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to be an 
original cosponsor of the two amendments to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 that specifically concern our 
Nation's veterans. My distinguished colleagues who are cosponsoring 
this amendment are to be congratulated for their efforts to ensure 
veterans' access to quality VA health care is not seriously compromised 
and to protect some mentally incompetent veterans who are being 
targeted for discriminatory, arbitrary, and shameful cuts in VA 
compensation.
  Mr. President, while these amendments address two different issues--
veterans health care and compensation for the most vulnerable group of 
American veterans--they are prompted by one basic concern. Our pressing 
need to balance the budget. Unfortunately this pressing need is being 
used to justify unequal sacrifice. Veterans with service-connected 
disabilities and indigent veterans, many of whom earned their VA 
benefits at great cost on bloody battlefields are seeing those benefits 
whittled away, while the most affluent of our citizens are exempted 
from sacrifice. Instead of being asked to share the pain, the wealthy 
seemingly are supposed to contribute to balancing the budget by 
accepting substantial tax cuts. What kind of shared sacrifice is this?
  I believe that one of the great strengths of these amendments is that 
they make a significant contribution to righting the balance. The $511 
million that would be restored to the medical care account to enable 
the VA to meet veterans health care needs and the $170 million that is 
needed to ensure that all mentally ill veterans continue to receive 
unrestricted compensation are to be offset by limiting any tax cuts 
provided in the reconciliation bill to families with incomes of less 
than $100,000.
  Our Nation's veterans are prepared to sacrifice for the good of this 
country as they have done so often in the past, but only if the 
sacrifices they are asked to make are: (1) equitable; (2) reasonable; 
and (3) essential. Clearly, these sacrifices that service-connected--
particularly mentally incompetent veterans--and indigent veterans are 
being asked to make meet none of these essential criteria.
  Mr. President, before I conclude I would like to discuss each of the 
amendments. Amendment No. 2785 would restore to the medical care 
account $511 million cut from the President's budget for fiscal year 
1996. While there may be some doubt as to the validity of VA 
projections of the precise impact of such a cut on veterans health 
care, there is little doubt that it would result in some combination of 
substantial reductions in the number of veterans treated both as 
outpatients and inpatients as the number of VA health care personnel 
shrink. According to the VA, this cut could have an impact that is 
equivalent to closing some sizable VA medical facilities.
  While not directly related to this amendment but related to the 
quality of VA health care generally, this bill also would eliminate all 
major medical construction projects requested by the President. In the 
process, some projects involving VA hospitals that do not meet 
community standards and are deteriorating would not be funded. How can 
we treat veterans in facilities that do not meet fire and other safety 
standards? In obsolete facilities that lack separate rest rooms and 
dressing room areas for men and women veterans? This is a travesty and 
no way to treat those who have defended our country. Our veterans don't 
deserve such shabby and undignified treatment and I will do all in my 
power to see that this shameful situation ends. I hope that all of my 
colleagues will join me in this long overdue effort.
  Mr. President, as I pointed out at a Veterans Affairs Committee 
hearing a few months ago these cuts could not come at a worse time. We 
are now talking about cutting $270 billion over the next 7 years from 
Medicare and making deep cuts in Medicaid. This could lead to a much 
greater demand for VA services precisely at a time when VA health care 
capabilities are eroding. Would the VA be able to cope with an influx 
of elderly and indigent veterans eligible for health care, but 
currently covered by Medicare or Medicaid? There sometimes is much talk 
about a declining veterans' population, but much less about an aging 
veterans' population--one that disproportionately requires expensive 
and intensive care. What happens if this population grows even more as 
a result of Medicare and Medicaid cuts? Before veterans fall victim to 
the law of unintended consequences, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
give careful consideration to the cumulative impact on veterans' health 
care of such concurrent cuts in Federal health care funding.

  Regarding amendment No. 2784, I was frankly appalled when I learned 
that both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2099 include a 
provision that limits compensation benefits for mentally incompetent 
veterans without dependents but does not limit benefits for physically 
incapacitated veterans without dependents--or any other class of 
veterans for that matter. As I understand it, compensation for service-
connected disabilities paid to mentally incompetent veterans without 
dependents would be terminated when the veteran's estate reached 
$25,000 and not reinstated until the veteran's estate fell to $10,000.
  Such unequal treatment is outrageous and indefensible. How can we 
discriminate against veterans who became disabled while serving their 
country only because they are mentally ill. In eloquent and informative 
testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs Jessie Brown, who I regard as an outstanding Cabinet 
officer and a singularly tenacious and effective advocate for veterans, 
pointed out that the only difference between veterans who have lost 
both arms and legs and those 

[[Page S 14293]]
who have a mental condition as a result of combat fatigue, is that the 
latter group can't defend themselves. Moreover, the Secretary stressed, 
we are not only talking about veterans who seem to have no organic 
basis for their mental illness, but also veterans who were shot in the 
head on the battlefield and as a result of brain damage can't attend to 
their own affairs. And, I might add that to make matters worse, this 
provision amounts to means-tested compensation that applies to only one 
class of veterans--the mentally ill. I am aware that such a provision 
was enacted in OBRA 1990 and withstood court challenge, but the fact 
that it was held to be constitutional makes it no less abhorrent. 
Fortunately, Congress had the good sense to let this onerous provision 
expire in 1992.
  Victimizing the most vulnerable of our veterans while providing tax 
cuts to our wealthiest citizens smacks of afflicting the afflicted 
while comforting the comfortable. I urge my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle to support amendment No. 2784.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am very proud to be a Member of the Senate, 
the oldest democratically elected deliberative body in the world. But 
I'm sure the last thing any of you would want is for this great 
deliberative body to merely rubberstamp ill-advised actions by the 
House and in the case of the VA Medical Account to make matters even 
worse by appropriating $327 million less than was appropriated by the 
House.
  The veterans health care and compensation protected by these two 
amendments are by no means handouts, but entitlements earned by men and 
women who put their lives on the line to defend this great country. 
They are part and parcel of America's irrevocable contract with its 
veterans, a contract that long predates the Contract With America we've 
heard so much about recently.
  I have a deep commitment to Minnesota veterans to protect the 
veterans benefits they have earned and are entitled to and in 
cosponsoring these amendments I am keeping my faith with them. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting both amendments.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, I speak as chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. There are two facts, alleged to be facts, 
that are not so.
  It has been said in the debate some veterans will be turned away. 
That may be so, but the care for those nonservice connected is on a 
space-available basis anyway, and some veterans will not be cared for 
by the VA no matter what the funding level.
  Please hear that. I hope that those who are debating it will hear it. 
Some veterans will not be cared for by the VA at any funding level you 
can put up, including the level proposed by my friend from West 
Virginia.
  I commend Senator Bond. He is a fierce fighter for his causes. He had 
another one that has been erroneously presented. They said there would 
be no hospital refurbishment. That is wrong. Refurbishment can be 
funded by minor construction, which is increased by $37 million in this 
bill.
  Let me review the bidding in my years here in the U.S. Senate with 
this remarkable series of charts. I have never done this, probably will 
never do it again. Here we are. Look here. When I came to the Senate in 
1978 with my good colleague from Montana over there--I see him 
smiling--when I came here, there was the total VA budget of almost $20 
billion. The total health care budget in 1978 was $5.1 billion and is 
$16.2 billion in 1995. Here is what it is today: Nearly double. The 
total VA budget is almost $40 billion now. It was $20 billion when I 
started here 17 years ago.
  If you say it is all in paper or the vapors, here is the increase in 
VA staff by human beings. We are always talking about human beings 
here, so we want to talk about the human beings that are working for 
the VA. There are quite a number of them.
  Physicians have gone up from 11,200 to 12,300; registered nurses from 
26,000 to 37,000; and nonphysician providers FTE, a whole new category 
of those who serve veterans and who are paid for by the taxpayers were 
zero in 1975 and 3,079 in 1995. And we hear about veterans growing in 
number--they are not. We all know that. Here it is: There were 28.5 
million veterans in 1978, and we are headed down to the year 2010 where 
there will be 20 million veterans. When we are finished with this 
budget exercise in 7 years, there will be 23 million veterans instead 
of the 26 million today.
  If we cannot work through the cloud of vapors about what we do for 
veterans in this country, then look at this. Here is what we have done 
in 1978. Here is what we are doing now. Hospital admissions, down now. 
We are trying to do outpatient instead of inpatient. Look at the 
outpatient visits: 17.4 million in 1978, versus 25.9 million in 1995. 
It is tough enough to get things done around here using correct 
figures. It is impossible to get anything done when you use a 
combination of emotion, fear, guilt or whatever.
  I am proud to be a veteran, very proud to be a veteran and a lifetime 
member of the VFW and a member of the American Legion and AMVETS, and 
we do our share. They know it. We know it.
  There is not a person in this Chamber that can say in any 
conscientious way that we have not done yeoman work for our veterans. 
We will continue to do it for one reason. We will find out when we do 
this amendment. Mention the word ``veteran'' and hope to get everybody 
to the floor and vote for it regardless of its sense.
  An amendment to increase funding for VA health care sure sounds 
attractive. Who can be against sick veterans?
  We do have an obligation to care for those who are harmed as a result 
of their military service.
  But remember that almost 90 percent of VA patients are being treated 
for non-service-connected conditions.
  And, yes, we do have a policy to care for additional veterans to the 
extent that resources are available.
  But, that does not mean that we have an obligation to make resources 
available without limit.
  America's veterans served to preserve our Republic and to ensure a 
better future for their own children and grandchildren.
  But, the Congress will throw away all that our veterans fought to 
preserve if we fail to stick to our plan to balance the budget.
  The Rockefeller amendment is an assault on the budget resolution and 
the goal of a balanced budget.
  It uses veterans as point men to break down the fire walls that 
constrain the natural desire of the Congress to spend money.
  It will put Senators in the position of voting to fund a tax cut for 
the rich at the expense of sick veterans.
  It does so by providing for $511 million increased spending for VA 
health care and offsetting the cost by limiting the benefits of a tax 
cut to families with incomes over $100,000.
  Remember that VA health care actually INCREASES in this 
appropriation.
  Remember that VA has never had to try to become more cost effective 
under the pressure of REAL cost constraints.
  The Rockefeller amendment would have the effect of funding continued 
business as usual.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I strongly support and am pleased to 
cosponsor the amendment being offered by Senators Rockefeller and 
Mikulski to add $511 million to the veterans health care component of 
this appropriations bill. This increase will bring funding in the bill 
to the level proposed by the President in his fiscal year 1996 budget 
request.
  There is no more patriotic or generous group of Americans than our 
Nation's veterans. Not only do they care deeply about the national 
security of this country, they care about its economic health and 
social welfare as well. But we ought not ask of those who suffered 
physically or mentally from their military service to make additional 
sacrifices with regard to the future of their health care system.
  Veterans have borne their fair share of budget cuts over the past 
decade. Their benefits and services over that period have been cut 
approximately $10 billion. Under the budget resolution passed earlier 
this year, they are slated to take additional cuts of $6.4 billion over 
the next 7 years. And in this bill, it's not just any cuts--it's cuts 
in their health care. Veterans have paid 

