[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12620-S12625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
    INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to consider the conference report to accompany the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill, it be considered as having been read, and there be 
20 minutes equally divided for debate between the two managers; I 
further ask unanimous consent there be an additional 5 minutes under 
the control of Senator McCain, and 30 minutes under the control of 
Senator Wellstone, with the vote occurring on adoption at 9:15 a.m. on 
Friday, October 15, with paragraph 4 of rule XII being waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     2684, having met have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 13, 1999.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the generosity of the majority 
and minority leaders for allowing us to proceed on the consideration of 
the Senate conference report to accompany H.R. 2684.
  I ask that the Chair advise me when 5 minutes have been utilized. I 
want to save some of my time and be able to yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Maryland.
  This has been a very difficult bill, not unlike, as someone 
suggested, riding a tilt-a-whirl at the county fair. I am glad to say 
the ride is over. It was fun while it lasted. We are finally on solid 
ground with this conference report.
  We have a bill that meets many priorities of the Members and I think 
addresses fairly a number of concerns of the administration without 
totally satisfying everyone.
  First, my sincerest thanks to Senators Stevens and Byrd for helping 
us to reach an adequate allocation. Without their help, this bill would 
still be a work in progress, and we would not be able to complete it.
  A very special thanks once again to Senator Mikulski, who worked with 
us to find a good balance in making some very difficult funding 
decisions. It was a pleasure as always to have her good guidance and 
sound judgment.
  I believe she will join me in saying a special thanks to the new 
Chair and ranking member in the House, Chairman Walsh, and Congressman 
Mollohan, who were a tremendous pleasure to work with. We appreciate 
their assistance.
  My thanks to staff on the minority side: Paul Carliner Jeannie 
Schroeder, and Sean Smith; on my side, a very special thanks to Jon 
Kamarck, Julie Dammann, Carolyn Apostolou, and Cheh Kim.
  I believe the bill before the Senate is a very good bill with funds 
allocated to the most pressing needs we face. Total spending is $72 
billion in budget authority and $82.6 billion in outlays. It is roughly 
the same as the President's overall request for the VA-HUD 
subcommittee, plus FEMA emergency funds.
  Unlike the President's budget, the highest priority is the 
recommendation before the Senate for VA medical care, which has 
increased $1.7 billion above the President's request as directed by 
this body, and it is fully paid for in the bill. We have also included 
significant new funds for 60,000 incremental vouchers, additional funds 
above the President's request for public housing, capital and operating 
funds, as well as the President's request for NSF, and an additional 
$75 million for NASA.
  All of these funding levels have been fully offset. In addition, 
there has been $2.5 billion in emergency FEMA funding for the victims 
of Hurricane Floyd, to whom our hearts go out.
  As I noted, the conference agreement provides $44.3 billion for 
veterans funding, which includes a full $1.7 billion for medical care. 
This is the largest increase ever for VA medical care--clearly the 
highest priority of this body.
  I point out that the vouchers we have provided do not create 
additional housing. There was discussion on this floor that we 
desperately need to increase the production of affordable low-income 
housing. In many areas, such as St. Louis in my State, housing is not 
available for the vouchers that are there. We have had to use budget 
gimmicks suggested by the administration, deferring $4.2 billion of 
section 8 funding for fiscal year 2000 expiring section 8 contracts 
until fiscal year 2001. That will create an additional $8 million 
funding requirement, or some $14 billion in BA needed in fiscal year 
2000 if we intend to renew all expiring section 8 contracts.
  To be clear, this means we will go into next year's appropriation 
cycle with a funding shortfall of over $8 billion. We emphasized our 
concern to the administration for their failure to work with Members on 
dealing with this funding crisis. Last year they promised to help, but 
the only thing we got this year was a deferral of $4.2 billion. This 
year, in discussions and negotiations, we reached agreement with Jack 
Lew, the Director of OMB, who has personally promised they will work 
with Members to address the funding shortfall in BA in the section 8 
account. We expect Mr. Lew and the administration to live up to that 
commitment. Nevertheless, we cannot keep writing blank checks on an 
empty account. The outyear projections we have from OMB are for flat 
funding, which means 1.3 million families kicked out of section 8 
housing.
  To reiterate:
  Many of us have been hearing from veterans in our state for some time 
about their concerns with VA's budget. They have been hearing that 
their local VA hospital may lose numerous employees, terminate critical 
services, increase waiting times for appointments, may even shut down 
altogether.

