Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7824-S7857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998.

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we cannot stay
on the bill. We have a number of Senators wishing to present
amendments, so I am going to propose a unanimous-consent request. I
would note that the discussions we just heard are most appropriately
made in the Governmental Affairs Committee which is doing business at
this time, and I am not going to answer some of what I think were
partisan charges because those would best

[[Page S7825]]

be handled by members of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is
appropriate that we do the committee work and then move to the floor
where we can have these full debates. Right now the measure before us
is the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and there are serious amendments.
I now ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be
recognized to present two amendments; on the disposition of those
amendments, the Senator from Colorado be recognized to offer an
amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator from Colorado going to speak extensively
on this amendment because the Senator from Florida had an amendment.
You might recall, I say to the Senator, the Senator from Florida had
spoken to us this morning.
Mr. BOND. Let me withdraw that unanimous-consent request. I ask the
Senator from Colorado how long he needs on his amendment.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I suspect
we could move on my amendment in 10 minutes.
Mr. BOND. And the Senator from Minnesota would need?
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Minnesota I believe will be speaking
for 45 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I think I can do the first
amendment in about 5 minutes and I think I can do the second in about a
half an hour.
Mr. BOND. All right. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Minnesota be recognized for 35 minutes to present two amendments.
Following those amendments, which at this point I do not believe will
necessitate a rollcall vote, then I would ask that the Senator from
Colorado be recognized for 10 minutes. I do not believe there will be a
rollcall vote.
Mr. ALLARD. I am not going to ask for a rollcall.
Mr. BOND. And following that I would ask that the Senator from
Florida be recognized, for what length of time?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would only ask for 2 minutes equally
divided. I have a sense of the Senate which I believe has been agreed
to, and I am not going to ask for a recorded vote on that sense of the
Senate.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I amend that unanimous-consent request
to ask that, if the Senators would not mind, we do the 2 minutes
equally divided for the Senator from Florida.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say, of course not, and
moreover I would say to my colleague from Colorado, since I am going to
be taking close to 40 or 35 minutes, if he would like to go second
since he only has 10 minutes, I will follow my colleagues.
Ms. MIKULSKI. In other words, the Senator from Minnesota yields to
the Senator from Florida and then the Senator from Colorado.
I must say we really do thank the Senator from Minnesota for his
cooperation in advocating veterans and advocating us finishing the
bill.
Does the Senator want to withdraw his unanimous-consent request?
Mr. BOND. I will withdraw the unanimous consent.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Start over.
Mr. BOND. I ask that the Senator from Florida be recognized for----
Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes equally divided.
Mr. BOND. Two minutes equally divided, followed by the Senator from
Colorado to be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from
Minnesota for 40 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in
our office, Mary O'Brien, be given floor privileges for the pendency of
this sense of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 948

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should
consider legislation concerning catastrophic natural disasters)

Mr. GRAHAM.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer a simple, straightforward sense-
of-the-Senate resolution regarding natural disasters.
The rising cost of natural disasters is a ticking time bomb that we,
in Congress, are doing little to address. Since 1989 the cost to
taxpayers has been nearly $40 billion.
Just this past weekend Hurricane Danny hit portions of Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and my State of Florida. Although Hurricane
Danny was a relatively small storm, just imagine if Hurricane Danny had
been of the magnitude of a Hurricane Hugo or Andrew. The damages would
be exponentially larger.
Hurricane Danny serves as a stark reminder of the ticking time bomb.
We should keep in mind that we are only very early in what is expected
to be an extremely active hurricane season. The time to act is sooner
rather than later.
My resolution would state that it is the sense of the Senate that
Congress consider legislation to deal with the rising cost of natural
disaster head on--before another megadisaster occurs.
What will it take for Congress to focus on this ticking time bomb?
Another Northridge earthquake that comes with a sticker price of $8.6
billion? Another Hurricane Andrew or Hugo to cost the Federal
Government $6.2 and $3 billion, respectively?
Helping our Nation better prepare for natural disasters will require
Federal, State, and local efforts as well as initiatives from the
private sector. My resolution states that Congress should consider
Federal legislation embracing the following principles:
First, people living in areas that are prone to natural disasters
should assume a practical level of responsibility by acquiring private
property insurance.
The problem is that in some areas, especially in my home State of
Florida, it is very difficult for individuals to get adequate private
property insurance. This leads us to the second principle.
Second, the insurance industry, in partnership with the Federal
Government, should develop a new mechanism to spread the risk of
natural disasters minimizing the cost of these disasters for the
Federal Government. The goal of spreading the risk is to make private
insurance available and affordable for everyone.
Third, a partnership should be forged between the private sector and
governments at all levels to encourage better disaster preparedness and
response.
No one is expecting to find a magic solution to natural disasters.
The National Weather Service cannot play like the FBI's bomb squad and
snip a few strategically placed wires to disarm future hurricanes. Nor
can the National Science Foundation invent a way to stop the movement
of tectonic plates and ensure that there will be no more earthquakes.
But the Federal Government can at least begin discussing creative ways
to assist States in preparing for and responding to natural disasters.
That is the intent of my resolution--to begin the discussion. We
cannot continue to fund natural disaster after the fact.
We must take steps to make sure that every person in disaster prone
areas has available, affordable property and casualty insurance.
We must work with the private sector to find creative ways of
shifting the responsibility for the risk of disasters to the private
sector and reduce the cost to the Federal Government.
We must encourage States to better prepare themselves for disasters
and to have a clear game plan to respond when hit by a natural
catastrophe.
In the next few days I will circulate a letter that I encourage all
my colleagues to join me in signing. The letter will be sent to the
U.S. Department of the Treasury asking for their assistance and
guidance in developing such an initiative.
Mr. President, our Nation has been beset by an unusual series of
natural disasters, some of which have occurred as recently as the past
few days in Mississippi, Alabama, and my State of Florida and others
earlier this year in the upper Midwest. This sense of the Senate asks
that the Senate at an appropriate future time consider legislation that
embodies the following principles: That persons who live in areas of
risk of natural disaster should assume a practical level of personal
responsibility for the risks through private insurance; second, that
the insurance industry in partnership with the Federal Government and
other private sector entities should establish new

[[Page S7826]]

mechanisms for spreading the risks of catastrophes that minimize the
involvement and liability of the Federal Government; and third, a
partnership should be formed between the private sector and Government
at all levels to encourage better disaster preparation and respond
quickly to the fiscal and financial impacts of catastrophic natural
disasters.
Mr. President, the purpose of this sense of the Senate is to
encourage those entities that have been working over the last 2 years
to try to embody these principles into legislation that could be
presented to the Congress, that in light of what has recently occurred
they redouble their efforts to present to the Nation an appropriate
partnership framework that would both mitigate and respond to natural
disasters.
Mr. President, I send to the desk the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment
numbered 948.

Mr. GRAHAM. 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 85, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. 423. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CATASTROPHIC NATURAL
DISASTERS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) catastrophic natural disasters are occurring with great
frequency, a trend that is likely to continue for several
decades according to prominent scientists:
(2) estimated damage to homes, buildings, and other
structures from catastrophic natural disasters has totaled
well over $100,000,000,000 during the last decade, not
including the indirect costs of the disasters such as lost
productivity and economic decline;
(3) the lack of adequate planning for catastrophic natural
disasters, coupled with inadequate private insurance, has led
to increasing reliance on the Federal Government to provide
disaster relief, including the appropriation of
$40,000,000,000 in supplemental funding since 1989;
(4) in the foreseeable future, a strong likelihood exists
that the United States will experience a megacatastrophe, the
impact of which would cause widespread economic disruption
for homeowners and businesses and enormous cost to the
Federal Government; and
(5) the Federal Government has failed to anticipate
catastrophic natural disasters and take comprehensive action
to reduce their impact.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress should consider legislation that embodies the
following principles:
(1) Persons who live in areas at risk of natural disaster
should assume a practical level of personal responsibility
for the risks through private insurance.
(2) The insurance industry, in partnership with the Federal
Government and other private sector entities, should
establish new mechanisms for the spreading of the risk of
catastrophes that minimize the involvement and liability of
the Federal Government.
(3) A partnership should be formed between the private
sector and government at all levels to encourage better
disaster preparation and respond quickly to the physical and
financial impacts of catastrophic natural disasters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 948
offered by the Senator from Florida?
Mr. BOND. No objection.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
948.
The amendment (No. 948) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to extend my appreciation to the
managers of the bill and to my colleagues for allowing expedited
consideration of this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
We do not have a pending amendment in the Chamber, do we?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, actually, I believe we do, which is the
Bumpers amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that the Bumpers
amendment be laid aside until the conclusion of the debate on the
Wellstone amendments, and at such time as we take up the ongoing debate
on the Bumpers amendment on the space station.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 947

(Purpose: To make an amendment relating to the use of public housing
operating funds to provide tenant-based assistance)

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I have an amendment at the desk
numbered 947. I request that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 947.

Mr. ALLARD. 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 21, line 16, insert before the period at the end
the following: ``: Provided further, That of the total amount
made available under this heading, $290,000,000 shall be made
available for tenant-based assistance in accordance with
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937''.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, today I file an amendment to provide for more public
housing vouchers.
The original intent of the Federal housing assistance program was to
provide temporary housing to poor individuals and families. Since its
inception, the Federal housing program has grown to become a $25
billion entity.
In my view, the section 8 voucher program is the best means for low-
income families to find secure, affordable rental housing. The section
8 certificate or voucher program first began in 1974 and has grown to
serve over 1.5 million low-income families today. These families are
empowered with the choice of where they want to live and are given the
freedom to determine what surroundings they desire. Section 8 housing
is the preferable means of providing affordable housing to low-income
individuals. Vouchers enjoy wide support including past Republican and
Democrat administrations alike. In fact, the current Secretary of HUD,
Secretary Andrew Cuomo, supports an expanded voucher program.
Vouchers are very popular, which is demonstrated by the 1.5 million
families who are currently using vouchers or certificates. Vouchers
empower individuals and promote competition within the public housing
authority and within the community, thereby lowering costs and
improving conditions for the residents. Vouchers or other alternatives
can be less expensive than the current public housing program. They can
save the Government money and improve conditions for the tenants.
Studies have indicated that project-based housing assistance costs
more on average than the voucher housing program for each family that
is assisted. In fact, the findings of the June 1995 GAO report
indicated that the cost of housing vouchers is 10 percent less than the
cost of public housing. This study clearly demonstrated that on a
national average, the section 8 tenant-based housing is cheaper than
the public-unit housing program. In fact, one can say that the savings
from the movement to vouchers could lead to an annual savings of $640
million per year and could be applied to over 100,000 low-income
families for housing assistance.
I am a member of the Housing Subcommittee which is currently putting
the final touches on authorization language for a new public housing
bill. I have proposed that this approach be included in that bill.
Under my proposal, 10 percent of public housing operating funds that
are distributed to each public housing authority would be made
available for those who want vouchers. Nothing would be required or
mandated. It is simply a choice given to the resident. In fact, we make
clear that any unexpended amounts set aside for vouchers would be used
by the public housing authorities for normal operating funds.
Quite frankly, I really do not know how anyone could oppose this
provision unless they are just opposed to giving people a choice and an
opportunity. The language that I have proposed in committee also would
establish a preference for crime victims. It states that a voucher
would be made available to

[[Page S7827]]

any resident of public housing who is the victim of a crime of violence
that has been reported to law enforcement. People should have the
option of vouchers when their housing is unsafe.
My objective here today is to alert the appropriators to my interest
in this matter and in my strong belief that we should increase the pace
at which we move ahead with the conversion of housing from the old
central planning and concentrated public housing model to one of choice
and opportunities through vouchers.
My view is that, whenever practical, programs should be properly
authorized before funds are appropriated. Therefore, I am not going to
push forward here today on this issue. I will continue my work on the
authorizing committee to get this choice added to the law and my
efforts will be devoted to getting this done in the next several months
through the public housing reform bill.
I thank you, Mr. President, and I now withdraw my amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to-- I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for
withdrawing the amendment. He has described some of the very difficult
challenges which face both this committee and the housing subcommittee.
We have a difficulty of ensuring that those people who are in public
housing and do not have an option or some place to go with a section 8
certificate do not have their services cut. So we have people who are
in significant numbers in public housing. We have to care for them as
we look for better ways. We have worked on public housing reform and
look forward to working with the Senator from Colorado on these reforms
and other measures. I thank him for raising the question with us.
Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator will yield, I thank the chairman for his
efforts. I know he has a tough job, and I respect his responsibilities
in that regard.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Colorado for not pressing for a vote on this amendment, how to use the
taxpayer's dollar to really create not only opportunity in public
housing but also how we can end the cycle of poverty, the culture of
poverty, and for public housing to be a way to a better life. I am glad
the authorizers are going to consider the bill. I look forward to
listening to the recommendations. I know the senior Senator from
Maryland is the ranking member and we will have many spirited
discussions. So how best to provide for the poor, particularly also the
working poor, is, indeed, a great challenge. We do not want to repeat
mistakes in the future, but we also do not want to create new mistakes
in the future. So the authorizing bill is a great way to do it.
I thank the Senator from Colorado for his spirited advocacy and also
for withdrawing the amendment. I yield the floor.
The amendment (No. 947) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Amendment No. 949

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the appropriations
for discretionary activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs in
fiscal years 1999 through 2002)

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

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 949.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 85, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
Sec. 423. it is the sense of the Senate that Congress
should appropriate for the Department of Veterans Affairs for
discretionary activities in each of fiscal years 1999 through
2002 an amount equal to the amount required by the Department
in such fiscal year for such activities.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Mikulski.
First of all, I rise on the floor of the Senate to commend the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies for
restoring $273 million in cuts in veterans discretionary programs, and
to include health care for fiscal year 1998.
Above and beyond this, let me also commend the committee for adding
an additional $92.9 million above the President's budget request. This
is a victory for veterans and their families, and it is a step in the
right direction.
We have been fighting to restore these cuts for 1998. When we first
found out that in the budget resolution there were proposed cuts over
the next 5 years, we held a forum out in Minnesota and, really, the
veterans community was unanimous in denouncing these cuts. We
circulated a letter, signed by colleagues, to the appropriations
subcommittee. We have some appropriators here who are clearly strong
advocates for veterans, and I thank them.
We offered an amendment to the DOD authorization to transfer excess
funding from the Pentagon to VA health care. We did not win on that
amendment, but I thank the PVA, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the DAV,
Disabled Veterans of America, and, in addition, I would also like to
thank the Vietnam Veterans of America for their support.
Now, what we have in this appropriations bill is a restoration of the
$273 million, and adding another $92 million. That is good news for
veterans and their families. Again, I commend my colleagues, and I
thank DAV and PVA and Vietnam Vets and the other organizations for
helping me and helping other Senators in restoring this funding.
However, I remain deeply concerned about cuts in funding for veterans
discretionary programs, health care programs, in the outyears, 1999
through 2002, which were agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal. So
what this amendment essentially says to veterans is: Don't worry,
because we go on record that your health care will be secure going into
the next century.
This amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which says that the
Senate ensures its promises for veterans. It promises veterans that
over the next 4 years, 1999 to 2002, the veterans' medical system will
receive the resources it requires--I put that in bold letters--to
deliver quality health care to our Nation's veterans. As I think about
this budget deal, if we do not at least have a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment, then we are talking about, in the outyears, cuts of about $2
billion from the President's request; or, another way of looking at it,
it would be close to $3 billion from 1997 funding levels.
It is wrong. We know it. This amendment I have introduced for myself
and Senator Mikulski puts the Senate on record as saying these cuts are
wrong and making it clear we go on record that we will provide the VA
health care system with the resources it needs to provide as good care
as possible--quality care, we hope and pray--for veterans, going into
the 21st century.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment (No. 949) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 950

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am now about to send to the desk a
second amendment, which really has two provisions. The first is that
within 30 days after enactment of this act, we get a CBO study that
would provide to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the
Senate Appropriations Committee an estimate of the cost of the
provision in this amendment. The second part is that not later than 60
days after enactment of this bill, the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs shall hold one or more hearings to consider legislation that
would add the following diseases, which would now be presumptive, from
the point of view of coverage: lung cancer, bone cancer,

[[Page S7828]]

skin cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, posterior subcapsular
cataracts, nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer,
parathyroid adenoma, tumors of the brain and central nervous system,
and rectal cancer.
I send this amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 950.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
(A) Not later than 60 days after enactment of this act, the
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall hold hearings to
consider legislation which would add the following diseases
at the end of Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States
Code.
Lung cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer, kidney
cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, non-malignant
thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer, parathyroid adenoma,
tumors of the brain and central nervous system, and rectal
cancer.
(B) No later than 30 days after enactment of this act, the
Congressional Budget Office shall provide to the Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Appropriations
Committee an estimate of the cost of the provision contained
in (A).

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment that
will aid atomic veterans--veterans who were exposed to ionizing
radiation while serving on active duty. Atomic veterans who may well be
America's most neglected veterans. They have been seeking justice for
as long as 50 years and I am determined to help them, and I think my
colleagues are determined to help them.
Mr. President, I want to dedicate this amendment to the brave and
patriotic Minnesotans who served in the U.S. Army's 216th Chemical
Service Company, participating in Operation Tumbler Snapper--a series
of eight nuclear weapons tests that took place in the Nevada desert in
1952. In particular, I want to pay tribute to two former members of the
Forgotten 216th, Smoky Parrish and Gene Toronto, patriotic Americans
who have been my mentors and have fought hard to fair and just
treatment for all atomic veterans.
I want to say to them and their families and to other families's of
atomic veterans that I will do all in my power as a U.S. Senator to
ensure the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them are never
forgotten again.
Before I discuss the substance of my amendment I would like to tell
my colleagues more about the Forgotten 216th because their problems
typify the problems of atomic veterans nationwide. When they
participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper, they believed their
Government's assurances that it would protect them against any harm,
but have since become convinced they were used as guinea pigs without
any concern for their safety. My colleague from Maryland said to me
earlier, and I hope it's OK to repeat this, in a sense it was like the
Tuskegee experiment.
Immediately after a nuclear bomb blast, many were sent to measure
fallout at or near ground zero, exposing them to so much radiation that
their Geiger counters went off the scale while they inhaled and
ingested radioactive particles. Members of the 216th were given minimal
protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure radiation
exposure and provided with no information on the perils they faced.
Furthermore, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in
nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service medical
records, and provided no medical followup to ensure they'd suffered no
ill effects as a result of their exposure to radiation. This happened
in our country. Sadly, many members of the 216th have already died,
often of cancer. Is it any wonder that these men now refer to
themselves as the Forgotten 216th?
Mr. President, my amendment is intended to address some of the
recommendations of the ``Final Report of the President's Advisory
Committee on Human Radiation Experiments'' issued in October 1995. I
had an opportunity to testify before this committee about the atomic
vets.
The report's recommendations mirrored the concerns atomic veterans
have had for many years: the list of presumptive diseases contained in
law is incomplete and inadequate; the standard of proof for those
without presumptive disease is impossible to meet; and these statutes
are limited and inequitable in their coverage.
The VA now maintains two lists of radiogenic diseases, a presumptive
list established under Public Law 101-321 as amended by Public Law 102-
578 and now consisting of 15 radiogenic diseases, and a nonpresmuptive
list established under Public Law 98-542 which includes 11 diseases not
on the presumptive list. My amendment would add these 11 diseases to
the presumptive list, would result in the elimination of the
nonpresumptive list, and the creation of a single presumptive list of
radiogenic diseases. The radiogeneic diseases that would be added to
the presumptive list are: lung cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, colon
cancer, kidney cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, non-malignant
thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer, parathyroid adenoma, tumors of
the brain and central nervous system, and rectal cancer. These veterans
were exposed to this radiation. They went to ground zero. They were put
in harm's way by our Government. They were never told that anything
terrible would happen to them. But so many of them have had cancer, so
many of their children and grandchildren have been born with a variety
of different disorders and problems, the least we can do, the least we
can do is make sure that they receive good care and adequate
compensation.

Why the need for these changes? To begin with veterans must jump
through hoops to demonstrate they are eligible for compensation for
nonpresumptive diseases and, after they have done so the chances that
the VA will approve their claims are minuscule.
Mr. President, to illustrate what I mean, permit me to cite some VA
statistics. As of April 1, 1996, out of the hundreds of thousands of
atomic veterans there have been a total of 18,515 radiation claim
cases, with service-connection granted in 1,886 cases. According to VA
statistics current as of December 1, 1995, only 463 involve the
granting of presumptive service-connection. Thus, if we were to exclude
the 463 veterans who were granted presumptive service-connection,
atomic veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than
8 percent. Moreover, of this low percentage, an indeterminate
percentage may have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to
radiation exposure.
Why the abysmally low percentage of claims approvals? One key reason
is that VA regulations are overly stringent for service-connection for
nonpresumptive radiogenic diseases. Dose requirements pose a
particularly difficult, if not insuperable hurdle. While it is almost
impossible to come up with accurate dose reconstructions because
decades have elapsed since the nuclear detonations and adequate records
don't exist, veterans are frequently denied compensation because their
radiation exposure levels are allegedly too low. In this connection,
let me quote from the findings of the President's Advisory Committee on
Human Radiation Experiments: ``The Government did not create or
maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all participants in
[nuclear weapons tests and] the identify and test locales of all
participants.'' This finding obviously calls into question the
capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose
reconstructions on which approval of claims for VA compensation for
atomic veterans frequently depend. My amendment essentially says two
things. First of all, what we are saying now is that we call on CBO to
do this study and provide us with an estimate of the costs of this
provision, and that is done within 30 days. And then, not later than 60
days after enactment of this act, the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs is to hold one or more hearings to consider this legislation.

Mr. President, my amendment will ensure that the VA fulfills its
responsibility to give atomic veterans the benefit of the doubt in
considering their claims for compensation. This is especially important
because after more than 50 years there is still much about the effects
of low-level radiation that is the subject of scientific controversy.

[[Page S7829]]

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I've fought hard to
enable Persian Gulf veterans to receive compensation for diseases that
may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at least until
scientists reach a definitive conclusion about the etiology of their
illnesses. I've also strongly and consistently supported former
Secretary Jesse Brown's efforts to ensure that Vietnam veterans are
compensated for disabilities linked to their exposure to agent orange,
even though science is still unable to determine the extent of their
exposure. There is no question in my mind that both Persian Gulf and
Vietnam veterans deserve such compensation. At the same time, I believe
that the U.S. Government must give atomic veterans the same benefit of
the doubt. Unfortunately, right now, this is not the case.

