[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14366-S14377]
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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14367]]



                           Amendment No. 2792

   (Purpose: To make funds available to support continuation of the 
            Superfund Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative)

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] for himself and 
     Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2792.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 142, line 20, after the period, insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That the Administrator shall 
     continue funding the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment 
     Initiative from available funds at a level necessary to 
     complete the award of 50 cumulative Brownfield Pilots planned 
     for award by the end of FY96 and carry out other elements of 
     the Brownfields Action Agenda in order to facilitate economic 
     redevelopment at Brownfields sites.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Lieberman to preserve a very small but important 
part of the Superfund Program, EPA's brownfields economic redevelopment 
initiative. We all know what brownfields are--they are the abandoned 
plant that might be contaminated, or might not be. No one knows exactly 
what the problems at these sites are, so people are afraid to invest in 
them or redevelop them, people are afraid of liability. So rather using 
old industrial sites, new development flees the city and tears up our 
open space, greenfields. In the meantime, these old sites remain a 
blight and a big hole in local tax bases.
  EPA's brownfields economic redevelopment initiative--its brownfields 
program--is a Superfund success story. The brownfields initiative is a 
cost-effective means of ameliorating some of these unintended 
consequences of Superfund, especially in economically depressed urban 
areas. Real risk reduction is achieved when brownfields sites are 
cleaned up, and it is private investment money that does most of the 
work. The small amount of money EPA allocates to brownfields is highly 
leveraged.
  This effort includes 50 planned pilot projects across the Nation to 
demonstrate that we can reuse existing contaminated sites for economic 
development instead of undeveloped clean sites. Each of these pilot 
projects are awarded up to $200,000 over 2 years. These funds are used 
to help with the up-front investigations and evaluation that must take 
place before deciding on how best to clean a site.
  To date, EPA has awarded about 18 out of 50 planned grants. I think 
it's vitally important that EPA's brownfields effort continue as a high 
priority, and the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that this 
happens.
  What is the consequence if we fail to encourage the private sector to 
take on brownfields sites? Often, the sites remain abandoned or 
orphan--as many are--they may migrate onto the NPL or State lists for 
publicly funded cleanup. The Superfund bill Senator Smith is working to 
bring forward in the next few weeks will contain provisions to make 
brownfields redevelopment easier.
  This is a good way to spend some of the limited Superfund dollars 
available this year. We get real risk reduction by examining and 
evaluating these sites. We are learning valuable lessons at each of the 
pilots on how to create public and private partnerships between the 
Federal Government, State and local government, and the private sector 
to get abandoned urban eyesores back on the tax roles, producing jobs 
in cities like Providence. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment to preserve one of the best things EPA has done on Superfund 
in the past several years.
  I commend Senator Bond, a member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee as well as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and 
the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Superfund, for 
his interest in Superfund and his commitment to helping us move forward 
with Superfund reform this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from Rhode 
Island has offered this amendment. I am very glad he called it to our 
attention. We have, in St. Louis, MO, a significant impact from the 
brownfields question. I think this is one of EPA's better initiatives. 
It may make one suspicious to look at the breadth of support of this.
  But David Osborne, author of ``Reinventing Government,'' said:

       This is an important initiative. The barriers to cleaning 
     up urban Superfund sites have stopped redevelopment in its 
     tracks time and time again. This initiative will begin to 
     solve that problem. It will bring businesses back to the 
     city, create jobs and increase the urban tax base.
  Gregg Easterbrook, author of ``A Moment on the Earth,'' said:

       EPA's Brownfields initiative represents ecological realism 
     at its finest, balancing the needs of nature and commerce. 
     This path-breaking initiative shows that environmental 
     protection can undergo genuine regulatory reform, becoming 
     simpler and more cost-effective, without sacrifice of its 
     underlying mission.

  Philip Howard, author of ``The Death of Common Sense,'' said:

       EPA's Brownfields initiative represents an important change 
     in direction. It will help the environment and the economy at 
     the same time by dealing with the problem of contaminated 
     properties in a commonsense way.

  I think this is a win-win proposition for everybody. We are delighted 
to accept the amendment on this side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Rhode Island 
who came forth with this amendment. Not only do we not object to the 
amendment, we enthusiastically support it.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland and also the manager of the bill, Senator Bond, a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Both have been 
very helpful to us as we worked our way through this amendment. I 
particularly am grateful to all staff who has also been very 
cooperative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2792) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2793

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Service Members Occupational 
                    Conversion and Training Program)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2793.

  Mr. THURMOND. 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 3, line 19, strike ``$1,345,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,352,180,000.''
       On page 3, strike line 24 and add ``as amended; Provided 
     further, That of the amounts appropriated for readjustment 
     benefits, $6,880,000 shall be available for funding the 
     Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training program 
     as authorized by sections 4481-4497 of Public Law 102-484, as 
     amended.''
       On page 10, line 18, strike ``$88,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$872,000,000.''

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment will provide funding for 
the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act, known as 
SMOCTA. SMOCTA is the common name for it.
  It will provide job training for unemployed veterans, veterans whose 
occupational specialty in the military is not transferable to the 
civilian work force, and for veterans rated 30 percent disabled or 
higher. The amendment 

[[Page S 14368]]
provides funding to continue the program for 1 year. It is paid for by 
transferring less than 1 percent of VA's general operating expense 
account, $8 million. In other words, the general operating expense fund 
contains $880 million; this amendment transfers only $8 million, less 
than 1 percent.
  Mr. President, the SMOCTA program was created by the fiscal year 1993 
Defense Authorization Act as a pilot program to provide training wage 
subsidies to employers who hire recently separated unemployed service 
members for new careers in the private sector. The 1993 Defense 
Appropriations Act appropriated $75 million for SMOCTA. Those funds 
have been largely obligated, and any remaining balance will not be 
available for obligation after September 30, 1995. This amendment will 
provide a minimum level of funding to carry out the program through its 
period of authorization, September 30, 1996. Mr. President, although 
there were some initial bureaucratic delays in getting the program 
implemented, the program has been very successful. Over 8,300 employers 
have certified training programs, including national corporate chains. 
Those employers have filed nearly 15,000 notices of intent to employ 
veterans. Over 50,000 veterans have been certified for the program. 
Approximately 10,700 veterans have been placed in job training, for a 
period of 12-18 months, at an average cost per veteran of approximately 
$4,000.
  The Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs have worked 
hard to establish this program. It would be a mistake to let this 
program expire at this time. To not extend this program would send a 
message to the veterans of our Nation, caught in the military 
downsizing, that we do not care about their futures. It would tell 
employers that the Federal Government cannot be trusted in partnership 
agreements. I do not believe these are messages the U.S. Senate wishes 
to send.
  Mr. President, without this amendment, SMOCTA funding will terminate 
at the end of the current fiscal year. My amendment will cure the 
conflict between the authorization period and availability of 
appropriations for this program.
  Mr. President, there has been some debate over the proper funding 
source for this program. This results partly because the original 
funding for this program was from Defense appropriations. However, let 
me emphasize that this is not a program directly related to our funding 
military readiness or modernization. It is a program for veterans. The 
authorization recognized this program would require a partnership 
between the Defense Department, the Department of Labor, and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Passing funding responsibility from one 
agency to another will not aid our veterans who rely on readjustment 
benefits.
  Mr. President, the SMOCTA program has strong support in the business 
community and the veterans community. I encourage my colleagues to join 
in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, as I understand it, both sides have agreed to accept 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2793) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the manager of the bill on behalf of 
the veterans of this country.


                           Amendment No. 2794

 (Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
 Agency not to act under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
 to prohibit the manufacturing, processing, or distributing of certain 
         fishing sinkers or lures to giving notice to Congress)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Harkin. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2794.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency shall not, under authority of section 6 of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605), take final action on 
     the proposed rule dated February 28, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 11122 
     (March 9, 1994)) to prohibit or otherwise restrict the 
     manufacturing, processing, distributing, or use of any 
     fishing sinkers or lures containing lead, zinc, or brass 
     unless the Administrator finds that the risk to waterfowl 
     cannot be addressed through alternative means in which case, 
     the rule making may proceed 180 days after Congress is 
     notified of the finding.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this legislation deals with lead 
sinkers. It has been worked out on both sides. Senator Harkin wished to 
have this amendment adopted. It has been cleared, I believe, by both 
sides, and I move its adoption.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, since my State of Missouri is not only a 
leading manufacturer of fishing lures and therefore very much 
interested in it--Missouri happens to host a large number of people who 
enjoy fishing--it is therefore with great pleasure on behalf of this 
side that we are willing to accept the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2794) 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.


