[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18601-S18602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason I asked for morning business at 
this time was to bring my colleagues up to date and those who are very 
much interested in the appropriations process, particularly as it 
regards the Environmental Protection Agency, VA, and HUD, and what is 
happening here.

  We have had a bill that has been passed by the Senate, passed by the 
House, and a conference report passed by the House that is waiting 
here. We have not passed it because the administration has promised 
clearly and unequivocally to veto it.
  There are several things that are going to happen today. First, the 
majority leader has scheduled the measure to be passed later on after 
this bill, perhaps in wrapup tonight, and second, there is a major 
media effort to mischaracterize, I believe, what is going on with 
respect to the environment.
  Some of my colleagues may have seen an article in today's Washington 
Post: ``Temporary Reductions Halt `Environmental Cop.' '' It relates to 
concerns expressed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner.
  I am getting a little tired of the press conferences, press 
statements, and grandstanding from the White House regarding how the 
majority in the Congress is rolling back environmental protection and 
making deep cuts in the environment.
  Ms. Browner is reported in the Post as saying, ``The environmental 
cop is not on the beat.'' She decries the fact 

[[Page S18602]]
that the temporary budget reductions resulting from the current 
continuing resolution are causing a reduction in inspections. I agree 
with her. I would like to see a bill passed and signed into law.
  Let me set the record straight. The EPA appropriations bill which 
passed the Senate earlier this year funded EPA's operating programs at 
the fiscal year 1995 level, and the conference report on VA-HUD and 
independent agencies provides a total funding level for EPA which is 
$48 million more than the Senate-passed bill, a reduction of only 4 
percent below the postrescissions fiscal year 1995 funding level.
  We have managed in a very, very tight budget to provide close to full 
funding for EPA at a time when constraints on discretionary spending 
are extraordinarily tight. This subcommittee received an allocation 
which was 12 percent below last year's level, yet we managed to hold 
EPA at close to current funding levels. Despite the rhetoric from 
downtown, this demonstrates, I believe, a Republican commitment to 
continue to improve the environment.
  Now, I am the first to admit that the EPA has received some targeted 
budget cuts in the appropriations process but the reductions came from 
areas which the National Academy of Public Administration and others 
identified as being unnecessary, wasteful or duplicative. NAPA is a 
nonpartisan organization which was commissioned by my Democratic 
colleague and predecessor, Senator Mikulski, then chair of the 
committee, to undertake a report on reforming EPA 2 years ago.
  In this bill and the conference report, we followed the NAPA 
recommendations presented to Congress almost a year ago to turn more 
responsibility over to the States that have developed an enormous 
capacity over the past 25 years to manage environmental programs, 
including inspections of facilities. According to NAPA, ``EPA should 
revise its approach to oversight, providing high performing States with 
grant flexibility, reduced oversight and greater autonomy.''
  That is what we have tried to do for this appropriations bill, and we 
have included authority for EPA to begin issuing block grants for 
maximum flexibility. We have tried to focus on the areas of highest 
risk to human health and the environment and reduce those programs 
which do not get the most bang for the buck in terms of environmental 
protection.
  But the administration and EPA, rather than spending time organizing 
press conferences and news events, should be following the 
recommendations of NAPA to get its own house in order. Despite EPA's 
claim to support NAPA's recommendations, we have seen little in terms 
of real change. And regarding today's article in the Post, let me point 
out to my colleagues that indeed EPA is operating under a constrained 
budget because of the continuing resolution, and I am fully prepared to 
send a bill to the President so they will not have to operate under a 
continuing resolution. The conference report on the EPA bill, that is, 
VA-HUD and independent agencies, would provide an increase of 11.5 
percent over the current continuing resolution, yet the President wants 
to veto the bill. His agents have stated unequivocally that he will.
  I have suggested to administration officials that I as chairman, the 
ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and our colleagues in similar 
positions in the House, are more than willing to sit down to find 
accommodations within the 602(b) allocation to negotiate a reasonable 
compromise.
  Rather than negotiating with us, today I am told later on the Vice 
President will hold a press conference with Administrator Browner at a 
suburban Maryland wastewater treatment plant where they will continue 
to attack Republican reductions in environmental improvements. Rather 
than pointing to the successes achieved over the past years to improve 
our water quality, they will talk about how the budget will impair 
future water quality improvements.
  Let me set the record straight, Mr. President. Funding for EPA 
wastewater treatment construction in this year's bill is $1.125 
billion. In addition, the conference report stipulates that if 
legislation enacting a new drinking water State revolving fund is not 
authorized by June 1, 1996, an additional $500 million will be 
available for wastewater State revolving funds for a total of $1.625 
billion.

  Mr. President, this would represent an increase of about $400 million 
over last year's level.
  Now, in the last 2 weeks or more, I have repeatedly requested of top 
administration officials that they tell us how they wish to reallocate 
spending within the 602(b) allocations. I have made that request among 
others to Administrator Browner, to CEQ director, Ms. McGinty, to OMB 
director Dr. Rivlin, to the Vice President himself. I put in a call to 
the President. Obviously, he has other things on his mind. But none of 
these people has responded.
  As a result, it appears that when this bill goes down, if the 
President carries through on his threat to veto it, it will be vetoed 
and EPA will fall back to the level of the continuing resolution. The 
only word we have heard from the administration is they want to spend 
about $2 billion more.
  The White House talks the language of reducing spending to balance 
the budget, but they do not have the music yet. They think the only way 
they can live is to spend more money. We have done the very best we can 
to establish priorities within the context of achieving a balanced 
budget in the year 2002.
  I wish to say for the record that my ranking member, Senator 
Mikulski, has gone out of her way to be helpful, to work with us, to 
make as many accommodations and improvements in the bill as possible. 
She too has sought the involvement of the administration. And even 
though Senator Mikulski's top priority, national service, is not funded 
in this bill, other than for close-down, it cannot be funded unless and 
until the administration is willing to sit down with us and tell us 
where they wish to make cuts to generate the support to pass this bill 
in both Houses.
  Senator Mikulski has been thoroughly cooperative throughout. I could 
not ask for anyone who has been more willing to put the needs of the 
environment, of veterans, of housing, of space, and other important 
agencies ahead of partisan bickering. It is with great regret that I 
tell my colleagues that we are likely to see the measure, which is 
scheduled for passage later on tonight, vetoed by the President because 
simply he wants to spend more money.
  I make the point again for those interested in the environment that 
if the President were to sign this bill, or if the President were even 
to send his people to discuss with us how to make improvements to 
protect their priorities, we would be more than willing to negotiate 
with them. Absent any response--and there has been no response--this 
bill will be scheduled later on for passage this evening. I regret that 
we will not receive the funding for environmental actions that are 
included in this conference report if the President chooses to veto it. 
But make no mistake. If there is a reduction in funding for 
environmental efforts, it will be the President's decision. It will be 
the President's veto. He is going to get a bill that is very close to 
last year's funding, and it protects the top priority programs in EPA.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________