[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9821-S9835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have a unanimous consent request that 
would list the amendments that have been identified on both sides at 
this point. I assume there is a little padding going on, on both sides. 
But at least, if we could get this list agreed to, we would have then a 
finite list we could work from. I believe, as the night proceeds and 
the day proceeds tomorrow, we will not have to do all these amendments, 
but I would like to go ahead, if I could, and get agreement on it.
  I ask unanimous consent during the remaining consideration of H.R. 
3666, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the following be the only 
remaining first-degree amendments in order and they be subject to 
relevant second-degree amendments, and no motions to refer be in order, 
and following the disposition of the listed amendments, the bill be 
advanced to third reading. The amendments are as follows:
  An amendment by Senator Bond regarding multifamily housing; a 
Faircloth amendment on HUD fair housing; Senator Bennett, GAO review; 
another one by Senator Bennett, reimburse State housing finance 
agencies; Senator Shelby, land transfer; Senator Thomas, antilobbying 
general provision; Senator Thomas, decrease funding for Council on 
Environmental Quality; Senator Helms, law enforcement in housing; 
Senator McCain, two amendments, one on FHA mortgages, one on FEMA 
disaster relief; one by Senator Bond regarding HUD grant and loan 
programs; a technical amendment by Senator Bond; two amendments by 
Senator Nickles, one on union dues, one on runaway plants; Senator 
Bond, a managers' amendment; Senator Hatfield, relevant; Senator 
Coverdell, relevant; Senator Lott, two relevant amendments; Senator 
Lott, one on Iraq; Senator Nickles, an amendment on 48-hour hospital 
stay.

  Democratic amendments identified: Senator Bingaman on United States-
Japan commission; Senator Bradley, one amendment regarding hospital 
stay for newborns; Senator Byrd, two relevant amendments; Senator 
Daschle, or his designee, one on runaway plants and one on Iraq; 
Senator Feingold, one on NASA; one by Senator Feinstein dealing with 
Downy land transfer, one on biotech, one identified as relevant; 
Senator Graham, veterans resource allocation; Senator Harkin, funding 
vets health care; Senator Kennedy, an amendment on employment 
discrimination; Senator Mikulski, four relevant amendments; Senator 
Moseley-Braun, an amendment on mortgage registration; Senator Sarbanes, 
an amendment on

[[Page S9822]]

NASA; Senator Wellstone, an amendment on mental health; Senator Levin, 
an amendment on lobbying; and Senator Baucus, an amendment on 
environmental quality.
  It seems that any amendments that did not make it before the August 
recess, or the heart may desire to be considered any time soon, is on 
this list. I hope we will consider those that really do contribute to 
development of legislation that we can pass for VA-HUD, and we will 
work together and try to get that done. I so ask unanimous consent.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, my staff has advised me 
that the majority leader's list did not include a Fritz Hollings 
amendment on HUD.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that be included in the list of 
amendments identified for consideration.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might 
just address the distinguished leader, Senator Sarbanes and I are the 
cosponsors of the amendment designated ``Sarbanes, NASA.'' I believe it 
is my understanding that the managers have accepted that; is that 
correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished managers.
  Mr. LOTT. So that amendment has already been accepted; is that 
correct?
  Mr. BOND. It will be accepted. It has not yet been accepted.
  Mr. LOTT. It is the Sarbanes-Warner amendment dealing with NASA.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader and managers.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I obviously failed to 
list as one of our amendments the amendment relating to spina bifida. 
That was supposed to have been listed. It was left off. I think 
everybody just understood it was going to be here.
  Mr. LOTT. I thought that was one of the two or three really serious 
amendments we had for consideration that related to the bill itself. I 
cannot believe we left that off. We will have an amendment by Senator 
Daschle relating to veterans' program for children with spina bifida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
agreement?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
expect to object, I think I understood the distinguished majority 
leader correctly in that debate is not prohibited after third reading 
in his request.

  Mr. LOTT. That is correct, that the bill be advanced to third reading 
and then stopped. I believe the Senator from West Virginia has made 
clear his desire that we have a few moments to look at this legislation 
when we reach that point, and we intend to do that.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I remove my 
reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The request is agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I hope the managers of 
the legislation will continue to work to see if they can reduce this 
list. I hope tomorrow that a number of these amendments will, in fact, 
be withdrawn and will be considered in some other forum another day. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I inquire what is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 5167

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the Bond amendment, No. 
5167.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we raised this issue and filed this 
amendment yesterday. We had a good discussion on it. We had it printed. 
We wanted everybody to have an opportunity to look at it. As I advised 
yesterday, this is an attempt to deal with a very complex problem that 
has some real consequences.
  HUD has given us estimates that if we don't do something with the 
oversubsidized section 8 contracts for multifamily housing, we are 
going to do one of two things: No. 1, if we continue to renew the 
contracts at existing rates, these are multifamily units where 
subsidies were granted in the form of section 8 rental payments to get 
people to develop housing for the elderly in rural areas, needed 
housing in urban areas, these overmarket rent section 8 contracts would 
have an exploding cost.
  The appropriations for this year would be about $4.3 billion; for 
1998, $10 billion; $16 billion by fiscal year 2000. The actual cost 
each year would grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $4 
billion in fiscal year 2000 and to $8 billion in 10 years. Those are 
the costs. If we just refuse to renew the contracts, we could have tens 
of thousands of people who depend upon these section 8 subsidized 
contracts thrown out on the street. These could be elderly people in 
rural areas. These are people in many parts of the country where there 
are no readily available alternatives for which vouchers could get them 
housing.
  So we have proposed a system that sounds complex, but, basically, we 
would write down a portion of the debt on the project and the 
Government would take back a second mortgage that would be paid back at 
the end of the first mortgage, writing these contracts down to fair 
market rentals.
  That is a very brief and overly simplistic discussion of the 
amendment. We have worked on this on a bipartisan basis not only in the 
Appropriations Committee but, more important, with the authorizing 
committee, with Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Mack and 
Senator Kerry. We appreciate very much their assistance on it.
  This is a demonstration project for 1 year on the way to getting a 
permanent resolution of these exploding contract costs. I hope that we 
can adopt this amendment by voice vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond amendment. 
I do it because it is the right thing to do at this time.
  It starts to address a serious problem with our public housing. A 
large number of section 8 multifamily housing projects are subsidized 
by rents that far exceed the fair-market rent in the area. In fiscal 
year 1997 alone, HUD estimates there are 40,000 units whose contracts 
will expire at rents over 120 percent of the fair-market rent.
  But Mr. President, this is not just an issue of numbers and 
statistics. This is an issue about real Americans and real lives. If we 
take the do-nothing approach, American taxpayers will continue to have 
their hard-earned tax money wasted by paying excessive rents. The 
Government can't afford to pay these excessive rents indefinitely.
  If we take a strong-arm approach and try to force owners to lower the 
rents and we reduce subsidies, we risk massive defaults. In addition to 
the massive multibillion-dollar costs to HUD and the administrative 
burden it would cause the Agency, it could lead to massive resident 
displacement.
  Mr. President, we're talking about real people in real communities 
potentially being out on the streets. None of us wants to be a part of 
putting people on the streets and increasing the homeless problem in 
our Nation. We as a nation are better than that. The residents deserve 
better and so do their communities.
  I support the effort to begin addressing the problem. We must ensure 
that while we do so, we don't create hollow opportunities, don't create 
a generation of slum landlords, and don't create a new liability for 
the taxpayers. We don't want to just address the problem, we want to 
solve it--with creative and effective approaches.
  This amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is a start. It 
allows HUD to negotiate with landlords of oversubsidized projects with 
contracts expiring in fiscal year 1997. HUD will seek to bring the 
rents of units over 120 percent of fair-market rent in line with the 
market rate where the units are located.
  This amendment begins a process that we must continue to work on 
during the coming year. Some will voice concerns that this amendment 
goes too far, others will say it doesn't go far enough.
  Mr. President, we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. A 
modest beginning is better than no beginning. We can't afford to ignore 
the fact that over 750,000 units with subsidy problems are in the 
pipeline. The time to act is now. We can't afford to delay any longer. 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

[[Page S9823]]

  Mr. President, I just want to say this. This is not just an issue of 
numbers and statistics, this is an issue about real Americans and real 
lives. If we do nothing, the American taxpayer will continue to pay 
excessive rents. If we take a strong-arm approach, we could risk 
massive defaults.
  I support this effort, because it absolutely begins to address the 
problem. We must ensure that in doing so we do not create a hollow 
opportunity for the poor, that Federal assistance does not generate a 
new class of sublandlords and new liability for the taxpayers.
  I believe the Bond amendment is the right approach that talks about 
real opportunities for the poor, provides a safety net so that these 
projects do not collapse, but we begin to bring this into discipline 
and really focus on a market-based approach.
  So, Mr. President, I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5167) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am most grateful for the assistance of my 
ranking member in dealing with that very difficult question. We may 
have to address this again in conference. But we think this is the 
start on the right path.
  We have a number of amendments that I believe have been cleared on 
both sides. I propose that we proceed to those.


                           Amendment No. 5181

 (Purpose: Prohibit HUD from removing regulatory requirements that HUD 
              issue public notice and comment rulemaking.)

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

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5181.