                           Amendment No. 2795

(Purpose: To provide HUD with the authority to renew expiring section 8 
  project-based contracts through a budget-based analysis. This will 
provide HUD with the tools to begin to address the high-cost of section 
   8 project-based assistance while Congress begins to fully address 
 options in lieu of the renewal of section 8 project-based assistance. 
 This amendment will help provide HUD with tools to avoid foreclosure 
                 and possible displacement of tenants)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant 
legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for himself, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2795.

  Mr. BOND. 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 105, beginning on line 10, strike ``SEC. 214.'' and 
     all that follows through line 4 on page 107:

     ``SEC. 214. SECTION 8 CONTRACT RENEWAL.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall renew upon expiration each contract 
     for project-based assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 that expires during fiscal year 
     1996 in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(b) Contract Term.--Each contract described in subsection 
     (a) may be renewed for a term not to exceed 2 years.
       ``(c) Rents and Other Contract Terms.--Except as provided 
     in subsections (d) and (e), the Secretary shall offer to 
     renew each contract described in subsection (a) (including 
     any contract relating to a multifamily project whose mortgage 
     is insured or assisted under the new construction and 
     substantial rehabilitation program under section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937):
       ``(1) at a rent equal to the budget-based rent for the 
     project;
       ``(2) at the current rent, where the current rent does not 
     exceed 120 percent of the fair market rent for the 
     jurisdiction in which the project is located; or
       ``(3) at the current rent, pending the implementation of 
     guidelines for budget-based rents.
       ``(d) Loan Management Set-Aside Contracts.--The Secretary 
     shall offer to renew each loan management set-aside contract 
     at a rent equal to the budget-based rent for the unit, as 
     determined by the Secretary, for a period not to exceed 1 
     year.
       ``(e) Tenant-Based Assistance Option.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary may, with the consent 
     of the owner of a project that is subject to a contract 
     described in subsection (a) and with notice to and in 
     consultation with the tenants, agree to provide tenant-based 
     rental assistance under section 8(b) or 8(o) in lieu of 
     renewing a contract to provide project-based 

[[Page S 14369]]
     rental assistance under subsection (a). Subject to advance 
     appropriations, the Secretary may offer an owner incentives 
     to convert to tenant-based rental assistance.
       ``(f) Demonstration Program.--If a contract described in 
     subsection (a) is eligible for the demonstration program 
     under section 213, the Secretary may make the contract 
     subject to the requirements of section 213.
       ``(g) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Budget-Based Rent.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``budget-based rent'', with respect to a multifamily 
     housing project, means the rent that is established by the 
     Secretary, based on the actual and projected costs of opening 
     the project, at a level that will provide income sufficient, 
     with respect to the project, to support--
       ``(A) the debt service of the project.
       ``(B) the operating expenses of the project, including--
       (i) contributions to actual reserves;
       (ii) the costs of maintenance and necessary rehabilitation, 
     as determined by the Secretary;
       (iii) other costs permitted under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(C) an adequate allowance for potential and reasonable 
     operating losses due to vacancies and failure to collect 
     rents, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(D) an allowance for a rate of return on equity to the 
     owner not to exceed 6 percent.
       ``(E) other expenses, as determined to be necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Basic rental charge for section 236. ``A basic rental 
     charge'' determined or approved by the Secretary for a 
     project receiving interest reduction payments under section 
     236 of the National Housing Act shall be deemed a ``budget-
     based rent'' within the meaning of this section.''.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' refers to the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Mack. This is designed to provide HUD 
with authority to renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts 
through a budget-based analysis.
  Now, what that means is that we are working with HUD, with OMB and 
the Congressional Budget Office to resolve a very difficult problem 
where project-based certificates have been issued in the past. The cost 
is above market rate. These are expensive projects.
  HUD knows, we know, the budget offices know, we have to resolve this 
problem. Since we were unable to get an agreement on a measure to fix 
the problem this year and stay within our budget allocations, there was 
a prospect that in some areas where there was very little available 
housing, people who live in project-based section 8 housing could be 
displaced.
  This problem was particularly acute in Salt Lake City, UT. Senator 
Bennett brought that to our attention. We found that there are many 
other areas around the country where it is possible that the 
developments could be converted to private use, people displaced. Even 
though we would make available section 8 certificates for those people 
displaced, as a simple matter of fact, there may not have been enough 
housing to take care of them. This is particularly true for the elderly 
and disabled.
  This amendment tells the Secretary to use a budget-based analysis to 
take a look at the costs of operating the Department and the debt 
service, to renew the contracts for a year on a basis which is fair 
both to the owner of the property and to the Federal Government so that 
we may continue to work on the problem of resolving the question about 
the expenditure on project-based certificates which are far above 
market rate.
  This is a fix that I think is acceptable on both sides. I hope my 
colleagues will accept it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. I absolutely concur 
with his remarks.
  In our hearings in the subcommittee, we found that the issues related 
to market rate are quite severe. They need to be addressed. They need 
to be addressed with some promptness and urgency. Otherwise, we could 
be facing the debacle not unlike some of the issues we faced in the S&L 
crisis.
  Senator Bond of Missouri is really an expert on this issue. I believe 
we should follow his lead on this amendment. I support it. I am willing 
to accept it.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman for assistance in dealing with an issue that is very important 
to myself, Senator Exon and the people of the rural areas of Nebraska. 
As you are aware, there is currently a large differential in rents 
between rural and urban areas in our country. I am concerned that too 
large a variance would have a significant adverse effect on low income 
elderly populations. We must enable developers to continue to provide 
our rural areas with this valuable service. This is a problem not just 
in Nebraska but also in neighboring States that have large rural 
populations. I understand the need for the budgetary constraints that 
have been placed upon your committee. However, unrealistically low fair 
market rents will have a devastating impact on the numerous rural 
beneficiaries of assisted housing. As the fair market rent levels 
decline, the negative effects of excessive rent differentials between 
urban and nearby rural areas become more significant. I respectfully 
ask the chairman to do what he can to rectify this unfortunate 
situation in the conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by Senator 
Kerrey. Obviously there will be some real variances between smaller, 
rural communities and our larger, metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, we 
need to continue to provide a realistic incentive for developers to 
build projects in areas that are experiencing a shortage of affordable 
housing. I would also urge the committee to review the current 
mechanism.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership that Senator 
Kerrey has taken on this issue. One of the reasons that the current 
situation regarding fair market rents in small towns is so unfair is 
the history of how many of these projects were developed up to 20 years 
ago. The rent limitations that were used at the time were about the 
same for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Now, at contract 
renewal time, the projects in smaller towns outside metropolitan areas 
are subject to far different rent standards than urban areas face. 
There are some projects that face rent levels that will actually be 
lower than the rents approved 20 years ago when the projects were 
built. These very low rent levels create a situation where projects 
will not be able to be maintained. Projects may be forced into 
foreclosure or conversion to regular rental housing. Current renters in 
my State, mostly the elderly and disabled, will face deteriorating 
buildings or eviction. They may get new section 8 certificates. But, 
the availability of affordable housing in homes near elderly resident's 
families will not, in a large number of cases, be available. I ask that 
this problem be examined in conference and relief fashioned to treat 
projects in small towns outside metropolitan areas in a fair and even 
handed manner.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I 
certainly understand the severity of this problem. Missouri, as well as 
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Iowa is home to a largely rural population. 
I, too, am concerned for the future of this program. I will work with 
Senator Mikulski and members of the conference to address this issue. 
We include in this bill provisions which will make available budget-
based rent renewal levels for project-based contracts which will remove 
the artificial impediment of the current ``fair market'' calculation. I 
hope this will help address this serious concern.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2795) 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. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  MACT

  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 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 and senior member of the Appropriations 
Committee.

