[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14377-S14394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the 
community development financial institutions [CDFI] fund.
  Created by legislation enacted in 1993, the CDFI fund, in a new 
partnership with the private sector, would revitalize economically 
distressed communities. The fund would create a permanent network of 
financial institutions that are dedicated to serving these communities.
  Today many low- and moderate-income Americans across the country are 
unable to cash a check, borrow money to buy a home, or secure a small 
loan to start or invest in a business. Rural communities, because they 
are remote, have unique problems in this regard.
  Designed to encourage community development through lending to 
underserved low- and moderate-income people and communities, CDFI's are 
especially important to the people in these communities who do not have 
affordable credit, capital, and basic banking services.
  The CDFI's would go a long way toward stimulating the economy in 
those communities by helping to create new jobs and promote the 
development of small business. And at a small cost. CDFI's are required 
to provide a minimum of $1 of matching funds for each Federal dollar 
received.
  When enacted in 1993, the CDFI fund had the overwhelming support of 
both Houses of Congress. The President is a strong advocate of the 
fund. It is not a large program; but it can be an extremely effective 
one. It should not be terminated before having a chance to succeed.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to reinstate funding for 
this vital program.


                             EPA Provisions

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we consider the VA-HUD Appropriations 
bill, we will set the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and this budget for EPA turns back the clock on 25 years of bipartisan 
progress and tips the balance from the protection of people to the 
protection of the special interests of some industries.
  The Gingrich majority and the extremists on the right have placed in 
jeopardy the gains we have fought for, and the progress we have made to 
protect the environment and ensure the health and safety of every 
American in the last 25 years.
  Ironically, for 19 of the last 25 years Republicans were in charge of 
the EPA. It was Richard Nixon who signed into law the National 
Environmental Policy Act and declared protection of the environment to 
be a national priority. And today the Republican majority is turning 
its back on its own promise.
  Twenty-five years ago environmental organizations let their voices be 
heard and the message was loud and clear. We must find that voice 
again. We must unite in our efforts and let the message resound across 
this Nation and through the halls of Congress--that we will not turn 
back the clock on environmental protection.
  We will not retreat. We will not give in. We will fight for clean 
air, clean water, and the preservation of our land and oceans and 
rivers so that the world we leave our children will be the same 
magnificent world that was handed down to us. 

[[Page S 14378]]

  I call on every one who believes in the importance of environmental 
protection and who has been part of this fight to stand together and 
renew the effort we began. We cannot assume we can change the agenda in 
Congress.
  We cannot take anything for granted. We must rebuild, retool, 
reorganize, and reeducate. We must put aside whatever differences exist 
between groups or regions and stand up for what we know is right for 
the Nation and for the environmental gains we have made.
  We have to start anew--as people committed to the environment--we 
must begin again as if this were April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day.
  We must take advantage of America's attention on the 25th anniversary 
of that day to galvanize support across the country for what Americans 
believe and want for the environment: clean air, clean water, pristine 
rivers, and protected ecosystems, abundant species of plants and 
animals, clean beaches, parks and public lands that are clean and safe, 
cities with breathable air, industries and businesses that are willing 
to do all they can to protect the environment, and a government that 
cares.
  These should be the 10 commandments for the new environmental 
movement, and our call to action is clear: Remember April 22, 1970. 
And, Mr. President, we must do so in a rational bi-partisan manner.
  But this bill--this bill--Mr. President, speaks volumes about the new 
Republican Party and its retreat from responsible policies designed to 
protect the health and safety of all Americans--of all incomes, all 
races, and particularly those who are the most vulnerable in society 
today.
  The central question in this debate is: What priority do we place on 
protecting our Nation's vital natural resources and the health of its 
citizens? Regrettably, I must say that the Appropriations Committee 
does not put as high a priority on the environment as the American 
people do.
  This bill cuts the EPA budget by $1.7 billion--23 percent below the 
level originally appropriated to the EPA for the current fiscal year. 
In addition, it includes 11 legislative riders that eliminate critical 
environmental protections provided in such statutes as the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. President, I am cosponsoring several amendments today to restore 
some of the more egregious cuts and provisions in this bill to bring it 
more in line with what I believe to be the priorities of most 
Americans.
  In addition to the EPA, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies 
appropriations bill before us today includes funding for the Veterans 
Administration, for Housing and Urban Development, the National Science 
Foundation, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration--all 
important Federal programs.
  But of all the agencies, the agency that has the most direct impact 
on American lives is the EPA.
  I find it ironic that it is the EPA budget that takes the largest 
reduction of any agency's budget in this bill--23 percent cut from 
funding levels originally appropriated for the current fiscal year.
  Americans have, indeed, called for meaningful budget reductions and 
reforms and the President and Congress have serious plans to meet those 
reduction goals; and all departments and agencies must join in this 
effort if we are to succeed. But the best approach, by far, is first to 
eliminate wasteful spending, and then spread the reductions across 
agencies. Unfortunately, this is not the approach of the appropriators.
  The committee this year, while cutting the EPA budget by 23 percent 
is reducing its other agencies by far less.
  The fiscal year 1996 Senate appropriations bill for EPA would deal a 
harsh blow to efforts to protect public health and the environment for 
Massachusetts and the Nation.
  While the President has proposed a balanced budget that would 
preserve the environment and protect the health and safety of American 
families, the bill before us cuts those protections dramatically, while 
placing severe limits on existing protections.
  Let me take a moment to highlight the key cuts that would have an 
enormous negative impact on millions of citizens.
  First, this bill cuts desperately needed assistance to State and 
local governments for important water infrastructure programs through 
the State revolving loan fund [SRF]. This bill cuts almost $600 million 
to provide assistance to local communities to offset the enormous costs 
of sewage treatment facilities in order to provide cleaner local 
water--cleaner water in nearby rivers and adjoining shorelines.
  Of that, the $20 million which would be targeted to Massachusetts 
alone would assist over 300 communities across my State.
  Hundreds of thousands of citizens in my State--as in dozens of States 
across this Nation--rely on clean water for their livelihood.
  From tourism to fisheries, industries depend on the quality of 
water--and history shows that industry did not care about the quality 
of water when it had the chance--when there was no EPA. I wonder what 
has changed today.
  My State is but one of many that had beaches closed to protect the 
public from unsafe waters in 1994. These closings cost millions of 
dollars but can be avoided with prudent, preventive clean water 
standards and a reliable water infrastructure system.
  Local communities cannot shoulder this burden alone. That is why 
Congress created a Federal-State-local government partnership to 
finance this process.
  That is why, earlier this year, we passed and the President signed 
into law, the Unfunded Mandates Act requiring that future legislative 
initiatives provide Federal financial assistance to State and local 
governments for implementing such large-scale undertakings.
  I find it ironic that this same congressional leadership would now 
support cutting hundreds of millions of assistance to local and State 
governments when it is so urgently needed.
  A second area of concern are funding cuts for the cleanup of the 
toxic waste sites. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program funding is 
targeted for a 36-percent reduction--$500 million.
  A reduction on this scale would slow cleanups and would stall cleanup 
efforts in communities that have patiently waited for Federal 
intervention.
  In Massachusetts alone, there are four new communities slated to 
begin cleanup efforts in 1996--New Bedford, Dartmouth, Palmer, and 
Tyngsborough.
  All of these communities would be adversely impacted by these 
unprecedented cutbacks. And what do we tell the people who live there: 
``Don't worry. The problem will take care of itself once we get 
Government off our backs?''
  Mr. President, the problem is that companies did not take care of 
these situations before there was an EPA--or before a young man named 
Jimmy Anderson got sick from a contaminated well in Woburn, MA. He died 
from lymphocytic leukemia in 1981.
  Let me digress for a moment because Jimmy Anderson's story makes the 
point better than any rhetoric I could come up with today.
  Almost 30 years ago, Jimmy's mother Anne suspected something was 
wrong with their water because it smelled bad, only to be assured that 
the water was safe. Then, in early 1972, Jimmy got sick.
  Despite Mrs. Anderson's concerns and protests, the wells remained in 
use until 1979 when a State environmental inspection triggered by an 
unrelated incident detected unusually high levels of toxins.
  Eventually, other leukemia victims came forward and it turned out 
that between 1966 and 1986 there were 28 cases of leukemia among Woburn 
children with victims concentrated in a section of Woburn served by two 
wells.
  Investigations revealed that there were lagoons of arsenic, chromium, 
and lead discovered on a tract of land that once housed a number of 
chemical plants, or from a nearby abandoned tannery that had left 
behind a huge mound of decades old rotting horsehides that gave off a 
smell that commuters used to call the Woburn odor.
  I say to my colleagues, before we rush headlong into getting 
Government out of the business of protecting people like Jimmy Anderson 
I think we should reflect for a moment on the consequences of turning 
back the clock to 

[[Page S 14379]]
a time when there were no real regulations and industry did, indeed, 
have Government off of its back.
  Let me read what Anne Anderson said to a congressional committee. She 
said,

       It is difficult for me to come before you today, but I do 
     so with the realization that industry has the strength, 
     influence, and resources that we, the victims, do not. I am 
     here as a reminder of the tragic consequences of controlled 
     toxic waste, and the necessity of those who are responsible 
     for it to assume that responsibility.

  Mr. President, this is why we have made the choices we did for the 
last 25 years. And they were the right choices.
  I would submit to my colleagues that this bill throws responsibility 
to the wind, and begins a tragic return to the days when toxic lagoons 
contaminated the water in Woburn and killed Jimmy Anderson.
  Now, getting back to the third point, Mr. President, the massive 
budget cuts proposed for EPA's enforcement and compliance programs seem 
extremely shortsighted. The Senate appropriators target the EPA 
enforcement program for a 20-percent cutback.
  This is the office that goes after the bad actors in the 
environmental arena; they are the ones that most directly protect the 
public's health and safety.
  Cutting back enforcement will only encourage polluters to continue 
breaking the law. In Massachusetts during 1994, EPA and State 
inspectors visited 1,091 facilities to ensure public health and safety 
standards. Of those visits, 117 State and Federal enforcement actions 
were taken to protect the public.
  By weakening enforcement, more polluters are given an unfair economic 
advantage over responsible industry competitors play by the rules 
because polluters have lower production costs.
  Less enforcement means more risk taking by polluters because they are 
less likely to get caught.
  Let me tell you a tale of two companies. One bought scrubbers; the 
other bought lobbyists and lawyers.
  In the early 1990's, Federal regulators discovered that a number of 
forest products companies had underestimated certain emissions at 
plywood and waferboard plants by a factor of 10--and had therefore 
failed to apply for permits under the Clean Air Act or install 
necessary but expensive pollution controls.
  When EPA moved to require permits and installation of such equipment, 
Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific chose very different responses.
  The one that played by the rules finds itself at a serious 
competitive disadvantage--if its rival can get away with it.
  Weyerhaueser more or less played by the rules, moving quickly to 
install tens of millions of dollars in pollution controls at its 
plants--according to company officials--even before EPA began its 
enforcement action.
  The company paid a substantial fine to State regulators, though it is 
currently contesting any EPA decision to seek fines.
  Georgia-Pacific, on the other hand, chose to fight EPA, claiming it 
had only followed the agency's own faulty document--though a 1983 
industry-produced technical bulletin corrected and publicized the 
error--and that State regulators had in any event approved its plants.
  The company spent its money instead on Washington lawyers and 
lobbyists, who managed to slip a special provision into the original 
Dole regulatory reform bill effectively freeing Georgia-Pacific from 
any obligation to install the expensive equipment.
  According to Weyerhaeuser, the pollution controls add $1 million a 
year to operating costs at each plant. If Georgia-Pacific can get away 
with its plan to avoid installing any controls whatsoever, Weyerhaeuser 
plants will then be at a serious disadvantage during the next downturn 
in the highly cyclical building products industry.
  By playing by the rules, Weyerhaeuser will have lost.
  Weyerhaeuser's director of environmental affairs says Georgia 
Pacific's tactic: ``sends exactly the wrong signal. We're finding 
ourselves in the position of being penalized for coming into 
compliance. We think that's unfair.''
  Finally, Mr. President, in addition to the unjustified draconian 
budget cuts, there are nearly a dozen legislative riders that have no 
business being added to an appropriations bill. These legislative 
proposals should be considered by the authorizing committees with 
jurisdiction.
  This bill guts EPA and virtually lets the free marketeers decide what 
is right, and puts its faith in the perceived altruism of American 
capitalists who somehow and for some reason, now, in 1995, have seen 
the light and will do better in the future than they did in the past.
  It puts its faith in industry's willingness to care more about the 
common man than the bottom line. It says that if Government would only 
leave everyone alone, everyone will do the right thing. If we stop 
watching where folks dump their toxic waste, what they spew into the 
air, and what chemicals they use, everyone will act in the common 
interest.
  I am not sure that is the case. But I am sure that EPA balances the 
equation between those who care and those who don not. Why now, are we 
willing to tip that balance--to favor the polluters over the people.
  My Republican friends will deny that this bill tips the balance or 
turns back the clock. They will stand here and tell us that Government 
has been intrusive and it has--that Government has overregulated and it 
has--that Government is demanding too much of small business and it is.
  They will give us example after example of ludicrous regulations and 
I agree that those regulations should be abolished, but not at the 
expense of the progress we have made.
  But they will not tell us is why we needed an EPA. They conveniently 
forget about Jimmy Anderson.
  This chorus to cut Government--with its refrain of getting Government 
off our backs--is becoming a dirge for the common man.
  And we are marching into the next century to a slow and painful 
funeral march for the death of common sense.
  I yield the floor.