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

       Insert at the appropriate place at the end of the section 
     on HUD:

     SEC. . REQUIREMENT FOR HUD TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC NOTICE AND 
                   COMMENT RULEMAKING.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     maintain all current requirements under Part 10 of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development's regulations (24 
     CFR part 10) with respect to the Department's policies and 
     procedures for the promulgation and issuance of rules, 
     including the use of public participation in the rulemaking 
     process.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is a prohibition on a HUD rulemaking 
effort to eliminate HUD public notice and comment. The HUD recently 
issued a proposed rule that would, as a practical matter, remove any 
requirement for HUD to issue public notice and comments. This amendment 
would prohibit HUD from doing that. The Administrative Procedures Act 
does not require agencies to issue public notice and comment rulemaking 
for grant loan programs, but HUD has traditionally deferred to 
congressional and public interest that HUD programs be developed in an 
open manner to ensure that the implementation of programs are 
consistent with congressional intent and receive the benefit of public 
input and scrutiny.
  Basically, the requirement for HUD to issue the public notice and 
comment rulemaking is not an accident. Because of the program abuses at 
HUD in the late 1960's, HUD chose public notice, this public airing, to 
get them out of a real crack, to convince people that a change HUD was 
operating on the up and up. It is critical that they do this because, 
without public notice and comment rulemaking, HUD can and has designed 
programs in the past that are inconsistent with congressional intent, 
not in the best interest of beneficiaries, and, frankly, smell.
  Last year the inspector general raised some very real questions about 
the way that empowerment zones had been selected. A lot of compelling 
questions were raised in that report. I think it is necessary to keep 
the spotlight on HUD so that we can be sure that we know what they are 
doing, that Congress and the media and the public have a right to see 
what they are doing, so that there will be less temptation to abuse the 
process.
  The most recent example of HUD's disregard of the congressional 
intent is one that is particularly galling to many of us who fought for 
the provision for a long time. There was a provision in S. 1494, the 
Housing Opportunity Programs Extension Act, which provided public 
housing authorities with broad authority to designate public housing as 
``elderly only,'' ``disabled only,'' or a combination thereof. HUD 
proceeded to issue a proposed rule that would require extensive 
micromanagement by HUD and place an unreasonable burden on public 
housing authorities that want to designate the public housing as 
``elderly only'' or ``disabled only'' housing. It is finding out that 
kind of activity before it occurs that should save us a great deal of 
heartburn and avoid a lot of heartburn for HUD.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Bond amendment, even 
though my State, my city of Baltimore got an empowerment zone. We think 
we met the test. I still support the amendment. We believe that there 
should be public notice. It was part of a reform. We believe that 
public notices act in the public interest. It is as straightforward and 
as simple as that. I urge the adoption of the Bond amendment and the 
continuation of existing policy.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I have previously discussed, I remain 
very concerned about HUD's ability and capacity to administer its 
programs effectively, and in some cases, fairly.
  In early 1995, Senator Mack and I requested the HUD IG to review the 
HUD's procedures and decisionmaking in selecting and designating six 
urban empowerment zones. As you know, the use of empowerment zones to 
revitalize decaying urban centers has a long history, with perhaps its 
greatest proponent in Jack Kemp, when he was Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development. Secretary Kemp never had an opportunity to implement 
his vision of empowerment zones.
  Empowerment zone legislation was finally enacted as part of the 
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 on August 10, 1993. This 
legislation proposed the establishment of nine empowerment zones, six 
urban and three rural zones, in distressed communities. Empowerment 
zones received some funding of $100 million as well as significant tax 
benefits designed to encourage employment in the empowerment zone. On 
December 21, 1994, President Clinton announced the designation of six 
urban empowerment zones and three rural empowerment zones. Another 66 
urban communities and 30 rural communities were designated as 
enterprise communities with reduced benefits. The urban zones were New 
York City, Camden/Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, and 
Detroit.
  Nevertheless, no program, however well intended and designed, will 
work if the wrong people and the wrong communities are selected to 
implement and carry through the program. Much to my concern, the HUD IG 
confirmed my worst fears that HUD's designation of the empowerment 
zones did not likely include those communities that had put together 
the best partnerships and plans for implementing the empowerment zones.
  The HUD IG report--pages 2, 6, and 7--indicates that the entire 
selection process was handled as a discretionary process, with all 
final decisions made by the Secretary. The report raises major issues 
as to whether HUD used a competitive or meritorious process in 
designating zones. The report is clear that if a competitive process 
was used, there is no record of the decisionmaking.
  This is no way to run a program. Cities and localities exerted 
tremendous energy to forge partnerships and leverage local funding to 
put the best empowerment zone plan forward. These cities and localities 
believed that their applications would be considered on a level playing 
field.
  I have heard reports that many of the designated empowerment zones 
have not performed well, that projected partnerships have faded and 
that

[[Page S9824]]

groups in some cities are having a food fight over the funding and the 
benefits. I know that major concerns have been raised with respect to 
the empowerment zones in Camden/Phillie and New York City. I think that 
it is time that we revisit and audit the current status of empowerment 
zones. If Federal dollars are being misused or abused, we need to find 
out, and we need to ensure that HUD is doing its job in preventing 
abuses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I note that Kansas City got an empowerment 
zone as well. But there were many questions raised in it. I have no 
further debate on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5181) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5182

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to convey 
       certain real property to the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration. This amendment is offered on behalf of 
Senator Shelby. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5182.

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

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 108. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may convey, 
     without consideration, to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama (in 
     this section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, including any improvements thereon, in the 
     northwest quarter of section 28 township 21 south, range 9 
     west, of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, comprising a portion of 
     the grounds of the Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
     center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and consisting of approximately 
     9.42 acres, more or less.
       (b) The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to 
     the condition that the City use the real property conveyed 
     under that subsection in perpetuity solely for public park or 
     recreational purposes.
       (c) The exact acreage and legal description of the real 
     property to be conveyed pursuant to this section shall be 
     determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs. The cost of such survey shall be borne by 
     the City.
       (d) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may require such 
     additional terms and conditions in connection with the 
     conveyance under this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

  Mr. BOND. I do not believe this is controversial. It provides 
permissive authority to the Veterans' Administration to transfer lands 
to the city of Tuscaloosa, AL, for a recreational facility.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we consulted with the Veterans' 
Administration, and they have advised us they also concur with the 
amendment. I do so and therefore urge that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 5182) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                    Amendment No. 5176, As Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be amendment 
No. 5176, the McCain amendment on the Federal Emergency Management Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I send to the 
desk a modification. This modification makes one small change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 75, line 10, after the word ``expended'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That no money appropriated for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency may be expended for the 
     repair of yacht harbors or golf courses except for debris 
     removal; Provided further, That no money appropriated for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency may be expended for tree 
     or shrub replacement except in public parks; Provided 
     further, That any funds used for repair of any recreational 
     facilities shall be limited to debris removal and the repair 
     of recreational buildings only.''

  Mr. BOND. This change, after much intensive work, and extensive staff 
discussion and thought, changes the word ``marinas'' to ``yacht 
harbors,'' which I think satisfies the concerns that were raised in the 
discussion of the McCain amendment. I believe it is agreeable on both 
sides.
  As I stated in the discussion of it, this is just the beginning of 
what needs to be a major review of the limitations on disaster relief 
for recreational and landscape facilities, a part of the process that 
the FEMA IG has said must be undertaken. FEMA has agreed to undertake 
it, and we may be revisiting this in conference. Certainly we will work 
with the authorizing committees afterward to get a much better control 
over the expenditures of disaster relief money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, Mr. President, the modification was made 
at my request. As the Senator knows, marinas in many instances are 
small businesses and are the equivalent in my State of family farms or 
small ranches. So we thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in modifying 
it. We do support the amendment because it is based on an IG report. We 
think it really brings an important discipline to the FEMA program. We 
can fund disasters but we cannot create a budget disaster for 
ourselves. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the McCain amendment as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5176), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5183

   (Purpose: Deletes EPA language relating to funds appropriated for 
   drinking water state revolving funds. This language is no longer 
 necessary given the enactment of drinking water state revolving fund 
                              legislation)

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

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5183.

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

       On page 72, beginning on line 11, strike the phrase 
     beginning with ``, but if no drinking water'' and ending with 
     ``as amended'' on line 15.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical amendment. It 
is cleared on both sides. It simply deletes a provision that we carried 
in the bill when it was reported out of the Appropriations Committee at 
that time. The drinking water legislation had not been enacted. It 
obviously has now been enacted and signed into law. So we delete the 
provision, and with the enactment of the drinking water legislation, 
this language is no longer necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with Senator Bond's amendment 
and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5183) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S9825]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 5184

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Bennett and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Bennett, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5184.

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

       At the appropriate place insert:

     SEC.   . GAO AUDIT ON STAFFING AND CONTRACTING.

       The Comptroller General shall audit the operations of the 
     Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight concerning 
     staff organization, expertise, capacity, and contracting 
     authority to ensure that the office resources and contract 
     authority are adequate and that they are being used 
     appropriately to ensure that the Federal National Mortgage 
     Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
     are adequately capitalized and operating safely.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to add an amendment to H.R. 
3666 which will emphasize my concern about the multiyear delay of a 
scheduled GAO audit of the OFHEO, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight. OFHEO is required by statute to create an effective review 
process to, in effect, ensure the fiscal safety and soundness of 
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Quite frankly, it concerned me when I was 
informed that OFHEO was, in turn, several years behind schedule in 
producing a model to oversee these two important housing enterprises.
  I continue to be concerned that mission creep may take hold of this 
regulator. Trips abroad to consult with other countries on how to 
regulate their housing enterprises should be curtailed until our own 
regulator is up and running. Therefore, it is my intent to refocus the 
GAO report to make sure OFHEO is still on track, and that it continues 
to focus all of its efforts on completing its very important mission. 
It is my intent to make sure that before OFHEO grows any larger, it is 
on track with a clear vision of its goals and responsibilities.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Bennett has been a leader in this 
area in attempting to develop adequate oversight of the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
  He directs that the Comptroller General audit the operations to 
ensure that the office resource's contract authority are adequate, they 
are being used appropriately to ensure that the Federal National 
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the amendment as offered by 
the Senator from Utah. He raised this very important issue during our 
hearings and was concerned very much about mission creep in this Office 
of Federal Housing and Enterprise Oversight. It was his intent, as it 
is ours, that it focus on ensuring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have 
fiscal safety and soundness. It was not meant to take foreign trips and 
see how the world is doing this. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been 
around. It is our job to make sure that they are not only around, but 
are safe and sound and ready to do the job. We want to make sure they 
are fit for duty.
  I support the Bennett amendment as offered by Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5184) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5185

  (Purpose: To prohibit the consolidation of NASA aircraft at Dryden 
                  Flight Research Center, California)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Sarbanes, Senator Warner, Senator Feinstein and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Sarbanes, 
     for himself, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5185.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 104, below line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration by this Act, or any other Act enacted before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, may be used by the 
     Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to relocate aircraft of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration to Dryden Flight 
     Research Center, California, for purposes of the 
     consolidation of such aircraft.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. This is a very straightforward amendment, Mr. 
President. What it does is preclude that no Federal funds be spent in 
consolidating NASA aeronautics facilities at Dryden Air Force Base. We 
feel NASA's proposal to do this is premature. Questions have been 
raised about the NASA proposal by the inspector general. We have been 
consulting with NASA about this and have lacked clarity from NASA in 
terms of what its future intent is.
  It is one thing, I think, to talk about consolidation, but the IG 
raises many yellow flashing lights. So for now we wish to prohibit the 
consolidation until NASA comes forward with justification that then 
meets the requirements established by Senator Sarbanes, myself, Senator 
Warner, and Senator Feinstein.
  We hope this can be resolved before conference. In the meantime, we 
support the fact that none of the funds be used by the Administrator to 
relocate aircraft of NASA to Dryden.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has been concerned 
and has been very active in bringing these matters to our attention. I 
do agree we will look at this very carefully prior to conference. We 
want to work with NASA to make sure that steps they are taking are, 
indeed, efficient, effective and could not cause any unnecessary 
dislocation or hardship.
  Since there are a number of colleagues who have expressed great 
interest in this, we will attempt to learn more about it prior to the 
conference. We strongly support the amendment in the current form, and 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5185) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5179

  (Purpose: To amend provision appropriating monies to the Council on 
       Environmental Quality to the level approved by the House)

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 5179.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5179.
       In title III, at the end of the subchapter entitled: 
     Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 
     Quality, strike ``$2,436,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$2,250,000.''