[[Page S 14370]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. The issue I wish to 
clarify is the Appropriations Committee's intent regarding the 
Environmental Protection Agency's refinery maximum achievable control 
technology [MACT] rule. This rulemaking is of deep concern to me, as I 
am sure it is to the Senator from Missouri.
  In promulgating the refinery MACT rule, EPA has ignored the 
principles of sound science, used outdated data to establish emissions 
controls, developed extremely questionable estimates of the benefits to 
be gained from these emissions controls, and failed to take into 
account the impact of these regulations on the smaller refiners around 
the nation, including those in my home State of Mississippi.
  Does the Senator from Missouri share my concerns?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, sir, I do. In fact, the concerns of the Senator from 
Mississippi reflect the concerns of the Appropriations Committee. In 
the committee's report on this bill, we expressed our disapproval with 
the way in which EPA promulgated the refinery MACT rule. To quote from 
the committee report: ``The committee strongly encourages EPA to 
reevaluate the refinery MACT and other MACT standards which are not 
based on sound science''.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman. One further point. Would the 
Chairman agree that there is significant sentiment on the 
Appropriations Committee and in the Senate to talk further, and perhaps 
take stronger, action on this issue next year if EPA does not engage in 
a serious reevaluation of the refinery MACT rule during fiscal year 
1996?
  Mr. BOND. That is indeed the sentiment of many members of the 
committee. I have heard from many of my colleagues, both on the 
Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee--the Environment 
and Public Works Committee--on the refinery MACT issue. The Senator and 
his colleagues can be assured that if EPA does not heed the directive 
contained in the Committee report on this bill, the leadership of the 
committee will be prepared to take additional action in the future.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman. I appreciate this willingness to 
address the refinery MACT issue in the committee report.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I want to discuss the need for regulatory reform at the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  As the chairman knows, I have been extremely concerned with the 
petroleum refinery MACT regulation. MACT is the acronym for the term 
maximum achievable control technology. I would like to thank him for 
adding report language which reflects the committee's concerns with 
this rule. I strongly encourage EPA to reevaluate this rule because it 
is not based on sound science.
  In 1980, industry did not have the extensive controls and 
technologies that are now in use. In fact, in 1980, the requirements 
from the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments had not yet kicked in. 
Obviously, in the last 15 years, refineries have made significant 
improvements in reducing emissions. EPA has simply ignored all of these 
improvements and based a rule on 15-year-old data in order to inflate 
its benefits.
  This rule will cost refineries and fuel consumers in this country at 
least $100 million each year. This puts refineries in Montana and 
throughout the Nation at economic risk. And what about the jobs these 
refineries provide the local communities? Well, they are at risk, too. 
Almost $20 million of this will be spent to meet the paperwork and 
monitoring requirements of the rule which do nothing to improve public 
health or the environmental protection.
  Mr. President, I would like to make one final point. All of the 
information is based on EPA's own data and analysis. None of this 
information is based on any kind of industry study. This information 
can be found in the final rule published in the Federal Register on 
August 18, 1995. Refiners in Montana have simply asked that this rule 
be based on sound science, including accurate and current data. They 
have not asked for any rollback of environmental regulations. Since the 
data are the basis for the entire rulemaking, it seems to me that EPA 
must go back to the beginning and redo the rule from scratch.
  I look forward to working with the chairman in conference regarding 
the refinery MACT rule; and I thank him.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Montana has valid concerns. Other members 
of the subcommittee have also questioned the basis for this rule. I 
will work with him and other members in the conference committee 
regarding the regulation. This rule will serve as an important 
precedent for subsequent MACT regulations for other industries.
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the chairman's comments and support.


                 brevard and leavenworth va facilities

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it strikes me that the VA has not given a 
great deal of thought to defining its mission for the next century. In 
its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, the VA requested funding for 
two new hospitals. However, it is clear that our veterans would be 
better served if the VA, like the rest of the Nation's health care 
providers, began focusing on outpatient and ambulatory care. I note 
with interest that the committee has not funded the VA's hospital 
construction request. I believe that is a result of the committee's 
concern about VA's lack of strategic planning as well as budgetary 
concerns.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. Today, the VA is 
unable to provide a strategic vision of VA health care for the next 
century that squares with facility investment decisions. The VA's 
fiscal year 1996 request continues to emphasize costly and inefficient 
health care delivery systems that are out of step with the overall 
national trends in health care. Given the fact that private-sector 
health care providers have moved in the direction of outpatient care, 
coupled with plummeting Federal budgets and the demographic trends 
related to veterans, it would not be prudent to build additional 
hospitals. Similarly, other investment decisions such as building new 
ambulatory and long-term care facilities cannot be made rationally 
without an overall plan that reconciles facilities to health care goals 
and populations. I am also concerned about the budgetary requirements 
of building new facilities. Not only is construction costly but 
operating costs will put additional pressures on a declining budget.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, east central Florida is a critically 
underserved area with a growing population of retired, limited-income 
veterans. Florida has the highest percentage of veterans 65 years and 
older in the Nation. They currently represent 30 percent of the State's 
veterans population and, contrary to GAO's recent report, the numbers 
are increasing daily. Certainly, Florida veterans, Senator Graham, and 
I acknowledge the budget constraints before this Congress and the need 
for a balanced budget. For this reason, we have modified our present 
request to reflect fiscal reality while still meeting long identified 
medical service needs. Recognizing that neither the House nor the 
Senate intend to fund the original plan for a comprehensive medical 
facility at this time, we are requesting that the VA be able to use the 
previously appropriated fiscal year 1995 funds for the design and 
construction of an outpatient medical facility and long-term nursing 
care facility which will provide immediate relief to Florida veterans.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I stand along side my colleague, Mr. Mack, 
in calling this Congress to take action in providing long promised and 
much needed medical services to Florida veterans. While Congress 
squabbled over the location of the facility, our veterans continued to 
wait. Finally, with the issue of location resolved, the President's 
fiscal year 1996 budget request included this facility, and veterans 
thought they saw the light at the end of the tunnel. We were extremely 
disappointed to say the least when that request was ignored by the 
House VA/HUD Subcommittee.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, rather than a new hospital, I propose a 
nursing home facility and an outpatient clinic which will help complete 
the southeast regional and statewide network of veteran health care 
providers while addressing the need to provide long-term care service 
to veterans in east central Florida.

[[Page S 14371]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Florida 
regarding downgrading the request for funding a comprehensive hospital 
to an outpatient clinic and long-term nursing care facility. This 
proposal is to construct a nursing home care facility and outpatient 
clinic on the site contributed for the East Central Florida Medical 
Center to provide specialized care which is not currently available.
  A 120-bed nursing home care unit will have, in addition to regular 
nursing home care, the capacity to provide psychogeriatric care--
including that for Alzheimer's patients--and ventilator-dependent care. 
The ambulatory care clinic will be available to serve all veterans in 
the area. Approximately 30,000 patient visits per year will be 
accommodated. The total cost would be $35 million. We have existing 
funds of $17.2 million which was appropriated in fiscal year 1995 for 
the design and planning of the VA medical facility. We would like to 
use those funds toward the design and construction of the alternative 
proposal. In the near future, we would request that Congress provide 
the balance of $17.8 million to complete the project. This proposal is 
more than a Band-aid to the problem and is surely a more reasonable 
request for our veterans to make of this Congress.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree that outpatient, ambulatory care 
should be the focus of future construction by the VA. In my home State 
of Kansas, I have been working closely with the staff of the Dwight D. 
Eisenhower VAMC in Leavenworth to improve outpatient care for our 
veterans with the addition of a new ambulatory care clinic. Currently, 
primary care treatment processes at the Leavenworth VAMC are 
unnecessarily fragmented and severely deficient in the space required 
for their functions. This clinic is a must if the Leavenworth VAMC is 
to retain its College of American Pathologists accreditation.
  Last year, the Congress provided funds to begin planning and design 
of this facility. It is my expectation that the VA will include this 
project in next year's budget. However, if they do not, it is my 
understanding that the committee will give this project every 
consideration. I would ask my friend, the Chairman, is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the majority leader is correct. The 
committee is well aware of the need for the Brevard County and 
Leavenworth facilities. We understand that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs will be in a position to begin construction of the Brevard 
facility during fiscal year 1996 and the Leavenworth facility in fiscal 
year 1997. Like my colleagues, I expect the Department to consider 
including these projects in its fiscal year 1997 budget submission. 
However, if they do not, we will carefully consider both projects.


