[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14337-S14346]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2099) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Sarbanes Amendment No. 2782, to restore homeless assistance 
     funding to fiscal year 1995 levels using excess public 
     housing agency project reserves.
       Rockefeller Amendment No. 2784, 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.
       Rockefeller Amendment No. 2785 (to committee amendment on 
     page 8, lines 9-10), 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 that $100,000.
       Baucus Amendment No. 2786, to provide that any provision 
     that limits implementation or enforcement of any 
     environmental 

[[Page S 14338]]

     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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 4 minutes 
equally divided for debate, and a vote will follow that 4 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2784

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, speaking as a proponent of the 
amendment, this amendment would strike a provision in the bill which 
cuts off disability compensation to certain veterans who are disabled 
by reason of mental problems. It cuts off their savings when they reach 
$25,000. We do that for no other veteran. We do that for nobody else in 
the country, as far as I know.
  The amendment is funded by limiting any tax cut under the budget 
resolution to families earning less than $100,000.
  Madam President, there is no justification whatever for singling out 
mentally disabled people for discriminatory treatment. There is none.
  If these veterans are disabled, we as a nation have said that they 
are entitled to disability compensation--entitled to it. It is in the 
law. We have not said they are entitled to compensation only if they 
are poor. We have not said they are entitled to compensation only if 
they have savings less than $25,000. We have not said they are entitled 
to compensation only if they have no sources of funds from anywhere 
else.
  They are entitled to compensation. We have said that they are 
entitled because of their disability. Are we prepared to say now, for 
some reason, that mentally disabled people are somehow less entitled as 
veterans, solely because they are disabled?
  This Senator is not; hence, my amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
waive the Budget Act and then to strike this provision which 
discriminates against mentally disabled veterans.
  Mr. President, during last evening's debate on my amendment to strike 
the provision from the appropriations bill which provides for a cutoff 
of compensation to mentally disabled veterans when their savings reach 
a certain level, we were operating then under a limited time agreement, 
which I accepted in the interests of moving the progress of the bill. 
However, there were a number of points made during that debate which 
should not go unanswered, so I am making this further statement to 
describe more fully my views on this legislation.
  Mr. President, one point that was made a number of times during the 
debate was that the mentally incompetent veterans we are talking about 
have all of their needs taken care of by VA. I am not certain what 
point was being made, but I think it is vital to note that the 
individuals that are covered by this amendment are not under VA care. 
However their needs are being addressed, it is not a result of VA 
activity except to the extent that the veterans use their compensation 
payments to pay for care.
  Another point that must be addressed relates to the relationship of 
those who might receive some of the veteran's estate at the time of the 
veteran's death. As I noted in my statement last evening, it is 
certainly possible that some remote heirs might benefit from a mentally 
incapacitated veteran's estate. However, the only thing this provision 
ensures is that the veteran's estate will be diminished unless the 
veteran has dependents. There is nothing in the provision which limits 
its effect to noncaring, distant relatives. The existence of a loving, 
caring nondependent child who sees the veteran daily would not be 
sufficient to keep this provision from taking effect. It would be 
triggered in any case in which there are no dependents.
  Mr. President, the suggestion was made that this provision is 
necessary in order to keep remote heirs from inheriting the estates of 
mentally disabled veterans. I note that no evidence was cited to 
support the proposition, nor is there any evidence that I am aware of, 
that would demonstrate that a mentally impaired veteran is any more 
likely to leave an estate to remote heirs than a mentally competent 
one. It is important to highlight that the VA process relating to a 
declaration of incompetency does not mean that a veteran does not have 
the ability to execute a valid will.
  This concern about so-called remote heirs would apply to any disabled 
veteran who dies without a will. Any veteran--mentally disabled or 
otherwise--who is able to execute a will and who does so should not 
have limitations on who can be named as beneficiary under the will, nor 
any restriction on the amount of the estate that can pass under the 
will. If there is a governmental interest in restricting inheritance of 
estates, any part of which is made up of VA compensation--and let me be 
clear, I do not believe that there is--then it must apply equally to a 
disabled veteran who is not mentally incompetent.
  As many of my colleagues know, the original enactment of this 
provision was challenged by the Disabled American Veterans in a lawsuit 
in 1991.
  The Federal court that heard the case--and which declared that 
original enactment unconstitutional--noted that the limitation did not 
affect the payment of compensation to between 95 to 98 percent of the 
disabled veterans who have no dependents. It hardly makes sense or can 
be defended that this small group of mentally disabled veterans should 
be singled out for this treatment.
  Mr. President, the only characteristic that distinguishes the class 
of veterans that is being singled out in this legislation is their 
mental injury or disease. Perhaps some believe that these veterans are 
less likely to object to such governmental intrusion into their lives, 
but that is hardly a basis for this sort of legislation which takes 
away compensation to which the veterans are entitled.
  Mr. President, it is worth noting that about 85 percent of estates 
left by mentally incompetent veterans are inherited by close family 
members. While these individuals may or may not be dependents, that 
should hardly disqualify them from inheriting the veterans' estates. 
Indeed, it is very often these individuals--parents, nondependent 
children, brothers and sisters, other close family members--who have 
made significant personal sacrifices to care for the veteran during the 
veteran's lifetime.
  Mr. President, it should be noted that the estates of mentally 
disabled veterans are frequently made up of funds from sources other 
than VA benefits, and the effect of this provision would be to require 
these veterans to reduce the overall value of their estates in order to 
continue to receive the compensation which is their due.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is this: No matter what arguments are 
put forward in an attempt to justify this provision, in the end it can 
only be seen as what it is--rank discrimination against mentally 
disabled veterans. It is unworthy of the Congress and should be 
rejected.
  Mr. President, I am aware of the two reports--a 1982 GAO report and a 
1988 VA inspector general report--that are cited as the justification 
for this provision. While it may be argued that some support for this 
provision may be found in one or both of these reports, I think that a 
closer examination will show that this reliance is misplaced.
  For example, Mr. President, neither report provided evidence that 
mentally disabled veterans accumulate more assets than other veterans. 
Nor did either report find a basis for distinguishing mentally disabled 
veterans from all other disabled veterans on the issue of the 
disposition of their estates or as to any other element related to 
their VA compensation. In fact, neither report looks at competent 
veterans.
  Both reports assumed, with no basis, that mentally disabled veterans 
do not have wills. This is simply not true.
  Neither report studied mentally competent veterans to learn how they 
dispose of their estates.
  The GAO report looked at a small sample--only four regional offices--
hardly a sufficient basis on which to make so sweeping a change in VA 
compensation policy.
  With respect to the inspector general's report, my colleagues may not 
know that the IG did not recommend that compensation payments to 
mentally incompetent veterans be stopped, but rather recommended that 
the compensation payments be paid into a special trust fund on behalf 
of the veterans.
  Mr. President, in essence, this provision is establishing a means 
test for 