[[Page S12621]]

The additional $1.7 billion above the President will ensure none of 
these things happen. VA will be above to expand services and care to 
thousands of additional veterans. VA will be able to accommodate 
increased costs associated with pharmaceuticals, prosthetics, and pay 
raises.
  At the same time, we strongly support continued improvements and 
reforms to the VA health care system to ensure VA medical care dollars 
go to health care for vets, not maintaining buildings and the status 
quo.
  Other increases in VA's budget include VA research, the state 
cemetery grant program, the state nursing home construction grant 
program, and the Veterans Benefits Administration. These are all 
critical programs and very high priorities.
  EPA funding totals $7.6 billion, the same as FY99 and $383 million 
above the President's request. Funding increase were provided for the 
state revolving funds--which the President had proposed cutting by $550 
million. We have accommodated administration concerns in such areas as 
the Montreal Protocol.
  We were forced to make some tough choices and eliminate or reduce 
lower priority, lower risk programs in order to accommodate higher 
priorities. The appropriation protects core EPA programs such as NPDES 
permitting, RCRA corrective action, and pesticides registration and re-
registration.
  FEMA funding totals $870 million, an increase of $44 million over 
FY99. This includes an increase of $10 million for the emergency food 
and shelter grant program, $25 million for the Project Impact grant 
program, $5 million in start-up funds for the flood map modernization 
initiative, and increases in critical programs such as anti-terrorism 
training. In addition, we have included $2.5 billion in emergency 
disaster assistance--funding which is truly needed.
  We have funded the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 
$27.16 billion, which is some $2.5 billion over last year's level and 
which will allow us to put HUD on some very solid ground. Because of 
the priority needs for our veterans, we had to make some tough choices, 
and in HUD's case, that meant not funding any of HUD's 19 new programs 
and initiatives. Instead, we have focused on funding HUD's core 
programs, such as public housing, CDBG, HOME, Drug Elimination grants, 
and Homeless Assistance and Section 202 Housing for the elderly. These 
are the key housing and community development programs that make a 
critical difference in people's lives, and they are programs with a 
proven track record.
  Also, we funded 60,000 new incremental vouchers. I continue to have 
major concerns about this program--vouchers do not produce or assist in 
the financing of any new housing and we desperately need to increase 
the production of affordable, low-income housing. In addition, in many 
areas of the country, including areas in my state such as St. Louis, 
vouchers are very difficult to use--the housing which is affordable 
under the voucher program is just not available. In addition, against 
my better judgment but because we do not have the funds in our 
allocation to meet the funding needs of our key programs, we have used 
the Administration's budget gimmick of deferring $4.2 billion of 
section 8 funding for fiscal year 2000 expiring contracts until fiscal 
year 2001. This will create an additional $8 billion funding 
requirement for a total of some $14 billion in BA needed in fiscal year 
2001 if we intend to renew all expiring section 8 contracts--to be 
clear, this means we already have a funding shortfall in the VA/HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 of over $8 billion.
  I want to emphasize my concern with the Administration's past failure 
to address this section 8 funding crisis; the Administration has 
created this hole and up to now has not acted responsibly in meeting 
these funding requirements. And I have gone to the top. In this year's 
negotiations on the VA/HUD appropriations bill, Jack Lew, the Director 
of OMB, personally has promised to address the funding shortfall in the 
section 8 account. I expect Mr. Lew and the Administration to live up 
to this commitment. Nevertheless, this is the same song and dance we 
heard from HUD last year when the Secretary of HUD personally promised 
to address section 8 costs and them responded by pushing much of the 
section 8 costs into FY 2001 and the outyears. Writing blank checks on 
an empty account is unacceptable, and under the Administration's 
outyear budget projections, section 8 contract renewal funding will be 
flat funded at $11.5 billion which means over the next 10 years some 
1.3 million section families will lose their housing. This is wrong and 
I do not plan to sit by and let it happen.
  I also want to emphasize several issues of particular importance to 
me. First, I introduced the ``Save My Home Act of 1999'' earlier this 
year to require HUD to renew expiring below-market section 8 contracts 
at a market rate for elderly and disabled projects and in circumstances 
where the housing is located in a low vacancy area, such as a rural 
area or high cost area.
  The bill also provides new authority for section 8 enhanced or 
``sticky'' vouchers to ensure that families in housing for which owners 
do not renew their section 8 contracts will be able to continue to live 
in their homes with the Federal government picking up the additional 
rental costs of the units. It is important to preserve this housing, 
and these provisions are included in the VA/HUD appropriations bill as 
well as other important elderly housing reforms.
  With respect to NASA, the bill funds the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration at $75 million above the President's request of 
$13.6 billion, including needed funding for the International Space 
Station and the Shuttle. I know NASA funding was a huge concern for 
many Members because of the House reductions of some $900 million.
  For the National Science Foundation, the bill includes over $3.9 
billion, which approximates the Administration's request. NSF's 
allocation is over $240 million more than last year's enacted level--
about a 6 percent increase. This increase in funds continues our 
commitment and support for the Nation's basic research and education 
needs.
  Some of the major highlights of this allocation include $126 million 
in additional funds for computer and information science and 
engineering activities; $60 million for the important Plant Genome 
Program; and $50 million for the Administration's ``Biocomplexity'' 
initiative.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for 
working with me and producing what I think is an outstanding conference 
that we bring to our colleagues. We could not have done this without 
the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, who got the committee 
over some very significant fiscal humps, and also our House colleagues 
who operated in a spirit of bicameral cooperation. I believe also the 
White House played a very constructive role in suggesting offsets to 
meet key national priorities. We think we come with a very good bill, 
and we are going to urge all of our colleagues to support it.
  We got started on this bill in the spring. We got started a little 
bit late because of impeachment. Everyone wondered how would the Senate 
proceed after we had been through such a wrenching constitutional 
crisis. I can say in the VA-HUD subcommittee we did just fine. We moved 
with a quick step. I believe we probed the fiscal situations of the 
agencies as to what their needs were and, at the same time, how could 
we meet national priorities within the discipline of the thinking of a 
balanced budget.
  I believe we do that. I believe today what we present takes care of 
national interests and national needs. I am confident this bill will be 
signed by the President. I am pleased what we were able to do it to 
meet our obligations to veterans. Promises made are promises kept to 
the people who saved Western civilization. This conference report also 
serves core constituencies, invests in our neighborhoods and 
communities, and creates opportunities for people and advances in 
science and technology. I believe that is an outstanding 
accomplishment.
  I am very pleased we were able to provide a significant increase in 
funding for veterans' health care, $1.7 billion over the President's 
request, and not only providing health care as we know it but breaking 
new ground in creating primary care opportunities out in communities so 
that our rural