Let me give one example of the discriminatory treatment of atomic
veterans concerns, and that is the VA's 1993 decision to grant VA
benefits based on presumptive service connection to veterans exposed to
agent orange who have contracted lung cancer, a decision which I fully
back, but for atomic veterans, the VA still treats lung cancer as a
nonpresumptive illness.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we know what happened to them.
They went to ground zero. They had no protective gear. They were
exposed to this radiation. Why in the world has it taken us so long--
they are still waiting after 40 and 45 years --to make sure they get
the care they deserve and make sure they get the compensation they
deserve?
Mr. President, we just have to do better. Let me reiterate, I fully
supported the decision of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to
recommend to the President that lung cancer be treated presumptively as
a service-connected condition for agent orange. I wish Secretary Jesse
Brown was still with us. He probably was my best friend in the
administration, in Government. He was a strong advocate for veterans. I
am simply pointing out that we are not giving the atomic veterans the
same treatment, and it is patently unfair.
Since January 1994, I have had a lot of meetings with members of the
Forgotten 216th. I have met with their families. I met with their
children. I met with their grandchildren. Let me just be very honest
about this. Many of them are up there in age now. They are elderly.
They may not have that many more years to live. But it is incredible to
me that we have let this shameful episode in the history of our country
go on by never fully acknowledging what we did to them and never
providing these veterans and their families with the compassion and
care that they deserve.
I don't think it is too strong for me to say that our Government lied
to them. I don't think it is unfair for me to say that for 45 years, or
thereabouts, we still have not given them a fair shake. Justice delayed
is justice denied. The atomic veterans are not the strongest veterans
organization in our country. They don't have that much clout. Many of
my friends who were atomic veterans right now have cancer. Many of them
are not in good health. Many of them have already died.
They are not, in short, a strong lobby. But, Mr. President, I am
telling you, I had a chance to talk to some of the atomic vets before
coming out on the floor of the Senate. I had a chance to talk with my
colleague from Maryland, and she really helped me with this amendment.
She said to me, ``Senator Wellstone, if you think about it in steps, it
makes more sense. First, we get the CBO study, and we make it clear we
want that study, we want to know what it costs, so we are not just
putting veterans in parentheses, out of sight out of mind. And then
have some closure and make it clear that within 60 days the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs will hold hearings and consider legislation that
moves this forward.''
For some colleagues, and in a way for myself because I am always so
impatient, who say, ``Well, but it doesn't guarantee the result,'' that
is true, but these atomic veterans have been so out of sight and so out
of mind for so long that I really think this would be a really good,
positive step that the U.S. Senate would be taking.
I don't know whether there will be opposition or not to the
amendment. I hope there will be strong support for it. I really think
this is the right thing to do. I am convinced that if every single
Senator on the floor of the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, had
full knowledge of this history and full knowledge of what these
veterans have gone through and full knowledge of the terrible illnesses
in their families--it is really awful. This amendment doesn't even
cover, I say to my colleague from Maryland, some of the pattern of
disabilities and illnesses of children and grandchildren, which is
frightening to me.
I just don't know, I am not prepared to say what has happened
genetically within families. I don't know. I am not a doctor, and I am
sure there is probably disagreement about it. But what there shouldn't
be disagreement about is that these veterans deserve better. These
atomic veterans are veterans. These atomic veterans deserve better from
our Government, they deserve better from our country, and it is time
that we take action that would be a first major step toward providing
them with the compensation and care which they truly deserve.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from
Minnesota for bringing the plight of this group of veterans before us.
He has made a very compelling case for the difficulties they have
faced.
I believe that the approach he has worked out with the ranking member
is a responsible approach. The version I have before me directs the CBO
to present the study to the Committee on Veterans Affairs within 30
days and directs the Committee on Veterans Affairs to hold hearings
within 60 days. I think that is an appropriate means of moving forward
on this issue.

I thank him for bringing it to our attention, and we have no
objection to accepting the amendment on this side.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what a moving story, what a moving story
to hear about the Forgotten 216th. I am sure that this has been a
considerable heartbreak for every member of that unit who went to
ground zero. I am sure they went with good faith in themselves and in
their Government, and yet over the last 45 years, they have endured
terrible blows from their Government--one, the blow of exposing them to
intense radiation with no protective gear; the second, that for 45
years, the very validity of their concerns about what happened to them
and their need for medical treatment were, again, rejected by their
U.S. Government.
I thank the Senator for this type of amendment, because I will tell
you today, I didn't want to, because of a budget situation, have to
vote to reject them one more time. I think just as you have heard now
from the chairman of the committee, we are going to take your
amendment. We like your amendment, and I will tell you why we like your
amendment. One, we are going to get to the facts about what this will
cost, because too often, as the Senator from Minnesota knows,
compelling human need gets all entangled over cost. This way we will
know the cost. But then by asking the Veterans Affairs Committee to
hold hearings within 60 days, it is a bit of a hammer, if you will, to
ensure that there will be, as in our democracy, a public hearing on
this.
I say to my colleague from Minnesota that it has been my observation
in 20 years--10 in the House and now over 10 in the Senate--that the
VA, when it came to compensation for what our veterans were exposed to,
never acted on their own. They only acted because Congress pushed for
the facts.
I thank the Senator from Minnesota for pushing for the facts in terms
of this situation, the facts on cost, the facts on what happened to
them, and the facts on the consequences to these veterans and how we
need to address them.
I say to my colleagues in the VA, not the committee, but in the
Veterans' Administration, if you are listening to the debate, don't see
this as a problem; see this as an opportunity, because here we can have
one of the most unique longitudinal studies of what happened to men who
were fit for duty

[[Page S7830]]

when they walked at ground zero, and then what were their health
consequences to both themselves and to their beloved wives, as well as
to their children and their grandchildren.
What a unique opportunity for both veterans, the Centers for Disease
Control, and even NIH to welcome these men, to embrace these men as we
try to redress the grievance that happened to them, and the lessons
learned so that we then know what radiation did to people and offer
insights that could help other people who have been exposed to
radiation. So I thank the Senator for his amendment. I thank the
Senator for his advocacy in this area. I look forward to accepting the
amendment, and I look forward to hearing the CBO and the VA Committee's
report.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. I think 30
days CBO and in 60 days Veterans' Committee hearings in considering
legislation moves us forward in a significant way. I thank both of my
colleagues for their support. I thank the Senator from Maryland
especially for some of her assistance in working on this amendment. I
hope both my colleagues will please help us keep this in conference. I
don't want this to be one of those things that it happens on the floor
and then, goodbye, it is gone. I don't want to do that to these
veterans. I think we will have strong support from both of our
colleagues.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 950) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, who
completed his amendments more quickly than we thought. We have
colleagues coming to the floor who are sequenced to follow the Senator
from Minnesota. Since Senator Bumpers has not yet reached the floor, I
ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be recognized to offer an
amendment on her behalf and mine and on behalf of the minority leader.
I think that amendment should take less than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 951

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf
of myself and Senator Daschle. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr.
Daschle, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 951.

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

On page 16, line 21, strike ``$10,693,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$10,653,000,000.''
On page 17, line 7, strike ``$1,150,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$1,110,000,000.''
On page 33, after line 23, insert the following new
heading:

``EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

``For grants to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities, to be designated by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, to continue efforts to stimulate economic
opportunity in America's distressed communities, $25,000,000,
to remain available until expended.''
On page 53 line 22, strike ``$400,500,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$420,500,000.''
On page 55, line 14, insert after the colon the following:
``: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be available for
the America Reads Initiative.''
On page 67, line 9, strike ``$202,146,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$207,146,000.''
On page 67, line 9, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That for purposes of pre-disaster
mitigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5131 (b) and (c) and 42
U.S.C. 5196 (e) and (i), $5,000,000 of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available until
expended for project grants for State and local
governments.''
On page 72, line 1, strike ``$2,513,200,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$2,503,200,000.''

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to bring to my colleagues'
attention that this amendment is Mikulski-Daschle-Bond amendment. It is
being offered in concurrence with the chairman of the committee.
What this does is provide funding for empowerment zones, the
``America Reads'' initiative and FEMA disaster mitigation.
I want to note that the money that we provide is indeed a modest
fund, but it, indeed, enables us to state that these are three
priorities we wanted to consider in the appropriations, that we would
have normally had a larger funding had the budget agreement not given
us such a skimpy allocation.
What does this amendment do?
It provides $25 million to HUD for a new round of empowerment zones
and enterprise communities.
It also provides $20 million for the America Reads initiative at the
Corporation for National Service.
And it provides $5 million for FEMA's predisaster mitigation program.
Mr. President, while this amendment provides funding for these three
separate programs, we must remember that each of these three programs
have in common, namely, that they really do directly assist the
residents of our Nation with their day-to-day needs.
First, Mr. President, this amendment, in providing $25 million for a
second round of empowerment zones and enterprise communities, would
promote job creation and economic development in economically
distressed urban and rural areas.
I am sure that we would all agree this is a critical need.
Unfortunately, probably every Senator here has an area in their State
that is economically distressed--urban, rural, or both.
The first round of the program covered American communities of which
72 urban and 23 rural communities were either designated empowerment
zones or enterprise communities.
Mr. President, what this money actually goes for, though, is job
creation, economic development, job training, and empowerment of local
residents. The empowerment zone is not a quick fix, but it does offer
opportunity and hope.
In the area of America Reads, this amendment also provides $20
million for the America Reads initiative. This money would support
1,300 additional Corporation members who would serve as tutor
coordinators. These tutor coordinators would provide direct tutoring
and help mobilize and coordinate thousands of tutors to work with young
children across the country.
What is the purpose of the America Reads initiative? It is to help
with local school systems to make sure that every child in the United
States can read by the time they are in the third grade.
It is the administration's policy, and I know supported on a
bipartisan basis, that we want to see every child in the United States
of America immunized by the time they are 2, screened and school-ready
by the time they are 6, can read by the time they are in the third
grade, and know how to use and have access to a computer by the time
they are 12. That would enable our children to be ready for the 21st
century.
But let us be clear. It is not the Federal Government's job to
supplant local school systems. What the America Reads initiative does
is mobilize volunteer efforts, provide the infrastructure to be able to
greatly utilize volunteers and, in addition to local school efforts, to
help our kids read. In no way will it supplant local school efforts nor
local school board policies. So it will be one of the better of the
Federal and local partnerships.
Mr. President, also, let us turn to Federal predisaster mitigation. I
note that the Presiding Officer is from Pennsylvania. We have sure
lived through a lot of floods the last 2 years. And it has been
wonderful when FEMA has been able to respond ``911'' to our States. I
know what Missouri endured, what our colleagues in the Dakotas and 12
other States did.
But, you know, some Federal funds used wisely could actually prevent
damage to either personal property or

[[Page S7831]]

small business if we did some infrastructure planning. What this
amendment does is provide $5 million for predisaster mitigation
activities at FEMA.
Last year, we provided $2 million for a pilot program identifying
communities that could benefit from the money and build on it. Mr.
President, this is a modest amount of money, but I believe will help
tremendously in the future.
In California, if we insist that earthquake standards are met, it
then saves money when an earthquake hits.
In Dade County, the officials there have a mitigation program to
protect structures against hurricane force winds.
And in my own State of Maryland, we had a unique partnership between
the Governor of the State of Maryland and the Corps of Engineers to do
a flood mitigation task force up in western Maryland where Pennsylvania
and West Virginia coincide, and, in the area of the great floods,
collided.
So, Mr. President, this modest amount of money would really go a long
way in helping us assess what we need to do to protect small business
and personal property. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,
and I believe a dollar's worth of prevention will ultimately help us
save $100 in disaster relief.
Mr. President, as I stated, this amendment provides funding for three
important programs:
First, the amendment provides $25 million to HUD for a new round of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities.
The amendment also provides $20 million for America Reads Initiative
activities at the Corporation for National Service.
And the amendment provides $5 million for FEMA's predisaster
mitigation program.
Mr. President, while this amendment provides funding for three
separate programs, we must remember what each of these programs have in
common, namely, they all aim to directly assist residents of our great
Nation.
First Mr. President, this amendment would provide $25 million for a
new round of empowerment zones and enterprise communities administered
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The first round of empowerment zones were awarded in December 1994.
The goal is to promote job creation and economic development in
economically distressed urban and rural areas.
I am sure we would all agree this is a critical need. Unfortunately,
probably every Senator in here has an area in their State that is an
economically distressed area--urban, rural, or both.
The first round of the program covered a wide range of American
communities. Seventy-two urban areas and 33 rural communities were
designated empowerment zones or enterprise communities.
There are currently eight urban empowerment zones and three rural
empowerment zones. There are also 4 enhanced enterprise communities and
93 enterprise communities.
Each empowerment zone received $100 million--Los Angeles received
$125 million. Cleveland $90 million--each enhanced enterprise community
received $25 million, and the 93 enterprise communities received $3
million.
This money can be used for job creation and economic development
activities--such as building renovations and infrastructure
improvements. The money can also be used to provide services such as
child care, job training and transportation for residents in the zones.
In addition to the grant money, in each empowerment zone and
enterprise community, employers are eligible for wage tax credits worth
$3,000 for every employee hired who lives in the empowerment zone. The
program is not just about moving employees from one location to
another, it is also about providing employers incentives to help
unemployed and underemployed zone residents.
We are talking about a hand up, not a hand out. The tax credit
provision is designed to provide an opportunity structure, a chance to
work hard and earn a decent living.
Empowerment zones and enterprise communities are also eligible for
various other benefits including tax-exempt bond financing and tax
writeoffs for depreciating personal property.
Mr. President, the empowerment zone program is not a quick fix. Many
of the communities are ones that have suffered for years from high
unemployment, high crime, and other problems. The program is a 10-year
effort that required partnerships between community residents, local
and State governments, and local businesses.
A recent GAO report noted that the zones have made some progress. The
report notes that there is still work to be done, but the effort is
progressing. The key is that the program is making progress and its
deficiencies are ones that can be addressed.
In its own assessment of the empowerment zones and enterprise
communities, HUD notified five communities that they were not making
sufficient progress. These communities risk having future funding
withdrawn. The point is that this is not some HUD program run wild.
There are standards and expectations that are being measured.
Mr. President, the empowerment zone program is a good mix of
Republican and Democratic ideas--tax incentives to leverage private
dollars and community involvement in decisionmaking.
Mr. President, this amendment also provides $20 million for the
America Reads Initiative at the Corporation for National Service. This
money would support approximately 1,300 additional corporation members
who would serve as tutor coordinators.
These tutor coordinators would provide direct tutoring and help to
mobilize and coordinate thousands of tutors to work with young children
across the country.
The America Reads initiative is an administration effort that is
truly worthy of bipartisan support. The goal is simple--every child in
the Nation should be able to read independently and read well by the
third grade. A simple, yet key goal in the effort to ensure that every
child is equipped with the basic tools needed to compete in the 21st
century.
Mr. President, in 1994, 40 percent of fourth graders failed to attain
the basic level of reading on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress. This is a fact that we can't ignore and must address.
Let me be clear, the reading deficiencies of our Nation's children
won't be erased with volunteer tutors. There are issues of education
funding and the delivery of education that need to be addressed. I am
under no illusion that the America Reads initiative is the only answer.
But Mr. President, I don't want us to make the perfect enemy of the
good. The America Reads initiative is part of the answer. A Cohen,
Kulik and Kulik analysis of 65 published studies showed that quality
tutoring programs produced positive, though modest effects. Other
studies done in Florida and England have found similar results.
Mr. President, modest is in the eye of the beholder. If I am rich and
only see a modest return on my stock investment, I may be disappointed.
But if I am a child who can't read like I should be able to, and
someone helps me improve my reading modestly so that I can understand
words on a page, I am probably very happy with my modest gains.
Mr. President, there have been many debates about the corporation for
National Service. This amendment moves beyond that debate. The program
will be funded and will continue to operate. This amendment seeks to
provide some additional funding to support corporation activities that
I am sure we all agree are worthwhile.
Finally Mr. President, this amendment also provides $5 million for
predisaster mitigation activities at FEMA.
Mr. President, I don't know if there is a clearer example of ``an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' To put it in
appropriations terms one might say that ``a dime of prevention is worth
a dollar of cure.''
Currently, FEMA provides postdisaster mitigation money to
communities--up to 15 percent of the amount they received for disaster
recovery efforts. This money is important and necessary, but its' flaw
is that it comes after a disaster has struck.
Last year, the VA-HUD bill provides FEMA $2 million to begin a pilot
program identifying communities that could benefit from predisaster
mitigation money. This amendment seeks to

[[Page S7832]]

provide money that would expand on that effort.
Unfortunately, every Senators' State has likely placed a ``911'' call
to FEMA. Many times, there is nothing that we can do to escape nature's
fury. However, all to often, there are things that we can do to reduce
the risk to life and property. From making sure buildings meet proper
standards to moving structures out of high-risk areas, there are things
we can do.
Retrofitting a bridge in California to meet earthquake standards
costs about $31 a square foot. Replacing a bridge that didn't meet
standards would cost about $135 per square foot.
In Dade County, FL, officials have a mitigation program designed to
protect structures from hurricane force winds. A cost-benefit analysis
showed that for every $1 dollar in mitigation money invested to protect
an emergency housing center, $5 in future damage relief costs are
likely saved.
Mr. President, there are other examples I could site. The point is
that the predisaster mitigation program is ultimately about saving
lives, saving communities, and saving taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment. It is designed to help provide opportunity
structures and economic development for our Nation's distressed urban
and rural communities through the empowerment zone and enterprise
communities program.
The amendment also provides support for the critical America Read
initiative--designed to help ensure that all of the Nation's children
can read properly by the fourth grade.
Finally, the amendment provides support to a predisaster mitigation
program designed to save lives, save communities and save taxpayers'
money.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment addresses concerns that
transcend party lines. It is designed to support programs that directly
impact the citizens of our Nation.
I want to especially thank Senator Daschle for his support, and
Senator Bond for his willingness to work with me on this important
effort. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I hope that we can move expeditiously and adopt this
amendment and make a great step forward in giving empowerment and help
to our local communities.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to rise in support
of the amendment and be a cosponsor with the Senator from Maryland and
the Senator from South Dakota.
As indicated, it has a modest amount of funding, $25 million, for HUD
empowerment zones, $20 million for America Reads and $5 million for
FEMA disaster mitigation. The funding is offset with budget authority
from section 8 contract amendments, and the outlays are off set from
the NASA mission support account, if anybody cares, but it is offset.
And we particularly thank Senators Mikulski and Daschle for working
together to make this a good bipartisan bill.
While the funding for this amendment is modest, I emphasize that it
covers a number of important issues, from child literacy to disaster
mitigation to the economic development of distressed communities
through empowerment zones. While I have some concerns about how
programs are set up and authorized, this, I think, is a very
constructive way to move the bill forward.
Let me address the question of America Reads. We do not yet know the
full outlines of the program the President is considering. I hope he
will send forth authorizing legislation. That is the best way to do it,
I think, is to get legislation establishing the parameters of the
program. But let me say how important the objective is. The objective
is to get people to read to small children, parents to read to their
children. Officials in schools are engaged in teaching reading, but
caregivers in day care centers and elsewhere must read to children.
As one who has spent a lot of time working on early childhood
development--and I have to say that our national award-winning and
recognized Missouri Parents as Teachers Program has demonstrated how
effective this can be--I believe that reading to children from the
youngest age gets their interest, their attention, and their enthusiasm
in the written word, and puts them on to a lifetime of reading, which
will open up opportunities, knowledge, information, and great joy for
their entire lifetime.
If there is one thing that is the thread that seems to hold together
all of the successful programs of getting children off to a good start,
it is reading to them. It is communicating to them from the written
word and attracting their attention to the written word as a means of
communication.
Were we not in the middle of a very, very important process to pass
this appropriations measure, I could talk a lot longer about the
importance of reading to very young children. Let me just say that
reading to young children--there is no finer objective. The money we
have appropriated here is a symbol of the importance that we place on
this activity.
The VA-HUD appropriations bill is a very tight allocation. We have
had to have difficult funding choices. I hope that we made good
consensus choices for what most Members consider the primary needs and
concerns facing the VA-HUD are. I hope, however, that this amendment
will keep the dialog moving on a path to enactment.
With that, Mr. President, I do not see any other Senators wishing to
speak on this amendment, certainly not in opposition to it.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I'd like to congratulate Senator Mikulski
on her amendment providing $20 million for America Reads under the VA-
HUD Appropriations Act.
There is no more important skill we can give young people in this
country than the ability to read. If a child can read quickly and
accurately early in her school career, all other challenges will be
much easier for them in school and in life.
I have been working for some time to bring literacy issues before the
Senate, from the amendment Senator Simon and I offered to last year's
welfare bill, to my work on the Appropriations Committee, to the
educational briefings I host for congressional staff.
Recently, these briefings have included information from Dr. Reid
Lyon from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
We now know from the research that the process of reading involves
several steps. A student must acquire skills in a logical progression,
and in a timely manner, in order to be able to read quickly and
effectively enough to make sense of what she reads. Once this process
has occurred, reading becomes a tool for learning. If this process does
not occur, the prospect of helping her learn to read becomes much more
difficult.
This and other evidence from research must inform what we do with
regard to children's literacy. We must assure that we take advantage of
the political will to improve children's literacy, by putting into
place a national effort that reflects what we know. It must reflect
what we know about how children learn, how important family literacy is
to the literacy of the child, and what we know about how volunteer
efforts work in our communities, among other things.
In order to build a successful volunteer effort, which must be part
of what we do for children's literacy, we need to look at all the
aspects of the effort. In what capacity will volunteers be working with
students? How will the primary reading teacher be involved? What about
reading specialists? How will research inform what happens in the
classroom, or in afterschool or summer programs using volunteers? Where
will we find volunteers in communities already taxed for help? How will
they be trained in providing literacy assistance, in recruiting
volunteers, or in coordinating community programs?
By simply including AmeriCorps in our efforts to improve children's
literacy, we don't answer all of these questions, but we do answer
some. We do call on experience already in our communities--in training,
recruiting, and coordinating volunteers, in providing programs that
help people learn to read, and to gain success in other areas of their
lives. We do call on an incredible resource for improving people's
engagement in their communities, and for improving their skills.