[[Page S 14339]]
one very small group of veterans, and doing so on a very scant record. 
I know that both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees 
supported this provision in OBRA 90. We made a mistake then, and 
nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in the district court 
opinion in the suit brought by DAV.
  Our committee could have repeated the mistake in this Congress as we 
worked to meet our reconciliation mandate. We did not. The Senate 
should not do so either.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of the 
Rockefeller amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its 
adoption. This is a simple amendment, and its passage will send an 
important message to America's veterans that we will not forget our 
obligations to them.
  Veteran's medical care accounts for nearly half of the budget of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. It provides for the care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, and 
outpatient facilities. When you walk down the halls VA hospitals like 
the one in White River Junction, VT, you see the proud faces and 
shattered bodies of men who have given more to their country than just 
lip-service and taxes. I say men because the overwhelming majority of 
these veterans are men, although the number of women veterans is 
rising.
  Mr. President, if there is one area where everyone can agree that the 
Federal Government has a compelling role, it is in the care of our 
Nation's service disabled and indigent veterans. It is the Federal 
Government which raises armies and the Federal Government which sends 
our young people off to war. It is the Federal Government which is 
obligated to take care of veterans after the shooting stops.
  The appropriations bill before us cuts the VA medical care account 
$511 million below the President's request. No one can stand in front 
of this body and say that these cuts are not going to affect veterans, 
because the fact is that they will. They will make a difference in the 
services provided at White River Junction and at VA hospitals across 
the country. This amendment restores the medical care fund back to the 
President's request, and uses the funds from Republican tax cuts to pay 
for it.
  Everyone in this body is familiar with the $245 billion in tax cuts 
that have been proposed by the Republican leadership. I have been 
against these cuts from the start, because more than half of the 
benefits go toward those who make more than $100,000 a year. Let me 
tell you, I do not hear from too many Vermonters making that much money 
that say they need a tax cut. I would consider supporting tax cuts that 
target the lower and middle class, but not this one. By voting for this 
amendment, we are putting our spending priorities back where they 
belong, and that is on providing services for the veterans who have 
earned them.
  I think more people around the Senate should heed the words of 
Abraham Lincoln, which are chiseled on a plaque at the Veterans 
Administration building a few blocks from here. These words ring as 
true today as they did in the aftermath of the bloody Civil War: ``To 
care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his 
orphan.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important 
amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am very proud to be an original 
cosponsor, I say to my colleagues, of both of these amendments. There 
is, I think, a very, very direct question for each Senator to answer. 
In exchange for agreeing not to have any tax giveaways for individuals, 
families with incomes under $100,000 a year, we will make sure that we 
do not put into effect an egregious practice of mean testing 
compensation for veterans that are struggling with mental illness, 
service-connected.
  As the Secretary has said, Jesse Brown, I think one of the best 
Secretaries we have, the only difference between veterans that are 
mentally incapacitated and physically is those that are mentally quite 
often cannot speak for themselves. This would be a terrible and cruel 
thing if we now have this unequal treatment.
  Finally, Madam President, to be able to restore $511 million so we 
keep a quality of inpatient and outpatient care, that is what this is 
about; not the tax giveaways for those with high incomes and a 
commitment to veterans.
  These are two extremely important amendments that represent a litmus 
test for all of us.
  Madam 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.
  Madam 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: First, equitable; second, 
reasonable; and third, 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.
  Madam President, before I conclude I would like to discuss each of 
the amendments. One of the amendments 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 facilites 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 do 
not 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.
  Madam 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 