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an amendment, obviously, that 
decreases the funding level for the Council of Environmental Quality in 
the amount of funding that was passed by the House, and I rise to 
discuss this.
  This amendment is offered largely because of what I think is the 
unfortunate changes that have taken place in CEQ during the Clinton 
administration. Congress established this council, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, to facilitate the implementation of NEPA and 
to coordinate the environmental activities of the executive branch.
  Congress envisioned CEQ as a technical resource for Federal agencies 
that were confronted with questions about NEPA. Unfortunately, the 
intention and reality have diverged under the Clinton administration. 
CEQ has

[[Page S9826]]

not fulfilled the statutory mandates of NEPA, nor many of the promises 
which the chairman made to this Congress. I happened to be involved 
with the committee hearings last year on the confirmation of this 
chairman, and we talked a lot about how we were going to work together.
  Instead, CEQ has been actively engaged in partisan kinds of things 
with respect to those issues before the Congress. CEQ has not done many 
of the things that have been prescribed under the law. NEPA requires 
CEQ to provide an annual quarterly report--annual. The last report 
prepared was completed 3 years ago, in 1993, and that report remains 
the only report CEQ has prepared under the Clinton administration 
despite the statutory mandate.
  In that report, CEQ promised a handbook to facilitate Agency 
compliance of NEPA. This handbook still has not been drafted, let alone 
published for Agency use. CEQ promised the Congress a comprehensive 
study of NEPA's effectiveness at the end of 1995. CEQ's effectiveness 
study has still not been finalized despite repeated assurances that it 
would be. They promised Congress it would assist the Forest Service in 
streamlining the Agency's issuance of grazing permits. After some 
initial progress, there has not been a meeting between the Forest 
Service and CEQ in 6 months.
  Last November, Senator Craig and I sent a detailed letter to Ms. 
McGinty, the chairman, suggesting reform to NEPA, compliance at the 
Forest Service. Other than an initial ``thank you'' for the letter, we 
have not heard anything about those suggestions.
  This lack of followup is all too common at the CEQ and indicative of 
an Agency which apparently has lost its way. Things CEQ has been doing 
under the administration, CEQ has been involved in every timber sale 
which has occurred in national forests, been involved in the northern 
spotted owl debate in the Pacific Northwest, and now injected itself 
into the California spotted owl.
  Ms. McGinty has taken up a number of things that are basically 
political, propaganda, including grazing, and has characterized the 
Public Rangeland Management Act, passed by this Senate, as a special 
interest give-away; lambasted the Republican platform as full of 
``anti-environmental language,'' such as private property rights and 
streamlining regulations, despite the fact that in the hearings she 
indicated that is what we ought to do, make it simpler and streamline.
  On timber salvage legislation, House Members have written to the 
President complaining about mischaracterization of the law.
  Mr. President, I guess I use this opportunity to talk a little bit 
about something that bothers me a great deal.
  I am very much interested in the kinds of things that go on in the 
environment and very much interested in the kinds of things that go on 
in the West. I am very much interested in trying to simplify and make 
more effective NEPA and some of the other activities that relate to 
that. I think that this has not been done. I think it should be done. 
There needs to be a wake-up call to that committee. Perhaps this will 
be that.
  Rather than pursue it, however, in view of the time and things we are 
doing, I will withdraw my amendment. But I do want to have this 
opportunity to say that I think we need to do something differently. 
There are great opportunities for this committee to be effective and to 
bring about less rhetoric and more action.
  So, Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for this 
opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn, 
and I will continue to work with it in the conference committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5179) was withdrawn.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to comment before the Senator 
from Wyoming leaves the floor. I thank him for withdrawing the 
amendment rather than embroiling us in controversy. I want to 
acknowledge the concerns that he has raised, and I respect them. As we 
move toward conference, perhaps there is report language or something 
that prods EPA in the direction to be more responsive to Members' 
inquiries and that the focus of the agency is to review environmental 
legislation and comment on it from that perspective and not be a 
propaganda machine. I acknowledge the validity of that.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Maryland, and I look forward to 
further discussion.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me add my thanks, also, to the Senator 
from Wyoming for allowing us to move past that particular amendment. We 
have worked very hard to avoid some of the controversies. We are not 
going to avoid all of them. But we did understand what he said and the 
concerns he has. We have heard others raise those concerns. We will 
work with him and other Members to try to resolve those concerns. We 
very much appreciate his consideration in withdrawing the amendment.


                       fema audit of kauai county

  Mr. INOUYE. I wish to raise an issue of concern with the managers of 
the bill. It relates to the direction of an audit conducted by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's [FEMA] inspector general on the 
county of Kauai and the State of Hawaii on the damages caused by 
Hurricane Iniki. It looks to undo insurance settlements, sanctioned by 
FEMA and agreed upon 4 years ago. In doing so, the inspector general 
would renege on funding commitments FEMA previously made, thereby 
leaving the county with outstanding obligations and in debt. The State 
of Hawaii voluntarily purchased insurance over that which was required 
after Hurricane Iwa hit in 1981. To now second guess the county's 
settlement with its insurance carriers, and then use it as the basis 
for denying previously approved damage survey reports [DSR's] is 
without precedent. It is a disincentive for States and cities to insure 
themselves against natural disasters. FEMA is wrongly penalizing a 
State for its good faith effort to minimize future losses and reduce 
the expenditure of Federal funds. There are currently no clear 
guidelines in the Stafford Act.
  Mr. BOND. As the Senator from Hawaii knows, I support efforts to 
improve controls on disaster relief expenditures. However, I am 
sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Senator. I understand that 
the county of Kauai and the State of Hawaii are concerned with a FEMA 
IG's audit report regarding damages caused by Hurricane Iniki, and I 
encourage FEMA to reach a resolution in which FEMA ensures that the 
county and State are reimbursed for all eligible costs resulting from 
the 1992 event. The committee also directs FEMA to provide its policy 
justifications and recommendations regarding this matter. Finally, I 
believe that FEMA's policies should do everything to encourage, not 
discourage, States for efforts to minimize future losses and reduce the 
expenditure of Federal funds, such as strong insurance requirements.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I join Chairman Bond in encouraging FEMA to reach a 
resolution in which FEMA ensures that the county of Kauai and the State 
of Hawaii are reimbursed for all eligible costs resulting from 
Hurricane Iniki. I also support the chairman's effort in directing FEMA 
to provide its policy justifications and recommendations on this 
matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the managers of the bill for your assistance in 
this matter.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI: Mr. President, I am here today because the people of 
Alaska face a very serious problem. But, unlike other times when we 
face problems and find solutions, in this case the solution may be even 
worse. I'm referring to the use of oxygenated fuels to reduce the 
emissions of carbon monoxide. These alternative fuels are required by 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Alaska has two areas where carbon 
monoxide levels are above those required by the law. But when we tried 
using gasoline treated with ether-based oxygenates, the people of 
Alaska became ill. Headaches, coughs, nausea, as well as other 
ailments, all resulted from exposure to these fuel additives.
  Additionally, study after scientific study shows, oxygenated fuel 
doesn't reduce carbon monoxide levels in the extreme cold of Alaska. 
This finding was recently reinforced by a report of the National 
Research Council [NRC].

[[Page S9827]]

The NRC recognized that oxygenated fuels decrease carbon monoxide 
emissions under Federal test procedure conditions using fuel-control 
systems, but also stated that ``* * * the data presented do not 
establish the existence of this benefit under winter driving 
conditions.'' And oxygenates increase the costs of gasoline for the 
average working Alaskan. In sum, Mr. President, no environmental 
benefit, adverse health effects, and higher fuel costs. This is not the 
solution the Clean Air Act intended.
  I am pleased to be here with my friend Senator Bond from Missouri and 
my friend Senator Faircloth from North Carolina to discuss this issue 
today. In previous years, the VA/HUD Appropriation Act has included 
language that prohibited implementation of an oxygenated fuel program 
in States where the winter temperature is below 0 degree. That language 
was designed to allow time for additional studies to be conducted on 
using ethanol-treated fuel in our cold weather, and to keep Alaskans 
from suffering adverse health effects with no environmental improvement 
in the quality of our air. I had hoped to see that amendment included 
in this year's bill.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the situation facing the Senator from Alaska. 
I know he also appreciates the situation of our committee. We in 
Congress have tried very hard this year to address difficult issues 
that arise over implementation of our environmental laws. America has 
made significant progress in improving environmental quality, but 
sometimes our efforts to protect health and the environment have the 
opposite effect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult 
and unwieldy to address each of these instances in appropriations 
legislation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Missouri, and I understand that 
his appropriations legislation cannot be turned into the Senate's 
version of the Corrections Day Calendar such as we have in the House. 
It is my intention to refrain from offering my amendment at this time, 
but I will need the able assistance of the chairman of the VA/HUD 
Subcommittee, and my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee in addressing this problem. I believe the people of 
Fairbanks want to take the appropriate steps to address their carbon 
monoxide problem. I also think that the administration of region 10 of 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is willing to work with them 
in a cooperative, flexible manner. But the science is clear that 
oxygenated fuel may not be the answer in very cold weather. I would ask 
the assistance of the subcommittee chairmen in two areas. First, will 
they aid us in working with the EPA to craft emission reduction 
programs for Alaskans that are flexible and workable? And second, will 
they work with the Alaska delegation to fix the provisions in the 
statute that may be driving Alaska toward remedies for air pollution 
that don't work?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I will be happy to assist the Senator from Alaska in 
any way I can regarding the possible misapplication of Clean Air Act 
requirements. The citizens of Alaska should not be forced to accede to 
a regulatory scheme which imposes significant additional costs, has no 
discernable health or environmental benefit, and may actually be 
creating harmful health effects. Together with the EPA, we can work to 
fix this situation for the people of Alaska and those similarly 
situated in other parts of the country.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Alaska can count on any assistance I may 
be able to provide as he seeks a solution of this problem for his 
affected constituents.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues and I thank the Chair.