                       toxic substances registry

  Mr. GLENN. I would like to commend my colleague from Missouri and the 
Chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee for continued funding of the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry study on minority health. I 
believe this is important work. I would also like to speak to a 
complementary research effort that will help to protect minority 
populations, women, infants, and other populations from the adverse 
health effects of consuming chemically contaminated fish. In 
particular, this study identifies specific populations residing in the 
Great Lakes basin that may be at higher risk of exposure to chemical 
contaminants present in one or more of the Great Lakes. To date, ATSDR 
has learned about the trends in Great Lakes fish consumption. For 
example, fish is an essential component of diets of minority 
populations such as Native Americans and sport-anglers. The preliminary 
findings from this ATSDR study are helping to clarify the actual 
impacts of chemical exposure through fish consumption to these specific 
populations. In some cases, certain effects are not as prominent as 
feared, but the study corroborates that there are human health effects 
and helps to pinpoint the trends.
  However, continued research is needed to identify other susceptible 
populations, exposure pathways and correlation of exposure levels to 
health effects. Most importantly, we need to mobilize a public 
education effort to help members of at-risk populations and the medical 
community learn about the adverse human health effects of contaminated 
fish consumption and identify ways to minimize these harmful effects. 
Without continued funding the money and time invested in this research 
will be wasted and we will not have critical information to prevent 
risks to human health from contaminated fish consumption.
  Mr. KOHL. The Senate has proposed a $14 million cut from fiscal year 
1995 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the 
House proposed a $7 million cut from fiscal year 1995. The House report 
on H.R. 2099 specifically calls for continued ATSDR funding for this 
study on consumption of contaminated fish and the harmful human health 
effects. Continuing this incomplete study will allow us to develop 
strategies of prevent harmful human health effects from consumption of 
contaminated fish. Understanding the consumption trends of Great Lakes 
fish is only helpful if we can draw conclusions from that information 
and then develop strategies to prevent harmful human health effects 
from this significant exposure pathway. Will the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies be 
willing to work with our colleagues in the House to ensure adequate 
funding to complete this important, far-sighted research?
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the Senators from 
Ohio and Wisconsin about this ATSDR study and I have a better 
understanding of the significance of continued funding for the research 
on chemically contaminated fish. I will give close consideration in 
Conference to securing adequate funding for the ATSDR study on the 
human health effects of contaminated fish consumption.


                            Savannah sewers

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Chairman's 
attention a critically needed project in Savannah, GA. Savannah, has 
been plagued with repetitive and devastating flooding over the last 15 
years. The population affected is primarily low-income, distressed, and 
minority. These families have repeatedly been forced to leave their 
homes and businesses with great economic consequences.
  The Federal, State and local governments have had to, on several 
occasions, commit significant resources to address the emergency needs 
of these areas. Consequently, the city of Savannah, in collaboration 
with the private and nonprofit sectors, has created a highly innovative 
plan to provide permanent solutions to the core flood areas that will 
significantly reduce long-term Government expenditures.
  The overall plan involves over $100 million in carefully constructed 
engineering solutions. The city has already committed and raised $32 
million of this total. They have also devised a series of retention 
structures, canal widening and station collector system improvements 
that will save the Federal Government money over the long-term and 
represent a true abatement commitment.
  Mr. President, I seek the Chairman's support for Federal 
participation in this unique partnership, albeit on a limited basis. If 
the conference committee should decide to provide funding for EPA sewer 
treatment grants, I would appreciate his careful consideration of the 
Savannah project. The City of Savannah requests $900,000 for critical 
engineering studies for pumping, engineering, and canal widening work 
in these flood-prone areas and $10 million for crucial collector system 
improvements at the primary pumping station.
  I would remind the Chairman that the city has already raised $32 
million toward the overall cost and plan components. Therefore these 
EPA funds would be matched with proven commitments.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for his comments and request. I am 
aware of the serious flooding and wastewater/sewer problems confronted 
by the city of Savannah. Like the Senator from Georgia, I have 
firsthand knowledge of the devastation that such repetitive flooding 
can have on families, homes and small businesses. I am impressed by the 
level of resources already committed by the City of Savannah to resolve 
this problem in a more efficient, cost-effective manner. The Senator 
from Georgia and the city of Savannah are to be commended for his new 
private-public partnership concept.

[[Page S 14372]]

  Accordingly, it would be my intention that this project receive 
priority consideration in conference for funding through the fiscal 
year 1996 allocations made under this bill for water infrastructure 
needs.


                             ciesin funding

  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to engage the distinguished manager of the 
bill in a brief colloquy regarding concerns that have already been 
raised by the junior Senator from Michigan. This matter regards the 
fiscal 1996 funding situation of the Consortium for International Earth 
Science Information Network [CIESIN].
  I am grateful that the Chairman has provided some assurances that 
CIESIN will not be prohibited from competitively bidding on NASA 
contracts in the future, despite the Committee's concurrence with the 
``House recommendation'' regarding specific funding for CIESIN. I would 
appreciate the Chairman's assistance in clarifying this statement just 
a little further. It is my understanding that the House report 
language, while not funding CIESIN specifically, does not in any way 
limit the opportunity for CIESIN and NASA to continue to operate under 
the terms of the existing contract, including option years.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Michigan is correct. While we do not 
identify specific 1996 funds for CIESIN within this bill, nothing 
interferes with the rights and options that either party has under the 
existing contract.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Missouri for that clarification 
and appreciate his willingness to address our concerns. If the manager 
of the bill will yield further, the committee's report suggests that 
NASA should seek greater commercial, international, and Government 
participation in the EOSDIS program, with the goal of reducing costs. 
And, the Committee has highlighted the Goddard Space Flight Center in 
Maryland and the Earth Resources Observation System Data Center in 
Sioux Falls, SD, as core elements of a revamped EOSDIS.
  Given that CIESIN has already developed international partners, is 
broadly supported by university researchers, and has won recognition 
for its innovative software, including this year's Smithsonian award 
for innovative software development, would the Chairman concur that 
CIESIN should be afforded appropriate recognition by NASA in the 
agency's development of its fiscal 1997 appropriation request, 
especially since the committee's report already urges NASA to integrate 
CIESIN activities within its EOS plan for fiscal year 1996?
  Mr. BOND. That matter will, of course, be up to NASA and the 
administration. But, given that CIESIN is already meeting standards 
that this committee has set out for other components of EODIS, we would 
expect that CIESIN would be given full and fair consideration in the 
development of NASA's fiscal 1997 budget request.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman for assisting me in clarifying the 
committee's intentions. I also want to acknowledge and thank the 
distinguished ranking member for her assistance in funding CIESIN in 
past years.


