[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18639-S18658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2099) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry 
     independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and 
     offices for fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
     other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, 
     have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 17, 1995.)
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my distinguished 
ranking member. We have before us the VA-HUD appropriations conference 
report. As I understand it, there is to be 30 minutes equally divided 
between the two managers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator 
Bumpers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 10 minutes 
under the control of Senator Hutchison, 10 minutes under the control of 
Senator Lautenberg, and 10 minutes under the control of Senator McCain.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will come 
to order. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is with some pride, some relief, and some 
frustration, I now present to the Senate the conference report on the 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies for fiscal year 
1996. Consideration of this bill has been a long, difficult process. 
While we should have been able to complete our work long before now, I 
do believe we have wasted little of this time in producing the best 
possible measure for consideration by the Senate.
  Work on this measure began over a year ago, beginning with analyses 
of budgetary trends and programmatic needs for activities under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. It was obvious at that time, that our 
Federal low-income housing programs were out of budgetary control. 
Concerted policy reform was critical to avoid a disaster of 
unprecedented magnitude.
  In January of this year, as the newly selected chairman of this 
subcommittee, I convened a series of special hearings on the budgetary 
and management crisis at HUD. We detailed the magnitude of our 
budgetary shortfall to maintain the existing multifamily subsidized 
housing inventory of the Department. We explored urgently needed 
reforms in the housing preservation program to reduce cost, avoid 
windfall payments, and reduce long- term rental subsidies. We also 
delineated policy changes in public housing to reduce bureaucratic 
overregulation and micromanagement, to increase local flexibility, 
decisionmaking, and efficiencies.
  From these hearings we developed a strategy to begin these 
comprehensive changes in Federal housing programs. First, in the 
Disaster Supplemental and Rescission Act we initiated the first round 
of deregulation, and rescinded $6.5 billion of previously appropriated 
HUD funds to turn-off the spigot of unsustainable housing subsidy 
commitments. At that time we noted the urgency of comprehensive housing 
authorization legislation to complete this reform effort during fiscal 
year 1996.
  Unfortunately, this legislation has been delayed, although we remain 
hopeful that early next year the measures reported by both the House 
and Senate authorizing committees will pass the Congress. In the 
absence of such legislation, however, we have used the appropriations 
process to establish a strong foundation in beginning the major reform 
and overhaul of HUD. The measure before us today reflects almost all of 
the reform proposals which passed the Senate in September. They include 
public housing and assisted housing rent reforms, including a minimum 
rent, repeal for onerous Federal resident selection criteria, free-
market decontrol of section 8 lease terms, and flexibility in resident 
income mix and funds utilization.
  This measure maintains the Senate-passed public housing demonstration 
initiative which will allow up to 30 public housing authorities to 
combine public housing and section 8 subsidies into a locally 
determined low-income housing assistance block grant. In addition, the 
bill also includes the Senate proposed multifamily mark-to-market 
demonstration, which is discretionary authority for the Department, and 
willing apartment development owners, the opportunity to explore work-
out strategies which reduce dependence on rental subsidies while 
preserving affordable housing. Coupled with the one-time, 1-year 
extension of expiring project-based subsidy contracts, the multifamily 
housing demonstration authority sets the stage for consideration and 
enactment of needed comprehensive reform legislation next year.
  Mr. President, the measure before us also maintains the effort 
recommended 

[[Page S18640]]
by the Senate to fund a reformed housing preservation program. As I 
noted earlier, the committee identified a number of very troubling 
defects and problems in the previously enacted Low Income Housing 
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act [LIHPRHA]. In fact, the HUD 
inspector general labeled this program as a ``rip-off'' and urged 
reform or termination. But with as many as 150,000 affordable housing 
units at risk, the committee chose the more difficult task of 
identifying less costly and more efficient means of preserving this 
valuable housing resource. Working with residents, owners, nonprofit 
organizations, and the Department, a strategy to prioritize sales to 
non-profits and tenant-sponsored organizations utilizing capital grants 
was developed and is provided for in this conference agreement. This 
provides the best means of assuring long-term preservation of this 
housing without encumbering the government with expensive and 
continuing rental subsidy obligations.
  It was our intent that the Department cut off any further use of 
section 8 assistance to finance these preservation arrangements. The 
Department has already initiated the use of capital grants to finance 
sales of these developments, and we expect that similar authority will 
be identified or enacted to utilize similar capital loans for 
refinancing preservation agreements when such projects become eligible 
for funding in July.
  Because of technical budgetary rules, the committee was not able to 
delineate fully these program changes within the conference agreement. 
Moreover, in connection with the larger issue of maintaining the 
inventory of the newer-assisted section 8 new construction-substantial 
rehabilitation multifamily projects, Congress will be required to 
address these complex and difficult housing finance issues in a 
comprehensive authorization measure next year. At that time, we hope to 
enact a carefully targeted and efficient housing preservation program. 
Pending that action, the conference agreement provides the Department 
the authority and resources to minimize potential displacement of low-
income families.
  Mr. President, the housing preservation program included in this 
conference agreement also recognizes that the severe budgetary 
constraints on these housing activities will not permit preservation of 
all units under all circumstances. This measure will permit owners to 
prepay their existing mortgages, as was provided for in their original 
subsidy contracts, because we cannot afford to compensate every owner 
to maintain these developments as low-income housing. In those cases, 
however, existing law, and the conference agreement does provide for 
section 8 assistance to avoid involuntary displacement of families due 
to increased rent burdens, and moving expenses if these developments 
are converted to other uses.

  Mr. President, the conference agreement affords the highest priority 
to veterans programs. The largest increase in the conference 
agreement--$400 million--goes to veterans medical care, for a total of 
$16.564 billion. The amount provided ensures that all veterans 
currently receiving care in VA medical facilities will continue to 
receive high-quality medical care. The conference agreement makes no 
reductions to patient care at the VA. It requires administrative 
improvements--which have been recommended by VA's own inspector general 
and the General Accounting Office--to make budgetary savings so that 
VA's medical dollars are spent on veterans, not on bureaucracy and 
administrative waste.
  The conference agreement provides the full budget request for VA's 
research program, a program critical to ensuring VA recruits and 
retains top quality medical personnel. In addition the bill also 
provides full funding for the staff needed to process compensation and 
pensions claims, so that VA's claims backlog can be eliminated and 
veterans won't have to wait 6 months or longer to receive an answer on 
their claim. It provides funding for a study of VA's claims processing 
system by the National Academy of Public Administration, which we 
expect will provide specific recommendations for improving and 
expediting VA's antiquated system.
  The conference agreement provides $136,155,000 for VA major 
construction, an increase of approximately $100 million over the 
Senate-passed level. The agreement provides funding for authorized 
construction projects only. No new hospital construction is funded, 
following the recommendations of the General Accounting Office, and in 
view of the need to curtail future budgetary commitments.
  Mr. President, the conference agreement provides $9 million for the 
Court of Veterans Appeals, the same amount recommended by both the 
House and Senate for fiscal year 1996. As with all agencies and 
activities under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the court is being 
required to absorb a reduction in funding in fiscal year 1996 in an 
effort to reach a balanced budget. While less than the amount 
requested, the amount provided should be adequate for the court's 
operations in fiscal year 1996.
  Despite the fact that the court's budget has been reduced, I believe 
that the pro bono representation program should receive full funding in 
fiscal year 1996. This program has proven very successful in helping 
the court to address adequately the very large number of pro se cases.
  I am troubled by reports that the chief judge does not intend to 
provide any funds for the pro bono program this year in view of 
budgetary reductions. I wish to remind the court of the Congress' 
support for this program, and the fact that the Senate committee report 
accompanying H.R. 2099 indicated that the program was to receive the 
full budget request. Any changes will be made only upon the 
notification and approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
  While I certainly do not oppose private sector funding for this 
program, to my knowledge such funding sources have not been identified, 
and until there is adequate private sector funding, I do not believe it 
is prudent to withdraw Federal support.
  Mr. President, for the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
conference agreement provides $5.7 billion, an increase of $48 million 
over the Senate-passed level and a reduction of just $235 million--4 
percent--below the fiscal year 1995 post rescission level.
  The largest reductions below fiscal year 1995 come from earmarked 
water and sewer projects--a reduction of $500 million below last year, 
and from Superfund, a program which everyone agrees simply is not 
working as it should, and one which desperately needs reforms before we 
provide significant additional funding.
  Despite substantial reservations about funding a program which is as 
flawed as Superfund, the conferees found an additional $160 million for 
Superfund above the House- and Senate-passed levels, for a total of 
$1.163 billion. This is a reduction of $172 million below current 
spending, most of which is taken from management and support costs and 
lower priority activities. All Superfund sites posing an immediate risk 
to human health and the environment will be funded under the conference 
agreement.
  The conferees funded EPA's drinking water State revolving fund 
program, which is not yet authorized, at the President's request of 
$500 million, of which $225 million is from previous year's 
appropriations. The Senate recently passed the legislation authorizing 
this important program, and I hope the House will pass similar 
legislation shortly so that the States may spend these funds in fiscal 
year 1996.
  For clean water State revolving funds, the conferees provided $1.125 
billion. In addition, if drinking water legislation is not enacted by 
June 1, 1996, the conference report stipulates that the $500 million in 
drinking water State revolving funds will become immediately available 
for clean water State revolving funds, for a total of $1.625 billion. 
This ensures that the States will be able to spend these funds in 
fiscal year 1996, regardless of whether drinking water legislation is 
enacted.
  EPA's science and technology account is funded at $525 million, the 
same level of funding as fiscal year 1995. The conferees recognized the 
importance of ensuring adequate funding for the research activities 
which support EPA policy and decisionmaking. Additional funds are 
provided for research into the health effects of arsenic, so that we 
have the best science for a new standard for arsenic in drinking water. 


[[Page S18641]]

  EPA's environmental programs and management are funded at $1.55 
billion, a reduction of approximately 7 percent below current levels. 
Reductions are taken from lower priority activities such as the 
environmental technology initiative, which has received substantial 
funding to date with very little to show for it.
  As to the so-called EPA riders, the conference agreement does not 
include any of the 17 House riders. Instead, the conference agreement 
includes only six legislative provisions for EPA--most of which are 
completely non-controversial and several of which were included in 
previous VA-HUD bills.

  Mr. President, while the statement of the managers accompanying the 
conference report includes some language on legislative issues which 
had been included as riders in the House bill, in no case does the 
statement of the managers limit spending or direct that a specific 
rulemaking or activity be discontinued. The conferees simply urge EPA 
to consider reviewing these issues.
  It should be noted, that this conference agreement will provide the 
Environmental Protection Agency an 11\1/2\ percent increase over the 
funding levels currently stipulated by the continuing resolution. 
Anyone who is concerned about potential cutbacks in EPA enforcement 
activities should understand, in clear and unmistakable terms, that 
failure to enact this conference agreement means deeper and more 
devastating cut-backs in that Agency's activities.
  Mr. President, the House, 2 weeks ago, recommitted our conference 
agreement on this bill. The second conference on the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Bill adopted a package of technical amendments and 
corrections. In addition it included an amendment to the National 
Service appropriation to reflect the Congressional Budget Office 
estimate of close-out costs. Finally, conferees amended the previous 
agreement to freeze administrative fees of the HUD section 8 program 
and thereby address concerns over the unintended consequences of 
attempting to institute a two-tiered reimbursement system.
  As noted earlier, further increases for VA Medical Care would only 
mean much deeper cuts in the other agencies funded in this bill. No 
conferee advocated such an adjustment. Furthermore, I believe we must 
insist that the VA implement improvements and reforms before providing 
further funding increases. We all support the best possible medical 
care for those who have been injured or wounded in defense of our 
Nation. Unfortunately, even with all the money in the world, there is 
no assurance that VA's existing bureaucratic structure could deliver 
such services, and we must demand these corrections.
  Mr. President, this is a good conference agreement which, within our 
very severe budgetary and legislative constraints, goes a long way 
toward needed reforms in HUD, VA, and EPA. It addresses the highest 
priority needs served by agencies within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, and it is fully in compliance with our fundamental goal 
of bringing the Government's budget into balance.
  I hope that this bill will be enacted. It needs to be enacted soon, 
if only to begin the process of reforming HUD housing programs which 
will permit future year cost savings and efficiencies, to improve the 
quality of EPA regulatory decisionmaking so that it is based on sound 
science, and to infuse modern medical practices into the archaic and 
bureaucratic veterans health care system.
  Mr. President, unfortunately I must report that despite our best 
efforts and repeated attempts, we have been unsuccessful in gaining the 
attention of the White House to negotiate a reasonable compromise on 
their demands for more spending, far more than what any balanced budget 
plan can accommodate. That is the source of my very deep frustration 
over this bill.
  I have stated repeatedly that while some White House priorities are 
very different from my own and that of a majority of the Congress, we 
are prepared to sit down and seek a reasonable compromise on these 
issues. Matters such as the national service program, one of this 
administration's highest priorities, is an activity which I believe is 
very flawed in its approach and rife with misuse in its current 
management. I don't disagree with the fundamental goal of this program, 
but I cannot recommend more funding for the current program. 
Termination of this program is proposed in this conference agreement, 
but we have offered to consider additional funding if necessary reforms 
could be negotiated. Unfortunately, these offers have fallen on deaf 
ears in the White House, and only further threats of a veto have been 
communicated back to us.
  Mr. President, this is no way to run a government. It certainly is no 
way to consider and enact legislation to assure the taxpayers that the 
sums we propose to spend are being devoted only to the most critical 
needs and in the most efficient manner possible. Unfortunately, unless 
the White House changes its tune, we have no alternative but to proceed 
with the agreement before us, despite the veto threats. We can only 
hope that by the end of this session some agreement with the 
administration can be struck, and the many critically needed reforms 
included in this bill will be enacted into law.
  I think we were very successful in the conference. With the very able 
assistance of our ranking member, we prevailed on many of the issues. 
This measure is not an easy one because we took a 12-percent cut this 
year from the appropriated level last year. Nevertheless, we have tried 
to accommodate the various needs of the many agencies under the control 
of this subcommittee. I think this is a good measure. We have been 
advised by the President's representative that he does plan on vetoing 
it.
  Earlier today, I made a very strong plea that the administration 
reconsider that decision. There has been a great deal of objection from 
the administration to the very low level of funding available for 
certain vital EPA functions, particularly in the enforcement area. 
Under the continuing resolution, there is only $320 million available 
for EPA enforcement in the current year, if the continuing resolution 
is in effect. Under this measure, we have raised that amount to $449 
million.
  I have also previously stated that we tried on numerous occasions to 
enlist the representatives of the administration in constructive 
negotiations with us as to how we might reallocate the funds within the 
budget allocation. The response has been solely that they want $2 
billion more. It is beyond the ability of this committee to grant them 
that money. I would suggest very strongly that if the administration 
does not like the CR funding level for EPA and the other agencies, they 
can sign this bill and get about an 11.5 percent increase in funding 
for EPA. If at a later date in the process of negotiations between the 
congressional leadership and the White House a decision is made at that 
level to make available more dollars for the functions in this bill, 
then they could at that time add it in a continuing resolution.
  There are certain measures that I know are very important to the 
administration. The ranking member has argued very strongly to continue 
funding of the national service. We were unable to find that money in 
the very narrow allocation that we had, although had the administration 
been willing to negotiate with us and support the bill, I am confident 
we could have. We would have not been able, however, to pass the 
measure with majority party support if we had put in a large amount for 
national service.
  I remain hopeful that this measure can be signed, and at such 
appropriate time as the administration, the congressional leadership 
reach agreement on additional funding which may be available to these 
functions, they would include it in a continuing resolution.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is the toughest year I have ever 
faced as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I would like to 
thank Senator Bond and his staff, who worked very hard, under difficult 
conditions, to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my 
own staff for the hard work that they put in and their effort to try to 
create a VA-HUD appropriations bill that would pass the Senate and be 
approved by the President.
  However, I believe that this bill will be vetoed, and I believe that 
the bill will be vetoed not because of the hard work of the chairman, 
not because of 