               Clean Lakes Program Funding in EPA Budget

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Clean Lakes Program, administered by 
EPA under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act, is in serious jeopardy. 
For many years, this valuable program helped define the causes and 
extent of pollution problems in our Nation's lakes. States used program 
grants to implement effective treatments to restore environmentally 
degraded lakes, and to guard against future damage.
  Nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a 
lake, with a combined economic impact of billions of dollars. The Clean 
Lakes Program has provided targeted assistance to these lakes resulting 
in renewed recreational opportunities, increased wildlife, and enhanced 
property values that improved water quality brings.
  Despite this track record however, EPA is in the process of combining 
the Clean Lakes Program with the much larger Nonpoint Source Pollution 
Control Program, Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 is 
designed to address polluted runoff from cities, farms, and other 
sources. The needs of lake managers and lake users are too easily lost 
when forced to compete with projects affecting entire watersheds. 
Ironically, some of the most visible and immediate problems facing lake 
users, such as controlling non-native nuisance aquatic weeds like 
Eurasian water milfoil and hydrilla, are not even eligible for funding 
under the 319 program. These weeds, introduced from Asia and other 
locations, are threatening aquatic habitat, recreation, navigation, 
flood control efforts, and waterfront property values. When Vermont 
found a beetle that appeared to be controlling milfoil, the Clean Lakes 
Program provided funds to investigate further to determine whether the 
beetle could be used for weed control. Vermont's investigations have 
now ended, but numerous other States around the country, including 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington, have 
recently taken up the effort and are carrying on the work. Together, 
this work may result in a cost-effective control method for Eurasian 
milfoil. Without the Clean Lakes Program, Vermont would not have been 
able to initiate the studies, and other States would not have been able 
to expand on Vermont's efforts to solve a national problem.
  The Clean Lakes Program has been highly successful in helping 
individual States restore lakes with severe problems, and then using 
the lessons learned in the process to help other States restore their 
lakes as well. Each State needs the information and experience gained 
by other States to cost-effectively restore their own lakes.
  The Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of preserving 
the important qualities of the Clean Lakes Program in the fiscal year 
1996 Appropriations bill, as the House has done in its fiscal year 1997 
report, by including language specifically requiring EPA to continue 
funding the activities of the Clean Lakes Program through section 319. 
Senator Bond, do you support the language included in the House 
Appropriation bill specifying that activities like aquatic plant 
control, previously eligible for funding under the Clean Lakes Program, 
qualify for funding under the section 319 program?
  Mr. BOND. Senator Leahy, I know you have been a long time supporter 
of the Clean Lakes Program, and that the program has funded valuable 
lake inventory and restoration activities in Vermont and around the 
country. While this bill does not fund a separate Clean Lakes Program I 
do continue to support the language included in the fiscal year 1996 
Appropriations bill and again in the House appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1997, clarifying that activities funded under the Clean 
Lakes Program should continue to be funded under the 319 program.


            robert s. kerr environmental research laboratory

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank my colleagues for including language in last year's report that 
accompanied the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill, 
encouraging the ground-water quality and remediation procedure research 
at the Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, OK. I would like 
to particularly thank Subcommittee Chairman Bond and ranking member 
Senator Mikulski. I would also like to thank my colleagues for 
including the reauthorization of the Kerr Laboratory and University 
Consortium in the Senate-passed Safe Drinking Water Act. The Kerr 
Environmental Research Laboratory is a vital component of our country's 
environmental research. The laboratory is the premier ground water 
research facility in the United States and the world. The work 
accomplished at

[[Page S9828]]

this facility is vital to both the Drinking Water and Superfund 
programs.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising the 
importance of this research facility. The legislation under 
consideration does not specifically reference the Kerr laboratory 
although the importance of its research is fundamental to many of the 
programs at the Environmental Protection Agency. It is my understanding 
that the purpose of the Kerr Laboratory is to develop the knowledge and 
technology needed to protect the United States' ground water supplies 
and conduct research to develop better ways to clean up existing ground 
water contamination. This research is important for the recently 
reauthorized Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund Program.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleague from Missouri. As members of the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee we share a concern that 
the programs at the EPA should be grounded in sound science and that 
the Agency must continue to produce sound scientific research to be 
used in the regulatory process. Continuing and encouraging the ground 
water research at the Kerr Laboratory will not only help protect the 
environment but will ensure that newly developed knowledge and 
technology for ground water remediation at contaminated sites to be 
made available to the remediation industry in a usable and timely 
manner. This research facility is essential in continuing to protect 
our country's ground water resources and I urge the EPA to continue to 
support the Kerr Laboratory.


            epa funding for the sokaogon chippewa community

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the Senator from Missouri, in a colloquy regarding EPA funding for the 
Sokaogon Chippewa community in Wisconsin to assess the environmental 
impacts of a proposed sulfide mine.
  In the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Acts, funding has been provided to assist the 
Sokaogon Chippewa community in Crandon, WI, in their efforts to gather 
the baseline data needed to adequately assess the effects of a large 
sulfide mine proposed adjacent to their reservation. As a result of the 
proposed mine, concerns have been raised about the possible degradation 
of the ground and surface water in the area, as well as possible 
negative effects on the wild rice production activities within the 
reservation.
  I believe that the efforts undertaken by the Sokaogon Chippewa 
community are very worthwhile, and have been helpful in allowing the 
tribe to contribute accurate and up-to-date data to the Federal 
agencies reviewing the mine proposal. Would the Senator from Missouri 
agree that this project is very worthwhile?
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for raising the ongoing 
concerns of the Sokaogon Chippewa community, and I concur with the 
Senator that their efforts to be proactive in assessing the potential 
efforts of mining on their lands are worthwhile and laudable.
  Mr. KOHL. While funding has not been provided specifically for the 
Sokaogon Chippewa in the Senate version of this year's bill, it is my 
understanding that there are many other opportunities for securing 
Federal funding for this project. First and foremost, I would like to 
request the chairman's strong consideration for this project during 
conference with the House. In the past 2 fiscal years, the conference 
committee has included funding for this project, and the same arguments 
for its inclusion continue this year as well.
  Mr. BOND. I assure the Senator from Wisconsin that I will certainly 
give this project every consideration in conference. Further, there are 
many additional options available for funding important projects such 
as this. For example, it is not unusual for EPA to fund projects 
through the reprogramming of funds from other programs or lower 
priority projects.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for his comments, and look forward to 
continuing to work with him on this matter.


         west central florida alternative water source project

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the subcommittee has generously funded 
several alternative water source projects in west central Florida in 
the last two EPA budgets. These funds have provided critical support to 
assist with the development of new technologies and applications to 
help ensure that the fastest growing State in the country will be able 
to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for water for potable, 
agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. The subcommittee's 
support for these programs has been greatly appreciated as Senator 
Graham and I have been working with our colleagues in both the Senate 
and the House to establish an authorized program for Florida and other 
Eastern States to assist with the development of alternative water 
sources similar to those currently available to most of the Western 
States through the Bureau of Reclamation. Although the subcommittee was 
not able to make any funds available during fiscal year 1997 for the 
projects in Florida, I want to thank the chairman for his past support 
and look forward to working with him to address this important concern 
in next year's appropriations bill for EPA.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Florida and 
commend him and others working on this to responsibly plan for our 
Nation's future water supply needs. I share his concerns and look 
forward to working with him. I would note that the VA/HUD bill provides 
$1.275 billion for drinking water State revolving funds, providing much 
needed assistance to every State for such meritorious projects as those 
raised by the Senator from Florida.


                  upper midwest aeronautics consortium

  Mr. DORGAN. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for including language in the report to accompany the fiscal year 1997 
VA-HUD appropriations bill concerning the Upper Midwest Aeronautics 
Consortium [UMAC], a group of universities and businesses which are 
working with NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. I would simply like to 
clarify one point about the report language.
  Mr. BOND. We would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senator 
on this matter.
  Mr. DORGAN. The report language accompanying the bill states that 
UMAC has successfully completed an initial study of the concept of 
converting Mission to Planet Earth [MTPE] data into practical 
information for use by the public and that NASA should give every 
consideration to funding UMAC under a solicitation program for the 
expanded use of MTPE data in the areas of agriculture, education and 
natural resources. I would just like to clarify that UMAC is not 
limited by the report language solely to funding under this grant 
program but can seek additional assistance from other NASA sources as 
well.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. UMAC can seek 
funding from any available sources within NASA, and is not limited to 
the grant solicitation program mentioned in the Committee report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is my understanding as well. I am very pleased 
with the work accomplished by UMAC to date in making data from MTPE 
available to the public. This kind of practical application of 
scientific data is exactly the type of public private partnership that 
we should be encouraging. It has the potential for reaching thousands 
of our citizens, providing them with a broader base of understanding 
and support for the important work of Mission to Planet Earth.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would like to thank both Chairman Bond and Senator 
Mikulski for this clarification.


       DIABETES INSTITUTES AT THE EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL

  Mr. ROBB. Would the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee be willing to enter into a colloquy with this Senator 
concerning some language included in the conference report to the House 
passed VA/HUD appropriations bill?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Missouri and I would be pleased to 
enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague and I say to my friends, we have in 
Norfolk, Virginia, a medical center--the Diabetes Institutes at the 
Eastern Virginia Medical School--which is distinguished for its work in 
diabetes research, education, and clinical care. The Diabetes

[[Page S9829]]

Institutes is interested in establishing a research program with the 
Veterans' Administration to reduce the cost of care to veterans with 
diabetes. The House of Representatives included report language in 
support of the diabetes Institutes in this regard, and I wondered if 
the Chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee here in the Senate 
would be willing to work to retain the House language in conference.
  Mr. BOND. I have no objection to the House report language.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be pleased to do what I can to retain the House 
language in support of the Diabetes Institutes in the final conference 
report.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank my friends from Missouri and Maryland for their 
kind assistance with this matter.


