[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 127 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10299-S10333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
                       APPROPRIATIONS--Continued

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of my subcommittee for 
yielding.
  I say to the Senator from California, her amendment is a perfect 
example of no good deed goes unpunished. I say that to the Senator from 
California for this very simple reason. This language has been worked 
out with all of the parties, and all of the staffs, with the 
administration, and with the EPA. While they do not like it, they 
understand their science, and where they are does not justify, at this 
time, the kind of regulation they are attempting to bring down.

  From the State of the Senator from California, let me read from the 
Indian Wells Valley Water District. This is a water district of 10 to 
12 wells, wells that, meeting the current standard proposed by EPA, 
would cost this water district $1 million per year--a 60- to 70-percent 
cost increase in their operations.
  What happens when Government goes silly or crazy based on science 
they

[[Page S10300]]

have not substantiated, in highly mineralized areas, where arsenic is 
present in water supplies, is that they drive up costs, and ultimately 
they collapse these little water districts and everybody goes out and 
drills their own wells to supply their own household water and then an 
even greater problem exists.
  We are talking about cost per speculative cancer case--cost per 
speculative cancer case.
  If the amendment of the Senator from California prevails, that cost 
per speculative cancer case goes to $5 million per speculative case.
  I do not think that is good policy. I know the science isn't there 
yet to justify it because the word ``speculative'' is the word EPA uses 
in suggesting these dramatic reductions in arsenic levels.
  I do not want to destroy rural water systems. Neither does this 
subcommittee. My colleague from Idaho spoke very clearly about the real 
live impact if this amendment were to prevail. Across this country, 
small independent water districts cannot nor could not comply without a 
cost of several hundred dollars more per month added to the cost of a 
water bill.
  This is not good policy. I do not even think it is good politics.
  Let me repeat: No good deed will go unpunished according to this 
amendment because we have been working collectively together to solve 
this problem, recognizing the phenomenal importance of the water 
quality to all citizens in this country.
  Energy and Water, as an authorizing committee, has acted responsibly. 
While the ranking member might suggest that staff or they were not 
consulted, that is simply not true. They were thoroughly involved and 
consulted on this issue. This is a compromise. It does not shut down 
the process, as has clearly been spoken to by my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Crapo. So I hope the Senate will recognize that.
  Let us not rush to judgment, nor let us not get into the speculative 
business of driving up costs of water and, therefore, allowing people 
to go out and drill their own wells and even create a more dangerous 
water structure for small rural communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of debate on the two amendments under the previous order, I 
be permitted to speak on the VA-HUD bill for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we reserve the remainder of our time on 
these amendments. I believe the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee is on his way over.
  What time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 2 minutes, and 
the Senator from California has 3 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. We reserve our time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond to my colleagues 
directly on a number of points that they made. These two riders should 
be deleted. It is bad process. I think that has been spoken to a number 
of times. And it is really bad policy. I think that has been spoken to 
as well.
  I say to my dearest friend, Senator Mikulski, who has worked so hard 
on this bill--and it means everything to her--how much I support her 
bill but for these riders. I want to tell her how I feel.
  I do not think that all wisdom resides in Washington. I think I am 
quoting the Republican candidate for President. I do think these 21 
groups are phenomenal. I do trust them. The National Resources Defense 
Council, the Sierra Club--maybe they do not always agree with every one 
of us, but they spend their lives on these issues. I do respect them. 
And I do think that they can. I am really glad it looks as if they are 
going to count these votes as an important vote on their scorecard.
  But I do want to say if CEQ were in the room and some others from the 
administration--I know it to be fact, and it is true --I just do not 
happen to agree with them. I will tell you who was not in the room, who 
was not even given the courtesy of a phone call, Senator Max Baucus, 
who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. I will tell 
you who else was not in the room, Senator Moynihan, who supports my 
dredging amendment. I think a phone call from the administration, if 
you will, to those folks would have been in order to find out how we 
feel about these anti-environmented riders. So we are very 
disappointed.
  I say to my friend, Senator Craig, who has left the floor, he calls 
it ``silly science'' to talk about a lower standard for arsenic. Here 
is the silly science. I have to tell you, taxpayers pay the National 
Academy of Sciences to produce this study on arsenic in drinking water. 
This isn't silly science. This is what they said:

       This outdated standard does not achieve EPA's goal for 
     public health protection and, therefore, requires revision as 
     promptly as possible.

  So what did we do? We did the opposite. We delayed the date.
  The Senator mentioned a water district in California. That is why we 
have a waiver in the Safe Drinking Water Act, for those small 
communities, a waiver so they will not have hardship. That is why we 
have a State revolving fund which, by the way, is funded in this bill. 
It needs more attention. It needs more help.
  But I have to say, again--and call me as old-fashioned as you want; 
maybe it is because when I was a kid I saw ``Arsenic and Old Lace''--
but I can tell you right now, the science is clear. It is not silly; it 
is not foolish. This is very dangerous. We have to do something about 
it.
  To say this is a rush to judgment when we have been having hearings 
on the standard since the 1980s, we all know what it is about. It is 
about a delay. It is the hope that the new administration may not be as 
tough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. So I would sum up this way. We have a gag order in front 
of us in the rider that deals with EPA not being allowed to tell people 
they live in a dirty air district. It is for people to know that 
exposure to smog decreases lung function. It hurts our children with 
asthma, and it leads to emergency room visits. The courts have said 
clearly--and I have a direct quotation from the court--the court said: 
EPA has the right to tell people the truth about the quality of their 
air. This rider overturns that court decision.
  I hope we will have strong support for this amendment.
  I thank my friends.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from New Hampshire 
if he is ready to speak?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, just to correct the record, the staff of the 
ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee was 
consulted, was informed of this. This was not done without advice to 
them. That was just incorrect.
  I now yield the remaining time on this side to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 1 minute 39 
seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is not much time to try to make my 
points here. But, look, this is one of those situations where you have 
an amendment, part of which I support and part of which I do not, which 
means I have to oppose it.
  The clean air provisions that the Senator from California has 
outlined I can support. But it is unfortunate that I have to be here 
today, as the chairman of the committee, to choose to do something that 
this body chose to do 4 years ago in the Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendment.