[[Page S12622]]

veterans do not have to drive hundreds of miles for their care. We have 
also increased the funding for VA medical research, with special 
emphasis on geriatric care, orthopedic research, and prostate cancer. 
At the same time, we are looking at new and innovative ways to begin to 
fund the compelling need for long-term care, increasing the funds from 
what we call the State Veterans Homes, Federal and State partnerships.
  We are also taking care of America's working families in this bill. 
We fund the housing programs that help lives. We are going to have $11 
billion in all section 8 housing vouchers, including 60,000 additional 
vouchers to enable people to have affordable, decent, and safe housing. 
We also maintained core HUD programs, we increased housing for the 
elderly by $50 million over the President's request, and increased 
funding so that more disabled Americans can find housing.
  We didn't forget about the homeless. This will now be funded at over 
$1 billion. We wanted to make sure local communities have a major say 
in what is going to happen to them, and that of course occurs in the 
community development block grant which will be funded at $4.8 billion.
  Whether it is improving the funding for community development 
financial institutions or empowerment zones, we were able to create 
more opportunity and yet meet taxpayer obligations.
  In addition to that, we also wanted to look at where we were heading 
with our science and our technology. I am pleased our bill fully funds 
NASA and restores the severe cuts made to NASA in the House bill. This 
will save 2,000 jobs at Goddard Flight Center in Maryland, as well as 
the Wallops Flight Facility on the Eastern Shore. This legislation will 
fund NASA $13.6 billion. This means we will be looking at Earth 
science, we will be looking at how to fund the new generation of space 
telescopes, and at the same time we are going to upgrade the safety of 
the space shuttle. That means we are going to invest $25 million in the 
upgrading of the space shuttle while we maintain our commitment to the 
international space station.
  We also fully fund the National Science Foundation, where I believe 
there will be new intellectual breakthroughs, particularly in 
information technology research. We also fund the National Service at 
$433 million, which is close to the President's request. This means 
that 100,000 members and participants across the country right now are 
engaging in community service programs at AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve 
America. We believe that every right has a responsibility, every 
opportunity has an obligation, and this is what National Service does; 
it rekindles the habits of the heart.
  With regard to our EPA bill, this provides $7.5 billion in funding. 
This is $384 million over the President's request. At the same time, we 
declare an emergency and do $2.5 billion in emergency disaster 
assistance for all of the damage created by Hurricane Floyd. It is not 
true when they say: A billion here, a billion there, and that is the 
way Congress works.
  We focused on how we can meet compelling human need; how, in the last 
appropriations of this century, we wanted to make sure we had veterans' 
health care for the people who, five different times, answered the call 
of duty to be able to uphold our national interests around the world; 
to make work worth it by making sure if you are out there and you are 
working, perhaps at the minimum wage, we are willing to subsidize 
housing and therefore subsidize work so we could create a true, real 
safety net for those affected by welfare reform.