[[Page S 14340]]
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 the other Rockefeller amendment, 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 who have a mental condition as a result of 
combat fatigue, is that the latter group cannot 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 cannot 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 the Rockefeller amendment on this subject.
  Finally, Madam President, I am very proud to be a Member of the 
Senate, the oldest democratically elected deliberative body in the 
world. But I am sure the last thing any of you would want is for this 
great deliberative body to merely rubber stamp 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 
have 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. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, thank you very much.
  We should be clear about a couple of things. The money is not 
necessary to take care of incompetent veterans. These veterans are 
being taken care of through the Veterans Administration system.
  They can keep up to $25,000 of their estate, but beyond that we are 
saying, as the House did, that we should not continue to build up their 
estate. These are people that do not have a spouse. They do not have a 
dependent child or dependent parent. This money simply goes to 
nondependent heirs when these incompetent veterans die.
  We had to make tough choices in putting this bill together because of 
the limits of funds. Madam President, $170 million that would have gone 
into the estates of these veterans goes to veterans' medical care.
  Now, the solution offered by my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia is to rely on a phony offset. Everybody in this Senate knows 
that there is no tax cut in this budget. He proposes to offset it 
against a tax cut. It is not there.
  What this budget waiver does is ask our colleagues to waive the 
Budget Act, to give up on balancing the budget, to forget about our 
promise to the American people to end the deficit in the year 2002.
  This is the ultimate budget buster. This is where the opponents of 
balancing the budget start the effort to unravel the budget agreement. 
It is a typical liberal solution--we will not make choices. If they 
were serious about getting this money back for these veterans, they 
would have offered a real offset and made choices as we have to do in 
the appropriations process.
  They did not. They said, ``Let's bust the budget. Let's have the 
ultimate estate builder plan, putting money into the veterans' 
estates,'' not to go to their heirs, but putting it on the credit cards 
of our children and grandchildren.
  I urge my colleagues not to waive the Budget Act on this matter.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be included 
as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The pending question is 
on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act for the consideration 
of amendment No. 2784, offered by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted, yeas 47, nays 53 , as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 465 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed 
to. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  
[[Page S 14341]]

  Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining stacked votes be 
reduced to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2785

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
minutes equally divided on the pending question.
  The pending question is another motion to waive the Budget Act, 
amendment No. 2785, offered by the Senator from West Virginia. The 
Senator will have 2 minutes and the Senator from Missouri will have 2 
minutes. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized as soon as the 
Senate comes to order.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  This amendment would provide funding for veterans' health care at the 
level requested by the President, which is $16.96 billion, and would 
offset the $511 million increase that that represents by limiting any 
tax cut under the budget resolution to families that earn less than 
$100,000.
  Again, I think this choice is a simple one. The President simply 
wanted to keep the funding for veterans' health care services--the 
people whom we have said have a special entitlement to health care 
services--consistent with inflation. And it is not even health care 
inflation. It is regular inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Health care 
inflation is almost double that.
  And so the President's request is below what is truly needed. We are 
already reducing veterans' health care, but the Senate has reduced it 
way, way below, and the result will be that we will close some veterans 
hospitals, that we will deny eligible veterans both inpatient and 
outpatient care, well over 100,000 of them; and interestingly and 
importantly, in an organization, that is fighting to hold on to its 
best health care people, we will lose 6,500 Veterans Affairs' health 
care professionals. I think this is an unsustainable proposition, and I 
think the President sought only a modest increase. It was not even an 
inflationary increase in the real terms of health care.
  I hope that the motion to waive the Budget Act will be sustained, and 
I request the yeas and the nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
Veterans' Committee, the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I chair the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. It is always remarkable to have to come here to the floor 
and get into a debate that somehow reflects that we do not take care of 
our veterans in America.
  When I came to this committee, we were giving veterans $20 billion. 
In this proposal, it is now close to $40 billion. Everything we have 
done with veterans health care has gone up. We have more nurses; we 
have more doctors. Remember this figure if you will, please. Madam 
President, 90 percent of the health care goes to non-service-connected 
disability--90 percent non-service-connected disability--not service-
connected disability. This is a serious issue. If anyone can believe we 
do not take care of the veterans of the United States, please drop by 
my office. The occupancy rates at the hospitals are going down. The 
population is going down and the budget is going up, just as it should 
be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. So veterans are well taken care of. This is an assault 
on the budget process.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, only inside the Beltway would a $285 
million increase in veterans medical care be attacked as a cut. In a 
very difficult time we allocated $285 million more for veterans medical 
care to assure that they can provide the care that is needed for 
veterans.
  To say that this is being offset by a tax cut is more phony baloney. 
It is an effort to break the budget agreement. We had to make choices. 
If the proponents were serious about increasing money even more than we 
have for veterans medical care, they would have come up with a real 
offset.
  Be clear about it: A vote to waive the Budget Act does not improve 
veterans health care; it merely busts the budget agreement and puts a 
greater deficit on the American economy and a greater burden on our 
children and our grandchildren who will have to bear the expense.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 49.