[[Page S10301]]

  It is worse that the only groups objecting to this language in VA-HUD 
are doing so because they stand to gain attorney's fees. I support the 
underlying managers' amendment by the Senator from Missouri. We are 
going to see wasteful litigation here, and it is wrong.

  To put this in context would take more time than I have, but we all 
agree the standard on this should be reviewed. This is not a discussion 
about the standard. The arsenic standard needs to be reviewed. But due 
to the complexity and science that was needed to develop the standard, 
the Congress very clearly dictated a timeframe.
  Congress directed EPA to propose a rule on January 1, 2000, and to 
finalize the rule on January 1, 2001. They made it clear we wanted to 
provide one year from the date of publication of a draft rule to 
publication of a final rule. EPA cannot meet this requirement right 
now, and we need to get this science. We need to draw all this in. That 
is what the managers' amendment allows for.
  To go to litigation now means we will waste millions of dollars of 
taxpayers' money on litigation for no reason, and they are still not 
going to be able to meet the standard in spite of the litigation. It is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Bond and the managers' 
amendment on this issue.
  To reiterate, I come today to talk about Senator Boxer's amendment to 
the VA HUD appropriations bill. Unfortunately, Senator Boxer has put 
two issues into her amendment. I support one and strongly object to the 
other. Due to that strong objection I will vote against this amendment.
  On the arsenic provision, it is very unfortunate that I need to come 
down here today to defend what this body chose to do four years ago in 
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. It is even worse that the only 
groups objecting to this language in the VA HUD appropriation bill are 
doing so because they stand to gain attorneys fees.
  The provision on arsenic in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill does one 
thing: preserves the original intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996. While Senator Boxer's amendment does one thing--
promotes wasteful litigation.
  To put this into context let me explain the history and reality of 
the situation. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 clearly 
outlined a need to review the standard for arsenic. We all agree the 
standard needs to be reviewed. This is NOT a discussion about the 
standard. I repeat, the arsenic standard needs to be reviewed.
  However, due to the complexity and science that was needed to develop 
the standard, we the Congress, very clearly dictated the time frame for 
developing this rule. Congress directed EPA to propose a rule on 
January 1, 2000 and to finalize the rule on January 1, 2001.
  The Congress also made it very clear that we wanted to provide one 
year from date of publication of a draft rule to publication of a final 
rule. The reason was to allow sufficient time for public comment and 
EPA review to finalize this very complex issue. Thus, the Congress 
stated that the final rule should be published on January 1, 2001, one 
year after the publication of the draft rule.
  Unfortunately, the EPA missed the January 1, 2000 deadline to publish 
the draft rule by six months. There may be very good reasons for why 
EPA missed this deadline, but the fact is EPA missed the statutory 
deadline for publication by six months.
  EPA provided 90 days to comment on the proposed rule, however it is 
my understanding that EPA will be having an additional comment period 
on information that became available after the original draft rule was 
published. So basically, we are not done with the public comment period 
EPA, less than three months from the statutory deadline to publish the 
final rule has not even received all the public comments.
  What do these dates and missed deadlines mean? They mean, and EPA 
will agree with me on this, that there is no way that EPA will meet the 
January 1, 2001 statutory deadline to publish this final rule. In fact, 
EPA will probably not publish the final rule until late spring. I 
support EPA taking the time to consider all the stakeholders comments 
and the very complex information they have received. I support the 
original intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments to provide 
one year to finalize this rule. Especially, in light of the controversy 
this rule has brought on by a host of very credible institutions like 
the EPA Science Advisory Board that questions the EPA proposal. But 
that is not what we are down here today to talk about.
  What happens unfortunately, is a host of groups will sue EPA on 
January 2, 2001 for not publishing the final rule. Everyone knows that 
EPA will miss this deadline, YET, these organizations will waste 
everyone's time and tax payer's money by bringing an unnecessary 
lawsuit. So what am I down here to discuss today? I am here to discuss: 
unnecessary attorney's fees, waste of tax payer dollars, and place a 
burden on the judicial branch.
  To avoid those three issues, I support the arsenic provision in the 
VA-HUD Appropriations Bill. This provision would extend the deadline 
for finalization of the arsenic rule to no later than June 22, 2001. 
This provides the EPA one year to finalize the rule--exactly the same 
time frame as the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.

  Why is this needed? Because this is a complex rule and the Congress 
realized that when they required EPA to take one year to finalize the 
rule. But just as important: we the Congress can make sure tax payers 
dollars are not wastefully spent on unnecessary judicial proceeding and 
attorney's fees.
  Our constituents should not have to pay the price for the EPA's 
failure to follow the mandates of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 
1996. This extension will have no impact on human health because it is 
completely consistent with EPA's time frame for finalizing the rule.
  I am sure that is why the White House and the Council on 
Environmental Quality is not opposing this language.
  Senator Boxer's amendment does absolutely nothing to protect human 
health. It only protects those environmental groups that want 
litigation will benefit. This is unfortunate because the litigation 
will produce the exact same outcome as this provision. However the 
litigation has consequences, it will produce: unnecessary attorneys 
fees, an unnecessary burden on the judiciary, an unnecessary burden on 
the EPA, and taxpayer dollars funding all of this. I cannot stand here 
and encourage unnecessary litigation. But I can proudly support the 
original intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act and allow EPA to take 
appropriate time to consider all the comments and information in 
proposing a final rule.
  Now switching to the Clean Air Act issue. The motion to strike also 
contains language that touches on another one of those complicated 
Clean Air Act issues. I believe that this is exactly the type of thing 
that must be addressed by the committee of jurisdiction rather than 
through a rider.
  Last year the Environment and Public Works Committee first addressed 
the issue of what limits were needed on the implementation of these air 
quality standards while the court was reviewing them. At that time, the 
committee was considering a bill to improve the transportation 
conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act. Senator Inhofe offered an 
amendment to deal with this matter and the amendment was adopted.
  Even as the Inhofe language was accepted, there was discussion 
regarding how it might be improved prior to floor consideration. During 
the past few months, members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and especially Senator Inhofe and Senator Baucus, worked 
hard to develop language that is now broadly supported--and included in 
this bill. The bill also contains controversial language on the same 
issue that came from a House appropriations bill and was not considered 
by the Environment and Public Works Committee. In fact, no authorizing 
committee in either body dealt with this language.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that we are borrowing trouble by taking 
the House language because the language Senator Inhofe proposed speaks 
to precisely the same problem as the language Senator Boxer seeks to 
strike. We do not need both.
  Let me briefly address the substance of the issue. As many Members 
know, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the EPA's recently 
established air