[[Page S 14294]]
enough; their accounts should be free and clear.
  In establishing priorities in this era of shrinking resources, it is 
my firm belief that veterans must remain at the top of the national 
agenda. That has not happened in this bill. The veterans have been 
short-changed in this legislation, but we have a chance to correct hat 
mistake by passing the Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment. I don't know how 
in good conscience my colleagues can oppose it.
  The $16.4 billion allocated for veterans health care in this bill is 
$327 million below the House-passed level, and more than half a million 
dollars below the President's request. That is unconscionable. 
Veterans, who put their lives on the line in service to their country, 
deserve better. The very least they deserve is a quality health care 
system on which they can rely.
  The proposed appropriations level in this bill clearly undermines the 
VA's ability to fulfill its health care mission to those who have 
suffered injuries resulting from their military service. And it 
undermines Congress' longstanding commitment to care for the Nation's 
veterans. Mr. President, the pot of money available for VA health care 
in this bill is simply insufficient to maintain current services. That 
is just plain wrong, and I hope my colleagues will do the right thing 
today and vote for this amendment.
  For those of you who believe that the proposed level of funding will 
not have an impact--that the VA will be able to absorb these cuts 
through efficiencies--let me tell you what the VA thinks. They estimate 
that the proposed funding level will result in 133,000 fewer veterans 
being treated in fiscal year 1996. They believe that they will be able 
to treat 46,000 fewer inpatient episodes of care and 1 million fewer 
outpatient visits. And they believe they will have to reduce employment 
levels by 6,500--the equivalent of closing four VA Medical Centers with 
an average of 300 beds each. While these estimates may not be 100 
percent on target, I would guess they are pretty accurate. And no one 
can argue that the proposed reductions are not going to have a serious 
detrimental impact on the ability of the VA to provide high quality 
medical care to deserving veterans.
  As a Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have to 
tell you that I don't believe our veterans are being treated fairly in 
this appropriations measure. They deserve better than they are getting 
in this bill. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment to add $511 million for VA health care 
to this bill which will bring funding up to the level proposed by the 
President. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the 
proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Two minutes and three seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent to yield myself such time as 
I need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I simply conclude this argument by saying the 
Finance Committee has been meeting all day. They are meeting as we 
talk. The Senator from Wyoming and I are on that. They are going to 
pass out--without my vote, but it will happen--the Committee will pass 
out $450 billion of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
  I repeat that one can say that there are fewer veterans, but it is 
also statistically true that the demands by veterans for health care, 
as the demand for other American citizens for health care, is 
increasing. It is larger than it was in the previous year.
  As a result of what we are doing in the Finance Committee and the 
cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid, I envision a substantially increased 
number of veterans who will not be able to avail themselves, for 
example, of that assistance to the extent that they could before, and 
who will, therefore, need to turn to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
  To further cut veterans' health care is wrong. Is that emotional? 
Yes, partly. But mostly it is a promise. It is a commitment. It is a 
commitment that was made by this Nation and it is a commitment made to 
no other group in this Nation.
  Interestingly, veterans groups are not, as a rule, as caught up in 
amendments like this as I think they ought to be. I cannot help that. I 
know what the commitment is. I know what my responsibility is. I know 
what my 202,200 veterans in West Virginia require. I do not want to let 
them down.
  I hope that the amendment will be looked upon carefully by my 
colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time on this 
side.
  The amendment by the Senator from West Virginia purports to deal with 
cuts in veterans' medical care.
  How many times do we have to say it? Veterans' medical care will go 
up over $200 million from last year and this year's bill. There are 
reforms needed in the Veterans Administration. I hope that by having 
brought some light to these, we may encourage the authorizing committee 
to look at ways in which we can work together to see the quality of 
that care is increased.
  But the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia is very simply a 
budget buster. There is not an offset. It is a clear-cut attempt to 
break the agreement, to get us back on the path of spending $200 
billion a year in deficits. It is not designed to improve medical care 
for the veterans. It is designed to break the budget agreement. It 
cannot at this time amend the budget agreement.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues not to support the 
waiver of the Budget Act point of order.
  Mr. President, is all time used up on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has about a minute 
and 45 remaining, the Senator from West Virginia has 17 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator care to use his 17 seconds?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, three veterans organizations do 
support this amendment by their letters. I ask unanimous-consent 
letters be printed in the Record from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled Veterans.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 1995.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: It is my understanding that you 
     intended to offer two amendments to H.R. 2099, the ``FISCAL 
     YEAR 1996 VA, HUD, and INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS'' 
     bill. One amendment would restore VA medical funding to the 
     level proposed in the Administration's request and the other 
     would strike the provision terminating VA disability 
     compensation to certain mentally incompetent veterans whose 
     estates are greater than $25,000. The VFW strongly supports 
     both amendments.
       For years, the VFW has maintained that VA health care has 
     been sorely under funded. The funding level contained in H.R. 
     2099 will not only contribute to delayed and denied care, but 
     breaks a solemn promise to veterans that a grateful nation 
     will care for those who have borne the battle.
       The VFW also commends you for attempting to rectify a 
     potential precedent setting provision that would deny 
     disability compensation to what may be the most vulnerable of 
     all veterans--those deemed incompetent. This is contrary to 
     all sense of fairness.
       Again, thank you for offering these two amendments on 
     behalf of our nation's veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul A. Spera,
     Commander-in-Chief.
                                                                    ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 1995.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) to ask for your support 
     for two amendments that Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller, 
     IV, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs, plans to introduce during the floor debate on H.R. 
     2099, the VA, HUD, & Independent Agencies Fiscal Year 1996 
     appropriations bill. These two amendments would ameliorate 
     some of the harshest provisions currently found in H.R. 2099.
       The first amendment proposed by Senator Rockefeller would 
     restore $511 million to VA Medical Care for Fiscal Year 1996. 
     These monies are urgently needed by the VA in order to enable 
     it to provide the bare minimum of care needed by veterans. 
     PVA has long advocated the need for lasting and fundamental 
     changes to the way the VA currently provides health care; in 
     the absence of 

[[Page S 14295]]
     real eligibility reform simply providing the VA with fewer dollars 
     would only exacerbate and deepen the critical situation faced 
     by the VA, and all veterans that rely upon the VA to provide 
     them with the medical care they so desperately need, and 
     earned.
       Senator Rockefeller's second amendment would reverse a 
     provision in H.R. 2099 that would realize cost savings by 
     limiting compensation to certain mentally incompetent 
     veterans. PVA is shocked that this appropriations bill would 
     seek to realize savings from a class of veterans who are 
     incapable of defending themselves. This is truly a case of 
     taking money from the weak and giving it to the strong. 
     Furthermore, we are alarmed by the precedent that this sets: 
     this provision was not recommended by the Senate Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, but was rather added by the Appropriations 
     Committee. PVA firmly believes that policy decisions should 
     be made by the respective authorizing committees. Therefore, 
     PVA strongly seeks your support of this amendment, an 
     amendment that would strip this noxious provision from H.R. 
     2099.
       PVA looks forward to your favorable support of these two 
     amendments that Senator Rockefeller proposes to offer, and 
     your continued support of America's veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gordon H. Mansfield,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 1995.
     Hon. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: On behalf of the more than one 
     million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I 
     wish to express DAV's deep appreciation for your efforts to 
     amend H.R. 2099, the Fiscal Year 1996 VA, HUD and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriation bill. As we understand them, your 
     amendments will increase funding for VA health care and 
     remove a provision which would means test the service-
     connected disability compensation payments made to certain 
     mentally incompetent veterans in order to fund VA health 
     care.
       We in the DAV find it perplexing that Congress would divert 
     compensation payments from service-connected disabled 
     veterans to increase VA funding for health care, particularly 
     in view of the fact that the veterans' service organizations 
     (VSOs) had presented Congress with a plan to save taxpayer 
     dollars while at the same time increasing access to VA health 
     care.
       As you may know, the DAV filed a class action law suit 
     against a similar provision targeting mentally incompetent 
     service-connected disabled veterans which was contained in 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. In granting 
     DAV's request for a temporary injunction, U.S. District Judge 
     Shirley Wohl Kram found that withholding compensation 
     payments to certain incompetent veterans was based on 
     ``irrational discrimination against the mentally disabled * * 
     * the virtually exclusive, if unattended result, is 
     impermissible discrimination against mentally incompetent 
     disabled veterans.'' The DAV and the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) ultimately settled this lawsuit resulting in the 
     return of $100 million in compensation payments to these 
     equally deserving service-connected disabled veterans.
       Senator Rockefeller, we commend you for your efforts to 
     ensure that Congress provides adequate funding for VA health 
     care and for recognizing the basic unfairness of means 
     testing the compensation paid to a most helpless category of 
     service-connected disabled veterans--those whose service-
     connected disabilities render them mentally disabled.
           Sincerely,
                                          Thomas A. McMasters III,
                                               National Commander.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, again I urge my colleagues not to support 
the Budget Act waiver. We have provided an increase. We are seeking to 
improve health care for the veterans. This measure simply is an 
attempt, on a very appealing case, to break the budget agreement. I 
trust that everybody in this country as well as in this body will 
understand what this means.
  Mr. President, the adoption of the pending amendment would cause the 
Appropriations Committee to breach its discretionary allocation as well 
as breach revenue amounts established in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
resolution. Pursuant to section 302(f) and 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to waive the application of 
the Budget Act to the pending amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the following 
amendments be the only remaining amendments in order to H.R. 2099, that 
they be offered in the first degree or second degree to an excepted 
committee amendment, and that those offered in the first degree be 
subject to relevant second-degree amendments: Baucus, EPA provision; 
Daschle, relevant; Bradley, budget process; Feingold, redlining; 
Feingold, CDBG; Simon-Moseley-Braun, strike transfer of HUD fair 
housing office to DOJ; Lautenberg, Superfund/CEQ increase; Chafee, 
Kalamazoo, MI; Bumpers, reactor sale; Harkin, EPA lead sinkers; 
Faircloth, occupancy standards; Faircloth, fair housing and free 
speech; Johnston, environmental technology; Feinstein, CDBG; Feinstein 
earthquake insurance; cleared managers amendments; and a Bingaman 
amendment dealing with colonias.
  I further ask, following disposition of the listed amendments, the 
managers be recognized to offer their cleared amendments to be followed 
by adoption of any remaining committee amendments, third reading of 
H.R. 2099, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, in light of this agreement, the leader 
has authorized me to announce that there will be no further votes 
tonight. However, votes will be stacked to occur at approximately 9 
a.m., Wednesday. Senators who have amendments are urged and begged to 
remain tonight to debate their amendments.
  I now ask unanimous consent it be in order to proceed to the 
consideration of an amendment to be offered by the Senator from 
Montana, Senator Baucus, regarding EPA provisions, under time limit of 
40 minutes equally divided in the usual form and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Boxer and Senator Reid be added as 
cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2786

 (Purpose: To provide that any provision that limits implementation or 
      enforcement of any environmental law shall not apply if the 
 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency determines that 
    application of the prohibition or limitation would diminish the 
  protection of human health or the environment otherwise provided by 
                                  law)

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

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Reid, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2786.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 3--. Application of Limitations on Implementation or 
     Enforcement of Certain Laws.
       Any prohibition or limitation in this Act on the 
     implementation or enforcement of any law administered by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     not apply if the Administrator determines that application of 
     the prohibition or limitation would diminish the protection 
     of human health or the environment otherwise provided by law.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It provides that 
no environmental rider in the appropriations bill will take effect if 
the rider would weaken protection of public health or the environment. 
The amendment sends a strong message: We should not use appropriations 
bills for back door attacks on environmental protection or the quality 
of life in America.
  To explain why we need this amendment let me put it in perspective. 
During this Congress there has been a lot of debate about environmental 
laws. Some of the debate has been pretty heated. But when you strip 
away the rhetoric, two points become clear. First, the American people 
want a clean environment. I do not think there is much dispute about 
that. We 

[[Page S 14296]]
want a clean environment because we want to protect the public health. 
We know that bad environment tends to degrade public health.
  Because we want the high quality of life that comes with clean air 
and clean water and clean neighborhoods, we feel we need environmental 
protection laws. And because we feel a responsibility to hand America 
the beautiful down to our children, we also need environmental 
protection laws. To have a clean environment we need strong, fair 
environmental laws.
  Second, we want environmental laws that are smart. Not only laws that 
are strong but that are smart, that make sense; laws that are less 
burdensome for landowners and for business, more capable of addressing 
the complex and subtle environmental problems we face today than are 
the laws America passed 25 years ago.
  It is not easy to get such laws. If we want to do a good job, strike 
the right balance, we need to put in the time and the effort to get it 
right--roll up our sleeves, do the work, find the right balance between 
laws that on the one hand protect the environment and on the other hand 
are not too burdensome, do not require too much paperwork.
  It takes work, a lot of hard work. And that is precisely what the 
House has failed to do. The House version of this bill contains 17 
environmental riders designed to weaken environmental laws all across 
the country. These riders would jeopardize public health. They would 
jeopardize the quality of life for American families. In most cases, 
they respond to the demands of special interests rather than to the 
national interests of strong, efficient environmental protection. And 
they do the opposite of what the public wants. The riders would make 
our air and our water dirtier--not cleaner, dirtier. And the riders 
would make our air and water smellier, worsen threats to public health, 
and degrade the quality of life.
  A few of them are relatively innocuous. For example, the House 
prevents EPA from implementing the centralized vehicle inspection 
maintenance program, a program which EPA has pretty much decided not to 
implement anyway. But most of the riders are anything but innocuous. 
For example, one would block--entirely block--implementation of the 
Great Lakes water quality initiative, stop it dead in its tracks. That 
would halt efforts to take a coordinated approach to pollution from 
dioxin, mercury, PCB's and other bioaccumulative pollutants in the 
Great Lakes. Another House rider would block new rules regulating toxic 
air emissions from hazardous waste incinerators or from oil refineries. 
That means more, not less but more, cancer-causing chemicals in the 
air. And, for Americans who live near refineries, it means further 
years of living in a place that just, simply, smells bad.
  Another one--these are the House riders--would block EPA enforcement 
of the wetlands program under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act. Though we all know that we need to reform the wetlands program. I 
do not think there is a Senator here who has not heard of the need to 
reform the wetlands program. In Montana, for example, my State, farmers 
are fed up with the confusion and paperwork over the 404 program.