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 466 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this the vote, the ayes are 51, the nays 
are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is 
rejected. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2786

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 2786, 
offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus]. There are 4 minutes 
for debate to be equally divided.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It provides 
that no rider to this appropriations bill would take effect if it would 
weaken protection of human health and the environment. It is designed 
to send a strong message, particularly to the House, that we should not 
use appropriations bills for a back-door attack on environmental 
protection.
  Last night, Senator Bond argued that the bill gives unfettered 
discretion to EPA and might even be unconstitutional. I might say to my 
colleagues, I checked with the Justice Department. The Justice 
Department has reviewed the amendment and concluded that the amendment 
is constitutional. So that is not a problem.
  It is also aimed only at a set of specific rifle-shot riders, and if 
the administrator, under the amendment, invalidates a particular rider, 
the administrator would be fully bound by all of the terms and 
conditions of the underlying law.
  Let me remind everyone why this amendment is necessary. We need to 
reform our environmental laws, to make them not only strong but smart. 
But the appropriations bill, and particularly the House, is not 
environmental reform. It contains riders that roll back, eliminate 
environmental laws. For example, it eliminates the 

[[Page S 14342]]
Great Lakes initiative; it eliminates rules for toxic air emissions 
from hazardous waste incinerators and refineries; it eliminates 
enforcement of the wetlands program. In the Environment & Public Works 
Committee, we are dealing with the wetlands program, working to reform 
it. This rider eliminates it. It eliminates rules that control 
discharge of raw sewage into public waters. The list of riders goes on.
  The Senate bill takes a much more moderate approach, and I compliment 
the Senator from Missouri for doing so. But we have to send a strong 
message to the conferees: We should not load up this bill with riders 
that would threaten the health and quality of American families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I oppose the 
motion to table.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murray and 
Wellstone be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the level of funding for EPA and the 
legislative riders contained in this bill mean one thing for the 
citizens of our Nation: a lower quality of life. To a large degree, the 
quality of our lives depends on the integrity of our environment; the 
quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we farm 
and live on. For the last 25 years EPA has set out to improve and 
guarantee the quality of life for all Americans by cleaning up our air, 
water, and soil and keeping them clean. But with inadequate funding and 
congressionally mandated caveats and barriers, our people and our 
environment will no longer be adequately protected.
  We all need water to live. We are, in fact, 60 percent water 
ourselves. Clean water is essential to our survival. But riders in this 
bill would prevent EPA from protecting Americans from drinking water 
contaminants that are known to be harmful. Because of this bill, the 
public will continue to be exposed to contaminants like arsenic, radon, 
and the microbe cryptosporidium.
  Arsenic is a known carcinogen. The current arsenic rule, implemented 
in 1942, poses a 1 in 50 cancer risk--10,000 times worse than is 
generally considered acceptable. By preventing EPA from issuing a final 
arsenic rule, this bill will allow over 30 million Americans to 
continue to drink arsenic-laced drinking water every day.
  The same is true of radon. Drinking water containing radioactive 
radon is known to cause cancer. Controlling radon in drinking water 
will prevent hundreds of cancers. Over 40 million people will continue 
to drink radon-contaminated water unless EPA is allowed to act.
  In 1994, a cryptosporidium outbreak in a contaminated well in Walla 
Walla, WA, sickened or hospitalized dozens of people. A groundwater 
disinfection rule would likely have prevented this outbreak. But this 
bill would prohibit EPA from requiring any groundwater to be treated to 
kill parasites.
  We also need clean air to breathe. But this bill requires EPA to 
reevaluate the standards it has imposed on the oil refinery industry to 
utilize the Most Available Control Technology [MACT] to control 
emissions from valves and pumps. These leaks account for as much as 
one-half of total refinery emissions. Industry requested this rider 
because they believe that emissions have been overestimated. However, 
the estimated emissions of toxic pollutants from a medium-sized 
refinery are 240 tons per year, almost 10 times greater than the 
minimum statutory definition of a ``major source'' of toxic air 
pollution subject to the same control measures. It seems unlikely that 
EPA has made such a tremendous overestimation of emissions.
  Finally, Mr. President, the report accompanying this bill contains a 
provision that will certainly delay cleanup of a Superfund landfill in 
my State of Washington. This landfill is located on the Tulalip Indian 
Reservation in an estuary of Puget Sound and is disgorging contaminants 
directly into the sound. The language in this report directs EPA to do 
more studies and engage in more discussion in the hopes the agency will 
not implement its presumptive remedy of capping the site. While I agree 
that the cost to these powerful PRP's might be high, the cost to the 
people who live around the sound, or eat fish from the sound, or 
recreate in the Sound is much higher. I have tried to get the committee 
or the provision's sponsor to insert language that forced the PRP's and 
EPA to act quickly to stop this seeping mess, but I was not entirely 
successful. The sponsor promises this will not delay cleanup and that 
these studies and discussions will be completed within fiscal year 
1996. I, and the people who want a clean Puget Sound, can only hope 
that is the case.
  Mr. President, we must remain committed to improving and protecting 
the quality of life for the citizens of our Nation. This means 
protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to 
increase funding for EPA and to strip the legislative riders from this 
bill.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Baucus' amendment because it assures that no provision in the House or 
the Senate appropriations bills governing EPA's budget will harm public 
health or the environment.
  The No. 1 responsibility we have, and what people demand from us, is 
to protect the public we serve from harm. This means guarding our 
national security with a strong defense, and keeping our streets safe 
from crime. But that also means protecting people from breathing 
polluted air, from drinking poisonous water, and from eating 
contaminated food--in other words, protecting people from harms from 
which they cannot protect themselves.
  We often fail to think of these problems in terms of being a threat 
to our safety and well-being, primarily because the Federal Government 
has done such a good job in guaranteeing that we have clean air and 
clean water and edible food. One of the great ironies here is that some 
of the riders in the appropriations bills this Congress may succeed in 
attempts to eviscerate our key environmental laws precisely because we 
have succeeded in diminishing environmental dangers from every day 
life.
  Make no mistake, however, the riders particularly in the House bill 
will, if they find their way into law, quickly remind people of the 
very real dangers we have been fighting against for the last 
generation. The riders would severely limit the agency's ability to 
ensure that our water is safe, our food is safe, and our air is clean.
  What makes these riders particularly outrageous is that they are 
being done without any opportunity for the public to comment on what 
would be a revolutionary shift in our national policies. This is 
essentially the equivalent of tacking on a provision legalizing 
narcotics in America to the FBI's appropriation.
  The riders relating to the Clean Water Act would quite simply end 
enforcement and implementation of the Clean Water Act. The riders would 
mean widespread degradation of the water quality in Long Island Sound. 
It would threaten the sound's beaches and its enormous commercial 
shellfish industry, which has the top oyster harvest in the Nation. In 
fact, Long Island Sound supports $5 billion a year in water-quality 
dependent uses. These economic benefits are due in large part to the 
improvement in water quality brought about by the Clean Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act riders would prevent enforcement of controls for 
combined sewer overflows and practices to reduce stormwater pollution. 
These programs were designed to keep raw sewage off beaches and out of 
waterways and reduce dirty runoff from streets and farms. They are 
critical to the cleanup and long-term health of Long Island Sound. Last 
year alone Connecticut had 162 beach closings from too high a count of 
disease-causing bacteria. These bacteria come from raw untreated sewage 
that still flows from sewerage treatment systems in Connecticut and New 
York that are old and being stressed from a growing population in 
coastal areas. Under the House bill, raw sewage would continue to spill 
into waters from outdated or inadequate sewage treatment and collection 
systems. Stormwater controls would be eliminated from many urban areas. 
The result would be widespread degradation of water quality, which 
would threaten the State's commercial fishing and shellfishing 
industry. As 