                  ONONDAGA LAKE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland about funding for the Onondaga Lake Management Conference. As 
they both know, the conference was authorized in 1990 to develop a plan 
for the cleanup of Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the 
country. The commission is composed of the State and local officials 
involved in the cleanup effort, as well as representatives from the 
Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
  In addition to the ongoing planning effort, the Commission helps 
support pilot programs to restore plants and fish to the lake, 
demonstration projects to measure oxygenation of the lake, remediation 
projects to address combined sewer overflow problems, and other 
important initiatives.
  Ongoing funding is necessary to complete the work of the conference, 
including these projects. I ask my colleagues to consider an allocation 
of $500,000 for the management conference when this bill goes to 
conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the work being done by the management 
conference, and that we have funded it each year since fiscal year 
1990. I too hope we will be able to set aside funds for the operations 
of the conference.
  Mr. BOND. I agree that we should try to identify funds to keep the 
management conference in operation.


                 sarasota bay national estuary program

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for the 
chairman's support of my efforts in coordination with Senators Graham, 
Lieberman, and Dodd to clarify the EPA's authority to obligate funds to 
assist State and local governments in implementing comprehensive 
conservation and management plans prepared through the National Estuary 
Program. It is important that we do this so that the knowledge we have 
gained since the program's inception is not lost for lack of the 
Federal Government being able to contribute its fair share for 
implementation activities. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
call to your attention the committee report which expresses its support 
for the administration's request for, among other EPA programs, the 
National Estuary Program, and of particular interest to me, ``full 
funding of the Sarasota Bay project.'' As the Chairman knows, the 
administration's request for the NEP is not adequate to support a full 
implementation effort and I would ask for your confirmation of the 
subcommittee's intent that EPA make every effort to make funds 
available from other programs to supplement its budget request for the 
NEP to support CCMP implementation efforts such as the Sarasota Bay 
project.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this 
important issue to the subcommittee's attention and appreciate his kind 
words. We are glad to be able to help with this in cooperation with 
Senator Chafee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I 
concur that EPA should provide adequate support to the NEP, and request 
a reprogramming if necessary.
  Mr. CRAIG. If I might ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations about 
the EPA review of the national ambient air quality standard for 
particulate matter. I understand that there are recent epidemiological 
studies that indicate a correlation between exposure to air polluted 
with particulates and adverse human health effects, and that EPA is 
studying this matter as a high priority.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Idaho for raising this important 
point. The EPA has indicated to our committee that it is highly 
concerned about the health effects of particulates. We have met the 
EPA's request for funding for this program, and included $18.8 million. 
These funds are for health effects research, exposure research, 
improving monitoring technologies, modeling studies, and other key 
requirements.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am pleased to learn that the committee has directed this 
level of funding to EPA for this important research. This comprehensive 
research program is very much needed. At present, there appears to be 
insufficient data available for the agency to decide what changes, if 
any, should be made to the current standard. There is no scientific 
consensus on whether it is necessary to change the current ambient air 
quality standards for particulate matter to protect human and 
environmental health. It has come to my attention that in a letter to 
EPA on June 13, 1996, EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 
concluded that ``our understanding of the health effects of 
[particulates] is far from complete,'' and these scientific 
uncertainties prevented the committee from agreeing on the agency's 
suggested new particulate standards. In addition, the former chairman 
of this advisory committee who is now a consultant to the advisory 
committee, Roger McClellan, wrote the current chairman in May to advise 
him that ``the current staff document does not provide a scientifically 
adequate basis for making regulatory decisions for setting of National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards and related control of particulate matter 
as specified in the Clean Air Act.'' Finally, in a peer-reviewed 
article just published in the Journal of the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, scientists John Gamble and Jeffery Lewis 
conclude that the recent epidemiology studies that show statistically 
significant acute health effects of particulate air pollution do not 
meet the criteria for causality. They suggest that the weak statistical 
correlations of increased mortality are as likely due to confounding by 
weather, copollutants, or exposure misclassification as they are by 
ambient particulate matter.

  As the chairman is aware, EPA is under a Federal court order to make 
a final decision on whether to revise the current clean air rule 
regarding particulate matter. Under the court order, EPA must make a 
proposed decision on or before November 29, 1996, and a final decision 
on or before June 28, 1997. Can the Chairman inform me whether the 
court order allows the agency to decide not to revise the particulate 
standard until there is sufficient scientific basis for doing so?
  Mr. BOND. It is my understanding that the court order only requires 
the agency to make a final decision on whether to revise the current 
ambient air standard for particulates, but the order does not require 
the agency to promulgate a new standard.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If I might interject, the fact that EPA has found 
several studies that indicate a correlation between loading of 
particulates in the air and premature mortality is important. This 
suggested link to human health problems needs to be promptly and 
thoroughly investigated. My objective is to provide protection of 
public health and the environment by designing control strategies that 
reduce harmful particulates and other pollutants form the air people 
breathe. However, I am concerned that EPA may be rushed to judgment by 
the Federal courts before real science has been developed to inform the 
agency about which particulates, in which geographic locations, and in 
which concentrations are harming people and the environment. There are 
many questions that need to be answered about particulate matter, as 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, referred to as ``CASC,'' 
made clear in its June 13, 1996, letter to EPA--to which the Senator 
from Idaho just referred. For example, we do not know the mechanisms by 
which particulates might affect public health. Since 1988, particulate 
matter concentrations have declined by more than 20 percent, with 
substantial future declines in particulates expected to result from 
compliance with existing clean air standards. Moving forward with the 
targeted research program recommended by the

[[Page S9830]]

CASAC is essential to understand the health problems associated with 
particulates. That better understanding of the health effects caused by 
particulates is needed before we can design an effective control 
strategy. I would note for my colleagues that this EPA advisory 
committee is meeting again in early September to design this 
particulate research program.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If the chairman would yield, I would ask whether any 
of the money in the fiscal year 1997 funding for particulate research 
will go to implementing an ambient air quality and emissions monitoring 
program, and will EPA be placing the monitors, or simply telling the 
States to do it? We want to know not just whether this expense will 
bring any health benefits, but also whether it will create serious 
unfunded mandates problems. I would ask the chairman if he would join 
me in requesting that the EPA send the appropriate committees of 
Congress, within 90 days, a description of the monitoring program they 
will be implementing and to what extent EPA will fund the cost of that 
program, and whether they intend to ask for additional funding in 
fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. BOND. Yes; the agency has informed me that it will be using the 
1997 appropriation for both increased health effects research and, in 
addition, more than $2 million will be for initiating an emissions 
monitoring program. In addition, it is my understanding EPA will be 
requesting additional funds for monitoring in its fiscal year 1998 
budget submission. It is my expectation that the agency will request 
the funds necessary to establish a thorough and scientifically 
defensible monitoring program. I concur that EPA should send us a 
description of their proposed comprehensive monitoring program and a 
budget proposal.
  I thank my colleagues, and I agree with my colleagues that EPA should 
seriously consider a no change option as part of its proposed decision 
due by November 29. However, I would add that in view of the potential 
for harm to the public from particulates, a prudent option for the 
November deadline would be to reaffirm the current ambient air 
standard--and thus not disrupt ongoing programs--while moving 
expeditiously to implement a sound research agenda upon which to base 
future decisions.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned that EPA must pay closer attention 
to the potential adverse impacts of changes to the particulates 
standard on small businesses. I am aware that EPA is taking the 
position that changes to the particulates standard do not impact small 
business in terms of implicating the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
because the EPA's standards do not create burdens on small business, it 
is the State implementation plan. As a primary author of the 1996 
amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I strongly disagree with 
the agency's interpretation, and believe that EPA agency should fully 
comply with the requirements imposed on Federal agencies by that act.


                  nasa work force restructuring report

  Mr. GLENN. I would like to discuss an important issue with the 
distinguished Chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee regarding 
NASA's civil servant work force and their collective future. Last month 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] provided me with an assessment of 
NASA's efforts and plans to decrease its staffing levels. As ranking 
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over the 
Federal civil service laws, I was keenly interested in learning how 
NASA was meeting its aggressive work force restructuring goals.
  As my friends know, in the early 1990's, NASA was projecting its 
civil service work force to be about 25,500; however, budget levels 
have drastically changed that projection. Currently NASA's work force 
stands at about 21,500, and plans to reduce it to 17,500 by fiscal year 
2000. The GAO report, entitled ``NASA Personnel: Challenges to 
Achieving Workforce Reductions,'' discusses various steps NASA has 
taken to reduce its work force to current levels. The GAO report 
suggests that NASA should provide to Congress a work force 
restructuring plan which lays out in detail how NASA intends to meet 
its work force goals. I would note that I have heard from employees at 
NASA's Lewis Research Center outside the Cleveland who are very 
concerned about their future, and the future of NASA-Lewis. I will 
continue to do everything I can to make sure that Lewis remains a top 
flight research facility.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The subcommittee is deeply concerned about the 
timetable and process which NASA intends to follow to achieve its 
stated goal of reducing the NASA work force from the current level to 
17,500 by the year 2000. Notwithstanding its civil service goals, the 
subcommittee believes that NASA should maintain the institutional 
capability to accomplish our national aerospace objectives.
  In part due to the severe budget constraints the agency faces, 
various NASA initiatives have called for the following: One, shifting 
program management from headquarters to field centers; two, 
transitioning to a single prime contractor for space flight operations; 
and three, privatization initiatives such as the science institute 
concept. It is unclear how each of these proposals will contribute to 
the future FTE goals.
  Many employees at Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's Wallops island 
facility and headquarters are my constituents, and have expressed 
concerns similar to those my friend from Ohio has heard from NASA 
Lewis. I will stand sentry to ensure that as many jobs as possible are 
protected. I have asked NASA headquarters to explain why their current 
approach is necessary.
  Mr. BOND. I would add my recommendation that NASA develop a work 
force restructuring plan to be submitted with the agency's fiscal year 
1998 budget. This document should provide NASA's current plan for 
reaching the fiscal year 2000 FTE figure. In developing this plan, the 
Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of Labor, appropriate 
representatives of local and national collective bargaining units of 
individuals employed at NASA, appropriate representatives of agencies 
of State and local government, appropriate representatives of State and 
local institutions of higher education, and appropriate representatives 
of community groups affected by the restructuring plan.
  Mr. GLENN. I strongly support that such a plan be submitted to the 
Congress. Further, I believe that for NASA headquarters and each field 
center, the plan should clearly establish the annual FTE targets by job 
description. The plan should also discuss what process and any 
assistance that will be provided to those employees whose jobs will be 
eliminated or transferred. To the extent possible the plan should be 
developed so as to minimize social and economic impact.
  I would note that the Department of Energy has a legislative mandate 
to prepare a work force restructuring plan prior to any significant 
change in the work force at any of DOE's facilities. I was a primary 
author of this legislative provision--Public Law 102-484, section 3161. 
I believe that NASA should take a careful look at how DOE has developed 
their work force restructuring plans as it prepares the plan which we 
are requesting.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator from Ohio. In addition, the 
President has indicated the need for a national space summit to 
elucidate our national space goals. I have been calling for such a 
summit for several months, and am pleased to see the President take 
this necessary step. Clearly the results of the space summit should 
also be incorporated into this work force restructuring plan.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my friend from Missouri and my friend from 
Maryland for their courtesy, and I would strongly encourage them to 
adopt language in the statement of the conference managers which would 
implement the work force restructuring plan we have discussed today.
  Mr. BOND. The subcommittee will seriously consider the Senator's 
suggestion, and will work to implement it during the conference on our 
bill.