[[Page S18642]]
our attempt to strategize on an effective allocation of funds, but this 
year was so tough simply because of the modest allocation we received, 
and that was due to the issues related to the budget.
  The amount that this subcommittee was allowed to devote to so many 
important priorities is indeed skimpy. Under these conditions I believe 
Senator Bond has done a commendable job. I chaired this committee for 6 
years and brought six bills to the floor. I know how much work it is, 
and, again, I am going to thank him for his cooperative effort. He 
tried very hard to bring about change. I believe this bill reflects 
this change.
  I believe that this bill begins to reform HUD. It puts into action 
the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration to 
reform the structure of HUD and consolidate its maze of programs so we 
get a dollar's worth of services for the poor and homeownership instead 
of dollars going to a bureaucracy.
  This bill also streamlines the EPA. It follows the National Academy 
of Public Administration's recommendations to streamline EPA management 
and get started on a strategy to put EPA's resources where they are 
most needed, to be based on the risk to human health and safety.
  There are other things about this bill that I like. First is Mission 
to Planet Earth. The funding cut was limited to only $75 million. 
Ordinarily I would say, ``Wow, cutting $75 million,'' but given the 
fact that we faced a $300 million cut, I believe we preserved the 
Mission to Planet Earth. The House bill cut much of the crucial space 
science programs, and the House language was to close NASA space flight 
centers, and those things have been removed from the conference report.
  Second, veterans medical research is fully funded at the President's 
request of $257 million, and a provision to deny benefits to vets who 
become mentally incapacitated has been removed.
  Third, this bill will help those who want to help themselves. It 
contains a moving-to-work demonstration project for public housing 
residents, and rent ceilings and income disregards to help support the 
working poor.

  Fourth, Federal housing preferences were moved, which I believe led 
to the ZIP codes of pathology in public housing. And I am pleased they, 
too, have been removed.
  Lastly, the conference report removes House language to prevent HUD 
from enforcing fair housing laws on property insurance red lining.
  But, Mr. President, unfortunately, serious problems remain in this 
bill. If these problems are not worked out, the President will veto 
this bill.
  The first problem is that this bill contains no funding to continue 
national service. National service creates an opportunity structure in 
which young people can earn credit for higher education while serving 
their communities. It gives help to those who practice self-help and 
gives low- and middle-income young people access to the American dream.
  National service makes voluntarism a fact of life and rekindles the 
habits of the heart. It fosters the spirit of neighbor helping neighbor 
that has made our country great.
  The second concern that I have is in the area of veterans medical 
care. The bill reduces veterans medical care by $400 million below the 
President's request. With the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that loom 
on the horizon, many vets will turn to the VA for medical care but will 
be turned away because there is not enough money. This, I know, the 
President cannot support.
  Our Nation's veterans did not hesitate to risk their lives for our 
freedom. There should be no hesitation to fund their health care. When 
they went to war, we told them we would provide health care. I believe 
promises made should be promises kept.
  The third serious problem is EPA funding. EPA must be funded to 
protect health and environment. This bill funds EPA $1.5 billion below 
the President's request, and it will hinder the EPA's ability to do its 
job in enforcement and in Superfund legislation.
  Finally, this bill will transfer HUD's authority to enforce fair 
housing to the Department of Justice. On this side of the aisle we are 
opposed to this. Removing this authority from HUD is a step backward in 
time, and the transfer to Justice will hollow out fair housing 
enforcement efforts. This flies in the face of civil rights progress we 
have made over the last 25 years.
  It is for these reasons that I oppose this bill. I know my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle will oppose it. It is regrettable that a 
budget agreement could not be arrived at so that Senator Bond and I, 
with the new allocation, could have moved forward to avoid a veto. I 
know that Senator Bond, and I must say Chairman Jerry Lewis on the 
House side, have worked very hard and been open to further negotiations 
with the White House to avoid a veto. I thank them for that. I want to 
again thank Senator Bond for his willingness to listen to our concerns.
  I think a better allocation would produce a better bill. I regret 
that we are heading for a veto. With these remarks, though, we could 
talk long into the night. I now yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I yield myself just 1 minute, and then I would like to 
yield. But first, let me point out that occasionally we do get some 
humor in these proceedings, these very serious matters we are dealing 
with. I got this statement of administration policy. At the end of it, 
it said, ``The administration would like to work with the Congress to 
address the issues discussed above.''
  Well, they have done a pretty good job of preventing working with us 
after spending 3 frustrating weeks trying to hear from them. I find out 
now in their written statement that they want to work with me. I have a 
telephone number. It is listed. I can be reached. Nobody called.
  Let me just say that all of the items you can make an argument we 
need more money for. Nobody is willing to come forward and say where 
the cuts are made. We cut low-priority EPA items, useless funds in 
Superfund, earmarked or pork projects in waste-water treatment. I think 
we have done as good a job as we can under the circumstances.
  Mr. President, if I may, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
Senator from North Carolina. I know that the Senator from Arizona is 
here. He has the longer statement. The Senator from North Carolina had 
asked for 3 minutes. I yield 3 minutes to him.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank Senator Bond.
  Mr. President, the conference report provides $19 billion for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Since HUD was created in 
1965, spending for HUD has increased every single year. HUD's spending 
is increasing so rapidly that by the year 2000, spending on housing 
will be our largest domestic discretionary spending item. In fact, HUD 
has unused budget authority of over $190 billion--unused budget 
authority.
  Mr. President, this conference report is significant because, for the 
first time, it begins to reverse the spending trend at HUD. For the 
first time in a long time, spending at HUD will decline, and the 
American people will be better off for it.
  While I appreciate what the Appropriations Committee has done for the 
short term, I think the long-term future of HUD has to be decided and 
what direction we are going to move it in.
  I have introduced legislation with Senator Dole and Senator Abraham 
that eliminates HUD.
  The legislation we have introduced also provides a clear roadmap as 
to how HUD can be eliminated. Regrettably, HUD has become a mammoth 
bureaucracy with over 11,000 employees. It has 240 housing programs--so 
many that Secretary Cisneros did not even know he had that number. HUD 
has entangled the American taxpayers in 23,000 long-term housing 
assistance contracts that will not expire until well past the year 
2000.
  In short, HUD as it is currently constructed, cannot continue. We 
need to begin working on how it can be replaced.
  Mr. President, let me also add that while there are significant cuts 
in this bill, there are still some that can be cut a lot more. For 
example, this bill provides $15 million for the Tenant Opportunity 
Program--whatever that is. Recently, the Washington Times reported that 
at least $70,000 from the Tenant Opportunity Program was used to 
essentially pay for a vacation to 

[[Page S18643]]
Puerto Rico for public housing tenants from Detroit. Mr. President, 
that is taxpayers' money that people worked for that is paying for 
vacations for tenants. In all, we do not know how many people used 
taxpayers' money, the bookkeeping is so confused. But if one used it, 
that is one too many.
  Mr. President, I support the bill, but we need to do a lot more to 
cut HUD. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. I yield to the Senator from Arizona 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first let me praise the managers of this 
bill for all their hard work. Although I have concerns about this 
measure, it contains many good, worthwhile provisions.
  Mr. President, as always I remain very concerned about items added in 
conference that were never considered in either the House or the 
Senate. It is wrong when pork barrel projects are added in the dark of 
night to the benefit of certain States and districts. The American 
public as a whole will benefit most when as distribution of 
discretionary funds are allocated through competitive bidding and on 
the basis of need as prioritized on a national level. I would hope we 
can move more in that direction in the future.
  I want to raise two specific matters contained in the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Conference report.
  Section 218 calls for debt forgiveness for the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development to cancel the indebtedness of the Hubbard 
Hospital Authority of Hubbard, TX, the Groveton, Texas Hospital 
Authority, and the Hepzibah Public Service in Hepzibah, WV.
  I am very concerned about this mandate. The report that explains this 
action merely states: ``These loans were previously written off as 
uncollectible and will not increase the Federal debt.''
  Unfortunately, this sheds little light on the subject. I would hope 
that the distinguished managers of the bill--who deserve praise for 
doing a great deal of good work--would explain why this language will 
added to the bill in conference and give a rationale for its apparent 
urgency.
  I would also like to know why are we mandating this action. Might it 
not be more appropriate to authorized to the Secretary to take such 
action in a manner that treats all other similarly situated entities 
and localities in a fair and equitable manner?
  I am sure there are other localities around this Nation that would 
like to have their indebtedness forgiven and doing so in conference 
greatly concerns me.
  Mr. President, I am also interested in section 221 of the bill. 
Section 221 allows for funds to be used in California and Ohio for 
different purposes than they were originally proscribed. I would 
inquire of the managers why this language is necessary?
  Mr. President, is this not the exact argument why earmarking does not 
truly serve the public interest. When we earmark and ignore national or 
regional priorities and then those priorities change, we are forced to 
change the law or further earmark funds. This clearly demonstrates 
micromanagement at its worst.
  And it is this micromanagement, this endemic earmarking, that has 
caused us to waste billions of dollars. Are these projects I mentioned 
today costing the taxpayers millions of dollars? Maybe. But we must 
change our way of thinking. We must pass a truly balanced budget. We 
must pass this year the line item veto. And we must stop earmarking.
  Unfortunately, it is entirely too easy to say ``yes'' around here and 
little courage demonstrated to say ``no''. It is much easier to say yes 
to a colleague who wants to bring home a little piece of pork. But we 
were not sent here to go along to get along. As Senator Gramm noted 
earlier today on the floor in an outstanding statement regarding the 
budget, the American people sent us here in 1994 to change the way 
things are done. We were not sent here so that there would be new faces 
before the cameras voicing the same old fiscal practices of the past.
  I am hopeful we will send the President line item veto legislation in 
the upcoming weeks. It will serve as further notice that the changes 
called for in 1994 are indeed becoming a reality. I would hope that we 
will continue to act in a manner that reflects this new thinking.
  I congratulate the managers on a fine job, and it is my understanding 
that the distinguished manager will supply the responses to my concerns 
for the Record.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me take a minute and thank the Senator 
from Arizona. Basically, as he indicated, the debt forgiveness was 
designed to clear the books. There is no prospect of recovery. We will 
provide a fuller answer for the Record. The two provisions relating to 
Texas were included in the House. The one with respect to West Virginia 
was added in the conference. We will provide the full information on 
that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, am I recognized for 10 minutes under the 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will not vote for the bill before us 
principally because it has the space station in it, $2.114 billion, 
while we cut EPA by about $1.5 billion and veterans medical services by 
somewhere between $300 and $600 million. The space station, which is 
now calculated by the General Accounting Office to cost $94 billion, 
still does not have one single redeeming value. Of the $94 billion it 
is going to cost, $90 billion of that is going to come from the United 
States. You hear the argument made this is now an international 
undertaking. That is some undertaking when we are putting up $90 
billion of the $94 billion it is going to cost.
  Now, for the past several days, we have been reading that even though 
NASA is giving the Russians $200 million a year to participate in this 
program--so much for international participation because they are 
participating and we are giving them the money to participate--they are 
saying they cannot afford to fulfil their part of the program because 
we are not giving them enough. So now they are proposing that we allow 
them to use a part of their existing Mir space station, hang it onto 
our space station and let that count as a contributory share.
  Mr. President, I am not going to take up much time on that. I intend 
to vote against the bill. I am just saying what I have been saying on 
this floor for about 6 years now. The space station is going to be one 
disaster after another. This year it is the Russians. Next year, it 
will be something else.
  My staff brought me a little squib on some company that said they had 
been able to use protein crystals that had been grown on one of the 
shuttles to develop a flu vaccine, which they hope to finish and 
perfect by the year 2000. I read the story closely since NASA keeps 
saying that we will cure all kinds of diseases if only we spend $94 
billion on the space station. Well, what the president of the company 
said was that it was nice to have the space shuttle to develop these 
crystals, but they could do it on the ground, and they were going to do 
it anyway. The space shuttle happened to be handy so they used it at 
taxpayer expense.
  None of the pharmaceutical companies in this country is willing to 
pay for any share of the shuttle or the space station as of this date. 
Yet, you keep hearing that the space station is going to cure warts, 
cancer, emphysema, and everything else.
  So I am going to vote ``no'' on that.
  As far as cuts to the environment, I think this body makes a very bad 
mistake. We act as if all environmental regulation is somehow bad. 
Nobody defends environmental regulations that are out of order and 
excessive. But many environmental regulations are absolutely necessary.
  This morning, I picked up the paper and saw that the Washington, DC, 
sewage system is going kerplunk. It is dilapidated, worn out, and no 
one has the money to repair it. You are reading more and more stories 
about that all the time. Bear in mind, colleagues, that the environment 
determines our very existence, and to build a space station that is 
going to cost $94 billion while we have sewage running up and down the 
streets of this country is an absolute outrage.
  So I repeat that I won't vote for this bill because the priorities it 
represents are all skewed-up.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend the tireless efforts of 
the chairman and ranking member of the 

[[Page S18644]]
VA/HUD Appropriations Committee, Senators Bond and Mikulski, in 
bringing this 1996 VA/HUD conference report to the Senate. As Senators 
may recall, this is the second iteration of the VA/HUD conference 
report. The House recommitted the first conference agreement and 
several technical changes were made, resulting in a second conference 
report, which is now before the Senate.
  This has been a most difficult year for many, if not all, of the 
thirteen appropriation subcommittees. The VA/HUD Subcommittee, for 
example, has had to make deep cuts in many critical areas totalling 
some $9.3 billion below the President's 1996 requests. Cuts in funding 
for veterans, public housing, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
NASA, and in a number of other independent Federal agencies, have been 
necessary.
  I greatly appreciate the outstanding work of Senators Bond and 
Mikulski over many months in conducting the numerous hearings, the 
subcommittee and full committee markups, Senate floor consideration, 
and the conference on this very important and complex appropriation 
bill.
  This is the first year of Senator Bond's chairmanship of the VA/HUD 
Subcommittee and he has carried out his responsibilities admirably, 
under extreme budgetary constraints. I recognize and compliment his 
efforts.
  As for the ranking member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], I am a great 
admirer. Senator Mikulski joined the Appropriations Committee in 1987 
and chaired the VA/HUD Subcommittee from 1989 through 1994. She 
immediately took charge of this most complex subcommittee and never 
missed a beat. Each and every year, Senator Mikulski was able to 
accommodate whatever came her way in the form of subcommittee 
allocations which were clearly too small to adequately address the many 
critical needs under the subcommittee jurisdiction.
  She never complained; instead, she went about the difficult task of 
making the hard decisions of where to cut in the most fair and 
equitable manner. I am certain that her experience and expertise have 
been most helpful to the new chairman, Senator Bond, on the bill that 
is now before the Senate.
  I also thank the very capable and dedicated subcommittee staff: 
Stephen Kohashi, Carrier Apostolou, and Lashawnda Leftwich for the 
majority; and Rusty Mathews and Steve Crane for the minority. Their 
efforts are greatly appreciated.
  Although this bill may be vetoed by the President, it is in no way a 
reflection upon the admirable work of the subcommittee members and 
staff.