                            reno va hospital

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
Senate the impact the proposed VA/HUD appropriations bill is having on 
veterans who rely on the Veterans Affairs medical center located in 
Reno, NV, for inpatient hospital care.
  I recognize the difficult funding decisions that faced the VA/HUD 
Appropriations Subcommittee. And I know the subcommittee wants to 
provide quality health care for veterans in quality medical facilities. 
But the decision to not fund any major construction projects 
jeopardizes the ability of the Reno VA hospital to provide that quality 
inpatient care to its veterans.
  The Reno VA hospital's $20.1 million major construction project to 
build an inpatient bed wing project is an authorized project. The 
project's construction plans will be completed in November. The project 
will be ready for bid award in January, 1996. The House VA/HUD 
appropriations bill, passed in June, includes $20.1 million for the 
project. But there is no funding for this authorized project in this 
Senate bill.
  The Reno VA hospital's current inpatient bed wing was designed prior 
to World War II, and is today a woefully inadequate facility. The Reno 
VA hospital inpatient bed wind has been in noncompliance with JCAHO 
accreditation standards for nearly 6 years. It again faces an 
accreditation evaluation from JCAHO on October 10.
  The hospital's inpatient wing's deficiencies include inadequate fire 
prevention including lacking water sprinklers, an inadequate oxygen 
system in patient rooms, inadequate air conditioning, and inadequate 
handicapped access. Further, the patient rooms lack wash basins and 
toilets which violate both privacy standards for the patients, and 
health standards for nurses and physicians who are required to wash 
their hands before leaving a patient's room. With the increase in women 
patients using the hospital, the lack of wash basins and toilets 
problem is further exacerbated. Can you imagine being sick in a room 
with no air conditioning? In a room with no toilet facility except down 
the hall?
  I know we would all agree this situation is intolerable. This 
inpatient care unit is woefully inadequate to meet even the most basic 
of standards for care and safety. The personal dignity of all the 
veterans who receive their inpatient hospital care there is 
compromised.
  This hospital critically needs the new inpatient hospital wing to 
ensure the 

[[Page S 14380]]
center does not lose the JCAHO accreditation. To date, no Veteran 
Affairs medical facility has lost its accreditation. However, JCAHO has 
recently been under industry criticism for not being as stringent as it 
should be to ensure the quality of its accreditation standards. When a 
facility like the Reno hospital has been in noncompliance with 
accreditation standards for 6 years, and is unable to show JCAHO a 
definitive plan to correct those deficiencies, because its construction 
project has not been funded, it is surely not beyond the realm of 
possibility that Reno could be facing nonaccreditation.
  And what happens should the hospital lose its accreditation? The 
hospital will be given a specific time period to move the current 
inpatient patients out of the facility, and obviously no new patients 
can be admitted. The hospital's medical residents from the University 
of Nevada-Reno medical school will have to leave the hospital 
immediately as they cannot practice in an unaccredited facility. The 
hospital's physicians will leave as soon as possible, as physicians do 
not further their professional standing by serving in an unaccredited 
facility. The hospital's research program will be dismantled because 
Federal research funds cannot flow to an unaccredited facility. In 
simple terms, Reno will no longer have an inpatient hospital.
  Since coming to the Senate, I have worked to attain funding for a new 
inpatient bed wing. During the last budget cycle, the Reno hospital and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs drastically scaled back the 
construction project by nearly half its original cost. This revision 
was done to face the reality of funding constraints for major 
construction projects, and to ensure the hospital would have a 
definitive plan to meet its accreditation deficiencies. It is ironic 
that a construction project which has been significantly scaled back, 
and would solve the Reno hospital accreditation problems cannot go 
forward.
  The subcommittee has recommended that no major construction project, 
whether authorized or not, should be funded. I understand the concerns 
of the subcommittee and the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee that 
major construction projects should not go forward while the Department 
of Veterans Affairs is developing a new veterans health care delivery 
system. However, the veterans who rely upon the Reno VA hospital for 
inpatient medical care cannot wait.
  The subcommittee increased the minor construction account funding to 
try to provide additional funds for facilities to use to address their 
accreditation, and life and safety deficiencies. But the minor 
construction account funding is not the answer for the Reno hospital.

  The minor construction account limits funding to no more than $3 
million per project. It is estimated to require $13.9 million to 
renovate the current inpatient bed wing; obviously over the $3 million 
project limit. Even if a $13.9 million expenditure could be made from 
the minor construction fund, the hospital would still not meet 
accreditation standards. This is an old building. Most of this building 
is uninsulated. Its electrical system is at capacity. Its steam 
radiator heating system is beyond economical repair. Only so much can 
be done within the limits of such a building. Is it wise to put 
millions into an old building, that will not in the end meet 
accreditation and life safety code requirements? I think not.
  It must also be noted that the estimated $13.9 million renovation 
cost does not include the costs of contracting out inpatient hospital 
care during the disruption caused by such construction work. There is 
no other VA health care facility within competitive travel distance to 
assume any of Reno's inpatient caseload. Given the population influx of 
veterans into northern Nevada, and the increased patient load of 
California veterans due to closure of the Martinez VA facility damaged 
by earthquake, this hospital needs to be able to continue to serve the 
inpatient hospital needs of veterans for years to come.
  None of us wants a VA hospital closed for accreditation 
noncompliance. None of us wants sick veterans receiving care in a 
hospital room with no air conditioning or inadequate fire protection. 
Given extreme budget restraints, hard decisions must be made. But when 
those hard decisions serve to prevent a vitally needed construction 
project like the Reno hospital inpatient wing from going forward, the 
funding priorities are skewed. Reno needs a new inpatient wing without 
further delay.


                      national science foundation

  Mr. INOUYE. Will the Chairman of the Veteran's Affairs and Housing 
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee yield for 
a question?
  Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to yield for a question from the senior 
Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As the chairman knows, starting in fiscal year 1991, the Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee urged the 
creation of a new Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic 
Sciences at the National Science Foundation. This was led by our 
colleague Senator Barbara Mikulski.
  The subcommittee also was instrumental in encouraging the new NSF 
Directorate to pursue a program called the Human Capital Initiative, 
which supports basic behavioral research aimed at some of our most 
serious national problems--such as education, substance abuse, 
violence, productivity, problems of aging, health, and others.
  This year, for fiscal year 1966, the subcommittee has had to make 
some hard choices among programs to live within their 602(b) 
allocations. The chairman has been fair and even-handed in his efforts 
to craft a bill within the spending total available to him.
  Is it the chairman's intention that this fairness will also carry 
over when final allocations are made at NSF, and that NSF's programs in 
the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate will receive 
equitable treatment with other research disciplines?
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the question.
  It is my intention and my expectation that the National Science 
Foundation would continue the current practice of recommending support 
levels for that Directorate and for the programs represented by the 
Human Capital Initiative, within the overall funding recommendations of 
the committee in its operating plan. As you know, we generally accord 
the recommendations of the Foundation considerable deference given the 
technical nature of many of these allocation decisions, and it is my 
intention to continue this practice.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, I 
also would like to thank the Senator from Hawaii for his question, and 
I wholeheartedly support the answer provided by Chairman Bond. It would 
be a matter of great concern to me if any area of research at the 
National Science Foundation is singled out and given inappropriate 
reductions in funding. Our support for the Social, Behavioral and 
Economic Sciences Directorate and for the Human Capital Initiative must 
continue to be strong and I hope to see those programs funded as 
generously as our appropriations will allow.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are still a number of amendments left 
on the list. We do not believe the Senators proposing them are planning 
to come down. Senator Daschle has reserved a relevant amendment, 
Senator Simpson has reserved an amendment to eliminate the EPA SEE 
program. We are preparing to move to the adoption of the final 
managers' amendment.
  I ask that, if there are any Senators who do wish to pursue these 
amendments, that they call the cloakroom immediately and let us know, 
because as soon as we do the managers' amendment we will be ready to 
proceed to third reading.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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.


                   Petroleum Refinery MACT Standards

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am in strong support of language at this 


[[Page S 14381]]
point calling for the EPA to reevaluate the petroleum refinery MACT 
standards. The refinery MACT legislation is a prime example of the EPA 
regulations run amok.
  As I said at a hearing earlier this year, refinery MACT regulation 
could be a poster child for nonsensical regulations. Its costs far 
exceed any possible benefits.
  As a member of the authorizing subcommittee, I can speak for a 
majority of the subcommittee in saying that the EPA has taken the wrong 
direction in its implementation of the Clean Air Act amendments. The 
implementation of the act is an issue that the subcommittee will be 
addressing in the coming months. However, in the meantime we need to 
put a stop to the refinery MACT rule from taking effect.
  These are the rules that were promulgated, yet the standards which 
were used were standards prior to 1980 when, in fact, the refineries 
had complied with the 1990 amendments. Those things were not taken into 
consideration.
  We are talking about millions of dollars, if we leave these 
regulations in effect. This does not roll back any environmental laws. 
It just allows the EPA the time to fix an obviously flawed regulation.
  In the defense of the EPA, I would say they were under a court-
ordered deadline when this happened, and I feel this is an opportunity 
for us to at least have language in there suggesting we rescind 
compliance for that period of time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                remaining excepted committee amendments

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
committee amendments previously excepted from adoption be adopted en 
bloc at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, could I ask the managers 
of the bill to explain No. 12.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, we are referring to the items that were 
excepted by request of the other side.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.
  Mr. BOND. We are now prepared to go through the list of amendments we 
propose to adopt en bloc in the managers' amendments.
  I will send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent 
that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the remaining committee 
amendments are agreed to.


                  Amendments Nos. 2796 to 2808 En Bloc

  Mr. BOND. First, I send an amendment proposed by Senator Simon and 
Senator Moseley-Braun providing an effective date for the transfer of 
the Fair Housing Act enforcement from HUD to the Attorney General;
  Second, an amendment by Senator Johnston providing the EPA shall 
enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
investigate and report on scientific bases for regulating indoor radon 
and other naturally occurring radioactive materials;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Bingaman relating to energy savings at 
Federal facilities;
  Next, an amendment to increase amounts provided for FEMA salaries and 
expenses, and Office of Inspector General, and emergency food and 
shelter;
  Next, an amendment to make technical corrections and modifications to 
the committee amendment to H.R. 2099, about 10 pages of corrections 
primarily in language to conform to the intent of Congress in the 
measures adopted here, and to clarify the subsection numbers;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Kempthorne and myself to provide 
additional time to permit enactment of Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization which will release funds for the financial assistance 
program;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Faircloth to prevent funds being used 
for the filing or maintaining of nonfrivolous legal action, and 
achieving or preventing action by a Government official, entity, or 
court of competent jurisdiction;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Faircloth to preserve the national 
occupancy standard of two persons per bedroom in the HUD regulations;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Feinstein to expand the eligible 
activities under the community development block grant to include 
reconstruction;
  Next, an amendment by Senator Warner to impose a moratorium on the 
conversion of Environmental Protection Agency contracts for research 
and development;
  Next, an amendment by Senators Moynihan and D'Amato to transfer a 
special purpose grant for renovation of central terminal in Buffalo, 
NY, making available for central terminal and other public facilities;
  Next, an amendment by me to provide $6 million for the National and 
Community Service Act of 1990 to resolve all responsibilities and 
obligations in connection with the said Corporation and the 
Corporation's Office of Inspector General;
  And, finally, an amendment by Senator Feingold to require a report 
from the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
on the extent to which community development block grants have been 
utilized to facilitate the closing of an industrial commercial plant 
for the substantial reduction and relocation and expansion of the 
plant.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will not object. I would like to take this opportunity 
to thank the Senators from Missouri and Maryland, and their staff, for 
allowing Senator Brown's staff and my staff, and Senator Brown and 
myself, to review these amendments.
  I think they are all very appropriate.
  I appreciate the degree of cooperation shown.
  I remove my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) for himself and 
     others, proposes amendments numbered 2796 through and 
     including 2808.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2796

       On page 169, at the end of line 7, insert before the period 
     the following: ``effective April 1, 1997; Provided, That none 
     of the aforementioned authority or responsibility for 
     enforcement of the Fair Housing Act shall be transferred to 
     the Attorney General until adequate personnel and resources 
     allocated to such activity at the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development are transferred to the Department of 
     Justice.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this appropriations bill, as reported by 
the committee, contained an ill-advised proposal to transfer all 
enforcement authority under the Fair Housing Act from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Justice.
  I am strongly opposed to any such transfer of authority, for reasons 
that I will describe in a moment.
  But I and other opponents of the transfer proposal have agreed not to 
offer an amendment to strike the provision because the chairman of the 
subcommittee has agreed to include in the managers' package an 
amendment to postpone any transfer of enforcement authority on the 
transfer of adequate personnel and resources to the Department of 
Justice.
  Let me explain my reasons for opposing the transfer of fair housing 
enforcement authority. At the outset, I would note that this sweeping 
reorganization has not been the subject of a single day of hearings in 
the Judiciary Committee. Since enactment of the Fair Housing Act, each 
Department has put in place the procedural mechanisms to fulfill its 
obligations under the act. In a scant 2 pages of legislative language, 
this bill seeks to change the fundamental structure of fair housing 
enforcement.
  I was one of the members of the bipartisan coalition that crafted the 
Fair Housing Act amendments in 1988. That 