[[Page S7833]]

Literacy AmeriCorps has been very successful in my home State of
Washington, in doing things like setting up talk times for people with
limited English proficiency to talk with one another in English, and
practice what they are learning with other people, on topics that
interest them. Community support is there--and that gives us a great
base to expand on as we look to improve children's literacy.
AmeriCorps has demonstrated success in many areas across the country;
now it is time to enlist AmeriCorps in our efforts to help children
learn to read. AmeriCorps is a much-needed ally in a complicated,
difficult, and crucial endeavor.
Again, I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski on her amendment, and
encourage all of the Members of the Senate to work with us to improve
children's literacy this year.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Let us move for its adoption.
Mr. BOND. I think we are prepared to move to its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 951) 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. 944

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the time has come for us to move on
to the Bumpers amendment.
I will propose a unanimous-consent request that would set the vote
for 5:30. We would ask for Senator Bumpers to be allocated 15 minutes
in support of his amendment. We would ask for 45 minutes in opposition
to the amendment. The ranking member and I have had numerous requests,
and we would try to parcel out that 45 minutes as best we can.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, I have just been advised
that the full Committee on Appropriations is running late, and Senator
Bumpers is running a bit late. While we are checking when he thinks he
will come to the floor, I ask the chairman to withdraw the UC.
I have been waiting to speak on the space station. By the time I
conclude my remarks, we should know when Senator Bumpers will be here.
The delay is only because of the full committee markup.
Is that OK?
Mr. BOND. If the ranking member will yield, I was going to ask if she
would speak. I was hoping that we could charge that time off of the
hour. In other words, if we start now on the debate, the Senator from
Maryland can speak as long as she wishes until somebody else wants to
come.
Are we prepared to do a unanimous-consent?
Ms. MIKULSKI. The answer is no, not for the 5:30 vote.
Mr. BOND. Well, then, Mr. President, I will withdraw all pending
unanimous-consent requests and advise my colleague that I will start my
watch now, and when we get people here for a unanimous-consent, I will
subtract from 1 hour the number of minutes that we have used in
discussion not under the unanimous consent request.
I look forward to hearing the comments by my ranking member in
support of the space station.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I think that is a prudent course in which to proceed. The full
committee markup was delayed because the committee was late going into
session because of our moving ahead on military construction.
I do want to speak about the space station and began my remarks at
the conclusion of the Senator from Arkansas's proposal.
But, Mr. President, before I give my remarks, what is the pending
business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Bumpers amendment
No. 944.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We laid it aside. I
did not know if we had come back to it.
Mr. President, I rise again this year in support of America's space
program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment, which would strike
funding for the space station.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: This amendment is a
choice between the future and the past. The question is, what kind of
country will the United States of America be in the 21st century? Will
we be one that uses technology to help people with their day-to-day
lives and keep America employed in the field of manufacturing? Then, if
the answer to that is yes, we must embrace science, we must embrace
technology, and we must be willing to take bold risks in scientific
endeavors. That is what the space station is all about.

We need to ask ourselves, will we use American ingenuity and know-how
through the unique environment of space to tackle our understanding of
disease or develop new technologies that can be used here at home.
Yesterday, probably one of the most distinguished Americans and one
of the most distinguished U.S. Senators, Senator John Glenn of Ohio,
spoke eloquently about America's space program from not only the time
he rocketed around the Earth making world history but talking about the
kind of scientific breakthroughs that are coming out of our space
program. Right this very moment, little Sojourner is moving around
Mars, gathering important information. We have done it in a way that is
faster, cheaper and quicker than any other space project that we have
done with such a big bang in terms of scientific information. Why are
we able now to be able to move with such speed? It is because we have
made such significant investments in projects like the space shuttle
and the space station.
Some will argue that science carried out on the space station can
really be accomplished more cost-effectively on the planet Earth. This
simply is not true. The science proposed for the station cannot be
accomplished on Earth at any price or at any time. Space station
science requires sustained access to something called low levels of
gravitational force. It is technologically impossible to create a low-
gravity environment for this type of research without getting out there
and being in orbit. What are these types of research? One is
microgravity. The benefits of microgravity research may be numerous,
including new and more pure pharmaceuticals, medical advancements, the
production of new materials to use on Earth, new fire-resistant
materials, new fire retardation. Just think, we might come up with a
whole new concept for building supplies that can make our homes,
schools, hospitals and nursing homes safe for fire.
Others will say, why not do this science on the shuttle? Why do you
need to go in orbit and stay out there in orbit? I want to bring this
point to their attention. The shuttle can stay up in orbit, max, about
2 weeks. We do not limit cancer researchers to 2 weeks in a lab at NIH
to find a cure for a devastating disease. Why should we limit the life
sciences to only 2 weeks in space? Much of the proposed research will
take months, if not years, to complete.
Now, even though the astronauts might come back, the space science
can continue to stay up in those racks on the space station. Remember
what the space station is--it is not a station, it is a laboratory. It
is not a station like a gas station, like a subway station. It is,
literally, a laboratory in the sky that will have modules run by
different countries. Japan, Canada, the European Space Agency, we are
now in cooperation with the Russians--they will be planning part of the
evacuation vehicle, and primarily the control of the station will be in
the hands of an American astronaut. It is truly international and it
will be truly profound.
While working on this issue, we wanted to be sure that we had
adequate, maximum, robust participation from the NIH with the National
Space Agency. We encouraged and then literally brought about a joint
agreement between the National Institutes of Health and NASA.
Just a few years ago, Mr. Dan Goldin, the Administrator at NASA, Dr.
Bernadine Healy, who was appointed by President Bush to be head of NIH
at the Space Museum, signed a memorandum of understanding making sure
that NIH and NASA are collaborating on life science research and also
that we get maximum benefits from the space station.

[[Page S7834]]

One of the arguments that we hear every year is about cost. Sure, the
space station does cost money. We have heard that GAO estimated that
the station would cost $90 billion. That is what the Senator from
Arkansas had in his info chart this morning. However, I want to say to
my colleagues and to those who have been following this all day, that
number is misleading. When calculating the total cost, the GAO included
a large portion of the NASA human space flight budget in its analysis.
The fact is that $51 billion of the $94 billion is for shuttle missions
that will fly, regardless of whether we have the station or not. Those
shuttles have missions to do and they are going to go anyway. So that
figure is misleading. The real cost of the station, which includes
final development and construction over a 10-year period is about $30
billion. No small change, but it is not $94 billion. The remaining
balance of the erroneous $94 billion estimate is life science and
microgravity research. This research will continue, in less effective
form on the shuttle, with or without the space station.

Now, what is the cost to America if we do not do the station? We hear
about the cost to maintain it, to build it. Well, the United States of
America has already invested $9 billion in the redesign of the space
station. What does that mean? The actual work on the space station
means there are 15,000 highly skilled engineering and production
contract jobs directly supporting the space station. There are 35,000
contract workers and 5,000 civil servants who work on the shuttle whose
major customer for the foreseeable future is the space station. And
2,000 pounds of hardware have already been built for the U.S. portion
of the station.
As mentioned earlier, long-duration microgravity research and cell
and developmental biology, human physiology, biotech, fluid physics,
combustion science, materials science, benchmark physics, as well as an
understanding of Earth-based diseases are the core of what is the
research. Biotech, combustion science, material science, and then,
indeed, one of the most basic of all sciences, increased knowledge of
physics. There will be practical applications of what we do. We cannot
list every single one of those right this minute but we do know that we
will be well on our way for materials research and life science
research.
Mr. President, what else do we lose? U.S. credibility with our
international partners. Russia, Japan, Europe, and Canada have already
invested more than half of the $9 billion they have committed to the
space station. This is a great symbol of the post-cold war era in which
former arch rivals in space are now working together to build a space
station for the 21st century.
U.S. competitiveness can only be maintained by continuing the long-
term, cutting edge, high risk R&D that is an essential part to the
space station development. The momentum gained with the June delivery
of something called Node 1 to the Kennedy Space Center marking the
beginning of a stream of flight elements that will continue for the
next 5 years.
And finally, we lose all of the hard work that has gone into this
project since the 1980's and the opportunity to see it culminate on the
first launch, now less than a year away.
Mr. President, we could argue these points all night but I will not
put my friends through this discussion. The bill is already taking a
substantial amount of debate time. We will soon vote on the Bumpers
amendment, and I am asking every Senator to think long and hard about
what this amendment means. I really urge my colleagues to reject the
Bumpers amendment.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge the effort made by the
Senator from Arkansas. Over the last few years when he has pushed for
eliminating the space station from the budget, it has forced us to do
several things, including taking a good, long hard look at the cost and
making sure we were getting our money's worth, to take a good long hard
research look at the research to make sure we could not do it someplace
else faster, quicker and cheaper. The answer, though, is no, we must do
this research if we are going to do it at all in space.
I believe the Senator from Arkansas has made, indeed, a national
contribution by forcing us to relook at the space station and to
justify why we do need the space station. So we thank him for his
national leadership on that.
Mr. President, I really do believe that to vote to remove the space
station now will really be a terrible blow to America's space station.
Mr. President, I am going to urge the defeat of the Bumpers amendment
and to once again be able to stay the course, complete the space
station and move this country and the space station into the 21st
century.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in order to sequence these amendments, we
had advised the Senator from New York that we could accommodate him. I
believe he needs 5 minutes and I need 1 minute, and then we would
return to the Senator from Arkansas for his comments and then proceed
to a vote after 15 minutes, if we would reserve 30 minutes for this
side. With that understanding let me try again on a unanimous consent.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Bumpers amendment be set
aside, that the Senator from New York be recognized to offer an
amendment for 5 minutes, that I be recognized for 1 minute; that on the
disposition of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, that
there be 15 minutes of debate under the control of Senator Bumpers and
30 minutes of debate under the control of myself or Senator Mikulski,
and that no amendments be in order to the amendment offered by Senator
Bumpers. I further ask that following the conclusion or yielding back
of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Bumpers
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 952

(Purpose: To require reports by the Comptroller General on the
allocation of health care resources of the Department of Veterans
Affairs under the Veterans Integrated Service Network system and the
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system)

Mr. D'AMATO. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr.
Moynihan, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered
952.

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

On page 16, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
Sec. 108. (a) Not later than 4 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the allocation of health care
resources by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the
Veterans Integrated Service Network system and the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation System. The report shall
address the following:
(1) The manner in which health care resources (including
personnel and funds) are allocated under the Veterans
Integrated Service Network system and the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation system.
(2) Whether or not the allocation of health care resources
under the systems takes into account the disproportionate
number of veterans with special needs who reside in the
northeastern United States.
(3) The effect of the allocation of health care resources
under the systems on the quality of health care services
provided by the Secretary to veterans who reside in the
northeastern United States.
(4) The effect of the allocation of health care resources
under the systems on the access to health care services
provided by the Secretary to veterans who reside in the
northeastern United States.
(b) Not later than 4 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General shall also submit to
Congress a report on the effect of the reform of the
eligibility of veterans for health care services under title
I of Public Law 104-262 (110 Stat. 3178), and the amendments
made by that title, on the quality of and access to health
care provided by the Secretary to veterans who reside in the
northeastern United States.

Mr. D'AMATO. First, I thank Chairman Bond and the ranking minority
member, Senator Mikulski, for their tremendous leadership in developing
this appropriations bill. I fully recognize the fiscal restraints under
which the subcommittee must work to achieve our budgetary goals, and I
commend them for effectively weighing

[[Page S7835]]

our national priorities with those constraints.
I file this amendment on behalf of my colleagues, Senator Moynihan,
Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Torricelli, because we have in the New
York-New Jersey region a very difficult pressing problem.
I rise today on behalf of New York's 1.7 million veterans, in
particular, to address the expected loss of $180 million in veterans'
health care funding over the next 3 years. What this amendment does is
seek to ensure that the funding reallocation for the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation System, known as VERA, is distributed in a fair and
reasonable manner. I want to respond to specific concerns with the data
used by the VA to determine the allocation of health care resources to
our Nation's veterans.
This amendment would require the General Accounting Office to conduct
a 4-month study, examining the factors relied upon by VERA and the
Veterans Integrated Service Network to distribute health care funds.
The study will focus on the following characteristics which are
significant to New York, New Jersey, and to our veterans in the
Northeast: First, the high number of special needs veterans residing in
the Northeast States; second, the impact of eligibility reform on
veterans; and third, the quality and accessibility of health care in
the northeast region.
In addition, the amendment would direct the Veterans Administration
to fund all VISN's at their fiscal year 1996 level until the GAO study
is received by the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial for our veterans in New York
that the factors I have just listed be considered by the VA as the VERA
system continues to be implemented.
It is imperative that the results of any GAO assessment of this VERA
system being incorporated as soon as it is practicable because, without
such consideration, the New York VA medical system could continue to
suffer grievously. The effects of such a substantial funding cut--$180
million over 3 years--are something that we are very concerned about.
For instance, a loss of VA services seems likely to have resulted in
reduced levels of care. Two of New York's VA facilities, Montrose and
Castlepoint, as well as others throughout the region, have suffered
repeatedly. There are examples of poor care due to their ongoing merger
under this system. Montrose and Castlepoint, two of the hospitals
located in the Hudson Valley, have experienced skyrocketing mortality
rates in both institutions. In addition, extremely poor health care and
neglectful sanitary conditions have also been reported at both
facilities, including: misdiagnosed infections and heart attacks; moldy
suction tubes; patients lying for hours at a time in their own waste;
and, in one report, a man dying for lack of a doctor as physicians
conduct a meeting without their beepers.
Question: Is this as a result of a lack of proper care? We have to
find out the truth and be sure that the massive restructuring and
relocation of resources is done fairly but safely.
Mr. President, we are extremely concerned with concerned the effects
of the VERA system on veterans health care in our Northeastern States.
That is why I offer this amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from New
York as a cosponsor of this amendment out of deep concern about the
effects of the VERA initiative. Not only were the two biggest cuts in
the Nation taken from the two VA service networks in New York, but New
York was selected to go first, to be the guinea pig for the new
program. The results are alarming. Since the merger of the hospitals at
Castle Point and Montrose in the Hudson Valley, 200 jobs have been
eliminated and the mortality rate is up 80 percent. The acting director
of the hospitals said this increase is not significant, that there are
always ups and downs in the mortality rate. That may be, but when there
is so dramatic an increase during so dramatic a staff cut, we have to
stop what is going on and take a careful look. This is not an isolated
example. I have similar reports from Canandaigua and other VA
facilities around the State.
One of the Veterans Health Administration's guiding principles with
VERA is that ``the decrease in overall costs shall not compromise the
care given to its veteran population.'' In New York we have empirical
evidence that this principle has been trampled underfoot. I join my
colleagues in asking that the General Accounting Office begin an
investigation immediately into the quality of care being given to
veterans under the constraints of the VERA formula, with particular
attention being given to the two New York service networks. I hope the
Senators from Missouri and Maryland will support this request.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support this amendment and am
pleased to be an original cosponsor of this effort to require the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to report to Congress on the effects of
the VA's veterans equitable resource allocation [VERA] system. I
support the effort to fund all veterans health care networks at least
at the fiscal year 1996 level until this report is complete.
As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I voted
against the implementation of VERA because I believe it would unfairly
shift veterans health care resources away from New Jersey at a time
when our aging veterans population has an increasing need for VA health
care services. New Jersey's veterans fought hard for our country and
they deserve direct access to quality medical care. I share the concern
of many of my Northeastern colleagues that the VERA system may
disproportionally affect our veterans access to quality health care
services.
This amendment makes sense. It requires the GAO to report to Congress
on the effects of VERA. It allows for a pause in the shifting of
resources, which began in April, until Congress is certain that VERA
will not hurt veterans in the Northeast. If the study shows that VERA
will disrupt health care services to veterans in New Jersey and other
Northeastern States, Congress will have the information necessary to
ensure that these services are not compromised. Until Congress has this
information, services should be provided at the pre-VERA levels. We
should pause and assess the impact before moving forward with VERA. I
hope the chairman and ranking member will include this provision, or
one similar to it, in the final version of this bill.

veterans equitable resource allocation program

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by Senator D'Amato, which would protect funding
levels for veterans' health care in New York and New Jersey. I
understand that the amendment has been withdrawn, however, I appreciate
the assurances given by Senators Bond and Mikulski that the
subcommittee will give this request the serious consideration it
deserves when this issue is raised in conference.
I, and my colleagues from New Jersey and New York, are very concerned
about a Department of Veterans' Affairs [VA] initiative which would
change the way the agency distributes health care funds to veterans'
hospitals. During the next 3 years, the Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation [VERA] Program is projected to divert as much as $148
million away from our region and send it to Sun Belt States in the
South and West, whose veteran populations are increasing.
I have heard from many of the 760,000 veterans in New Jersey, all of
whom have legitimate fears that this funding shift will reduce the
quality and availability of veterans' services in our State. Many of
these individuals, who have courageously served our Nation overseas in
combat, now fear becoming victims of the VA's restructuring and broken
promises.
The impact of this proposal would be devastating in countless
communities across New Jersey. I believe that limiting access to the VA
health care system may jeopardize the well-being and the lives of many
veterans. This must not be allowed to happen.
The House of Representatives has taken a strong stand against the
VERA plan by including a provision in their VA spending bill which
would delay the proposed funding shift for 4 months, while the General
Accounting Office [GAO] examines the impact of this action on the
quality of care for veterans in the Northeast. Until the GAO study is
completed, the VA would fund our

[[Page S7836]]

region's health services at 1996 levels, which are $12 million higher
than the 1997 levels.
I strongly support this course of action, and encourage my colleagues
on the subcommittee to adopt this proposal. We simply need to ensure
that while the VA is providing much needed resources to certain
facilities, it is not doing so at the expense of veterans in other
regions. There is no harm in the GAO doing a 4 month study on whether
the VA's new funding scheme is equitable. I assure New Jersey's
veterans that I will continue to monitor the progress of this provision
as it is debated in the conference committee, and will work to ensure
that our veterans receive the health care and services that they
deserve.
Again, I would like to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their
consideration of this request and look forward to working with them on
this and other issues of importance to the veterans' community.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, both Senators from New York have raised some
important concerns regarding veterans health care in their State.
Clearly, the new resource allocation system has forced some tough
decisions in some networks. I believe this system is a vast improvement
over previous allocation methodologies, and there are some encouraging
signs that more veterans are being served in an appropriate manner. It
may require some fine-tuning. That is why this committee has asked the
General Accounting Office to undertake a review of the new allocation
system, as I think the Senators from New York want, including what
aspects of VERA may need improvement to accomplish equity and
efficiency goals while maintaining quality.
The GAO report is due to be completed, I tell the Senator from New
York, by September 30. As of today, they seem to be on track toward
that deadline. We will work to ensure that they meet it. I think the
Veterans Administration should take GAO's analysis and recommendations
into consideration in making its allocations in fiscal year 1998.
In addition, a subsequent GAO report has been requested, which would
look at quality of care in specific networks, including New York. Upon
completion of this review, VA should incorporate any recommendations
into the allocation methodology.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Bond for his
response. I thank him on behalf of the veterans of New York, New Jersey
and, indeed, the whole Northeast region. I think we are appreciative of
his efforts, and he recognizes the importance of these concerns.
In particular, I am appreciative of the Senator's willingness to join
me in ensuring that the GAO conducts a study which will specifically
focus on the impact to the Northeast region.
I understand that the Senator will join me in urging the Veterans'
Administration to adopt GAO recommendations into its VERA system
immediately. And because of the Senator's willingness to ensure that
the New York and New Jersey VA health care needs are recognized and
that the reallocation system will be fair and equitable, on behalf of
myself and my colleagues, I will withdraw this amendment at this time.
I thank the Senator, and I look forward to continuing to work with him
on our veterans needs.
So, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment, and I thank my
colleague, Senator Bond. I look forward to working with him, and I
thank him for his responsiveness to this need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 952) was withdrawn.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. I assure
him that we will work with him. We are now on the time allotted----
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if I might ask my colleague to indulge me
for one more moment.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg's name be added also
as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 944

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are now on the time allotted for debate
on the Bumpers amendment on the space station. We have invited those
Members who wish to speak in opposition to come forward.
I see the Senator from Arkansas on the floor. I ask if he wishes to
utilize some of his time.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this morning, in my comments I quoted
Prof. Elliott Levinthal, Professor Emeritus of the Stanford School of
Engineering. This afternoon he faxed me some material which I would
like to share with you. ``NASA's present strategic plan is based on the
future human operation of Mars and its eventual colonization, with
projected costs of at least many tens of billions, or perhaps more
realistically, hundreds of billions.'' I want to thank Professor
Levinthal for sending that to me because I could not agree with him
more.