  We also know America's genius is in its science and technology. As 
this century closes, we know we not only planted our flag at Iwo Jima 
and honor our veterans who did that, but we planted our flag on the 
Moon, which shows the United States of America continues to be a nation 
of pioneers. We do not seek to conquer other nations. We seek to win 
wars against cancer. We seek to win the battles of the mind in which we 
create new ideas, where we win Nobel prizes and then go on to win new 
markets.
  This is what the VA-HUD bill is all about. I am very pleased to bring 
this to the Democrats. I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for all of 
his courtesies and collegiality.
  I thank John Kamarck, Carolyn Apostolou, Cheh Kim, and Julie Dammann 
on his staff for working so close with my staff. I want to especially 
thank Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Jeannie Schroeder, and most of all 
I thank the Senate for all its cooperation in moving our bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague, Senator McCain--I am actually 
going to take about 15 minutes at the most--if he wants to precede me?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then we go to Senator Wellstone for 30 
minutes. But the Senator from Missouri reserved 5 minutes of his time.
  Mr. McCAIN. The unanimous consent agreement said I had 5 minutes. I 
yielded those 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has yielded his 5 
minutes.
  Does the Senator from Missouri yield the remainder of his time?
  The Chair understands the Senator from Missouri had 10 minutes and he 
specifically asked to be notified when 5 minutes were up.
  Mr. BOND. Do I understand the Senator from Arizona is not going to 
take 5 minutes? He yielded that time?
  He is not speaking.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and turn to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If my colleague from Minnesota will wait 1 minute, can 
I seek clarification from the Senator from Arizona on one point? The 
Senator from Arizona, did he yield his time or did he just yield his 
place?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yielded my time. I do not wish to speak on the pending 
legislation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. BOND. As do I.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I have up to 30 
minutes. I do not think I will need to take that time. I want to 
comment on the conference report. I thank the Senator from Missouri and 
the Senator from Maryland for their work. I am going to vote for this 
conference report.
  Given the constraints they have been working under, and the framework 
they had to work within, they did a yeoman job, and I thank them.
  I want to make three comments and I think I can be brief. First of 
all, on the veterans' health care budget, it is true; we went up by 
$1.7 billion above the President's request. But if you look at the last 
3 or 4 or 5 years of flatline budgets, which means really the veterans' 
health care budget was not even keeping up with inflation, we are 
essentially still not very far ahead. I believe the veterans 
organizations, AMVETS and VFW and Paralyzed Veterans of America and 
Disabled American Veterans, were right in their independent budget, 
which called for us to bump up the President's request, which was 
inadequate, by $3 billion.
  We had a sense-of-the-Senate vote on that, where every single Senator 
voted for that recommendation. I think we are going to have to do much 
better next year. I think this was progress. I thank my colleagues for 
their fine work, but it is my honest to goodness judgment this is 
underfunded; there are some real gaps. In particular, we have the 
challenge of a veterans community that is growing older. How are we 
going to provide the care for this community? We still have the 
challenge of too long a waiting list and too long a distance for people 
to drive.
  I believe we had an amendment on the floor, with Senator Johnson, to 
go up $3 billion. I wish we had because I think there are still going 
to be some unmet needs. That was my first point.
  The second point is one about which I feel very strongly. Senator 
Mikulski, in particular, has been very helpful. But it is the same 
moving picture shown over and over again, this time just on a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment.
  For about 5 or 6 years, I have been talking about the importance of 
getting some compensation for atomic