[[Page S 14382]]
bill was a comprehensive, carefully considered set of improvements to 
the act. One of the central components of the 1988 bill was a division 
of responsibility for fair housing enforcement between the Department 
of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 
fact, the enforcement scheme was the product of lengthy discussions 
with the real estate industry itself.
  Under the current structure, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development responds to discrimination complaints and provide 
administrative enforcement of those complaints. It is the only agency 
which maintains a system of field investigators and the legal staff 
necessary to respond to complaints of discrimination in housing. It is 
the only agency which investigates housing discrimination complaints 
and provides administrative hearings to reduce the need for litigation. 
It is the only agency with a specific process to encourage voluntary 
compliance with the Fair Housing Act.
  HUD is the only agency which can efficiently and effectively combat 
housing discrimination on a daily basis because it is the only agency 
which was set up to enforce the Fair Housing Act on a daily basis.
  Only after HUD has conducted a through investigation and attempted to 
settle the dispute short of litigation, does the Department of Justice 
become involved in the case. In fact, only one in five cases is ever 
referred by HUD to the Department of Justice. In 1995, almost half of 
all complaints filed with HUD were resolved through conciliation.
  The Department of Justice is the Nation's litigator. Its only 
investigatory branch is the FBI. The Justice Department is ill-equipped 
to handle the major structural change involved in assuming HUD's 
obligations under the Fair Housing Act. The Department would have to 
set up a structure to receive, investigate, process, prosecute and 
adjudicate over 10,000 complaints annually. Concurrently, it would have 
to administer field enforcement in several State offices. The Justice 
Department has no State offices for such purposes, and has no resources 
for procuring such offices. In effect, the Department of Justice would 
have to re-create the structure already present in HUD; all at a cost 
to the American taxpayer.
  The Justice Department does not have the capacity, nor does it want, 
to take on HUD's enforcement obligations under the Fair Housing Act. It 
is a waste of time and money to mandate this restructuring when HUD 
already has a system in place--a system which works to effectively and 
quickly investigate and resolve discrimination complaints. Both 
Attorney General Reno and Secretary Cisneros oppose the transfer 
proposal.
  If H.R. 2099 were to pass without the changes in the managers' 
amendment, the effect would be devastating. As of September 30, 1995, 
HUD's swift administrative investigation and resolution of complaints 
would cease. In addition HUD would be barred from seeking injunctions 
for plaintiffs whose injuries are immediate and irreparable, continuing 
settlement negotiations already in progress, investigating complaints, 
or even providing counsel in pending litigation. As a result, the law 
protecting people from discrimination in housing would become a dead 
letter.
  My willingness to negotiate a postponement of the transfer should not 
be interpreted to mean that I now support the transfer of enforcement 
authority. I do not. I intend to work over the course of the next 18 
months to prevent this transfer from taking place.
  I understand the managers' amendment to mean that over the next 18 
months, both the Judiciary Committee and the Banking Committee will 
examine this proposal and its implications. If we conclude that such 
transfer is unwarranted, we will act to avert it by subsequent 
legislation. And it is further my understanding, as one who has 
negotiated this compromise, that no transfer of the legal authority to 
enforce the Fair Housing Act shall ever take effect until and unless 
adequate personnel and resources are provided to the Department of 
Justice to enforce the act with the same rigor and dedication as HUD 
currently does.
  Above all, I oppose any legislative effort to weaken the Fair Housing 
Act. The Senate wisely accepted the Feingold amendment to ensure that 
the insurance industry is covered by the act. And our resolution of the 
enforcement question ensures that there will be no precipitous transfer 
of authority--and perhaps no transfer at all if cooler heads prevail.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President. I strongly object to a provision in the 
fiscal year 1996 Veterans Administration/Housing and Urban Development, 
VA-HUD, appropriations bill. The provision repeals the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's, HUD, Fair Housing Act enforcement 
authority and transfers it to the Department of Justice, DOJ. While I 
appreciate the efforts of Senator Bond to work with me to improve the 
language of the provision and to give some time before the transfer of 
authority is to take place, I still believe that the approach in this 
bill is wrong.
  The VA-HUD Subcommittee report states that ``[t]he intent of this 
provision is not to minimize the importance of addressing housing 
discrimination in this Nation.'' Unfortunately, this provision does 
just that.
  The subcommittee report also states that ``the Justice Department 
with its own significant responsibilities to address all forms of 
discrimination represents a good place to consolidate and to provide 
consistency for the Federal Government to combat discrimination * * *'' 
The Justice Department itself has said that it would not be such an 
appropriate place.
  Make no mistake about it--the repeal of HUD's authority would 
severely harm fair housing enforcement. HUD receives 10,000 complaints 
each year filed by those alleging housing discrimination. HUD's 10 
regional enforcement centers take action on every bona fide complaint, 
by investigating, conciliating, and otherwise overseeing the 
disposition of each complaint. HUD resolves most of its cases through 
the conciliation process.
  DOJ simply cannot devote such resources to enforcement of the Fair 
Housing Act given its current responsibilities and structure. DOJ's 
Civil Rights Office is not an investigative agency with a field office 
structure to investigate individual complaints. DOJ's investigative arm 
is the FBI, which would have tremendous difficulties handling the 
volume of housing discrimination cases, and would be deterred from its 
own crucial responsibilities.
  Moreover, under current law, HUD is responsible for providing 
administrative hearings, writing regulations, and overseeing fair 
housing policies. If the transfer of authority occurred, DOJ would need 
to develop its own national infrastructure to implement the 
administrative enforcement program already in place at HUD. Not only 
does DOJ lack experience in running administrative enforcement 
programs, but this transfer of authority would be extremely costly. 
Enforcement of this important legislation would create unnecessary 
transition costs to the taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, the decision to transfer HUD's authority to DOJ is 
being done without the benefit of public deliberation and debate. It is 
my understanding that this proposal has not been the subject of 
hearings in either committee of jurisdiction--the Judiciary Committee 
or Banking Committee. In addition, neither HUD nor DOJ was consulted 
prior to the provision's inclusion in this appropriations bill. Even 
more importantly, both HUD and DOJ are strenuously opposed to the 
transfer of authority.
  A host of organizations, representing a broad spectrum of interests, 
also opposes the provision. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 
an umbrella group over 100 civil right groups, as well as the National 
Association of Realtors, Institute of Real Estate Management, National 
Apartment Association, National Assisted Housing Management 
Association, National Leased Housing Authorities, and the National 
Multi-Housing Council, all oppose the transfer.
  In 1988, the Fair Housing Act was carefully crafted to ensure that 
there was an effective and efficient mechanism for addressing fair 
housing concerns. The Department of Housing and urban Development, the 
source of policymaking and expertise in the area of housing, was 
determined to be the most appropriate agency to address these concerns. 
While it may be true 

[[Page S 14383]]
that there have been problems with enforcement, certainly the solution 
does not lie in dismantling this carefully crafted enforcement 
mechanism with one stroke of the pen. In closing, I urge my colleagues 
to reject the inclusion of this provision in the final version of this 
bill, and I will be working toward that end.
  Also, I concur in the views expressed by Senator Kennedy concerning 
the effect of the postponement of the transfer proposal and the 
conditions under which that transfer would take place.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, while I appreciate the cooperation 
of the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in allowing for a delay in 
the proposed transfer of fair housing enforcement from the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Justice, I 
strongly object to the transfer occurring at all.
  One of the most powerful symbols of America is the home. Having a 
home is the American dream. Every parent wants to raise their child in 
a safe, decent home. Every young couple wants to live in a place of 
their own. Every grandparent wants a home where the family can visit.
  The Fair Housing Act guarantees that every American has a chance at 
home--a chance that cannot be denied because of their race, gender, 
national origin, color, religion, family status, or disability.
  In 1988, the U.S. Congress, after careful deliberation, voted 
overwhelmingly to strengthen enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. 
President Reagan and Vice President Bush strongly supported Congress' 
efforts.
  The 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act established an 
administrative enforcement procedure within HUD to facilitate speedy 
investigation and resolution of fair housing complaints as an 
alternative to filing suit in Federal courts, where there are lengthy 
delays.
  From 1989 to 1994, the number of discrimination complaints HUD 
received more than doubled. The number now stands at around 10,000 
complaints a year.
  Here's an example of the type of complaint HUD investigates: A woman 
in Chicago was being sexually harassed by her landlord. He was found to 
have consistently conditioned women's tenancy on their performing 
sexual favors for him. HUD investigated the case, the Department of 
Justice brought charges and he was found guilty and made to pay 
$180,000.
  Here's another example: an African-American was turned down for an 
apartment in a predominantly white New England city because another 
African-American already lived in the building and the landlord thought 
the neighbors might care. HUD's Fair Housing Office negotiated a 
settlement and the man received $2,500.
  Discrimination in granting mortgages and homeowners insurance 
continues to be a serious problem. Since 1989, banks have been required 
to report the race of their loan applicants. From that information we 
find that, according to the Federal Reserve, in 1990, minorities of all 
incomes were rejected for mortgage loans at more than twice the rate of 
whites.
  A study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition in 1994 
found that moderate-income and minority individuals were being 
consistently underserved by 52 large mortgage lenders.
  According to a study by the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners, which examined the availability and price of homeowners 
insurance in 25 cities in 13 States, average premiums are higher, and 
availability more limited in minority areas, even when loss costs are 
taken into account.
  According to a study by the Missouri Insurance Commissioner, among 
the 20 largest Missouri homeowner insurance companies, 5 have minority 
market shares of less than one-twentieth their share of the white 
markets.
  I would like to take a moment to thank Majority Leader Dole and 
Senator Bond for their assistance in passing Senator Feingold's 
amendment providing for the continued enforcement of the Fair Housing 
Act in cases of discrimination in the granting of homeowners insurance. 
We preserved an important civil rights protection today.
  HUD is better suited to enforcing the Fair Housing Act than the 
Department of Justice.
  HUD's ability to enforce the Fair Housing Act was strengthened in 
1988 when they were given the ability to investigate, conciliate, and 
bring suit in cases where discrimination was occurring. Previously, HUD 
was not allowed to play an official role in combating any of the 
housing discrimination it witnessed.
  HUD investigates all complaints. If HUD finds that there is a basis 
for a complaint and no conciliation can be reached, the parties have 
the option of having a hearing before an administrative law judge or a 
Federal trial. If any person or HUD chooses a Federal trial that is the 
venue.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development now investigates 
10,000 cases a year.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development is in a unique 
position to combat discrimination in housing and to make fair housing 
policy decisions within an overall housing policy framework. HUD works 
with tenants, landlords, mortgage lenders, advocacy groups, and others 
every day in nonadversarial ways.
  HUD maintains a field operation to receive complaints, including 10 
regional offices and has a staff of over 600 in the Office of Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity Office; of the 10,000 complaints it 
receives, HUD investigates each one and attempts conciliation in each 
case. HUD provides for administrative hearings and for administering 
voluntary compliance programs, grant programs and interpretive actions.
  In 1994, HUD was able to resolve over 40 percent of the 
discrimination cases with conciliation--neither side ever had to go to 
court. HUD resolves over five cases through the conciliation process 
for every one it refers for litigation.
  If HUD believes a violation of the law may have occurred, a 
complainant may be provided with Government representation at no cost.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development has worked hard to 
improve their antidiscrimination efforts and wants to continue their 
efforts. The Department of Justice believes that the appropriate place 
for these efforts is with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  If there is a pattern or practice of housing discrimination, the 
Attorney General can bring civil action in a Federal district court.
  Any case before HUD that goes before Federal court is handled by the 
Department of Justice already.
  The traditional role and expertise of DOJ has been to litigate cases, 
not to perform administrative enforcement. HUD operates a system of 
administrative adjudication of complaints using administrative law 
judges.
  The Department of Justice does not have the people or the field 
office structure to handle the caseload or investigate individual 
complaints. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is 
not an investigative agency. The investigative arm of the Department of 
Justice is the FBI.
  This transfer is premature and ill-conceived. There have been no 
hearings, no reports issued, and no analysis recommending that the Fair 
Housing Act enforcement authority be transferred from HUD to the 
Department of Justice.
  Appropriations bills are not the appropriate place to effect major 
policy changes. This is a proposal that should receive the 
consideration of the Judiciary Committee at the very least since its 
effects would so dramatically effect the Department of Justice.
  It is true that the process for handling discrimination complaints is 
not flawless. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is having 
to work hard to make their Fair Housing Office effective and 
responsive. But, there is no compelling reason for a transfer of 
enforcement authority to occur. The practical effect of this move would 
be to reduce the protections afforded to the victims of housing 
discrimination.
  The Department of Justice cannot and should not handle the 
investigative and conciliation functions of HUD. The administrative law 
judges free up the Federal courts and reduce the time it takes for 
disputes to be resolved.
  If this is a change that should occur, the Congress should hear 
testimony and be presented with evidence that the transfer is in the 
best interests of the country and the people facing discrimination. I 
am willing to study the issue further.