As I said this morning, Carl Sagan corrected me the year before last
when I said he was opposed to the space station. I stood corrected.
What he said was that the space station had some merit as a weigh
station to go to Mars, but to justify the space station on the grounds
of medical experimentation was shaky indeed. Now, I have the utmost
respect for Carl Sagan. He was a much revered person around here. But I
disagree with him about going to Mars.
It is not necessary to have a manned mission to Mars in order to
explore Mars. We have already discovered that. I complimented NASA this
morning on sending the Mars Pathfinder rover to Mars, which is doing a
tremendous amount of research that may or may not be beneficial to us.
Some of we laymen who are not astronomers have a very difficult time
understanding some of this. But in any event, I don't believe we ought
to spend the hundreds of billions that it will take to get to Mars with
a manned exploration, and I don't think the space station ought to be
launched with any--what shall I say--problematical assertions that it
will cure cancer, or arthritis, or heart disease, or AIDS, or anything
else. Almost every thoughtful person in this country who is in the
medical or physics field thinks it is an absurdity to justify this on
the basis of medical research.
Professor Levinthal goes on to say: ``Leaving aside colonization''--
that is, of Mars--``do not be deluded by the thought that the space
station is a useful step for the human scientific exploration of Mars.
It is a poor investment. Exploration of Mars is a worthwhile and
exciting goal, but it can be achieved most cost effectively with
automated space craft.''
He goes on to say: ``I have been involved in consideration of the
purpose of human missions since the start of the shuttle program.
Committee after committee sought to find scientific, technical,
military, educational, and industrial goals that could be cost-
justified. None could be found . . .''
I repeat, in all of the feverish search for a justification for the
space station, whether scientific, technical, military, educational, or
industrial, none of them could be justified by the tremendous cost,
which I said this morning will almost certainly exceed $100 billion.
Dr. Levinthal goes on to say: ``The pressures the space station are
putting on Russian investment is decimating Russian support of
science.''
Now, Mr. President, let me review this chart one more time about the
cost of the space station. Do not be deceived. Do not be deluded by the
way NASA chops its figures up. They chop it up into development costs;
they chop it up into launch costs; they chop it up into operations
costs. Don't worry about that. Just look at this figure right here--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator have expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
This figure counts. It is $94 billion and soaring. We have finally
reached the point where the General Accounting Office, this morning,
says that cost overruns have begun and show no sign of slackening.
What does it take in this body to get somebody's attention? This is
not our money. I hear all these lamentations on the floor of the Senate
about the poor taxpayer out there and trying to send his children to
school and trying to make car payments and make his

[[Page S7837]]

house payment and how we are going to provide this magnificent $135
billion tax cut for the poor, suffering taxpayer, while, at the same
time, adding $94 billion to his tax bill to build a space station from
which we will get no benefit.
If that were just Dale Bumpers talking, you need pay no attention.
But it is every physical society of every nation who has a dime in it--
the Japanese Physical Society, the Canadian Physical Society, the
European Physical Society, and the American Physical Society. That is
virtually 99 percent of all the physicists in the world who oppose this
thing and say we ought to be spending the money on legitimate medical
research. You are not going to get a cure for warts out of the space
station.
Every year the National Institutes of Health send billions out in
research grants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Bumpers
amendment. As previous chairman and present member of the Subcommittee
on Science, Technology and Space that provides the authorization for
NASA, I would like to state my support for the space station program
and the Senate appropriations bill, S. 1034. The Bumpers amendment is
not new. This is an annual event here in the Senate like the first day
of summer in Montana. We always know it is coming but it just never
happens.
Let me start by saying that I support the missions performed by NASA.
Just like the pioneers that came to Montana and settled the West,
exploration in unchartered territories of space is a way to achieve our
dreams of new beginnings, and visions of a better life. This is clearly
illustrated by the excitement generated around the world by the Mars
Pathfinder and its Sojourner rover. Every day Americans wake up to
learn more information about the Mars' rocks named Scooby-Doo, Yogi,
and Barnacle Bill. Record numbers of hits on the NASA website have been
registered. Why? Because the Mars Pathfinder opens the door to our
imagination and a new period of exploration.
This is not the only accomplishment by NASA within the past year. A
rock has been found in Antarctica which excited the world with the
possibility of life on the planet of Mars. The Galileo spacecraft has
beamed back the intriguing photos of existence of seas on Jupiter's
moon, Europa, again raising speculations of life-related chemicals.
Technology is developing, like the X-33 prototype for a new generation
of reusable launch vehicles, which will increase reliability and lower
the costs of putting payloads in space. These endeavors inspire and
expand the horizons of the pioneer spirit of all Americans and the
space station is part of that endeavor.
NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to
undertake civilian research, development, and flight activities in
aeronautics and space. Since its creation, NASA has undertaken a wide
variety of successful programs and projects. The idea of a space
station is not new. In the 1970's, Skylab provided a station to carry
out experiments in astronomy, space physics, materials processing, and
biomedical research.
After its success, NASA began its plans to develop a permanent
orbiting laboratory for conducting life science and microgravity
research and to conduct human exploration of space.
Since its original authorization in 1984, the program continues to
evolve to achieve its admirable goals. Today, it is a partnership
between Canada, Japan, 10 European nations, as well as Russia.
I cannot stand here before you today and say that the space station
is not without problems. We are all aware of these problems and I have
personally addressed them over the past several years during oversight
hearings. We are aware of the risks and problems resulting from the
Russian participation, the increased costs, and the technical
challenges in the space station design. And we will continue to have
hearings to address these issues and hold NASA accountable.
NASA is also aware of these problems and are actively seeking
solutions. Mr. Goldin and NASA have been successful in streamlining and
restructuring NASA's operations and facilities without compromising
safety, productivity, or the goals and missions of the space program.
Mr. Goldin and NASA have been successful in reducing costs, increasing
efficiency, and living up to his motto of a faster, better, cheaper
agency. Today, NASA is doing more for less.
So today, Mr. President, we again hear the arguments for the
elimination of the space station. These are arguments to eliminate our
dreams. Let's retire these arguments once and for all and begin working
together to overcome these difficulties to ensure our future presence
in space.
Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Missouri. Mr. President,
this is an annual thing. It kind of comes like Christmas and every
other holiday that comes around. We hear from those folks who really
think probably this is a great waste of money. We have all stood and
marveled at the expedition to Mars. It came in under budget and was
done in less time. But that is 300 million miles from where we stand
today. When America does not dream, or fails to reach out, then we
become a stagnant people.
Right now, as we speak, there is a reenactment of the Mormon Trail
that was blazed from Omaha, NE, to the great Salt Lake Valley. Using
the same mentality, we would still be driving the same vehicles now
that carried those folks westbound across Nebraska and Wyoming and into
Utah.
Let me start off by saying that I support the missions performed by
NASA. I am from Montana, so I don't have a big stake in what NASA does,
from the standpoint of my home State of Montana. But I will tell you
that when we reach out and explore the unknown--where we are going now
is a little more than just a wagon train from Omaha to Salt Lake City.
We have seen it clearly illustrated this week and the excitement
generated around the world by the Mars Pathfinder and its Sojourner
recovery. Every day Americans wake up to learn more information about
the Mars rocks named ``Scooby-Doo'' and ``Yogi'' and ``Barnacle Bill.''
More than anything else, when we talk about NASA, there is another
little program that catches the eye and support of the American people
called Mission Planet Earth. With our new technologies in sensoring, we
know more about this piece of mud that we are whipping through space on
called Earth. We have done it because somebody dared to dream and
somebody dared to do it.
I do not think the American people, this society should back off from
the challenges of exploring space. And, yes, the space station is a
part of that.
Now, I chaired the authorizing committee on science, technology and
space--NASA. We changed this a little bit differently. We went out to
seek partnerships, and we got some commitments, but maybe it is kind of
like the chicken and the egg. Maybe we are also put to the test. Can we
do it? Can we captain it? I think we can. It is American know-how, it
is American technology that has put us where we are. And we do not know
what the benefits are. I would guess there are probably a lot of
digital wristwatches around here on a lot of people's arms that were
the result of the space program--new composites. We know more about
Earth. We know a lot more about everything that is not written up in
newspapers every day because newspapers would rather print those
negative kinds of things, I guess.
We changed the way we were going to complete the challenge of a space
station because we have a lot of things to learn before we go the extra
step--not back to the Moon but before we go into deeper space, and so
that is why we have a little rover up there on Mars telling us a lot
about that planet, the red planet.
We changed our tactics because we had one primary contractor, and now
we have the hardware that is ready to go to start building this so that
we may take the next step into space.
So I tell my colleagues on this floor that we have changed the whole
mission of NASA, and, yes, we have brought the costs down at NASA
almost a third just in the time that I have been in this Senate, so we
are getting there quicker, under budget and

[[Page S7838]]

using less money and collecting more knowledge and technology as we
move along.
Dan Goldin, who is the Administrator of NASA, has done a wonderful
job in repairing----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. BURNS. A bureaucracy that was almost without a mission. Now we
have a mission. I strongly oppose the Bumpers amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know we have had a somewhat confused
schedule and there are a number of Senators who have sought recognition
and would like to speak on this. I hope that their schedules will
permit them to be here. In the meantime, I thought it would be helpful
since we have heard various scientists quoted to give just an idea of a
few of the benefits of space research.
First, in biotechnology, microgravity allows researchers to produce
superior protein crystals for drug development and to grow three-
dimensional tissues including cancer tumors for research and cartilage
for possible transplant, and as a result people like Nobel laureate
Herbert Hauptman addressed the biomedical research caucus of Congress
on the value of orbital research for biomedicine and said, ``I strongly
support space research and the development of the space station.''
Dr. T. L. Nagabhushan, Ph.D., vice president of biotechnology and
development for Schering-Plough Research Institute, said

I view the space shuttle program as a stepping stone to the
ultimate program that will guarantee prolonged efforts in
microgravity. Ultimately, our hope is to be able to
crystallize proteins in microgravity, conduct all x ray data
collection experiments in space and transmit the data to
Earth for processing. This can only be done in a space
station.

Dr. Jeanne L. Becker, assistant professor, department of obstetrics
and gynecology at the University of South Florida, said

The application of microgravity technology toward the
development of tissue models has far-reaching potential for
advancing cancer research. Like many of the new and
innovative technologies, including gene therapy and
immune-based treatment, space-based research must be
continued and expanded in order to apply the benefits of
this technology to the rapidly advancing area of health
sciences.

Dr. Milburn Jessup, Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical School, said

The space program offers a chance to improve our models of
cancer and to develop new drugs and treatment as well as to
gain knowledge about how cancer spreads. The space program
has provided a breakthrough in tools for cancer research. We
feel this is the tip of the iceberg of scientific discovery
for us and the beginning of a new era in the care of the
cancer patient.

Mr. President, I could go on and on. We have stacks and stacks of
testimony from scientists, scientific organizations, physicians,
medical researchers, health care researchers, people who do research in
many areas of microgravity and physics and other related areas of
science. We could bring all of those statements in.
I cite these just as a few specific examples of why the scientific
community, and the vast majority of the scientific community, believes
that the space station and space research is vitally important.
I conclude by referring to biomedical research, saying space research
provides unique insights into how the heart and lungs function; the
growth and maintenance of muscle and bone; perception cognition, and
balance, and the regulation of the body's many systems in the field of
regulatory physiology.
That is why the American Medical Association has adopted a resolution
in support of the international space station.

The AMA supports the continuation of NASA and other
programs for conducting medical research and other research
with potential health care benefits on manned space flights,
including the continued development and subsequent operation
of the international space station.

I thought I would conclude my remarks, Madam President, with a quote
from Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the department of
surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, who said,

The space station is not a luxury any more than a medical
research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury.

He said also,

Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space
of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to
only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for
cancer. We need much longer missions in space, in months to
years, to obtain research results that may lead to the
development of new knowledge and breakthroughs.

Mr. President, these are just a few of the comments that the
scientific community has made in support of the space station.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, how much time is remaining for each
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Arkansas has 8
minutes and the Senator from Missouri has 25 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Missouri entertain the idea of
possibly yielding back some time and I will, too, and maybe we can
expedite this? Does the Senator have any other opponents?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, we have had a number of Senators who were
most anxious to speak on this. We could not get them in time. I know
that Senator Hutchison, Senator Gramm, Senator Sessions, Senator Dodd,
and Senator Glenn had all expressed an interest. We have tried to send
out appeals to them. We hope that, if they are anxious to speak, they
will be here before 5:30. But I say at 5:30 I will be prepared to yield
back any time remaining on our side if the Senators have been unable to
change their schedules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to advise the Senator from
Missouri that Senator Glenn, because of other responsibilities, will
not be speaking. His statement yesterday was so eloquent he would like
it to stand there as a rebuttal to the amendment of the Senator from
Arkansas. We are checking now to see if the Senator from Connecticut
wishes to speak and will so advise the chairman.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
At this stage of the debate on these things it is always largely
repetitious but some things are worth repeating. It does not change any
votes sometimes, but it is therapeutic to me to say things more than
once and then people who ignore it in my opinion do so at their own
risk. But as I said this morning, it is a tragedy that the space
station is what we call a freebie. You can go ahead and vote for this
$100 billion boondoggle which will never provide any cures for any
disease, will probably never even be used as a way station to Mars,
that is opposed by every physicist in the world and not because it is
totally worthless but because the money could be so much more
effectively spent on other things.
I pointed out this morning, and it is worth pointing out again, the
cost of one launch of the space shuttle could pay to allow the National
Institutes of Health to approve one out of every three applications for
medical research instead of one out of four, just one launch, and there
are 83 such launches to support the space station program. And every
one of them is calculated to occur within a 5-minute window without a
hitch.
It is going to cost $94 billion in today's dollars and you assume
that every one of those 83 to 90 launches is going to be split perfect.
You think about it. Think about the enormity of such a promise.
Dan Goldin testified before the Subcommittee of Commerce on Science
and Technology:

It is certain that the program does not have adequate
reserves built into the total development estimate to address
Russian contingencies, which I will address later. There is
also the issue of the impact the Russian delay has had in
pushing completion of the assembly sequence beyond 2002.

You bet, October 2003 to be precise, a $2 billion cost overrun
because Russia cannot come up with the money to build a service module.
And he goes on to say,

Clearly, the drawn out timeframe for development/assembly
will increase program

[[Page S7839]]

costs. The exact extent of this cost is being worked.

Here is how they have worked it. Here is the way NASA has worked it.
Here are the promises that have been made.
Here is what NASA said on February 17, 1994:

Russian participation reduces cost by $2 billion and allows
science utilization significantly earlier than with the alpha
station.

Broken promise.
Another promise. NASA said the first element launch would be launched
in November 1997 instead of September, 1998.
The reality. The first element launch is now scheduled for June,
1998. Broken promise No. 2.
The space station laboratory will be available in February 1998.
Reality: May, 1999. Broken promise No. 3.
Promise. The space station will be completed in June, 2002. Reality:
Now October, 2003. Broken promise No. 4.
Russia's participation will save the United States taxpayers $2
billion. Now we are going to have to come up with $2 billion. Broken
promise No. 5.
Promise: Extravehicular activity, space walking, will be, in 1993,
350 hours they said; in 1994 it had gone up to 434 hours; in 1996 it
went up to 1,104 hours; in 1997, 1,519 hours--a 500 percent increase.
Broken promise No. 6.
Those are the promises we have gotten from NASA, and the cost is just
now beginning to soar. They have just taken $400 million out of the
science program. There won't be any money left to do a scientific
experiment. They took $400 million out of science to make up some of
the shortfalls.
They took $200 million out of the shuttle program and put it into the
space program. The cost overruns are soaring, and GAO said this
morning, in a report released this morning: No letup in sight.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 5 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking
member of this important subcommittee, because they have seen, early
on, the importance and the benefits, for our present society and our
future children and grandchildren, of space research continuing to move
forward to find how we can live better through experimentation in
space. That is going to help all of us now and in the future. They have
seen this and I am so pleased that the Senate has continued to ratify
its faith in space.
I cannot imagine that anyone in the past few weeks who has seen the
Pathfinder exploring Mars, the pictures that are being taken by
Pathfinder on Mars that show it to look about like Arizona--I cannot
imagine that anyone would not be so excited about what we are going to
be able to learn from this kind of continued exploration. So I think
now, of all times, people who are big thinkers, who have a vision for
our country, would not want to stop our efforts to explore in space.
We have talked about the importance of the health benefits that we
have in the microgravity conditions in the space station before.
Senator Mikulski and I have worked on osteoporosis and breast cancer,
trying to increase the funding. You cannot, no matter what you do, no
matter how much technology you have--you cannot reproduce the gravity
conditions that are in space, on Earth. You cannot do it. Yet we know
that those microgravity conditions will allow us to watch the
development of breast cancer cells and of osteoporosis in this
weightlessness and perhaps find the cure for breast cancer. We can
learn how to combat osteoporosis in the older, especially women, but
also men. In fact, NASA research already has led to these developments
in health.
The cool suit for Apollo missions now helps improve the quality of
life of patients with multiple sclerosis. NASA technology has produced
a pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body. NASA has
developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without
penetrating the skin. NASA research has led to an implant for diabetes
that is only 3 inches across. It provides more precise control of blood
sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin
injections.
I was reading about Professor James Langer's discoveries. He is from
the University of California at Santa Barbara. He wrote in Physics
Today that, ``Metallurgists have long sought to predict and control
alloy microstructures.'' This may seem a little off the wall, but in
fact it is very important when they are trying to find the very best
substance with which to make products. He found that this is best done
in the microgravity conditions because gravity affects the way things
can solidify.
So you take all these scientific things and boil them down to: How
does it make my life better? In fact, it does make our life better. It
does make our health better. It does give patients who have multiple
sclerosis or osteoporosis a better chance to have a good quality of
life. I reject the idea that we would walk away from the possibilities
for the future for better health and better quality of life, but also
the products that will be formed from the scientific developments that
we make with the space station. Once we have the research, then we take
that technology and we make the products. And that is what has kept our
economy burgeoning and growing and able to accept the new, young people
who come into it after they graduate from high school and college;
accept the new people who come to our country, looking for the American
dream.
Part of the American dream is the commitment to research. It is the
commitment to the future. An important part of that is space and the
space station. That is why it is so important that we keep this
commitment to space research, to NASA, to the space station. And the
Senate has done that. In the 4 years that I have been in the U.S.
Senate, I have been very proud of the big thinkers and their ability to
see the difference between shutting off our future and our
possibilities and saying we can save a small amount here, not thinking
that for every $1 we invest we get a $2 return in our productivity and
in our gross national product.

I respect the Senator from Arkansas. I know he believes sincerely
that this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. I wish, before he leaves the
Senate, that he would come around to seeing the benefits of space
research so maybe in his last year here he would say: You know what? I
think there is a future, it is worth keeping, that it will make life
better for our children, that it will provide scientific jobs for our
children, that it will keep the technology and the research and the
innovations in America, along with our international partners. Because
this is not just people who write in Physics Today. This is quality of
life for elderly people who have osteoporosis. This is for the
prevention of breast cancer. This is for the scientific base that has
made America what it is today.
To walk away from that would be un-American and it would be
unthinkable. So I hope our colleagues will give us the resounding vote
that we have had in the past. I hope they will resolutely stand for the
future, for our children and our grandchildren, and for a great America
for years to come.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Texas. She has long been, not only an advocate, but very knowledgeable
and a strong supporter of the space station. She has given us many good
reasons why we should support the space station.
I am pleased, now, to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we are all going to miss the Senator
from Arkansas. He is a good friend, and I use that in the honest term,
rather than the kind of puffery that often goes on around here. He
takes the floor twice a year to espouse things with which I disagree.
First, he wants to do things to the mining law that I don't want to do.
And then he wants to kill the space station in a way that I don't want
it killed. So I vote against him on both of these occasions, but I look
forward to these because he keeps us honest with his concerns. He has
not yet convinced me to back away from my commitment to the space
station, but I pay tribute to his tenacity and to his integrity.

[[Page S7840]]

I have answered at some length in previous debates. I will not take
the time to do that now. I simply repeat, again, my commitment to the
idea of venturing into the unknown even when it seems expensive and
sometimes foolish, because we are never quite sure what we are going to
find. But, almost always, it comes back to benefit us.
As I stand here I am reminded of the quote, I can't give it to you
exactly, of the historian who said: History is a chancy thing. America
was discovered by someone who was heading for somewhere else, thought
he had arrived someplace other than he had, and was named after a man
who never came here.
History is like that, chancy. We are never quite sure what is going
to happen to us, but great things happen to us when we explore. We are
launched on this exploration now. We are far enough along that it makes
sense for us to continue. Who knows what we will find? I will not
pretend to know that we will find the cure for cancer or anything else
when we get out there. We will surprise ourselves. It will be chancy.
But that has been our history; that has been our destiny. I, for one,
want to continue it in this program.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Utah. To the notes he added from history, we might add that he,
Christopher Columbus, was a very modern traveler. He did it all with
borrowed money. I think that is one element that should be added.
We are awaiting the arrival of Senator Gramm of Texas, who is, I
think, going to be the last speaker on this side. For the information
of my colleagues, how many minutes are remaining for debate on this
measure?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 12 seconds, and
the Senator from Arkansas has 3 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I expect perhaps within 10 minutes we would be ready, or as
soon as Senator Gramm has had the opportunity to speak, we would be
ready to yield back the remainder of our time.
I so inform the Senate.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, if I might before the Senator from
Texas comes up, I have another historical allusion I would like to
share.
Mr. BOND. I am delighted to yield 3 minutes for historical allusions
from the Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
It has been pointed out to me in the study of history that the nation
that was the most powerful, the most progressive, that had, in modern
terms, superpower status some centuries ago, was the nation of China.
One of the things the Chinese did was send their explorers around the
world. There were Chinese ships that were exploring as far away as the
coast of Africa, I am told.
Then the Chinese Government decided that that was too expensive, that
it was too chancy, that there would be no guarantee that they would
learn anything or find anything or profit in any way and, as a cost-
cutting measure, the Chinese cut back on their exploration and
virtually left the field open to the Europeans. There was very little
contact, of course, between the Europeans and the Chinese in that
period, but the field was left open in a way that we can look back on
in history and say: What might have happened if the Chinese had
maintained their exploring activities and maintained their willingness
to go into the future? What might have happened, had they not taken
those cost-cutting measures? The history of the world would be very,
very different.
It was the Europeans who went out on their exploration after the
Chinese cut back. I don't want to see the Americans cut back on their
adventure and their exploration, and then have someone else step into
the breach. Because I am convinced that if we cut back on our
exploration of space, someone else will step up to it. Who knows what
the implications could be, hundreds of years from now?
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank our distinguished chairman for
yielding. I thank him for the leadership in this very difficult job.
Having served on this subcommittee, I know how difficult it is, how
many important issues are under his jurisdiction, and how difficult
politically they are. So I want to begin by saying thank you to Senator
Bond for the great job he has done.
Senator Bumpers, every year, proposes that we kill the space station
and every year we have a protracted debate on it. I think, now, Members
understand the issue enough that the lines are pretty well drawn.
So, today, I am not going to go into a lengthy speech. I know Senator
Bumpers and I know the quality of his work, so I know he has made the
best case he can make for his position.
I would just like to remind my colleagues that in 1965, we were
investing 5.7 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government
in science and technology in the future. We were investing 5.7 cents
out of every dollar we spent in Washington by investing in the next
generation, in investing in the science and the technology to build the
scientific base of the country to give us the ability to construct new
tools that were more effective and sharper than tools used by people in
other parts of the world. We were able to develop new technology and
new products that have made us the envy of the world and have allowed
us to maintain the highest living standards on Earth.
Whereas we were investing 5.7 cents out of every dollar in the
Federal budget in nondefense R&D in 1965, we are now investing roughly
1.9 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government in
science and technology in the future. We have dramatically reduced the
investment we are making in the future, and, basically, what we have
done is succumbed to the siren song of investing more and more money in
the next election, in programs that have a big political constituency,
in programs that yield a return before the voter goes to vote in even
numbered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
and we have systematically, since 1965, reduced the investment that we
are making in the future, investment that we are making in the next
generation.
This ultimately comes down to a debate between investing in the next
election and investing in the next generation. While I believe we have
to run the space program efficiently, we have had dramatic reductions
in its growth. I think when science investment is down to 1.9 percent
of the nondefense R&D Federal budget, down from 5.7 percent in 1965,
that we need to be alarmed about it.
I have introduced legislation to set up a program within our existing
budget to double expenditures on science and technology, to set out a
10-year goal of doubling the budget of the National Institutes of
Health, doubling the budget for science and technology, because I
believe that it is critical to the country's future.
Let me also say that I take a back seat to no one in controlling
spending, but this is about priorities. What programs do we spend the
money we spend on? I say invest it in the next generation, not in the
next election, and defeat the Bumpers amendment as we have done in the
past. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields
time?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, we are about to yield back time. I turn to
the distinguished sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 3 minutes, and
the Senator from Missouri has 5 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I will be happy to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I will use my 3 minutes, and we will
get this show on the road.
Let me just say, in the 6 years I have stood at this position saying
we ought to cancel the space station, for all the reasons I enumerated
all day long, one of the opponents' arguments consistently has been
that we are going to cure breast cancer, prostate cancer, cervical
cancer, warts, ingrown toenails, psoriasis, you name it. It reminds me
of that old Huey Long story about the medicine doctor coming

[[Page S7841]]

through Louisiana. He was selling Low Poplarhirum and High Poplarlorum.
``What's the difference?'' someone asked him.
He said,''Well, the High Poplarlorum will cure anything from the
waist up, and Low Poplarhirum will cure anything from the waist down.''
They said, ``Where do you get it?''
He said, ``We get it from the Poplar tree.''
``How do you get a medicine out of one tree that cures everything
from the waist up and the waist down?''
He says, ``Well, we take sap from the bottom half of the tree, that
is Low Poplarhirum, and we take sap from the top of the tree, and that
is High Poplarlorum, and that's the way it works.''
Low Poplarhirum and High Poplarlorum reminds me of the debate going
on about the space station today. It is going to cure everything under
the shining Sun and it isn't going to cure anything. I will eat my
hat--and I wish I was going to be in the Senate to do it--if it ever
cures anything. That claim is not anything in the world but a hoax
designed to perpetuate a $100 billion expenditure that if it were put
into real research to cure breast cancer, to cure cervical cancer, to
cure prostate cancer, it might get you something. It is going to get
you nothing by putting $100 million into the space station.
Read the GAO report I received this morning. I am not talking about
the grandiose promise Ronald Reagan made in 1984 about how we are going
to do it all for $8 billion. We have already thrown $11 billion away on
the first space station before we abandoned it, and now we are headed
for another $80 billion, $85 billion, and we are not going to cure
anything. This project has no purpose in the world but to keep people
working, to keep the aerospace and defense contractors all over the
country working, and to explore what?
The Russians have been up there 20 years. I, again, invite anybody in
this body to tell me what the Russians have cured, what they have
developed in 20 years of having space stations. They have had seven
space stations; there is nothing new about that. A space station is a
mechanical thing; it is not scientific. The Russians have been up there
20 years. I challenge anybody to tell me one single thing from a
medical standpoint that they have gotten out of it. I can tell you the
answer is nothing.
We are going to continue pouring money down this just like we did the
Clinch River breeder reactor, just like we did the super collider,
until we finally woke up. The GAO issued a wake-up call this morning.
For God's sakes, I say to Senators, why don't you listen to it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am sorry to hear the time has expired,
because I was really getting into listening to my colleague from
Arkansas. He makes me feel like I used to feel when the summer carnival
came to town and I went in and I listened to people who were smooth
talkers from Arkansas and elsewhere. I wound up giving them the 20, 30
cents I had saved all summer long. They are very, very compelling.
In this instance, it is not my position, it is the position of the
distinguished scientists, such as the ones whose comments and quotes I
have read into the Record that outline specifically what the benefits
of the space station and space exploration have been and will be.
While we respect the very powerful arguments made by the Senator from
Arkansas, I now move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

YEAS--69

Akaka
Allard
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli

NAYS--31

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Moynihan
Reed
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 944) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. With the concurrence of the majority leader and the
minority leader, I think we are prepared to have one more vote on an
amendment to be offered by Senator Bumpers. I believe other amendments
pending can be resolved without a vote, so we hope to be able to have
the vote on the amendment and start the vote for final passage prior to
7 o'clock.
I ask unanimous consent the debate on an amendment to be offered by
the Senator from Arkansas be 20 minutes, equally divided in the usual
form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 953

(Purpose: To cap the cost of the Space Station)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask
unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 953.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 in the bill, insert the following
new sections.