[[Page S10302]]

quality standards for smog and soot, ozone and particulate matter.
  At the same time, implementation of the standards is proceeding. The 
EPA is required by law to identify areas that violate the standards, 
even though the court might throw the standards out. More importantly, 
designating areas as violating the standards triggers automatic 
requirements under the Clean Air Act. These include restrictions on 
highway construction and expanding or building new facilities that 
would emit air pollutants.
  The problem we are trying to solve is that these requirements may be 
triggered and then the standards could be overturned, leading to 
planning chaos for many states. Senator Inhofe's language would delay 
the effective date of the automatic requirements under the Clean Air 
Act to allow time for the Supreme Court to act. The language from the 
House bill that Senator Boxer seeks to strike would bar the use of 
funds for making determinations about what areas would violate the 
standards; thus preventing the triggering of the automatic Clean Air 
Act requirements.
  So we have two ways of skinning the same cat. Senator Inhofe's 
approach has bipartisan support and is the work product of members of 
this body's authorizing committee. The House language is controversial 
and has not received consideration from any authorizing committee.
  The House language is controversial because many people believe that 
the air data collected by the states should be analyzed by the EPA and 
made public no matter what happens to the standards in the courts. 
Also, the limit on the use of funds could delay implementation in the 
event that the Court upholds the standards.
  I believe that the Senate should recognize and reward the effort that 
Senator Inhofe has made to eliminate unnecessary conflict over this 
issue. I support the language in the bill developed by the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  If the motion by the Senator from California to strike the House 
language was not attached to the arsenic issue, I would support the 
Senator in her motion, and I would encourage the entire Senate to do 
the same. Because the arsenic matter is the overriding concern for me, 
I must oppose the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized to 
offer a second amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4309

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4309:

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the cleanup of 
river and ocean waters contaminated with DDT, PCBs, dioxins, metals and 
                         other toxic chemicals)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than one-eighth of all sites listed on the 
     Superfund National Priorities List are river and ocean water 
     sites where sediment is contaminated with PCBs, dioxins, DDT, 
     metals and other toxic chemicals;
       (2) toxic chemicals like PCBs, dioxins, DDT and metals tend 
     to be less soluble, and more environmentally persistent 
     pollutants;
       (3) toxic chemicals like PCBs, dioxins, DDT and metals 
     polluting river and ocean sites around the nation may pose 
     threats to public health, safety and the environment.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Environmental Protection Agency should move swiftly 
     to clean up river and ocean sites around the nation that have 
     been contaminated with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metals and other 
     toxic chemicals in order to protect the public health, safety 
     and the environment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wanted the amendment read because I 
think it is a pretty clear statement of what we ought to be doing; that 
is, expediting the cleanup of the Superfund sites.
  To respond to Senator Bond, the staff of Senator Baucus has informed 
me that they received one call and they objected to the riders. They 
don't believe Senator Baucus was ever called personally. We are going 
to check on that because I do want the record clear on it.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Moynihan, Schumer, and Kerry be 
added on as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose report language included 
in this conference agreement that will delay the cleanup of waters 
contaminated with toxic pollutants such as DDT and PCBs. We tried to 
work with my colleagues to change this language. We were unable to be 
successful.
  The language will remain in because you can't strike report language, 
but we have a sense of the Senate that is very clear. Basically the 
operative language, which was just read by the clerk, is:

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and 
     ocean sites around the nation that have been contaminated 
     with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metals and other toxic chemicals in 
     order to protect public health, safety and the environment.

  The report language included in this bill--remember, this is an 
appropriations bill--prohibits the EPA from cleaning up river and ocean 
sites that are contaminated with these horrible pollutants until the 
National Academy of Sciences completes a study or until June of 2000, 
whichever comes first. That isn't the worst of it. The worst of it is, 
we believe this language opens up a whole new loophole, which is really 
going to mean we are going to have many more court suits. I will get to 
that in a minute.
  We think this language could delay the cleanup of at least six 
Superfund sites nationwide. One of them happens to be in California. 
The report language that is extremely troubling, which we were unable 
to remove, requires EPA to ``properly consider the results of the NAS 
study'' before moving forward on the cleanup of these sites. Anyone who 
knows anything about litigation knows a lawyer will have a field day 
with the phrase ``properly considered.''

  What does that mean? You must properly consider before you move ahead 
with a cleanup? You could have a whole year discussing what that means, 
and that is exactly what the polluters are going to do. They are going 
to haul this Government into court just to try to get out of their 
responsibility. It will give polluters a hook to get into court and to 
litigate.
  I want to talk about a site off the Santa Monica Bay, the Montrose 
site.
  Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have 5 minutes 
remaining of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  The Montrose Chemical Corporation holds the distinction of being the 
largest producer of DDT in the world. That is not a great distinction 
since we know what a poison DDT is.
  It discharges tons of DDT through storm sewers into the ocean off the 
Palos Verdes peninsula, and 100 tons of it sits on the ocean floor 
there.
  DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen. It is thought to 
have severe liver and neurological impacts, and it has also recently 
been identified as a chemical which may promote breast cancer.
  We know DDT is causing harm to the ocean, i.e. Santa Monica Bay, 
because the DDT goes up through the food chain where it reaches the 
bald eagles. Of course, we know those bald eagles were brought to the 
brink of extinction by DDT, and we know it causes the eagle eggs to 
thin and to fail to successfully hatch. EPA estimates it will cost $150 
million to restore the ocean where that dump is.
  The report language, in our strong opinion, with legal authorities 
across this country, tells us that it would prohibit the EPA from 
cleaning up this site until the NAS report comes out. And then even 
after that, Montrose will go back into court. Mind you, they have 
already spent $50 million fighting the cleanup. Their position is: Let 
the DDT just sit there. Don't cap it off. Don't do anything. In the 
meantime, it is poisoning the environment there.
  I don't understand why we do these things. When I talk to my 
constituents, their eyes roll. Arsenic, DDT, PCBs, these are not good 
things. If we could agree on one thing around here, it would be to get 
rid of them. We do