  But the House rider is not reform. It is a complete rollback. It 
stops the wetlands program dead in its tracks, period. Stops it. We 
lose thousands of acres of wetlands.
  Another would prohibit the implementation of the Clean Water Act 
limitations on industrial and municipal stormwater runoff. Other riders 
would stop the implementation of rules for combined sewer overflows. 
And the list goes on and on.
  In each case, Mr. President--this is an important point--there may be 
a legitimate underlying issue. There probably is a legitimate 
underlying issue in each case. Take combined sewer overflows, for 
example. What are combined sewer overflows? First of all, it is a 
pretty unpleasant situation. They are sewer systems that overflow 
during heavy rains, thereby pouring raw sewage directly into rivers and 
harbors and sometimes onto the shore. That is what combined sewer 
overflows are. There are a lot of them in our country.
  Over 1,000 communities have combined sewer overflows. They are a very 
significant cause of pollution and can cause serious public health 
problems. It is a major problem in many cities in our country. However, 
they are difficult and they are expensive to control.
  So the old command-and-control approach may not work best in dealing 
with the problem of combined sewer overflows.
  A few years ago, cities and environmental groups negotiated a more 
flexible approach. That is, both sides, on opposite sides of the 
problem, got together and negotiated a solution. The Environment and 
Public Works Committee endorsed this approach in the clean water bill 
that it reported last year, and the full House did the same in the 
clean water bill that it reported earlier this year.
  What does the House appropriations rider do about this? It is very 
simple. It prevents the EPA from doing anything to control these sewer 
overflows. It cannot even enforce the negotiated approach that everyone 
agreed to. Think of that. It cannot even enforce the negotiated 
approach that everyone agreed to. As a result, all across the country 
we will be doing less to reduce the overflow of raw sewage into public 
beaches.
  Clearly, this is the wrong approach to reform. What is the right 
approach? The Environment and Public Works Committee is working to 
reauthorize several of the major environmental laws. We are taking 
fresh approaches. For example, the new version of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act will dramatically reduce the cost of rules and regulations 
without weakening the protection of our drinking water. We are doing 
that. We are reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act in a good, solid, 
and balanced way.
  With some compromises by big business and insurers, we can also get a 
consensus reform of Superfund, a reform that cuts litigation costs for 
industry and speeds up cleanup of hazardous wastesites for local 
families.
  Other efforts--some of them even more ambitious--are underway. For 
example, under the leadership of Senators Mikulski and Bond, Congress 
commissioned a study of EPA by the National Academy of Public 
Administration. What did that study say? It said essentially that EPA 
should develop a long-term mission. It said that EPA should delegate 
more authority to States. And it said we should replace our hodgepodge 
of environmental laws with an overarching, uniform environmental law.
  If we can find consensus on turning these recommendations into law, 
EPA would be able to focus its efforts on the highest priority threats 
to public health and the quality of life rather than pursuing this 
hodgepodge of statutes which currently exists and which, I must say, 
these riders do not in the remote sense even begin to address. In fact, 
they go the opposite direction. We could make the environmental 
protection much more effective if we could adopt these recommendations. 
Businesses, farmers, and landowners would see paperwork dramatically 
cut back and compliance with laws made much more simple. The public 
would see the elimination of needless layers of bureaucracy.
  The House riders do none of this. They will simply mean a less 
healthy, less pleasant life for Americans. It is that simple.
  I am pleased to say that this Senate bill takes a much more moderate 
approach. It does not pursue the draconian riders to the same degree 
the House does. The Senate bill does contain some restrictions that, to 
my mind, do not belong. But there are fewer riders in the Senate bill, 
and several of those reflect previous Senate action and will not 
undermine environmental protection.
  For this reason, it is important for the Senate to make a strong 
statement against loading this bill up with riders that will gut our 
environmental laws, degrade the air and water, threaten public health, 
and worsen the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Montanans 
and millions of Americans.
  My amendment makes just such a statement. It is very simple. Here is 
what it says.

       . . . any prohibition or limitation in this Act on the 
     implementation or enforcement, or any law administered by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     not apply if the Administrator 

[[Page S 14297]]
     determines that the application of the prohibition or limitation would 
     diminish protection of human health and the environment 
     otherwise provided by law.

  The amendment would act as kind of a circuit breaker. If the final 
version of the bill contains environmental riders, the amendment 
authorizes the EPA Administrator to review the implication of those 
riders.
  If the Administrator finds that the rider threatens public health or 
the environment, she would invalidate the restriction. In that case, 
she would continue to apply current law.
  As a result, the American people would know that their health, their 
air, and their rivers and streams are safe.
  I ask the Senate to support this amendment, to support the thoughtful 
environmental reform and to stand up for the quality of life, the 
public health, and our responsibility to the next generation of 
Americans.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before I begin, I need to ask unanimous 
consent to add to the list of amendments that we just adopted the 
following five amendments due to miscommunication on our side. These 
were left off.
  They are, No. 1, Senator McCain, VA medical care; No. 2, Senator 
Warner, EPA contractors; No. 3, Senator Simpson, EPA Senior Employment 
Program; No. 4, Senator Chafee, EPA brown fields; No. 5, Senator 
Thurmond, VA programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues on the other side. 
I very much appreciate that. I hope we can get all of these amendments 
together. I believe after we have several of these on which we will 
have votes--they are very important votes--I believe and hope that we 
can work out many of these so that they will not require rollcall 
votes.
  Let me address this amendment. Mr. President, maybe I have been on 
the floor too long today. But this one really amazed me. I listened to 
a description of the riders, and I soon realized that the riders that 
my friend from Montana was referring to were riders in the House bill. 
And we have heard lots of discussion about those riders.
  We are talking about the Senate version. The Senate does not have 
those measures in it. We are not proposing to put those measures in it.
  But to remedy those measures, the power that my colleague from 
Montana would give to the administrator of EPA is totally awesome. The 
Administrator of EPA under his amendment would be able to have a super 
veto, would be able to make her own judgment as to whether she wanted 
to follow a law passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the 
President. That is truly breathtaking. I do not know when we have ever 
set up a super-veto power to give the regulator a power to veto what 
Congress does and the President signs.
  I have been around here working on regulatory reform. We have been 
very careful on regulatory reform to suggest procedures that an agency 
must go through to make sure they use common sense, to make sure that 
they have the cost and the benefits considered. If they cannot 
determine those with exactitude, they need to let us know what they do 
know. We ask that they use good, sound science. But we were very 
careful in drafting our regulatory reform bill not to have a 
supermandate, not to allow the Congress or anyone challenging 
regulations to go back wholesale and open up a whole series of 
regulations and overturn regulations.
  Here in front of us is a provision giving a supermandate to the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to say, ``In my 
judgment, that particular statute might diminish the protection of 
human health or the environment. Therefore, it does not apply.''
  I am absolutely overwhelmed at the breathtaking simplicity, 
straightforwardness and unconstitutionality of the provision. And I am 
not going to bother to go into any great length discussing the riders. 
I would just ask my colleagues when they come in tomorrow to take a 
look at it and see if we want to set the Administrator up somewhere 
above the Supreme Court.
  I appreciate the kind things the Senator from Montana has said about 
what we tried to craft in this bill. We do want to work with them. 
Certainly we have been very careful to try to keep the EPA legislative 
provisions to what we think are reasonable. We look forward to working 
with them. But I urge my colleagues not to give the EPA, the 
Administrator, power to veto laws enacted by Congress and signed by the 
President.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana controls 8 minutes 40 
seconds; the Senator from Missouri has 15 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Mr. Baucus 
amendment and in strong opposition to the House riders that would 
substantially weaken environmental and health protections.
  The riders approved by the other body are an example of special 
interest legislation at its worst.
  Lobbyists for corporate polluters had a field day. They included a 
long list of anti-environmental provisions, with little opportunity for 
serious analysis, hearings or debate.
  Unfortunately, these riders are part of a broad assault on our 
environment by corporate polluters and their Republican allies. These 
attacks are attempting to turn back the clock on critical environmental 
protections that have proven highly successful over the past 25 years.
  Mr. President, since 1970, smog has decreased 70 percent. Acid rain 
has decreased 45 percent. Since 1973, the number of lakes and other 
water bodies that are swimmable and fishable has increased from 40 
percent to 60 percent. Since 1988, toxic emissions have fallen by 42 
percent.
  In other words, we have been making tremendous progress. But unless 
we hold the line, that progress will unravel. And the end result will 
be disappearing wetlands, increasingly polluted air and water, and 
beaches strewn once again with waste.
  There are so many problems with the riders in the House bill that I 
cannot list them all. But let me just review some of the more offensive 
provisions.
  First, the House bill would punch a variety of special interest 
loopholes in the Clean Air Act. One rider would provide a special 
exemption for the oil industry, which no longer would have to comply 
with the Act's hazardous toxic air pollution standards.
  Another rider would specifically lower the toxic air pollution 
standards for cement kilns. Not for any other type of incinerator, just 
cement kilns.
  Then there is a provision that would exempt the oil and gas industry 
from risk management requirements. The result of that loophole would be 
to exclude 45,000 facilities from standards that are designed to 
protect workers from injuries and deaths resulting from accidental 
chemical releases.
  That is a particularly offensive loophole to me because a recent 
explosion in a chemical factory in Lodi, NJ, could have been prevented 
if a risk management plan was in place.
  Another rider would essentially make the Clean Air Act voluntary. 
This rider eliminates EPA's ability to impose sanctions, even if a 
State fails to submit a permit program or proves unable to implement 
its own permit program. This would rip the heart out of the Clean Air 
Act.
  I am also concerned about a House rider that would badly weaken the 
so-called right to know law that sponsored.
  The right to know law is arguably one of the most effective 
environmental laws on the books. It has no prescriptive requirements, 
yet it has led to more voluntary pollution prevention than any other 
step we have taken.
  It imposes no regulatory controls, requires no permitting, sets no 
standards and requires no registration, labeling or reductions in 
emissions. It doesn't even require monitoring. All it requires are 
estimates of the amount of toxic chemicals the facilities release into 
our environment. This information is helpful for the city officials, 
for the fire and emergency personnel, and for those who live near the 
plants.
  Despite its dearth of requirements, the Right to Know law has 
probably led to more voluntary pollution prevention 