[[Page S 14343]]
the Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Sidney 
Holbrook, has written about the House bill: ``If enacted in its current 
form, the bill would adversely impact important water quality and 
public health initiatives.''
  EPA does much more than enforce the law. EPA provides guidance and 
funding so that States and localities can upgrade and repair their 
aging sewerage systems. Language in the House bill would completely 
stop EPA from issuing stormwater permits, providing technical 
assistance and outreach, and enforcing against the most serious 
overflow problems.
  Let me briefly discuss my concerns with some of the other riders.
  One rider would prevent the EPA from enforcing its rule limiting 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from refineries. This rule, which 
has just gone final, would reduce toxic emissions from refinery 
facilities by almost 60 percent--approximately 53,400 tons per year of 
toxic emissions and 277,000 tons per year of emissions of volatile 
organic compounds, the major contributor to smog. The health impacts of 
hazardous air pollutants include potential respiratory, reproductive, 
and neurotoxic effects.
  The rule simply requires that petroleum refineries seal their storage 
tanks, control process vents, and detect and seal equipment leaks. 
About 50 percent of the 165 refining facilities in this country are 
already meeting or almost meeting the rule's requirements. This rule 
levels the playing field and provides minimum protections to all 
communities living in proximity to a petroleum refinery. EPA has made 
substantial changes from its proposed rule based on the comments of 
industry, resulting in much greater flexibility. Even the American 
Petroleum Industry by a vote of l7 to 3 supports the rule. That this 
rule cannot be enforced by EPA is simply a delay tactic by a small 
group of refineries that do not want to comply with standard industry 
practices.
  Another rider on the House side would limit EPA's ability to gather 
data under the toxic release inventory that would give the public a 
better understanding of toxic chemicals released into their environment 
and where they work.
  The Toxic Release Program is a non-regulatory, noncommand, and 
control program. It is essentially a market-based program--providing 
information to the public so that it can make informed choices and 
enter constructive dialog with facilities in their communities.
  I have just mentioned a few riders in my comments--there are more 
than 25 others that I didn't mention but all affect EPA's duties. The 
Baucus amendment will assure that none of the appropriations riders 
will endanger current health and environmental protections that we rely 
upon and expect and which improve our quality of life.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, last night I said that this amendment was 
breathtaking. First, I extend my sincere thanks to the kind words that 
the Senator from Montana has made about the measures we put in our 
bill. He addressed his arguments against the so-called legislative 
riders in the House bill. Regardless of how good or bad they are, how 
good or bad ours are, his solution is to give the EPA administrator 
unfettered authority to disregard a law passed by the Congress and 
signed by the President.
  He claims that the Justice Department advised him it is not 
unconstitutional. I say look at the Chadha decision, and it is clearly 
unconstitutional. That is not the question here. The courts would have 
to decide it. But I do not want to see this body going on record as 
giving an unelected bureaucrat the authority to disregard a law passed 
by Congress and signed by the President. This is truly outstanding. So 
many people in Washington talk about Congress' solutions being ``neat, 
simple and wrong.'' Well, this goes one step further; it is neat, 
simple, and unconstitutional.