[[Page S10303]]

everything we can to help people who are good actors to clean up their 
act, if they made a mistake. We have a State revolving fund.
  It stuns me that in this century we are still arguing over cleaning 
up arsenic out of the water, cleaning up DDT that is harming wildlife.
  As to this argument by Montrose that they should do nothing, imagine 
how strongly they feel. They have spent $50 million in order to do 
nothing. Why didn't they spend the $50 million cleaning up the site, 
and we would be rid of the DDT; we wouldn't have this poison moving up 
the food chain.
  What we hope to achieve--and we hope the managers will support this--
is a very simple sense-of-the-Congress amendment. It is so clear. What 
we say is: Look, we can't get your language out of the report. We 
understand you don't want to make changes because you don't want to go 
back to conference. All we are saying is, let's stand firm together. 
Let us pass the sense of the Congress. I will reiterate it, and then I 
will save my 5 minutes. I am hopeful others will come to the floor.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and 
     ocean sites around the nation that have been contaminated 
     with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metals and other toxic chemicals in 
     order to protect health, safety and the environment.
  Now, my colleagues say nothing in this bill would harm that. I hope, 
therefore, they will support this amendment. I think it is very 
important.
  Mr. President, I will take an additional 30 seconds to say Senator 
Levin wants to be added as a cosponsor. Senator Baucus was not 
personally consulted by anyone on this matter. That is clearing up the 
record, straight from Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am sorry we have to get into this little 
battle over who said what and who said what, when where, and why. Let 
it be clear that we on both sides made our best efforts to assure that 
everyone was advised. Twice, Mr. Tom Sliter, a staffer on EPW, was 
notified and discussed this with my assistant, Ms. Apostolou. He also, 
I understand, participated in a briefing conducted by Mr. Carliner of 
the minority staff.
  Not everybody agreed with all of those things, and we never said that 
we had 100-percent agreement. We don't get 100-percent agreement, but 
we do extend the courtesy to all of the Members who are interested to 
let them know what we are doing and give them an opportunity. I am 
sorry to get into this, but when it was said that we did this without 
notification in an attempt to hide this, that is absolutely wrong. That 
is an unfortunate and unfair slam at our staff. I do not intend to let 
it stand.
  The next point I will make, just to call it to the attention of my 
colleague from California, is we have been advised that no California 
sites would be affected. EPA has indicated they will be sending a 
letter to assure the Senator that no California sites would be affected 
by the proposed managers' amendment, or the language in the statement 
of managers.
  Let me say that while, technically, this issue is not before us at 
this time, we do intend to include a statement which has been carefully 
worked out at painstaking meetings that Senator Mikulski and I had, 
along with our House counterparts, with OMB Director Jack Lew and 
George Frampton, CEQ Director. This language will be included to 
address the concerns raised by EPA about House report language on this 
issue.

  The report language simply requires EPA to take into consideration a 
National Academy of Sciences study on contaminated sediments, which has 
been worked on for the past several years and is expected within the 
next 3 months, before dredging or invasive remediation actions at sites 
where a plan has not been adopted by October 1, 2000, or where dredging 
has not already occurred.
  Exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements and urgent cases 
where there is significant threat to public health. Furthermore, EPA is 
not prohibited from proposing draft remediation plans involving 
dredging or invasive remediation technologies.
  In view of the time, effort, and resources that have gone into 
examining the efficacy of dredging contaminated sediments, it would 
truly be a shame not to consider the best science available before 
going forward. This is not going to result in undue delays, but it will 
result in an informed process.
  Dredging is very controversial and it is very costly. What do you do 
with the dredge material if you dig up material that is contaminated? 
Where do you put it? I can tell you that the answer will be NIMBY--not 
in my backyard. That is the first thing everybody will say. ``Can't you 
find a better or safer place to put it?"
  Also, does dredging cause more harm, potentially, to the health and 
environment than leaving the contaminated sediments in place? When you 
stir it up and dig into the contaminated sediments, do you spread more 
out and do you get more in the water supply or in the air? These are 
things that scientists ought to tell us. The National Academy of 
Sciences is working on it. What would you do with thousands of 
truckloads of dredge material if you dredged it up and the National 
Academy of Sciences says you should have left it in place?
  Well, it is important that we act on science around this place. I 
know there are some groups that love to write letters and have their 
own agenda and say that we need to move forward. I believe most people 
in this body would agree that getting a peer-reviewed study by the 
National Academy of Sciences before we engage upon a massive and 
potential danger-causing activity--dredging up sediments, or other 
invasive remedies--makes sense. For that reason, I believe that 
carefully crafted language, which was agreed on by the OMB Director and 
the CEQ Director, is a far preferable resolution of this very serious 
question. Let's take the radical step of waiting to rely on the 
science.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Maryland such time as she 
may require.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains for the opponents 
to the Boxer amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have 
taken 4 minutes in the event that others also wish to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair will do so.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Boxer 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  This amendment will have to be disposed of by the House. It will not 
be accepted by the House and therefore will kill this bill.
  I would like to explain to my colleagues how our bill addresses the 
issue of contaminated sediments, why I am opposed to the Boxer 
amendment and, why the administration is opposed to the Boxer 
amendment.
  The Boxer amendment is not necessary and its passage would 
effectively kill this bill.
  Let me explain what we do in our bill.
  The final version of the VA/HUD bill will contain report language in 
the statement of the managers that prevents EPA from dredging any 
contaminated site that does not have an approved plan in place by 
October 1, 2000 until the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, has 
completed its study on this issue and EPA has reviewed it.
  This language sunsets on June 30, 2001. The NAS is expected to 
release its report in December. With an EPA review, the delay would 
last probably no more than 120 days.
  We have included some exceptions to this language that are very 
important and I want to outline them for my colleagues.
  First, if a site has an approved dredging plan in place by October 1, 
2000, the language does not apply.
  Second, if dredging or dredging activity is already occurring at a 
site, the language does not apply.
  Third, if a site has a voluntary agreement in place with a 
potentially responsible party, the language does not apply.
  Fourth, if EPA determines that a site poses a threat to public 
health, the language does not apply.
  These exceptions are very important and were carefully negotiated 
with the administration.
  This was no small victory for us.