                                 lihpp

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to recognize the chairman's 
successful efforts to not only continue the Low-Income Housing 
Preservation Program in fiscal year 1996, but provide $624 million in 
funding. This program is extremely important to my state and to many 
across the country. Thousands of Massachusetts tenants are threatened 
with displacement if the owners prepay their HUD-assisted mortgages and 
convert the property to uses other than affordable housing.
  I am also generally supportive of the reforms to the program that are 
incorporated in the appropriations language. There is significant 
concern that the program may provide excessive incentives. I am hopeful 
that the authorizing committee on which I serve will take another look 
at the preservation program next year--with a particularly thorough 
review of the proposed capital grant approach--and make further 
refinements with the objective of preserving affordable housing and 
preventing displacement--without unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, the funding levels and program changes also mean that 
some owners will now choose to prepay. This raises the concern about 
the adequacy of protections for the residents of buildings in those 
circumstances where owners decide to prepay and convert their buildings 
to other uses.
  The conference report language protects residents by preventing 
owners from prepaying their mortgage unless they agree not to raise 
rents for 60 days following prepayment. The language also raises the 
value of vouchers to a rent level necessary to allow the residents to 
stay in the buildings. These are appropriate protections.
  Section 223 of the current Low Income Housing Preservation and 
Resident Homeownership Act [LIHPRHA] provides significant protections 
to residents who are faced with a prepayment action by an owner. It is 
my interpretation that nothing in the appropriations language would 
override the protections provided to residents under section 223 of 
LIHPRHA, and that these protections would still apply to residents in 
those buildings where the owners decide to prepay their mortgages. Is 
that also the understanding of the distinguished Senator from Missouri?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts' 
interpretation--particularly as it relates to eligibility for voucher 
assistance and moving expenses of residents who are involuntarily 
displaced. The appropriations bill is intended to restore the right of 
owners to prepay their mortgages. At the same time, I have argued 
throughout this process that it is important to retain a preservation 
program that preserves as much of the affordable housing as possible 
and protects the residents of the buildings from involuntary 
displacement.
  The appropriations language does not override the protections in 
section 223. I must add, however, that section 223 may provide benefits 
to residents that may be inconsistent with the decision by Congress to 
restore the owner's right to prepay and to the degree that the nature 
of the section 8 assistance has been modified by the appropriations 
language. It is my view that the authorizing committee should review 
all of LIHPRHA--including section 223--over the next year in light of 
the new funding levels and the changes in the appropriations bill. I 
thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising this concern.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee for his remarks and I look forward to working with him on 
the preservation program in the Banking Committee in the coming year.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to commend the 
efforts made by Senators Bond and Mikulski to improve the fiscal year 
1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Given the budget constraints, they 
have done an admirable job of trying to craft appropriate and 
acceptable language.
  Unfortunately, I am still frustrated by what this legislation does to 
this Nation's veterans programs, housing assistance priorities, and 
environmental protection policies. This bill not only compromises 
successful programs like AmeriCorps and Youthbuild, it cuts our housing 
budget by more than 20 percent.
  Mr. President, we have an obligation to improve each and every 
American's access to safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, as I 
warned last spring, the bill before us weakens our ability to provide 
adequate housing, and it ultimately cuts valuable programs that work.
  Mr. President, the HOPE VI Program is designed to replace this 
Nation's most desperate and distressed housing stock with new, 
sustainable housing communities that will instill a sense of pride and 
community. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill cuts the HOPE VI 
Program from $500 million to $280 million. Mr. President, this cut will 
make it very difficult for current HOPE VI projects to complete their 
work. Because of this, I want to emphasize how important it will be for 
the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
comply with the Senate report language that expresses the Senate's 
intent to give priority funding to already-approved HOPE VI sites.
  The Senate language allows us to follow through on our commitment to 
improving housing conditions and opportunities in a time of severe 
funding constraints.
  Mr. President, I am also deeply concerned about the funding cuts the 
conference bill has imposed on the Environmental Protection Agency. 
While the conference opted to stay with the higher funding levels urged 
by the Senate, this level of $5.7 billion still results in a 22.5 
percent reduction from the President's budget request and a 14 percent 
cut from 1995. However, I am most worried about the reductions in 
several important programs, including environmental and public health 
standards enforcement, drinking water and 

[[Page S18645]]
wastewater treatment infrastructure projects for States, and hazardous 
waste site cleanup.
  Mr. President, we are finally making real progress in environmental 
protection. Our rivers and lakes are cleaner, our air is more 
breathable, and our drinking water is safer. Now is not the time to 
slow that progress. Instead, we should move forward so that we leave 
our world a safer, healthier place for our children.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I must vote against this 
legislation. But, should the President veto this bill, I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to improve the bill.


                        spelman college outreach

  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to commend the chairman for his skillful 
work in shepherding this bill through the Senate and Conference 
Committee. There are certainly more enviable jobs than having to direct 
a major portion of spending reductions necessary to reach our ultimate 
goal of a balanced budget.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Recognizing his accomplishment in this regard, I would 
like to bring to the chairman's attention the fine work of many like my 
constituents at Spelman College in Atlanta in the arena of public 
housing assistance.
  Located near urban Atlanta, Spelman College has established a quality 
outreach program for public housing residents that seeks to address 
many of the housing needs and problems in Atlanta and other large 
cities throughout our country.
  Mr. BOND. I am indeed aware of the fine work performed at Spelman and 
am interested in their progress.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The distinguished chairman's comments are appreciated. 
I would ask the Senator if the committee recognizes the role 
institutions of higher education play in revitalizing economically 
distressed urban and rural communities.
  Mr. BOND. The committee certainly recognizes the vital role that 
colleges and universities can play in alleviating many of our problems 
in these areas, particularly with housing.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Recognizing the disproportionate representation of 
minority women in public housing, would the chairman be willing to 
consider funding for minority institutions in their efforts to assist 
with these programs.
  Mr. BOND. The committee recognizes the indelible role minority 
institutions can play in providing outreach and supportive services for 
residents of public housing. Therefore, of the funds provided, HUD 
should consider giving to support qualified minority institutions, like 
Spelman College, that have established outreach programs for public 
housing residents.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on the VA, HUD-independent agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal your 1996. While this agreement is an improvement over 
the bill that passed the Senate earlier this fall, it still fails to 
provide adequately for a number of programs which are essential to the 
fulfillment of many of our national priorities.
  First, the agreement before us today represents a major step 
backwards for the environment. This legislation proposes to cut the 
budget for the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.7 billion, fully 
21 percent below the levels enacted in fiscal year 1995. This would 
significantly undermine the agency's ability to administer and enforce 
environmental laws and perform its critical mission of protecting 
public health and the environment. Although most of the harmful House 
riders in the bill have been stricken, language with similar intent 
remains in the conference report, including language which would 
attempt to undermine the Community right to Know Act of 1986.
  Under this conference report, Maryland alone, would lose over $14 
million in funding required for substantial upgrades to long outdated 
sewage treatment facilities--projects which will have a direct impact 
on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, our coastal beaches and 
bays, and other local waters.
  Provisions in the underlying measure would cut EPA's enforcement and 
compliance assurance by 25 percent which would severely impact upon the 
agency's ability to inspect industrial and Federal facilities in 
Maryland and prosecute violations. Mr. President, it is my view that 
this bill unfairly singles our EPA to bear a disproportionate share of 
the deficit reduction burden. It will not just decrease the rate of 
increases, but will also severely reduce EPA's funding.
  I am also very concerned that this legislation would terminate 
funding for the national service program. Signed into law on September 
21, 1993, the National Service Act has helped to renew the ethic of 
civic responsibility and the spirit of community service while also 
providing critical assistance to needy communities throughout the 
Nation. The measure has encouraged and provided the opportunity for 
thousands of Americans to give of themselves for the greater good while 
earning money to further their education. In my view, the legislation 
effectively merges education and service, two critical components of a 
healthy society. Eliminating funding for this successful program 
reneges on our commitment and our responsibility to provide leadership 
and opportunity in national service.
  AmeriCorps, the centerpiece of the national service program, is not 
one large Federal program, but a network of locally developed and 
locally managed service corps which gives thousands of young people the 
opportunity to serve their country while improving their own lives and 
those of their neighbors. Moreover, the initial investment we have made 
has encouraged increased private sector involvement in community 
service programs, including AmeriCorps.
  It is my view that those who participate in national service 
represent the best of our Nation. At a time when we, as a society, are 
searching for ways in which to strengthen our families and our 
communities, it would be foolhardy to abandon the national service 
initiative. AmeriCorps volunteers are taking part in the oldest and 
best of America's traditions--the spirit of service--and they deserve 
our support.
  Mr. President, this legislation also includes large cuts in Federal 
housing programs. The VA-HUD appropriations conference report before us 
contains significant reductions in public housing modernization, public 
housing operating subsidies, severely distressed public housing 
programs, homeless assistance programs, incremental housing assistance, 
programs for distressed multifamily housing, and salaries and expenses.
  The funding levels for housing programs included in this bill are 
inadequate given the housing needs of low-income Americans and the 
community development needs of our Nation's communities. There is no 
evidence that the number of homeless people in our society is 
declining. In fact, available evidence suggests that the number of 
homeless families with children are increasing. Waiting lists for 
public and assisted housing remain years long in many places around the 
country. Too many of our neighborhoods are plagued with vacant homes, 
aging and decaying infrastructure, and high levels of social distress. 
HUD's programs, which are being cut severely in this conference report, 
address these important national needs.
  The funding cuts included in this bill will make it that much harder 
to resolve some of HUD's problems and may, in fact, exacerbate these 
problems. HUD will need sufficient funds to rebuild the management 
capacity of the troubled public housing authorities, tear down and 
replace the aging stock, and address the housing needs of those who 
currently live in the buildings. Likewise, in order to address the 
embedded losses in the insured multifamily housing portfolio, the 
Federal Government should invest resources now in order to save money 
in the future. If the Federal Government walks away from its 
longstanding involvement in these buildings, there will be negative 
consequences for the residents, for the buildings, and for the 
surrounding neighborhood.
  Finally, I am concerned that this bill provides nearly $55 million 
less than the funding level requested by the administration for 
staffing and management resources--even though HUD currently has severe 
staffing shortages. I am deeply concerned that these cuts will harm 
HUD's ability to meet its mission and, at the same time, resolve some 
of the management problems that confront them. Significant cuts in 

[[Page S18646]]
staffing and management resources in advance of restructuring the 
Department's programs and reducing its workload are, at best, unwise 
when HUD employees are attempting to manage Government commitments of 
nearly $1 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers.
  Mr. President, with respect to funding for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, while I am pleased that the conference report eliminated a 
provision that would have limited the service-connected compensation 
paid to certain incompetent veterans who have no dependents, I remain 
deeply concerned about the overall funding levels provided in this 
legislation for veterans programs.
  Although this measure provides an increase in funding for VA medical 
care above the fiscal year 1995 level, the $400 million increase does 
not come close to the level necessary to provide current services. Put 
simply, this would translate into a drastic cutback in services 
provided by VA and substantially fewer veterans being treated. We owe a 
considerable debt to our Nation's veterans and, in my view, the medical 
care funding in this measure reflects an abandonment of the Federal 
Government's commitment to them.
  I also am concerned with the appropriation in the conference report 
for the general operating expenses [GOE] account which funds the 
administration of all VA benefits other than medical care, such as 
compensation, pension, and educational assistance. The funding level 
for GOE in this measure represents a reduction of more than $42 million 
from fiscal year 1995. This decrease in funding will seriously impair 
VA's ability to make progress in reducing the current backlog of 
pending claims and, in fact, may result in a reversal of the progress 
the VA has made already in this important area.
  Finally, I note the discontinuation of the U.S. Court of Veterans 
Appeals pro bono representation program. For the past several years, 
this program has fulfilled a critical need, providing representation 
for hundreds of veterans who have appealed the denial of their benefit 
claims to the Court of Veterans Appeals, and who otherwise would have 
been without counsel. The elimination of this program would be a severe 
loss, leaving low-income veterans, the majority of all veterans who 
file appeals, to handle their cases without legal assistance.
  Mr. President, it is clear that the conference report before us fails 
to provide adequate funding for many programs critical to the future of 
our Nation and the health and well-being of its citizenry. I would urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report accompanying the VA, HUD, and independent agencies 
appropriations bill. This legislation would cut funding at the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development by more than one-fifth, and 
is yet another clear reflection of the misguided priorities that have 
driven the budget process this year.
  Mr. President, HUD today provides housing assistance to over 4 
million households, including working families, seniors, and people 
with disabilities. Yet this only makes a dent in the housing needs of 
lower income Americans. Millions of our citizens are living in 
substandard conditions or are paying more than half of their incomes 
for housing. Countless others are homeless entirely.
  Unfortunately, this conference report not only fails to meet these 
pressing needs, but it is a step backward. And its proposed cuts will 
have a real impact on needy Americans throughout our Nation.
  This legislation virtually eliminates funding for incremental housing 
assistance, and slashes funding for homeless programs by a quarter. As 
a result, hundreds of thousands of families will continue to languish 
on public housing waiting lists. Many will be forced to live in 
substandard housing or on the streets. Meanwhile, Congress is about to 
pull the safety net out from under them, with cuts in nutrition, health 
care, education and other critical programs.
  The cuts in this legislation also will lead to the continued 
deterioration of our Nation's public housing stock, by cutting the 
modernization budget by one-third. Mr. President, this stock represents 
a $90 billion investment by our taxpayers. To allow it to deteriorate 
further is short-sighted. It also will mean that tens-of-thousands of 
our citizens will continue to live in substandard housing, as major 
repairs and renovations are canceled due to lack of funds.
  The conference report also includes a nearly 50-percent cut in 
funding for severely distressed public housing. This will inhibit 
efforts to revitalize our Nation's most troubled and most dangerous 
public housing developments.
  If there is one bright spot in the conference report, Mr. President, 
it is the inclusion of $290 million for the Public and Assisted Housing 
Drug Elimination Program, which I developed several years ago. This 
program has had great success in reducing crime in housing developments 
around the Nation. And I am encouraged that we are maintaining our 
commitment to this initiative in this legislation.
  Still, Mr. President, the cuts in housing proposed in this 
legislation are deeply troubling. Not only because of their impact on 
ordinary Americans. But because they are being proposed as part of a 
Republican budget with seriously misplaced priorities.
  Mr. President, the new majority in the Congress is committed to 
providing huge tax breaks for millionaires, $7 billion for the Pentagon 
that the generals don't even want, large subsidies for western ranchers 
and mining companies, and various other special interest giveaways. 
Meanwhile, they are slashing programs that provide assistance to the 
most vulnerable Americans, especially those in our cities.
  In my view, Mr. President, this reverse Robin Hood approach is 
inconsistent with true American values. I am sympathetic to calls for a 
balanced budget, Mr. President. But the pain must be shared, not 
targeted at our cities and the poor.
  Mr. President, the median income of households receiving Federal 
housing assistance is $8,000. This happens to be about the same amount 
that the Republicans want to provide in tax breaks to those with 
incomes over $350,000. What does this say about our priorities, Mr. 
President?
  In the 1960's, our Government declared war on poverty. In 1995, it 
seems that our Government has declared war on poor people.
  Mr. President, the millions of Americans with severe housing needs 
deserve better. And it is not enough to say that we don't have the 
money. If we have the money to provide huge tax breaks for 
millionaires, if we have the money to provide $7 billion to the 
Pentagon that our military does not even want, if we have the money to 
subsidize large mining and agricultural corporations, how can we say 
that we lack the money to ensure that ordinary Americans have a decent 
place to live?
  So, Mr President, I cannot support this bill and will vote against 
it. I call on President Clinton to veto the legislation, and continue 
to stand firm until Congress agrees to provide adequate funding for 
housing programs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to express my admiration to a number 
of Senators who have struggled valiantly to produce a bill acceptable 
to the great majority of Senators and to the administration, that 
appropriates funds for the vital services provided to American citizens 
by the Veterans Affairs Department, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies.
  The challenge this posed, in a time when it seems too many in both 
parties have as their objective scoring political points off the other 
party rather than reaching reasonable middle ground on contentious 
issues, proved unfortunately to be an insurmountable challenge at least 
to this point. And despite the great and perhaps even herculean effort 
invested in this bill by the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], and the ranking member, 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], I regret very 
much I have concluded I have no choice but to oppose the bill, and urge 
the President to veto it, assuming as I do that it will reach his desk 
for his action. Its shortcomings are numerous, and they are not minor. 