[[Page S12623]]

veterans. These are veterans who went to States such as Utah and 
Nevada. They went to ground zero. Our Government asked them to be 
there. Our Government never told them they were in harm's way, didn't 
give them any protective gear. It is horrible what has happened to 
them. The incidence of cancer is quite understandable. The incidence of 
illness and disease, not just for these veterans but for their children 
and even their grandchildren, is frightening. It is scary. You cannot 
do dose reconstruction. There is no way they can prove their case.
  I cannot understand why the Senate and the House of Representatives 
cannot find it in its collective heart a way to provide some 
compensation for these veterans just as we did with Agent Orange with 
the Vietnam vets. We were never able to prove one way or the other the 
connection between Agent Orange and lung cancer. We said we are going 
to make this a presumptive disease. We are going to argue the 
presumption is this was caused by Agent Orange.
  I have had amendments passed and then they have been taken out in 
conference committee. This time I wanted to get a good vote on a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment because I could not legislate on this 
appropriations bill. I got 75 or 76 votes which said, at the very 
minimum, we would include three diseases: lung cancer, colon cancer, 
and tumors of the brain and the central nervous system.

  There are several thousand of these veterans. They are older. They 
feel so betrayed. This is the classic example of our Government having 
lied to these veterans. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that is all it was--should have been 
taken out in conference committee.
  I thank my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, for their support. 
But I want to say on the floor of the Senate, next year--I think I can 
get the support from Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond and I hope 
everybody here--we will be ready. One way or another, we are going to 
get this through. It has been 6 or 7 years. I do not think we can say 
to these veterans we do not have the resources; we cannot give you any 
compensation. If we say that, we are just going to say: We don't care 
what happened to you. We don't care what happened to you. We don't care 
what happened to you. It has been going on year after year after year. 
I wanted to express my outrage that we cannot do better.
  I will be back next year. Hopefully, we can get better support and 
get this done in authorization and appropriations. It is a matter of 
justice. It has been a shameful history. What we have done to these 
people is a shameful chapter in the history of our country. I hope we 
in the Senate and the House can find it in our hearts to provide them 
with compensation. It will mean a great deal to these veterans and 
their families.
  Finally, I thank both colleagues. I do not think they could do any 
better with these appropriations bills, given the context. But the 
other issue, because this is VA housing, is, for example, the vouchers 
in a State such as Minnesota. It does not help at all. We have no 
vacancies. The fact is, with the limits on what a family would be 
eligible for, right now the housing is so high that what housing is 
there is above what the voucher plan will cover. It just doesn't help 
us at all.
  I thank my colleagues because they are trying to do everything they 
can, everything humanly possible. But I am predicting there are going 
to be a lot of articles over this next year about housing prices. I 
hope they will be front page stories because for so many families, they 
just cannot find any affordable housing. It is just not there. The 
vouchers don't help because it is not there.
  I will give one example and then finish up. Sheila and I do a lot of 
work with women who have been victims of family violence, domestic 
violence. They go to shelters. That is the first courageous step, to 
get out of that home. It is a dangerous place.
  Then they are in the shelters. Then where else do they go? There is 
no affordable housing. In fact, a lot of the battered women's shelters 
cannot even take some of the battered women because other women and 
children who cannot afford housing and are homeless actually call 
shelters and say they have been battered because they are looking for 
shelter.
  I understand the importance of the vouchers, but in many of the 
communities in Minnesota and around the country, it is not going to 
help at all. There is no housing. It is not available, so the voucher 
does not help. Housing has become so high that the voucher, which 
covers the difference between the fair market value and 25 or 30 
percent of their monthly income, will not do any good because the fair 
market value is above the value of what the vouchers will cover.
  We have a real crisis. Both my colleagues know this. It is 
unbelievable how expensive housing is. The lack of affordable housing 
for families in our country is a huge issue and not just in the cities, 
but also in the suburbs and in rural areas as well.
  Next year, we are going to get ourselves out of the straitjacket and 
the framework and make more of the investment.
  Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski did a yeoman job. They did 
exceptional work. I thank them. I wanted to lay out these three points. 
I yield the floor.


                     environmental data management

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Chairman Bond, in the Senate report on 
the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, 
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, the committee 
instructs EPA to ``establish procedures to engage the public in the 
development, maintenance and modification of information products it 
offers to the public.'' It is my understanding that the committee does 
not necessarily intend for this process to consume the time or 
resources that would be involved in a rule-making.
  I also understand that, in general, the committee intends that EPA's 
obligation to honor the public's right to know and to disseminate to 
the public information about issues affecting human health and the 
environment should be balanced against the expectations discussed in 
the ``Environmental Data Management'' section of the report.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct in his understanding.