SEC. XXX. ANNUAL REPORT ON LIFE CYCLE COSTS AND SPACE LAUNCH
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) For each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the
Administrator, along with the President's submission to the
Congress of the annual budget request for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall submit a report
that contains,
(1) a life cycle capital development and operations plan
with a year-by-estimate of the United States' share of the
projected expenses for development, construction, operation,
enhancement, and decommissioning and disassembly of the Space
Station;
(2) an updated space launch manifest for the Space Station
program and the estimated marginal and average launch costs
for the Space Station program for the fiscal year involved
and all succeeding fiscal years.

SEC. XXX. FUNDING CAPS.

(a) The President's cumulative budget submissions for Space
Station capital development and operations for the fiscal
year 1994 through the fiscal year during which the Space
Station achieves full operational capability may not exceed
$17,400,000,000, exclusive of launch costs.
(b) After achieving full operational capability and
continuing through its decommissioning, the President's
annual budget submission to Congress for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration shall contain an amount
for the operation of, and any enhancement to, the Space
Station which shall in no case exceed $1,300,000,000 for that
fiscal year, exclusive of launch costs.

[[Page S7842]]

(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section
(1) the capital development program of the Space Station
includes, but is not limited to, the research and development
activities associated with the space and ground systems and
collateral equipment of the Space Station, and all direct
expenses for space flight, control, data communications,
assembly and operations planning, construction of facilities,
training, development of science equipment and payloads, and
research and program management activities associated with
the construction and operations of the Space Station and its
supporting elements and services until the facility is
equipped and powered as planned, and declared fully
operational.
(2) operation of the Space Station includes, but is not
limited to, all direct research and development; space
flight, control and data communications; construction of
facilities; training; development of science equipment and
payloads; scientific experiments; and research and program
management activities associated with the operations of the
Space Station; and the U.S.-Russia cooperative MIR program.
(3) enhancement of the Space Station includes all direct
research and development; space flight, control and data
communications; construction of facilities; and research and
program management activities associated with the acquisition
of additional Space Station elements and ground support
facilities.
(4) direct expenses include, but are not limited to, the
marginal costs of transportation and tracking and data
services, launch facilities, payload processing facilities,
simulator facilities, and all other enabling facilities
including their collateral equipment, and all laboratory and
technical services provided by NASA Centers to support space
station development and scientific research.
(5) full operation capability means the facility is fully
assembled on-orbit with the power, configuration and
capabilities described in the system design review of March
24, 1994.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will make this brief. I know everyone
wants to get out of here, and I want to accommodate the membership.
Last week, the Armed Services Committee accepted an amendment that
capped the costs on the F-22 fighter plane. They, I think, correctly
decided that the costs of the F-22 could very well go way beyond
anything intended by the Congress. So, Mr. President, they accepted a
cap on the F-22 fighter plane.
All I am trying to do on this is do the same thing on the space
station. I am using NASA's figures. These are not my figures. These are
the figures that NASA says they can build the space station for and
operate it. The amendment, as I say, is right where they say it is, but
here is the reason I am doing this. The General Accounting Office says
that since last year, the risk to the space station's costs in schedule
have, in fact, increased. GAO goes on to say the station's financial
reserves have also deteriorated significantly.
Now, I think the people in this body who strongly favor the space
station in good conscience and as a duty to their constituents and
their own conscience ought to support saying at some point there ought
to be some kind of a limit on how much we are willing to spend. I am
using the figures that NASA has themselves put out: $17.4 billion to
build it, $1.3 billion a year to operate it. The cap does not extend to
a launch cost, only to the building and deployment and to the operating
of it.
That seems like a simple, straightforward amendment to me, Mr.
President.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I just appreciate the effort the Senator from Arkansas is making to
ensure that the spending on this widely supported and strongly endorsed
program is kept under control, but the space station is already
operating under administrative caps. I understand the authorizing
committee is examining the potential for legislated caps. I think this
is an issue appropriately to be referred to the authorizers. It
deserves careful consideration, not brought forward here in the last
moment on an appropriations bill debate.
I just say, Mr. President, space station is a research and
development project. It has a lot of uncertainties but tremendous
promise. It is rocket science. We are dealing with rocket science. We
should not lock NASA in stone with caps that are pulled out of thin air
here at the last minute in the appropriations process.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Bumpers amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the
Bumpers amendment. Though well-intentioned, it is not necessary and
could inadvertently, by placing a cap, lead to real concern in the area
of safety.
First, we do not want to tie the hands of the NASA administrator.
Second, since fiscal year 1994, the station has been subject to funding
limitations, a $2.1 billion annual funding and a $17.4 billion overall
funding through the completion of the assembly. Yes, these limitations
are not legislatively mandated; they have been administratively carried
out.
There are many references to these specific limitations to the space
station budget and congressional proceedings. For example, the $17.4
billion total cap through the completion of the assembly. Recent
reports indicate that NASA is expected to build the station within
these limits. We should not legislate a cap. In good faith, NASA
continues to meet these goals. Any additional money sought is for
unforeseen problems either associated with the Russian service module
or where we might now identify a certain series of safety concerns. We
are learning lessons from Mir.
I don't want to tie the hands of NASA or threaten the lives of
astronauts. I really encourage our colleagues to vote no on Bumpers and
await the wise counsel of the authorizing committee on this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS. I hardly know what else to say about this. The figures I
am using are the figures that NASA says they can build and operate it
for. Now, it is obvious from the GAO report that came out this morning
that these costs are beginning to get out of control. There is a
shifting from one account to another. There is even shifting from
nonspace station programs to space station programs.
All I am trying to do is to say, let's get it under control. There is
not anything, frankly, written in stone about a cost cap amendment.
Next year, if NASA comes in and says we are down $1 billion, we will
certainly give it to them, if I am any judge of what is going to happen
around here in the future with the space station.
But here is what the GAO report said this morning, Mr. President:

NASA's actions to reinforce its financial reserves and keep
the program within its funding limitations has in some cases
involved redefining a portion of the program subject to the
limitations. Such actions make the value of the current
limitations as a funding control mechanism questionable.
Therefore, we proposed that the NASA administrator, with the
concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, direct
the space station to discontinue the use of the current
funding limitations.

And they go ahead to say at the end of the review:

Assuming that Congress decides to continue the space
station program and wants to replace the current funding
limitations, it should consider, after consultation with
NASA, reestablishment in light of the current circumstances.

Now, the truth of the matter is, this program is heading headlong out
of control. There are very few people in this body that do not know
that, that do not understand that, and I am offering this amendment
simply because I am saying, if you are going to build a space station,
for Pete's sake let's put some kind of a limitation on it.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who chairs the
Commerce Committee, tells me that he is working with NASA and he wants
to work with me on putting a cap on this. One of the problems I have
and worry about is, are we simply going to put some language in--and I
think Senator McCain shares my concern about the cost of this program.
I certainly would welcome the opportunity to work with him, but I don't
want a cap, and I know Senator McCain doesn't want a cap that has all
kinds of escape mechanisms in it so the costs can continue to skyrocket
and we can continue building this big boondoggle. My whole purpose is
to say to my colleagues who believe in the space station--which I do
not--that I know they share my concern about these costs that GAO says
are sliding out of control.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The amendment (No. 953) was withdrawn.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with deep gratitude that I express my
appreciation to the Senator from Arkansas. I believe he has another
amendment

[[Page S7843]]

and I now feel a wonderful sense that we will be willing to accept it
if he wishes to proceed with that.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Arkansas would just allow a kudos
comment. I thank the Senator for withdrawing his amendment, though I
know that he is in no way retreating from his position. We acknowledge
that position and we look forward to hearing both from him and the
distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee on his advice in this
matter. Thanks again.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Bumper amendment to
place a cap on the space station. I oppose the idea of a price cap at
this time given the recent changes to the space station program
surrounding the prime contractor's performance and the instability of
Russian participation.
I have asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to update their
previous life-cycle cost estimate on the space station. Once this cost
estimate is completed, I intend to introduce a price cap on the
station. It is my hope that a price cap at that time will reflect a
more accurate assessment of the space station total life-cycle costs.
I am pleased that my colleague from Arkansas has withdrawn his
amendment.
I look forward to investigating these issues further after the GAO
study I requested is completed and after the Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee holds hearings and further consultation with
interested parties including NASA.

Amendment No. 954

(Purpose: To earmark funds for a National Research Council report on
the Space Station program)

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

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 954.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:
Sec. . Of the funds provided to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration in this bill, the Administrator
shall by November 1, 1998, make available no less than
$400,000 for a study by the National Research Council, with
an interim report to be completed by June 1, 1998, that
evaluates, in terms of the potential impact on the Space
Station's assembly schedule, budget, and capabilities, the
engineering challenges posed by extravehicular activity (EVA)
requirements, U.S. and non-U.S. space launch requirements,
the potential need to upgrade or replace equipment and
components after assembly complete, and the requirement to
decommission and disassemble the facility.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this simply requires NASA to spend up to
$400,000 of its unobligated funds for the National Research Council to
do a study between now and the summer of 1998 on any engineering
problems that may seem insurmountable in building and deploying the
space station.
I think both floor managers have looked this over and have agreed to
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 954) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the floor managers had an
opportunity to look over the visa waiver for Veterans' Administration
doctors?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had conversation with the
authorizing committees and, from our standpoint, I have found no
objection from the committees of jurisdiction. This one is well outside
the scope of our normal activities. So I am awaiting any expression of
concern. We have not had any concern from the committees who have
jurisdiction over immigration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that the VA often has very
special circumstances where doctors, perhaps from other countries, or
graduates from international medical schools, are present in our VA
hospitals to help with either special assignments or special chores.
From what I can understand, there was an error in last year's
immigration bill that really shackled VA from the flexibility it had in
this area. From what I understand, the Bumpers amendment is a benign
amendment. It does not create a new classification. It does not create
a new entitlement to either come to this country or stay in this
country. It just reaffirms kind of what was once a usual and customary
practice by the VA. So I don't anticipate an objection.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from
Maryland and the Senator from Missouri. Let me add this caveat which
might help them sleep better. A veterans' hospital in Little Rock told
me they have five doctors they are going to lose. I am really offering
this on their behalf. This is sort of a critical situation where these
doctors are going to be forced to leave and go home.
All this amendment says is that, in the future, the VA--not the
doctor--could request a waiver of the visa requirement that they return
home for 2 years before they can come back. That seems like a fairly
laudable thing when you consider the medical shortages most VA
hospitals experience. If you find when you get to the conference
committee somebody objects because it may be a turf fight of some kind,
I will understand that. I hope that doesn't happen. But I appreciate
the accommodation you have given.

amendment no. 955

(Purpose: To restore the authority of the Veterans' Administration to
request waivers of the home residency requirement for doctors employed
at VA hospitals on J-1 visas)

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

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 955.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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:
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
Sec. . Section 214(l)(1)(D) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1)(D)) (as added by section
220 of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections
Act of 1994 and redesignated as subsection (l) by section
671(a)(3)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996) is amended by inserting before
the period at the end the following: '', except that, in the
case of a request by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
alien shall not be required to practice medicine in a
geographic area designated by the Secretary.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 955) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:40 p.m.
the Senate proceed to H.R. 2158, the House companion bill, all after
the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1034 be inserted, H.R.
2158 be read for the third time, and a vote occur on passage, all
without further action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 956 through 960, En Bloc

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk, en
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes amendments
numbered 956 through 960, en bloc.

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

[[Page S7844]]

AMENDMENT NO. 956

(Purpose: To enable the State of Florida to use prior EPA Title II
funds for a grant for wastewater treatment, and for other purposes)

On page 63, lines 4 and 5, strike ``allocated to the
purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act'' and insert
``allocated for the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act
and title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
respectively,''
On page 63, line 18, before the period, add the following
proviso: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Administrator is authorized to
make a grant of $4,326,000 under Title II of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, from funds
appropriated in prior years under section 205 of the Act for
the State of Florida and available due to deobligation, to
the appropriate instrumentality for wastewater treatment
works in Monroe County, Florida''
On page 64, line 18, before the period, add the following
proviso: ``Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds other than those appropriated
under this heading, shall be used for or by the Council on
Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality''.
On page 65, line 13, after the semi-colon, insert ``or'',
and on line 17 strike ``; or beaches''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 957

(Purpose: To limit the use of locality pay differential that would
provide a pay increase to an employee transferred as a result of sexual
harassment)

At the appropriate place, insert:
None of the funds made available by Title 1 of this Act may
be used to provide a locality payment differential which
would have the effect of causing a pay increase to any
employee that was removed as a Director of a VA Hospital and
transferred to another hospital as a result of the Inspector
General's conclusion that the employee engaged in verbal
sexual harassment and abusive behavior toward female
employees.

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment
that calls for a halt to all locality pay increases for all employees
of the Department of Veterans Affairs that have been transferred due to
their perpetration of sexual harassment. Let me explain why this
amendment is necessary.
Over a year ago to date, the Veterans Department undertook an
investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment, misconduct,
and unprofessional behavior on the part of Jerome Calhoun, who was
Director of the VA Medical Center in Fayetteville, NC.
In September 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the
Veterans Department issued a report confirming the allegations of
sexual harassment, as well as a pattern of inappropriate and abusive
behavior toward Department employees.
In most organizations today this kind of behavior would not be
tolerated. Jerome Calhoun would have been fired. Unfortunately, this is
not the way things work at the Veterans Department. At the Veterans
Department this kind of deplorable behavior gets you a comfortable
settlement.
Here are the facts: For his intolerable behavior, Mr. Calhoun was
given a pay raise, bringing his already generous salary to $106,000. He
was transferred to sunny Bay Pines, FL, a locale of his own choosing,
and he was given the position of special assistant which is standard
Government lingo for having no specific responsibilities. Quite
frankly, I look at this settlement and I ask myself, where is the
punishment? In the private sector this would be considered a promotion.
Mr. President, on behalf of the 200,000 employees of the Veterans
Department, I ask this body to do what Department officials have
neglected. Jerome Calhoun must not be allowed make such an incredible
mockery of the system.

amendment no. 958

On page 51 after line 11, insert the following new section:

SEC. 216. INDIAN HOUSING REFORM.

Upon a finding by the Secretary that any person has
substantially, significantly, or materially violated the
requirements of any activity under the Native American
Housing Block Grants Program under title I of the Native
American Self-Determination Act of 1996 or any associated
activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Secretary shall bar that person
from any such participation in programs under that title
thereafter and shall require reimbursement for any losses or
costs associated with these violations.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to
correct an egregious problem at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and on tribal lands across the Nation that came to light
last December. As many of my colleagues know, the Seattle Times broke
an unbelievable story of greed, deception, and mismanagement in the
tribal housing program shortly before the 105th Congress convened.
The Seattle Times reported that funding intended to build housing for
low-income native Americans on the Tulalip Reservation in my State,
went instead to construct a 5,300 square foot $400,000 home. The
recipients of this taxpayer-funded home were not low-income, but
instead earned a combined yearly income of $92,319 as executive
director of the tribe's housing authority and contracting officer for
the authority. I am confident my colleagues will agree that this abuse
of HUD funding is outrageous and should be punished severely.
Unfortunately, the Tulalip house was not the only problem Seattle
Times reporters found in their 6-month investigation of tribal housing
programs. Instead, they turned up numerous and repeated examples of
cheating, abuse, and mismanagement in native American housing programs
across the United States.
In Red Rock, OK, Troy Warrior and his family of the Otoe-Missouria
Indian tribe were excited at the prospect of moving into a new home.
They would finally be able to afford their own home with help from HUD
financing. Only a few days before the family was scheduled to move into
the modest home, they were told that leaders of the tribal housing
authority would get the house instead. Twenty other low-income families
in the tribe faced the same dilemma. The tribal housing leaders
eliminated the requirement that recipients of the homes pay for them,
in effect giving themselves free houses at the expense of American
taxpayers while those truly in need of the housing were left to fend
for themselves.
Jimmy Viarrial, chairman of the Pojoaque Tribe housing authority in
Santa Fe, NM, makes over $40,000 a year, twice the State average. But
when HUD gave the housing authority $1 million for home repairs, it
spent the first $45,000 on Viarrial's own five-bedroom home. Most of
the rest went to remodel the homes of friends and relatives of Viarrial
and the housing authority director.
Mr. President, these are just a few of the many abuses found by
Seattle Times reporters last year, and I can say with confidence that
there are most likely many more such abuses that have not been
discovered. The American taxpayers deserve better than this. When we in
the U.S. Senate tell them that their money is going to worthwhile
programs to provide housing for the poorest native Americans, it is our
duty to ensure that it is.
As many of you know, two officials at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development were removed from their positions in the Office of
Native American Programs as a result of this scandal. Furthermore, the
HUD inspector general has issued a report confirming that the Seattle
Times allegations are in fact true and recommending that the Native
American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 be amended to
ensure better oversight of Indian housing authorities at HUD. These are
positive developments that should be applauded. But no actions have
been taken against the tribes responsible for the abuse of taxpayer
money.
That is why I am offering an amendment today intended to send notice
that the misuse and misallocation of taxpayer dollars will no longer be
tolerated. It will be punished and punished severely. Anyone involved
will be permanently barred from participating in the program, and must
reimburse that program. I would have preferred to go further, but this
amendment is the strongest that can be accepted and passed. It is a
simple amendment that should have been law a long time ago.
I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to inject fairness and
accountability into a program rife with abuse and mismanagement. It is
the least we can do for the millions of American taxpayers who expect
their hard-earned money to be used wisely.

amendment no. 959

(Purpose: To make available $1,000,000 for the Neutral Buoyancy
Simulator program of NASA)

On page 70, line 18, strike out ``1999.'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``1999: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated or otherwise made