[[Page S18647]]

  With regard to the budget for the environmental Protection Agency, 
the severe cuts of 22 percent from the President's request threaten 
public health and the environment. Of particular concern are the 
significant cuts to the enforcement budget, the Superfund Program and 
the State revolving funds that finance clean water and safe drinking 
water remedial action.
  The conference agreement cuts the EPA's enforcement program by 25 
percent--in effect allowing more polluters the freedom to continue to 
pollute our land and water without challenge. The bill also slashes the 
Superfund budget by 25 percent, which would slow existing cleanups and 
prevent new cleanup starts. That means that at least four cities in 
Massachusetts will have to live with continued exposure of thousands of 
their citizens to dangerous chemicals.
  The agreement also reduces by $762 million from the President's 
budget the funding provided for water infrastructure improvements to 
States and needy cities across the country. For the past several 
years--under both the Bush and Clinton administrations--Congress has 
appropriated at least $100 million for Boston Harbor cleanup alone. 
However, this bill provides just a fraction of that amount--$25 
million, thus neglecting to recognize the dire straits of communities 
such as those of the Greater Boston area which are grappling with the 
enormous water rate increases which result from Federal mandates.
  In addition to inadequate funding levels for vital EPA efforts to 
ensure that public's health and safety, also of grave concern to me are 
legislative riders that eviscerate existing environmental safeguards, 
without the benefit of congressional hearings or any input from the 
general public. We as a nation have struggled valiantly over the past 
quarter century to identify and eliminate threats to our environment 
which directly or indirectly threaten our health, safety or well-being, 
and to begin to clean up the existing mess. I will not willingly 
participate in the thoughtless and hurried abandonment of these 
efforts.
  Mr. President, I am also voting against this bill because it includes 
excessive cuts in our Federal housing programs. I am concerned that 
cutbacks of the magnitude visited on the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development in this bill and some of the changes it makes in 
housing policy represent a retreat from our Nation's goal to provide 
all Americans with decent, safe, and affordable housing, and undercut 
efforts we have been making to reform the agency and its programs.
  The conference agreement contains significant cuts in HUD's overall 
budget and particularly deep cuts in public housing programs, 
incremental assistance, and homeless assistance. Yet, HUD's purpose has 
not gone away, and this bill provides no roadmap to meeting the 
pressing needs in our Nation that agency was established to meet. The 
unmet housing needs of our people are significant. Hundreds of 
thousands of Americans are homeless every night. Millions of Americans 
are still living in substandard housing or paying a painfully heavy 
portion of their income for rent. Too many young families find the 
barriers to homeownership insurmountable. The goal of a decent, safe, 
and affordable home for all Americans is still a valid goal for this 
country. The needs of our cities--large and small--are national in 
scope. The distressed neighborhoods around the country--like those in 
Lowell, Lawrence, Fall River, Springfield, Boston, and other 
Massachusetts cities and towns--rely on Federal community development 
assistance to battle the declines that face all of our older urban 
areas.

  We also need to be concerned that the cuts in the bill will have 
serious consequences by making it much more difficult to resolve some 
of HUD's management problems. The bill, in fact, may exacerbate rather 
than ameliorate these problems by reducing funding levels for programs 
that maintain and operate public housing or prevent defaults on HUD-
insured multifamily properties. Fixing some of HUD's programs, quite 
frankly, will require us to invest more resources, not less--because 
the the small percentage of public housing authorities that are 
troubled will require strong intervention by the Federal Government. It 
will require large sums to rebuild the management capacity of these 
authorities, tear down and replace the aging stock, and address the 
housing needs of those who currently live in the buildings. The 
severely distressed housing program--HOPE VI--is providing funding for 
innovative approaches to remedying distressed public housing around the 
country--including efforts to revitalize Mission Main and Orchard Park 
developments in Boston. The conference agreement, unfortunately, cuts 
this program just as we are showing signs of making progress.
  I am also concerned that the bill before us establishes a policy 
that, beginning in 1997, we will only renew expiring section 8 
contracts at fair market rents. At the same time, the bill codifies a 
cut in fair market rents from the 45th to the 40th percentile. Without 
question, Mr. President, we need to enact changes in the section 8 
program that reduce rents where they are excessive and address the 
burgeoning long-term costs of the section 8 program. We must be 
careful, however, that a blanket approach does not undermine the 
viability of existing affordable housing projects. We are responsible 
for what happens to both the public and assisted housing inventory: the 
Federal Government walking away from its long-standing involvement in 
these buildings will have negative consequences for the residents, for 
the buildings, and for the neighborhoods that surround them.
  Mr. President, I know the appropriators struggled with a wholly 
insufficient allocation from the 1996 Congressional budget. Their 
mission arguably was impossible from the outset. In my judgment, it is 
simply imperative that the overall budget negotiations provide a higher 
allocation to the VA/HUD subcommittee. Nonetheless, I do want to 
acknowledge the chairman's, ranking member's, and subcommittee's 
actions to help several key programs--and there are some example of 
their efforts that deserve mention. The subcommittee was able to find 
$20 million for the Youthbuild Program, though I am extremely 
disappointed that this level represents a significant cut, realitive to 
last year, in the resources for this valuable and successful program. I 
am pleased that the conference agreement preserves the funding levels 
for the HOME and CDBG Programs at 1995 levels. And finally, the 
agreement provides $624 million for the preservation of low-income 
housing; continuing this program is very important if we are to prevent 
the loss of affordable housing and the displacement of thousands of 
families across Massachusetts and the entire Nation.
  There are other deficiencies--serious deficiencies--in this bill--for 
example, in provisions pertaining to veterans programs and services, 
about which others have eloquently remarked in this debate, remarks I 
will not take the Senate's time to replicate. The sum is a bill that is 
fatally flawed.
  Mr. President, it disturbs me that this has occurred on yet another 
bill. It disturbs me greatly that, less than 3 weeks before the end of 
the calendar year, and nearly 3 months after the beginning of the 
current fiscal year, the Republican leadership of this Congress still 
is engaged in the political game of sending the President a bill he 
already has announced emphatically he must and will veto on the basis 
of deeply-held, principled conviction--before there have been any 
definitive negotiations to reach real middle ground. The American 
people don't understand what is going on, here, Mr. President, and with 
good reason. It defies rational explanation.
  But, at the insistence of the intemperate Speaker of the House, the 
President and the Congress will be required to play out this charade. I 
thank the President for his courage and steadfastness to vital 
principles which will be the foundation for the veto he will cast. I 
remain very hopeful that all parties to the budget negotiations will 
engage in them diligently and in good faith, that one of the outcomes 
will be to provide a more realistic allocation of discretionary funding 
to this bill, and that in the near future we will be debating in this 
chamber a reasonable bill behind which Senators of good will from both 
parties can unite and which we can send to the President for his 
signature.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are many aspects of this 
appropriations bill which I find deeply troubling. I am thankful we 
have a President who has 

[[Page S18648]]
clearly said that he will veto this bill if presented to him in its 
current form.
  I would like to take this opportunity to focus on two areas of the 
bill which are of particular concern to me--the unacceptable cuts to 
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and the lack of funding for 
the VA medical center at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, CA.


                    environmental protection agency

  The EPA is the agency 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 hazardous waste disposal, laws that protect us from exposure 
to radiation and toxic substances, laws that regulate the clean-up of 
hazardous waste sites all over the country, laws that ensure that every 
citizen in this country has a right to know about what kinds of toxics 
are being released into their environment.
  And how much does it cost us to run the EPA? In 1995 we appropriated 
about $6.6 billion for the EPA. Let me put this into context. The whole 
EPA budget is the same as the cost of about three B-2 bombers. In the 
1995 budget we appropriated over 40 times this amount--$241 billion--
for the Department of Defense. The fiscal year 1996 defense 
appropriations bill that recently passed the Senate included $7 billion 
more than the Department of Defense says it needs. We are throwing an 
extra $7 billion at the Pentagon and the same time we are taking away 
vital funds that protect our health and safety. It simply does not make 
sense.
  The cuts made in this bill to the EPA budget are unacceptable. This 
bill appropriates $5.7 billion for EPA--that is a 14-percent cut--or 
nearly $1 billion from the fiscal year 1995 level. It is a 22.5-percent 
cut--or $1.7 billion--from the President's fiscal year 1996 request.
  Republicans seem to take great pride in their efforts to dismantle 
key social programs that Americans hold dear, but they have chosen to 
take their war against the environment underground. The cuts to the EPA 
budget show us the covert war that is being waged by Republicans 
against our environment.
  It has to be covert because they have seen the results of poll after 
poll showing that the vast majority of Americans feel that our 
environmental laws should be strengthened, not stripped away. In my 
many years in public office not once has anyone told me, ``Senator, our 
air is too clean,'' or ''our water is too safe.''

  The back door attack on our environmental laws seen here is cuts in 
EPA's budget that will cripple EPA's ability to set and enforce 
environmental standards.
  This bill cuts enforcement of all environmental programs by 22 
percent--$128 million--from the President's request and 14.6 percent--
$77 million--from fiscal year 1995.
  It hits at the heart of EPA administration and management in EPA's 
ability to set and enforce environmental and public health standards 
with a 17-percent cut--$310 million--below the President's request, and 
a 7-percent cut--$115 million--from fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. President, these cuts mean that an already stretched EPA will not 
be able to carry out critically important work that ensures the health 
and safety of all Americans, and will result in a setback of national 
efforts to ensure that every American citizen breaths clear air, drinks 
clean water and is safe from the dangers of hazardous waste.
  These are the EPA funds that are spent working with States and 
municipalities in the development of our air quality, water quality, 
lead abatement, and food safety standards; the funds that allow EPA to 
keep track of the levels of pollution in our air, our water, our food, 
our environment; that allow the EPA to work with States and with 
industries to help them discover the sources of pollution problems and 
help them comply with Federal safety standards; that allow the EPA to 
give technical assistance to State pollution control agencies and 
county air and water quality boards; that allow the EPA to carry out 
environmental impact statements on industry actions that may hurt the 
environment; that allow EPA to work all over this country to educate 
industry and small business and help them comply with the law so that 
enforcement actions are avoided.
  In the long run this will mean more water pollution, more smog in our 
cities and countryside, more toxic waste problems.
  EPA's budget is cut in many other areas to levels that are 
unacceptable.
  A 30 percent--$462 million--cut from the President's request and a 9 
percent--$110 million--cut from fiscal year 1995 in funds that go 
straight to the States to help cities all over the country build sewage 
treatment plants that keep raw sewage from flowing into our coastal 
waters, rivers, lakes and streams.
  A 45 percent--$225 million--cut from the President's request and a 79 
percent--$1 billion--cut from the pre-rescissions fiscal year 1995 
level in funds that go to States to protect our drinking water 
nationwide.

  A 25 percent--$400 million--cut from the President's request and 13 
percent--$168 million--cut from fiscal year 1995 in funds that go 
toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
  But, Mr. President, I would like to close my statement with a comment 
about the presence of riders in this conference report--in the face of 
the House vote to instruct conferees to omit riders that would limit 
EPA enforcement of existing environmental protections.
  This conference report includes a rider that strips away EPA's veto 
authority over U.S. Corps of Engineers wetlands permits decisions. 
Although the EPA has only vetoed 11 permit requests since 1972, the 
power of EPA's veto has played a very important and constructive role 
in the reaching of compromises on innumerable proposed development 
plans to fill wetlands. I believe that EPA's vet power is absolutely 
essential in maintaining a balanced approach to making environmental 
permit decisions. Without this veto authority, we are opening the door 
to very serious potential losses of wetlands.
  We have lost approximately 53 percent of our historic wetlands in the 
continental United States--and in my State of California, the loss is 
over 90 percent. We continue to lose wetlands at the alarming rate of 
about 300,000 acres per year, and there still seems to be a general 
lack of appreciation for the vital role that wetlands play in 
protecting our people's health, sustaining our Nation's natural systems 
and supporting America's economy.
  Wetlands preservation is often seen as incompatible with economic 
growth. I believe that not only does wetlands conservation make good 
environmental sense, it makes good economic sense. The value of 
wetlands in flood control, groundwater storage, water purification and 
commercial and recreational uses has been estimated to be $1.4 trillion 
annually.
  An economic analysis of the value of wetlands was prepared in 1993 
under the direction of the School of Public Policy at the University of 
California at Berkeley. Using my State of California as an example, the 
study showed that the total annual benefit of wetlands to the State 
ranges from a low of $6 billion to almost $23 billion. Those are the 
amounts the State would lose annually if 100 percent of our wetlands 
were lost to filling and development.
  Mr. President, in 1994, over 48,000 Americans sought approval to fill 
wetlands. The number of permit requests has increased by 27 percent 
since 1990. If this rider goes into law, every request will be 
submitted with the knowledge that the EPA has no veto authority. Old 
projects will be dusted off and resubmitted--we will lose wetlands that 
our Nation cannot afford to lose--we will lose wetlands that our Nation 
cannot afford to lose.