[[Page S10304]]

  The House passed VA/HUD bill included report language that would have 
directed EPA not to initiate or order dredging or other invasive 
remediation technologies, until the NAS report was complete and 
required that the results be incorporated into the EPA decision making 
processes.
  This more extreme language would have effectively frozen work at 
affected sites for an indefinite period of time.
  During our negotiations with the House, we successfully modified the 
provision to remove the extreme language.
  The report language that will be incorporated into the final version 
of the VA/HUD bill still leaves EPA with some discretion and does not 
mandate any solutions.
  Our language also allows EPA to take comment on proposed remedial 
actions such as that for cleanup of the Hudson River.
   Our language would also allow all cleanup plans to be finalized by a 
date certain--June 30, 2001--even if the NAS report has not been 
completed in a timely manner.
  The NAS is expected to use their final report, no later than January 
1, 2001, allowing the report to be properly considered by EPA while 
sites without final plans work on their drafts.
  Mr. President, the administration supports our language and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment.
  I wish to also respond to my colleague and friend, the Senator from 
California, by saying this: No. 1, neither Senator Bond nor I wanted 
the riders. The House insisted on the riders. So we attempted to remove 
the draconian substance of the riders and put in more procedural 
issues, more procedural safeguards. The Senator thinks we wimped out. 
We think we had a victory because of the draconian aspect. We fought 
off the dragons.
  Also, I want to be clear to my colleagues, we are in a very unusual 
parliamentary procedure. If we pass this bill without any amendments, 
it will go immediately to the House and can go through a process of 
ratification and will be done. If any of these amendments pass, we will 
have to go into a parliamentary situation where the House will not 
accept this and, therefore, the bill will be dead. So I just lay that 
out for everyone to take into consideration.
  So the funds for EPA, which are quite robust--matching, in many 
instances, the President's request--housing, as well as veterans, 
science and technology, and other consumer protection agencies such as 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission--I believe will be jeopardized.
  Having said that, I don't want to make my argument on jeopardizing 
the bill. I want to address the concerns that my conscientious 
colleague has raised about jeopardizing the environment.
  This bill prevents EPA from dredging at any site that does not have 
an approved dredging plan by October 1 until the National Academy of 
Sciences has completed its study and EPA has reviewed it. In the 
arsenic ozone debate we heard, the National Academy of Sciences 
elevated it to an icon status that said don't do anything on this rider 
because of what the National Academy of Sciences says. By the way, I 
think the Senator from California and I would agree that we do need the 
National Academy of Sciences. On the dredging issue, what we are saying 
is that the dredging sites cannot move ahead until the National Academy 
has completed its study and EPA has looked at it. Guess when the study 
is going to be done. December 2000 or January 2001. Any delay will be 
micro--90 to 120 days. Guess what. I say to my colleagues in the 
Senate, this is not permanent. It only takes this language to June 30, 
2001.
  This language has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001.
  What are these exceptions? The main one is that if EPA believes any 
site poses a threat to public health, the language does not apply.
  Let me repeat to anyone who thinks wisdom lies in Washington, with 21 
advocacy groups, that if EPA believes the site poses a threat to public 
health, this language does not apply.
  Also, if the site has a voluntary agreement in place, it doesn't 
apply. If dredging is already occurring at a site, the language does 
not apply. If you have your plan approved by October 1, the language 
does not apply.
  We have so many ``doesn't applys'' here that I don't think the 
arguments made by the proponents of this amendment apply really in any 
way that has validity or attraction.
  If you are worried about public health--I salute you for it--
remember, it would not apply.
  I join with my colleagues to say let the National Academy of Sciences 
complete its work. Let the EPA review it. Then it can move forth on all 
of this. If there is a delay, it would be 90 to 120 days.
  That is basically what the argument is.
  I hope the amendment offered by my colleague from California will be 
defeated.
  How much time did I consume?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes ten seconds remain.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve the right for either Senator Bond or me to do 
rebuttal.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Sense of the 
Congress amendment on contaminated sediments offered by the Senator 
from California (Mrs. Boxer). I do so because I have concerns about the 
implications that the report language accompanying this bill may have 
for the remediation and restoration of the Fox River in my home state 
of Wisconsin.
  My staff has tried repeatedly over the last several days to clarify 
the report language with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
has been unable to do so. I had wanted a letter from the EPA explaining 
the impact of this language on the Fox clean-up. In fact, my office was 
told by the Office of General Counsel that the EPA could not state with 
certainty the effects of this language on the Fox River, because it was 
one of the clean-ups that they had identified which might be delayed by 
this report language. This leaves me with concern that the next few 
actions Wisconsin is about to take to clean up the Fox River may be 
delayed, and my concern is shared by the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources.
  As members of this body know, the Senate's version of the VA-HUD bill 
did not contain any report language on sediments. Only the version 
which passed the other body contained report language on this issue, 
and this language is retained and modified in the report accompanying 
this bill. Therefore, I also raise concerns, Mr. President, because my 
Wisconsin colleague in the House (Mr. Green), who represents the Fox 
Valley, tried to clarify the House report language in a floor colloquy 
when the measure was considered in the House of Representatives. This 
bill before us now changes the very language my colleague from 
Wisconsin specifically tried to clarify, and adds new and explicit time 
lines which do not mesh with the upcoming actions that will be taken to 
clean up the Fox River. As a Wisconsin Senator, I have no choice but to 
try to enhance the understanding of what this language would do, and I 
believe that the amendment by the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
makes it clear that Congress intends the EPA to move swiftly to clean 
up contaminated river and ocean sites.
  I want to explain the status of the Fox River clean-up. The Fox River 
is currently not a National Priority List (NPL) site, commonly known as 
Superfund site. Nonetheless, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) is working to develop a final Remedial Investigation 
and Feasibility Study (RIFS) and is expected to release that study in 
late December, 2000 or early January, 2001. The Wisconsin DNR intends 
to release the final RIFS jointly with the EPA, and the other trustees 
which include: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oneida Tribe of 
Wisconsin. A final Record of Decision (ROD) could be reached between 
March and early June, 2001.
  If the National Academy study is not yet complete and ``properly 
considered'' by EPA before the final RIFS is issued, as the Conference 
Report language requires, the report language is unclear about whether 
public comment can be initiated on the final RIFS. The report language 
says that public comment can be taken on ``proposed'' or ``draft'' 
remediation plans but is unclear with respect to comment on a