 Improvement and Reform of the Federal Aboveground Storage Tank Program

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as the Senate considers fiscal year 1997 
appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, it is only 
fitting that we highlight the need for reform in the manner in which 
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regulates aboveground

[[Page S9831]]

petroleum storage tanks [AST's]. Under current Federal law, no less 
than five Federal offices are tasked with jurisdiction over these 
tanks. The myriad of Federal and State statutes coupled with the number 
of Federal offices administering the various regulations results in a 
situation which is at best confusing for aboveground storage tank 
owners, costly to taxpayers, and harmful to the environment.
  Twice, once in 1989 and again in 1995, GAO has issued reports which 
detail how EPA should strengthen its program to improve the safety of 
aboveground oil storage tanks. While it is true that EPA has taken 
steps to implement some of the recommendations, EPA has yet to take 
substantive action on many others.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We are certainly committed to protecting and improving 
our environment. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator for 
highlighting this issue. I know that his State experienced a serious 
leak at an aboveground storage tank farm in Fairfax County, VA. I am 
interested in knowing how serious is the problem nationwide?
  Mr. ROBB. In addition to the confusion created by the patchwork of 
laws regulating these aboveground petroleum tanks, a far graver problem 
exists with respect to the frequency with which these tanks and their 
pipes are currently leaking, releasing petroleum into the environment. 
Two GAO studies, one in 1989 and the other in 1995, found a significant 
number of tanks were leaking between 43 and 54 million gallons of oil 
per year.
  More recently, there have been countless news reports on tank 
releases, leaks, failures and fires. Unfortunately, current Federal law 
only requires tank owners to report releases that contaminate surface 
water. There is no similar reporting requirement for underground leaks, 
and EPA does not have the authority to respond to leaks that 
contaminate ground water. Just last month, lightening struck an AST at 
a Shell gasoline facility in Woodbridge, NJ, igniting a fire that 
seriously injured 2 people and forced the evacuation of 200 nearby 
residents.
  Although this fire was started by an act of nature, it's instructive 
because it highlights the serious dangers associated with AST fires, 
which pose complex challenges to firefighters, jeopardize nearby 
communities, and threaten ground water contamination. From Anchorage, 
AK, to the Everglades in Florida, damage from leaking tanks has been 
incurred, and some areas permanently spoiled from millions of gallons 
of leaked oil. This problem poses a critical threat to our country's 
ground, surface, and drinking water. With approximately half a million 
above-ground storage tanks located throughout this Nation, this is 
simply a matter we cannot continue to ignore. The tank fire in New 
Jersey serves to further demonstrate the need for improvement of AST 
safety and operation. The future safety of our families and homes 
depends upon meaningful reform in this area.

  I think my colleague from South Dakota can also shed some light on 
this problem. Mr. President, would the Democratic leader please share 
his State's experience with an AST release that occurred 6 years ago in 
Sioux Falls.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly, but first I want to take a moment to thank 
the Senator from Virginia for his long-standing dedication and 
leadership on this issue. We have worked together on AST legislation 
since the 102d Congress, and again I appreciate this opportunity to 
work with him.
  Senator Mikulski may remember that 6 years ago Sioux Falls suffered 
an AST leak of great magnitude. I can tell my colleague from personal 
observation that the environmental and public health effects of the 
spill were devastating, not to mention the costly cleanup expenses 
incurred. We now have the means to prevent similar incidents in my 
State and throughout the Nation.
  My colleague from Virginia indicated the two GAO reports confirm that 
AST leakage is a prevalent problem across the country.
  Mr. ROBB. I want to add that the underground storage tank program at 
EPA has enjoyed a wide measure of success. It is both comprehensive and 
understandable. Certainly, the regulation of above-ground petroleum 
tanks warrants similar consideration. Also, EPA has established an 
effective response program to surface water oil-spills. EPA should now 
place a focus on improving the safety of AST operations and on leaks to 
ground water. This could only bolster EPA's spill prevention and 
response program.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. In the opinion of the Senator, what would be the most 
effective means of addressing the issue?
  Mr. ROBB. First, a commonsense approach is necessary. We can improve 
the Federal program so that it complements industry's efforts to 
improve voluntary AST standards. Some say that industry and 
environmental groups cannot work together to improve the environment. I 
simply do not believe this has to be the case.
  In January, Senator Daschle, Senator Simpson, and I introduced a bill 
on AST's that is the product of a coalition of several industry and 
environmental groups. Our bill seeks not only to improve the 
environment with respect to above-ground tanks, but also seeks to 
reduce the regulatory requirements on industry.
  We need Federal legislation to improve and reform the Federal program 
regulating AST's. This will provide more clear, concise guidelines to 
tank owners and operators, and enable EPA to deal swiftly and 
effectively with threats to human health and the environment.
  Specifically, the bill would require EPA to consolidate its 
aboveground storage tank offices into one office on storage tanks. In 
conjunction with this restructuring, the bill requires EPA to work with 
the Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to streamline and simplify the current regulatory 
structure affecting aboveground petroleum storage tanks and their 
owners.
  To improve the safety of large AST's that store oil, the bill also 
requires EPA to review current regulations to determine if gaps may 
exist, specifically with reference to secondary containment, overfill 
prevention, testing, inspection, compatibility, installation, corrosion 
protection, and structural integrity of these large petroleum tanks. 
Where current industry standards do not address those deficiencies 
identified, the EPA would be responsible for promulgating rules in the 
most cost-effective manner to alleviate those gaps.
  Lastly, the bill would impose new reporting requirements for 
petroleum leaks so that EPA will know when they occur underground. EPA 
should not have to wait until leaks are too large to ignore or until 
they have contaminated an important ground water source.
  I believe EPA has worked hard to implement a strong AST program. But 
I also know that more could be done. It is my hope that our bill will 
not only compliment EPA's efforts, but also allow EPA to place a higher 
priority on this issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would also like to emphasize one final point about our 
AST bill. We are more than aware of the frustration felt by many over 
the development and enforcement of Federal regulations and the lack of 
sensitivity exhibited by Federal agencies, particularly in regard to 
environmental statutes.
  The bill does not exacerbate this problem. Rather, Senator Robb, 
Senator Simpson, and I have worked together to ensure that our bill 
creates workable and streamlined regulations to ensure proper 
precautions are taken to prevent AST leakage and spills. This bill's 
simplicity is its elegance. I thank the Senator for her attention to 
this matter.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleagues for bringing this important issue 
to the Senate's attention. I look forward to working with them to help 
reach some meaningful resolution to the problem at hand.
  Mr. ROBB. I want to thank our distinguished ranking member for the 
opportunity to highlight the need for this type of reform and also look 
forward to working with her in the future.


                                  NCAR

  Mrs. BOXER. As the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee 
is aware, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, is in 
the process of procuring a supercomputer to conduct complex weather 
simulation analyses. NCAR is a major grantee of the National Science 
Foundation, NSF.

[[Page S9832]]

  NCAR published a request for proposals to provide the most capable 
supercomputer for a fixed price of $35 million. Three companies made 
proposals--Fujitsu, NEC, and Cray Research.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the proposed procurement. NCAR initially 
selected NEC, but NSF announced last week that it is halting action on 
the proposed procurement until the completion of an investigation into 
illegal dumping.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very concerned by the possibility of dumping in this 
case. An internal analysis conducted by Cray Research estimated that 
NEC's costs exceed its sales price to NCAR by over 400 percent. 
According to Cray's analysis, NEC proposed selling a supercomputer 
fairly valued at almost $100 million for only $35 million.
  The day after the selection of NEC was announced, Paul Joffe, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce for Import 
Administration, advised Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science 
Foundation, of the strong possibility of dumping in this case. In the 
letter, Secretary Joffe states:

       Using standard methodology prescribed by the antidumping 
     law, we estimate that the cost of production of one of the 
     foreign bidders is substantially greater than the funding 
     levels projected by NCAR's request for proposals. In 
     antidumping law terms, this means that the ``dumping 
     margin,'' that is, the amount by which the fair value of the 
     merchandise to be supplied exceeds the export price, is 
     likely to be very high.

  Mr. KOHL. On July 29, Cray Research filed a formal petition for 
investigation with the Department of Commerce and the International 
Trade Commission. Under the antidumping law, the Department of Commerce 
was required to decide whether or not to initiate a formal 
investigation within 20 days. The ITC has 45 days to reach a 
preliminary determination.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. On August 19, the Department of Commerce announced that 
it would initiate a formal antidumping investigation. The following 
day, Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation 
announced that the NSF was halting action on the supercomputer 
procurement. Dr. Lane said in a written statement, ``It would be 
inappropriate for NSF to approve this procurement until the dumping 
issue has been resolved.'' I would ask the distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee if she agrees with Dr. Lane's view.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I do agree. I especially agree with Dr. Lane's 
statement that ``Acting now on this procurement would be inconsistent 
with the responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.'' It is critical, 
both from an economic and national security perspective, that the 
United States maintain its leading role in supercomputing technology. 
Because the supercomputer industry survives on relatively few sales, 
each procurement project plays an important role in maintaining the 
supercomputer industrial and technology base. I therefore strongly 
concur with the NSF's recent action.
  Mr. KOHL. The committee report, which was filed on July 17, notes 
that no official determination of dumping, preliminary or otherwise, 
has been made in this case. Would the Senator agree that this statement 
is no longer accurate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The decision by the Department of Commerce to initiate 
a formal investigation is an official determination that illegal 
dumping may have occurred. Furthermore, the letter written earlier by 
Secretary Joffe strongly suggests the possibility of dumping.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished ranking member for sharing her 
views on this important subject. I know that she shares my view that 
the NSF is a very important agency and that this procurement is very 
important both for NCAR and the U.S. supercomputer industry.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will continue to monitor this situation and will do 
all I can to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly by the NSF 
and its grantees.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the 
statement by NSF Director Neal Lane and the letter to Dr. Lane from 
Secretary Paul Joffe be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement by Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science Foundation, on 
                       Supercomputer Acquisition

       The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced that it is 
     initiating an investigation to determine whether Japanese 
     vector supercomputers were being dumped in the United States 
     and whether these imports were injuring the U.S. industry. 
     The investigation includes a bid submitted in a supercomputer 
     procurement being conducted by the University Corporation for 
     Atmospheric Research (UCAR)--an awardee of the National 
     Science Foundation. In my view, it would be inappropriate for 
     NSF to approve this procurement until the dumping issue has 
     been resolved.
       In light of the numerous questions raised about and 
     interest expressed in this procurement, I am pleased that the 
     issue of dumping is being properly addressed by the 
     appropriate federal agencies. The Department of Commerce and 
     the International Trade Commission have the statutory 
     authority, the expertise, and the established procedures to 
     determine whether this offer is being made at less than fair 
     value, and whether it would be injurious to America industry.
       I am acutely aware that the National Center for Atmospheric 
     Research (NCAR), which is operated by UCAR, needs state-of-
     the-art computational equipment to maintain U.S. world 
     leadership in climate modeling research. I feel, however, 
     that acting now on this procurement would be inconsistent 
     with the responsible stewardship of taxpayer monies.
       I hope the investigations will proceed expeditiously and 
     bring a prompt resolution to this matter.
                                                                    ____