                        travis va medical center

  I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not including funding to 
complete construction on the proposed VA hospital at Travis Air Force 
Base, in Fairfield, CA.
  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 
conferees' action breaks that 4-year-old promise to the veterans of 
northern California.
  Last year, Congress appropriated $7 million to complete design and 
begin 

[[Page S18649]]
construction on the Tavis-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, $188 million. Congress' refusal to fund the 
project seriously jeopardizes the prospect that the hospital will ever 
be built. The outpatient clinic proposed as an alternative by the 
conferees is entirely unacceptable to the veterans of 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.
  For the reasons I have stated above and many others, I have no choice 
but to oppose this conference report, and I will urge the President to 
veto this bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation with a 
number of reservations. This bill provides funding for important 
programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], Department of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA]. I supported this legislation when it passed the Senate in 
September, with the understanding that Senate negotiators would 
maintain funding for our Nation's veterans, maintain adequate levels 
for housing, protect funding for the EPA and oppose the 17 anti-
environment legislative riders included in the House version of this 
bill.
  After the most recent conference on this legislation between the 
Senate and House, it is my belief that the bill has emerged better than 
both the original House and Senate passed versions. Funding for 
veterans' health is now higher than last year's levels. EPA spending 
levels, originally slated for a 33 percent cut in the House bill, have 
been increased, resulting in only a 14 percent reduction. A number of 
other important programs and agencies received a similar reduction this 
year. Finally, almost all of the environmental legislative riders I 
found most objectionable have been dropped.
  Mr. President, I believe the managers hands were tied in this 
situation. The allocation for this entire account was reduced to such 
an extent that they were forced to make some difficult choices. The 
overall allocation was reduced by close to 10 percent from fiscal year 
1995. The fact that EPA received a 14 percent cut is very unfortunate 
but understandable considering the overall reduction for this bill. I 
hope that the ongoing budget negotiations will yield more funding for 
environmental protection.
  I agree that Congress must reduce Federal spending in order to gain 
control of our growing budget deficit. We must reorder our spending 
priorities and makes every effort to cut wasteful expenditures 
throughout the Federal budget. Although savings can be found in the 
Department of Energy, Department of Interior and EPA budgets, I will 
strongly oppose a complete gutting of the funding for important 
environmental programs.
  Finally, included in this legislation is an amendment which will 
remove EPA from the process of protecting many of our Nation's wetlands 
and rivers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Last year, under 
this section of the Clean Water Act, EPA assisted the State of Vermont 
in protecting one of our State's most valuable river ecosystems. I 
remain hopeful that during future consideration of funding for EPA we 
not further weaken EPA's ability to protect our Nation's rivers and 
wetlands.
  Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation in order to move the 
process forward. In the event that the legislation is vetoed by the 
President, I would hope my colleagues would seriously consider some the 
few concerns I have raised here.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this appropriation is a very good one for 
veterans. It fully funds veterans' benefits payments. And, unlike many 
of the non-veteran programs funded by this bill, veterans' health care 
funding would actually increase.
  Mr. President, there is one provision in this conference report which 
affects a small sum of dollars, but which is important to VA and to 
America's veterans. Funding for staffing and travel in the office of 
the Secretary has been reduced.
   Mr. President. I support that reduction.
  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has left no tub unpounded, no stump 
without a speech, in a campaign of propaganda misrepresenting the 
actions of this Congress. I tire of that.
  He has continued to talk about budget ``cuts.'' Even when he knows so 
well that the budget is actually being increased.
  He continues to talk about declines in VA health care services even 
after personally sitting through a hearing where the increases were 
quantified and illustrated by charts.
  He took a discredited advocacy ``study'' from a liberal lobby group 
and tried to give it the stature of a ``government'' report. That 
action was an attempt to ``use''--yes that is the term--veterans as the 
point men in a political campaign to defeat reforms needed to preserve 
the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  In short, Secretary Brown has confused the responsibilities of a 
Cabinet Secretary with the role of a political lobbyist.
  He has assumed the zealous mission of a political advocate without 
remembering the requirement to led and administer his Department.
  And, as an article in today's Washington Post makes clear, he is 
wholly unrepentant in his course.
  Yes, the conference report will restrict his political activities. 
But, and hear this, and hear clearly, it will not restrict his ability 
to lead his Department. In fact, if it causes him to stay right here in 
Washington and focus hard on the many heretofore unaddressed challenges 
facing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the reduced funding level 
could actually improve his stewardship over the Department.
  The issue is not ``freedom of speech.'' That is pure bunkum. Those 
who make that argument are not really arguing that the Secretary has a 
right to speak. They are instead arguing that the taxpayers have an 
obligation to pay for whatever he wants to say. That is, or course, 
surely not the case.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. No bill is. But the 
members of the subcommittee have done a very good job in protecting 
funding for veterans' programs.
  I think it would be tragic if the President were to use funding 
levels for nonveteran programs as an excuse to veto a bill that 
increases veterans' medical spending and fully funds their benefits.
  I am sure that my friend from Missouri will confirm that it will be 
very hard to craft a bill as favorable to veterans as this one and 
which also increases funding for other programs.
  I commend Senators Bond and Mikulski. They work well together as 
managers of the bill. I thank them for their yeoman work and I do hope 
the Senate will join me in support of the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about 
H.R. 2099, the VA--HUD appropriations conference report. I want to 
commend the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished manager 
of the bill for their efforts in reaching an agreement on this measure.
  The conferees had to make some tough choices, and I am pleased that 
they listened to the American people and decided to drop the 
controversial environmental riders in the House-passed bill. I am also 
delighted that the conference report provides the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] with a higher level of funding than either the 
House or Senate bills.
  Although the conferees eliminated most of the objectionable 
legislative riders, I am still troubled by two key provisions in the 
conference report. First of all, the conferees have decided to maintain 
the rider in the Senate bill that bars EPA from using any fiscal year 
1996 funds to implement section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
  Since its enactment in 1972, section 404 of the Clean Water Act has 
played an integral role in the progress we have made toward achieving 
the act's central objective, which is ``to restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 
Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to prohibit a disposal of dredged or fill 


[[Page S18650]]
material into U.S. waters, including wetlands, if such a disposal would 
have an unacceptable adverse effect on certain especially important 
resources.
  The rider in the conference report would preclude EPA from ensuring 
against unacceptable adverse effects on these valuable resources for a 
full year. An article written by John Cushman in Tuesday's edition of 
the New York Times is especially instructive: It points out the many of 
the unknown adverse consequences this rider could have for our most 
valuable wetlands resources.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article printed in 
the December 12, 1995, New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1995]

     Brief Clause in Bill Would Curb U.S. Power to Protect Wetlands

                       (By John H. Cushman, Jr.)

       Washington, Dec. 11.--Buried deep in a spending bill now 
     before Congress are two sentences that could give clear 
     sailing to a highway project in New Hampshire, harbor 
     dredging in South Carolina, a mine in Montana and many other 
     projects around the country that have been threatened by the 
     Government's environmental objections.
       The terse provision would take away one of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's major tools for protecting 
     the country's wetlands: the veto that the agency is allowed 
     to cast against permits that the Army Corps of Engineers 
     issues to developers for wetlands projects.
       The change is set forth in one obscure passage in a vast 
     $80 billion appropriations bill paying for veterans, housing, 
     environmental and other programs in the current fiscal year. 
     The bill passed the House on Thursday and is expected to come 
     to the Senate floor shortly. President Clinton, objecting to 
     many of its provisions, has said he will veto it.
       Although it is hard to predict whether the wetlands clause 
     will become law, the prospect worries conservationists, who 
     call the continuing loss of wetlands a threat to water 
     quality and wildlife. The provision would prohibit the E.P.A. 
     from spending anything in the current fiscal year to exercise 
     its power under the Clean Water Act to review and veto 
     wetlands permits. Any vetoes that are pending would be 
     nullified, giving the Corps of Engineers the final say.
       The bill's 73 words on wetlands have rated only the 
     briefest mention during a raging Congressional debate over 
     Federal environmental priorities. But the effect of the 
     provision could be felt nationwide.
       Most immediately, the change may resurrect plans for a $200 
     million highway sweeping around Nashua, N.H. Last August, the 
     state reluctantly agreed to scale back the project when 
     threatened with a veto by the E.P.A. The reduced plans spare 
     more than 40 acres of wetlands and other undeveloped wildlife 
     habitat near the Merrimack River. James Rivers, a spokesman 
     for Gov. Stephen Merrill, said that although the state plans 
     to proceed with the scaled-back project for now, it would 
     consider expanding it in the future if the Federal law is 
     changed.
       In Charleston, S.C., E.P.A. officials have warned the corps 
     against dredging shipping channels near a paper plant because 
     of possible dioxin contamination. But if the new law is 
     passed, the E.P.A. would lose its legal leverage to persuade 
     the corps to adopt an alternative for clearing shipping 
     channels.
       Similarly, the corps alone would rule on wetlands permits 
     for the New World Mine in Montana, a disputed project that 
     conservationist say would endanger the ecosystem in and 
     around Yellowstone National Park, just two and a half miles 
     away.
       The wetlands review process has its roots in the 1970's, 
     when lawmakers believed the corps, whose approval is needed 
     for any construction that can affect navigable waters, was 
     more interested in protecting navigation than the 
     environment. But today it is the E.P.A. that is out of favor 
     on Capitol Hill, where preserving wetlands is among the most 
     unpopular of causes.
       Although the E.P.A. has vetoed wetlands permits only 11 
     times, both sides in the dispute agree that the agency can 
     greatly influence the scale of development projects by merely 
     threatening a veto. Environmental groups cited case after 
     case in which projects were scaled back to meet the agency's 
     demands. Many of those projects were shelved indefinitely, 
     raising the possibility that some might be revived if the 
     legislation is enacted.
       Carol M. Browner, the Administrator of the E.P.A., said her 
     agency, not the corps, has both the expertise and the 
     statutory authority to protect wetlands, which play a crucial 
     role in minimizing floods, filtering water and providing 
     wildlife habitat.
       ``The E.P.A. is the body that Congress has given the 
     authority to deal with clean water issues,'' she said. ``The 
     role we play is associated with the broader role of 
     protecting the water quality of the people of this country.''
       Despite the importance of this legislation, there has 
     scarcely been any testimony or comment on the House or Senate 
     floor about how it would affect specific construction 
     projects or wetlands.
       Even the provision's author, Senator Christopher S. Bond, a 
     Missouri Republican, said in an interview that he had ``no 
     idea'' what projects might be affected.
       He said his objective was not to affect one project or 
     another, but to make the Government more efficient by 
     consolidating power over wetlands permits in a single agency.
       ``If there is one thing that constituents in my state are 
     fed up with, it is being told two different things by two 
     different Federal agencies,'' Senator Bond said on the Senate 
     floor in September. ``They expect the Federal agencies who 
     serve them to give them one answer and to give them the right 
     answer.''
       Administration officials and environmental groups say the 
     E.P.A'S authority is essential to the protection of wetlands, 
     especially since many projects affecting those areas are 
     carried out by the corps itself.
       ``The Army Corps of Engineers authorizes itself to 
     discharge millions of cubic yards of dredge or fill material 
     into the waters of the United States each year,'' said John 
     Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, in a 
     letter urging President Clinton not to sign the bill. 
     ``Absent E.P.A.'s involvement in the review of the corps' 
     water development projects, the corps would be in the 
     untenable position of exercising sole regulatory review of 
     its own development projects.''
       Senator Bond and his staff respond that their proposal 
     leaves much of the E.P.A.'s authority intact. The agency 
     would continue to write the environmental guidelines for the 
     corps.
       But the E.P.A's questions about the dredging of navigation 
     channels proposed by the corps around Georgetown Harbor near 
     Charleston, one of the biggest commercial ports on the East 
     Coast, show why the E.P.A. is fighting to keep its authority. 
     The corps would extensively dredge sediments from the harbor 
     bottom, including near the private berth of the International 
     Paper Company, and then dump that refuse on shore and in 
     nearby shallows.
       Local E.P.A. officials, according to an agency document, 
     are concerned that the project carries environmental risks. 
     They fear that the sediment at the paper plant could be 
     contaminated with dioxin, a toxin that could be spread in the 
     Sampit River and the Upper Winyah Bay.
       Sediments at the paper company's berth have not been tested 
     for dioxin, but several years ago the paper plant's waste 
     water was found to have among the highest dioxin levels of 
     more than a hundred plants surveyed, and the state detected 
     dioxins in sediment and fish tissues in the nearby Sampit 
     River in 1989, leading to advisories against eating locally 
     caught fish.
       The agency is urging the corps to consider less damaging 
     alternatives and better impoundments of the dredged wastes.
       There are many other cases, like the Nashua highway, where 
     the E.P.A.'s views prevailed over those of the corps and of 
     local officials. The E.P.A. fought that project for 10 years, 
     but the corps and the state approved it anyway. Only after 
     the E.P.A. regional administrator, John DeVillars, warned of 
     a veto did New Hampshire agree to a scaled-back highway.
       New Hampshire's top environmental official said in an 
     interview this week that he was pleased with the E.P.A.'s 
     rule in the highway project and with other wetlands reviews 
     by the Federal agency.
       ``My experience with the process has been that the concerns 
     that have been raised have been reasonable concerns, that 
     they are asking the right questions and forcing analysis of 
     alternatives that otherwise would not be done,'' said Robert 
     Varnum, the state's Environment Commissioner. He was 
     appointed twice by Republican Governors, both of whom 
     strongly favored the highway project that the E.P.A. blocked.
       ``I feel that E.P.A.'s mission is to protect the 
     environment, and in this case to avoid unnecessary impacts to 
     our wetlands resources,'' he said. ``They take that job very 
     seriously, and have put in a great deal of time and effort, 
     and stuck their necks out, to protect the environment, and I 
     think that is a role they need to play. I think the general 
     public expects nothing else.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, to those who say that EPA's 404(c) 
authority reflects a significant waste of government resources, I point 
to the fact that the agency has used this authority only 12 times 
during the past 23 years.
  One of these instances occurred in Attleboro, MA. A developer's plan 
to build a large shopping mall at a site called Sweeden's Swamp in 
Attleboro would have destroyed 45 acres of wetlands. Had EPA not 
stepped in to prevent the permit from going forward, the area would 
have lost a rich habitat for many birds, mammals, and amphibians. Mr. 
President, we simply cannot afford to relinquish the protection of 
critical natural resources afforded by 404(c).
  I am also deeply concerned with the conferees' decision to provide 
only $12 million for the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund--a full 50 
percent less than both the administration's request and the House 
approved figure of $24 million.
  The Montreal Protocol, approved in 1987 during the Reagan 
administration, 

[[Page S18651]]
addresses the damaging effect of chlorofluorocarbons--of CFC's--on the 
ozone layer. A statement made by President Reagan on April 5, 1988, 
demonstrates the significance of the program:

       The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a 
     product of the recognition and international consensus that 
     ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its 
     causes and effects. The protocol is the result of an 
     extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among 
     representatives of the business and environmental 
     communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental 
     achievement.