[[Page S 14384]]

  It is my belief that we should let the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development continue to work with the Department of Justice to 
ensure that every person, every family, has the opportunity to have a 
home.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Moseley-Braun 
amendment requiring that the transfer of enforcement of housing 
discrimination from the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
[HUD] to the Department of Justice [DOJ] cannot take place unless DOJ 
is given adequate resources and manpower to continue administrative 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.
  Mr. President, I am opposed to transferring enforcement authority 
from HUD to DOJ. Establishing an organizational and physical 
infrastructure to handle administrative enforcement of housing 
discrimination at the Department of Justice represents a poor policy 
choice and a needless expenditure of taxpayer funds. Such a transfer 
would not result in improvements in either efficiency or function. 
However, Mr. President, I support this amendment requiring that such a 
transfer cannot occur unless continued administrative enforcement of 
housing discrimination is ensured.
  Pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, HUD has an administrative structure 
that is responsible for enforcing fair housing violations against 
individuals. Administrative functions include writing regulations, 
seeking voluntary compliance agreements with members of the housing 
industry, and establishing and overseeing a network of State and local 
agencies to process complaints under local fair housing laws and 
ordinances. Roughly 10,000 fair housing complaints are filed annually 
with HUD, and the agency has 10 regional enforcement centers around the 
country to process these complaints.
  In contrast to HUD's mandate to investigate individual complaints and 
to settle disputes administratively, DOJ has independent authority 
under the Fair Housing Act to enforce through litigation violations of 
the act where it finds a pattern and practice of discrimination. DOJ 
does not have the infrastructure to handle individual fair housing 
complaints. For example, it does not have an investigative agency with 
a field office structure to investigate individual complaints.
  Mr. President, transferring enforcement authority from HUD to DOJ 
would require DOJ to recreate a structure that already exists at HUD. 
While I oppose such a transfer, I nevertheless support my colleague 
from Illinois in requiring that such a transfer cannot occur unless the 
resources and manpower are provided to ensure continued administrative 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.


                           amendment no. 2797

 (Purpose: To provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences)

       At the appropriate place, insert: ``Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     investigate and report on the scientific bases for the public 
     recommendations of the EPA with respect to indoor radon and 
     other naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The 
     National Academy shall examine EPA's guidelines in light of 
     the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation 
     Protection and Measurements, and other peer-reviewed research 
     by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease 
     Control, and others, on radon and NORM. The National Academy 
     shall summarize the principal areas of agreement and 
     disagreement among the above, and shall evaluate the 
     scientific and technical basis for any differences that 
     exist. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress the 
     report of the National Academy and a statement of the 
     Administrator's views on the need to revise guidelines for 
     radon and NORM in response to the evaluation of the National 
     Academy. Such statement shall explain and differentiate the 
     technical and policy bases for such views.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2798

 (Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which 
                funds are made available under this Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The head of each agency for which funds 
     are made available under this Act shall--
       (A) take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency; or
       (B) enter into a sufficient number of energy savings 
     performance contracts with private sector energy service 
     companies under title VIII of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.) to achieve 
     during fiscal year 1996 at least a 5 percent reduction, from 
     fiscal year 1995 levels, in the energy use of the facilities 
     used by the agency.
       (2) Goal.--The activities described in paragraph (1) should 
     be a key component of agency programs that will by the year 
     2000 result in a 20 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1985 
     levels, in the energy use of the facilities used by the 
     agency, as required by section 543 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8253).
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 2000, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) By agency heads.--The head of each agency for which 
     funds are made available under this Act shall include in each 
     report of the agency to the Secretary of Energy under section 
     548(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8258(a)) a description of the results of the 
     activities carried out under subsection (a) and 
     recommendations concerning how to further reduce energy costs 
     and energy consumption in the future.
       (2) By secretary of energy.--The reports required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be included in the annual reports 
     required to be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
     Energy under section 548(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8258(b)).
       (3) Contents.--With respect to the period since the date of 
     the preceding report, a report under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved;
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions;
       (D) with respect to the procurement procedures of the 
     agency, specify what actions have been taken to--
       (i) implement the procurement authorities provided by 
     subsections (a) and (c) of section 546 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8256); and
       (ii) incorporate directly, or by reference, the 
     requirements of the regulations issued by the Secretary of 
     Energy under title VIII of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.); 
     and
       (E) specify--
       (i) the actions taken by the agency to achieve the goal 
     specified in subsection (a)(2);
       (ii) the procurement procedures and methods used by the 
     agency under section 546(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8256(a)(2)); and
       (iii) the number of energy savings performance contracts 
     entered into by the agency under title VIII of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8287 et seq.).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to commend the two floor 
managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Bond], and the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and 
their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the VA-HUD 
Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am 
offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies 
funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them 
to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report 
to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve 
energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. 
I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has 
come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one.
  I believe this is a common-sense amendment: The Federal Government 
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 
buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save 
Energy, a non-profit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, 
estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they 
would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve 
energy.
  Madam President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use 
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in 
insulation, building controls, lighting, 

[[Page S 14385]]
heating, and air conditioning. The Department of Energy has made 
available for government-wide agency use streamlined energy saving 
performance contracts procedures, modeled after private sector 
initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in 
this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to 
devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering 
overall costs and conserving energy.
  As I mentioned, Madam President, this amendment has been accepted to 
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that 
my colleagues support it.


                           amendment no. 2799

(Purpose: To increase amounts provided for FEMA salaries and expenses, 
    Office of the Inspector General, and emergency food and shelter)

       On page 153, line 17, strike ``$166,000,000'', and insert 
     ``$168,900,000''.
       On page 153, line 21, strike ``$4,400,000'', and insert 
     ``$4,673,000''.
       On page 154, line 13, strike ``$100,000,000'', and insert 
     ``$114,173,000''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2800

   (Purpose: To make technical corrections and modifications to the 
                   Committee amendment to H.R. 2099)

       On page 22, line 5, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 111. During fiscal year 1996, not to exceed 
     $5,700,000 may be transferred from `Medical care' to `Medical 
     administration and miscellaneous operating expenses.' No 
     transfer may occur until 20 days after the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs provides written notice to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.''
       On page 27, line 23, insert a comma after the word 
     ``analysis''.
       On page 28, line 1, strike out ``program and'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``program,''.
       On page 28, line 18, strike out ``or court orders''.
       On page 28, line 20, strike out ``and''.
       On page 29, line 13, strike out ``amount'' and insert in 
     lieu of ``$624,000,000''.
       On page 29, line 17, strike out ``plan of actions'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``plans of action''.
       On page 29, line 21, strike out ``be closed'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``close''.
       On page 29, lines 23 and 24, strike out ``$624,000,000 
     appropriated in the preceding proviso'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``foregoing $624,000,000''.
       On page 30, line 2, strike out ``the discretion to give'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``giving''.
       On page 30, line 12, strike out ``proviso'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``provision''.
       On page 32, line 10, strike out ``purpose'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``purposes''.
       On page 33, line 6, strike out ``purpose'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``purposes''.
       On page 33, line 10, strike out ``determined'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``determines''.
       On page 33, strike out lines 15 and 16, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``funding made available pursuant to this paragraph 
     and that has not been obligated by the agency and distribute 
     such funds to one or more''.
       On page 33, line 23, strike out ``agencies and'' and insert 
     ``agencies and to''.
       On page 40, strike out line 9 and insert ``a grant made 
     available under the preceding proviso to the Housing 
     Assistance Council or the National American Indian Housing 
     Council, or a grant using funds under section 107(b)(3) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974)''.
       On page 40, beginning on line 20, strike out ``public and 
     Indian housing agencies'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``public housing agencies (including Indian housing 
     authorities), nonprofit corporations, and other 
     appropriate entities''.
       On page 40, Line 22, strike out ``and'' the second time it 
     appears and insert a comma.
       On page 40, line 24, insert after ``143f)'' the following: 
     ``, and other low-income families and individuals''.
       On page 41, line 5, after ``Provided'' insert ``further''.
       On page 41, line 6, after ``shall include'' insert 
     ``congregate services for the elderly and disabled, service 
     coordinators, and''.
       On page 45, line 24, strike out ``originally'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``originally''.
       On page 45, strike out the matter after ``That'' on line 
     26, through line 5 on page 46, and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``the Secretary may use any negative subsidy amounts from the 
     sale of such assigned mortgage notes during fiscal year 1996 
     for the disposition of properties or notes under this 
     heading.''.
       On page 47, strike out the matter after ``That'' on line 
     17, through ``Development'' on line 25, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``the Secretary may use any negative subsidy amounts 
     from the sale of such assigned mortgage notes during fiscal 
     year 1996, in addition to amounts otherwise provided, for the 
     disposition of properties or notes under this heading 
     (including the credit subsidy for the guarantee of loans or 
     the reduction of positive credit subsidy amounts that would 
     otherwise be required for the sale of such properties or 
     notes), and for any other purpose under this heading''.
       On page 68, line 1, after ``Section 1002'' insert ``(d)''.
       On page 69, lines 5 and 6, strike out ``Notwithstanding the 
     previous sentence'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Where the 
     rent determined under the previous sentence is less than 
     $25''.
       On page 70, line 12, strike out ``and'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``any''.
       On page 71, line 1, strike out ``(A) In General.--''.
       On page 71, strike out lines 11 through 18.
       On page 72, line 6, after ``comment,'' insert ``a''.
       On page 72, line 7, strike out ``are'' and insert ``is''.
       On page 72, line 18, after ``comment,'' insert ``a''.
       On page 72, line 19, strike out ``are'' and insert ``is''.
       On page 74, line 6, strike out ``selection criteria'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``system of preferences for 
     selection''.
       On page 74, line 11, strike out ``selection criteria'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``system of preferences for 
     selection''.
       On page 74, strike out lines 13 through 16, and redesignate 
     subsequent paragraphs.
       On page 75, line 1, strike out ``selection criteria'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``system of preferences for 
     selection''.
       On page 75, strike out the matter beginning on line 12 
     through line 19 on page 76, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``(B) Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.--
     Section 522(f)(b)(B) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12704 et seq.) is amended 
     by striking `any preferences for such assistance under 
     section 8(d)(1)(A)(i)' and inserting `written system of 
     preferences for selection established pursuant to section 
     8(d)(1)(A)'.
       ``(C) Housing and community development act of 1992.--
     Section 655 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13615) is amended by striking `the 
     preferences' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end and inserting `any preferences'.''.
       On page 76, line 20, strike out ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 77, lines 3 and 4, strike out ``selection 
     criteria'' and insert in lieu thereof ``system of preferences 
     for selection''.
       On page 86, line 1, strike out ``of issuance and''.
       On page 87, line 13, ``evaluations of'' insert ``up to 
     15''.
       On page 87, line 17, strike out ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       On page 90, line 2, strike out ``Secretary.'' and insert 
     ``Secretary; and''.
       On page 90, line 5, strike out ``agree to cooperate with'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``participate in a''.
       On page 92, line 21, strike out ``final''.
       On page 95, line 9, after ``agency'' insert ``in connection 
     with a program authorized under section 542 (b) or (c) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992''.
       On page 95, strike out lines 11 and 12, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``542(c)(4) of such Act.''.
       On page 95, strike out the matter beginning with ``a'' on 
     line 17 through ``section'' on line 18, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``an assistance contract under this section, other 
     than a contract for tenant-based assistance,''.
       on page 96, line 10, strike out ``years'' and insert 
     ``year''.
       On page 102, line 18, strike out ``section 216(c)(4) 
     hereof'' and insert in lieu thereof ``paragraph (4)''.
       On page 106, line 8, strike out ``subject to'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``eligible for''.
       On page 106, line 14, strike out ``(8 NC/SR)'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``the section 8 new construction or 
     substantial rehabilitation program''.
       On page 106, line 15, strike out ``subject to'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``eligible for''.
       On page 107, line 6, strike out ``Sec 217.'' and insert 
     ``Sec. 215.''.
       On page 117, line 8, strike out ``subparagraphs'' and 
     insert ``subsections''.
       On page 117, line 10, strike out ``subsections'' and insert 
     ``subparagraphs''.
       On page 117, line 11, strike out ``subparagraph'' and 
     insert ``subsection''.
       On page 118, strike out lines 19 through 21, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) Subsection (a) is amended by--
       ``(A) striking out in the first sentence `low-income' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof `very low-income'; and
       (B) striking out `eligible low income housing' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof `housing financed under the 
     programs set forth in section 229(1)(A) of this Act'.''.
       On page 120, line 2, strike out ``Subsection'' and insert 
     ``Paragraph''.
       On page 120, strike out lines 18 through 22, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       ``(2) Paragraph (8) is amended--
       (A) by deleting in subparagraph (A) the words `determining 
     the authorized return under section 219(b)(6)(ii)';
       (B) by deleting in subparagraph (B) `and 221'; and
       (C) by deleting in subparagraph (B) the words `acquisition 
     loans under' ''.
       On page 121, line 3, strike out ``Subsection'' and insert 
     ``Paragraph''.
       On page 122, line 4, strike out ``Subsection'' and insert 
     ``Paragraph''.
       On page 122, line 13, strike out ``Subsection'' and insert 
     ``Section''.
       On page 122, line 21, strike out ``Subsection'' and insert 
     ``Section''.
       On page 147, line 17, before the period, insert the 
     following:

     ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in the 
     Construction Grants and 

[[Page S 14386]]
     Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Funds accounts since the 
     appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, 
     and hereafter, for making grants for wastewater treatment 
     works construction projects, portions may be provided by the 
     recipients to states for managing construction grant 
     activities, on condition that the states agree to reimburse 
     the recipients from state funding sources''.
       On page 149, line 19, strike ``phase IV'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``phase VI''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2801

   (Purpose: To extend the date that funds are reserved for the safe 
 drinking water revolving fund, if authorized, to April 30, 1996. This 
provides additional time to permit enactment of Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization which will release these funds to initiate a financial 
                          assistance program)

       On page 147, line 6, strike ``December 31, 1995'' and 
     insert ``April 30, 1996''.
       On page 147, line 17, strike ``December 31, 1995'' and 
     insert ``April 30, 1996''.