                       tenant opportunity program

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am wondering if the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee will engage in a colloquy with me regarding the Tenant 
Opportunity Program.
  Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, the Tenant Opportunity 
Program--known as TOP--was created by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to provide technical assistance and training for 
public housing residents to organize their communities. Its goal is 
tenant empowerment. That may be a noble goal. But, TOP is not, in my 
view, the best way to achieve it.
  The program is poorly designed, loosely structured, and ripe for 
abuse. Just how ripe was evident earlier this year in the city of 
Wilmington, DE. Six Wilmington public housing projects were each 
awarded $100,000 TOP grants, and a consultant--a consultant--tried to 
claim $60,000 of each grant. Incredible as it may sound, my colleagues 
heard me correctly: 60 percent of each TOP grant in Wilmington, DE was 
going to be paid to a consultant. That's a total consultant fee of 
$360,000 from just six grants.
  Mr. President, this may sound like one bad apple. And, the Department 
is to be commended for investigating this case, discovering that the 
application procedures were violated by the consultant, and canceling 
these particular six grants. But, the more I look into the whole 
program, the more I am convinced that the problem here is with the 
program itself.
  For example, the most disorganized public housing projects in 
Wilmington--the ones that need this program the most--were unable to 
get a TOP grant because they were not organized enough. That is a 
classic Catch-22 situation. Another example: no where does the program 
require that the recipients of the grants specify exactly how the 
taxpayers' money will be used. And, the major beneficiary of this 
program seems to be consultants, not public housing residents.
  Now, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee about the 
Committee's intention regarding funding for TOP. The House, in its 
version of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, provided $15 million for the 
program. As I read the Senate version of the bill, no funding is 
provided for TOP. I want to ask the chairman if my understanding is 
correct--that it is the committee's intent to kill this program.
  And, before he answers, let me just say that I ask this question 
because the Department created TOP in the first place without an 
explicit authorization from Congress. My concern is that without an 
explicit statement from Congress that TOP is to receive no funding, I 
fear that the Department may try to fund the program anyway, using 
unearmarked funds from the annual contributions for assisted housing 
account or funds from the Supportive Services Program under the 
Community Development Grants.
  In other words, I am concerned about the Department playing shell 
games, and I want to be absolutely clear for the record. Is it the 
Committee's intent that no money whatsoever is to be spent on the 
Tenant Opportunity Program?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, yes, the Senator from Delaware is correct. 
This bill provides no money for the Tenant Opportunity Program--and the 
Department is not to use any funds to continue the program.
  What we are trying to do in this bill is to make better use of 
limited HUD dollars--and to make sure that those dollars benefit the 
residents of public housing. I agree with the Senator that TOP appears 
to have a lot of problems in the way it is administered, and it is 
clearly not providing the benefits to residents that it should.
  I should note, however, that within the broad parameters of the new 
supportive services block grant under the community development block 
grant appropriations, localities are encouraged to provide services and 
technical assistance to public and assisted housing residents to 
encourage and promote employment. To this end, activities with goals 
similar to the TOP program are permitted, but I would certainly concur 
that the excessive consultant payments would constitute an abuse which 
we will not tolerate.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues 
Senators Bond and Mikulski regarding NASA's plans to consolidate all 
research and science-based aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center.
  Mr. BOND. I am interested to discuss this important matter with the 
Senator.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am also pleased to have this opportunity to discuss 
NASA consolidation, an issue about which I have been deeply concerned.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As my colleagues know, NASA has offered a plan to 
consolidate all flight research and science platform aircraft at NASA's 
Dryden Flight Research Center in California. While I agree with the 
goals of NASA consolidation to save taxpayers money, I have strong 
concerns that this aircraft consolidation plan could cost more than it 
would save. The current aircraft consolidation plan drafted by NASA 
considers the costs of moving the aircraft to Dryden Flight Research 
Center, but does not include the costs to operate these aircraft from 
their consolidated location.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask Senator Feinstein if any other sites have been 
evaluated for this aircraft consolidation?

[[Page S 14373]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do not believe so. The only consolidation plans I 
have seen move aircraft to Dryden. While, I certainly do not oppose 
Dryden as the consolidated site, I think that steps should be taken to 
ensure that this consolidation will truly save the taxpayers money.
  Mr. BOND. Would the Senator from California be amenable to requesting 
that NASA submit their cost justifications for this consolidation to 
the subcommittee before they proceed with consolidation?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, that would be an excellent course of action. 
Perhaps NASA's justifications should include the costs of and cost 
savings resulting from this consolidation and the operation of this 
aircraft from their consolidated location for the next 5 years.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Perhaps we should also request NASA provide the 
subcommittee with a cost-based justification of the movement of these 
aircraft before NASA takes action.
  Mr. BOND. I think both of those suggestions are acceptable and would 
be happy to work with Senators Mikulski and Feinstein to develop this 
language in the report of the conference with the House.


   nasa's implementation of the zero-base review and its aeronautics 
                                programs

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, when Dan Goldin became NASA Administrator 
in early 1992, the agency's annual budget was about $17.5 billion and 
headed to about $22 billion by the end of the decade. Now, however, the 
annual budget is declining from $14.5 billion and will likely be below 
$13 billion by the end of the decade. In terms of FTE's NASA's work 
force has been cut too--from about 24,000 in January 1993 to less than 
21,000 today, and headed to about 17,500 by the year 2000.
  In order to manage these drastic cuts, over the last 9 or 10 months 
Mr. Goldin has conducted a so-called zero-base review. The purpose of 
this often painful process was to solicit ideas and develop plans on 
how the agency could function more efficiently. The review was 
conducted assuming that all existing missions will continue, but 
functions and missions would be streamlined or downsized. Mr. Goldin 
has made clear that any further budget cuts will result in elimination 
of core missions.
  Now Mr. President, let me be clear that I think Dan Goldin has done 
an outstanding job in a very difficult situation. There are very few 
people I know who have the vision, energy, and knowledge of the NASA 
Administrator. He has been criticized for making the tough decisions, 
but these decisions have to be made. Many of the recommendations 
resulting from the zero-base review are now beginning to be 
implemented, and I believe it is imperative that Congress carefully 
monitor the changes taking place at NASA so that we may be sure that we 
are getting the most from the taxpayers' dollar. Change for change's 
sake alone is not always the best policy.
  One recommendation of the zero-base review has been brought to my 
attention, and that of my colleagues, in particular the distinguished 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein. This proposal regards 
consolidating flight operations management of all aircraft, except 
those in support of the space shuttle, at Dryden Flight Research 
Center. The review concluded that after an initial investment of $23 
million, about $9 million could be saved annually if this 
recommendation is implemented.
  Currently NASA owns 65 research aircraft that support a wide range of 
NASA programs. Eighteen of these aircraft are scheduled to be retired 
by the end of fiscal year 1996 as a result of the programs they support 
being completed. The proposed consolidation would result in an 
additional 11 aircraft being retired, leaving just 36 aircraft in 
NASA's inventory. The proposal would also result in a reduction of 80 
contractor and Federal FTE's, from 400 to 320.
  Mr. President. It seems to me that the first ``A'' in ``NASA'' is at 
risk. As a result of budget cuts, it appears that we are nearly halving 
a vital component in our Nation's aeronautic research base.
  These cuts hit particularly hard at a NASA facility which has made 
substantial, significant contributions over the past 50 years to our 
Nation's aeronautics industry. I am speaking about NASA's Lewis 
Research Center in Brookpark, OH. Currently seven research aircraft are 
based out of Lewis, including a newly refurbished DC-9 which is a 
centerpiece of Lewis' microgravity research program. It is my 
understanding that at least 5 of the 7 aircraft stationed at Lewis may 
be transferred to Dryden under the proposed consolidation.
  Now I understand that it may be possible to achieve some savings 
through consolidation of flight operations. However, if this action 
adversely impacts the ability of NASA scientists and engineers to 
perform their mission--and to do their research--then I think we are 
being penny wise and pound foolish. It is my understanding that the 
managers of this legislation have agreed with the Senator from 
California, that a closer look needs to be taken at this aspect of the 
zero-base review before it is finally implemented. I believe that such 
a review is appropriate and I look forward to studying its results, as 
well as other ongoing studies and audits of components of the zero-base 
review.