  The treaty, now ratified by 150 nations, represents a consensus on 
the dangers of ozone depletion and provides for the eventual ban of CFC 
production. We later agreed to amendments to strengthen the ban in 
1990, as part of the Clean Air Act, and again, in 1992, under the terms 
of the Montreal Protocol.
  Throughout this effort there were those who called the ozone hole and 
the destruction of the ozone by CFC's a myth. However, several weeks 
ago, our actions were vindicated beyond question when the three 
scientists who first alerted us to the possibility that CFC's were 
destroying the ozone layer were awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry.
  During the debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I sponsored an 
amendment, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator Bingaman, that would 
have given the Administrator the discretion to spend more than the $12 
million now available under the conference report for the Montreal 
Protocol Fund. Although the amendment was approved by the Senate, it 
was not retained in conference. I must say I am disappointed. If our 
goal here is to encourage EPA to be mindful of good science, risk 
assessment, and management of scarce resources, then I cannot think of 
a more necessary endeavor than their efforts to reverse the destruction 
of the stratospheric ozone layer.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the 
VA/HUD appropriations conference report. There are many reasons why I 
believe that the report we have before us represents unhealthy 
priorities for the American public, and I am pleased that the President 
has expressed his intention to veto this bill should it pass the 
Senate.
  First, this report provides $400 million less than the President's 
budget request for the VA medical care account. This will have a 
serious impact on veterans' access to quality health care. While there 
may be some doubt as to the validity of VA projections of the precise 
impact of such a cut on veterans health care, there is no question that 
it would result in some combination of substantial reductions in the 
number of veterans treated both as outpatients and inpatients as the 
number of VA health care personnel shrink. The impact, according to the 
VA, would be equivalent to closing three VA medical centers with an 
average of 300 beds each.
  When these cuts are coupled with slashes in Medicare and Medicaid, 
many veterans could be faced with a triple whammy--forced out of 
Medicare and Medicaid while VA is unable to handle a large influx of 
new patients as the VA health care budget shrinks in real dollars. This 
will particularly have an impact on the soaring population of veterans 
over age 65 and veterans unable to afford private health insurance.
  In the process of cutting funding for major medical construction 
projects, vital projects for renovating VA hospitals that do not meet 
community standards and are deteriorating are scrapped. How can we 
treat veterans who made sacrifices defending this country in facilities 
that do not meet fire and other safety standards? What a travesty this 
is. At a time when we are honoring the 50th anniversary of the end of 
World War II and the veterans who risked their lives defending our 
freedom, the least we can do is to ensure that they receive the health 
care they are entitled to in a safe and dignified setting.
  This report also eliminates funding for the Corporation for National 
Service [CNS], which was established by the bipartisan National 
Community Service and Trust Act of 1993. The Corporation for National 
Service administers such programs as AmeriCorps, the National Civilian 
Community Corps, and even former President Bush's Points of Light 
Foundation. President Clinton has requested $817,476 million for CNS 
for fiscal year 1996. However, the report we have before us gives the 
National Corporation $15 million for necessary expenses to terminate 
programs, activities, and initiatives under the National Community 
Service Act.
  In order to understand the severity of this action, I would like to 
use the AmeriCorps program as an example. AmeriCorps, which is funded 
and run by CNS, helps students pay for college in exchange for their 
service to American communities. AmeriCorps is a program which needs to 
be preserved. National Service addresses beliefs we all share: getting 
things done, strengthening communities, encouraging personal 
responsibility, and expanding opportunity. Despite the ideals realized 
by AmeriCorps, both the House and Senate individually denied funds to 
the program in their VA/HUD appropriations bills, and now 
the conference report kills the program outright. Fiscal year 1995 
post/rescission funding was $219,000 million for AmeriCorps grants. The 
President requested $429,800 million for fiscal year 1996.

  AmeriCorps has been a huge success. Members of law enforcement from 
police chiefs Willie Williams of Los Angeles to Carol Mehrling of 
Montgomery County, MD, (and many departments in between, have been 
unwavering in their support for the AmeriCorps Program. And this is a 
program which Republicans and Democrats alike support. Members of 
Congress, Governors, mayors, and businesses such as IBM, General 
Electric and American Express know the value of AmeriCorps, and of the 
Corporation for National Service.
  AmeriCorps has exceeded expectations about its efficiency. One study, 
validated by the GAO, found AmeriCorps produced $1.60 to $2.60 in 
benefits for every invested Federal dollar. And the AmeriCorps is not 
solely dependent on Federal dollars. During AmeriCorps first year it 
was directed by Congress to raise $32 million. It actually raise three 
times that amount--$91 million, 41 million of which came from the 
private sector. We should not be misled by its success, however. 
AmeriCorps cannot raise private and foundation funds without Federal 
seed support.
  AmeriCorps provides a large bang for education dollars while 
simultaneously getting results for real needs, strengthening 
communities, and encouraging responsibility. Education. Public Safety. 
Human Needs. The Environment. AmeriCorps is a program designed to do 
what we in Congress talk about all the time: bringing people from all 
backgrounds together to solve problems at the local level.
  In Minnesota, AmeriCorps members are extremely valuable. AmeriCorps 
members serving within the Minneapolis Public School provide activities 
to support the education of special needs youth. Members tutor, provide 
after school education activities, and recruit volunteers for support 
programming. Members work to secure affordable housing for low-income 
families, assist domestic violence victims, and coordinate projects to 
prevent and lessen homeless. Minnesota has AmeriCorps members doing 
more different things than I have time to list here. Older Minnesotans 
work as foster grandparents, serving over 80,000 children statewide. 
Rural members teach pesticide safety. People work to restore our parks 
and trying to provide places for our children to play. Of course, 
Minnesota is not alone in its utilization of AmeriCorps volunteers. All 
of my colleagues come from States which benefit from them. All of us 
should continue to support their efforts, not tear them down.
  I am also opposed to this conference report because of the 
devastating blow it delivers to funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  This conference report cuts EPA by 14 percent overall from what we 
appropriated last year. The conference report continues to contain a 
number of riders that aid special interests at the expense of the 
health and safety of the American people. These riders include one 
which would halt EPA efforts to expand one of our country's most 
successful Right-to-Know programs, the Toxic Release Inventory.
  Already this fiscal year, temporary continuing resolutions have 
resulted in a drastic cut in EPA's funding. As a result, EPA has been 
forced to cancel a 

[[Page S18652]]
number of inspections involving all sorts of environmental hazards. As 
Carol Browner said today in the Washington Post, ``The environmental 
cop is not on the beat.'' The lack of inspections will only get worse 
under this conference report that cuts enforcement funding by 14.6 
percent.

  These funding cuts will make it impossible for EPA to carry out work 
that helps protect the health and safety of every American. This bill 
will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to carry out 
its responsibilities under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. We 
cannot allow this to happen and I don't believe the American people 
want it to happen. At least, no Minnesotan has ever approached me to 
ask for dirtier air and water, and that is exactly what slashing EPA's 
budget this way will yield.
  There are other reasons to oppose this conference report. While I 
support the President's commitment to streamline HUD's programs and I 
understand the importance of cutting funding for wasteful programs, I 
believe that the housing cuts in the VA-HUD conference report have gone 
too far.
  Cuts to the section 8 program mean that homeless families or 
individuals will be without the assistance they need to move to either 
transitional or permanent housing.
  Cuts to public housing modernization will mean that fewer housing 
units will receive necessary repairs and maintenance. This maintenance 
is essential to ensure the quality of life of public housing residents 
and its neighbors.
  This bill also cuts funding for the Homeless Assistance Grant 
Program, Indian housing development, and the Housing Counseling Grant 
Program.
  All of these housing cuts will disproportionately harm low-income 
persons, the elderly, native Americans, and persons with AIDS. This 
funding is a safety net and cuts in housing programs will mean only one 
thing--more people will be living on the streets. I think we are making 
a mistake if we pass this package.
  Given all these reasons--the irresponsible cuts to veterans programs, 
the decimation of the Corporation for National Service, the damage done 
to environmental programs, and the attack on housing programs for the 
working poor, I will oppose the VA-HUD Conference Report, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.


           community development financial institutions fund

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment that funding for the Community Development Financial 
Institutions [CDFI] fund has been eliminated in the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The CDFI fund is an economic development initiative that was adopted 
with overwhelming bipartisan support several years ago. The program is 
a key priority for President Clinton, and an important investment tool 
for economically distressed communities. Unfortunately, partisan 
gamesmanship and shortsighted budget cutting will deny organizations 
around the country the opportunity to use this tool to better their own 
communities.
  In a time of dwindling Federal resources, programs like CDFI that 
leverage private investment and stretch every Federal dollar, are more 
important than ever. The Fund is a small but very innovative program. 
For a modest $50 million budget, the fund could make a significant 
impact in communities struggling with unemployment and structural 
decline.
  Investments from the fund would create new jobs, promote small 
business, restore neighborhoods, and generate tax revenues in towns 
desperate for community development. It is estimated that every $1 of 
fund resources would leverage $10 in non-Federal resources.
  Equally important, is the fact that these dollars are controlled at 
the local level by financial institutions in the community which 
understand area needs and resources. Local control stimulates local 
investment as well. Area banks and local private donors are more 
willing to contribute to economic development when they can see the 
results in their own communities.
  The CDFI fund has caught the interest of many community development 
organizations across the Nation. Already, over 1,500 groups have 
requested information about the fund, and informational seminars that 
have been held or are planned are expected to attract over 600 
potential applicants. This bill leaves those organizations out in the 
cold.
  Slashing investment in jobs and infrastructure is no way to balance 
the budget. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference agreement on H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 
1996.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $80.4 billion and new 
outlays of $46.2 billion to finance operations of the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
  I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill 
that is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. When outlays from 
prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill 
totals $80.4 billion in BA and $92.1 billion in outlays. The total bill 
is under the Senate subcommittee's 602(b) non- defense allocation by 
$420 million for budget authority and by $7 million for outlays. The 
subcommittee is also at its defense allocation for BA and is under its 
outlay allocation by less than $500,000.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 2099.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         VA-HUD SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT         
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Budget              
                                                   authority    Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed....................................  ..........          78
  H.R. 2099, Conference report..................         153          92
  Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary............         153         170
                                                 =======================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed....................................  ..........      45,550
  H.R. 2099, conference report..................      61,113      28,603
  Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  ..........  ..........
                                                                        
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........      61,113      74,264
                                                 =======================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed....................................  ..........         133
  H.R. 2099, conference report..................      19,362      17,213
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget:                                                              
    Resolution assumptions......................        -224         341
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal mandatory........................      19,138      17,688
                                                 =======================
      Adjusted bill total.......................      80,404      92,121
                                                 =======================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Subtotal defense discretionary................         153         170
  Nondefense discretionary......................      61,533      74,270
  Violent crime reduction trust fund............  ..........  ..........
  Mandatory.....................................      19,138      17,688
                                                 -----------------------
      Total allocation..........................      80,824      92,128
                                                 =======================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary.........................           0          -0
  Nondefense discretionary......................        -420          -6
  Violent crime reduction trust fund............  ..........  ..........
  Mandatory.....................................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
      Total allocation..........................        -420          -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I wish to comment on title I of the 
conference report on H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD 
appropriation bill.
  Mr. President, I realize that this has been a very difficult year for 
funding actions. I also know that, when compared to other agencies 
covered by this bill, VA is treated relatively well. Having said that, 
I have to say that this appropriation conference report is bad news for 
VA which, in turn, means bad news for America's veterans, their 
dependents, and their survivors.
  The medical care appropriation is $16.56 billion. This is better than 
the level passed by the Senate, but nearly $400 million below the 
amount proposed by the President. That amount is what VA needs to 
support the current level of health care services.
  At the funding level in the conference report, VA will be forced to 
cut back on the level of services carried out in fiscal year 1995. In 
human terms, nearly 90,000 eligible veterans will be denied inpatient 
and outpatient care this year. The equivalent of three VA hospitals 
will have to be shut down, and 5,000 VA health care professionals will 
lose their jobs.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to focus on these repercussions. 
Too often we become numb when we just hear 

[[Page S18653]]
such numbers and we lose sight of the human element in what we are 
doing. These are real people that will be affected--veterans who 
answered our country's call in her times of need, who now need real 
health care. They will be turned away from care or will be made to wait 
an inordinate period of time to receive the care they need--the care 
they deserve--the care they have earned.
  In my State there are four VA medical centers. Each plays an 
important role in its community. Each furnishes vital care to veterans 
in the geographic region served. Funding cuts at the level contained in 
the conference report will lead to cuts in that service, and to a 
denial of service to my constituents who are veterans--some with 
disabilities from their service, others who managed to complete their 
service without injury, but who are now unable to afford health care. 
Such a result is wrongheaded. I deeply regret that we are about to 
accept and approve it.
  I also find it disturbing that we are cutting VA below current 
services at the very time that cutbacks are being proposed in Medicare 
and Medicaid. There is every reason to suspect that, as individuals are 
pushed out of those programs by the changes being contemplated, 
veterans who have relied on either Medicare or Medicaid will turn to VA 
for needed care.
  VA health care is at a crossroads, and many innovative and dynamic 
changes are happening within the system. It is possible--indeed 
likely--that some of the changes about to be enacted will yield some 
significant efficiencies in how VA furnishes health care in the years 
to come. I am deeply concerned, however, that these cuts in the funding 
needed by VA to furnish care in the coming fiscal year will actually 
undercut efforts that could allow VA to function more effectively in 
the future. This is the worst time to be making blind cuts in VA 
funding, with no appreciation of how such cuts can affect VA's future.
  I have heard the suggestion that, since the number of veterans is 
declining, these cutbacks in VA health care are justified. While it is 
true that the overall veterans population is coming down--it is now 
just over 26 million--demand for VA care continues to increase, a 
phenomenon that is easy to understand when one realizes that, as the 
veterans population continues to age, the demand for health care 
services actually is on the rise. As our veterans age, we should not be 
allowing the promises a grateful Nation made to be undone in our 
headlong rush to balance the budget.
  I am also deeply concerned about the cuts in the level of general 
operating expenses which fund the administration of the nonmedical 
activities of VA. While the Senate-passed level of $880 million was 
over $35 million below the President's request, it was significantly 
above the House-passed level and promised some opportunity for VA to 
continue to reduce the terrible backlog of claims in the Veterans 
Benefits Administration. Unfortunately, the level of GOE funding in the 
conference report, $843 million, will almost certainly mean that not 
only will VA fail to improve, the recent trend will be reversed and the 
backlog will grow.
  I readily acknowledge that there are many problems that cannot be 
corrected by a simple infusion of funding. It is also true that VA's 
claims backlog is the result of far more than a simple lack of 
resources. However, it cannot be denied that the backlog problem can 
only worsen when there is insufficient funding to allow VA to meet the 
demand for services. The funding for GOE in the conference report is 
clearly insufficient, and I deeply regret that result.
  I am very disappointed that the conference report includes onerous 
restrictions on overall funding and travel funding for the Office of 
the Secretary. I fear that this is little more than a petty assault on 
the person of the current secretary, Secretary Brown, and does not 
represent any reasoned policy decision. I think such an action in the 
context of an appropriations bill is unworthy of the Congress, and I 
deeply regret that conferees felt compelled to stoop to such a level.