                           amendment no. 2802

       On page 128, add a new section to the bill:
       Sec.   . None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     during Fiscal Year 1996 to investigate or prosecute under the 
     Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) any otherwise 
     lawful activity engaged in by one or more persons, including 
     the filing or maintaining of non-frivolous legal action, that 
     is engaged in solely for the purposes of--
       (1) achieving or preventing action by a government 
     official, entity, or court of competent jurisdiction.


                           amendment no. 2803

       On page 128, add a new section to the bill:
       Sec.   . None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     to take any enforcement action with respect to a complaint of 
     discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et 
     seq.) on the basis of familial status and which involves an 
     occupancy standard established by the housing provider except 
     to the extent that it is found that there has been 
     discrimination in contravention of the standards provided in 
     the March 20, 1991 Memorandum from the General Counsel of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development to all Regional 
     Counsel or until such time that HUD issues a final rule in 
     accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor an amendment to H.R. 
2099, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. I am pleased 
to cosponsor this amendment which will prohibit the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from enforcing a complaint of 
discrimination on the basis of a housing provider's occupancy standard, 
enforcement of which goes well beyond the standards described in the 
March 20, 1991 memorandum of the general counsel of HUD to all Regional 
Counsel.
  Mr. President, an occupancy standard is one which specifies the 
number of people who may live in a residential rental unit. An internal 
1991 HUD memorandum, issued by former HUD General Counsel Keating to 
all regional counsel, clearly established a straightforward occupancy 
standard of ``two persons per bedroom'' as generally reasonable.
  The two-per-bedroom occupancy standard has been deemed reasonable 
within the enforcement of fair housing discrimination laws under the 
Fair Housing Act. That is until Henry Cisneros became Secretary of HUD. 
Secretary Cisneros and his Deputy Roberta Achtenberg have disagreed 
with the traditional occupancy standard, arguing that it discriminates 
against larger families.
  In July of this year HUD General Counsel Diaz issued a memorandum 
which, in effect, supplants the two-per-bedroom standard, and may force 
housing owners to accept six, seven, eight, or even nine people into a 
two-bedroom apartment.
  Mr. Diaz's standard is without merit. Mr. Diaz has used the BOCA--
Building Officials and Code Administrators--Property Maintenance Code 
as a foundation for his occupancy standard. The BOCA code is a health 
and safety code specifically drafted by engineers and architects to 
provide guidance to municipalities on the maximum number of individuals 
who may safely occupy any building. It was never intended to alter the 
minimum number of family members HUD could require owners to accept 
under fair housing law.
  The code was adopted without any consultation, public hearings, or 
analysis of its impact of the Nation's rental housing industries. That 
is wrong. It was not the intent of Congress to allow HUD to establish a 
national occupancy standard. Secretary Cisneros, through HUD's general 
counsel, has circumvented the Federal Government's rule making process 
by imposing this standard through an advisory without public hearings.
  This amendment blocks HUD's attempt to set a national occupancy 
standard through an advisory. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.


                           amendment no. 2804

 (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to eligible activities under 
 section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``reconstruction,'' after ``removal,''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``acquisition for rehabilitation, and 
     rehabilitation'' and inserting ``acquisition for 
     reconstruction or rehabilitation, and reconstruction or 
     rehabilitation'';
       (2) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) by striking paragraph (19);
       (4) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (6) by redesignating paragraphs (20) through (25) as 
     paragraphs (19) through (24), respectively; and
       (7) by redesignating paragraph (21) (as added by section 
     1012(f)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992) as paragraph (25).
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2805

   (Purpose: To impose a moratorium during fiscal year 1996, and to 
require a report, on the conversion of Environmental Protection Agency 
                contracts for research and development)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 3--EPA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND 
                   STAFFING.

       (a) Star Program.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may not use any funds made available under 
     this ACT to implement the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) 
     program unless--
       (1) the use of the funds would not reduce any funding 
     available to the laboratories of the Agency for staffing, 
     cooperative agreements, grants, or support contracts; or
       (2) the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House 
     of Representatives grant prior approval. Transfers of funds 
     to support STAR activities shall be considered a 
     reprogramming of funds. Further, said approval shall be 
     contingent upon submission of a report to the Committees as 
     specified in Section (c)(2) below.
       (b) Contractor Conversion.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency may not use any funds to--
       (1) hire employees and create any new staff positions under 
     the contractor conversion program in the Office of Research 
     and Development.
       (c) Report.--Not later than January 1, 1996, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Appropriations Committees 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives a report which:
       (1) provides a staffing plan for the Office of Research and 
     Development indicating the use of Federal and contract 
     employees;
       (2) identifies the amount of funds to be reprogrammed to 
     STAR activities, and;
       (3) provides a listing of any resource reductions below 
     fiscal year 1995 funding levels, by specific laboratory, from 
     Federal staffing, cooperative agreements, grants, or support 
     contracts as a result of funding for the STAR program.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2806

   (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to special purpose grants)

       On page 43, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       ``The amount made available for fiscal year 1995 for a 
     special purpose grant for the renovation of the central 
     terminal in Buffalo, New York, shall be made available for 
     the central terminal and for other public facilities in 
     Buffalo, New York.''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2807

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Corporation for National and 
   Community Service to permit the orderly termination of previously 
 initiated activities and programs, including the Corporation's Office 
                         of Inspector General)

       On page 130, strike out the matter beginning with line 19 
     through line 2 on page 131, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``For necessary expenses for the Corporation for 
     National and Community Service in carrying out the orderly 
     terminations of programs, activities, and initiatives under 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended 
     (Public Law 103-82), $6,000,000: Provided, That such amount 
     shall be utilized to resolve all responsibilities and 
     obligations in connection with said Corporation and the 
     Corporation's Office of Inspector General.''
                                                                    ____

                                  
[[Page S 14387]]



                           Amendment No. 2808

     (Purpose: To provide for a report on the impact of community 
      development grants on plant relocations and job dislocation)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON IMPACT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS ON 
                   PLAN RELOCATIONS AND JOB DISLOCATION.

       Not later than October 1, 1996, the Secretary of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development shall submit to 
     the appropriate Committees of the Congress a report on--
       (1) the extent to which funds provided under section 106 
     (Community Development Block Grants), section 107 (Special 
     Purpose Grants), and Section 108(q) (Economic Development 
     Grants) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 
     have been directly used to facilitate the closing of an 
     industrial or commercial plant or the substantial reduction 
     of operations of a plant and result in the relocation or 
     expansion of a plant from one state to another;
       (2) the extent to which the availability of such funds has 
     been a substantial factor in the decision to relocate a plant 
     from one state to another;
       (3) an analysis of the extent to which provisions in other 
     laws prohibiting the use of federal funds to facilitate the 
     closing of an industrial or commercial plant or the 
     substantial reduction in the operations of such plant and the 
     relocation or expansion of a plant have been effective; and
       (4) recommendations as to how federal programs can be 
     designed to prevent the use of federal funds to directly 
     facilitate the transfer of jobs from one state to another.

               the impact of community development funds

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today, with my colleague 
Senator Kohl to offer an amendment that requires the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to report on the impact of the use of 
Federal community development funds on plant relocations and the 
resultant job dislocation.
  Our concern was generated by an announcement made in 1994 by a major 
employer in Wisconsin, Briggs & Stratton, that a Milwaukee plant would 
be closed, and 2,000 workers would be permanently displaced. The actual 
economic impact upon this community is even greater since it is 
estimated that 1.24 related jobs will be lost for every 1 of the 2,000 
Briggs jobs affected. The devastating news was compounded by the 
subsequent discovery that many of these jobs were being transferred to 
plants, which were being expanded in two other States, and that Federal 
community development block grant, CDBG, funds were being used to 
facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another.
  Our initial response was to introduce legislation prohibiting the use 
of such funds for the relocation of plants and the resultant job 
dislocation. The House of Representatives agreed with the approach and 
approved an identical amendment to the housing reauthorization bill.
  We believed at the time, and now that the CDBG program was designed 
to foster community and economic development; not to help move jobs 
around the country.
  Obviously, during a period of permanent economic restructuring, which 
results in plant closings, downsizing of Federal programs and defense 
industry conversion, there is tremendous competition between 
communities for new plants and other business expansions to offset 
other job losses.
  States and local communities are doing everything they can to attract 
new business and retain existing businesses. But we believe it is 
simply wrong to use Federal dollars to help one community raid jobs 
from another State.
  There is no way we can justify to the taxpayers in my State that they 
are sending their money to Washington to be distributed to other States 
so that it can be used to attract jobs out of Wisconsin, leaving behind 
communities whose economic stability has been destroyed. Thousands of 
people whose jobs are directly, or indirectly lost as a result of the 
transfer of these jobs out of our State are justifiably outraged by 
this misuse of funds.
  However, Madam President, after further consideration, and 
consultation with the floor managers we recognize that indeed the 
underlying issue is complex.
  Wisconsin, as are other States, is regularly involved in the activity 
of attracting new business to the State, and retaining existing 
businesses. We recognize that economic incentive proposals developed to 
enhance the State's opportunity often include a wide variety of 
financial combinations including job training funds, tax incentives, 
infrastructure improvements and other financing tools.
  These combinations often obscure the leveraged value of the Federal 
funds in the package in convincing a company to make a decision to move 
out of State. However, recognizing these factors does not clear the 
picture, but begs the question of what is the impact of the Federal 
dollar in these situations in influencing the decisions of the targeted 
company.
  This amendment would address the issue by directing the HUD Secretary 
to conduct a study over the next year, and report back to Congress with 
recommendations on what would be a sensible legislative approach to 
both protecting the workers and communities that lose businesses and 
employment to other States, and how Federal funds might be 
appropriately utilized in developing economic opportunity for 
communities across the Nation, without placing other communities in 
jeopardy.
  The study would examine and investigate the extent to which Federal 
community development funds are used in combination with other Federal, 
State or local revenue sources in attracting new business from other 
States. The study would also examine and assess the degree to which 
Federal community development funds are key to a company's decision to 
move--are they incidental to the decision, a factor, a key decision 
point, or the linchpin of the deal?
  An examination of the findings by the Congress upon completion of 
such a study would then become the basis for further legislative action 
if necessary.
  We thank the floor managers for recognizing our legitimate concerns, 
and for their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to help 
perfect this amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, these amendments have been cleared on both 
sides. They are ready for adoption.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we have cleared these amendments with 
all of the relevant authorizing committees. There are no objections on 
our side, and in many instances they are enthusiastically either 
sponsored or approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2796 through 2808) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, the drill that we just went through took a 
little bit of time, but, frankly, I would like to commend the Senator 
from Arizona and the Senator from Colorado, because many times I have 
found that things I did not support have crept into legislation in the 
past. I hope that by doing this, we put all our colleagues, or at least 
their staffs, on notice. We are beginning what I hope will be a useful 
process, and I thank the Senators for recommending it.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to acknowledge the hard work of 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Subcommittee in assembling this complex appropriations 
bill. The diverse range of agencies funded by this bill--the Veterans 
Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautic and Space 
Administration, the National Science Foundation, and numerous other 
independent agencies--makes the VA-HUD bill one of the most difficult 
appropriations bills to balance.
  It is clear that the resource constraints placed on the 
Appropriations Committee by the budget resolution this year made it 
impossible to fund adequately all of the programs and activities in the 
bill that are important to me, important to the people of 
Massachusetts, and important to the people of this country. 
Nonetheless, with respect to the way in which the bill addresses 
housing and related programs, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
are to be commended for good faith 