                               oversight

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure 
that the Congress is permitted to conduct appropriate oversight of a 
new research program proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  This program is known as the Science To Achieve Results or STAR 
Program. I want to be sure that the Agency fully advises the Congress 
of how and at what level this program will be funded and which active 
research programs will be affected by this redirection of funds.
  Mr. President, I recognize the need to provide the Agency with 
adequate flexibility to direct scarce research dollars to those 
problems posing the greatest risk to public health and the environment. 
This program, however, it not aimed at responding to environmental 
problems. The STAR Program is aimed at making grants to universities to 
do basic science research at the expense of ongoing EPA-sponsored 
research.
  I am convinced that the result of implementing STAR will be that 
ongoing research for the Agency's regulatory programs will suffer, 
private sector contracts will be interrupted, and research currently 
conducted by the academic community will be terminated.
  It is my understanding that EPA originally proposed to fund the STAR 
Program at approximately $100 million. As the committee does not 
provide any additional funds to finance this program, the committee 
gives EPA the flexibility to reprogram funds, without congressional 
approval, from other research accounts. I am concerned that to fund the 
STAR Program the Agency will move funds from laboratories it currently 
operates to its headquarters to dole out to a few selected 
universities.
  Mr. President, it appears that EPA is clearly attempting to move 
itself into a new area of research that is already being conducted at 
the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. 
This duplication of basic science research will result in severe 
shortfalls in the applied science program.
  I want to be sure that my colleagues understand that it is applied 
science research that is critical to providing information to support 
the Agency's regulatory program. As a member of the Environment 
Committee, I am concerned that EPA's regulatory programs suffer from a 
lack of sound science principles. Further degrading this research 
effort will only result in wasted dollars and regulations that are not 
based on sound scientific evidence.
  Mr. President, if the aim of the STAR Program is to expand Federal 
support for university-based research, I submit that this aim is 
already being accomplished by the Federal laboratories under 
cooperative agreements. The STAR Program will simply take research 
dollars from some universities to give to other universities.
  My greatest concern with EPA's proposal is that the Agency has failed 
to justify the need for such a significant redirection of resources and 
is attempting to fund a program without full disclosure to the 
Congress.
  The Agency has failed to demonstrate the trade offs that will occur 
from implementing the STAR Program 

[[Page S 14374]]
and failed to disclose the negative impacts that will be imposed on 
ongoing research.
  In my view, the Agency should at the very least fully document these 
impacts and disclose to the Congress how this program will be funded 
and at what level.
  My amendment does not prevent the Agency from using funds for this 
program. My amendment simply asks the Agency to report to the Congress 
on the details of this program and receive congressional approval 
before they move forward with the STAR Program.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for recognizing the 
merits of this amendment and supporting its adoption.


   IMPOSITION OF CHEMICAL USE DATA AND THE COMBUSTION STRATEGY--MACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from Missouri, Senator Kit Bond, the distinguished chairman 
of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. I 
want to discuss two topics. The first deals with EPA's expanded 
reporting requirements for hazardous chemicals. The second is to 
clarify the Senate's position on EPA's lack of statutory authority to 
pursue a combustion strategy.
  For the first issue I am referring to EPA's plan to expand the toxic 
release inventory [TRI] under the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act [EPCRA]. EPA is now working on regulations to require 
the reporting of data on toxic chemical use, and to extend TRI 
reporting requirements to additional facilities. At a time when 
Congress is trying to provide responsible relief from unnecessary 
reporting, these actions would significantly increase administrative 
burdens costing hundreds of millions of dollars without commensurate 
benefits to enhance either human health or the environment.
  Moreover, the addition of chemical use data would not further EPCRA's 
goal of reducing chemical releases. Chemical use bears no direct 
relationship to emissions, waste generation, health risks or 
environmental hazards. Risk is a function of hazard and exposure. 
Chemical use will not indicate exposure. Furthermore, EPA's plans to 
expand regulatory requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
to gather chemical use data is equally inappropriate.
  For all of these reasons, I believe that this program requires 
reexamination and redirection--not expansion along the lines that EPA 
intends. Clearly, there is an immediate need to first compare the 
reduction in risks by recent substantial reductions in emissions, 
before simply adding new informational requirements or facilities. 
Risks now need to be evaluated on a benefit-to-cost or a risk-to-risk 
basis.
  One of EPA's guiding principles in its strategic plan is pollution 
prevention. With the Pollution Prevention Act [PPA] of 1990 Congress 
established a national policy to focus EPA's actions on the reduction 
of wastes and releases into the environment. According to the act, 
pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever 
feasible. While pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should 
be treated safely, whenever possible, and safe disposal should be 
employed only as a last resort.
  While PPA prefers reduction of wastes and emissions at the source, 
EPA has reinterpreted the statutory definition of pollution prevention 
to place an inordinate and sometimes exclusive emphasis on reduction of 
toxic use at the source. This mandates reductions in material or 
chemical use without consideration of emissions and risks posed by the 
substance. EPA's policy is based on two false assumptions. One, that 
use indicates risk, and two, that all chemical use is harmful and 
should be eliminated. This approach has prompted me to examine the 
direction this administration is taking EPA with its new TRI reporting 
requirements.
  It is contrary to the basic objective of the manufacturing process, 
which is to harness reactive and toxic materials for useful and 
beneficial purposes. While product reformulation and substitution of 
less toxic substances do have a vital place in pollution prevention, 
the key to efficiently reducing pollution is to allow industry the 
flexibility to use as many tools as possible to achieve emissions 
reductions. Congress wisely established the pollution prevention 
hierarchy to allow for this flexibility. It must remain.
  I believe that a timeout needs to be called on these recent changes 
to the TRI Program. The usefulness of chemical use data as well as 
expanding the list of facilities required to report data needs to be 
assessed through public dialogue and objective analysis before it is 
required.
  In fact I believe, EPA's new TRI reporting approach would exceed its 
statutory authority. When Congress enacted EPCRA, it specifically 
considered the issue of whether or not EPA should have the authority to 
collect use information, as distinct from chemical releases 
information. Congress decided that EPA should not have this authority.
  A majority of the Senate, as reflected through a recorded vote, 
believes that TRI needs to be reexamined and redirected--not expanded 
along the lines EPA is considering.
  While I am not going to offer an amendment today to address this 
matter, I think the Conference Committee should accept a legislative 
provision that calls for a pause while Congress examines the direction 
in which EPA is taking the TRI Program. I look forward to your 
continued leadership and support of this effort.
  Mr. BOND. The concerns of the Senator from Mississippi are valid and 
very timely. During the debate on S.343, the Senate voted to retain 
provisions to reform the toxic release inventory's listing and 
delisting criteria along the lines sketched out by the Senator. The 
central feature of those reforms is a greater focus on the risk posed 
by these chemicals. As the Senator correctly notes, risk is a function 
of hazard and exposure. For this reason, I too am very troubled by 
EPA's proposal to require reporting of the mere use of materials. It is 
inconsistent with a risk-based approach, and I believe there is no 
statutory authority for expanding the TRI to include use reporting.
  I also share the Senator's concerns with the expansion of the TRI to 
additional types of facilities. Just last year, the EPA nearly doubled 
the number of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. The current reporting 
cycle will be the first cycle to incorporate this expansion. No further 
expansion should be considered until the scope of the current expansion 
is fully apparent and it is clear the EPA has the resources to manage 
the increased amount of data. I believe we should work with the House 
to craft mutually acceptable language redirecting EPA's efforts toward 
higher priority activities in fiscal year 1996, and to encourage EPA to 
work with Congress in the interim to develop risk-based legislative 
reforms to TRI.
  Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the Chairman's comments on TRI reform. Now, I 
would like to explain the issue regarding the establishment of an MACT 
floor. Although the current provision does not directly reference 
combustion or any other particular MACT standard, it does deal with an 
issue of concern to industrial on-site incinerators and boilers and 
industrial furnace operators. It is my understanding that the Report 
language does not prohibit EPA from pursuing its combustion strategy, 
but only requires certain legal and procedural safeguards be followed.
  In short, the report language seems to support the conclusion that 
EPA cannot use appropriated moneys on: First, the use of permit 
conditions without required site-specific finding; second, the setting 
of an MACT standard under any authority other than the Clean Air Act; 
and third, the setting of an MACT standard without making the required 
finding that certain facilities are already achieving the standard.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The committee report makes 
particular reference to the MACT standard for refineries, as an 
illustrative example of the overall problem. The committee based its 
conclusion on input it received regarding a number of proposed and 
final MACT standards under consideration, including the proposed MACT 
standard for on-site incinerators and boilers and industrial furnace 
operators. Therefore, it is my belief that the provision is applicable 
to all MACT proposals that may be inconsistent 