[[Page S 14298]]
efforts and environmental clean up than any other environmental law.
  The Right to Know law requires companies to list the amount of 
certain chemicals that leave their facilities through air, water, or 
shipment to land disposal facilities.
  Mr. President, the impact of the Toxic Release Inventory is 
impressive. Emissions from facilities have decreased 42 percent 
nationwide since 1989; a reduction of two billion pounds. Let me repeat 
that--a 42 percent reduction since 1989.
  Despite the success, the authors of the House riders try to limit the 
type of information EPA can collect under that law. That is just wrong. 
And we should reject it.
  These House riders do not limit their target to gutting air pollution 
programs. One rider would give a green light for destruction of our 
wetlands. Another would stop EPA from regulating the most significant 
source of water pollution in our urban areas, storm water and combined 
sewer overflows.
  Yes, the House bill includes provisions allowing the discharge of 
untreated sewage into the water of the United States as well as our 
coastal beaches.
  Forget about clean drinking water, forget about cleaning up toxic 
waste sites, forget about lakes you can swim in and streams you can 
fish in.
  Overall, the 17 House riders would gut the national effort to protect 
the environment. And that was their intent.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to allow EPA to ignore 
those riders which place in jeopardy the health and safety of our 
citizens.
  Let us stand up for ordinary Americans and for the environment. And 
let us stand up to the lobbyists for corporate polluters. It is the 
right thing to do. I am convinced that if we do the right thing, the 
American people will support us.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We do not have much 
remaining time anyway.
  The Senator from Missouri made two points. The first is, gee, why are 
we doing this? Because of the onerous, objectionable, heinous riders 
that he by implication agreed are objectionable, heinous, bad 
provisions in the House bill, not the Senate bill.
  That point is irrelevant because what we are saying here is the 
Administrator would have the discretion to not follow a rider whether 
it is in the House bill or Senate bill, if it is enacted into law, 
because obviously when the conference is completed probably in the 
spirit of compromise the Senate is going to agree to a few of these 
objectionable, heinous dastardly riders. So we are just saying that in 
the event the conference, in a spirit of compromise with the Senate, 
agrees to a certain rider, this provision is available to give the 
Administrator the authority to protect the public health by not 
implementing it. So the basic point that the Senator from Missouri 
made, the first point, is irrelevant.
  The second point I think is really misconstrued. He said, gee, there 
is a supermandate.
  Mr. President, when we were dealing with the supermandate issue in 
regulatory reform, the question was whether an administrator of an 
agency could override law as a general principle, override law in 
drafting regulations as a general principle. That is very broad.
  This is much different, totally different. We are dealing here with 
approximately 17 specifically crafted House riders and a few 
specifically crafted Senate riders. Most of them would meet the test, 
but a few of them very specifically crafted would not.
  In addition, if the Administrator found that this rider would cause 
harm to the environment or public health, she then would simply have to 
just follow current law. She would say she would not follow the rider 
but she would follow current law. If someone did not like her decision, 
that is reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act and 
ultimately reviewable in the Federal courts.
  It seems to me that our main goal, the main objective is to be sure 
that we do not pass laws, particularly riders in this case, which have 
the effect of causing more harm to public health. So I urge my 
colleagues to do something pretty reasonable, that is, adopt this 
amendment because it will better protect human health and the 
environment.
  Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Baucus 
amendment, and I would like to thank the Senator for coming and 
offering the amendment this evening. It is enormously appreciated. We 
know he has had a difficult day in the Finance Committee. We also thank 
him for his leadership in the authorizing committee.
  Like Senator Baucus, I wish to compliment the chairman of the 
subcommittee on the effort that he has made in the area of EPA reform. 
Yet, at the same time, we also support the Baucus amendment because we 
believe it will help weed out those riders that have the serious and 
negative impact on public health or the environment.
  Yes, it does give the Administrator flexibility, and it also will 
allow those who know the science the authority to help make the 
decisions.
  Most importantly, I believe this amendment will act as a safety valve 
if the House insists on any of its riders when we get to the 
conference. I believe the Senate bill now has a moderate, clear 
framework on how to deal with these riders, and I believe the Senate 
framework should be the prevailing one. This country has entrusted EPA 
with the health and well-being of its citizens, and this is one Senator 
who wants to make sure this trust continues.
  I urge my colleagues to stand firm on protecting the environment and 
public health by supporting the Baucus amendment, then supporting the 
Bond framework as we move through this legislation and into conference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  I believe we are about finished with this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say to the Senator I know of no other Senators 
who wish to speak.
  Mr. BOND. All right. I know of no other Senators who wish to speak on 
this side.
  I say once again, I very much appreciate the kind words of the 
Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Montana about our efforts to 
work on the riders. I assure them we will continue to work with them. 
We cannot control what the House will do. I do not think that even if 
we were to adopt this Baucus amendment, the House would accept it. I 
just believe, while I can appreciate the concern, it is 
unconstitutional, and I will urge my colleagues not to support it.
  I want to speak briefly about the language in the committee report 
which calls for a report by the Environmental Protection Agency on the 
need for a second rule to establish emissions limits on small nonroad 
engines like lawnmowers and chainsaws. In response to questions by the 
Environmental Protection Agency as to the scope of the report, I want 
to ensure that it not become an undue burden on EPA, particularly in 
the event that the regulatory negotiation rule reaches consensus on the 
rule.
  EPA has already issued one rule applicable to this industry pursuant 
to a schedule dictated by a consent degree, not the Clean Air Act. That 
schedule also applies to the second rule which is under development, 
through a negotiation process. The committee supports the continuation 
of efforts for a negotiated second rule that would achieve a cost 
effective consensus acceptable to the industry, EPA, and the other 
participants. If that consensus is reached later this year, we would 
expect the report to be merely a statement of the agreement, an 
explanation of the actions to carry out the agreement, and assurances 
that the rule as proposed will conform to the agreement in all detail.
  If, however, the parties to the regulatory negotiation are unable to 
reach consensus, then the report should explain in reasonable detail 
the air quality need in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas 
for a second rule. The report should also explain what additional air 
quality benefits would be achieved, and in what time frame, by a 
nonconsensus second rule regulating these small engines beyond the 
requirements of the first rule.

[[Page S 14299]]

  Most importantly, we would expect that EPA would work with us and our 
staff over the next few months in fashioning a report, probably in 
letter form, that would not be a burden on the EPA staff, but would 
fully address the oversight needs of the committee. We do not wish to 
divert EPA from its efforts to reach the consensus or form implementing 
any consensus agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on my side on this 
issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. I believe that the Senator from----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  Mr. BOND. I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Montana yield back his 
time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that that be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arizona is ready 
to present an amendment I believe will be found acceptable on both 
sides.


                           Amendment No. 2787

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a 
 plan for the allocation of health care resources of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs)

  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, of 
Maryland, for allowing me to bring this amendment forward and agreeing 
with it.
  I will not take much time. The hour is late. The amendment is at the 
desk. And I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2787.

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

       At the appropriate place insert:

     SEC. --. PLAN FOR ALLOCATION OF HEALTH CARE RESOURCES BY 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Plan.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     develop a plan for the allocation of health care resources 
     (including personnel and funds) of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs among the health care facilities of the Department so 
     as to ensure that veterans having similar economic status, 
     eligibility priority and, or, similar medical conditions who 
     are eligible for medical care in such facilities have similar 
     access to such care in such facilities regardless of the 
     region of the United States in which such veterans reside.
       (2) The Plan shall reflect, to the maximum extent possible, 
     the Veterans Integrated Service Network, as well as the 
     Resource Planning and Management System developed by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs to account for forecasts in 
     expected workload and to ensure fairness to facilities that 
     provide cost-efficient health care, and shall include 
     procedures to identify reasons for variations in operating 
     costs among similar facilities and ways to improve the 
     allocation of resources so as to promote efficient use of 
     resources and provision of quality health care.
       (3) The Secretary shall prepare the plan in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary of Health of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Plan Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall set 
     forth--
       (1) milestones for achieving the goal referred to in that 
     subsection; and
       (2) a means of evaluating the success of the Secretary in 
     meeting the goals through the plan.
       (c) Submittal to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress the plan developed under subsection (a) not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Plan Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     plan developed under subsection (a) within 60 days of 
     submitting such plan to Congress under subsection (b), unless 
     within such period the Secretary notifies the appropriate 
     Committees of Congress that such plan will not be implemented 
     along with an explanation of why such plan will not be 
     implemented.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
develop and implement a plan to remedy serious and ongoing 
discrepancies in the allocation of funds to Veterans Health Care 
facilities across the country. The plan would require the Department to 
allocate funding to ensure that veterans have equal access to quality 
health care no matter what region they live in or which facility 
provides them services.
  Mr. President, as we know, the pending appropriations bill would 
provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with approximately $17 
billion to maintain and operate 173 hospitals, 376 outpatient clinics, 
136 nursing homes, and 39 domiciliaries.
  The other thing we know, Mr. President, is that the United States has 
become a very mobile nation. And there are significant demographic 
shifts that take place around the country. The Department of Veterans 
affairs has attempted in the past through a function known as RPM, 
which is the Resource Planning and Management system, to obtain better 
allocation of the funds, but they have not done a very good job in 
doing so.
  Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these resources are 
distributed in a manner that will ensure our nation's veterans, whether 
they live in Maine or Arizona, have equal access to quality health 
care.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs has not 
traditionally allocated funding to provide equal access to or account 
for increasing workloads at its medical facilities.
  Some months ago I asked the General Accounting Office to examine VA 
medical funding deficiencies. The GAO found that facility costs and 
their respective budgets vary widely, even after facilities of similar 
mission and size are grouped and adjustments are made to account for 
differences such as case mix, locality costs, salaries, training and 
research.
  While, Veterans Hospital Administration officials have acknowledged 
budget allocation problems, GAO investigations found that the 
Department has failed to fully implement the new budgeting method known 
as the ``Resource Planning and Management System'' which the Department 
developed to remedy funding inequity.
  Let me quote the GAO report:

       Because VHA lacked resources to fund all facilities' 
     expected needs, it chose to limit the resources given to 
     facilities with growing workloads. On the other hand, for 
     facilities with decreasing workloads, VHA chose not to reduce 
     their funding in proportion to the expected decreases in 
     workload. These decisions led to only small adjustments in 
     the funding for the projected cost of increased workload, 
     while facilities with decreasing workloads received more 
     resources than they were projected to need.

  The GAO goes on to say:

       For example, VHA forecast that the Carl T. Hayden Medical 
     Center needed an additional $2.3 million for fiscal year 1995 
     based on expected increases in workload. However, the Center 
     actually received an additional $400,000  . . . By contrast, 
     the San Juan facility had the greatest decline in workload 
     within Carl T. Hayden's facility group. Its declining 
     workload led to a projected $3 million decrease in budget 
     needs, yet the facility's budget decreased only $500,000.

  Mr. President, it's easy to see what's happening here. The Department 
of Veterans Affairs is reluctant to reallocate resources to meet 
shifting demand. Facilities which are accustomed to a certain level of 
funding refuse to do with less even though there case loads are 
shrinking. And, those with growing caseloads, like Carl T. Hayden, are 
simply expected to make do with what they have been getting.
  This practice may serve the needs of bureaucrats, but it does not 
serve the veteran.
  Mr. President, this problem hit very close to home. I've spent quite 
a bit of time at the Carl T. Hayden Medical Center. In the winter 
months and at many other times throughout the year, veterans wait in 
line for hours to conduct the most perfunctory administrative 
functions, much less to receive treatment. The facility is simply 
unundated.
  Last year, the Veterans of Foreign Wars conducted a comprehensive 
study and found that the Carl T. Hayden Medical Center in Phoenix is 
``grossly 