  The conference report includes funding for some construction projects 
which have not been authorized by the two Veterans' Affairs Committees. 
These include clinics at two sites--Brevard County, Florida, and 
Fairfield, California--where the Administration proposed to build 
medical centers, but the Appropriations Committees refused to fund 
them.
  While the two medical centers were authorized, the freestanding 
clinics are not, and, pursuant to section 8104 of title 38, United 
States Code, VA cannot spend funds for these unauthorized projects. I 
am not clear what the intention of the conferees is on this issue, but 
I am confident that, without specific action by the Veterans' Affairs 
Committees to authorize these projects, VA will not be able to spend 
the funds appropriated in this bill.
  I also note that, during a markup in the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
earlier this year, I offered an amendment which would have authorized 
all of the construction projects proposed in the President's budget, 
but my amendment was defeated.
  I would be remiss if I failed to note one positive item in the 
conference report, namely, the absence of a provision passed by both 
Houses which would have limited compensation benefits to certain 
veterans disabled by mental illness. I fought very hard to have that 
provision dropped during Senate debate, and I am truly delighted that 
my goal was achieved in the conference.
  As I noted at the outset, this is not a good bill for veterans. I am 
deeply concerned about its ramifications as we move forward in this 
fiscal year, and I intend to monitor closely the effects of the limited 
funding on VA's ability to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans. I 
will not hesitate to seek additional funding for various VA activities 
as the need arises in the coming year. We have tough choices to make as 
we seek to balance the budget. Veterans must be accorded special 
attention and protection in that effort.
  Mr. President, in closing, I express my deepest gratitude to my 
esteemed colleague, Senator Mikulski, the ranking Democrat on the 
Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee, for her continued efforts with respect to 
veterans' programs. I truly appreciate the extraordinary spirit of 
cooperation between us, during the appropriations process and 
throughout the year. Consistently over the years, Senator Mikulski has 
shown strong, unwavering support for veterans' programs. Although she 
was not as successful as I know she wished to be this year, her 
advocacy never wavered. She is a true friend and champion of veterans.
  Mr. LEAHY. I find a number of ironies this week as we consider the 
conference report on the appropriations bill for veterans programs.
  As I speak, American troops are being deployed in Bosnia. They 
represent us in seeking to help secure the peace and put an end to the 
atrocities that have for too long plagued the people of that region. 
They serve to defend our national interest and to protect our liberties 
in a troubled part of the world.
  Every Senator who came to this floor during our marathon session 
yesterday debating the deployment of our troops pledged support for 
them. That support should not end when they return out of harms' way. 
They deserve our continuing support and appreciation, just as the 
veterans of World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and those 
who have been deployed on our behalf in conflicts and missions around 
the world deserve our respect and support. The troops being deployed in 
Bosnia will be tomorrow's veterans.
  I am also struck by the fact that we are only now proceeding with our 
work on the funding for veterans' programs. Although we are now in 
December, well past all statutory deadlines for appropriations bills, 
two months' past the beginning of the fiscal year, and fast approaching 
the expiration of our second continuing resolution, we are still 
without an appropriations bill for veterans' programs.
  I must note that when we considered that bill initially in the 
Senate, Senator Rockefeller offered an amendment, which I cosponsored, 
to restore more than $500 million that had been cut from the Veteran 
Administration's medical care account. The Senate rejected our effort. 
We tried, unsuccessfully, to protect exempt service-connected veterans 
benefits from further cuts to balance the budget. We wanted to preserve 
and protect the benefits we provide our veterans, who were there 

[[Page S18654]]
when this Nation asked for their service.
  We could not get support from enough of our Senate colleagues. If my 
colleagues are truly interested in our veterans, let them join us in 
our efforts to increase funding for veterans medical research. Let us 
provide the quality physicians needed in the veterans health care 
system. Let us fund the work that is so desperately needed in digestive 
diseases, prosthetics, lung cancer, diabetes and geriatrics. Last year, 
the President answered our call when, in response to a letter from me 
cosigned by 41 of my Senate colleagues, he increased his request for 
funds for veterans medical research to $257 million.
  Join us by restoring the two new Veteran Administration hospitals 
that are so needed in California and Florida, but that are eliminated 
in this conference report. Join us by melting the ``freeze'' on 
veterans programs that the Republican budget would enact and that would 
result in the closing of 35 veterans hospitals nationwide.
  We all want to be patriotic and show respect for our veterans. Let us 
remember the words of Abraham Lincoln that are chiseled on a plaque at 
the Veterans Administration building just a few blocks from the 
Capitol: ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 
widow, and his orphan.'' Let us use our votes when they really count on 
behalf of our veterans by restoring their benefits and protecting their 
medical services.
  The final irony is that this is the week that we debated and voted 
upon a proposed constitutional amendment that would have restricted the 
Bill of Rights for the first time in our history. That effort failed 
and I detailed the reasons for my vote in a prior statement. For all 
those who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment on flag 
desecration and said that they did so in order to respond to the wishes 
of our veterans, I hope that they will show the respect and support 
that our veterans deserve by raising their voices and using their votes 
on behalf of our veterans by restoring their benefits and protecting 
their medical services.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand, by previous order, that 
I have 10 minutes available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I doubt I will use all the time but I 
do want to take some minutes to discuss the VA/HUD conference report 
and some of the problems that I have with this bill.
  The Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, the chairman, and the 
distinguished ranking member from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, deserve 
commendation for their hard work on this legislation. It is a 
complicated bill, this one, because it contains several programs that 
could be described as critical by virtue of the respect and support 
that these programs have. When you talk about the Veterans 
Administration you talk environmental protection, you talk about 
housing--these are very, very important programs; FEMA, the disaster 
relief agency, and NASA. So, there is a lot of review. There is a lot 
of support for each one of the programs and the advocates fight hard 
for the programs that strike them as being the most important.
  But it just does not do the job. It is not the fault of the chairman 
or the ranking member. They have done their best in a very tough 
situation, but they just do not have enough funding to do these 
important tasks. They also had to contend with demands from the House 
of Representatives which continues to insist on deep cuts in 
environmental programs and housing and other high-priority programs.
  In the end, with regret, I am going to strongly oppose this 
conference report. It would cut funding at EPA by more than 20 percent. 
It is an area that I have done a lot of work in. Before the last 
election I was chairman of the Superfund committee, working on the 
environment, and I worked very hard on issues of clean air and clean 
water and various other environmental programs. The final bill reflects 
what, in my view, are skewed, grossly skewed priorities.
  The majority has repeatedly argued that the balanced budget in some 
accounts, like Medicare and Medicaid, are not actually being cut. What 
is being cut, they say, is the rate of increase. In the case of EPA, 
these are real cuts that are being proposed, real decreases, real 
attempts to turn back the clock on environmental protection. This 
legislation would slash the budget of the Environmental Protection 
Agency by 21 percent. One-fifth of its budget just taken away. To me, 
it is very simple. The effects are dirtier air, dirtier water, fewer 
toxic waste sites being cleaned up.

  I view the quality of our environment as a critical legacy for the 
generations that follow us: For my children, my grandchildren. If there 
is one thing I can do for them that will leave them a better America it 
is to help clear up the environment, to permit them to breathe the air 
that we take for granted and not be worried about contracting some 
respiratory condition; or drink the water and not jeopardize their 
health. To be able to fish in the streams and be able to swim in the 
ocean without debris floating all over the place. That is the way I see 
our environmental requirements. So, these are deep cuts that hurt.
  And I also point out this legislation is just the tip of the iceberg. 
The Republican long-term budget plan would have a devastating impact on 
environmental protection over the next several years. It would destroy 
EPA's ability to protect our environment and the public health. It 
would cripple enforcement of environmental laws. The one criticism that 
we hear constantly: Oh, that bureaucracy, they are all over us. They 
are all over business and they are all over citizens and they are all 
over communities.
  The fact of the matter is that environmental laws have worked 
surprisingly well for us. In a period of roughly 20 years, from 1973-
1974 until now, instead of 40 percent of our streams and tributaries 
being fishable and swimmable, we have gone up to 60 percent. And even 
in places like the Hudson River, which separates New York from New 
Jersey, we have begun to see some salmon coming back. We see some 
striped bass coming up the river. I do not know whether they are ready 
for eating, but they are there, and the populations are growing because 
the water is cleaner.
  Given half a chance, nature fights back, and very vigorously. But it 
does not take a lot of neglect for nature to return to a decrepit 
condition. So, if you do not have enforcement to make sure that 
compliance is honest, then the laws that are on the books as we all 
know here are worthless.
  The long-term budget plan would destroy EPA's ability to protect our 
environment and public health. It would severely set back the progress 
I just indicated we have made in recent decades, to protect and 
preserve our natural resources.
  The bill before us cuts EPA's enforcement function so deeply that it 
will give polluters a holiday from complying with the law. We have seen 
stories in the newspapers about EPA's inability to conduct the surveys 
that they have to, to see whether people are complying with the rules, 
or with the laws. We have seen situations where Superfund programs, 
Superfund cleanups are going to stop dead in their tracks. Enforcement 
programs are targeted for a cut of 27 percent.
  Mr. President, EPA is the environmental cop on the beat, and we would 
not cut law enforcement by a quarter, thank goodness. We would not cut 
FBI by a quarter, thank goodness. But this bill will cut the resources 
provided to stop environmental crimes by 27 percent. The question 
raised is how many children's health will be jeopardized as a result of 
those pollution laws not being enforced?
  Mr. President, some Members of the other body seem to believe that 
EPA's enforcement office does nothing more than sue innocent 
landowners. But if these cuts are enacted, those Members are going to 
come in for a rude surprise because EPA's enforcement office performs 
many functions that are important--not only for environmental 
protection, but for the efficient operation of many businesses. Beyond 
investigating allegations of violations in carrying out inspections, 
enforcement funding is used to approve permits for companies to take 
particular actions and that cut in enforcement funding is 

[[Page S18655]]
going to cause severe dislocations in the private sector as they wait 
and wait for permits to take up a new product or a new location.
  When companies change the way they produce products, their pollution 
emissions often change as well. And, if so, they have to obtain a 
permit from EPA.
  Mr. President, what is going to happen when EPA's enforcement staff 
is cut by 27 percent? We can easily tell what is going to happen. There 
are going to be major delays in issuing permits. That is going to have 
a negative impact on many companies' balance sheets.
  Mr. President, if this kind of cut is enacted, it can almost be 
guaranteed that next year Senators will come to the floor and blame 
this problem on an inefficient EPA. But EPA is not going to be the 
culprit. The culprit will be the Congress and the resource that it 
supplied for these functions.
  To get some feel for what a 27-percent cut will mean in terms of 
weakened environmental enforcement, consider what happened at EPA since 
the recently enacted continuing resolution reduced funding temporarily 
by a comparable amount. No new criminal investigations were started, 
and some of the ongoing investigations into criminal activity were 
delayed because the staff from EPA could not travel to these locations.
  EPA stopped a major investigation into the fraudulent sale of 
adulterated gasoline in Texas, and will be forced to halt all mobile 
source inspections and investigations.
  EPA canceled all inspections of laboratories designed to ensure the 
integrity of health effects data.
  There is just no getting around the fact that cutting the enforcement 
budget will have serious negative impacts. It will mean more pollution. 
It will mean responsible companies that comply with the laws will be at 
a competitive disadvantage with their less honorable competitors. It 
will mean a less healthy environment for our children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the manager whether there are a couple more 
minutes available.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 8 additional minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is very kind. I appreciate it. I will try to 
wrap up quicker than that because I also want to point out that this 
legislation will force State and local governments to bear extra 
burdens. The States will lose money that they badly need to protect the 
environment, and to comply with Federal requirements. Grants to clean 
up municipal sewage and industrial waste water emissions will be over 
$665 million less than the President requested. The administration's 
request for funding of safe drinking water initiatives will be cut by 
$225 million.