    clarification on state funding by epa for the regional haze rule

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the senior Senator 
from Missouri, who is also the chairman of the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee responsible for the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, 
in a colloquy. This colloquy is to clarify the committee's position on 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s funding in fiscal year 2000 
to implement the regional haze rule. I have concerns about how the EPA 
may distribute fiscal year 2000 funding provided for this rule.
  Mr. BOND. I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Montana, who also serves on the Departments 
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent 
Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee. Clarifying the committee's 
position on how EPA should distribute fiscal year 2000 funding to the 
states to implement the new regional haze rule is an important matter 
to me.
  Mr. BURNS. I understand that in the conference report to the fiscal 
year 2000 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and independent agencies appropriations bill, $5,000,000 is 
provided to help the states and recognized regional partnerships 
implement the new EPA regional haze rule. Of this total, an unspecified 
amount will be provided directly to the Western Regional Air 
Partnership (WRAP) and the remaining portion will be allocated among 
the states and other recognized regional partnerships. My concern is, 
given that 10 states are part of the WRAP, EPA may distribute a major 
share of the $5,000,000 to the WRAP and not provide any funding to 
these 10 states since they are involved with the WRAP. In essence, EPA 
could assume that funding for the WRAP constituted funding for these 10 
states. This is not what I believe this report language intended. Thus, 
I believe that we need to ensure that EPA understands that funding for 
the states includes those states working in the WRAP.

[[Page S12624]]

  Mr. CRAIG. I join with my friend from the State of Montana in 
supporting this expectation that the states within the WRAP should not 
be precluded from any distribution of the $5,000,000 provided in this 
fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill. The State of Idaho has new 
requirements and responsibilities based upon this new regional haze 
rule. These new requirements require Idaho to develop new emissions 
data and programs which the state doesn't have now. So the State of 
Idaho must develop new internal capabilities to meet the new regulatory 
deadlines. The WRAP can assist the states in developing some of these 
capabilities, however, the states have their own unique roles and 
responsibilities beyond those of the WRAP. Thus, all states need 
additional funding beyond that provided to the WRAP.
  Mr. BURNS. The purpose for this conference report language to 
directly fund the WRAP was based upon Congressional concerns with 
delayed funding in fiscal year 1999 to the WRAP. As of the end of 
fiscal year 1999, no funds from EPA had been allocated to the WRAP as 
had been appropriated. This delay in funding has jeopardized the 
program and progress of the WRAP to assist the states in addressing new 
regulatory requirements and deadlines of the regional haze rule. This 
delay also seems a bit ironic since EPA encourages states to form 
regional partnerships to implement this new law. Since the WRAP is 
faced with an October 2000 deadline to develop target levels for sulfur 
dioxide emissions and a contingent Market Trading Program for this new 
rule, direct funding in fiscal year 2000 is the most effective way to 
ensure the states meet this new rule.
  Mr. BOND. Funds are to be allocated to the WRAP and all states in an 
equitable manner.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman for this clarification. I trust that 
the Environmental Protection Agency will follow these guidelines in 
developing the distribution of the $5,000,000 to the states in fiscal 
year 2000.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman also for this clarification.