[[Page S 14300]]
underfunded,'' receiving twenty-five percent less funding than the 
average urban VA hospital.
  In fiscal year 1994, the facility received $52 million less then the 
New York VA hospital, yet saw 15 percent more patients. This serious 
shortfall in funding is particularly serious for Phoenix which is one 
of only three areas in the country where the veteran population is on 
the rise, and which is inundated every winter with visitors who place 
even greater demand on the facility and its insufficient resources.
  Passage of this amendment will ensure that we develop a plan to 
allocate resources in a manner that will assure equal access to service 
by veterans and which will take into account projected changes in the 
workload of each facility.
  Mr. President, what this amendment does--and as I mentioned earlier 
it is a very simple one--it requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
to develop a plan for the allocation of health care resources, 
including personnel and funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
among the health care facilities of the Department so as to ensure that 
veterans having similar economic status, eligibility priority and/or 
similar medical conditions who are eligible for medical care in such 
facilities have similar access to such care in such facilities 
regardless of the region of the United States in which such veterans 
reside.
  Mr. President, I will admit to a certain amount of parochialism in 
this amendment because I come from a State that is growing in 
population, especially as a retirement area, and there are insufficient 
funds. But by this amendment I do not mean to be imposing any penalties 
on any VA facility anywhere in our Nation. But I think we should 
appreciate the fact that we do have a mobile veterans population. In 
the summertime they may be visiting Minnesota, and in the wintertime 
they may be in Arizona, or they may be in Missouri or even in the 
summertime in the State of Maryland.
  We want to make sure that there are facilities available on an 
equitable basis for all of our veterans. And I am sure that this will 
not result in a decrease in funding for much-needed facilities, but a 
better allocation of scarce resources.
  I would like to thank and I do believe that the VHA will come up with 
a fair and equitable formula for the distribution of the all-too-scarce 
funds. We all know that as we face an aging veterans population, the 
needs become greater and greater. The medical challenges that we face 
have changed also significantly over the years. And I think we can, by 
adoption of this amendment, take a small step towards fulfilling our 
obligation and commitments that we made to the men and women who serve 
in our Nation's defense.
  I thank my friends, and I will take no more time on the amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I commend my friend and colleague from Arizona on the very 
thoughtful amendment. I have had the opportunity to discuss this 
amendment with my ranking member. It moves the Veterans Administration 
in the direction which we feel it is vitally important for the VA to 
move.
  We have already addressed here on this floor many of the problems in 
the way the VA operates. We think it could be far more efficient, far 
more effective in the service it provides to the veterans. And I 
believe that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has outlined a 
plan for implementation of improvements that will be very good 
operating procedure for the Veterans Administration.
  I am ready to accept the amendment on this side, and I ask if there 
are any other speakers or if my ranking member----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am going to accept the amendment as well.
  Mr. BOND. I do not see any--does the Senator from Arizona wish to add 
to his remarks?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that a GAO study, plus a letter 
from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material is ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               U.S. General Accounting Office,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
       Dear Senator McCain` At your request, we are currently 
     reviewing the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) process 
     for allocating the medical care appropriation to its medical 
     facilities across the nation--the Resource Planning and 
     Management System (RPM).\1\ Historically, VHA allocated 
     resources by making incremental changes to each facility's 
     prior year budget. After recognizing the need to better link 
     resources to each facility's actual workload, VHA in 1985 
     implemented the Resource Allocation Methodology (RAM). VHA 
     officials indicated that because the RAM allocations were 
     generally based upon workload as defined by clinical 
     diagnoses, facilities soon recognized that their allocations 
     would be increased as the number of procedures performed 
     increased. This open-ended expansion of workload led to 
     budgeting problems and concerns about inappropriate care 
     being provided.
       RPM--first used to allocate fiscal year 1994 facility 
     budgets--was intended to improve upon past allocation 
     systems. VHA's stated goals for RPM are to (1) improve VA's 
     resource allocation methodology, (2) move from retrospective 
     to prospective workload management, and (3) reform medical 
     care budgeting. Accordingly, RPM was designed to be patient-
     based, forward-looking, and policy-driven. It defines 
     workload as patients served, rather than procedures 
     performed--hence, VHA's characterization of RPM as 
     ``capitation-based''--and it uses projections of future 
     workload to determine what resources are needed. A VHA 
     strategic plan was also intended to be the driving force 
     behind RPM, giving it a set of goals, performance standards, 
     and workload priorities.
       You asked us to review VHA's allocation process, expressing 
     a concern about the equity of the process in ensuring that 
     facility funding meets the medical needs of a changing 
     veteran population.\2\ As part of our efforts to keep you 
     informed about our ongoing review of RPM, we have regularly 
     briefed your staff on our progress toward issuing a report 
     later this year. As a result of our most recent briefing, you 
     asked us to provide you with preliminary information on the 
     way VHA is using RPM to better link resources to workload by 
     examining the variations that RPM data show in facility 
     operating costs to determine the reasons for those 
     variations, and allocating resources among facilities so that 
     veterans within the same priority categories have the same 
     availability of care, to the extent practical, throughout the 
     VA health care system.
       In summary, RPM appears to be an improvement over VA's 
     previous resource allocation systems. Specifically, it 
     creates forecasts of expected workload and provides data, 
     such as differences in operating costs, that VHA could use in 
     better matching resources to anticipated workload. It also 
     reduces the ability of facilities to ``game'' the system by 
     providing or seeming to provide more or more costly 
     procedures. However, our work to date suggests that VHA has 
     made limited use of RPM in understanding the reasons for 
     those differences and in changing allocations from what 
     facilities received in the past. Furthermore, VHA has not 
     used RPM to allocate resources in a way that considers 
     differences in veterans' access to care throughout the 
     system.


             USE OF RPM TO EXPLORE WHY OPERATING COSTS VARY

       Although the RPM data show significant differences in 
     facility operating costs, VHA has not, as it originally 
     planned, developed processes to allow a better understanding 
     of potential reasons for those variations. Originally, VHA 
     intended to assess reasons for variations in costs among 
     facilities through a formal review and evaluation process, 
     including structured site surveys of facilities with 
     especially high and low operating costs. VHA had said that 
     such a process would be useful to identify efficiencies that 
     could be applied at other facilities and to identify 
     potential quality problems caused by limited resources.\3\ 
     VHA hoped to further explore the impact of resources on 
     quality by linking RPM cost data with quality indicators. 
     Officials told us that without a better understanding of the 
     reasons for the variations or a clear standard against which 
     to measure the costs, they had little basis for determining 
     which, if any, facilities were receiving too few or too many 
     resources. We have had some difficulty finding out why VHA 
     has not analyzed the variations as planned; the main reasons 
     seem to be the generally lower priority attached to that 
     effort and the uncertainty about who would conduct the 
     analyses and how the analyses would be done. We hope to have 
     more information about this matter in our detailed report.
       Our initial assessment of RPM data shows that facility 
     costs vary widely, even after facilities of similar mission 
     and size are grouped and adjustments are made to account for 
     differences such as case mix, locality costs, salaries, 
     training, and research. For example, adjusted costs per 
     standardized workload measure in one facility group ranged 
     from $3,024 to $4,141 with the average cost being $3,635; 
     facilities ranged from about 17 percent below average to 
     about 14 percent above average in cost.
       Nonetheless, VHA officials appear to have used RPM to 
     change facilities' historical budgets only minimally during 
     the two budget cycles in which RPM has been used. For 

[[Page S 14301]]
     example, we estimate that the maximum loss to any facility's historical 
     budget in fiscal year 1995 was only about 1 percent and that 
     the average gain was also about 1 percent.
       While the optimal amount of resources that should be 
     shifted is unclear, the facilities most disadvantaged by 
     not shifting more resources are those that (1) 
     historically have received less funding for comparable 
     workload and (2) have a faster growing number of patients. 
     For example, because VHA lacked resources to fund all 
     facilities' expected needs, it chose to limit the 
     resources given to facilities with growing workloads. On 
     the other hand, for facilities with decreasing workloads, 
     VHA chose not to reduce their funding in proportion to the 
     expected decreases in workload. These decisions led to 
     only small adjustments in the funding for the projected 
     cost of increased workload, while facilities with 
     decreasing workloads received more resources than they 
     were projected to need. For example, VHA forecasted that 
     the Carl T. Hayden Medical Center needed an additional 
     $2.3 million for fiscal year 1995 based on expected 
     increases in workload. However, the center actually 
     received an additional $400,000 as a result of workload 
     adjustments arising from RPM.\4\ By contrast, the San Juan 
     facility had the greatest decline in workload within Carl 
     T. Hayden's facility group. Its declining workload led to 
     a projected $3 million decrease in budget needs, yet the 
     facility's budget decreased only $500,000.


      use of rpm to reduce inconsistencies in availability of care

       We reported in 1993 \5\ that veterans' access to outpatient 
     care at VHA facilities varied widely--veterans within the 
     same priority categories received outpatient care at some 
     facilities but not at others.\6\ Using a questionnaire to 
     medical centers, we found then that of 158 centers queried, 
     118 reported they rationed outpatient care for nonservice-
     connected conditions in fiscal year 1991 and 40 reported no 
     rationing. This rationing generally occurred in fiscal year 
     1991 because resources did not always match veterans' demands 
     for care. Medical centers rationed care by limiting the 
     categories of veterans served,\7\ the medical services 
     offered, and the conditions for which they could receive 
     care.
       When we reported on these differences in 1993, VA officials 
     responded that RPM--under development at the time--would help 
     overcome these differences. Specifically, officials indicated 
     that to address wide variations in veterans' access to health 
     care systemwide, VA was designing a new resource planning and 
     management process with several objectives, including the 
     elimination of gaps in service for veterans systemwide. In 
     February 1994 correspondence to the Congress, the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs reiterated that RPM would begin to 
     alleviate some of the inconsistencies in veterans' access to 
     care noted in our report.
       In our current review, however, we are finding that 
     overcoming these kinds of inconsistencies in availability of 
     care has not been incorporated as a specific goal of RPM.
       Perhaps because reducing inconsistency has not been 
     established as an RPM goal, the system does not use data on 
     the eligibility category of veterans served at a facility. 
     RPM predicts costs and workload without regard to facility 
     differences in the provision of discretionary care, that is, 
     without regard to the priority category of the veterans being 
     served.
       Although the lack of relevant data prevents us from 
     confirming whether the kind of rationing reported in our 1993 
     report persists, we see indications that inconsistencies 
     still exist. For example, fiscal year 1995 data showed a 
     difference in the extent to which facilities treated 
     nonservice-connected higher income veterans:\8\ at some 
     facilities 13 percent of veterans treated fell into that 
     category, while other facilities provided no care to such 
     veterans.
       We discussed the draft of this letter with VA's Deputy 
     Undersecretary for Health and other VA officials who 
     generally agreed with its contents. These officials noted, 
     however, that resource allocation is an inherently complex 
     and difficult process, that VA's implementation of RPM is 
     still evolving, and that they expect to use the process to 
     make substantially increased budget adjustment for facilities 
     in the next fiscal year. They indicated that VHA faces many 
     challenges that make implementation of the process difficult, 
     including complex eligibility requirements, mandates to care 
     for certain specialized populations of veterans, and the 
     inability of facilities to change personnel levels quickly. 
     They also cited several current initiatives that they expect 
     to help in the implementation of the resource allocation 
     process, including the restructuring the VA health system 
     into Veterans Integrated Service Networks, the implementation 
     of VA's Decision Support System, and the linking of planning, 
     policy and performance measurement responsibilities within 
     one organizational office.
       We are sending copies of this correspondence to the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs and other interested parties. 
     The information contained in it was developed by Frank 
     Pasquier, Assistant Director; Linda Bade; Katherine Iritani; 
     Douglas Sanner; and Evan Stoll. Please contact me at (202) 
     512-7101 or Mr. Pasquier at (206) 287-4861 if you or your 
     staff have any questions.
           Sincerely yours,