[[Page S7845]]

available by this heading, $1,000,000 may be available for
the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator program.''.
____

amendment no. 960

On page 16, line 21, strike $10,693,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``10,159,000''.
On page 16, line 23, strike ``$9,200,000'' and insert
``8,666,000''.
On page 23, line 6, insert ``and contract expertise'' after
``technical assistance''.
On page 23, line 24, strike ``and 1995'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``1995, and 1997''.
On page 27, line 17, insert ``for'' after ``charge''.
On page 27, line 22, insert ``or moderate income family''
after ``family''.
On page 27, line 24, strike ``payment'' and insert
```prepayment''.
On page 28, line 1, insert ``of'' after the first ``the''.
On page 28, line 8, insert ``if'' after ``and''.
On page 28, line 13, insert ``from'' after ``move''.
On page 28, line 14, strike ``of'' and insert ``or''.
On page 28, line 22, strike ``223'' and insert ``220''.
On page 35, line 10, insert before the period, the
following: ``: Provided further, That any unobligated
balances available or recaptures in, or which become
available in the Emergency Shelter Grants Program account,
Supportive Housing Program account, Supplemental Assistance
for Facilities to Assist the Homeless account, Shelter Plus
Care account, Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration
Program account and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (SRO)
account, shall be transferred to and merged with the amounts
in this account and shall be used for purposes under this
account''.
On page 45, after line 18, insert the following:
``(d) Public and Assisted Housing Rents, Income Adjustments
and Preferences.
``(1) Section 402(a) of The Balanced Budget Downpayment
Act, I is amended by striking ``fiscal year 1997'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``fiscal year 1998.
``(2) Section 402(f) of The Balanced Budget Downpayment
Act, I is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 and 1997''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``fiscal years 1997 and 1998''.
On page 47, beginning on line 24, strike out ``Account
Transition'' and all that follows through line 7 on page 48,
and redesignate the sections accordingly.
On page 51, line 11, insert before the period ``or
demolition''.

``Home Program Formula

``Sec. 217. The first sentence of section 217(b)(3) of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act is amended
by striking ``only those jurisdictions that are allocated an
amount of $500,000 or greater shall receive an allocation''
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``jurisdictions
that are allocated an amount of $500,000 or more, and
participating jurisdictions (other than consortia that fail
to renew the membership of all of their member jurisdictions)
that are allocated an amount less than $500,000, shall
receive an allocation''.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think this should take care of the
amendments for tonight. In the managers' amendment, the first item is a
technical correction to EPA language related to cross-collateralization
of State revolving funds. The language has been requested by the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
The second item, requested by Senators Mack and Graham, is to enable
the State of Florida to use funds obligated and available to the State
of Florida under title II of the Clean Water Act to make a grant to
Monroe County, FL. This is budget neutral, and similar to other
amendments on VA-HUD bills.
Third, this would ensure that the Council on Environmental Quality
use only those resources provided to its direct appropriations to
support its activity.
The fourth item deletes the prohibition on FEMA disaster relief
expenditures relative to beaches. It is expected that the authorizing
committee will be addressing this shortly.
There is another amendment, a very important amendment, on page 16,
which readjusts the section 8 contract renewal account from $9.2
billion to $8.666 billion, as provided by the Budget Committee, to put
the bill in compliance with the budget resolution and the 602(b)
allocation.
The sixth amendment limits locality pay increases for VA employees
found guilty of sexual harassment.
The seventh amendment makes $1 million available in transition funds
for the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator Program.
The eighth amendment authorizes HUD to bar persons violating the
Indian block grant housing program from participating in the program in
the future.
The other eight amendments are truly technical amendments. The HOPE
Six account, the preservation account, McKinney homeless account, PHA
account, account structure, demolition grants as part of HUD
multifamily disposition authority, and grandfathering all existing home
jurisdictions for home funding allocations.
Mr. President, I ask my ranking member if there are any further items
that she has.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side of the aisle has no additional
amendments to add to the managers' amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I gather we are ready to move to adoption of
the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments,
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 956 through 960) were agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.

FEMA

Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?
Mr. BOND. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. GREGG. Would the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies agree that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should act
in a swift manner to settle its account with the Rockingham County jail
in Brentwood, NH? As the Senator from Missouri may know, the county
jail sustained flooding of more than 3 feet of water during a storm
this past October. The county has been looking to FEMA for
reimbursement of 75 percent of the damage it usually covers when there
is a disaster.
Mr. BOND. Has FEMA settled any of this?
Mr. GREGG. Yes, the county has received roughly $150,000 from FEMA,
but there is still about $178,000 outstanding. Most of the money paid
to Rockingham County came only after a meeting this past March 3, which
I hosted in my office with officials from FEMA and Rockingham County
Commissioner Tom Battles. At that meeting, we were encouraged by FEMA
that the outstanding balance would be settled within the next few
months after some more flood mapping was conducted. With adequate time
having passed and a new fiscal year on the way, it is only fair to
Rockingham County and the State of New Hampshire that this issue be
settled as budgets have to be structured.
Mr. Bond. I would say that I do agree that FEMA should work very
quickly on this.

particulate matter research

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 that we are considering today
allocates $35 million in the administration's budget request for
research on the public health effects of airborne particulate matter. I
have an amendment that simply states that these studies employ some
basic sound scientific methods. This is an extremely important
provision, but I would withdraw my amendment, if we could engage in a
colloquy to assure that the issue will be addressed in conference.
This language will be an important part of assuring that we protect
public health. Last week, the EPA finalized its rule on particulate
matter. Many have questioned the science behind this rule and a great
deal of uncertainty exists over the effect of particulate matter on
public health. As we reach this juncture, we must remember the reason
for this standard: to enhance public health. The only way we can be
sure that the standard will, in fact, provide the desired benefits is
through sound science. Lacking sound science, we may end up with
standards that don't provide any benefit, but cost the public dearly.
While we often hear about costs on industry, we must remember that
those costs are passed down to individuals in the form of higher prices
and higher State and local taxes. When individuals truly gain
significant benefits from a standard, they are indeed better off.
However, if we raise their costs for nothing or little in return, we
simply make them poorer and less able to pay for basic necessities,
such as health care. Last week you may recall, one District of Columbia
woman died

[[Page S7846]]

in her apartment because of the heat and the fact that she could not
afford air conditioning. Such stories remind us that poverty represents
one of the greatest risk to public health. Hence, we should make sure
that new regulations do not simply make people poorer. If we don't
pursue sound science, we may impose regulations that actually decrease
public health. By demanding that particulate matter research relies on
the best available scientific methods, we can gain better knowledge
over the impacts of the regulations and reform them to assure that we
are actually enhancing overall public health.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Kansas for his comments. In a
memorandum from the President to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency that accompanied this rule, the President committed
that no new controls on businesses would be imposed until the science
behind this rulemaking is reviewed 5 years from now. The results of
this research will help in that decision. This is why the bill almost
doubles funding for particulate matter research over last year's level.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Missouri for recognizing the
importance of these studies and my recommendation. Given the
significance of this research and overall limitations on funding, I
think it is important that we are assured that the research will
include those studies that will help us determine whether a cause-
effect relationship exists between exposure to particulate matter and
adverse health impacts. These include: First, controlled inhalation
studies that will allow us to determine the effects of exposure to
particulate matter at different concentration levels and the mechanism
by which particulate matter could affect health; second, prospective
epidemiology studies based on individual exposure measurements that
will allow us to better examine the role of possible alternative causes
of the measured increase in risk; and third, the relationship of
outdoor, indoor, and personal exposures to particulate matter. Without
these types of studies, we may not be any further along in resolving
the scientific uncertainties associated with this rulemaking. I further
believe that the results of this research should be made available for
independent scientific review.

Mr. SHELBY. If my colleagues would yield for a moment, I would like
to endorse the well-reasoned recommendations made by the Senator for
Kansas. The recently issued particulate matter rule is troubling given
the scientific uncertainties and the significant costs that will be
imposed on the government, citizens, and businesses in Alabama--and in
the rest of the Nation--that are already struggling to meet the air
quality standards required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The
cost of implementing the new particulate matter standards is
staggering, especially considering the questions that remain about the
actual public health benefit. Further scientific examination of the
matter is necessary prior to placing additional economic burdens on the
American public. Premature implementation of the standards could be far
more damaging to the Nation and I strongly recommend taking the time to
fully review the scientific basis of the rulemaking.
Mr. BOND. My colleagues from Kansas and Alabama are correct. these
studies are critical to determining whether the EPA's rulemaking is
appropriate. I concur with the Senators in the importance of this
research and ensuring that the particular research projects funded
address the most critical questions associated with particulate matter
exposure.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I also believe it is important that the research
program include funding for the reanalysis of the American Cancer
Society study on particulate matter that was used as the basis for
EPA's risk estimate. My understanding is that the Health Effects
Institute, an independent research organization that is already
reviewing some of the epidemiology data, is willing to undertake this
reanalysis and has received permission from the American Cancer
Society, but currently lacks adequate funding to do a complete
reanalysis.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their recommendations. This will
be an important issue to address when we go to conference with the
House.

Lyons VA Medical Center

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for
a provision in the House version of the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD
appropriations bill to provide $21.1 million in funding for the
construction of an ambulatory care addition at the Lyons, NJ, VA
Medical Center. This facility is sorely needed by the veterans in New
Jersey, and I hope the Senate will recede to the House on this issue
during the conference.
The Lyons VA Medical Center serves nearly 75 percent of New Jersey's
veterans, and this funding will provide vital medical care for veterans
who receive care on an outpatient basis. It will provide for necessary
construction and renovations to enhance Lyons' clinics, diagnostic and
treatment services, emergency department, and support functions. The
funding will make a significant contribution to improving the access to
quality medical care by New Jersey's veterans.
At a time when New Jersey's aging veteran population has an
increasing need for VA health care services, we have an obligation to
ensure that their health care needs are met. As a member of the VA-HUD
Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues on the committee to
include this funding in the conference agreement.
Mr. BOND. As the Senator from New Jersey is aware, the outcome of the
conference cannot be forecast. However, I will give strong
consideration to the funding for the Lyons VA Medical Center ambulatory
care addition in conference.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, appreciate the Senator's support for the
ambulatory care addition at the Lyons VA Medical Center, and I will
join Senator Bond in doing all I can to support this funding during the
conference.

plant genome initiative

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues a
provision in this measure which directs $40 million to begin the new
plant genome initiative to help keep U.S. agriculture on top in the
21st century. The United States currently has a robust Federal
investment in biotechnology in the human health field. While this
remains a national priority, I think it is critical that we begin
building on the common foundation in basic science to bring the power
of biotechnology to bear in agriculture. We cannot sit idly and expect
to remain the world's leader in agriculture production. U.S.
agriculture currently exports a record $60 billion in agricultural
products with a net trade surplus of $30 billion. This is about the
long-term sustainability and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture which
means that it is about meeting the world's growing nutritional needs,
protecting U.S. jobs, and preserving the environment.
The future of corn and other plant species is written in the genetic
code and genome mapping will give us the precise locations of genes
that control important traits that can be manipulated to make corn and
other vital commodities more drought tolerant; freeze tolerant;
tolerant to certain chemicals, weeds, or bugs; disease resistant; less
toxic and more digestible which is critical because it could lower
phosphorous and nitrogen levels in animal waste.
This action incorporates the initial recommendations of the
interagency working group on plant genomes [IWG] which was formed
recently at my request to develop a scientific and administrative
consensus on how best to accomplish this ambitious new effort to
address the needs of 21st Century. The world population wants more
food, less expensive food, more nutritious food, and they want it
produced on less land in a more environment-friendly way. In this half
century, we have seen U.S. agriculture double production by utilizing
new technologies. Biotechnology will be the key in the next century to
meet the needs of a world population which is expected to double in the
next 30 years while protecting the world's natural resources.
According to scientists, today, biotechnology makes it possible to
enter the genetic world of plants to gain a greater degree of control
over the selection of genes than was possible with traditional
breeding. It is now possible to locate the genes for certain traits,
cut them from one organism, and paste them into another, even if the
target organism is of another species. In order

[[Page S7847]]

to accomplish a genetic transfer between organisms using biotechnology,
scientists have to be able to find the location of the genes that
control a given characteristic, such as size, color, or resistance to
disease. This new initiative seeks to provide a map of these locations
so that scientists and producers can capitalize on this vast potential
to benefit humankind and the environment.
The original idea was introduced to me by the Missouri Corngrowers
Association who presented a comprehensive business plan to map the corn
genome devised by the National Corngrowers Association working in
conjunction with private and public scientific experts. With this
additional money provided in this legislation the initiative can be
expanded beyond corn to include other economically significant crops
such as rice, soybeans, and wheat. After consulting with a number of
scientists in Missouri and elsewhere, I have concluded that this is the
kind of research that will unlock the information which holds the
promise of addressing dramatically the challenges facing the world in
the coming century. My hat is off to those who argued convincingly that
this blockbuster initiative is vital to address the economic,
nutritional, and environmental needs of the next century and worthy of
blockbuster support from the Federal Government. I also applaud the
administration's IWG for their strong support in beginning to formate
the most scientifically and administratively feasible way to proceed so
that we can maximize the return on the taxpayers' investment.
The IWG on plant genomes which was empaneled at my request to make
recommendations on the plant genome initiative, consists of
representatives from the Department of Agriculture, National Science
Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, Office
of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and
Budget. In its recently-released report, while funding sources were not
identified, the value of this initiative was validated and
recommendations were advanced to provide for international cooperation,
private-public partnerships, and open public access to all the
information discovered. The money awarded under this act will be done
so by the National Science Foundation on a competitive basis with peer
review.
Finally, I note that it is imperative that work continue to be done
to integrate this initiative into the inter-agency effort that the IWG
recommends. This means that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will
have to work with us on coordinating their efforts with NSF and other
agencies and they will have to provide recommendations on additional
sources of funds for the effort within their budget.

plant genome research

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Missouri,
the chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, for his
foresight in providing funding through the National Science Foundation
for plant genome research. This is a critical program for American
agriculture involving a meaningful amount of money--$40 million--to
advance work on plant genome projects for farm crops that contribute
significantly to our economy. It has been my pleasure to work with
Senator Bond for some time on the plant genome mapping effort.
Iowa is a national leader in the production of corn and soybeans.
These two crops are mainstays of the Iowa economy. In order to remain
competitive in the world market, we need to understand in increasing
detail what the genetic mechanisms of these crops are and how they
work. Researchers in many fields can use the results of the genome
mapping effort to enhance these crops. The genome mapping research
results will help us to understand new and better ways to increase crop
yields, discover new uses and products, better the health of the plant
by reducing risks to disease and pests, and to help protect the
environment. This bodes well for the corn grower and soybean producer
by increasing the value of the crop and, thus, increasing farm income.
I will continue to work with Senator Bond to see that this effort
receives proper funding both through the NSF and the Department of
Agriculture. An interagency effort, along with a strong, effective,
meaningful public/private partnership is key to the ultimate success of
the plant genome mapping project. We must also be aware of
international genome mapping efforts. Where possible it is necessary to
cooperate with those efforts.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the National
Science Foundation plant genome initiative that is funded in the VA/
HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations bill. I want to commend
Senator Bond, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, for his
leadership in developing this initiative. This project will be funded
with new money and will not affect current NSF programs.
The plant genome initiative, as included in the bill, is an expansion
of the current, NSF Arabidopsis genome project to map and sequence the
Arabidopsis genome. The plant genome initiative will advance the
current Arabidopsis project and will move us beyond the current
programs to more economically significant crops, such as corn,
soybeans, wheat, and rice.
To compete in the global market, U.S. agriculture must continually
strive to efficiently and economically improve production
capabilities--such as combating serious threats from disease, pests,
and climate changes--without harming the environment. The plant genome
initiative will provide us the information necessary to significantly
improve the environment and reduce crop and livestock production costs
at the same time. It is a win-win project for producers, for consumers,
and for the environment.
This project will give us the basic, fundamental knowledge necessary
to ensure that our consumers continue to receive an abundant supply of
high quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices. To meet the growing
demand for U.S. agricultural products, we will need to increase
production approximately three-fold in the next 50 years. The plant
genome initiative will set us on the right path toward meeting that
goal without harming the environment.
The plant genome initiative will have other far-reaching benefits, as
well. It may lead to significant reductions in crop losses while also
reducing our reliance on pesticides. It will allow us to improve animal
nutrition to increase meat productivity. It will, also, allow us to
meet consumer demands for higher quality food at reasonable prices.
These are just a few of the benefits that are possible with the plant
genome initiative.
I, again, want to commend Senator Bond for his foresight in providing
funding for the building of a foundation that will allow us to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century. Mr. President, this initiative is
critically important to U.S. consumers and to U.S. agriculture. I urge
my colleagues to support the NSF plant genome initiative as included in
the VA/HUD appropriations bill.

MARK-TO-MARKET

Mr. MACK. I would like to commend Senator Bond for addressing the
section 8 contract expiration issue by including S. 513, the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 in
the VA/HUD appropriations bill. This legislation, which is cosponsored
by my colleague from Missouri and Senators D'Amato, Bennett, Domenici,
Faircloth, Grams, and Chafee, is a national priority for reforming the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's HUD multifamily housing
programs and reducing the escalating costs of project-based section 8
renewals. According to preliminary estimates by the Congressional
Budget Office, this legislation will save the American taxpayer about
$4.6 billion in section 8 funds over the next 10 years. This
legislation not only saves scarce Federal resources, it also protects
the Federal investment in affordable housing by screening out
distressed properties and noncompliant owners from the Federal programs
and addresses HUD's management problems with this portfolio by
utilizing capable public and private third parties.
It is critical to enact this legislation into law this year. The
Banking Committee unanimously approved S. 513 as part of its budget
reconciliation package this June. Unfortunately, the Senate and House
subconferees were unable to come to an agreement on this legislation
and subsequently, it was dropped out of the reconciliation package.
Accordingly, I will continue to

[[Page S7848]]

push this legislation and strongly support Senator Bond's effort in
passing S. 513 as part of the appropriations bill.
When Secretary Cuomo testified before the Banking Committee on S.
513, he raised several concerns about the restructuring process
outlined in the bill. But he also indicated his willingness to address
those concerns through negotiations with the Senate. I want to point
out that significant progress has been made to address the
administration's concerns with the bill. Two major areas where
agreement was reached relate to the use of third parties or
participating administrative entities [PAE] and the use of tenant-based
assistance. On the use of PAE's, HUD has agreed to maintain the
Senate's priority for State and local housing finance agencies to serve
as restructuring entities. However, the Senate has agreed to provide
additional flexibility to the Secretary in selecting qualified PAE's
while protecting the public purpose. Also, the Senate and
administration have agreed to provide discretion to PAE's in
determining whether tenant-based or project-based assistance will be
provided for qualified properties after restructuring.
I would like to ask Senator Bond for his assurance that, as this
process moves forward, he will endeavor to assure that the agreements
made with the administration are incorporated into the bill.
Mr. BOND. I congratulate Senator Mack for his work in developing a
workable solution to the section 8 contract renewal problem, and also
Secretary Cuomo for his willingness to work with the Senate. Needless
to say, it is my hope that this issue still can be resolved in budget
reconciliation or through the regular authorization process. However,
if it becomes necessary, we will pursue this issue through the
appropriations process. I look forward to working with the Banking
Committee as we move forward and I will endeavor to include any changes
that are based on agreements between your committee and HUD. It is
likely that those agreements would be incorporated during the
conference with the House.
As a member of the Banking Committee during the last Congress and as
a cosponsor of the bill, I appreciate the work that the authorizing
committee has done on this legislation. Multifamily portfolio
restructuring is an urgent priority. I look forward to continuing our
work together in resolving the contract renewal crisis.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator very much for his work and dedication
to this issue. I look forward to our continued cooperative effort in
resolving this critical issue.
Ms. SNOW. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address my
colleagues on a matter of critical importance to veterans in the
Northeast. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the
Appropriations Committee and the VA-HUD Subcommittee for their hard
work on this bill.
This package contains over $40 billion for the VA, including an
increase in funding for VA medical care and research. The committee's
recommendation for the VA represents an increase of almost $93 million
above the President's budget request. The committee rejected the budget
agreement recommendation to reduce VA discretionary funding by $273
million below the President's fiscal year 1998 request, arguing that
such a reduction would result in fewer eligible veterans receiving
comprehensive medical care, reductions to basic maintenance and repair
of medical facilities, and additional delays in the processing of
benefits claims. The committee stated that the outcome of such budget
reductions would be completely unacceptable. I strongly agree with this
sentiment, and I would like to congratulate my colleagues on their
efforts.
In this spirit, I would also like to comment on changes in the VA
health care system affecting a number of veterans health care
facilities in the Northeast and elsewhere.
Under the new regional allocation formula being implemented by the
VA, the New England network could be cut by as much as 6.36 percent
from its fiscal year 1996 funding level. I realize that the New England
region cut may actually be lower than the 6.36 percent over 3 years
originally projected, and the numbers will be reevaluated every year.
However, under the new allocation plan, many States will lose funding
while others will receive considerable increases.
The VA says there will be no reduction in services to veterans in
facilities experiencing cuts and that cost-savings achieved through
consolidation of operations and greater efficiencies in the system will
make up for the shortfalls. However, it is not clear whether this will,
in fact, be the case. I appreciate the fact that the committee is
waiting for the results of a General Accounting Office study, due in
September, on the allocation formula. I think it is very important that
we ensure that funding under this new system is fair and equitable.

Maine has a very large veterans population--152,000--dispersed
throughout the State. Togus is the only veterans community hospital in
my State to serve this population. Currently, Togus provides services
almost exclusively to mandatory--category A--veterans. In fact, less
than 1 percent of Togus' services go to nonmandatory veterans. Togus
cannot be viewed as overfunded compared to other VA medical facilities.
And yet, this facility, which has already made great strides in
increasing efficiency and rooting out waste, may experience a reduction
in funding under the new allocation formula.
I believe there is a limit to the kind of restructuring that some of
these facilities can be expected to absorb without undermining the
quality of care and the availability of basic services. Moreover, I am
concerned that a redistribution of funds away from New England presents
a potential danger that the programs under the draft strategic plan
could be underfunded.
I would remind my colleagues once again that the Senate
Appropriations Committee rejected the budget agreement recommendation
to reduce VA discretionary funding by $273 million below the
President's fiscal year 1998 request because such a reduction would
result in fewer eligible veterans receiving comprehensive medical care
I strongly believe that each veteran must be treated with the dignity
and respect he or she deserves by virtue of having worn our Nation's
uniform, and we have a commitment to ensure that all veterans receive
the benefits they deserve.
A fair allocation of VA resources must take into account the regional
impact of all of the regional networks. As such, I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House to ensure
that the bill we send to the President provides a fair and equitable
allocation of funding for VA hospitals.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS PROGRAM

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my friend,
Senator Kit Bond and his efforts to include funding for important
community development programs within the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 1998. In particular, I would like to highlight the
provision of $12 million for the Community Outreach Partnerships
Centers [COPC] program. I commend the subcommittee for its diligence in
funding this program at this level.
The COPC program provides assistance to public or private nonprofit
institutions of higher education for a wide range of community outreach
activities. These colleges and universities may utilize COPC funds to
address a variety of local needs, including housing, economic
development, neighborhood revitalization, job training, and crime
prevention. The program thus utilizes and leverages the enormous
resources of our institutions of higher learning to establish
partnerships with local neighborhoods and communities to solve their
common problems.
Mr. President, I would like to applaud the outstanding community
outreach efforts of Long Island University [LIU] located in my home