                              section 425

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Chairman Bond, I understand that section 425 of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 is not intended to impede 
federal grantees or contractors from implementing responsibilities 
permitted under grant agreements.
  OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles of Non-Profit Organizations, 
makes clear that federal funds cannot be used to lobby Congress or 
initiate litigation against the U.S. government unless specifically 
authorized by statute to do so. Similar language exists in other cost 
principles, as well as Federal Acquisition Regulations affecting 
contractors. Section 425 is intended to be consistent with these 
prohibitions.
  When an organization endorses the terms and conditions of a grant or 
contract, that organization also certifies its compliance with the 
lobbying and litigation prohibitions in the cost principles. Section 
425 makes clear that the signatory agreeing to the grant, contract, or 
other award is to be that of a chief executive officer (CEO) and will 
serve as meeting the requirements of section 425. Once a CEO (or his or 
her delegate) signs the grant, contract or other award, the terms and 
conditions become binding when an audit is conducted to verify that no 
funds have been used to lobby Congress or initiate litigation against 
the U.S. government unless specifically authorized otherwise.
  Additionally, it is my understanding that the language in section 425 
prohibiting the use of federal funds awarded to grantees and 
contractors from being used for lobbying and litigating on adjudicatory 
matters is consistent with current rules that restrict the use of these 
funds for such purposes. This section is not intended to supercede any 
statute that specifically authorizes the use of federal funds to 
compensate parties for legal expenses such as the Equal Access to 
Justice law that allows small businesses and others that sue federal 
agencies for violating the law to recover their legal expenses when the 
agency's action is judged to be unfounded.
  Section 425 also does not change current practices where federal 
grantees may be representing low-income or disadvantaged tenants or 
other individuals, such as veterans, in adjudicatory proceedings. For 
example, under the Housing Counseling program, HUD reimburses federal 
grantees for representing tenants. This is something that Congress 
strongly supports and section 425 is not intended to limit or restrict 
such programs.
  Finally, section 425 is not intended to add new restrictions on 
membership fees or contributions that an individual whose sole income 
comes from federal benefits appropriated under this bill gives to 
organizations that may use a portion of the fee or contribution for 
lobbying, representing individuals in adjudicatory proceedings, or 
litigating. For example, the membership fee that a veteran, who has no 
other source of income other than federal support through this bill, 
gives to a veterans service organization should not restrict the VSO 
from representing the veteran in a manner that is any different than 
current rules.
  Let me restate that nothing in section 425 precludes affected 
entities from enforcing rights under federal law, including, but not 
necessarily limited to the Administrative Procedure Act and the 
Constitution of the United States. Its intent is limited to ensuring 
that current grant and contract prohibitions are followed, not to 
impede participation in administrative actions.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct in his understanding of section 425.


                        climate change language

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2000 VA/HUD Conference 
Report (106-161) contains bill language regarding implementation of the 
Kyoto Protocol. This bill language is identical to bill language 
included in the Fiscal Year 1999 VA/HUD Conference Report (105-769). I 
would like to ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
VA/HUD Subcommittee two questions to clarify their understanding of 
this provision.
  I note that last year, the conferees carefully crafted bill and 
report language that clearly addressed the concern that the 
Administration does not implement the Kyoto Protocol through domestic 
regulatory action before the Senate gave its advice and consent to the 
Protocol. At the same time, the conferees clarified that they did not 
intend to jeopardize ongoing, voluntary programs. These voluntary 
programs have numerous benefits and are consistent with our treaty 
commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 
ratified by the U.S. in 1992.
  In the Fiscal Year 2000 VA/HUD Appropriations bill (S. 1596), the 
Senate included bill and report language that remains consistent with 
last year's bill and report language. By doing so, the Senate believes 
that this language provides the necessary consistency and prohibits 
only funding for proposing or issuing federal regulatory action called 
for solely to implement the Kyoto Protocol. These programs have long 
had the support within both the public and private sectors, and thus it 
makes both economic and environmental sense that we take this course.
  It is, therefore, my understanding that, like last year, the 
provision in question is not intended to restrict ongoing, voluntary 
programs or activities that, in their entirety, help to improve air 
quality standards, increase energy efficiency, develop cutting-edge 
technologies, and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Is my 
understanding correct?
  As you also know, the Senate has clearly expressed its bipartisan 
view regarding the Kyoto Protocol in S. Res. 98, adopted unanimously by 
the Senate on July 25, 1997. That resolution calls on the 
Administration to achieve commitments from developing countries, 
especially the largest emitters, as well as protect U.S. economic 
interests by emphasizing market-based mechanisms and the use of energy 
efficient technologies. Is my understanding correct that this provision 
would not prohibit the Administration from working to achieve S. Res. 
98?
  Mr. BOND. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
his questions. Your understanding is correct. The provision is not 
intended to restrict ongoing, voluntary programs and initiatives such 
as you have described or to limit efforts to meet the conditions of S. 
Res. 98. Rather, it is intended to prevent the Administration

[[Page S12625]]