                                      U.S. Department of Commerce,


                           International Trade Administration,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 1996.
     Dr. Neal Lane,
     Director, National Science Foundation,
     Arlington, VA.
       Dear Dr. Lane: The Department of Commerce is responsible 
     for administering the U.S. antidumping law, which guards 
     against unfair international pricing practices that harm U.S. 
     industries. Injurious dumping, which is condemned by the 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can have serious 
     adverse consequences for domestic producers and future 
     consumers.
       As you requested, we have examined the proposed procurement 
     of a supercomputer system by the National Center for 
     Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is funded in part by the 
     National Science Foundation and other federal agencies 
     through the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 
     to determine if it involves dumping. We have evaluated the 
     NCAR procurement, and have information that we believe is 
     relevant.
       Using standard methodology prescribed by the antidumping 
     law, we estimate that the cost of production of one of the 
     foreign bidders is substantially greater than the funding 
     levels projected by NCAR's request for proposals. In 
     antidumping law terms, this means that the ``dumping 
     margin,'' that is, the amount by which the fair value of the 
     merchandise to be supplied exceeds the export price, is 
     likely to be very high.
       We have significant concerns that importation of the NCAR 
     supercomputer system would threaten the U.S. supercomputer 
     industry with material injury within the meaning of the 
     antidumping law, because the imports are likely to have a 
     significant suppressing or depressing effect on domestic 
     prices and because these imports could have a serious adverse 
     impact on the domestic industry's efforts to develop a more 
     advanced version of the supercomputer system to be supplied.
       Antidumping investigations can be initiated either at the 
     request of the domestic industry or on the initiative of the 
     Department of Commerce. If the Department finds dumping 
     margins and the U.S. International Trade Commission finds 
     injury, the Department will issue an antidumping order and 
     will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to collect from the 
     importer of the dumped merchandise an antidumping duty in the 
     amount of the dumping margin.
       Please let us know if we may answer any questions you may 
     have. I may be reached at (202) 482-1780.
           Sincerely,

                                                Paul L. Joffe,

                                        Acting Assistant Secretary
                                        for Import Administration.


                            lihprha funding

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate adopted an amendment to H.R. 
3666, which was included in a package of managers' amendments, and 
which originally was offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kerry], myself, and others. This amendment will restore some certainty 
to the Senate's appropriation for assistance under the Low Income 
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act, or LIHPRHA. I 
appreciate the managers accepting this amendment.
  Senators Moseley-Braun, Kemp- thorne, Kerry, and I had written 
Chairman Bond earlier to express our support for appropriating at least 
$500 million for LIHPRHA this year, and to note that, within a tight 
and fiscally

[[Page S9833]]

responsible budget, this program remains a reasonable priority.
  Mr. President, as always, I want to reiterate my commitment to 
balancing the Federal budget and keeping it balanced. Balancing the 
budget is all about setting priorities. This Congress, the bravest in 
40 years, has passed balanced budgets and I have supported them. I have 
no trouble finding room within those budgets for reasonable 
appropriations for LIHPRHA.
  I have spoken with Idahoans--tenants and owners alike--who have 
turned to LIHPRHA as a cost-effective way to maintain private ownership 
of low-income housing, to preserve that housing stock, and to keep it 
in good repair. Just last month, such a transfer was concluded in 
Moscow, ID, involving a seller and buyer who care about tenants of 
modest means and wanted to see their affordable housing maintained.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill, as reported, had stated its hope and 
intent that $500 million is available for LIHPRHA in fiscal year 1997.
  But, because $150 million of that appropriation would have been 
conditioned on recapturing interest savings when some owners sell what 
we call section 236 projects and pre-pay their mortgages, the timing of 
that funding stream would have been highly uncertain.
  Such uncertainty would hamper effective decisionmaking in HUD's 
regional offices and would discourage the very buyers and sellers who 
want to keep low-income housing available to those who need it. This 
preservation has noble, beneficial goals. But the current process 
already takes too long and involves too much redtape. We don't need to 
make things worse by making the timing its funding still more 
unpredictable.
  Also, it would have mixed apples and oranges to rely on money 
generated when housing loses its status as low-income housing to pay 
for a program intended to preserve low-income housing.
  Our amendment offers the best of both worlds. The funding stream for 
LIHPRHA would be more certain. Any unexpected surplus section 236 
savings would go to deficit reduction. This creates a win-win 
situation.
  Our amendment is budget-neutral because LIHPRHA simply would be de-
coupled from the section 236 recaptured interest savings. These savings 
would continue, as they do under current law, to go into the Treasury, 
instead of being made directly available to LIHPRHA. This makes more 
sense.
  Chairman Bond and I have visited about this program last year and I 
appreciate his continued willingness to support this program. I know 
the committee has been looking for the best means of continuing the 
program. I hope and believe that our amendment has been helpful to the 
chairman and the committee in this regard.
  Once this bill goes to conference, I urge the committee to do 
everything possible to safeguard LIHPRHA funding. It is my hope that, 
if possible, the conference committee on this bill could provide more 
for this program.
  The $500 million in this bill represents a 20 percent cut from fiscal 
year 1996 dollars. Even at this level, there is much more low-income 
housing ready for sale that can be accommodated by fiscal year 1997 
appropriations for preservation. These are projects for which most of 
the work on the part of the sellers and buyers has been completed, and 
for which HUD has approved plans of action. Obviously, some sellers 
will not be able to postpone selling until fiscal year 1998--if there 
are appropriations then--and will have to sell sooner, without the 
guarantee of preserving the low-income status of the housing.
  I understand there are concerns that the results of this program may 
not be as favorable and economical in every case as has been our 
experience in Idaho. Some reforms can and should be made that would 
make the program more cost-effective. Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry 
are both members of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, 
and I look forward to their leadership in this area.
  I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this amendment, I commend 
Chairman Bond for his helpfulness in this process, and I thank the 
managers and the Senate for accepting our amendment.


   The President's Executive Order to bring Federal surplus computer 
                      equipment to public schools

  Mr. LEAHY. Earlier this year President Clinton signed Executive Order 
1299 to aid in the process of transferring Federal surplus computer 
equipment to our public schools. This is equipment that in the past has 
sat on palettes in Federal warehouses gathering dust and becoming 
obsolete while schools all around the country try to scrape together 
the funds to buy computer technology equipment for their students.
  I applaud the administration's effort to put this unused equipment to 
work in our classrooms. To help support that initiative I offered an 
amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government 
appropriations bill with Senator Murray which reiterates the importance 
of this initiative and urges Federal Agencies to work with the Federal 
Executive Boards to implement it. I also strongly supported Senator 
Murray's language in the legislative branch appropriations bill 
bringing the Senate into compliance with the Executive order. We in 
Congress should be leading the effort to bring computer technology to 
our public schools.
  Making unused computer equipment available to schools is too 
important to let fall between the cracks of the many bureaucracies 
involved in this initiative. A report to Congress at the end of the 
year is needed to ensure that the Executive order is carried out and to 
monitor its progress in bringing Federal surplus computers to our 
educators. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has been deeply 
involved in coordinating the implementation of the Executive order. I 
believe that the office is the appropriate one to carry out such a 
report.
  I have written to John Gibbons, Director of OSTP requesting that his 
office provide such a report to Congress by January 30, 1997. He 
responded by concurring that such a report is needed and offering the 
services of his office to carry it out within available resources. I 
ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 1996.
     Mr. John H. Gibbons,
     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Old 
         Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Gibbons: I would like to congratulate you on the 
     work your office has done to implement the President's 
     Executive order to bring Federal surplus computer equipment 
     to schools. This initiative is sorely needed to transfer 
     serviceable computer equipment no longer needed by Federal 
     Agencies to our public schools where the need for this 
     technology is great.
       Senator Murray and I offered an amendment to the Fiscal 
     Year 1997 Appropriations report for Treasury, Postal Service, 
     and General Government which reinforces the importance of the 
     Executive Order and urges governmentwide cooperation in 
     speeding its implementation. I also strongly supported 
     Senator Murray's language in the Legislative Appropriations 
     bill bringing the United States Senate into compliance with 
     the Executive Order. Congress should be leading the charge to 
     bring surplus and excess computer equipment to our schools--
     Senator Murray's language will put the Senate in the race. 
     For your information, I have included a copy of the report 
     language in the Treasury and Legislative Appropriation bills.
       I believe that the steps Federal Agencies are taking to 
     conform with the Executive Order will be effective in 
     bringing more surplus equipment to schools at less cost to 
     the government and the schools themselves. A timely analysis 
     of the progress that has been made and the problems 
     Departments and the Federal Executive Boards may have run 
     into would be very helpful in evaluating the success of the 
     initiative. Because of the central role your office has 
     played in this important effort to bring computers to 
     schools, I think the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     (OSTP) is the most appropriate body to carry out such an 
     evaluation.
       Specifically, I request that OSTP report to Congress by 
     January 30, 1997 on the implementation of the Federal 
     Executive Order. This report should include information on 
     the progress of Federal Agencies and Congress in making 
     surplus computer equipment available to schools, and on the 
     effectiveness of the Federal Executive Boards in channeling 
     this equipment through the regions.
       I look forward to working with your office to make sure 
     that unused Federal computer equipment is made available to 
     schools around the country. If you have any questions about 
     the requested report please contact Amy Rainone in my office 
     at 224-4242.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____

  


[[Page S9834]]

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and 
           Technology Policy,
                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1996.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: As you know the President has worked 
     hard to ensure that education technology is used effectively 
     to prepare our children for the 21st century. I want to thank 
     you for the leadership you have provided in helping America's 
     schools make effective use of new technology. Your leadership 
     in the Senate Education Technology Working group is very much 
     appreciated.
       I strongly concur with your recommendation that a study be 
     conducted to determine how effectively the executive order to 
     improve the transfer of excess federal computer equipment to 
     schools and nonprofit organizations is being implemented. 
     Within the limits of OSTP's resources, we will survey the way 
     federal agencies are responding to the order and provide an 
     estimate of the kinds of equipment that is being made 
     available to schools. The study will be provided to the 
     Congress by January 30, 1997 together with recommendations 
     about any administrative or legislative actions that may be 
     needed to improve the operation of the federal program and 
     advice about the need for further reviews and oversight.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John H. Gibbons,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maryland support the 
use of OSTP funds to cover the expenses of preparing this important 
report for Congress?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that this is an important initiative and one 
which Congress should support. Maryland schools are also trying very 
hard to ramp up to the information highway by providing Internet links 
and computer technology for students. I do think that producing such a 
report is an appropriate use of the funds provided in this bill and I 
join the Senator in urging OSTP to carry out the report by January 30, 
1997.