  This bill also will make devastating cuts in programs that protect 
our citizens from the hazards of abandoned toxic waste. It would reduce 
funds for hazardous waste cleanups by 20 percent.
  No new Superfund project starts would be allowed. Under this bill, 
toxic waste sites will be fenced and forgotten.
  Cleanups are complete or underway at nearly 800 sites across this 
country, and the rate of site remediation has increased significantly 
over the last 3 years. This bill will halt this progress in its tracks, 
threatening the health of communities and increasing long-term cleanup 
costs. And surely this is not what the public wants.
  Mr. President, when the House of Representatives initially approved 
this bill, it included 18 provisions designed to reverse or gut 
existing environmental law. The House has voted three times on these 
riders, ultimately reversing itself and removing these riders. It did 
so in the wake of a public outcry over the hijacking of this bill by 
special interests intent on weakening antipollution laws.
  Yet, like the genie out of the bottle, some riders live on. They are 
back. There are eight of them in this bill, one that attempts to limit 
the reach of the community right-to-know law. Another reverses the 
language of the Clean Water Act to remove EPA's authority to protect 
wetlands. This wetlands amendment was the subject of a New York Times 
front page story on Tuesday.
  Mr. President, our country has made enormous progress since the 
environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970.
  It is with considerable regret that I urge my colleagues to reject 
this conference report, and if it is sent to the President and he 
vetoes it, as he said he would, I hope that we can muster enough votes 
to sustain his veto.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
adoption of the conference report occur at 6:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--but if we reach the point, if I may ask this question of the 
distinguished manager through the Chair, where all time is not being 
requested, is it possible to even vote before the 6:45 period?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the setting of a time certain was 
necessary to accommodate Members who had other commitments. While it 
may not be efficient, I think it may be easier to schedule other 
activities than to have to go on at this time of the evening. That is 
why I would suggest we stay with the 6:45 time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Texas has been 
waiting to be recognized. She has 10 minutes under her control.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not intend to take 10 
minutes. I just wanted to respond to some of the things that were said 
by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas who has not supported the 
space station, and who raised a question about the Russian 
participation using some of the Mir hardware.
  I think it is very important that we look at the importance of space 
research and the space station, and look at the contribution that it 
has made to our economy.
  The Senator said that out of $94 billion, $90 billion is going to be 
put forward by America. In fact, the costs we are talking about are the 
development costs. That is what we are in now. The development costs 
are right at $30 billion of which $9 billion is being contributed by 
Europe, Japan, and Canada. Our Russian partners are contributing 
hardware for the Mir that works into the space station.
  It is certainly true that they are looking at other proposals which, 
of course, we all want to look at to see if they are going to save 
money, and if it is going to be in everyone's best interest to do it. I 
think that is what NASA is certainly going to do, and it is the right 
thing for them to do. But I think it is important that we look at what 
the space station has contributed for our country.
  First, it has been cut 35 percent from its original target budget. 
That has saved the taxpayers of America $40 billion. They are working 
in an efficient way to do this space research that is so important for 
our future technology, and our future jobs in a way that the taxpayers 
can afford.
  In fact, aerospace is the single strongest export sector of the 
United States economy. In 1993, exports topped $40 billion. When we 
look at exactly what the space station is going to do, there are 
certain things that can only be done in microgravity conditions. You 
cannot duplicate microgravity conditions on Earth. You must be in 
space.
  Senator Mikulski and I have been working on women's health issues, 
and it is women's health issues that will get the greatest gain from 
the microgravity research. They are going to be able to look into 
osteoporosis, bone mass loss, which particularly attacks women. And 
breast cancer cells are able to be duplicated and grown in the 
microgravity conditions. They find that is the very best way they are 
able to study breast cancer cells.
  So I think we are looking at tremendous contributions to women's 
health 

[[Page S18656]]
care by the use of the microgravity conditions that can only be done in 
space and not on Earth. You cannot duplicate microgravity on Earth no 
matter what you do. So this is a unique capability that is very 
important for our future.
  This is the largest cooperative science program in history. We have 
13 nations now participating in this science project. I think that is 
the wave of the future. If we are going to go into the big science 
technology and research, we should have other countries able to 
contribute, not only because it saves our taxpayer dollars, but these 
are things that should be shared with other countries so that we can 
get the most benefit from this kind of research.
  So I think it is very important, as we close this debate, to say that 
space research produces $2 for every $1 invested--$2 into our economy. 
That means 40,000 direct and indirect jobs that come from this. But 
most of all, Mr. President, it is a commitment to the future. It is a 
commitment that was made by President Kennedy because he could see that 
there was so much more technology and science available if we had the 
vehicle to go into space and collect it. In fact, he would never even 
have dreamed of the successes that we have had because he was willing 
to take that chance and put America in the forefront and leadership of 
technological research.
  We cannot step back from that. It would not be in our best interest 
to do so. It would not allow us to stay at the forefront of creating 
jobs and creating new industries and new products that will keep our 
economy thriving and able to bring in people who are going to be 
growing into the job market.
  So I am very pleased to support this project. I am pleased to support 
this conference report. I have worked with Senator Bond and Senator 
Mikulski to try to make sure that the space station does have what it 
needs to do the job that it must do. I am very impressed with the 
problems they had. Having VA and HUD and space, NASA research and all 
of the independent agencies and making the difficult choices was 
something to behold, and they did an excellent job.
  This is probably going to be a close vote. I cannot imagine that they 
could have divided up a bill any more fairly than they did on this one.
  So I commend them for their hard work. It was hard to get a consensus 
on these difficult issues. They did a terrific job, and I am pleased to 
support them.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my sincere thanks to the Senator 
from Texas. She has been a very articulate, very forceful spokesperson 
for space exploration.
  Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I feel that 
it should be pointed out that the appropriation for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] represents a $352 million 
reduction from the level provided in fiscal year 1995. This is an 
overall cut of 2.5 percent. The conference agreement, however, provides 
the full amount of the budget request to continue development of the 
space station: $2.1 billion.
  Despite the overall reduction in the NASA budget, and full funding of 
the space station, the committee was able to restore funding for a 
number of important space science programs, fully fund the space 
shuttle program, maintain the X-33 next generation launch vehicle 
development, and continue the Earth Observing System Program to study 
global climate change.
  In addition, the conference agreement removed the fence on space 
station obligations which assures that there will be no funding 
disruptions during developmental activities during the balance of this 
fiscal year. The space station program is on track, on budget, and on 
time. Fabrication of large components of actual flight equipment have 
been completed. Each week more equipment is being produced, and is 
undergoing final engineering testing in preparation for launch and 
deployment beginning in November 1997.
  No one should be confused on this point: We can and will proceed with 
development, and operation of this international space station. Through 
careful management, intense budgetary review, and hard-nosed priority 
setting, we will do it without impairing other vital science missions 
of NASA and other Federal agencies. And we will succeed in this bold 
initiative, despite our commitment and efforts to bring the Federal 
budget into balance.
  This conference agreement is a clear and unequivocal demonstration 
that each of these important goals can and will be accomplished. 
Despite all the naysayers and doubters, the international space station 
program is succeeding, and shows that the United States is committed to 
maintaining its leadership in space.
  I am pleased to yield the Senator from Alaska 2 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Bond and the 
ranking member of the committee, Senator Mikulski, for their support on 
this bill. I come to the floor because a member of the Alaska State 
Senate has told me there is a rumor in Alaska that this bill is cutting 
the VA very severely and is going to cause reductions in the VA offices 
in Alaska.
  I want to reassure him and other veterans that that is not the case. 
The truth is, as I understand this bill, it increases VA funding, it 
does not cut it. This is disturbing news that the VA is contemplating a 
major reorganization which would eliminate pension and benefits 
personnel in Alaska. That would mean that our people would have to 
write or call or go to Reno, NV, or Phoenix, AZ, when trying to seek 
help on their pensions or their benefits. That is like asking the 
people of Maine to go down to Dallas, TX.
  I think sometimes people forget the vast distances we deal with in my 
State. The bill does not require the elimination of VA offices in 
Alaska. I do hope to get more details on this plan, and I hope the 
Senate will join us in opposing moving functions from Alaska to what we 
call the lower 48 States, thousands of miles away from our veterans.
  I want to congratulate my two friends, who managed this bill for, 
once again, including money for the rural water and sewer programs in 
Alaska. This is a program to eliminate the honey buckets in the 
villages of our State. There are 132 villages that lack modern 
facilities. We want to bring water and sewage facilities to them. This 
bill will help EPA continue to participate in that.
  We have a provision in this bill that also prohibits the EPA from 
requiring the city of Fairbanks to use MTBE, the substance that goes 
into gasoline, to meet clean air targets under the Clean Air Act for 
the period of this bill.
  It also includes $2 million to initiate a new program to clean up 
leaking above-ground bulk-fuel storage tanks in rural Alaska. Most of 
those tanks, Mr. President, cannot be buried because of the permafrost, 
and people in the area do need a new system. We have to devise a new 
plan. This bill will start that plan.
  I thank my friend and again congratulate the two managers of this 
bill. It is a good bill, and I hope the President will sign it. I thank 
my friend, Senator Bond.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in wrapping up discussions on this measure, 
I just have to say, for my colleagues, I will be submitting for the 
Record the information on how this bill does meet our environmental 
needs.
  As I predicted when I spoke earlier today, there has been a lot of 
vocal pollution about what this bill does. The Vice President and the 
Administrator of the EPA had a big news conference, and they cited 
these outlandish figures of a 27-percent cut in enforcement of 
environmental programs. Mr. President, that is 20 percent off of the 
pie-in-the-sky budget that the President proposed when he was asking 
for a $300 billion deficit.
  This is the biggest spending binge that the President could conceive 
of. And when we cut back to reach a balance, which the President now 
says he is willing to join us in reaching, there is no way that you can 
increase funding for everything as he wished. Let me make clear that 
the final amount in this bill for EPA is $5.7 billion, a reduction of 
just about 4 percent from the 

[[Page S18657]]
fiscal year 1995 postrescission funding level, just about $235 million. 
The reductions which came about came from two areas: Superfund, a 
program mired in litigation, and bureaucracy, which must be fixed. 
There is money to start cleanups where human health is involved, and we 
directed them to do that.
  Sewer treatment construction earmarks were reduced. That was the pork 
in last year's bill. This committee has followed the nonpartisan 
National Academy of Public Administration's directions to move more 
responsibility to the States, and 40 percent of the appropriation, $2.3 
billion, goes directly to the States for grants to meet environmental 
mandates.
  The press release and the Senator from New Jersey say that this 
threatens the safety of water quality because it cuts by 45 percent 
State loan funds. That is just simply wrong, as were most of the other 
statements made about this bill.
  It provides $500 million for drinking water State revolving funds. 
Not a penny of the funds appropriated last year were spent. We 
stipulated that the remaining funds, $225 million from last year, in 
addition to the new funds, totaling $275 million go to the drinking 
water State revolving funds. If the fund is not authorized, the money 
will be used for waste water revolving funds. This is an insurance 
policy that the money appropriated will be utilized to ensure the 
health of our Nation's water bodies.
  There are tremendous misstatements about this measure. I will correct 
those in the material I submit for the Record. I point out that if this 
bill is vetoed, as some on the other side wish, it will be an 11.5 
percent cut below this bill under the continuing resolution. 
Environment will be much worse off if this bill is vetoed. For that 
reason, I would urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues on this side, 
to support the bill.
  I hope that we can work together and have the support of some of our 
colleagues on the other side because, if additional funds are made 
available above our current 602(b) allocation, they may be added by a 
continuing resolution which I hope would be agreeable on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. President, I express my greatest thanks to my ranking member, the 
distinguished former chair of this committee, for her invaluable 
assistance. She and I wish that we had had more money available. But 
she has been extremely helpful and very capable and a great asset in 
moving this process forward.
  Mr. President, I have spoken once today on how well we have treated 
EPA in this year's appropriation, despite overall budget reductions, 
and I will not repeat my entire statement. But I will say once again 
that the conference agreement makes clear that Republicans support 
protecting and cleaning up the environment--but that we do not support 
duplicative, wasteful spending and micromanaging States' environmental 
efforts.
  Despite the fact that the House had reduced EPA by one-third in its 
original VA-HUD bill, in conference we were able to find an additional 
$49 million above the Senate-passed bill which had $770 million more 
than the House for EPA.
  The final amount for EPA is $5.7 billion, a reduction of just $235 
million or 4 percent below the fiscal year 1995 post-rescission funding 
level.
  The largest reductions below last year come from two key areas--
Superfund--a program mired in litigation and bureaucracy which must be 
fixed, and sewer treatment construction earmarks, which were reduced by 
$500 million below last year's level.
  The committee's recommendation closely parallels recommendations made 
to this committee by the National Academy of Public Administration, and 
are intended to streamline the agency, eliminate duplication, ensure a 
flexible approach to working with industry, and full support to the 
States.
  More than 40 percent of the appropriation--$2.3 billion--goes 
directly to the States for grants to meet environmental mandates. This 
is an increase of approximately $300 million over last year.
  The largest programmatic reduction in the bill is from Superfund--a 
reduction of $170 million below fiscal year 1995. There is no need to 
throw money at a program which virtually everyone agrees does not work. 
However, despite serious concerns about the program, we found $160 
million in conference above the House and Senate-passed spending levels 
for this program. This amount ensures that all projects in the pipeline 
receive funding and that risks to human health and the environment will 
be addressed.
  Mr. President, compared to the current continuing resolution, this 
conference agreement provides a 11.5-percent increase. So I cannot 
understand why the President wants to veto this bill. I imagine a full 
year CR would be even tighter than the current one. Unfortunately, the 
White House has indicated an unwillingness to negotiate a reasonable 
compromise on the VA-HUD bill.
  I made reference in this morning's floor statement about the press 
conference the Vice President and Ms. Browner would be holding later in 
the day. I have just received the press release from EPA and I am very 
troubled by the factual inaccuracies contained in it. Let me provide 
one example of how this administration is misrepresenting what this 
budget does.
  The press release says the Republican budget threatens the safety of 
water quality because it cuts by 45 percent State loan funds that would 
help communities protect their drinking water. Mr. President, this just 
is not true.
  This bill provides $500 million for drinking water State revolving 
funds--the President's full budget request. There were no dollars spent 
on this program last year because it was not authorized. Not a penny of 
the funds appropriated last year has been spent. We have stipulated in 
the bill that the amount remaining from last year's appropriation, $225 
million, in addition to new funds totaling $275 million, go to drinking 
water State revolving funds if there is an authorization by June 1. And 
if not, those funds would be provided for wastewater State revolving 
funds. We've provided an insurance policy that if no authorization 
occurs, the States will still be able to spend these funds on water 
infrastructure to ensure the health of our Nation's water bodies.
  In the previous two appropriations for drinking water State revolving 
funds, those funds were not available unless a drinking water bill was 
enacted.
  Finally, let me mention the so-called riders. The conference 
agreement includes only six legislative riders for pertaining EPA, most 
of which are completely noncontroversial and several of which were 
included in previous VA-HUD bills authored by Democrats. In fact, the 
Senator from New Jersey was a supporter, I am told, of one of the so-
called rider pertaining to radon in drinking water in previous years.
  I think it is time we start talking straight and fairly about what 
this bill does and does not do to the environment. I urge those on the 
other side of the aisle once again to quit the grandstanding and 
factual inaccuracies.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have nothing to add to all that has 
been said. My opening statement summarized everything. I yield back 
such time that I might have. Our side of the aisle is ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 6:45 having arrived, the Senate 
will proceed to vote on agreeing to the conference report accompanying 
H.R. 2099. The yeas and nays having been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 606 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles 
     
[[Page S18658]]

     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gramm
       
  So, the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate concurs 
in the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 63.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to thank those Members who supported 
us in this very difficult measure. I have already mentioned the 
absolutely vital assistance and support of the distinguished ranking 
member, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. She has been most 
helpful.
  I would say also that I am most appreciative of her staff, Rusty 
Mathews and Steve Crane, who have been of great assistance to us in 
this measure.
  On my side, Stephen Kohashi, who is the lead clerk, Carrie Apostolou. 
We had the help of Steve Isakowitz on NASA matters, and of course 
Lashawnda Leftwich has worked with us. This was not a bill. This seemed 
to be more like a multiyear protect.
  I express my sincere thanks to all of the people, the staff, who 
worked so hard on it. I express particular thanks to the people in the 
administration, particularly Dan Golden, James Lee Witt, and Henry 
Cisneros, who worked very cooperatively with us to help implement the 
very difficult decisions we had to make.
  As I mentioned earlier, there has been a tremendous amount of 
misinformation and disinformation put out about this bill. I will be 
preparing a full explanation of some of the misstatements that were 
issued in the news conference held earlier today. It is regrettable 
that we cannot have an honest debate, using figures that are actual 
figures from last year and actual figures in this bill, but that, 
unfortunately, does not seem to be the rule.
  Mr. President, I believe there is a remaining amendment which we need 
to dispose of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no further amendment. It has been 
adopted.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there seems to be no further comments from 
my ranking member.

                          ____________________