[[Page S10305]]

final RIFS. Further the language says that ``no plans are to be 
finalized until June 30, 2001 or until the Agency has properly 
considered the National Academy of Sciences report, whichever comes 
first.'' Potentially stalling comment on the final RIFS raises 
concerns, as the final RIFS will finally indicate a preferred 
alternative for cleaning-up the Fox, an alternative which was not 
indicated in the draft RIFS. Interests on all sides of this issue--the 
paper companies that are potentially responsible parties in the clean-
up, local governments that are concerned about liability, and local 
citizens who have been waiting to see what will be done to address the 
contaminants in the river--deserve to know what the preferred 
alternative is and to express their views.
  Moreover, if the final ROD is issued before June 30, 2001, its 
implementation could also be delayed by this language. Though some may 
view this as simply a delay of a few weeks, I remind my colleagues that 
Wisconsin is a cold weather state. My State needs the certainty of 
being able to plan to contract to implement the remedy during the 
summer and early fall construction season. If not, we risk having to 
put off the clean up for another calendar year due to cold weather 
delays.
  Given these uncertainties, I support my colleague from California's 
(Mrs. Boxer) amendment. This report language may have consequences for 
my state which I simply feel must be addressed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California. I had not expected to speak on this matter. I came to the 
floor to speak on the VA-HUD bill as a whole.
  Let me share a couple of quick observations about these riders.
  I congratulate my colleague from California for the fight she is 
making because it is an important fight as a matter of principle, and 
also it is a matter of science and common sense. These riders don't 
find their way into this legislation accidentally. There are powerful 
interests in the country that made sure these riders were here. We 
consistently see these attacks on environmental enforcement efforts in 
the country because there are people who just do not want a change.
  On the air quality standards and nonattainment designations, the 
American Trucking Association is waiting for litigation with the EPA 
and wants to stop the EPA from keeping accountability with respect to 
the Clean Air Act.
  That is what this is about. I have great respect for truckers and 
great respect for their efforts across the country. They are important 
to our economy. No one here is going to suggest otherwise. But every 
American has seen what happens at stoplights where they are sitting in 
a car that is living up to emission standards and a truck starts out at 
the stoplight. There is a great plume of black smoke that comes out of 
that truck. It is all over our highways. We know it. SUVs are 
presenting us with an increased problem because they come in under the 
light truck exception.
  The fact is that the air standards of the country are not reaching 
the levels they ought to reach. The EPA is our chosen entity to enforce 
the Clean Air Act and to make sure that Americans are not subjected to 
pollution and air quality standards that are less than high.

  We are told by the EPA what happens with this delay. There is the 
exposure of some 15,000 premature deaths in the country. Some 350,000 
more Americans will suffer asthma as a consequence of the lack of air 
quality standards. That is the risk the Senate will take by allowing 
this kind of rider. However innocuous it may seem or however people 
make it sound going forward, there is a diminishment of the capacity of 
the EPA to enforce the law Congress has already passed to allow 
Americans to live by the highest air quality standards.
  With respect to the dredging, I understand where that comes from. We 
have all been through that struggle in Massachusetts to try to clean up 
the Husatonic River. We are going to do some dredging there. There is 
now a struggle about the Hudson River, and other rivers, about whether 
or not those are going to be cleaned up.
  The fact is the National Academy of Sciences has already provided us 
with not one but two studies that show dredging is a legitimate and 
important mechanism for cleaning up polluted areas. We are trying to do 
that in the Bedford-Hartford area where we have PCBs. They fear if this 
rider passes, that cleanup may in fact be jeopardized because people 
will use the excuse to say we don't have to proceed.
  That is what is at stake. I know it is difficult to pull these bills 
together. There are a lot of different interests that have to be 
satisfied. But the fact is the Senate ought to take a vote on these 
riders. We ought to vote appropriately--that they don't belong in this 
legislation.
  I thank my colleague for her efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would you let me know when I have 1 minute remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be glad to do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
his eloquent remarks. He is a leader on environmental issues in the 
Senate. It makes me feel really good that he came over.
  I want to again try to set the record straight. Senator Bond said a 
letter is on its way from the EPA saying the California site is not in 
fact affected by the language in the bill regarding dredging. We have 
called them again. We called the general counsel last night. I told my 
friend from Missouri. They tell us that no such letter is coming.
  Be that as it may, whether the letter comes or it doesn't come, the 
fact is if it does not affect California--and I hope he is right--I say 
to my friend, if he gets that letter, I will be very grateful. It is a 
bad situation because the language, in fact, we believe will really 
slow down the cleanup of Superfund sites. That is why you have Senators 
Moynihan and Schumer concerned about the Hudson River. That cleanup 
will be stalled.
  As my friend, Senator Mikulski, said--she calls me the gentlelady 
from California. She is the gentlelady from Maryland. That goes back to 
our House days. Senator Mikulski pointed out that she said these riders 
are less draconian. I believe that. They are less draconian. They are 
still bad, and they don't belong on their otherwise terrific bill. They 
do harm.