            Corporation for National Service, AmeriCorps USA

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Senate's 
appropriation for the Corporation for National Service. In particular, 
I want to talk about the appropriation for AmeriCorps. The program is 
not yet out of the woods. Though the program may be funded, the Senate 
should do so only with continued and close scrutiny.
  I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the President's 
AmeriCorps Program. It has begun reform, but still needs more time to 
succeed. AmeriCorps has former Senator Harris Wofford as its new chief 
executive officer. He has approached me for assistance in helping the 
program to succeed.
  Senator Wofford has assured me that he is attempting to reform the 
program. I think that the program deserves that chance. It is a high 
priority for the President, and I believe that a President should have 
the benefit of the doubt on his highest priorities. However, this 
program still needs to meet the tough standards that the President set. 
Frankly, AmeriCorps has not yet met those standards.
  I want to praise the appropriators. In their subcommittee, Senators 
Bond and Mikulski have funded the National Service Corporation for 
fiscal 1997 at last year's levels. Because of my involvement, I am 
particularly proud of one new initiative to be funded in the AmeriCorps 
Program.


                       Awards for Education Only

  I want to draw attention to this new cost saving initiative that I 
helped to develop. Of the entire appropriation for the National Service 
Trust, $9.5 million will be set aside to award true education 
scholarships for service. AmeriCorps has announced that it is awarding 
the first of 2,000 separate volunteers with scholarships, and only 
scholarships.
  In other words, for volunteerism there shall be a reward of 
education. Gone will be the living allowances, recruitment costs, and 
much of the administrative overhead. These education-only awards will 
help true students go to college. The taxpayers will be rewarded with a 
greater value for their dollar. I believe that this pilot project may 
become so successful that it could become the future of AmeriCorps.


                         Matching Requirements

  Senator Wofford has told me he has increased the program matching 
requirement for all grantees. This requirement was 25 percent and has 
become 33 percent. This means that 67 percent of the program subsidy 
for AmeriCorps volunteers should come directly from the Federal 
taxpayer. This might seem attractive to some, but I have reservations.
  I am reserved because, if there is an immediate problem with this 
target, then the problem could be in the sources of the 33 percent 
matching funds. It seems that a sizable portion of these matching funds 
will come from coffers of State governments. Because State taxpayers 
are also Federal taxpayers, I think that the State taxpayers reasonably 
expect that we in the Federal Government will do careful oversight of 
their tax dollars. That is why I hope that AmeriCorps will quantify and 
reach an acceptable goal for true private sector contributions. I 
emphasize the words private sector, and I hope that AmeriCorps will 
adopt a similar emphasis.


                            A New GAO Study

  In its brief history, AmeriCorps has developed an infamous past. The 
inspector general of the Corporation for National Service attempted to 
audit the AmeriCorps' books and determined that the books were 
unauditable. There has been a lack of financial controls. It seems that 
some people who were in charge of writing checks were also in charge of 
accounting for receipts.
  Last year, the General Accounting Office found that the AmeriCorps 
cost per participant was $27,000 instead of the $18,000 promised by the 
President.
  This year, Senator Bond and I have asked the General Accounting 
Office to conduct another study. The GAO will go out to study the 
AmeriCorps programs at the State level.
  The GAO will audit matching funds gathered by the State programs. The 
GAO will also look into the feasibility of giving more responsibility 
to the State commissions under the AmeriCorps Program. Greater autonomy 
for the State programs is a criterion that was reached in my agreement 
with Senator Wofford.


        The President's New AmeriCorps Initiative, Read America

  Mr. President, before I conclude, I want to briefly discuss something 
regarding AmeriCorps that the President mentioned at his political 
convention. He mentioned that he would like to employ AmeriCorps 
subsidized workers to help teach some children to read. Although 
teaching children to read is a worthy cause, I will say two things 
about using AmeriCorps to do it.
  First, as far as I am concerned, AmeriCorps is still on probation 
until it solves all of its current and continuing troubles. I question 
the wisdom of sending more money and increased responsibility to 
AmeriCorps until it has proven to the taxpayers that it is out of the 
woods.
  The President has called for a massive increase in a program that has 
only had trouble. That plays into the claims of many that the President 
has no real interest in seeing AmeriCorps succeed. To them it shows 
that the President is only interested in seeing it used for campaign 
promises and political commercials.
  Second, I think that if the President wants to help kids to learn to 
read, then he should allow parents to help their own kids to learn to 
read. He could do this by delivering on the middle class-tax cut that 
he promised. With fewer taxes, maybe both parents in a family will not 
have to work full time as they currently do. I think that many parents 
would enjoy teaching their own children to read if they only had the 
time. In short, families do not need more government spending, they 
need less government spending and fewer taxes.
  Mr. President, AmeriCorps has reported that it is attempting to mend 
its programs. I think that the program deserves that chance. I 
conservatively support this appropriation with the reservations that I 
have spoken of.


                safe drinking water revolving loan fund

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of this 
bill, Senators Bond and Mikulski, for providing the first-time 
capitalization grant for the long awaited safe drinking water revolving 
loan fund. The much needed $725 million for the recently established 
drinking water loan fund will provide assistance to those drinking 
water suppliers who are trying to comply with the Federal law.
  There are so many communities, especially small communities, that 
need

[[Page S9835]]

the funding and have been counting on Congress to act. Small 
communities lack the economies of scale to spread the cost of 
compliance among their customers, even though they have to comply with 
the same regulations as large systems. The bill signed into law last 
month recognizes these differences by, among other things, providing a 
funding source.
  I appreciate the manager's recognition of this need and look forward 
to working with them in the future to ensure that this new loan fund 
meets the needs of the Nation's drinking water suppliers.


               YOUTHBUILD BUILDS FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESS

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank and congratulate my 
colleagues on the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their wisdom in 
providing $40 million for the Youthbuild program for fiscal year 1997. 
This amount is the same approved by the Senate last year for the 
current fiscal year, which was cut in half in negotiations with the 
House.
  The Youthbuild Program gives young adults in our inner cities a 
chance. This program offers young adults ages 16 to 24 the opportunity 
to rehabilitate housing for the homeless or low-income people while 
attending academic and vocational training classes half time. 
Participants typically alternate a week on a construction site with a 
week in the Youthbuild classroom, where they work toward their GED's or 
high school diplomas. Youthbuild programs usually run for 12 months, 
after which graduates are placed in jobs or college. The programs are 
able to provide another 12 months of followup to assist these graduates 
to successfully complete their transitions from school to work.
  The design of Youthbuild makes it unique among job training and 
community development programs. Youthbuild places a major emphasis on 
leadership development, with leadership defined as taking 
responsibility to make things go right for yourself, your family, and 
your community. Intensive counseling and a positive peer group provide 
personal support and an affirmative set of values to assist young 
people to make a dramatic change in their relationship to their 
communities and their own families. Thus, through Youthbuild's 
learning, construction, and personal components, students 
simultaneously gain the educational skills, work training, and sense of 
self they need to go on to productive, responsible futures.
  In 1995 alone, Youthbuild programs helped more than 3,000 young 
people to become positive leaders and peer models in their communities. 
There are now 90 HUD-funded Youthbuild programs in operation in 38 
States, and 56 organizations are planning to establish Youthbuild 
programs in their own cities and rural communities. Over 540 community 
organizations in 49 States and the District of Columbia applied to HUD 
last year for Youthbuild funding.
  Despite the program's success, fiscal 1996 funding for this program 
was cut from $40 to $20 million at the behest of the House of 
Representatives. The Senate bill had contained a $40 million earmark. A 
return to the 1995 funding level is necessary if we are to maintain the 
achievements and realize the promise of this valuable movement. This 
program and the young people it serves--who also are the young people 
who do much of its work--need our help. They are some of the best that 
we have in this country and I am proud of their achievements and their 
drive to help themselves and to help others around them. They are a 
class act and the work they do is truly inspiring.

  The $40 million for Youthbuild for fiscal year 1997 will allow 
Youthbuild to enroll 2,000 more young people nationwide, directly 
helping at-risk youth and furthering the development of affordable 
housing for the communities in which they live. It will preserve the 
infrastructure of local programs upon which we can then build and 
expand while steadily leveraging increased local support. I want to 
thank the 38 other Senators signing a letter to Senators Bond and 
Mikulski requesting the $40 million figure and I urge my Senate 
colleagues to insist on this amount in conference.
  Mr. President, I would also like to offer my sincere congratulations 
to Ms. Dorothy Stoneman, the founder and president of Youthbuild USA, 
for her tireless and selfless contributions to the Youthbuild Program 
and to youth across the United States. She was recently awarded the 
prestigious MacArthur Foundation Award in recognition of her long fight 
to uplift the lives of youths on the margins of poor communities. She 
is a wonderful example of how individuals can really do good for others 
in this world and I want to make known my great admiration and praise 
for her efforts. This award is a testament to her hard work, and to the 
youth that are making our cities and towns better places to live every 
day. Her vision is inspiring and her enthusiasm contagious.
  When people say that nothing works, when people say that poverty is 
inevitable, and when people say that there is no way to change 
injustice, Ms. Dorothy Stoneman is there to demonstrate that futility 
is not inevitable. She is a real life hero and I would like to thank 
her for her commitment to excellence. But what Dorothy Stoneman wants 
more than anyone's words of praise is the ability to offer to more 
young people Youthbuild's demonstrated ability to help young people 
take responsibility for themselves and their communities--to rescue 
down and out youths for lives of fulfillment and contribution. We help 
our country when we help these young people via Youthbuild.


 rouge river national wetweather demonstration project and the clinton 
                            river watershed

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers have made 
changes to the House-passed bill to allow the expenditure of $725 
million in already appropriated funds for the new drinking water State 
revolving fund in fiscal year 1996. I encourage the conferees to retain 
this change so that money can flow to the States and local governments 
as soon as possible.
  As my colleagues may know, the Rouge River National Wetweather 
Demonstration Project serves as a model for watershed-basin management, 
but on a very large, very urban scale. It combines all the key 
components affecting water quality in the Rouge watershed, which feeds 
into the Detroit River and then into Lake Erie. Cleaning up the Rouge 
River basin will have a beneficial effect on water quality from Detroit 
to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River and beyond. The House bill 
provides $20 million in fiscal year 1997 for this important project and 
I strongly urge the managers and the conferees to maintain that amount, 
if the final conference report includes project level recommendations.
  Also, I would like to urge inclusion of approximately $500,000 for 
the Clinton River watershed Council in the conference report. The 
Clinton River Watershed feeds into Lake St. Clair, which experienced 
severe pollution in the summer of 1994 that closed beaches and 
threatened the local economy. Nutrient loadings, sewage overflows, and 
zebra mussel infestation contributed to a very unpleasant, if not 
public health-threatening situation. Clearly, something needs to be 
done in this dynamic part of Michigan to ensure that growth is 
sustainable. I encourage the managers and the conferees to include the 
above requested funds so that an integrated and comprehensive watershed 
management plan can be developed and executed. Some of the methods and 
experiences of the Rouge watershed will be very useful in the Clinton 
watershed.
  I look forward to working with the conferees on these items.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that concludes the work on the VA-
HUD bill for the evening.

                          ____________________