                                           Carlotta C. Joyner,

                                   Associate Director, Health Care
                                      Delivery and Quality Issues.
     \1\ For fiscal year 1996, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     (VA) is seeking an appropriation of about $17 billion to 
     maintain and operate 173 hospitals, 376 outpatient clinics, 
     136 nursing homes, and 39 domiciliaries.
     \2\ You also raised a specific concern about funding at the 
     Carl T. Hayden Medical Center in Phoenix, which we have 
     explored as part of our work.
     \3\ The closest VHA has come to conducting such a review was 
     through one of the six Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) it 
     formed for its RPM patient categories, such as primary care 
     or chronic mental illness. The Chronic Mental Illness TAG has 
     done some limited data analysis (that is, length of stay, 
     discharge cost, and costs/day differences) to develop further 
     explanatory data on facility cost variations in the care of 
     chronic mental illness patients. The directive establishing 
     the TAGs' purpose, role, operation, and management within 
     RPM, including their role in studying cost, practice, and 
     quality variations among facilities, had not been formalized 
     at the time of our review.
     \4\ Carl T. Hayden and other medical centers also received 
     funds outside the RPM process. Carl T. Hayden received 
     approximately $124 million in fiscal year 1995, of which 
     about $90 million came through the RPM allocation process. In 
     fiscal year 1994, it received approximately $117 million, of 
     which $78 million came through RPM. The percentage of Carl T. 
     Hayden's budget received outside the process was comparable 
     to (within about 3 percent of) the national average.
     \5\ VA Health Care: Variabilities in Outpatient Care 
     Eligibility and Rationing Decisions (GAO/HRD-93-106, July 16, 
     1993).
     \6\ As we reported in VA Health Care: Issues Affecting 
     Eligibility Reform (GAO/T-HEHS-95-213, July 19, 1995), VA 
     uses a complex priority system--based on such factors as the 
     presence and extent of any service-connected disability, the 
     incomes of veterans with nonservice-connected disabilities, 
     and the type and purpose of care needed--to determine which 
     eligible veterans receive care within available resources. 
     (An eligible veteran is any person who served on active duty 
     in the uniformed services for the minimum amount of time 
     specified by law and who was discharged, released, or retired 
     under other than dishonorable conditions.)
     \7\ When medical centers rationed care by veteran category, 
     they generally followed the priorities set by the Congress: 
     they limited care first to higher income veterans, then to 
     lower income veterans, and finally to veterans with a 
     service-connected disability.
     \8\ ``higher income'' veteran is one whose income was above 
     the means test threshold, which as of January 1995 was 
     $20,469 for a single veteran, $24,565 for a veteran with one 
     dependent, plus $1,368 for each additional dependent.
                                                                    ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                                  April 7, 1994.  
     John T. Farrar, M.D.,
     Acting Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health 
         Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Farrar: A member of my staff, Robert F. O'Toole, 
     Senior Field Representative, conducted a survey of the 
     Phoenix, Arizona, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center, on March 14-15, 1994. During his time at the medical 
     center, he was able to talk with many patients, family 
     members and staff. This enabled him to gather information 
     concerning the quality of care being provided and the most 
     pressing problems facing the facility.
       While those receiving treatment in the clinics and wards 
     felt that the quality was good, they almost all commented on 
     the long waits in the clinics and the understaffing 
     throughout the medical center. In discussing their problem 
     with various staff members, it was noted that nurses were 
     under extreme stress. More than one was observed by Mr. 
     O'Toole in tears when completing their tour. The nursing 
     staff on evening shifts must rush continually through their 
     duties in an attempt to cover all their patients needs due to 
     the shortage in staffing in both support and technical 
     personnel.
       In attempting to determine the reason for this problem, it 
     became apparent that the station was grossly underfunded. 
     Which means that the staff must either take unwanted 
     shortcuts or continue to work beyond the point expected of 
     staffs at the other medical centers. While it is well 
     understood that the Veterans Health Administration is 
     underfunded throughout the system, it is clear from the 
     comparisons that this facility has not received a fair 
     distribution of the available resources resulting in the 
     deplorable situation now facing the health care team.
       Another problem in Phoenix that must be addressed is the 
     serious space deficiency, especially in the clinical areas. 
     The ambulatory care area was designed to handle 60,000 annual 
     visits. In fiscal year 1993, the station provided 218,000 
     annual visits, almost four times the design level. Many 
     physicians are required to conduct exams and provide 
     treatment from temporary cubicles set up inside the waiting 
     rooms. This bandaid approach has added to the already 
     overcrowding.
       The other problem that we feel should be pointed out is 
     that of the staffing ceiling assigned to the Carl T. Hayden 
     Veterans Medical Center. Currently, the medical center has 
     FTEE of 1530 which is over the target staffing level. Based 
     on available reports, the medical center would need an 
     additional 61 registered nurses just to reach the average 
     Resource Program Management (RPM) within their group. This 
     facility operates with the lowest employee level in their 
     group when comparing facility work loads, and 158th overall. 
     To reach the average productivity level of the Veterans 
     Health Administration medical centers, they would need an 
     additional 348 full-time employees. While it is realized that 
     this station will never be permitted to enjoy that level of 
     staffing, it is felt that they, at the least, should have 
     been given some consideration for their staffing 

[[Page S 14302]]
     problems during the latest White House ordered employee reductions.
       To assist the medial center to meet their mandatory work 
     load, and the great influx of winter residents, it is 
     recommended that the $11.4 million which was reported to the 
     Arizona congressional delegation to have been given Phoenix 
     in addition to their FY 94 budget be provided. To enable the 
     station to handle the ever increasing ambulatory work load, 
     the Veterans Health Administration must approve the pending 
     request for leased clinic space in northwest Phoenix and, the 
     implementation plan for the use of the Williams Air Force 
     Base hospital as a satellite outpatient clinic, along with 
     the necessary funding to adequately operate the facility. In 
     addition, VHA should approve and fund, at a minimum, the 
     expansion of the medical centers clinical space onto the 
     Indian School land which was acquired for that purpose.
       Approval of the above recommendations would make it much 
     easier for this medical center to meet the needs of the ever 
     increasing veteran population in the Phoenix area. There is 
     no indication that the increasing population trends will 
     change prior to the year 2020. This hospital cannot be 
     allowed to continue the downhill slide. The veterans of 
     Arizona deserve a fair deal and the medical staff should be 
     given the opportunity to provide top quality health care in a 
     much less stressful setting.
       I would appreciate receiving your comments on the Phoenix 
     VA Medical Center at your earliest opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                             Frederico Juarbe Jr.,
                              Director, National Veterans Service.

  Mr. McCAIN. I want to thank again the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, again, I commend the Senator from Arizona. I 
believe we are ready to proceed to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2787) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, now I ask unanimous consent that added to 
the list of relevant amendments be an amendment by Senator Baucus 
entitled ``Relevant.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

  Mr. MACK. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of 
the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy relative to the 
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee. Senators 
Graham, Domenici, and Bingaman will also join with me in this. Let me 
begin by commending the chairman for putting forth a bill that balances 
the needs for fiscal restraint with necessary investment. An excellent 
example of necessary and productive investment is the National Science 
Foundation's decision 5 years ago to establish the principal facility 
in Florida and a component facility at Los Alamos. The proposal to 
embark on this important basic research was a vision of Dr. Jack Crow, 
the lab's director. The NSF agreed with this vision and made the 
crucial decision and investment. It was a very wise decision, and I 
commend them for it.
  Mr. BOND. The subcommittee has heard of many of the NHMFL's 
accomplishments in its short 3-year history. New magnet development, at 
the cutting edge of technology, has created the finest array of the 
world's most powerful magnets. It has allowed the United States to 
reclaim world leadership in magnet science and technology.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This laboratory is truly a partnership between Florida 
State University, the University of Florida and the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory in New Mexico. It is clearly a Federal/state/industrial 
partnership that works well and produces tremendous breakthoughs. 
Furthermore, industrial involvement and support is paving the way for 
future progress.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Graham, the NSF's interest in partnerships and 
their decision to locate the facility in Florida were key ingredients 
for its success. This partnership between two universities, a fine 
national laboratory, the State of Florida, and several industries has 
led to outstanding science and new technologies as well. And I'm told 
the lab has a world-class collection of scientists and engineers that 
will continue to lead the world for years to come.
  Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. Chairman, let me underscore the importance of this 
partnership which includes Los Alamos National Laboratory working 
closely with Florida State University and the University of Florida. At 
last year's dedication in Tallahassee, Erich Bloch said, ``Absent any 
one of the three partners, this important project would not have come 
to fruition.'' That is still true today. In these tight budget times, 
Los Alamos has committed precious resources to this endeavor because it 
is important to do so. And my friend Gov. Lawton Chiles of Florida has 
invested heavily and wisely with scarce State resources. I want to 
encourage the subcommittee to provide NSF the resources necessary to 
keep this laboratory world-class.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The research, the development, and the educational 
activities that come from this partnership between NSF and DOE, between 
universities and a national laboratory, and the facility that is state-
of-the-art is truly a unique national resource that should make all who 
are involved proud of it. I commend the NSF for its efforts, and I 
commend this subcommittee for its diligence in providing the resources 
that will maintain world leadership.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the comments. The subcommittee recognizes the 
importance of this partnership and the need to keep the United States 
at the forefront of this important scientific and technological area. 
We are confident NSF will continue to view this facility as one of its 
``crown jewels,'' and support it appropriately. I thank the Senators 
for their views.


                            permits program

  Mr. NICKLES. Title V of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to issue a rule establishing the minimum elements of a 
permit program for sources regulated under the act. The act requires 
that this permit rule be issued within 1 year of enactment. The 1990 
amendments further required States within 3 years to develop and submit 
to EPA for approval their own programs that comply with the Federal 
minimum elements as defined by the EPA permit rule. Even under the 
ambitious schedule of the 1990 amendments, Congress clearly provided 
that States were to have 2 full years to respond to EPA's rule 
establishing the minimum elements of a permit program.
  Although EPA promulgated a final rule in 1992, the controversy that 
surrounded this rule prompted the agency to revisit many key issues in 
the rulemaking. Today, 3 years later, I am sorry to report that EPA has 
still been unable to resolve fundamental elements of the Federal 
program which States must comply with in establishing their own 
programs. As recently as this summer, EPA has issued a new proposal, 
despite having not relieved states of the requirement to comply with 
the 1992 rule.
  The result, predictably, has been an untenable level of confusion and 
uncertainty. States are spending considerable resources in developing 
programs that may or may not comply with EPA's final permit program. 
Similarly, sources across the country are now submitting permit 
applications, despite the lack of clear Federal guidance.
  Mr. BOND. My colleague from Oklahoma is correct in expressing 
misgivings over EPA's current implementation of the permit program. As 
the result of similar concerns, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
included language in the report accompanying this bill urging EPA to 
delay enforcement of the title V program for 1 year. This would give 
EPA the opportunity to resolve outstanding issues and reduce the 
likelihood that States and sources will adopt provisions that may 
ultimately conflict with EPA's final rule. The one-year delay would 
also give EPA and states sufficient time to develop more cost-effective 
approaches to permitting. Given the severity of the problems which have 
beset EPA's implementation of this program, I believe this provision is 
critical.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would also like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma 
for raising this issue, which has been of significant concern to the 
subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear 
Safety, which I chair. Over the course of this past year, our 
subcommittee has been closely 

[[Page S 14303]]
monitoring EPA's implementation of the title V permit program. We 
conducted a hearing on title V on August 1, 1995. In addition we have 
raised several questions with the agency over its progress to date. 
Almost 4 years have passed since the deadline for promulgating a 
Federal permit rule, yet EPA has still not finalized the part 70 
program. Additionally, EPA has been slow to issue long-needed 
permitting guidance, such as the ``white paper'' guidance on permit 
applications, and does not appear to be promoting the rapid 
implementation of such guidance. The lack of resolution of key elements 
of the permit program puts States in an enormous quandary in developing 
and seeking approval of their own programs. We are also concerned over 
the impact of this confusion on regulated ``sources''--that is to say, 
the employers of this nation--which are required by law to submit 
permit applications within 12 months of the date that States receive 
approval for their programs. The application process alone has proven 
to be unnecessarily costly and time consuming for sources--problems 
that are clearly linked to EPA's inability to develop Federal minimum 
elements in a timely manner.
  It is important to keep in mind that the title V program is extremely 
costly; even EPA has estimated that the program will cost taxpayers and 
businesses more than $2.5 billion in the first 5 years of the program. 
With this much money at stake, confusion is unacceptable. A 1-year 
delay could save significant resources and prevent many programmatic 
missteps.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would like to thank my colleague from Missouri for 
including language in the Senate Committee Appropriations report on 
this important issue. My involvement with this difficult issue dates 
back to the debate held in this body over the 1990 amendments when many 
of us expressed concern over the complexity of the title and its 
potential for imposing unnecessary costs on sources and States. Given 
the severity of the problems which have beset this program, I hope the 
conferees to this bill will reflect on this debate and include 
statutory language requesting a 1-year delay in order to protect the 
vital interests of States and sources who are in the unfortunate 
position of having to comply with a regulatory moving target.
  I also want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for his close 
scrutiny of this issue and his willingness to hold oversight hearings 
on the agency's implementation of the permit program.
  Mr. BOND. Thank you for raising these important issues. Considering 
the potential for well-meaning States to be punished unfairly, I am 
sure my colleagues will consider your comments and those of the Senator 
from North Carolina most carefully.