  Let me, for the benefit of my colleagues, read this to you:

       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.

  That, to me, gives the EPA Administrator the power to veto, ignore, 
or totally disregard a law. I am not going to move to table this. I 
want my colleagues to have the pleasure of voting up or down on the 
simple proposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to table has already been made.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I want my colleagues to have the pleasure of voting yes or 
no on this simple proposition: Do you want the unelected Administrator 
of the EPA to be able to change laws passed by Congress and signed by 
the President?
  I certainly do not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 467 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 2786) was rejected.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2782

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment numbered 2782 
of the Senator from Maryland; 10 minutes will be equally divided, and 
the Senator from Maryland will be recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, could I inquire of the parliamentary 
situation, the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes for debate before the 
vote, 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 5 on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I implore my colleagues to support this amendment on 
the homeless. The committee has cut the money for homeless assistance 
by 32 percent from last year's level. In fact, the committee level is 
below the level of the year before last. The House has cut homeless 
assistance by 40 percent. If we fail to adopt this amendment, our 
conferees will be working with a figure of 32 percent below last year--
a cut of $360 million. The House has a cut of $444 million below last 
year. If we pass this amendment, we will give our conferees an 
opportunity in conference to do something about the homeless.
  We are making progress in our fight against homelessness and this 
amendment will advance that cause. This proposal would bring homeless 
funding 

[[Page S 14344]]
back to last year's level--$1.1 billion. The Appropriations Committee 
said in its report that ``The committee is worried that the block grant 
approach with funds less than $1 billion may disadvantage some areas 
with significant homeless populations and some homeless providers.'' 
This amendment will bring homeless funding back above the $1 billion 
level so we can move to a formula grant. A formula grant will make it 
possible for the States, the localities, the churches, the social 
service agencies, the civic organizations, and the nonprofit groups to 
work collectively in a more constructive and positive fashion to 
resolve the problem of the homeless.
  The offset for this amendment comes out of the funds for the renewal 
of expiring section 8 contracts. The reduction in renewal resources is 
made possible by a provision in this amendment that allows the 
Secretary to require housing agencies to use section 8 reserves to 
renew their expiring contracts. The HUD Secretary has written to us 
that this offset would not create a problem in renewing expiring 
contracts. He writes, ``Funding for renewal of expiring contracts can 
be reduced without any impact on existing recipients.''
  The act that encompasses our homeless assistance programs is named 
after Stewart McKinney--the distinguished former Republican Congressman 
from Connecticut. Ever since Congressman McKinney's efforts to develop 
the homeless assistance programs, Federal policies for homeless 
assistance have enjoyed bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to 
continue this bipartisan approach here today.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ remaining of the 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 30 seconds, if the Chair will remind me.
  Mrs. Lucie McKinney--the widow of the very distinguished former 
Republican Congressman--wrote an article a couple of weeks ago about 
the programs that help the homeless. Let me just quote the end of that 
article. She wrote:

       We do know how to end homelessness. While the cure is not 
     cost-free, it costs a whole lot less than not facing and 
     solving the problem. Saving lives and saving money--how can 
     that be bad?