[[Page S 14375]]
with past precedent, the proper administrative process or the text of 
the Clean Air Act.
  One of the most important requirements of the Clean Air Act is the 
proper establishment of the so called MACT floor. The act states that 
the MACT floor is ``the average emission limitation achieved in 
practice by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources'' that 
qualify for the given category or subcategory. The EPA must establish 
that the limitations on emissions that constitute the MACT floor are 
achieved, or exceeded, in practice by 12 percent of the qualifying 
facilities. In addition, we are also concerned that in determining the 
MACT floor for a given source category, EPA may divide the source 
category into smaller parts and calculate the MACT floor separately for 
each part or pollutant. The results of this impermissible approach is 
that typically no single major source in a source category can meet the 
MACT standard without installing additional controls. Congress clearly 
contemplated that if MACT is set at the MACT floor, the top 12 percent 
of major sources in a source category should not need to install 
additional controls to meet MACT. Of course, EPA may then go beyond the 
MACT floor by determining that the additional emissions limitations are 
justified in light of their cost, non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts and energy requirements. The report language is 
not intended in any way to stop the MACT program, but to limit the 
program to those efforts previously authorized by Congress.
  Mr. LOTT. I sense a disturbing trend at EPA. First, EPA is 
conditioning Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] permits on 
requirements that have not been subject to full administrative process. 
Second, EPA is in the process of choosing the most severe result from 
separate statutes to create a hybrid. Congress did not intend EPA to 
mix and match its authority under the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Thus, 
ignoring the independent limitation on authority and process imposed by 
each statute. Finally, EPA expressed its intention to set a separate 
MACT floor for each hazardous air pollutant. By adopting such an 
approach, EPA would be able to set multiple MACT floors that no single 
facility may be able to meet in practice. I believe the MACT language 
in the Act does not allow EPA to do this. My bottom line is that EPA 
should comply fully with the statutory and administrative controls on 
rulemaking.
  Mr. BOND. The EPA has stated that its use of the so called omnibus 
permitting authority under RCRA must be accompanied by site-specific 
findings in the administrative record supporting a permit that any 
conditions are necessary to ensure protection of human health and the 
environment. I expect EPA to comply fully with its own procedural 
requirements for omnibus permitting authority under RCRA, for MACT 
standards under the Clean Air Act and all other authorizing statutes. 
The committee would oppose any attempts by EPA to ignore its legal 
obligations.
  I will carefully consider the views of the Senator from Mississippi 
on these issues, who I understand speaks for many other Senators with 
similar concerns, and work to ensure that EPA implements its statutory 
authority consistent with the intent of Congress and its own rules and 
regulations.


            Transferring Fair Housing Enforcement Authority

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the issue of transferring fair housing 
enforcement authority from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to the Department of Justice is no small matter. I am 
pleased that Senator Bond has agreed to delay any such transfer for 18 
months. During this time, I expect the Judiciary Committee to review 
this issue. It may be that some or all of HUD's fair housing functions 
should be transferred. If so, some functions may be better transferred 
to agencies other than DOJ.
  I have no doubt that excesses in HUD's enforcement policies have 
given rise to the idea of transferring its fair housing enforcement 
authority elsewhere. I hope HUD gets a message from this episode and 
reviews its policies and practices.


                        Mercury-Containing Lamps

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to bring up an issue that Senators 
Gregg, Snowe, and Smith and I have been working on during the 
consideration of the VA/HUD Appropriations bill. The report 
accompanying H.R. 2099 includes language regarding the waste disposal 
treatment of mercury-containing flourescent light bulbs. I think it is 
important to clarify some of the issues raised in the report and 
provide additional context for the rule.
  The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has been considering a rule 
which would either conditionally exempt mercury containing lightbulbs 
from existing hazardous waste requirements or allow lamps to be treated 
under the universal waste rule. The report language does not reference 
the two options available. Is it the Chairman's understanding that the 
EPA does indeed face this choice in finalizing a rule?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The rule does 
contain two options.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the concerns raised by my 
colleagues about this rule. The point has been made that the EPA should 
not create a major disincentive for switching to energy efficient lamps 
by requiring burdensome treatment of the lamps. On the other hand, 42 
States have consumption warnings for eating the fish from the streams 
and lakes in our towns. Mercury containing lamps are the largest single 
contributor of mercury to the municipal waste stream, and our policies 
should take that fact into consideration. Our country has a mercury 
pollution problem that warrants our attention, and I share the 
chairman's concern about addressing the problem in a way that makes 
sense in cost-benefit analysis context.
  I also understand the Chairman's concern about expediting the final 
rule. However, I want to point out that we are considering this bill 
only 3 days from the end of the fiscal year. Final passage of the 
conference report may not occur until late next month. The deadline 
included in the report language may allow for only a month for EPA to 
decide, with holidays. I just want to emphasize that this is a very 
tight timeline, and it does not provide the recycling industry enough 
time to adjust if necessary. I would like to work with other Senators 
to ensure that there is an adequate adjustment period.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to get the rule out soon, but I will 
work with other Senators to ensure that there is time for a reasonable 
transition.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman for discussing 
this issue on the floor. Mercury pollution is an important issue. There 
are some areas where almost everyone agrees, such as the need to end 
incineration of mercury-containing lamps.


                        superfund npl provision

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, would the chairman of the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee yield for a question?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator. The Senator has included the fiscal 
year 1996 VA-HUD bill a provision that prohibits the addition of any 
new sites to the Superfund ``National Priorities List,'' with one 
exception. The language enables the ``governor of a state, or 
appropriate tribal leader'' to veto the EPA Administrator's request 
that a site be placed on the NPL. With one reservation, I support the 
provision in the VA-HUD bill because this Senator wants to see 
Superfund reauthorized, and the prohibition provides an important time 
out from adding new sites to the NPL. My reservation is this: I am 
concerned that the phrase ``appropriate tribal leader'' expands the 
authority of tribes, beyond that which they are granted under current 
law, to veto a site recommended by the EPA Administrator for listing on 
the NPL.
  The fiscal year 1995 rescission bill included a provision similar to 
that included in the bill before the Senate, with one exception. The 
bill currently before the Senate gives the authority to both the 
Governor of a State, or an appropriate tribal leader to veto the EPA 
Administrator's request that a site be added to the NPL. Was it the 
intent of the subcommittee chairman to expand the authority of Indian 
tribes under the Superfund law with this provision?

[[Page S 14376]]

  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct, it was not the intent of the 
subcommittee to expand the authority of Indian tribes in this 
provision.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator yield for another question on the same 
issue?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator would be happy to do so.
  Mr. GORTON. As the Senator from Missouri knows, the chairman of the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund is 
working hard to put together a Superfund reauthorization bill, and 
bring it to the Senate floor this year. There are an entire range of 
issues associated with the fact that Indian tribes are not currently 
treat as persons under the Superfund law, and are not liable for clean 
up of waste that a tribe may have contributed to a site. I have 
discussed this issue with Senator Smith and he told me that these 
issues will be looked at as he develops legislation to reauthorize the 
law. Consequently, I would ask that the Senator drop out the ``or 
appropriate tribal leader'' provision during conference with the House 
over the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD bill.
  Mr. BOND. I would be happy to work with the Senator to address this 
issue during conference.


                           amendment no. 2781

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted not to restore 
funding for the Americorps Program and with great reluctance, I opposed 
the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I did 
so not because the Corporation for National and Community Service is a 
bad investment. In fact, I am a strong supporter of the AmeriCorps 
Program and believe community service can make a big difference in our 
society. Unfortunately, the amendment restored AmeriCorps funding at 
the expense of other important Federal programs.
  Mr. President, I have seen first hand the positive results of the 
AmeriCorps Program. It has shown great promise in addressing today's 
urban and rural problems by uniting communities. Program participants 
in Wisconsin have worked hard to fight hunger, provide child care, 
combat illiteracy, and build low-income housing.
  By dedicating service to their communities, participants receive a 
small stipend and assistance to further their education. Corps 
participants are also able to leverage private resources in carrying 
out their activities, which adds to the effectiveness of the Federal 
investment.
  I am distressed that the Senate has decided not to fund the national 
service program and strongly believe the AmeriCorps Program merits 
continuation. But the amendment relied on alternative funding sources 
that I could not accept, including raising FHA's loan limits.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that in the past I have opposed 
efforts to raise the FHA's loan limits. My position on this issue is 
clear and I will not take this time to recite all of the reasons that I 
oppose raising the loan limits. I will, however, say that raising the 
loan limits will not help the low and moderate-income home buyers who 
should be the prime beneficiaries of FHA's efforts. For the record, I 
also note that I would have gladly worked with the authors of the 
amendment to find other more appropriate offsets, if only I had 
received sufficient advance notice of the amendment.


           Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the community 
development financial institutions (CDFI) fund.
  The CDFI fund is a key priority for President Clinton. He and Vice 
President Gore campaigned in 1992 to create a new partnership with the 
private sector to revitalize economically distressed communities. The 
President and Vice President spoke passionately about their vision for 
supporting local community development banks.
  After the election of 1992, both Republicans and Democrats in the 
last Congress turned the President's vision into ground-breaking 
legislation that created the CDFI fund. The legislation passed the 
Senate unanimously and was approved by a 410 to 12 vote in the House.
  Unfortunately, the CDFI fund is now a hostage of partisan politics. 
Under this appropriations bill, the CDFI fund is terminated. Before 
even giving this program a chance to succeed, this bill kills it. That 
is a real shame.
  The fund is a small but very innovative program. For a modest $50 
million budget, the fund has the potential to make a significant impact 
in distressed communities.
  The fund's investments would create new jobs, promote small business, 
restore neighborhoods, and generate tax revenues in communities 
desperate for community development.
  How would the CDFI fund succeed in areas where more traditional 
financing has failed?
  The fund would create a permanent, self-sustaining network of 
financial institutions that are dedicated to serving distressed 
communities. These financial institutions include a fast-growing 
industry of specialized financial service providers--community 
development financial institutions. The fund would also provide 
incentives for banks and thrifts to increase their community 
development activities and invest in CDFIs.
  The CDFI fund's initiatives would be an innovative departure from 
traditional community development programs because they leverage 
significant private sector resources. It is estimated that every $1 of 
fund resources would leverage $10 in non-Federal resources. And these 
locally-controlled CDFIs would be able to respond more quickly and 
effectively to market-building opportunities than traditional community 
development organizations.
  The CDFI fund has caught the interest of many community development 
organizations across the Nation. Unfortunately, these fine community 
development organizations and many others throughout the country may 
never get the opportunity to receive assistance from the CDFI fund. I 
strongly believe that would be a short-sighted mistake--putting 
partisan politics ahead of our distressed communities.
  I urge my colleagues to restore funding for the CDFI fund if the 
Senate revisits this bill during the appropriations process.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, community development financial 
institutions [CDFI] play an important role in my home State, and I join 
my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in expressing my strong support 
for the CDFI fund.
  Community Development Financial Institutions are essential to serving 
communities that often find it difficult to cultivate financial 
support. CDFI's prove that private sector, locally controlled financial 
institutions can combine rigorous fiscal management with a commitment 
to improving communities by offering capital access along with related 
training and technical services when other institutions may not. CDFI's 
provide capital to distressed communities, as well as increase the 
number of joint venture loans between Federal, State, and private 
entities.
  Mr. President, Cascadia Revolving Fund, of Seattle, is a prime 
example of how CDFI's can complement traditional financial 
institutions. Cascadia is a nonprofit community development loan fund 
which makes loans and provides technical assistance to low-income, 
minority- and women-owned businesses in addition to businesses in 
economically distressed areas. Over the past 10 years, Cascadia has 
lent over $3 million, and 90 percent of the businesses they have 
assisted are still in business today.
  The Community Development Banking Act of 1994, which created the CDFI 
fund, received broad bipartisan support in the 103d Congress. The 
legislation passed the Senate unanimously, and was approved by a 410 to 
12 vote in the House. Today, there are roughly 310 CDFI's operating in 
45 States that manage more than $1 billion in primarily private sector 
money.
  Mr. President, it would be a shame to terminate this program designed 
to revitalize economically distressed communities before even giving it 
a chance to succeed. If the Senate has the opportunity to revisit this 
bill during the appropriations process, I urge my colleagues to restore 
funding to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, things are finally beginning to turn 
around in urban America. We have finally taken some small, tentative 
steps to give children a safe and nurturing environment, to help 
communities repair 

[[Page S 14377]]
themselves, to help individuals find and get jobs, to help poor people 
develop assets for the future, and to restore strong financial 
institutions that help communities save their own money, invest, 
borrow, and grow.
  But just as the economics of urban America were starting to improve, 
this bill pulls out one of the most vital initiatives to bring capital, 
initiative, savings, and growth to those who have been isolated from 
it: the Community Development Financial Institutions Program. This 
initiative evolved from the Community Capital Partnership Act that I 
introduced in 1993. I am very disappointed that the committee included 
no funds for community development financial institutions, and I want 
to remind the chairman of the subcommittee that there is significant, 
passionate support in the Senate for the continuation of this program.
  Most of us take basic financial institutions for granted. We have 
savings and checking accounts, our bank lends our money to businesses 
in our communities, and we borrow ourselves when it comes time to buy a 
home or we have an inspiration to start a business. But in most 
American cities, the only financial institution they know is the check-
cashing cubicle, which charges up to 5 percent just to cash a 
Government check, and takes the money back out of the community. People 
who want to save have nowhere to go and businesses have no access to 
capital. Within the 165 squares miles that make up the areas most 
affected by the Los Angeles riots, there are 19 bank branches, as 
compared to 135 check cashing establishments.
  People who want to borrow have even fewer opportunities. They can buy 
a car or furniture on time, or on a rent-to-own plan, but if they want 
to borrow to get ahead, by starting a small service business or a 
store, they're out of luck. The ``McNeil-Lehrer Newshour'' last year 
interviewed some ambitious entrepreneurs in rural Arkansas, one of them 
a woman named Jesse Pearl Jackson, who owns a beauty salon. She needed 
a loan for new equipment, and when she went to a bank, she says the 
loan officer ``laughed me clean out the door. She said, `You want money 
for what?' She said, `You don't walk in here and ask me for an 
application for a loan. That is not the way you do it.' I said, `Well, 
if you will tell me what to do, then I will come back, and I will do it 
right the next time.' She was laughing so hard and making fun of me so 
bad I never went back.'' There is money to be made here, for any bank 
willing to take entrepreneurs like Ms. Jackson seriously, but large 
financial institutions without roots in the community are unlikely to 
see those opportunities.
  But there are islands of hope for people who want to save and invest 
in troubled communities. Last year I visited La Casa de Don Pedro, 
which operates a credit union in a very poor section of Newark. La Casa 
is a multi-purpose community organization that just happens to have a 
credit union. While I was there, a stream of members poured into the 
small building which houses the credit union, day care center, and 
other programs, depositing $20, $50, and $100 at a time. I did not see 
any banks in the vicinity of La Casa. If it were not for the credit 
union, many of the community's residents would have no place to deposit 
their money, secure small loans, or take advantage of other services we 
often take for granted.
  This fund does not, and should not, seek to create organizations that 
will be perpetually dependent on Government for support. Instead, it 
seeks to reach in at a point of leverage in capital-starved communities 
and get them started. It does not set development strategies for either 
the institutions or the communities they serve. Instead, it lets those 
involved in the struggle for economic recovery find their own path.
  There has been such widespread support for the idea of expanding 
community financial institutions, even though it is a relatively new 
idea to many people. I still hear some wariness, though, about this 
investment from people who argue that poor people do not save and that 
distressed communities do not have the resources to support economic 
development.
  The evidence contradicts this cynical view. In Paterson, NJ, last 
year, I visited one of the few banks that had not left that city. I 
struck up a conversation with a customer, who volunteered that she was 
depositing $100. Surprised, I asked her how much she generally saved in 
a week. She told me that she and her husband had five children and 
earned $20,000 last year--below the poverty line. But even on this 
income, they saved $3,000 that year, for health emergencies, for 
college, or to give their children a chance at a better life. Their 
experience tells me that saving for the future is a fundamental value 
of our country, not limited to the middle class, and that if we all had 
access to the institutions that make capitalism work, we could all be a 
part of vital, self-sufficient communities.
  Mr. President, I know we expect this legislation to be vetoed, 
because it sets all the wrong priorities. The defunding of the CDFI 
initiative is only one example. I hope that we will have an opportunity 
to reconsider this bill, to put all its priorities in order, and that 
when we do, we will find a way to continue to support community 
development financial institutions.

                          ____________________