[[Page S 14388]]
efforts to minimize the pain from the reductions.
  There are several items in the bill that are quite positive, and I 
thank the chairman and the ranking member for including these. I am 
particularly pleased that the bill includes an appropriation for the 
Youthbuild Program. Youthbuild is working to provide kids who live in 
tough places with some confidence and some hope along with a solid 
package of job skills while contributing to their communities the 
products of their work in the form of rehabilitated homes and other 
structures. Youthbuild deserves our continued support.
  I am also a strong supporter of the provisions in this bill that fund 
the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs at the 1995 
appropriated levels. CDBG has a solid 20-year track record of providing 
flexible community development assistance to State and local 
governments. HOME also provides flexible resources to State and local 
governments for the purpose of fostering partnerships in support of 
affordable housing. HOME is designed to leverage the additional public 
and private resources and is achieving excellent results in targeting 
these housing resources to low-income families. Both CDBG and HOME are 
critical to the successes of the community-based nonprofit movement.
  Another important element of the bill before the Senate is the $624 
million it contains for the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
Resident Homeownership Act, or LIHPRHA. I congratulate the chairman for 
his commitment to the preservation program's mission. We cannot afford 
a hiatus in preservation funding, because we would then risk losing 
affordable housing resources and displacing people from their homes. We 
all recognize that LIHPRHA has some structural problems that need 
correcting, and the bill has made an important contribution in pushing 
forward preservation program reforms. It is unfortunate that the 
LIHPRHA capital grant reforms in this bill are delayed a year for 
technical reasons related to budget scoring. However, since they are, 
it is important that we continue to process and preserve the projects 
under the old program using available resources and not stand idly than 
waiting for the new program to be perfected, enacted, and implemented.
  Finally, I would like to express relief that the bill does not repeal 
the Brooke amendment as some have proposed. The Brooke amendment limits 
the rent paid by a poor family to 30 percent of income. The bill does 
make some changes in the public housing rent-setting process that we 
will have to monitor closely. I support the provision in this bill 
providing public housing authorities with the flexibility to set 
ceiling rents and adopt policies that deduct earned income in 
calculating the adjusted income against which the 30 percent standard 
is applied. These changes should help enable working families to remain 
in public housing developments and improve the income mix of the public 
housing communities. I am less enthusiastic about a provision in the 
bill that requires all residents to pay a minimum rent of $25 per 
month, particularly in the context of other cutbacks in programs of 
assistance to poor families.
  There are, however, Madam President, too many instances where I 
believe the bill takes the wrong course. First, and foremost, the bill 
makes major reductions in HUD's total resources. The bill cuts funding 
for public housing operating subsidies, public housing modernization, 
homeless assistance, and the section 8 tenant-based assistance. These 
HUD programs serve the housing needs of the poorest of the poor. Over 
time, underfunding public housing will erode its quality as public 
housing authorities cut back on maintenance due to a lack of resources. 
A provision delaying the reissuance of vouchers that come available 
will mean that homeless families which have risen to the top of local 
waiting lists will have to wait 6 months to receive housing assistance. 
The bill also reduces public housing authority fees for the 
administration of the section 8 program in a way that does not take 
into account the different cost structures for administering the 
program nor does it seem to have considered the distinct possibility 
that at least some public housing authorities will simply choose not to 
continue to administer the program after these cuts take effect. These 
cuts are an excellent reflection the tyranny of the budget that binds 
the Congress.
  Madam President, I would like to also register my concern about the 
extent of authorizing provisions in this bill. Some of these provisions 
have not gone through the hearing process nor have members had the 
opportunity to consult concerning them with all of the affected parties 
and other experts on program operations. I am particularly concerned 
that the numerous discrete, piecemeal provisions--while often helpful--
will undermine or contradict efforts to engage in a more comprehensive 
examination of the HUD statutes. As a member of the authorizing 
committee, I am hopeful that we will review all of these provisions in 
more detail.
  There are three particularly egregious authorizing provisions in this 
bill that highlight the need for a more orderly process of hearings and 
deliberation. These are the provisions transferring HUD's Office of 
Fair Housing to the Department of Justice, the transfer of the Office 
of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to Treasury, and a prohibition 
against enforcing the fair housing laws against property insurers who 
discriminate. I oppose the inclusion of all three provisions in this 
bill.
  I realize that HUD is taking a disproportionate share of the budget 
cuts because some of its programs have been troubled and do not enjoy a 
positive public image. The cuts, then, underscore the need for the 
Congress to work harder to improve HUD's management systems, and to 
reduce the workload placed on HUD's staff by consolidating programs and 
devolving some HUD responsibilities to other capable partners. We also 
need to be willing to take a more aggressive approach toward the poorly 
managed inventory and that portion of the HUD-assisted inventory that 
has aged to the point of obsolescence.
  So, notwithstanding my broader concerns with authorizing on an 
appropriations bill and authorizing out of context, I note that several 
provisions in this bill are helpful. For example, the bill allows HUD 
to consolidate seven categorical homeless programs into a formula grant 
program. This reform will reduce HUD's workload and allow the 
Department to redeploy the staff who currently spend many hours 
reviewing thousands of applications.
  The bill also includes several provisions that may prove helpful in 
allowing public housing agencies to adapt to the cuts in the bill. In 
particular, the bill provides new, expanded, eligible activities for 
the public housing modernization program that deserve more hearing, but 
are defensible in the face of large cuts in resources. Revisiting our 
admission policies pertaining to public and assisted housing also is 
necessary not only from the perspective of shrinking resources, but 
from the need to reverse the overconcentration of the poor.
  I am very concerned that this bill pushes forward too far and too 
fast on the Department's proposal to enact legislation with respect to 
mark-to-market of the assisted housing inventory. We need not rush into 
a complicated proposal that likely will result in forcing many 
properties into default. The administration has proposed to voucher out 
the public and assisted inventory. This approach may make sense in 
those instances where the housing has been poorly managed and low-
income people have been forced to live in squalor. However, I have 
serious concerns about vouchers as a substitute for well-managed, well-
located housing. I have concerns that vouchers do not work for everyone 
in every market. Vouchers are not accepted by many landlords. The 
available suggests that if we move to vouchers, many housing assistance 
recipients will be displaced from a place that they currently call 
home.
  Fundamentally, this appropriations bill does not and could not come 
close to meeting the housing needs of this country. More than 5 million 
very low income Americans face severe housing needs. They suffer from 
homelessness, they pay rents that take more than 50 percent of their 
household income, or they live in severely substandard conditions. We 
have not been willing to provide the resources necessary to meet these 
needs. Over the last 15 

[[Page S 14389]]
years of troubled housing policy, though, both Republican and 
Democratic administrations have been committed to making progress 
toward meeting these needs, albeit with different levels of energy and 
commitment. The resource levels in this bill are simply not adequate to 
the task of preserving the affordable housing gains from the past, 
reforming HUD's programs, compensating for previous underfunding of 
capital needs, and making progress against our Nation's large 
outstanding needs for affordable housing.
  The effects of the budget on this bill and thence in these vital 
Government services are extremely troubling. Our Nation will pay and 
pay dearly--both now and even more in the future--for shortchanging 
these pressing needs. Some of us--the most unfortunate--will pay more 
dearly than others, but their plight will affect us all.
  Knowing this, we need to make the greatest possible effort to find 
more resources that can be devoted to meeting the objectives I have 
described. I hope to be joined in good faith by colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle seeking that goal.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are coming into the closing minutes 
now of this bill. We started the debate on VA-HUD appropriations around 
Monday at 3 o'clock. A lot has gone on since then, and I commend 
Senator Bond on moving this bill and the way he has handled this 
legislation in the Chamber.
  I know this is the first time he has chaired the committee and 
brought the bill to the floor. I compliment him on the way we have been 
able to move in such an efficient way. I thank his professional staff 
for the many courtesies and consultation provided my staff.
  I thank Mr. Rusty Mathews, Mr. Steve Crane, and Mr. Kevin Kelly, who 
provided technical assistance on my side.
  In this bill, we won some and we lost some. We won some by preserving 
America's future in space. We came to an agreement on redlining. And we 
lost issues like national service. This is America. This is democracy. 
We have spoken, and I believe it is now time to vote. I believe the 
President will have significant concerns with this bill. I believe the 
President will veto it. But I believe the time now for debate has 
concluded, and I again wish to thank my colleagues for the support that 
they gave me during this time.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, let me express my appreciation to the 
Senator from Maryland, who has been absolutely invaluable in helping us 
move this forward. I must confess that until I had this pleasure, I did 
not understand all that went with it. I commend her for the great 
service she has provided this committee in the past and the help she 
gave me.
  I join with her in thanking Rusty Mathews, Kevin Kelly, Steve Crane, 
the people on her side. For my part, I thank Stephen Kohashi, Carrie 
Apostolou, Steve Isakowitz, and the members of my staff, Julie Dammann, 
John Kamarck, Tracy Henke, Keith Cole, Leanne Jerome, and the others 
who have helped a great deal.
  Let me say very briefly--we have already made the points--this bill 
is within the budget. It sets some priorities in a very tough time. I 
think with the help of committee members and the Members of this body 
we have fine-tuned it as best we can. It does allow the agencies to 
move forward with the vitally needed programs that are so important in 
this country in the many areas we fund.
  I hope that the President, the Office of Management and Budget will 
communicate with us as to what their objections are and how we might 
solve them. I know that all my colleagues have enjoyed these 2 days. I 
do not wish to go through this drill again. If the administration will 
let us know what their objections are, we have, I think, done as good a 
job as possible within the dollars available, and if we are going to 
balance the budget as not only this body has said but I believe the 
people of America demand, this is what we have to work with.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and the Senate proceed immediately to vote on the 
passage of the bill with no other intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 470 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     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
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     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
     Wellstone
  So the bill (H.R. 2099), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
bill passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Ms. Snowe) 
appointed Mr. Bond, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
Bennett, Mr. Hatfield, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnston, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Bond, of 
Missouri, and Senator Barbara Mikulski, of Maryland. They put a very 
good bill together. I understand that the Senator from Maryland does 
not support the bill in its final stages. Let me just make a few 
observations.

  Some of us are beginning to say we need to ask some new questions 
about programs and projects and activities of the Federal Government. 
The leading question that we have to start asking ourselves is: What 
can we afford? We never did that for a long time. In fact, I ask 
Senators to reflect on the past 8 to 12 years and, for the most part, 
the question was never asked: Can we afford this? An amendment was 
offered because it sounded good, or it was something that perhaps, in a 
perfect economic environment, would be neat, and we looked around to 
see if we could get 51 votes, and we would go to conference and see if 
we could hold it, and all of a sudden we would have something new 
going.
  But I believe balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility do not 
actually happen in huge waves and big doses of cuts. I think they come 
with hard work. Every chairman who has had to produce an appropriations 
bill this 

[[Page S 14390]]
year on the domestic side has had to take less than they had the year 
before, and that means very simply that, through hard work and, 
hopefully, some wisdom, priorities had to be discussed and priorities 
had to be decided upon.
  It is no longer the day of being able to say to every Senator that 
asks for things that we have taken care of you. In fact, I believe we 
are at the point, and there will be more years to come when we have to 
say to most that we cannot give you what you want.
  Senator Bond had a tough job. Few Americans understand that this bill 
has veterans in it, has public housing in it, and at the same time has 
many other programs, including the space program. Who would think that 
one appropriations bill would cover that spectrum? He has had to 
balance, with less of a budget than last year, these same great demands 
and responsibilities that we have.
  I believe this bill attempts, in very difficult times in terms of 
money--because we want to get to a balance sooner rather than later, 
and we want to make sure that we do not burden our children with more 
and more of our debt.
  I just came to the floor to say to Senator Bond that he did an 
excellent job. I commend him and those who have produced bills 
heretofore that have met the targets. I commend them also.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I cannot support this legislation. In 
far too many ways, it fails the American people, the people of 
California I was sent to represent, and the principles of good 
government and good policy to which I subscribe. The bill turns its 
back on responsibility, obligation, and hope.