                             refinery mact

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Missouri, to engage in a colloquy with me on an issue of importance to 
my constituents in Arkansas.
  Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to discuss an issue with the Senator 
from Arkansas, a member of the full Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I want to compliment the Senator from Missouri for 
addressing the issue of the Environmental Protection Agency's refinery 
MACT rule in the Appropriations Committee's report on H.R. 2099. In my 
opinion, if ever a set of regulations needed to be reformed, it is the 
refinery MACT rule.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Arkansas is correct. In its report on the 
bill under consideration today, the Appropriations Committee expressed 
its dissatisfaction with the procedures EPA has employed in 
promulgating all MACT regulations, particularly the refinery MACT rule. 
The committee directed EPA to reevaluate the refinery MACT rule after 
applying principles of sound science.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I, and many of my colleagues in the Senate, commend the 
chairman for including that directive in the committee report.
  In addition, I would like to specifically address an issue which is 
of particular importance to both the Senator from Missouri and myself. 
That issue is the impact of the refinery MACT rule on smaller refiners 
around the Nation. The Senator from Missouri serves as the chairman of 
the Small Business Committee, and I am proud to serve as the senior 
Democrat on that committee.
  In its refinery MACT rule, EPA made no provision for lessening the 
impact of its rule on small businesses. In many cases, these smaller 
refineries are located in attainment areas--areas in which the need for 
expensive emissions control devices are questionable at best. In fact, 
EPA estimated that seven of these refineries would be forced to close 
under the refinery MACT rule.
  EPA's disregard for the impact of the refinery MACT rule on the small 
businesses of this Nation is disturbing to this Senator, as I am sure 
it is to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I share the Senator from Arkansas' concerns about the 
impact of the refinery MACT rule on small business. This is one of the 
reasons the committee has directed the EPA to reexamine the refinery 
MACT rule. Placing a disproportionate burden on the Nation's small 
businesses is not sound regulatory policy. It is my hope that EPA will 
address this issue, as well as the many other problems inherent in its 
current refinery MACT rule, when it reassesses the rule as a whole.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. I look forward to working with him 
on this issue as this bill moves to conference and as EPA carries out 
the committee's directive.


                  environmental technology initiative

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to bring to Chairman Bond's 
attention a matter regarding the Environmental Technology Initiative 
[ETI] and the proposed reductions to its budget. The underlying bill 
will reduce funding for ETI by approximately $100 million. I do not 
take issue with the committee's actions to reduce this particular 
budget. I have every confidence that the remaining funds appropriated 
by the committee will be sufficient to fulfill the mission of this EPA 
initiative. My concern lies chiefly in a clarification of the 
objectives ETI should be pursuing with the resources that are being 
appropriated in this legislation.
  On page 88 of the committee report, we state that the remaining 
funds--approximately $20 million--are to be directed toward technology 
verification activities and other continued efforts that do not 
duplicate private sector initiatives. Is it your understanding Mr. 
Chairman that the funds allocated by the committee to ETI are 
sufficient for, and ought to be used to complete EPA's multiprogram 
efforts to streamline the approval process for new analytical methods 
including the move toward performance-based standards?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct. The committee would agree that allocating 
funds for completing efforts to encourage new performance-based 
analytical methods and other streamlining methods is entirely 
consistent with the stated purpose of targeting ETI funding for 
verification efforts.
  Mr. BENNETT. I think the chairman for his clarification. I am sure 
that we both agree on the importance of analytical methods to ensure 
compliance with environmental laws. Without them, it would be 
impossible to determine whether industry was meeting the effluent 
standards established by law and through the permit process. Efficient 
analytical methods are also used to characterize hazardous waste and 
ensure that our drinking water is free of harmful concentrations of 
contaminants. Unfortunately, while methods to ensure compliance 
continue to improve and are more accurate, the current EPA process for 
approving the use of new methods keeps getting slower and more bogged 
down.
  I understand that EPA recognizes this problem, and several program 
offices have been working to reduce the backlog of analytical method 
approval requests and to reduce the time it takes to review and approve 
these methods. Once a streamlined process is in place, these moneys 
will be needed for a limited time to educate States and supervise 
implementation. EPA has laid the foundation and the funds appropriated 
by the committee will be needed to put these procedures into practice.

  Overall, this effort will decrease the time and resources that are 
needed to approve analytical methods, resulting in more and better 
methods. From the Agency perspective, this effort will provide a way to 
increase the number of methods that can be used to meet statutory 
requirements. In addition, 

[[Page S 14304]]
EPA's efforts to streamline the approval process for new analytical 
methods will spur new technologies and create new jobs. The money 
allocated to this process will significantly lower the cost of 
environmental measurements, thereby reducing the cost of environmental 
compliance for industry and municipalities. I thank the chairman for 
his time and support in this matter.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator and agree that EPA's efforts to 
streamline its approval processes and move toward performance-based 
standards for analytical methods are a vital part of environmental 
compliance. Clearly, the completion of EPA's ongoing efforts in this 
regard is within the scope of funding provided in this bill for ETI.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman.


                    EPA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may I engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana regarding programs at the Environmental 
Protection Agency that result in improved energy efficiency in the 
economy?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I proposed some report language on this topic that was 
accepted by the full Committee on Appropriations at its markup and 
would be happy to discuss it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The report language states that:

       The Committee notes that these programs overlap and 
     conflict with statutory authority provided to the Department 
     of Energy in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Therefore, EPA 
     should transfer to DOE those energy efficiency and energy 
     supply programs that DOE, not EPA, is authorized to carry 
     out. Future appropriations for these programs should be 
     requested as part of the DOE budget submission.

  What is intended by this language?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The intention is very clear and specific. In the 
President's budget submission to Congress, funds were requested for EPA 
for a series of 21 activities, many of which clearly overlapped and 
duplicated specific statutory authority provided to the Secretary of 
Energy and others by the Congress through the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, of which I am the ranking member, has jurisdiction 
under the Senate's rules for all aspects of energy policy, energy 
regulation, and conservation, energy research and development, and oil 
and gas production and distribution. Yet the committee has never been 
approached by the administration with a request to authorize any 
activities for EPA in this area. The committee, rather, has made some 
fairly clear assignments of responsibility to agencies other than EPA 
for topics such as product labeling for energy efficiency. I do not 
believe that it is acceptable for the administration to request funds 
in a manner that contravenes the clear intent of Congress with respect 
to statutory assignments of responsibility.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Of course, improving energy efficiency may be one way 
to prevent pollution, and Congress has authorized EPA to pursue 
pollution prevention activities in the Clean Air Act and the Pollution 
Prevention Act of 1990. Do you intend that any activity in the EPA that 
related to energy efficiency would, by that very fact, be transferred 
to the Department of Energy?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No; the report language that I proposed is very clear. 
If EPA lacks statutory authority for a particular activity that the 
Department of Energy or some other agency possesses, then EPA should 
not undertake that activity. The report language that I proposed would 
not preclude EPA from exercising its legitimate statutory authorities. 
For example, EPA is working with the gas industry in a program called 
Natural Gas Star to reduce losses of methane to the atmosphere from gas 
pipelines and other transmission equipment, under the aegis of the 
Pollution Prevention Act. My report language would not transfer this 
program to DOE.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Would the Senator be open to requesting a report from 
the EPA and from the Department of Energy to the Congress addressing 
how their programs that promote improved energy efficiency or that 
result in an energy supply that has less of a possibility of 
contributing to global climate change relate to one another and to the 
existing statutory authorities in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 
elsewhere?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes; I think that such a report would assist the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in exercising its 
jurisdiction, under the rules of the Senate, over energy conservation 
and energy supply issues. As you know, the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources must reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act in this Congress, and if a majority of members of the committee 
were to believe that the EPA had a valuable role to exercise in this 
area that is not duplicative of what DOE or some other Federal agency 
is contributing or could contribute, such a role might be legitimately 
created in that context.
  Mr. BOND. This has been a helpful and clarifying discussion. I 
support the suggestion of requiring a joint report to the appropriate 
congressional committees from the EPA and the Department of Energy on 
their activities related to improving the energy efficiency of energy 
supply and use, including a discussion of the statutory authorities 
under which they are conducted. I will ask that report language to this 
effect be inserted in the conference report on this bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.


                           TRAVIS VA HOSPITAL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in strong opposition to the VA, HUD and 
independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I would 
like to focus on just one of the numerous reasons I will oppose this 
legislation--the lack of any funding for the Travis VA Hospital in 
northern California.
  Let me briefly describe the current situation for northern California 
veterans seeking inpatient health services. A veteran in this service 
area must drive an average of 4 to 5 hours, sometimes as many as 8 
hours, to get to a VA acute care facility. The veteran's family, 
because they are so far from home, generally must stay in a hotel for 
the duration of the veteran's hospital stay. Once the veteran is 
released from the hospital, he and his family must drive back and forth 
from home to the VA facility again for check-ups. This story could be 
repeated as many as 450,000 times. That's right, nearly half a million 
veterans who used to have complete access to inpatient health services 
are now without adequate care.
  I am appalled that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
turned their backs on nearly a half a million veterans by not 
continuing to fund the replacement VA Hospital at Travis Air Force 
Base. This facility is desperately needed to replace the VA Medical 
Center in Martinez, CA which was closed in 1991 because of earthquake 
damage.
  While awaiting the replacement facility at Travis, the Veteran's 
Administration has been forced to piece together a patchwork healthcare 
system. They have had to borrow bed space at Travis AFB's David Grant 
Hospital, and have transferred patients to facilities hundreds of miles 
away. I commend the VA for doing an admirable job in such a bad 
situation. Unfortunately, since the closure of the Martinez hospital, 
only 27 percent of that facility's inpatient services have been 
continued.
  As bad as the situation has been, our veterans have been exceedingly 
patient. At the ground-breaking ceremony on June 2, 1994, attended by 
Vice President Gore, we all were optimistic that northern California's 
veterans would not have much longer to wait for quality healthcare. 
More than a year later, the plans are nearly complete and the land is 
ready to begin construction of the replacement hospital early next 
year. But instead, that land will stay empty, and nearly a half a 
million veterans will continue to be unserved.
  The Travis VA Hospital is not a luxury to these veterans. They must 
drive between 4 and 8 hours to get inpatient healthcare. Should someone 
who served this country in war be required to drive from Washington, DC 
to New York City for healthcare? Now imagine that drive in order to 
obtain emergency medical care. That is correct. Veterans in northern 
California have no access to VA emergency services on evenings, 
weekends, or holidays. Currently, these veterans are forced to go to 
local health care facilities at either their own cost or at additional 
cost to the 

[[Page S 14305]]
taxpayers. This situation is simply unacceptable, it is unnecessarily 
costly and is disrespectful of our veterans.
  Please consider that this northern California area which would be 
serviced by Travis VA Hospital is one of the largest, most 
geographically dispersed, and highly populated veterans areas in the 
country. More veterans live in northern California than in 27 
individual States and the District of Columbia. Would any Senator from 
those States allow the needs of every veteran in their State be 
ignored?
  It is a sad day when the men and women who have served our country 
without question--and who have the right to expect their government to 
fulfill its promises--are now being told ``tough luck.'' It is simply 
unconscionable.
  I appeal to my colleagues to honor the commitment we as a Nation have 
made to our veterans, and join me in voting against this bill that so 
fundamentally fails to address the needs of so many veterans. I also 
hope that the President will veto this legislation which so flagrantly 
ignores the needs of America's veterans.


                             watertown, sd

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senate consideration of the fiscal year 
1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill provides an 
appropriate opportunity to raise an issue involving the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] and Watertown, SD, that merits our attention.
  Fifteen years ago, acting upon the recommendation of the EPA, 
Watertown installed a infiltration/percolation [I/P] pond for the 
treatment of its wastewater. At the time, local officials were assured 
by the EPA that the community would be compensated for any future 
modification or repair of the system that might be needed for it to 
remain operational. That EPA pledge was a significant factor in the 
City's decision to install the I/P technology.
  Unfortunately, the I/P system has not functioned as advertised. Since 
1982, Watertown has invested more than $8 million in its wastewater 
treatment facility in an effort to make it work properly.
  Despite these modifications, all of which were endorsed by the EPA, 
the system has never functioned to EPA's satisfaction. As a result, 
Watertown has failed to meet EPA regulations since 1988, and community 
officials continue to work with the EPA and the Justice Department to 
bring their wastewater treatment plant into compliance with the Clean 
Water Act and other regulations.
  Watertown will need to make major capital investments to reach this 
end. I am informed that $15 million will be required for treatment 
plant improvements and an additional $10 million for sewer collection 
improvements.
  While Watertown is one of the largest cities in my state, it has a 
population of less than 20,000. The scope of this problem greatly 
exceeds the availability of local resources to resolve it.
  Nonetheless, the community is determined to be part of the solution. 
Watertown Mayor Brenda Barger and other local leaders have already 
pledged $3 million toward this project and will be exploring revenue 
bonds and other long-term debt financing mechanisms to secure 
additional revenues.
  While the community's determination to participate in the solution of 
their wastewater treatment dilemma is commendable, the responsibility 
should not be theirs alone. The commitment that the federal government 
made to this community should not be ignored.
  It bears emphasis that Watertown's decision to install its I/P system 
was based on assurances from EPA that the technology would work. 
Fifteen years ago, EPA provided what amounted to a guarantee of the 
technology.
  Local and Federal officials shared in the genesis of this problem 
and, therefore, it deserves a joint local/federal solution. Last May, I 
wrote the Senate Appropriations Committee to request federal funding to 
help upgrade the Watertown wastewater treatment plant.
  While the federal government could be held accountable for full 
funding of this project, it is worth noting that Watertown recognizes 
its responsibility in this matter and has worked hard to secure 
significant local funding sources.
  It is a reasonable request that this appropriations bill include 
funding for the City of Watertown. The Federal government was part of 
the fateful decision to go the I/P route. Moreover, in past years this 
bill has included funding for communities that installed I/P systems at 
the recommendation of the EPA. Complicity and precedent argued for 
Federal participation in the search for a solution. Absent such 
assistance, Watertown will be unable to solve its wastewater treatment 
facility problems.
  Mr. President, the final version of the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill should include a substantial 
level of federal funding for the replacement of Watertown, South 
Dakota's wastewater treatment facility. I will continue to work with 
the managers of this bill to seek a fair resolution to this issue and 
hope that before this process is completed, a solution can be worked 
out.