  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining. The 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes and ask to be 
advised when that 2 minutes runs.
  Mr. President, this amendment proposes to increase funding for 
homeless activities by $360 million, certainly a noble objective. But 
the budgetary offset comes from the appropriations for renewal of 
section 8 rental subsidy contracts.
  There is no dispute that more homeless assistance funding could be 
used. The committee looked everywhere it could to find this money, to 
balance the needs of the homeless with those who are now getting 
existing low-income housing assistance. Despite severe budgetary 
constraints, the committee increased House-passed homeless funding by 
$84 million. When combined with amounts released by HUD, homeless 
activities in fiscal year 1996 should be maintained at current rates.
  We provided in the report, because of the tightness of funds, HUD is 
``expected to work through negotiated rulemaking and include 
recommendations made by States and localities as well as homeless 
assistance providers.''
  I find it startling that the Secretary of HUD is now saying he can do 
without this $360 million. They originally requested $5.8 billion for 
section 8 renewals. At my request, they reviewed it and came down to 
$4.8 billion for their request. We were only able to provide them $4.3 
billion. And the very persuasive Senator from Maryland is able to 
convince the Secretary he can take less than $4 billion?
  Make no mistake, these section 8 renewals are renewals that can be 
used for the elderly, the disabled, people with AIDS and others needing 
homeless assistance. Unfortunately, this is a shell game. It may make 
``letters to the editor'' writers feel better, but it is a phony effort 
to get money where we cannot take it--from those who are without funds 
for their housing.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as I mentioned yesterday, I took a little 
time on Sunday to reread Will Durant's book, ``The Lessons of 
History.'' He said, through the centuries nations have this struggle 
between those who are more fortunate and those who are less fortunate. 
That is what this is all about.
  The less fortunate, those who are homeless, we have them on the 
streets like we did not have when I was a young man and when the 
Presiding Officer was young. It is going to get worse if we do not deal 
with it. This is a cutback of 32 percent and is imprudent and unwise.
  I support the Sarbanes amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in closing, let me just underscore that 
I would prefer that we not take the money out of the section 8 
reserves. But we are forced by the budget rules to find an offset. The 
question before us here is, amongst the priorities, which activities 
ought to come first? The homeless are at the very bottom of the scale. 
They are out on the street. We have been trying to put together an 
infrastructure to try to deal with their needs and we are having some 
success across the country. Each of you know that in your local 
communities you have church groups, you have civic organizations, you 
have community groups who are marshaling their resources to try to deal 
with the needs of the homeless. They need this Federal support.
  The Appropriations Committee has written that the homeless assistance 
programs would have to get back above $1 billion in order to justify a 
formula approach. In the Banking Committee last year, we included a 
formula approach to homeless assistance that was supported unanimously 
in the committee. That is where we want to get. The funding in this 
amendment gives us a chance to get there.
  The funding in this amendment also gives the chairman of the 
committee something to work with in the conference. The House is 40 
percent below last year's figure. The current Senate figure represents 
a 32-percent cut. If the Senate goes to conference on that basis, you 
know the final outcome is going to be somewhere in between. If the 
Senate bill is allowed to stand, you are going to have a cut of 35 to 
40 percent in the funding for the homeless when this bill comes back 
from conference. The amendment before you today will enable the 
chairman to work in conference in order to provide adequate resources 
to deal with this pressing national issue.
  I am simply saying to my colleagues, support this amendment: Vote to 
shift some of this money from section 8 reserves to the homeless 
programs. I am not happy with doing it, but we think we can handle the 
section 8 renewal needs out of existing resources and the Secretary has 
indicated as much in his letter to us. The additional resources for the 
homeless in this amendment will give us a chance to put a new approach 
into effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, this does not solve the 
problem. It takes money from those who depend upon section 8 vouchers 
or certificates. It is saying to all those on section 8--elderly, 
disabled, people with AIDS--that we are taking $360 million away from 
the pool for renewing these contracts, and there will be people who are 
now dependent upon section 8 housing who could be thrown out when their 
contracts expire.
  The Secretary, Secretary Cisneros, said after he revised it, we need 
$4.8 billion. We were only able in this tight budget time to give him 
$4.3 billion. I do not believe him when he says that he can make this 
work with less than $4 billion. I think that is an accommodation.
  We all would like to accommodate everything. There is no money there. 
Unfortunately, this is a smoke and mirrors game. The amendment 
specifically says that notwithstanding certain provisions of this act, 
the $360 million `` * * * shall not become available for obligation 
until September 30, 1996, 

[[Page S 14345]]
and shall remain available until expended.''
  What they are saying is, we are taking money away from reserves in 
1996 to throw it into spending in 1997, in hopes that it will look 
better in 1996. We are in danger of taking away the section 8 
assistance for people who need it, to make them homeless, to increase 
the need for the homeless assistance.
  I share the concern of the Senator from Maryland and the others for 
the homeless.
  We have worked what I believe is a reasonable compromise. We need to 
stay with this plan to provide section 8 assistance for those who are 
now depending upon the Federal Government for their housing.
  This is a smoke and mirrors effort that unfortunately does not 
improve and might endanger the people that we are trying to help.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold the tabling 
motion as he did on the Baucus amendment, and allow an up-or-down vote?
  Mr. BOND. I believe we need to table this one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Missouri to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 468 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2782) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire of the managers 
when they believe we may be able to complete action on this bill?
  It is my understanding it is going to be vetoed, but there are still 
a lot of amendments on the other side. I am not certain how many 
require rollcalls. If we are going to complete action on two additional 
bills, Labor-HHS and State-Justice-Commerce, and this is our third day 
on this bill, I do not know how we can do two others in 2 days. So if 
anybody knows, when might we complete action on this bill? Plus we will 
recess the Senate so we will be able to have meetings of the Finance 
Committee, so we probably will not do anything after this bill the rest 
of the day.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. If I might respond, we have been working out a number of 
these amendments. I think we are very close to agreement on a number of 
them. Some of them clearly are going to require votes. We are ready to 
line up two, one with an hour time agreement, one with a 45-minute time 
agreement. Then I cannot say on this side that there are any more of 
our amendments that should require a vote. I think they can be accepted 
or would be included in a--excuse me, there is one Senator Chafee is 
going to offer, proposes to offer about the brown fields.
  I hope that will be agreed upon. That might require a vote. It should 
be a short time limit. I would be interested on the minority side in 
what my colleague sees as the opportunities there.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, responding to the Republican leader's 
desire to move this bill, we have our next two amendments lined up, the 
Lautenberg amendment and the Feingold amendment. When we asked for the 
time agreement, that is maximum. Both men are here to offer their 
amendments.
  We intend to move very expeditiously. I recommend that after those 
two amendments, those votes be stacked. I truly believe we can do a lot 
of clear out and clean up. I am anticipating that either amendments 
will be worked out or that they will be withdrawn so they could be 
offered on other bills. I cannot guarantee that. We are working down 
our list, as well.
  So my recommendation is Lautenberg, Feingold, stacked votes; see kind 
of where we are, and then we will move right along.
  Mr. DOLE. We have one other amendment, the Simon-Moseley-Braun 
amendment. Is that being worked out?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we are working out an agreement that 
that one can be accepted. That is on the transfer of fair housing. I 
think so long as we can guarantee that the transfer will occur--we do 
not want to disrupt operations. Our staff is working on it, and I hope 
we are close to agreement on it. I think we share the same goals. I 
just want to make sure that the language in the amendment gets us 
there.
  Mr. DOLE. So just let us see--11, 12, 1. Maybe we can complete action 
on this bill by 2 p.m.?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I think the prickly point here is what Senator Bumpers 
chooses to do on the NASA-Russian reactor sale. I think that is a 
prickly pear.
  Mr. DOLE. That could take some time, then.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I think we need to confer with Senator Bumpers as to 
what his disposition is. We will do this during the debate, Mr. Leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I am still trying to work it out; it may not be able to 
happen. But if we could do all these appropriations bills and the CR, 
then we would not be in session next week. But we also have to complete 
action in the different committees on reconciliation this week. And I 
understand there has been an objection to the Finance Committee 
meeting. The Democratic leader has already indicated this to me. I will 
make the request, so whoever wishes to object can object at this time, 
because it is very important that that committee meet. And if we have 
an objection, then when we finish this bill, the Senate will be in 
recess. Then we will meet until we complete action on that, and then 
come back to the additional appropriations bills. If we do not finish 
them this week, we will finish them next week.