                        Environmental Protection

  One of the primary functions of government is to protect the public's 
health and safety. Our Federal laws and regulations are written to 
improve and protect the high quality of life that we enjoy in our 
country. Every day, the people of our Nation enjoy the benefits of 
almost a century of progress in Federal laws and regulations that 
reduce the threat of illness, injury, and death from consumer products, 
workplace hazards, and environmental toxins.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, created by President Nixon in 
1970, is responsible for the implementation of our most fundamental 
environmental protection laws: The Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; 
the Safe Drinking Water Act; laws that protect us from improper 
disposal of hazardous waste disposal; laws that protect us from 
exposure to radiation and toxic substances; and laws that regulate the 
clean-up of hazardous waste sites all over the country. As the year 
2000 approaches, Americans can look back with immense pride in the 
progress we have achieved in protections of our health and safety.
  Unfortunately, the drastic cuts in EPA's budget in this bill will cut 
to the bone, jeopardizing all the progress we have made.
  For example, the 23 percent cut in the EPA enforcement budget in the 
bill will inevitably result in a rollback of national efforts to ensure 
that every American breathes clean air, drinks clean water, and is safe 
from the dangers of hazardous waste.
  The bill will reduce the ability of the EPA to respond to threats to 
the environment and human health. In the long run this will mean more 
water pollution, more smog in our cities and countryside, more food 
poisoning, more toxic waste problems.
  Cuts will severely undercut the number of Federal and State 
environmental inspections, thereby increasing the risk to the public 
health and environment from unchecked violators. In fiscal year 1994, 
more than 2,600 facilities were inspected in California and 447 
enforcement actions were taken by Federal or State environmental 
agencies.
  Cuts will mean that state monitoring and inspection programs will 
either have to be either severely curtailed, paid for by the state or 
possibly eliminated.
  Cuts will hurt EPA/industry compliance initiatives which are underway 
in key industrial sectors in my State, such as the Gillette Corporation 
Environmental Leadership Program, a project of the Gillette Corporation 
of Santa Monica, CA, and the Agriculture Compliance Assistance Services 
Center, which was developed in conjunction with the Agriculture 
Extension Service to provide ``one stop shopping'' for information to 
assist farms in complying with environmental regulations. Support for 
this Center--and initiatives like it underway in other industries--will 
be severely undercut by these cuts in the EPA budget.
  In addition to the budget cuts, the bill includes a number of 
unacceptable riders that will: Eliminate EPA's role in issuing permits 
to fill wetlands; prohibit the EPA from issuing a new safeguard to 
protect the public from drinking water contamination; prohibit the EPA 
from implementing Clean Air Act programs; restrict the listing of new 
Superfund sites; prohibit the EPA from issuing final rules for arsenic, 
sulphates, radon, ground water disinfection, or the contaminants in 
phase IVB in drinking water.
  The ban on standard-setting is the equivalent of a ban on the 
implementation of one of the central provisions of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, and is a blow to the ongoing bipartisan negotiations in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization.
  EPA is under court order to issue these standards, which are now more 
than 6 years late. The riders in this bill are an unnecessary 
interference with the ongoing process and will only serve to delay it 
further.
  Congress required the groundwater disinfection rule to be issued in 
1989. The Centers for Disease Control has documented that many disease 
outbreaks are caused by parasite-contaminated groundwater (often from 
sewage, animal waste, or septic tanks). While not all groundwater must 
be disinfected, if the rider is in place, EPA will be barred from 
requiring any groundwater to be treated to kill parasites.
  The bill eliminates the EPA's veto authority over the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers wetlands permits, a power that it needs in order to ensure 
consistent interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act.
  EPA has used the veto sparingly--only 11 times since 1972--and in 
each case had to demonstrate that the discharge would have an 
unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish 
beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or recreation. Typically, a veto has 
involved only major projects with significant potential adverse 
impacts. The total waters protected by EPA veto: 7,299 acres or about 
664 acres protected per veto.
  The power of EPA's veto has played a very constructive role in the 
reaching of compromises on proposed development plans to fill wetlands. 
Moreover, since the Environment and Public Works Committee is now 
considering wetlands reform legislation, this rider is, again, an 
unnecessary and untimely interference with the ongoing efforts to make 
appropriate changes in the law.
  The bill cuts the Superfund program for cleaning up hazardous waste 
sites by 36 percent or almost $500 million.
  California has 23 sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities 
List-- more than any other state. According to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the proposed Superfund cuts would severely impact 
cleanup at 12 of these facilities (since the other 11 facilities are on 
the base closure list and oversight is paid by the base closure 
account, it is not clear what impact, if any, the Superfund cut will 
have on the 11 other sites).
  Thus, in the area of environmental protection, the bill before us 
fails to provide even a merely adequate amount of funding for the 
programs and policies that protect the public health and safety.


                            Housing Programs

  The cuts made by this bill in the programs of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development will have a tremendous impact on 
communities and neighborhoods across the country.
  HUD was hit particularly hard in this spending measure. Under the 
Senate bill, HUD would receive 19 percent less funding than what was 
requested by the administration and over 20 percent less than what was 
approved in last year's bill.
  This will mean significant cuts in funding to serve our Nation's 
homeless. The Senate bill contains $360 million less than what was in 
the President's 

[[Page S 14391]]
request for homeless assistance--the last safety net for homeless 
individuals and families. This translates into $49 million less than 
last year for California to address its homeless problem at a time when 
overall budget cuts may force more people into homelessness.
  Another cruel cut is in new incremental housing vouchers. The bill 
provides $590 million less than the 1995 post-rescission amount. This 
cut will mean that low-income families, homeless families, and families 
with special problems will not receive the housing assistance for which 
they have waited so long.
  Public housing modernization funds would also be significantly 
reduced. California will receive $17 million less than fiscal year 1995 
in modernization funding.
  This cut will undermine efforts to make much needed improvements to 
the worst public housing developments and threaten the existing supply 
of quality public housing in our Nation's cities. Without sufficient 
public housing modernization funding, we will be left with public 
housing that is a blight to our cities and is unfit for families who 
must raise their children there.
  Aside from the spending cuts, I am concerned about the legislative 
riders in the bill which would authorize significant changes to the 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. Housing discrimination is a matter 
which deserves our serious attention. The transfer of this type of 
authority should be considered in the authorizing committee and not as 
a legislative rider on an appropriations measure.
  The Senate bill contains provisions to reform the Low-Income Housing 
Preservation Program. California has an estimated 22,000 units of 
affordable housing which may be lost without a sufficiently funded 
program to preserve them. Thousands of seniors and working families in 
high cost housing markets like San Francisco and Los Angeles could be 
displaced, with no other affordable housing available to them. Adequate 
funding must be maintained so that this valuable housing stock can be 
preserved.


                            Veterans Health

  The bill fails to provide an adequate amount of funds for veterans 
health programs: veterans' medicare care is more than $500 million 
below the President's request.
  This cut will result in a serious impact on the ability of the 
Department to deliver quality care to deserving veterans. VA Secretary 
Jesse Brown estimates that 113,000 fewer veterans would be treated in 
fiscal year 1996 than in the previous year without the additional 
funding. This could mean an estimated 1 million fewer outpatient visits 
for the men and women who have fought for and served our country.
  The Appropriations Committee's rationale for not including full 
funding is that the number of veterans is declining. However, we must 
remember that the number of older veterans is increasing, as is the 
number of patients VA serves. Drastic changes made to Medicaid and 
Medicare could result in further strains to the VA health care system.


                     National Service (AmeriCorps)

  The national service program, signed into law on September 21, 1993, 
created the Corporation for National and Community Service to 
administer a number of service programs. AmeriCorps is the largest of 
those programs.
  AmeriCorps programs are managed by bi-partisan State commissions. 
Federal funds go directly to the States to support locally designed and 
operated programs addressing unmet needs in the areas of education, 
public safety, health, housing, and the environment.
  The concept of national service is to bring together Americans of all 
ages, backgrounds and talents to work to build-up America, to set us on 
a united goal of service to our Nation.
  When I was a junior at Brooklyn College, President John F. Kennedy 
urged our Nation's young people to ``ask not what your country can do 
for you, but what you can do for your country.'' More than 30 years 
later, those words have not lost their sense of urgency.
  There are currently 20,000 Ameri-Corps members and 350 programs 
nationwide. AmeriCorps members earn a small living allowance--about 
$600 per month--and receive limited health care benefits. At the end of 
their term of service--roughly 1,700 hours full-time over a year--they 
receive an education award worth $4,725. The award may be used to pay 
for current or future college and graduate school tuition, job 
training, or to repay existing student loans.
  In my State, there are over 2,500 AmeriCorps members serving in 
approximately 27 programs throughout the State.
  I believe giving young Americans an opportunity to serve our country 
before, during, or after college and subsequently providing them with 
an educational award is a good use of our dollars.
  In a society of ever increasing apathy, the commitment of young 
people to national service is something I urge my colleagues to support 
and not malign.


                           Travis VA Hospital

  Finally, I am profoundly disappointed by the Appropriations 
Committee's refusal to fund the Veterans hospital now under 
construction at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California.
  In 1991, a severe earthquake damaged northern California's only VA 
hospital in Martinez. That facility served over 400,000 veterans, and 
its closure forced many to drive up to 8 hours to receive medical care. 
The Bush administration recognized the tremendous need created by the 
Martinez closure and promised the community that a replacement facility 
would be constructed in Fairfield, at Travis Air Force Base. The 
committee's action breaks that 4-year-old promise to the veterans of 
northern California.
  Last year, Congress appropriated $7 million to complete design and 
begin construction on the Travis-VA medical center. Nearly $20 million 
has been spent on the project to date, and more than a year ago, Vice 
President Gore broke ground. Construction is now underway.
  For fiscal year 1996, President Clinton requested the funds needed to 
complete construction. The committee has now rejected this request, 
which seriously jeopardizes the prospect that the hospital will ever be 
built.
  The committee's only explanation for its action was that due to 
budget restrictions, it chose not to fund new construction projects. 
However, as I have already explained, this project is not a new 
facility, designed to meet an expected future need. It is a replacement 
hospital--promised by the past two administrations--designed to meet an 
existing need in northern California.
  The decision not to fund the Travis-VA medical center breaks faith 
with California's veterans, and violates promises made by the past two 
Presidential administrations.
  Because of the foregoing reasons, I have voted against the VA/HUD/
Independent Agencies appropriations bill, and I will urge the President 
to exercise his veto power against it, in the hope that the ensuing 
negotiations will produce a better bill.
  Madam President, I understand the hard work that went into this bill 
by both the majority and minority sides. I just hope that the President 
will veto this bill. As I have said, I think this bill turns its back 
on responsibility, it turns its back on obligation, and it turns its 
back on hope.
  As the Senator from New Mexico says, times are tough, and the numbers 
we have to deal with are lower, of course. Well, I ask, why is it that 
we are giving the military $7 billion more than they asked for, $7 
billion more than the generals and admirals asked for--and, therefore, 
we have to cut the heart out of our kids, our people who need housing 
and, for God's sake, our veterans. By the way, about 20 to 30 percent 
of our homeless are veterans.
  So, I hope the American people have watched this debate, Madam 
President. This is what we have been talking about. I voted to balance 
the budget in 7 years, but not to do it this way, to hurt our kids, to 
cut out National Youth Service, and to threaten up to 22,000 units of 
affordable housing may be lost in California unless we can fix this 
problem up in conference. It is called the Low-Income Housing 
Preservation Program, and because landlords may opt to prepay their 
mortgages, we may lose this valuable housing stock if we do not 
sufficiently fund the program. Middle-income people and low-income 
people will face increases in their rents and may be thrown out on the 
streets.
  The veterans hospital at Travis, in the Fairfield area of my State, 
where 