                              yellow creek

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a 
short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the 
chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Will the Senator assist me in clarifying an issue in the bill under 
consideration today?
  Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to assist my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. The issue I wish to 
clarify is the Appropriation Committee's intent on the transfer of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Yellow Creek 
facility to the State of Mississippi.
  As the Senator knows, the Federal Government has a long history of 
involvement in Yellow Creek, located near Iuka, Mississippi. The site, 
originally purchased by the Tennessee Valley Authority for use as a 
nuclear energy plant, was subsequently transferred to NASA after the 
nuclear energy plant's cancellation. NASA intended to use Yellow Creek 
to build the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) and, after its 
cancellation, instead committed to use the site to build nozzles for 
the Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM). On May 2, 1995, due to its 
current budgetary constraints, NASA terminated the RSRM nozzle 
production effort at Yellow Creek.
  Would the Senator agree that the bill language included by the 
Appropriations Committee on the transfer of the NASA Yellow Creek 
facility reflects the most recent commitment made by NASA Administrator 
Dan Goldin to the Governor of the State of Mississippi. The major 
investment by the State of Mississippi in facilities and infrastructure 
to support Yellow Creek, in excess of $100 million, is a key factor in 
NASA's agreement to turn the site over to the State of Mississippi.
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator's assertion.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Would the Senator further stipulate that the main 
elements of the agreement reached between NASA and the State of 
Mississippi, which the conferees would expect to be adhered to by both 
parties, are as follows:
  First, the Yellow Creek facility will be turned over to the 
appropriate agency of the State of Mississippi within 30 days of 
enactment of this legislation. All of the NASA property on Yellow Creek 
which the State of Mississippi requires to facilitate the transfer of 
the site transfers with the site to the State, subject to the following 
exceptions anticipated by the conferees:

       Any property assigned to a NASA facility other than Yellow 
     Creek prior to May 2, 1995, but located at Yellow Creek will 
     be returned to its assigned facility;
       Only those contracts for the sale of NASA property at 
     Yellow Creek signed by both parties prior to May 2, 1995 
     shall be executed;
       Those items deemed to be in the ``national security 
     interest'' of the federal government shall be retained by 
     NASA. The national security clause shall be narrowly 
     construed and shall apply only in a limited manner, 
     consistent with established criteria relating to national 
     security interests. This clause shall not be used to 
     circumvent the intent of this legislation, which is to 
     transfer the site and all of its property, except as 
     otherwise noted, to the State of Mississippi.
       Other items of interest to NASA may be retained by NASA 
     with the consent of the State of Mississippi.

  Further, it is the expectation of the Appropriations Committee 
conferees 

[[Page S 14306]]
that all other NASA personal property will transfer to the State of 
Mississippi. The Appropriations Committee also expects facilities on 
the site not subject to the above provisions, such as the environmental 
lab, to be left as is.
  Second, any environmental remediation of Yellow Creek necessary as a 
result of the activities of governmental agencies, such as NASA, or 
quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
will be the responsibility of the federal agency or quasi-federal 
agency, including any successors and interests.
  Third, within 30 days of enactment of this legislation $10 million 
will be transferred from NASA to the appropriate agency of the State of 
Mississippi.
  And lastly, the site's environmental permits will become the property 
of the State of Mississippi. NASA will provide all necessary assistance 
in transferring these permits to the State of Mississippi.
  Mr. BOND. I would agree with the Senator's stipulations.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his willingness to 
address the Yellow Creek transfer in the committee report.


                        drug elimination grants

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to engage Senator Bond in a colloquy. It 
is my understanding that H.R. 2099 contains funding for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development's drug elimination program. I would 
like to know if it is the Senator's understanding that this funding 
will be available to privately owned, assisted housing?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, this funding will be available to public housing and 
privately owned, federally assisted housing.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for clarifying this. Drug 
elimination grants have been enormously helpful in my state in the 
battle against drugs and drug-related crimes at public and assisted 
housing projects. This program is a critically important tool for us to 
maintain this country's multi-year investment in decent, affordable 
housing. I would like to thank Senator Bond for his leadership in 
supporting this successful and worthwhile program.


    the center for international earth science information networks

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies in a brief 
discussion regarding the impact of H.R. 2099 on this year and future 
year's Mission to Plant Earth projects. The Committee Report 
accompanying H.R. 2099 directs a $6 million deletion in the Mission to 
Planet Earth program for the Consortium for International Earth Science 
Information Networks [CIESIN] in Saginaw, Michigan. This center is one 
of NASA's nine Distributed Active Archive Centers [DAACs] supporting 
the Earth Observing System Data and Information System. CIESIN is the 
only one that provides integrated socioeconomic data access for the 
study of the effect society has upon the environment. Because of this 
unique capability, I understand CIESIN fielded more requests for data 
last year than all of the other eight DAACs combined. I also understand 
NASA officials have stated the product provided by CIESIN is vital to 
the Earth Observing System program. In light of these considerations, I 
would ask my distinguished colleague from Missouri why the Committee 
recommends deleting the CIESIN budget request from the 1996 
appropriations?
  Mr. BOND. I understand my colleague's concerns regarding the Mission 
to Planet Earth program, but I wish to assure him the deletion 
recommendation is not targeted against CIESIN as an institution, but 
instead towards ensuring the function of CIESIN is integrated within 
NASA's Earth Observing System program to bring it in line with the 
structure of the other DAACs. That is why the full Appropriations 
Committee changed the Subcommittee recommendation on integrating this 
program into the EOS plan from 1997 to 1996; with that provision, the 
socioeconomic data function can continue uninterrupted if so desired by 
NASA.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that clarification, and wish to 
follow-up regarding how that data will be provided. Given NASA itself 
made the recommendation for CIESIN funding, I believe it is apparent 
this is a valid program given the Committee's recommendation to 
continue significant funding for the Mission to Planet Earth program. 
If NASA wished to bring in an outside contractor to provide this 
socioeconomic data service, would the Committee report language prevent 
CIESIN from bidding upon, and potentially winning such a contract?
  Mr. BOND. Absolutely not. Nothing in the Committee report would 
prevent NASA from participating in any funded activities with CIESIN, 
whether within the Mission to Planet Earth program, or some other 
federal program.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator would be so kind, I would just like to 
wrap up with one more question. Given the House Report on H.R. 2099 
also deletes $6 million for CIESIN, would the Senator from Missouri 
speculate as to whether similar language in a Conference report would 
also allow for CIESIN to receive a NASA contract for these services?
  Mr. BOND. I believe the Conference language likely on this issue, 
given the close similarity between House and Senate positions, would 
allow for CIESIN to compete and win a NASA contract to provide this 
socioeconomic data, or to participate in any other federal program. As 
my distinguished counterpart in the House of Representatives stated on 
the House floor July 27th, ``* * * there is nothing in the [House NASA] 
appropriations bill that prejudices competitive success by CIESIN for 
NASA funding in future requests or for bids of proposal.'' I will 
pursue such an interpretation in Committee and oppose any measures to 
preclude CIESIN from competitively bidding for federal contracts.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee for that explanation and for the kind assistance he has 
provided me and my staff in resolving this issue. Mr. President, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2099, the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies appropriations bill for 1996.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $81 billion and new 
outlays of $46.3 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
  I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill 
that is within the Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. When outlays from 
prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill 
totals $80.8 billion in BA and $92.5 billion in outlays. The total bill 
is under the Senate subcommittee's 602(b) nondefense allocation for 
budget authority by $36 million and under its allocation for outlays by 
$18 million. The subcommittee is also under its defense allocation by 
$18 million in BA and $20 million in outlays.
  Although the bill is under the allocation for 1996, I would like to 
point out the budgetary effect that two of its provisions would have in 
1997. The bill includes a demonstration program to start reducing the 
rental assistance subsidies to multifamily projects that are insured by 
FHA at above-market value, as well as a preservation grant program with 
a minimal paperwork process.
  Both provisions, however, would not take effect until October 1, 
1996--the beginning of fiscal year 1997. Because this provision would 
increase costs in the mandatory FHA program by $280 million in 1997, 
the discretionary cap for that year would be reduced by that amount.
  In addition, because reducing the paperwork for the preservation 
grant program in 1997 is designed to increase the outflow of funds, 
1997 outlays will be $400 million greater than they would be from that 
appropriation under the way the program currently works. This has the 
effect of a delayed obligation that will cost the committee $400 
million against its allocation before it even starts marking up next 
year.
  I ask Members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which 
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge 
the speedy adoption of this bill. 

[[Page S 14307]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       VA-HUD SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL       
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Budget              
                                                   authority    Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................  ..........          78
    H.R. 2099, as reported to the Senate........         153          92
    Scorekeeping adjustment.....................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
        Subtotal defense discretionary..........         153         169
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................  ..........      45,660
    H.R. 2999, as reported to the Senate........      61,464      28,963
    Scorekeeping adjustment.....................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
        Subtotal nondefense discretionary.......      61,464      74,624
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed..................................  ..........         133
    H.R. 2099, as reported to the Senate........      19,362      17,213
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs                            
     with Budget................................  ..........  ..........
        Resolution assumptions..................        -224         341
                                                 -----------------------
        Subtotal mandatory......................      19,138      17,688
                                                 =======================
          Adjusted bill total...................      80,754      92,481
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary.......................         171         189
    Nondefense discretionary....................      61,500      74,642
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..........  ..........  ..........
    Mandatory...................................      19,138      17,688
        Total allocation........................      80,809      92,519
Adjustment bill total compared to Senate                                
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary.......................         -18         -20
    Nondefense discretionary....................         -36         -18
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..........  ..........  ..........
    Mandatory...................................  ..........  ..........
        Total allocation........................         -55         -38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    


  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the appropriations bill before us today 
represents a major step backward for the environment. While less 
extreme than the House-passed measure, it still proposes to cut EPA's 
budget by $1.7 billion--fully 23 percent below the levels enacted in 
fiscal 1995--and contains 11 so-called riders which would significantly 
undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to administer 
and enforce environmental laws and perform its important mission of 
protecting public health and the environment.
  Maryland alone would lose over $14 million in funding needed to 
upgrade outdated sewage treatment facilities--projects which have a 
direct impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, our coastal 
beaches and bays, and local waters. Legislative provisions in the 
underlying measure would prohibit EPA from implementing section 404(c) 
of the Clean Water Act which gives the agency authority to review U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit decisions and provides another 
system of checks and balances in protecting the quality of our Nation's 
waters. In addition, the proposed cut of some $20 million in EPA's 
enforcement and compliance assurance program would severely impact upon 
the agency's ability to inspect industrial and Federal facilities in 
Maryland and prosecute violations.
  Mr. President, this bill unfairly singles out EPA to bear a 
disproportionate share of the deficit reduction burden. It will not 
just decrease the rate of increases, but will severely cut EPA's 
funding. Its riders would undercut a number of our Nation's 
environmental statutes, without adequate hearings, public involvement 
or review. These actions are unjustified and unwarranted and for these 
and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________