  My friend points out that it is very clear the language said this 
will wreck the public health--no delay. It doesn't say ``affect'' the 
public health or the environment. When you have an effect on the 
environment by the fish eating DDT, you do not have to be a rocket 
scientist; if the fish eat DDT, it it is bad for humans. When do you 
prove that? It may not come down the line much longer.
  I know my friend worked very hard on this. She had people in the room 
whom she trusted. But, again, I don't believe the administration sought 
out these riders. My friend is right; it was the House Members who did. 
They simply don't belong here. It would be very simple for us to agree 
to this sense of the Senate. I think it would be helpful because my 
friends say they don't want to delay these cleanups.
  I want to make one point about science. Listen very carefully when 
people stand up here and say it is silly science and we must act on 
science. The EPA and the National Academy of Sciences acted on science 
with their new rule on the arsenic standard. Guess what. They are 
calling this silly science. This is the National Academy of Sciences. 
They say arsenic is very dangerous.
  The bottom line is you can't seem to win around here. You get a 
report done by the National Academy of Sciences, and they say you have 
silly science; forget about it; throw it away. When you don't have the 
report, they say you can't act. As my friend pointed out, there have 
been many studies done by the National Academy of Sciences on port 
dredging as a way to get rid of these contaminants. We didn't know

[[Page S10306]]

they were life threatening and dangerous. We know that now.
  I hope we will have a good solid vote on these amendments.
  I thank my colleagues. I retain 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now in the concluding minutes of 
the debate.
  First of all, on the three issues raised by the Senator from 
California, I want to say a couple of things.
  No. 1, I am very proud of the Senate. When we moved our bill out of 
the full committee, we had no riders. We were not authorizing on 
appropriations. We had no riders, and we attempted to stand firm. Yes, 
we did face the dragons of the riders. What we ended up doing was not 
eliminating the dragons but we defang them. We defang the riders. We 
took the teeth out of them so they couldn't snarl up what this 
legislation is trying to do.
  I believe the language we have adopted through the committee, through 
the managers' amendment, does have the riders. They are procedural. We 
acknowledge the flashing yellow light of the Senator from California 
with her terrible situation in California. We will do everything we can 
to make sure the Senator has that letter. I know it is not a substitute 
for the amendment. However, we want our colleagues to know the flashing 
yellow lights raised by the proponents are not valid.
  Remember on the dredging, if the site has been approved by October 1, 
2000, the language doesn't apply. If the dredging is already occurring, 
the language does not apply. If you have a voluntary agreement, the 
language does not apply. And if the EPA certifies that the site posed a 
threat to public health, the language does not apply.
  I recommend the Boxer amendment does not apply to this bill and I 
urge its defeat.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I take 1 minute to say the ranking member 
and I have been advised by EPA the California sites that would be 
affected by the language--and it is the clear understanding of the 
managers of the bill in the Senate--are either pilot sites already 
underway and would not be included or they are sites in which the final 
action would not be ready by the timeframe in which this action is 
delayed.
  We have been advised, and it is our understanding, there is no 
application of this provision. It was intended to be included in the 
statement of managers on any California site.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds added 
to my remaining 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends for the opportunity for the brief 
debate. I say to my friends, these are not harmless riders. You can say 
they will ``defang'' and that is in the eye of the defanger.
  The bottom line is these are not harmless riders. It is not harmless 
to tell the EPA they are gagged from telling the people in my State and 
every other State that they live in a dirty air situation. That is what 
this rider does.
  It is not harmless to tell the EPA they cannot set a new standard for 
arsenic, a standard that essentially was set with data collected in 
1942. I will not tell anyone if I was born then or not. That is an old 
standard, folks. We know it is much more dangerous.

  Finally, it is not harmless to delay the cleanup of PCBs and DDT and 
all the other hazardous toxins that sometimes get into the bay and the 
ocean floor and harm the wildlife and work up the chain.
  Please support the Boxer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I see we have more time than I anticipated. I ask 
unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. I want to make sure that there is time for the ranking 
member and myself.
  What is the time situation, and how much time now does the Senator 
from Massachusetts have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts at the present 
time has 10 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. And he is requesting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Another 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not object.
  I amend that to ask unanimous consent that the remaining 20 minutes 
prior to the 12:30 vote be divided between the ranking member and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the legislation we will 
vote on shortly, the VA-HUD bill, with mixed feelings. I want to be 
clear to my colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Maryland and the 
Senator from Missouri, those feelings have absolutely nothing to do 
with the level of leadership they have provided on this legislation. I 
think they have done an outstanding job under exceedingly difficult 
circumstances. When I say ``difficult circumstances,'' they know better 
than anybody in the Senate what we are talking about.
  This bill is traditionally knocked around, almost always begins with 
a significantly below realistic cap which makes it almost impossible 
for them to do their work for months on end. And then at the last 
minute they get some kind of a reprieve and they are allowed the 
opportunity to try to fit the pieces together, satisfy their 
colleagues, satisfy national priorities, and come to the Senate.
  I think they have produced a housing budget that in light of recent 
years--I emphasize this--is a very strong budget. They have done an 
exceptional job with respect to the existing housing programs that we 
have in this country. They have increased funding for almost every 
significant Federal housing program that is already run by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. For that, I thank them--
not just for me but for countless numbers of people across the country 
who depend on one or another of those efforts to have decent shelter 
and a competent housing program for their communities.
  Let me share quickly a couple of examples where the work has been 
exceptional. They have provided about $6.2 billion for operating and 
capital costs in public housing, which is an increase over the 
administration's request. The HOPE VI program, which has been 
enormously successful in turning some of the Nation's worst public 
housing developments into healthy, mixed-income communities, including 
a number in my home State of Massachusetts, has received an additional 
$575 million.
  The HOME program and the CDBG received significant funding increases. 
Any of us can go home and talk to a mayor and we will learn quickly how 
important those particular programs have been to the discretionary 
capacity of mayors to be able to make a difference for their 
communities.
  The Community Reinvestment Act has been able to extend credit. That 
has assisted the communities. The bill also brought the homeless budget 
back up to where it was.
  But let me just discuss, if I may, an area in which I know both the 
Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland share with me a 
sense of frustration and a sense of a priority not met by this 
legislation. There is something the Congress of the United States could 
have done about this, and has chosen not to do.
  Very simply, we need a production program in this country. We used to 
have a production program, but over the last years we have seen a 
retreat from the commitment by the Federal Government to provide 
production.
  Last night, in the debate between Vice President Gore and Governor 
Bush, there was an exchange where the Vice President said to the 
Governor that he didn't doubt his heart, or his goodness as a person 
but that he questioned his priorities. I come to the floor today to 
question the priorities of all of us in Washington, the Congress and 
the administration, with respect to one of the most evident, compelling 
needs that we face in this country, in community after community after 
community. This is not a Boston or a Massachusetts issue. It is not a 
New