[[Page S 14392]]
there was an official groundbreaking because we need a veterans 
hospital badly, it is zeroed out in this bill. And for what? To pay for 
a tax cut to those people making over $350,000 a year, who get back 
$20,000; to give the Pentagon more than the Pentagon asks for. I just 
feel very sad today. I acknowledge the hard work of the committee. 
Believe me, they were given a number that was very difficult to reach, 
and I have sympathy with that situation. I serve on the Budget 
Committee, and Chairman Domenici spoke eloquently about the problems we 
are facing. But I know we did not have to go about it this way.
  I hope the American people get that, and I hope they do not just say 
this is too complicated. This is about priorities. This is about what 
we stand for. And we are turning our backs on the veterans of this 
country, and we are turning our backs on the lowest of the low, the 
homeless people.
  We did not have to do it. We tell our young kids that you are just 
not worth it. And for what? As far as I am concerned, there are three 
bills the President ought to veto, and this is one of them. We can 
sustain that veto, and I hope when we really meet the crunch, there 
will be some give and take around this place, because this bill is 
unacceptable. Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I voted against the last appropriations 
bill on the floor of the Senate. I was interested in the remarks 
offered by the Senator from California.
  I said earlier this week that the three appropriations bills that we 
would be confronted with this week represented probably the worst 
possible choices one could make. This process is all about choices. 
There are some who forever want people to believe that there is one 
side of the aisle in Congress that represents big spenders and a biding 
interest in spending more and more on everything while the other side 
of the aisle represents a bunch of frugal skinflints who really do not 
want to spend, the ones who are putting the brakes on and are trying to 
bring down the deficit.
  What a bunch of hogwash, a total bunch of nonsense. The question is 
not whether we spend money; the question is how we spend the money. 
Never is it better illustrated than in what we have seen in the last 
week or so. We have conference committee on the defense bill reporting 
out in the last day or two, saying they want $3/4 billion more than the 
President or the Secretary of Defense said is necessary to defend this 
country, with B-2 bombers and star wars alone--just those two issues; 
$3 to $4 billion more to buy B-2 bombers and star wars. But they have 
said, by the way, we cannot afford the 50,000 kids who are now on Head 
Start. They are going to get kicked off. Yes, they all have names. They 
are going to lose Head Start benefits. But we want to buy 20 more B-2 
bombers for $30 billion despite the fact that the Defense Department 
did not ask for it.
  But we cannot afford to give disadvantaged kids in the inner city a 
little hope in the summer with a summer job. These kids who have 
nothing, who feel often hopeless and helpless, who look for an 
opportunity to get a job in a summer jobs program in the city, and we 
are saying to 600,000 of these kids--kids who all have a name and a 
dream that maybe they can get a summer job--we are sorry, we cannot 
afford a summer job for a disadvantaged kid like you in the inner city. 
But we insist on spending money to start building star wars. The Senate 
put in $300 million more than the President asked for, and when the 
bill went to conference, it got worse. Let us build interceptor 
missiles and laser beams.
  Where does all of this end? There is no Soviet Union. The threat has 
changed. Yet, the appetite to spend has not changed. It is not liberal 
or conservative. Seven billion dollars was added to the defense budget 
to buy trucks that the Secretary of Defense said he does not need, jet 
airplanes that the Secretary of Defense said he did not want, and 
submarines nobody asked for. And yes, to build star wars and B-2 
bombers. That is $7 billion extra that was stuck in that bill by people 
who say they are against public spending.
  Where is the demonstration of frugality when it comes to that budget? 
Why is it that the sky is the limit? There is no bottom to the coin 
purse when it comes to the defense budget.
  I am for defending this country. I do not think there is anybody here 
who is going to do more than I will do to support the men and women who 
wear the uniform in this country, who defend freedom and liberty.
  The fact is, it serves no interest, especially not the interests of 
the men and women who devote their lives to public service, by sending 
the military money to build gold-plated, boondoggle weapon programs we 
do not need. That takes money away from the day-to-day needs of the men 
and women in the military.
  More important than that, it finally is a matter of choice. It is a 
choice of saying the star wars program is more important than Head 
Start. Buying B-2 bombers that the Secretary of Defense says we do not 
need is more important than giving kids a job for the summer or a tax 
cut, 50 percent of which will go to the most affluent in the country. 
Fifty percent of the benefits of the $245 billion tax cut, at a time 
when we are up to our neck in debt, goes to families whose incomes are 
over $100,000. A tax cut is more important than the benefits for 
incapacitated veterans?
  I am telling you, there is something wrong with those choices. It is 
not a matter of saying spend, spend, spend, but a matter of saying make 
the right choice. Thomas Jefferson said those who think that a country 
can be both ignorant and free think of something that never was and 
never can be. If we do not understand that our future is not in 
building star wars, but our future is investing in this country's kids, 
investing in education, investing for the future, if we do not 
understand that, I am telling you that these choices we make today, as 
viewed by historians 100 years from now, will cause them to scratch 
their heads and say, ``What on Earth were they thinking about? What on 
Earth could their values have been to suggest somehow that kids are not 
very important?"
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank the Senator for putting perspective on 
this bill. I want to just enter into a couple questions with my friend.
  Does the Senator know how much the Republicans would like to cut from 
Medicare over the next 7 years?
  Mr. DORGAN. The proposed cut in the baseline that is needed to meet 
Medicare expenditures for those who are eligible is $270 billion over 
the 7 years.
  Mrs. BOXER. So they are proposing to cut $270 billion, which they say 
is not a cut, but, in fact, if the population keeps aging and if 
medical technology keeps moving forward, this is what is anticipated. 
They want to take $270 billion out over 7 years.
  Does the Senator know how much Health and Human Services said is 
needed in order to make Medicare sound, is needed to cut out of the 
program?
  Mr. DORGAN. The adjustments that are necessary in Medicare are about 
$89 billion, not $270 billion.
  Incidentally, those who say you can cut $270 billion out of Medicare 
without having any impact on senior citizens must go to sleep and put 
their teeth under the pillow hoping a dollar shows up the next morning.
  Where on Earth do they get these fanciful notions that you can do 
this without affecting senior citizens? Of course, if you cut $270 
billion from Medicare, you are going to wind up with a health care 
program for senior citizens that costs senior citizens more money and 
gives them less health care. That is the point.
  Why do we have that equation? Well, it is simple. The $270 billion 
proposed cut in the amount needed for Medicare is, I think, proposed in 
order to allow room for a $245 billion tax cut.
  Now, I recognize and freely admit that for someone to stand up in the 
Senate and say, look, I serve in the U.S. Senate and I want to exhibit 
great courage today and my courage propels me to suggest we should have 
a tax cut. Well, what a wildly popular thing. It is like putting a raft 
in whitewater and rushing downstream. Wildly popular concept, having a 
tax cut. If you want to be popular, stand here and call for a tax cut.
  My view is that the same people who are calling for a tax cut are the 
ones 

[[Page S 14393]]
who were saying we ought to balance the budget. I say we should balance 
the budget. Talk about tax cuts after the budget is balanced. But why 
are they talking about Medicare cuts now? So they can talk about a tax 
cut at the same time. That is the linchpin of all of this.
  I do not think it adds up. My sense is, yes, I would like everybody 
to pay lower taxes. I would like there to be zero taxes. Of course, we 
have to have police, we have to have roads, we have to send our kids to 
school. There are a number of things we do in the public sector that 
are enormously important. Many were in this piece of legislation I just 
voted against because I thought it took money away from the good 
choices and gave them to the poorer choices.
  It seems to me we must be serious about a lot of things if we want to 
reduce the Federal deficit. Therefore, if we are serious--and I am--do 
not talk about tax cuts until that job is done. Then talk about tax 
cuts.
  Even more importantly, let us not talk about ravaging a health care 
program that has been so successful for senior citizens in this country 
in order to accommodate a tax cut, half of which will go to people with 
incomes over $100,000 a year.
  Mrs. BOXER. One final question I want to ask of my friend. If we were 
to take that tax cut and put it aside for the moment, and if we were 
just to give the Pentagon what the Pentagon asked for and not more, 
which is what the Republican Congress has done, and it adds up to $30 
billion-plus more than they asked for, would that not make it possible 
for us to take care of the Medicare problem and resolve it out 10 years 
so that it is fiscally sound? Would that not make it possible for us 
not to go to an elderly couple and tell the husband whose wife is in a 
nursing home, ``Sorry, sell your house, sell the car, because we are 
going after your assets''? Would it not make it possible for us to take 
care of those kids in Head Start that you talked about, keep a national 
service program, meet our obligations to veterans, do the things we 
need to do to keep our environment safe?
  Would it not be possible to meet those obligations, balance the 
budget if we set aside those enormous tax cuts out there which benefit 
the very wealthiest, and just give the Pentagon what they asked for and 
not all these billions more that has been thrown at them?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, the Senator from California is correct. This is 
ultimately about choices. We choose to do one thing or we choose to do 
another. We make a choice and decide which of these choices are more 
important for the future of the country. That is what this process is 
all about.
  I am not somebody who believes that one side has all the answers and 
the other side causes all the problems. I think this country would be a 
lot better off if we got the best of what both parties have to offer, 
rather than end up with the worst of what the two give us. I want to 
see much more bipartisanship in these decisions.
  The plain fact is we are dealing with legislation coming to the floor 
where choices have already been made, and the choice that has been laid 
before us on these appropriations bills is to take 50,000 kids off Head 
Start, deny 100,000 disadvantaged youth summer jobs, and 170,000 
incapacitated veterans on fewer benefits.
  My point is, these choices do not seem logical to me in the face of 
other spending choices that were made.
  Build star wars, build 20 new B-2 bombers. I responded to a column in 
the newspaper very critical of me for opposing star wars, and I said 
when the defense bill came to the floor of the Senate, I said it 
smelled a little like my mom's kitchen when she used to render lard 
when I was a kid. I could hardly walk in the house because when you 
render lard, it has an awful smell.
  This defense bill has $7 billion in extra spending. I talked about 
the trucks that were not asked for, jet planes nobody needed. The hood 
ornament on this irresponsibility was blimps. They wanted to buy $60 
million worth of blimps. I have talked about it half a dozen times on 
the floor, trying to figure out who wants blimps. What are the blimps 
for?
  Sixty million dollars is provided for in the defense bill by people 
who say they are conservative, in order to build lighter-than-air 
airships; translated, that means blimps. Only in Washington would you 
say lighter-than-air airships--blimps is what they are. I do not know 
whether they will paint Snoopy on them or paint Goodyear, but somebody 
wants to build $60 million worth of blimps.
  I think it is pretty hard to look into the face of a 3-year-old or 4-
year-old kid who is benefiting by getting a head-start in life, through 
a program we know works and works well, and say, ``We are sorry, we 
cannot afford you because we are off buying blimps.'' Lord only knows 
what they want to buy blimps for in the defense bill, but there is 
example after example of that.
  When you come to the floor and talk about these issues, investing in 
things that are important, you get letters and calls. I saw a letter 
today. A fellow from Houston, TX, wrote and said he heard me on the 
floor talking about kids. It is true. I talked about a young man from 
New York City named David Bright. I have never forgotten his testimony. 
He was 10 years old, from New York City. He lived in a homeless 
shelter. He said, ``No kid like me should have to put his head down on 
his desk in the afternoon because it hurts to be hungry.'' He was 
talking about hunger and being homeless and having nothing.
  The guy from Houston, TX, was writing to me after watching C-SPAN. He 
said: ``All you nut cases ought to stop spending money on all this 
liberal stuff.''
  If we have people out there who decide that kids do not matter, that 
hunger does not matter, that star wars is where it is at in the future, 
in my judgment they are not thinking much about the future of this 
country. This country's future is with its kids, with education, with 
opportunity, and a commitment by this Congress to those kids.
  The only reason I rose to speak was because the Senator from 
California talked about this piece of legislation. I voted against it 
because, frankly, I think it makes the wrong choices.
  I would like just for a moment to continue discussing Medicare 
because that is the subject of some hearings this afternoon that will 
occur in the Senate Finance Committee. It is, I think, one of the 
largest issues ricocheting around the Congress.
  I respect the fact there are some who say we want to save Medicare 
while others want to kill it. The proposal to cut $270 million from 
what is needed to finance Medicare is offered by those who say we are 
the ones who want to save it. I only observe that at least 95 to 97 
percent of those who say they want to save Medicare with this very 
large cut in funding--95 to 97 percent of them voted against the 
program in the first place, at least those in their party did 30 years 
ago. It seems unlikely to me that the party that harbors some who think 
Medicare is socialism and really should not continue is going to 
propose a $270 billion cut in order to save it.
  It is far more likely, it seems to me, that we will save the Medicare 
Program--and we should save the Medicare Program--by having Republicans 
and Democrats get together and decide that this program makes sense, 
that this program helps make us a better country.
  When the Medicare Program was developed, fewer than 50 percent of the 
senior citizens of this country had any health care coverage at all. 
Now 97 to 99 percent of the senior citizens in America have health care 
coverage. It is a remarkable success story. Frankly, people are living 
longer.
  All of us know that one of the pressures on us, from the Medicare 
financing persepctive, is that people live longer and expect more. It 
is not unusual to run into a senior citizen someplace who is in his 
midseventies and has had heart surgery to unplug all the arteries from 
the heart that got plugged from eating all this fatty food. They have 
had cataract surgery, replaced both knees, replaced a hip. So here they 
are, 75 years old, and they have their heart unplugged, they have their 
arteries all clear, with blood pumping away in there. They are feeling 
good. They are walking and running and jogging with good knees and 
hips. They can see like a million bucks because they had cataract 
surgery.
  That costs a lot of money. It is the result of remarkable, wonderful, 


[[Page S 14394]]
breathtaking technology. But it is also very expensive. In some ways, 
that is a sign of success, is it not? Thirty years ago, they would have 
been dead; dead, or in a wheelchair, or unable to see. The alternative? 
Remarkable, breathtaking achievements in health care and a Medicare 
Program that works. Expensive? Yes. Does it need adjustments? Of 
course. Should we make them? Yes.
  But should we take from the Medicare Program substantial moneys so we 
can give a tax cut to some of the most affluent in the country? The 
answer, in my judgment, is no. That is not a choice that makes sense. 
That is not a choice that will strengthen this country or advance our 
interests.
  We have about 2 or 3 months left in this session of Congress. The 
agonizing choices that all of us will make about what is important will 
be made, finally, in these appropriations bills and in the 
reconciliation bill. I come from a town of 300 people. My background is 
from a very small, rural community. I have no interest in being 
dogmatic or being an idealogue about one issue or another. But I do 
have a very significant interest in expressing the passion I have for 
the choices which I think are good for this country.
  This country has to get out of its present economic circumstances, 
balance its budget, and make the right choices with respect to 
investments. I have not talked today about trade, but I will at some 
point in the coming days. We have to solve our trade problem. We are 
sinking in trade debt, and we are getting kicked around international 
marketplaces. We have to stand up for America's economic interests and 
change that. All of those things need to be discussed, debated, and 
resolved.
  A lot of people wring their hands and grit their teeth because we 
have raucous debates about these things. These debates are good and 
necessary. I hope we have more and more divergent views brought to the 
floor of the Senate so we can understand the range of ideas that exist 
and select the best of them. Someone once said when everyone in the 
room is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much.
  I do not shy from debate. I do not think it is unhealthy. But at the 
end of the debate, let us try to find out what is wrong in this country 
and fix it, and advance the economic interests to give everybody in 
America more opportunity in the future.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________