State of New York and bring these efforts to the attention of the
Subcommittee on VA-HUD Appropriations. Long Island University, founded
in 1886, has a current enrollment of 24,000 students and conducts a
variety of community oriented programs at each of its six New York
campuses.
LIU's various community outreach programs at its Brooklyn campus are
particularly successful and well suited to the COPC program. For
instance, the university operates a number of educational programs for
senior citizens and New York City school students, including
underprivileged and

[[Page S7849]]

minority students. In addition, the university operates a small
business development institute, a speech and pathology clinic which
serves needy persons with disabilities free of charge, and a
collaborative career development and cooperative education initiative.
Mr. President, Long Island University has an outstanding track record
of community involvement. It has formed successful partnerships with
state and local governments, including the New York City Board of
Education, as well as community and business groups. It has
successfully leveraged additional funding from a wide variety of
sources. I believe that its activities are a successful example of
positive and constructive change within the community.
I thank Senator Bond for his efforts and I commend the community
outreach activities of Long Island University as a model for funding
under the COPC program.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend Senator D'Amato's
kind words in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The
subcommittee is aware of the extensive community oriented programs of
Long Island university. The University is to be commended to HUD as a
model for successful involvement within the surrounding community and
is worthy of consideration for funding under the Community Outreach
Partnerships Center Program.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that once again the Senate
has chosen to continue our Nation's commitment to the future through
the exploration and study of space. Especially as we stand here today
knowing that the Sojourner Rover continues its unprecedented
exploration of the surface of Mars. NASA is now turning its attention
to the many new missions scheduled for future, including the
construction of the international space station. Mr. President, we must
continue to invest in this pursuit of knowledge.
No one can predict the outcome of our investment in the space
program, but one thing is certain, and that is generations to come will
benefit from the knowledge and experience gained from the investment we
have made, and continued exploration of space will present many more
opportunities to learn.
First, the space program will provide significant contributions not
only to Americans, but people all around the world. We have already
seen results of space-related research in life science. Recently I
learned of a NASA technology which is now being used to help diagnose
vision problems in our children. This coming school year, the State of
Florida will be using this technology to screen all students in
kindergarten. By discovering vision problems at such an early age, we
will prevent many of these children from falling behind because of
undetected impairments. This type of commercial application of NASA
born technology is virtually limitless.
Second, our Nation's leadership role in high technology research and
development must be maintained and enhanced. The aerospace industry is
a significant area of America's international competitiveness.
Third, projects such as the international space station help to
continue and expand cooperation among the world's nations. Our
collaborative efforts with the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians only
serve to strengthen our relations in a global community. Our space
program enables us to exchange exciting ideas with the world, and
accelerate the pace of our own technology and space exploration.
Mr. President I believe that these are very compelling reasons for
continued support of our space program. NASA deserves our support.
Congress and the administration should provide the appropriate
resources needed for NASA to successfully manage and enhance our space
program. We must invest in our future, and invest in ourselves.

pilot program for affordable drugs for the terminally ill

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to address a critical need in our
society, the need for affordable health care for the terminally ill.
Today, in the fiscal year 1998 Treasury and general government
appropriations bill, a bill which I otherwise supported, I believe we
did a disservice to those suffering from the HIV virus, cancer, and
other terminal diseases. We failed to authorize a pilot program which
might have severely reduced the cost of essential, and at this time
very expensive, drugs which significantly prolong patients' lives and
enhance their quality of life.
The Treasury and general government appropriations bill includes a
repeal of section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994. This so-called cooperative purchasing provision would have
allowed local governments to purchase items from the schedule of prices
established by the Government Services Administration [GSA] for the
Federal Government. On the face of it, this provision had some appeal,
as a measure that might save money for local governments. However, many
argued that section 1555 would bankrupt small businesses, increase all
prices in the long term, and undermine the reliability and safety
provided by a local manufacturing and distribution network. The concern
about section 1555 was widespread and profound and, therefore, I
supported a repeal of the provision. However, I favored one exception,
which would address a critical need and give us a chance to observe the
effects of section 1555. I favored the authorization of a carefully
defined pilot program in cooperative purchasing of drugs for terminally
ill patients.
Public hospitals in cities and counties throughout the United States
are desperate to reduce the cost of health care for the terminally ill.
Last year, the Nation's largest city, county, and State hospitals lost
an average of $86 million per year by providing care to uninsured an
underinsured patients. To avoid closure or bankruptcy, many of these
institutions have to limit their more expensive services, such as the
new generation of life-prolonging AIDS drugs. At the same time, many
AIDS patients are deprived of adequate care because they cannot afford
$15,000 per year for AIDS drug therapy. State and local programs must
purchase these drugs for them.
The Department of Health and Human Services has agreed to coordinate
a pilot program which would enable State and local governments to
benefit from Federal Government rates when they purchase drugs for
life-threatening conditions. Recent studies suggest that this could
save public hospitals more than 25 percent of their current
expenditures on these essential drugs. These savings would, in turn,
make it possible for hospitals to help more Americans battling against
terminal illness.
I think we all agree that the terminally ill and those who serve them
deserve our support in making their medical care more affordable and
available. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the concern of
veterans' groups and others that this kind of program could eventually
result in higher health care costs for all. Therefore, this pilot
program would be narrowly focused and of finite length. I encourage
concerned groups to contribute suggestions as we define those program
constraints. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this pilot program may
fail. If so, we will have learned from our error. If the program works,
however, if it truly brings down the costs of life-prolonging and
potentially life-saving drugs, could we live with ourselves if we
refused to give it a chance?

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to state my strong support
for the VA-HUD Subcommittee's efforts to support funding in this
legislation to combat the twin scourges of drugs and crime in low-
income housing throughout the Nation. I am greatly encouraged by the
subcommittee's action in maintaining $290 million in funding for the
Drug Elimination Grant Program.
Under this important program, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development [HUD] makes funds available to local housing authorities
for the purpose of combating and preventing crime, including drug-
related crime. Housing authorities have great flexibility in
determining how best to use these funds to address local needs. Many
authorities have used drug elimination funding to create and expand
community policing efforts, to make capital improvements to improve
security, to fund drug awareness, prevention, and treatment programs
and to organize tenant patrols and neighborhood watch programs.

[[Page S7850]]

I am also fully aware of the subcommittee's inclusion of $30 million
for the New Approach antidrug program and I strongly support this
provision. This funding will be available to help combat drugs and
crime in non-federally assisted low-income housing which is too often
overlooked in the traditional public housing programs.
However, I would like to state my concern with one aspect of the
structure of the account which provides funding for the Drug
Elimination Program. This troubling aspect is the expansion of a set-
aside for the Operation Safe Home initiative, administered by the HUD
Office of Inspector General, within that account. Let me be clear, I do
not question the effectiveness or usefulness of the Operation Safe Home
initiative. This initiative has had gratifying success in confiscating
guns and drugs from public housing.
However, I am concerned with the source of funding for this
initiative. By reducing the amount of funding available for drug
elimination grants, we are effectively cutting into local efforts to
combat crime and drugs. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
the committee with authorizing jurisdiction over the multitude of HUD
programs, I was pleased to cosponsor S. 462, the Public Housing Reform
and Responsibility Act of 1997. This legislation, which was passed out
of the Banking Committee on May 8, 1997 by a unanimous 18-0 vote,
contains an important provision which would allow funding for the
Operation Safe Home initiative to be provided from the HUD
headquarters' reserve fund. I am convinced that this is a far more
appropriate funding vehicle for this initiative.
Like many other important HUD programs, such as public housing
operating assistance and housing for the elderly and disabled, the
administration requested a cut in the Drug Elimination Grant Program.
This proposed $20 million cut would occur as a result of a set-aside
within the program to fund the HUD inspector general's Operation Safe
Home initiative.
Mr. President, I am grateful that the VA-HUD Subcommittee did not
follow the approach adopted in the House, and instead reduced the
administration's recommended cut of $20 million to a $15 million cut.
However, I believe that even this reduced cut in antidrug funding is
too much and the full amount should be restored to the program.
I express my wish to continue to work with the VA-HUD Subcommittee as
we move toward conference with the House of Representatives on this
important legislation. I am confident that attempts to increase this
set-aside at conference will be unsuccessful and I am hopeful that
together the Banking and Appropriations Committees can agree upon a
more appropriate source of funding for the Operation Safe Home
initiative.
Mr. President, in conclusion, let me once again thank my good friend
Senator Bond for his leadership and diligence in crafting a VA-HUD
appropriations bill which makes tough choices with the limited amount
of funds available. I look forward to working together as the process
continues.

SELF-HELP HOUSING

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation
to Senator Kit Bond for his efforts to provide funding within the VA-
HUD Appropriations bill to expand homeownership activities through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. In this regard, I
note with particular appreciation the provision of $30 million in
funding for the Capacity Building for Community Development and
Affordable Housing program.
This program was expanded and reauthorized by the Housing Opportunity
Program Extension Act [HOPE Act], which I was pleased to sponsor. It
provides an unparalleled opportunity to support local housing and
homeownership initiatives. Specifically, the HOPE Act provided for the
support of housing organizations which utilize a self-help approach to
homeownership opportunities.
Mr. President, I would like to commend and bring to the attention of
the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee the outstanding efforts of one
particular self-help housing provider located in my home state of New
York. The Riverhead Revitalization and Preservation Corp. [Riverhead
Corp.], under the guidance and leadership of Ms. Patricia Stark,
utilizes donated labor from volunteers and potential homeowners to
develop and rehabilitate homes on Long Island, NY.
The Riverhead Corp. is helping to reverse the decline of
neighborhoods by renovating blighted homes and providing a stake in the
community for first-time homeowners. In addition, the Riverhead Corp.
employs a revolving loan-fund strategy which reinvests proceeds from
home sales in the further development of housing opportunities. Thus,
the Riverhead Corp. helps to stimulate community revitalization,
promotes job and business creation, and provides housing for deserving
low- and moderate-income working families.
I commend the efforts of the Riverhead Corp. to the Subcommittee and
to HUD as a model of success which would be worthy of support under the
self-help homeownership auspices of the Capacity Building program
funded by this legislation. Once again, I would like to thank Senator
Kit Bond for his efforts to support increased homeownership throughout
the Nation.
Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Alfonse D'Amato for his support of this VA-
HUD Appropriations legislation and for our joint efforts to bring the
benefits of homeownership to as many American families as possible. The
subcommittee recognizes the local efforts of the Riverhead Corp.
Revitalization and Preservation to increase access to homeownership on
Long Island, where I know housing and development costs can often be
prohibitive. I urge the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
seriously consider any application for assistance on the part of the
Riverhead Corp. under the Capacity Building program initiative. I too
commend the Riverhead Corp. for its successful and innovative efforts
to improve communities and enhance home-ownership opportunities.

veterans programs

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the
Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to express my support for
S. 1034, the fiscal year 1998 Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriation
bill, and most particularly for title I, the part of the bill dealing
with VA.
I realize that this has again been a very difficult year for funding
issues, with a reduced 602(b) allocation, agency spending being cut by
reconciliation measures, and increased competition for what limited
funding remained available. The Chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee,
Senator Bond, the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and the other
members of the subcommittee deserve credit for their remarkable efforts
with regard to veterans' needs, as evident in this bill.
Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the budget resolution
included proposed reductions in VA spending below the current fiscal
year 1997 level, and below what is generally considered the current
services level. At the time that the Senate passed the balanced budget
resolution, I took strong exception to the proposal funding for
veterans. In my view, the budget resolution asked veterans to carry a
disproportionate share of the burden to balance the Federal budget.
Realizing, too, that slashing discretionary spending--especially for
health care--was inappropriate, the Committee on Appropriations
[Committee] saw fit to alter the spending priorities for veterans.
Instead, the committee was able to increase funding for VA medical
care, research, and the State Veterans Home Program. This is a
tremendous achievement. While I would always want to increase support
for veterans programs further, I am enormously pleased with the result
of their efforts, and would like to highlight several accomplishments
in particular.
For health care, the committee recommended $17.02 billion for VA
medical care, an increase of $68 million over the President's request.
The committee also recognized that VA is to retain, under new
authorizing legislation which is part of the budget agreement, the so-
called medical care cost recovery [MCCR] collections estimated to reach
$604 million in fiscal year 1998. Because collections of these third-

[[Page S7851]]

party receipts has grown from $267 million in fiscal year 1991 to over
$557 million in fiscal year 1996, I am encouraged by VA's ability to
generate nonappropriated revenue. I note with caution however, that
VA's outpatient billing remains problematic. Along with my colleague,
Senator Mikulski, I intend to be attentive to VA's collection
activities.
When combined, the committee's recommendation and the authorization
for the retention of insurance moneys bring total discretionary
resources for medical care to $17.6 billion. As we proceed with Senate
approval of the VA appropriations bill, it is important to note that
this amount constitutes an increase of $617 million over current
spending.
I am also particular gratified by the committee's report language on
the need for a community-based outpatient clinic [CBOC] in Charleston,
the capital of my home State of West Virginia. Indeed, the committee
noted that a Charleston CBOC would improve service to more than 27,000
veterans in Kanawha and surrounding counties, including Boone, Putnam,
Lincoln, and Logan. Thousands of these veterans reside in rural areas,
many miles from the nearest VA medical center. Many of them live in
areas with no public transportation, where just a trip to the doctor
can take several hours of driving time on winding, mountainous roads. A
VA outpatient clinic in this part of West Virginia is long overdue.
Throughout my tenure on the Committee on Veteran's Affairs, I have
witnessed the direct benefits of a strong research program, such as
higher quality clinicians and discoveries in prosthetics, cancer, AIDS,
and aging. These discoveries directly affect the everyday activities of
veterans. After several years of flat funding, I believe that the time
has come to increase the VA research appropriation. The Appropriations
Committee agreed and included an increase in the VA medical and
prosthetic research account. Although the increase--$5 million--is
modest, it sends an important signal to the VA research community that
we value their work and the direct impact it has on our veterans.
The increase in research funding will help support important work on
the health problems of atomic veterans, Vietnam-era veterans, and gulf
war veterans. Over the years, we have witnessed the emergence of
special health problems associated with each war. In response, VA
researchers have made important gains in the understanding of each of
these populations and their clinical needs. Their challenges continue,
and we must make sure that their research efforts are well supported.
I also express my strong support for the committee's action to fully
fund the Court of Veterans Appeal's Pro Bono Representation Program.
This program is of utmost importance to our Nation's veterans. At a
time when the court is experiencing a dramatic increase in the number
of appeals filed, it would be devastating to cut the funding of a
program that matches up pro bono attorneys with indigent veterans. It
is a small program, but it's impact is great. In fact, the Pro Bono
Program will be assigning its one thousandth case to a pro bono
attorney on July 24, 1997.
Mr. President, although I am pleased with the overall outcome of this
bill, I have concerns about the effect of the bill's appropriation for
VA's general operating expenses account. The bill provides for $786
million, which is $41 million below the current budget and $60 million
below the budget request. This is a significant cut for VA to absorb,
especially at a time when it is still taking VA an average of 135 days
to process an original compensation claim. However, as we strive toward
deficit reduction, Congress cannot continue to throw money at problems
in the absence of effective leadership at agencies to bring about the
change that is needed. Sadly, that absence has been profound at the
Veterans Benefit Administration in recent years. It is time for VA to
manage the benefits process, not just administer it. It is past time
for VA to change, in major ways, beginning with the implementation of
many of the recommendations contained in the recent reports of the
Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission and the National Academy of
Public Administration.
Mr. President, there is no doubt that this is a very exciting time.
VA has the potential for meaningful change. Whether it is in the area
of a medical care or benefits administration, I believe that, on
balance, the Committee on Appropriations has given VA the resources it
needs to move forward with much needed reforms. I applaud the
leadership of all the members of the Appropriations Committee, and
especially those members on the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
Mr. President, in closing, I express my deepest gratitude to my
esteemed colleague, Senator Mikulski, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee, for her continued efforts with respect to
veterans' programs. This year, as she does every year, Senator Mikulski
has shown her unwavering support for veterans. I am pleased to call her
my colleague and friend.

csoc

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to engage the Senator from Maryland in a
colloquy regarding the intent of report language included on her behalf
in the Senate Report accompanying S. 1034, the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD
and Independent Agencies appropriations bill concerning NASA's
Consolidated Space Operations Contract.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy concerning
CSOC.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator agree that it is not the intent of
her report language to expand the CSOC procurement to include elements
of the Space Flight Operations Contract not presently envisioned to be
part of the SCOC contract, as stipulated in the pending request for
proposals.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. The intent of the report
language is simply to ensure that NASA include all appropriate common
support functions at all NASA centers under CSOC, as defined in the
request for proposals.

don't underfund critical toxic cleanup

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill presents an all too common dilemma--inadequate
funds and very deserving programs--and the choices we must make are
very difficult indeed.
I appreciate the difficult job the chairman and ranking member had in
dealing with an insufficient Section 602(b) allocation.
However, as a strong advocate for our environment, and as ranking on
the Budget Committee, I am very disappointed at the level of funding
for the Environmental Protection Agency's operating budget. The mark
for EPA's operation is $200 million below the President's request and
the budget agreement.
I am specifically concerned that we are continuing to add duties to
EPA without the accompanying resources. This budget does not provide
the funding needed to meet Congress's demands that EPA carry out more
cost-benefit analysis in its regulations, for additional outreach to
small businesses, and for fuller consideration of stakeholders in the
regulatory process.
Nor does it provide adequate funding to combat global warming.
Indeed, at a recent Environment and Public Works Committee hearing the
only issue on which all the witnesses agreed was the need for more
funding for critical climate change research.
I am also disappointed that the mark does not include any funding
increase for superfund. I understand the chairman believes that
superfund must be reauthorized before that money is appropriated. I
disagree with that assessment. However, I am working closely with
Senators Smith, Baucus, and Chafee and I expect we soon will have a
bipartisan bill.
If that bill comes after this appropriations cycle, I will urge my
colleagues to support a supplemental that funds hazardous waste clean
up to the level in the budget agreement. The millions of people living
near superfund sites deserve our efforts to fully fund this program.
I am also disappointed that the chairman's mark zeros-out Community
Development Financial Institutions, or CDFI. One hundred twenty-five
million dollars was included in the budget agreement. I understand the
House included full funding for this important program and I look
forward for a better outcome during the conference.

[[Page S7852]]

Mr. President, I am very pleased the Appropriations Committee, the
members unanimously agreed to my amendment to transfer money for
investigations of chemical accidents from EPA and OSHA to the Chemical
Safety Board.
An independent Chemical Safety Board, with its expertise and
objectivity, is the proper body to investigate and identify steps
needed to prevent future accidents. In 1990, Congress established the
independent Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to do just
that. The board was modeled on the respected and influential National
Transportation Safety Board. As part of its reinventing government
program, the administration cut funding for the chemical board and
tried to transfer its authority to EPA and OSHA. Subsequent events,
including an investigation in New Jersey, show that this reorganization
was ill-advised.
By reviving the board, Congress is reasserting its authority and
protecting the workers and communities around chemical industrial
sites.
I want to thank those who helped revive this board. First, I want to
acknowledge the help of Senator Bond and Mikulski. I also want to thank
the public interest groups, the oil, chemical, and atomic workers, and
the companies that have publicly recognized the advantage of having
this board. I want to single out for acknowledgment Marathon Oil
and the Rohm & Haas Corp. in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask that a letter signed by 19 public interest
groups in support of the Lautenberg amendment to fund the Chemical
Safety Board be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. Lautenberg. Finally, I want to thank the Chairman of the
Committee for including report language assuring the citizens of Toms
River, N.J. that the study of the cancer cluster will be completely
carried out. The language in the report underscores the Federal
commitment to pursuing the cause of the cancer cluster and making sure
this research is completed.
Mr. President, as I close my statement, I want to once again
acknowledge Senator Bond and Mikulski for the difficult job they did in
face of inadequate resources.

Exhibit 1

July 17, 1997.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Committee on Appropriations,
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Stevens: As members of social justice,
environmental, religious, and labor organizations we are
writing to express our full support for a $6 million
appropriation to fund the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board. We request your support and that of
others on your committee in passing the Lautenberg amendment
which would provide this funding.
Modelled after the respected and influential National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board (CSHIB) was established by the
1990 Clean Air Act to independently investigate the root
causes of chemical accidents and offer recommendations on
ways to prevent accidents in the future. However, seven years
after its authorization and several years after the
confirmation of three of its members, the board is still
without funding.
In 1994, the Administration decided that the Board was
redundant in light of efforts to reinvent government. Thus,
the Board's duties were subsequently passed to two regulatory
agencies, EPA and OSHA. To date these two agencies have done
an abominable job in investigating chemical accidents. For
example, 27 months following a major accident at Napp
Technologies in Lodi, N.J., which claimed the lives of five
workers, an accident investigation report has yet to be
released. This is not the fault of the dedicated compliance
personnel in the field. OSHA and EPA are primarily concerned
with determining violations of specific standards, not with
the kind of comprehensive investigations needed to determine
the root causes of major chemical accidents. Further,
questions have been raised about the legal jurisdiction of
those agencies. For example, following an accident at a Tosco
oil refinery in Martinez, Calif., EPA was barred from
entering the facility to investigate the accident because the
agency could not provide proof of their authority to enter.
Finally, jurisdictional problems have plagued the attempt to
delegate authority to investigate the causes of chemical
accidents within two separate agencies
The Chemical Safety Board, on the other hand, is an
independent, non-regulatory body, and the Board's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations cannot be admitted as
evidence or used in litigation. In both this case and the
case of transport accidents, Congress wisely chose to
separate the regulatory agencies from those charged with
investigations. Thus, the Board can investigate the root
causes of industrial accidents, conduct research, oversee the
performance of chemical safety standards, and recommend
improvements in chemical manufacturing, processing, transport
and storage free from political and industrial interference.
Federal agencies, such as EPA and OSHA, are required to
respond to, but are not bound to adopt, the high-profile
recommendations issued by the Board. As is the case with
recommendations made by the highly regarded NTSB, we would
hope that those made by the Chemical Safety Board would be
quickly and efficiently adhered to by industry.
Chemical accidents continue to occur on average 21 times a
day in the United States, costing human lives, causing untold
damage to property and the environment, and increasing health
care and environmental clean-up costs. Recent chemical
disasters clearly illustrate the need for this independent
board and its work to refine, coordinate, direct, and
improve federal chemical safety activities. Proper
oversight could have prevented many of these tragedies,
such as an accident last month at a fertilizer factor in
Helena, Ark., which claimed the lives of several
firefighters. This accident parallels a similar accident
three years ago at another fertilizer factory near Sioux
City, Iowa, which claimed the lives of three individuals.
We strongly support an appropriation of $6 million to fund
and finally make operational the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board for the health and safety of our workers,
communities, and environment. Thank you for your favorable
consideration.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Daniel Swartz,
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life;
Phil Clapp,
Environmental Information Center;
Rick Hind,
Greenpeace;
Denny Larson,
National Oil Refinery Action Network, Communities for a
Better environment California;
Rick Engler,
New Jersey Work Environment Council, New Jersey Right to
Know and Act Coalition;
Carolyn Raffensperger,
Science and Environmental Health Network;
Carolyn Hartmann,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group;
Michael J. Wright,
United Steelworkers of America;
Joanne Rossi,
Community/Labor Refinery Tracking Committee, Philadelphia;
Joel A. Tickner,
Work Environment Program, University of Massachusetts
Lowell, Clean Production Action;
Carol Andress,
Environmental Defense Fund;
Sanford Lewis,
Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries;
Hillel Gray,
National Environmental Law Center;
Dr. David Wallinga,
Natural Resources Defense Council;
Richard Miller,
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union;
Debbie Sease,
Sierra Club;
Dr. Thom White Wolf Fassett,
General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist
Church;
Susan Gobreski,
Clean Water Action Pennsylvania; and
Dr. Neil Carman,
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter;

LOW-INCOME HOUSING PRESERVATION FUNDING

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bond and
Ranking Minority Member Mikulski for their steadfast recognition of the
need to preserve our Nation's dwindling supply of affordable rental