         OBJECTION TO PERMISSION FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE TO MEET

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand the objector is on the floor. I 
ask consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet 
Wednesday, September 27, 1995, to conduct the markup of spending 
recommendations for the budget reconciliation legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have consulted with a number of my colleagues, some of 
whom are on the floor, and there is a concern on this side that we have 
not had an opportunity to have some hearings and discuss this matter in 
greater detail. The hope was that over the course of whatever period of 
time we will have more of an opportunity to look at it. As a result of 
that concern, then we will object at this time.

[[Page S 14346]]

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do understand that the Democratic leader 
has consented to six other committees to meet during today's session of 
the Senate.
  I have six unanimous-consent requests for committees to meet during 
today's session of the Senate. They all have the approval of the 
Democratic leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to en bloc, and 
that each request be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request?
  Mr. DOLE. That does not include Finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the requests is printed in today's Record under 
``Authority for Committees to Meet.'')
  Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleagues and the managers.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg].
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a moment? 
Since I was a part of this objection with the minority leader, I wanted 
to take 2 minutes, if that would be all right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the minority leader and I have issued 
an objection to the Finance Committee meeting. The reason for that, Mr. 
President, is that I just think that what is going on right now here is 
a rush to foolishness.
  Mr. President, in my State of Minnesota, we just found out a few days 
ago that as opposed to $2.5 billion in Medicaid cuts, we were going to 
be seeing $3.5 billion in Medicaid cuts. It was just yesterday that we 
finally got the specifics of what is going to happen in Medicare. And I 
just will tell you, Mr. President, that I am pleased to be a part of 
this with the minority leader because when I was home in Minnesota, I 
found that it is not that people are opposed to change, but people have 
this sense that there is this fast track to recklessness here, that we 
are not carefully evaluating what the impact is going to be on people.
  What people in Minnesota are saying is, what is the rush? You all do 
the work you are supposed to do. How can a Finance Committee today go 
ahead without any public hearings on these filed proposals, pass it out 
of the Finance Committee, and then put it into a reconciliation process 
where we have limited debate?
  Mr. President, it seems to me that there is no more precious 
commodity than health care and the health care of the people we 
represent. This objection, with the minority leader, is an objection to 
a process. And this process right now I think is really way off course.
  We have no business--the Finance Committee should not pass out 
proposals without any public hearing, without having experts come in. 
We have not done that at all. We should not be doing that. Mr. 
President, this is supposed to be a deliberative body and it is 
supposed to be a representative democracy. We are supposed to be 
careful about the impact of what we do on the lives of people we 
represent. I would just say that I am very proud to be a part of this 
objection because somebody, somewhere, sometime has to say to people in 
the country that these changes are getting ramrodded through the 
Senate. That is what is going on here. The proposal came out yesterday, 
I say to my colleague from Maryland.
  I will tell you, as you look at these specific proposals, I can tell 
you as a Senator from Minnesota that I know there is going to be a lot 
of pain in my State. I believe, Mr. President, that the Finance 
Committee needs to have the public hearing and I believe that Senators 
need to be back in their States now that we have specific proposals, 
and we need to be talking to the people who are affected by this.
  Let us not be afraid of the people we represent. Let us let the 
people in the country take a look at what we are doing. What this 
effort is, is an effort to say ``no'' to this rush to recklessness, 
``no'' to this fast track to foolishness. The committee ought to have a 
public hearing. I think it is unacceptable.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Do I have the floor?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from New Jersey----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say to my colleague from New Jersey, may I have 
1 more minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota no longer has the 
floor. The Senator only yielded for a question.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought the time the Senator asked for would be 
considerably shorter, and I ask that we have a chance to move.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Enough has been said. People have heard it.

                          ____________________