from proposing or issuing administrative rules, regulations, decrees, 
or orders for the sole purpose of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol 
prior to its consideration by the Senate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator's understanding is correct. The language is 
not intended to prohibit the United States from supporting ongoing, 
voluntary programs or activities that are consistent with our treaty 
commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified 
in 1992, have had broad bipartisan support in both the public and 
private sectors, and are consistent with the objectives of S. Res. 98.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies for his leadership in steering this bill and its many, diverse 
provisions successfully through the Senate and conference.
  One item is noteworthy both for its importance and its ready 
acceptance on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses. This is the 
language prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement the Kyoto 
Protocol on global climate change, prior to ratification and Senate 
consent. The bill language on this subject is the same as last year's 
reiterating a strong congressional position.
  Also important is this year's Senate report language requiring 
greater accountability in the Administration's climate change proposals 
and initiatives. This language renews and reiterates directives in the 
managers' statement in last year's conference report. It also expresses 
disappointment in the late filing, earlier this year, of agency reports 
explaining the administration's programs, objectives, and performance 
measures.
  I would ask the Chairman if it is fair to say the committee's intent 
is to put the administration on notice that we fully expect such 
reports to be included, on a timely basis, as part of the President's 
fiscal year 2001 budget submission next year?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator's understanding is correct. The clear intent of 
this year's Senate report is to carry last year's directives forward 
for another year. If Congress, and the authorizing and appropriations 
committees, in particular, are to make a full and fair assessment of 
the Administration's programs and proposals, then submission of agency 
climate change reports with the President's FY 2001 budget is both 
necessary and expected.


                       EDI Special Purpose Grants

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. President, regrettably, the FY2000 conference report contains a 
typographical error that was made during the final drafting of this 
conference report. Contrary to the intent of the managers and 
conferees, a $1,000,000 earmark for the New Jersey Community 
Development Corporation's Transportation Opportunity Center and a 
$750,000 earmark for South Dakota State University's performing arts 
center were accidently deleted from the list of EDI Special Purpose 
Grants due to a computer malfunction.
  Unfortunately, we are not able to amend this conference report at 
this point, but I wanted to ask the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Bond, if he will work with me, Senator Byrd, and Senator Stevens to 
ensure that these typographical errors are corrected in another 
appropriations bill before this session of Congress ends?
  Mr. BOND. Absolutely. First, I totally agree with distinguished 
ranking member of the VA-HUD subcommittee's account of how this 
typographical error transpired. Second, I agree that this error is 
typographical in nature and contrary to the intent of the conferees. 
Finally, I will work with Senators Mikulski, Byrd, and Stevens to 
ensure that this typographical error will be corrected in another 
appropriations measure before this session of Congress ends.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished Chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his 
comments on the lack of available housing. We have been talking about 
the lack of available housing. Over the years prior to the time my 
ranking member and I were leading this committee, we stopped issuing 
long-term, 15-year section 8 vouchers. Those long-term vouchers were 
sufficient to generate new housing. The 1-year vouchers we now issue 
generally under the section 8 program do not create any new housing.
  As I said in my opening remarks, half the vouchers issued in St. 
Louis County have already been used. We have programs such as the HOME 
program, the CDBG program, the section 202 elderly, the section 811, 
disabled, the hop-up program and HOPE VI programs which do provide 
housing.
  We also provided additional assistance to maintain the public housing 
stock that is in danger of falling into disuse and becoming HOPE VI 
housing. That having been said, part of our discussions with the 
administration and with the authorizing committee will be the need to 
look at how we are going to assure there is adequate housing stock. 
This is a question not just in the appropriations process where we are 
putting in money where we can to create new housing; it is something we 
have to work on with the Finance Committee to make sure low-income 
housing credits exist.
  This is a problem that simply adding some incremental section 8 
vouchers is not going to solve; that and the budget authority problem 
for section 8 we will have to deal with next year.
  The Senator also laid out a good argument for authorizing the 
committee to consider expanding veterans' benefits and programs. Again, 
we are happy to work with the authorizing committee when it gets beyond 
the appropriations measures and attempts to improve the programs in 
addition to just funding them.
  Again, my very special thanks to the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland whose guidance, and not just assistance, but guidance and good 
humor, made this ride on the tilt-a-whirl an enjoyable one, even though 
somewhat too exciting at times. I thank her. Her help and her 
persuasion, and that of the administration, helped us achieve passage 
of this bill.
  I reiterate my thanks particularly to Paul Carliner on that side and 
the great John Kamarck on our side, as well as the other staffers.
  I yield the floor and yield back my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, thank Senator Bond and his 
staff, as well as my own. At times, the atmosphere in this institution 
can be quite prickly and quite partisan. If only we would focus on the 
national interests the way we have in this bill. Through good will, 
good offsets, and focusing on national priorities we were able to move 
this legislation through.
  I believe Senator Bond is a leader. This legislation would not have 
moved forward had it not been for his willingness to engage in a dialog 
with the White House on what their priorities were, insisting, of 
course, on the Senate's prerogatives.
  Again, I thank him, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________