housing units. The Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act of 1990 [LIHPRHA] is an important tool for
maintaining this scarce resource. I appreciate your bill's

[[Page S7853]]

provision of a structure for continuing a modified capital grant-
capital loan program for housing preservation activities under the
existing LIHPRHA program.
As you are aware, there are almost 30,000 low-income rental units in
37 States that have been approved by HUD and are awaiting funding
through this program. This represents a critical need for preservation
of the existing stock, particularly in tight rental markets. In low
vacancy rate areas, tenant-based rental assistance is often ineffective
in meeting the housing needs of deserving low-income Americans. In New
York City, for example, housing development and land acquisition costs
are high and production of new affordable housing is very limited.
Therefore, retaining the current housing stock is a cost-efficient and
desirable means of meeting shelter needs.
Mr. BOND. Thank you for your remarks. It is my full intention to work
with you to improve the LIHPRHA program. It is this subcommittee's
desire to ensure that a cost-effective approach to preserving our much
needed housing is adequately funded. I am especially concerned about
the detrimental effects of the loss of stock on areas of the country
with low vacancy rates.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank you for your consideration and your continued
commitment. I appreciate your willingness to continue this dialog and
look forward to working with you throughout conference committee action
to resolve this significant housing crisis in a fair and equitable
manner.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss
several other projects that currently are funded in the House version.
I am hopeful these will get full consideration by the conference
committee, and be included in the final bill.
Mr. President, I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure
that Federal research and its subsequent data is shared, whenever
possible, with the taxpayers who fund these research programs. To this
end, I would like to state my support for the $5.8 million provided in
the House bill to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
[NASA] Commercial Technology Program. These funds would be used to
support existing successful program goals, as well as new initiatives
to link businesses from distressed communities to NASA commercial
technologies.
It is critical to the competitiveness of our economy that we promote
the shared use of research material between Federal agencies such as
NASA and the private sector. Support for this program is an important
step in that direction. The program will allow highly successful
outreach efforts such as the NASA Lewis Business and Industry Summit to
be carried forward and will help to ensure NASA Lewis' long-term
viability as an economic force in northeastern Ohio.
Mr. President, I also believe it is our responsibility to use the
success of Federal investments in technology to improve, whenever
feasible, our education system. Therefore I hope the conferees will
agree with the House Appropriation Committee's decision to increase
NASA's Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Aerospace Academy [SEMAA]
and Mobile Aeronautics Education Laboratory [MAEL] programs $3.3
million. This increase would enable the NASA Lewis Research Center and
Cuyahoga Community College to expand their already successful programs
to the Cuyahoga Community College's western campus. In addition, the
workstations included in the Mobile Aeronautics Education Laboratory
can be replicated in Cleveland area schools.
Mr. President, as we are all too well aware, flooding disasters
tragically struck the Midwest this past spring. While there is little
we can do to prevent natural disasters, we must take every step
possible to respond to these disasters in order to minimize potential
loss of life and property. I sincerely hope the conferees will agree
with the House Appropriations Committee's decision to provide $5
million to support the replacement and upgrading of outdated Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] emergency response equipment.
Upgraded, functional equipment is critical to protecting our citizens
from unfortunate natural disasters and I strongly believe safety issues
such as the support of this equipment should be a priority in our
budget discussions. I specifically believe the mobile emergency
response support and mobile air transportable telecommunications
deserve particular attention.
Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my good friend
from Missouri, Senator Bond, chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on VA-HUD. I would hope that he, and the Senator from
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, will give serious consideration to the
programs I described.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his statement. I have
listened very carefully to his remarks and I recognize his concern for
the two programs he mentioned. As the Senator is aware, the VA-HUD
Appropriations Subcommittee had to respond to a vast number of requests
with a limited pool of resources to do it. The Senator from Ohio has
raised very compelling arguments and I will carefully consider his
request during the conference committee deliberations.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my distinguished friend, and I yield the floor.

YOUTHBUILD

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend my friend,
Senator Kit Bond for his efforts as chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee
to include $35 million in funding for the Youthbuild program. This
innovative and successful program allows disadvantaged and at-risk
youth to acquire educational and job skills and develop leadership
abilities within their communities. In the process, the program helps
to develop and rehabilitate physically distressed housing in order to
provide decent, safe and affordable housing opportunities to low and
moderate-income families.
I also note that the subcommittee has instructed HUD to provide a
priority in funding for program applicants that demonstrate an ability
to leverage private and nonprofit funding. In this era of limited
Federal funding, it is essential that our program dollars are stretched
to the maximum extent possible. I fully support this important
provision and believe it will result in a greater benefit for each
Federal dollar provided and a greater amount of local community
coordination and decisionmaking.
I would like to bring one particular organization to the attention of
the chairman and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski. The Bedford-
Stuyvesant Restoration Corp. [Restoration] located in central Brooklyn
has a 30-year legacy of economic development, job creation, and
community building. Restoration currently operates an education and job
training initiative, known as Career Path, which assists economically
disadvantaged young adults, ages 16-24, to become productive members of
the community by providing education and developing employment,
citizenship, and leadership skills.
I note that the Restoration Corp. has an outstanding record of
successfully leveraging local, State, and private funding through
private charities, foundation support, corporate sponsorship, and a
variety of private fundraising efforts. One such effort recently
resulted in Restoration receiving a 5 year $1.75 million grant from
Cablevision, Inc. I believe Restoration's Career Path initiative
represents a successful model which leverages private funding, invests
in our youth and helps to revitalize the stock of affordable housing.
By helping to fund Restoration's Career Path initiative, HUD can help
to restore economic viability to the neighborhoods of central Brooklyn
and assist at-risk young adults to become active and productive members
of the community. Once again, I would express my appreciation and
support for Senator Bond's continuing efforts to support successful
housing and economic development initiatives.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Alfonse D'Amato
for his support of our efforts to fund and improve the operation of
existing HUD programs. The subcommittee is fully aware of the Bedford-
Stuyvesant Restoration Corp. and its 30-year legacy of economic and
cultural development in New York. I am confident that the Career Path
initiative will receive a full and fair consideration from HUD in any
future competition under the Youthbuild program.

economic development initiative

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I see my friend from Missouri, the
chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, on the floor and
would like

[[Page S7854]]

to call to his attention an important project in Ohio that I believe is
deserving of funding under the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]
Program. Specifically, I am interested in the economic development
initiative funding for various community development projects. A number
were listed by the committee in its report on the bill. I am very
interested in a community-wide effort in Lorain, OH, to convert a soon-
to-be-closed hospital into a community resource center. This is an area
that is economically depressed, and in addition to the economic losses
associated with the closure of the hospital, the community recently
discovered that the local Ford production plant will soon be closing
its doors. Would the Senator from Missouri agree that an initiative
which attempted to convert the hospital space into a community resource
and training center be a worthy candidate for funding under the
committee's EDI provision?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio raising
this issue. I agree with him that the project he has described in
Lorain would appear to be well-suited for the EDI program.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for his comments. Were it not for the fact that the hospital is
scheduled to close at the end of the year, I would be content to seek
funding for this project through traditional funding channels. However,
the hospital is set to close in just a few months. Therefore, I have
little choice but to request that the chairman of the subcommittee take
a very close look at this project as he proceeds to conference with the
House on the final version of this appropriations bill. Specifically,
what I am seeking is consideration for support of funds to allow for
renovation and conversion of this space. What I am trying to avoid is
seeing this hospital close and having this wonderful facility stand
empty. Should this happen, I am concerned that it stands vulnerable to
deterioration, and even vandalism, to a point that the only option left
for the community is to tear down the structure.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Ohio's
concerns, and commend him for his efforts to seek a positive solution.
As I am sure he well knows, this has been a difficult year for
community development projects, such as the one he has discussed. All
the same, I am impressed by the overall project, ranging from job
training to child care to community service activities. I will give the
Senator's request all due consideration as we go to conference on this
bill. Is that satisfactory to the Senator?
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, that is satisfactory and I thank the
distinguished chairman for his willingness to work with me and the
members of the Ohio congressional delegation, as well as the community
of Lorain to turn the closure of the hospital into a new, positive
beginning for the people of Lorain.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies has included funding for economic development
initiatives in S. 1034. I am pleased that the committee report mentions
a worthy project at the University of San Francisco that will provide
important economic development in international business opportunities
for this campus.
In the weeks ahead, I will be working with my colleagues in the
Senate and House, as well as with Secretary Cuomo and his staff at HUD,
to secure funds for the Center for International Business Education at
the University of San Francisco, a model program for training and
international commerce, environmental management and business ethics.
The EDI funds would play an important role in promoting economic
vitality in northern California. The center will provide jobs at home
and abroad, while enhancing America's international economic
competitiveness. EDI funding will assist in renovation of critical
facilities and completion of a distance learning facility, while adding
new programs for an important program initiative.
I thank Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski for recognizing this
worthy project.

amendment no. 930

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last Thursday Senator Hatch and myself,
along with Senators Leahy and Durbin, offered an amendment to the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that would delink Federal judicial
pay raises from those of the Congress and senior level executive branch
officials. Our amendment, which was accepted without objection, will
allow judges' salaries to be adjusted automatically on an annual basis.
I am pleased that it is part of the measure that will pass the Senate
today.
For too many years, Congress has refused to take the political heat
for accepting pay raises, and held judicial salaries hostage in the
process. This congressional scheme of hiding behind judicial robes has
created a tremendous financial gulf between Federal judges and the
lawyers who come before them. The likelihood that this salary gap will
only get worse is driving some of our best jurists from the Federal
bench and making it increasingly difficult to attract top-quality
replacements. Such a talent drain threatens the quality of American
justice at a time when our already overburdened courts need our best
and most experienced legal minds.
The numbers offer their own warning. Between 1960 and 1970, only
three Federal judges resigned. But since 1980 more than 50 judges have
left the bench early, many citing inadequate compensation as the
reason. Indeed, a study several years ago by the American Bar
Association estimated that more than one-fourth of the Nation's Federal
judges may quit their jobs.
While this exodus grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult to
attract the best and the brightest to Federal judicial service.
Judicial candidates can clearly see the ink fading on their checkbooks.
Many say they want to serve the public, but they just can't afford it.
The solution to this problem is simple, and by delinking judicial pay
raises, the Senate today takes an important step toward ensuring that
this situation will not be repeated. I am hopeful and optimistic that
we can retain this provision when we conference the measure with the
House.
Mr. President, we in Congress have taken the opportunity to show our
commitment to fairness. We have recognized the mistake Congress made 20
years ago when it tied its own salary increases to those of Federal
judges. This backdoor way of securing congressional pay raises hasn't
worked. But by this amendment we have freed the hostages, the Nation's
Federal judges, and helped to ensure the continued high quality of
America's judicial system.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern that
funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI]
Fund has not been included in the VA/HUD appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1998.
The CDFI Fund is an economic development initiative that was adopted
with overwhelming bipartisan support several years ago. The program is
an important investment tool for economically distressed communities.
Overall, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have done an excellent job
of producing a bill which makes the most of the limited funding
available. However, by not funding CDFI, I believe the committee has
missed the opportunity to make a substantial and cost-effective
investment in our distressed communities.
CDFI leverages private investment to stretch every Federal dollar.
The VA/HUD appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee includes the $125 million requested by the President for this
valuable program. Senator Mikulski has discussed her intention to
revisit the issue of CDFI funding in conference. I too believe the CDFI
Program deserves the opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness in
bringing economic development resources to distressed communities. I
look forward to working with Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond during
conference to restore funding for this program.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1034, the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies appropriations bill for 1998.
This bill provides new budget authority of $91.5 billion and new
outlays of $52.6 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.

[[Page S7855]]

I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill
that, with adoption of the manager's amendment, is within the
subcommittee's revised 602(b) allocation. This is one of the most
difficult bills to manage with its varied programs and challenging
allocation, but I think the bill meets most of the demands made of it
while staying under budget and is a strong candidate for enactment, so
I commend my friend the chairman for his efforts and leadership.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority [BA] and other
adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $90.7 billion in BA
and $99.8 billion in outlays. The total bill is at the Senate
subcommittee's 602(b) nondefense allocation for budget authority and
outlays. The subcommittee is also under its defense allocation by $1
million in BA.
I ask members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge
the speedy adoption of this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1034, VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS, SENATE-REPORTED BILL [Fiscal year 1998, In millions
of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............ 128 69,263 .............. 21,332 90,723
Outlays..................... 128 79,561 .............. 20,061 99,750
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ 129 60,065 .............. 21,332 81,526
Outlays..................... 128 76,154 .............. 20,061 96,343
President's request:
Budget authority............ 129 76,965 .............. 21,332 98,426
Outlays..................... 128 80,313 .............. 20,061 100,502
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ 128 69,823 .............. 21,332 91,283
Outlays..................... 128 80,403 .............. 20,061 100,592

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
TO:
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ (1) 9,198 .............. .............. 9,197
Outlays..................... .............. 3,407 .............. .............. 3,407
President's request:
Budget authority............ (1) (7,702) .............. .............. (7,703)
Outlays..................... .............. (752) .............. .............. (752)
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ .............. (560) .............. .............. (560)
Outlays..................... .............. (842) .............. .............. (842)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to support the VA-HUD
appropriations bill. Chairman Bond, a former colleague of mine on the
Banking Committee, and Senator Mikulski, the ranking member and my good
friend from Maryland, both have a deep understanding of the importance
of housing programs that are so crucial to creating safe, decent, and
affordable housing for the American people. I want to thank them for
their hard work.
The committee did a good job of juggling many competing needs and
interests that go far beyond housing programs. I want to recognize
their good work in both appropriating enough funds to renew expiring
section 8 contracts and in adopting the mark-to-market legislation
passed as part of the reconciliation bill but unfortunately dropped in
conference. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Mack, D'Amato,
Bond, and others addresses what Secretary Cuomo calls the biggest
crisis facing HUD in a way that saves money and ensures the long-term
preservation of the section 8 housing stock.
We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis in a short period of
time to iron out differences with HUD on the section 8 legislation. It
is my hope that, as the appropriations bill moves forward, the
committee will adopt the agreements we reached with HUD which will make
the program easier to implement and generally more efficient. Solving
this problem will rank as one of our best accomplishments for this
Congress and I again want to thank the chairman and ranking member for
their interest and dedication in putting the section 8 housing program
on a sound financial and management footing.
Unfortunately, while these efforts on the section 8 portfolio should
bear real fruit, the committee has been forced to try to squeeze too
many high-priority programs into too small a box. There is simply not
enough money in this bill to address the overall housing needs we face
in this country.
For example, consider the public housing funding. While public
housing has become a much-maligned program, this view is unwarranted.
The vast majority of public housing is in good shape. Fewer than 100 of
more than 3,300 public housing authorities [PHA's] are troubled. Public
housing serves hundreds of thousands of elderly households and nearly
1\1/2\ million children. In many neighborhoods, public housing is
indistinguishable from the privately owned housing that may be next
door.
As in everything, problems do exist. There are bad housing projects
and bad housing authorities. However, the Banking Committee is working
on legislation that will require the Secretary to react quickly to put
the bad PHA's in receivership and to demolish bad projects. We are also
reforming the program to create more mixed-income communities and help
make it possible for additional working families to get access to
public and assisted housing. In fact, public housing represents about
one-third of the housing stock affordable to minimum wage workers in
ths country. It is for this reason, among others, that Secretary Cuomo
called public housing a precious resource.
While these reforms will contribute greatly to the overall health of
the public housing program, in order to succeed, public housing needs
more funding. The bill before us provides $2.9 billion for public
housing operating subsidies, the same as this year. Operating subsidies
are needed to cover the shortfall between what public housing
authorities can collect in rent and what it costs to run the projects.
I am pleased that the committee preserved this funding at current
levels.
Even with the committee's best efforts, however, the $2.9 billion
covers only about 85 percent of what the PHA's need to pay for their
day-to-day operations. We have put public housing authorities in a
bind. They are asked to serve the poor, but not given the funding
necessary to ensure that they can house the poor adequately. To close
the gap, PHAs are forced to put off routine maintenance and small
capital projects. In effect, the housing stock faces slow deterioration
just so the housing authorities can pay the heating bill.
The capital account in this bill also stays steady at $2.5 billion.
These are much-needed funds, and again, I welcome the committee's
effort to protect this crucial spending. But the fact is, the National
Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing said that PHA's need
$4.5 billion per year for 10 years to take care of backlogged capital
needs, in addition to keeping up with routine maintenance, which, by
itself, costs $1.7 billion annually.
This combination of low operating subsidies and inadequate capital
funding means that we are slowly bleeding our public housing stock to
death. All the hard work and good intentions of the committee cannot
make up for the fact that the chairman and ranking

[[Page S7856]]

member were simply not given the allocation necessary to fund these
crucial housing programs at necessary levels.
Similarly, homeless funding remains level in this bill, although
homelessness, despite good progress, continues to be a serious problem.
While economic growth is strong, it has not reached down to the people
who live on the bottom rung of society's ladder. In fact, the
Conference of Mayors estimates that homelessness increased by 5 percent
last year. Moreover, as we try to make public and assisted housing more
available to the working poor, a worthy goal that I support, we reduce
the number of assisted housing units available to the very worst off in
our country. In the end, this will mean more homelessness. In my view,
Congress ought to recognize that truth and expand the homeless program.
One casualty of the fiscal constraints that the committee labored
within is the Low Income Housing Preservation and Homeownership Act
[LIHPRH], better known as the Preservation Program. This program has
preserved over 80,000 units of affordable housing permanently. Another
30,000 units await funding. I urge the committee to work in conference
to find some funding for this critical program. I know of the
chairman's interest in accomplishing this goal, along with appropriate
reforms to the program.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all their hard work. I
support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so, as well. I will
continue to work for additional funding for housing programs, and look
forward to the day when we are able to adequately address the many
existing demands.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to commend the managers of the Fiscal
Year 1998 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill, Chairman
Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their hard work in fashioning this
measure, and for bringing it to the Floor in a timely manner. The bill
appropriates $90,901,535,000 for programs in Fiscal Year 1998, is
within its 602(b) allocations, and is below the amount requested by the
administration by about $70,903,000.
Mr. President, I specifically commend the chairman and ranking
member for taking an extremely tight 602(b) allocation and spreading it
across the twenty-one agencies. There were also additional constraints
posed by the budget agreement resolved to accomplish a unified Federal
budget in fiscal year 2002.
This bill funds a diversity of agencies and programs. It is a
challenge every year to develop a passable bill that addresses a
variety of concerns from all Members of the Senate, the Federal
agencies, and the American people.
Mr. President, this bill matches the President's request for
Veterans Affairs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science
Foundation. The managers also protected several key programs in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, namely CDBG, HOME, and the
McKinney Homeless programs. In addition, many cuts made in the proposed
budget were restored. The highest priority was to adequately fund
Veteran's medical programs, despite the proposed cut in the budget
agreement. This bill matches the President's request for Veterans
Medical Care, and restores the $27 million cut in Veterans Medical
Research.
Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee, as well as their dedicated, hardworking staff: Andy
Givens and Liz Blevins for the minority and John Kamarck, Carrie
Apostolou, and Lashawnda Leftwich for the majority.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the VA-
HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. I want to take this
opportunity to thank the chairman, Senator Bond, and his staff for
working with those of us on this side of the aisle in such a collegial
way. I think the fact that we were able to finish this bill tonight
says a lot about the bipartisan cooperation that we have received, or
has occurred between both Senator Bond, myself, and the other Members
of the U.S. Senate.
Today, I note that we had robust discussions on important policy
matters. But if one would note, the whole tone was one of civility,
consideration, and collegiality. I am very proud of the way this bill
has moved.
I am also very proud of the substance in this bill. We have met
compelling human need with veterans and the poor. We have stood sentry
over the important issues related to the environment, protected
consumers, and ensured that Arlington Cemetery would be as fit for duty
as the brave people were who lie therein. And we have, at the same
time, had a very serious issue addressed in the area of science and
technology funding.
So veterans' health research that will be looking at issues related
to both women's health and prostate cancer, to our important space
program that shows it is the best in the world, to the National Science
Foundation which is looking at how we can ensure that brilliant young
investigators are going to be able to have the new ideas for the 21st
century that are going to lead to new products says a lot about what
this bill does.
I enjoy very much serving as the ranking member and my job is made
easier, more delightful, and gives me pride because of the cooperation
of the majority, both its chairman and staff.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my own staff
because it takes a lot of reviewing of a lot of line items when you
have seven Cabinet-level agencies and 25 other independent agencies. I
would like to thank Andy Givens, my chief clerk; David Bowers for his
hard work, and our excellent detailee, Stacy Closson.
So as we move on to the rollcall vote, I again look forward to
working with my very able chair in the conference and bringing a great
conference report back to the Senate where we can continue the pride we
feel as we vote on this bill tonight.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me very briefly express my sincere
appreciation to my ranking member for her great cooperation. The
expeditious way in which this measure was handled is something that is
rather unusual for the VA-HUD bill. When she indicated she thought we
could wrap this up today, I said I am a skeptic; I am from Missouri; I
have to be shown. And thanks to the cooperation of all Senators we have
been able to do it.
I really appreciate the cooperation of Senators on both sides.
Senator Mikulski has been very effective. I would like to add my thanks
to Andy Givens, to Stacy Closson and David Bowers, and particular
thanks to my staff. This is the first time that Jon Kamarck has gone
through this as the chief clerk. It is quite an experience. We
appreciate the work he has done. We are delighted to have the steady
hand of Carrie Apostolou guiding us on EPA, veterans, FEMA matters with
great skill, and Sarah Horrigan has been a great addition on the NASA
and science accounts, and I very much appreciate all of that
assistance.
Mr. President, since I think many Members are anxious to get started
on the vote, and I do not expect anyone will be disadvantaged, I will
now ask unanimous consent that we begin the vote and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the House bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

A bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and for sundry independent agencies, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the
enacting clause is stricken, the text of S. 1034 is inserted, and the
bill is deemed read a third time.
The yeas and nays are requested. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The question is, Shall the bill
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.

[[Page S7857]]

The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--1

Kyl

The bill (H.R. 2158), as amended, was passed.
[The text of H.R. 2158 will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.]
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House, and
the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate,
and S. 1034 be placed back on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the Chair appointed Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have already expressed appreciation to my
staff, and particularly my ranking member. I want to make a special
mention of my chief of staff, Julie Dammann, whose second child was due
today and she stayed with us throughout the whole proceedings and
wanted to see the VA-HUD bill delivered first. She has been an
invaluable help in all legislative activities and helped us shepherd
this through. So, a very special thank you, and best wishes to Julie,
to Rolf and their other daughter, Monica. Again, I express my
appreciation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would also echo the comments to Julie and her
husband. I hope that she can go home, rest easy, put her feet up and we
are looking forward to being the proud Godparents of Bond-Mikulski.
Maybe we will name something after her in conference.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I don't know whether
Mikulski-Dammann would be a good name for her, maybe, but it is one we
can always offer, to show a little diversity.

____________________