[[Page S10307]]

England issue. There is not a community in the United States of America 
that you go to today where there are not people having an 
extraordinarily difficult time being able to find adequate housing.
  The reason is partly something we can celebrate, in the sense it 
comes out of an economy that is so extraordinarily strong. But, on the 
other hand, because it is so strong and so many people are able to 
afford the few available places, the rents have risen to a point where 
even some vouchers are being refused. So we are upping the number of 
vouchers in this legislation to some 80,000 new vouchers, but there is 
no place for anybody to take them.
  The result is, even as we live in a time of extraordinary economic 
expansion, too many of our fellow Americans are not sharing on the up 
side and are finding it increasingly difficult to find decent housing. 
HUD estimates that 5.4 million low-income households have what we call 
worst case housing needs. These families are paying over half their 
income towards housing costs or they are living in severely substandard 
housing.
  Since 1950, the number of families with worst case housing needs has 
increased by 12 percent. That means 600,000 more of our fellow citizens 
cannot afford a decent and safe place to live, even though the United 
States of America has the best economy we have had in maybe half a 
century. For these families, living paycheck to paycheck, one simple 
unforeseen circumstance such as a child getting sick or a big car 
repair bill or some other kind of emergency can send them into 
homelessness. That is not an exaggeration.
  Earlier this year, on the front page of the Washington Post, an 
article detailed these problems right here in our own backyard, the 
Nation's Capital. That article detailed the plight of low-income 
families living in apartments that are no longer affordable because the 
owners decided to no longer accept Federal assistance. For those 
families, the loss of their affordable housing unit meant they could go 
without a home.
  We have mistakenly viewed this crisis as limited to certain 
demographic groups. I really caution my colleagues not to fall into 
that stereotype. There is not one metropolitan area in the country 
where a minimum wage earner can afford to pay the rent for the average 
two-bedroom apartment. The minimum wage today--is it $5.15? You would 
have to earn over $12 an hour to afford the median rent for the average 
two-bedroom apartment in this country. That figure rises dramatically 
in many metropolitan areas.

  An hourly wage of $28 is needed in San Francisco; $23 on Long Island; 
$19 in Boston; $17 in Washington, DC, $16 in Chicago and in Seattle, 
and $15 in Atlanta. In every one of these cases, the affordability 
crisis has grown worse over the course of the past year. Working 
families are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford a house. 
A person in Boston would have to make over $35,000 a year just to 
afford a two-bedroom apartment, and we know that is well above the 
median earnings of folks in that area--as well, I might add, as most of 
the country.
  In Cape Cod, MA, a working mother of three children has been forced 
to live in a camper. The children actually live in a tent because the 
camper is not large enough. The mother cooks on an outdoor grill. She 
cleans the campground toilets to help pay the rent on her campsite. She 
works 40 hours a week, earns $21,000 annually, and she cannot find 
affordable rental housing.
  There was another article in the Washington Post this week which 
emphasizes the impact of this issue. Because of the ability of higher 
wage earners in this area who have benefited from the booming economy 
to pay higher housing costs, we have seen a rise in the number of 
building owners who refuse to rent to households that are assisted by 
section 8 vouchers. In Prince Georges County, 300 tenants in an 
apartment complex were recently told they have to move because the 
owner is no longer going to accept section 8.
  I know the Senator from Missouri understands everything I have thus 
far said and supports the notion that we need a production program. I 
am grateful to the Senator from Missouri for having not just seen that, 
but put $1 billion into this bill for housing production. That is how 
this bill went to the conference level. That bill could have received 
support from the House and the administration that would have left us 
in a position to fund.
  When people say: Senator, what about the cap? What about the total 
amount of money? In this year, the 2001 budget cycle, as a matter of 
priority, the administration and others are choosing to pay down $200 
billion of debt. I am all for debt paydown. I know that is a tax cut to 
all Americans. I have been one of those here who has supported the 
concept that we ought to pay off the debt as rapidly as we possibly 
can. But the key is in the words ``as rapidly as we possibly can.'' 
Maybe we should add words such as ``as is appropriate,'' or ``as is 
measured against other priorities of the country.''
  I do not know where it is written in stone or otherwise made an edict 
of the budgeting process that we have to choose to pay down $200 
billion instead of paying down $199 billion or $198 billion, or some 
other figure. Would it really be so bad if the United States took 1 
year longer to pay off the entire debt while sufficiently addressing 
the question of adequate housing for American families today?
  The Senator from Missouri sought to put $1 billion into this bill. So 
we are making our own priorities. I say to my colleagues, as a matter 
of common sense and sound investment policy in the future of the 
country, it makes sense to invest in production of housing for people 
who cannot afford it because the alternative is that you have a lot of 
kids who are dragged out of schools, moving from community to 
community, often becoming at risk as a consequence of the lack of 
adequate housing. We will pick up their costs. We will pick up their 
costs when some Senator comes to the floor and says we need more 
Federal assistance to build prisons; or we need more Federal assistance 
for the juvenile justice system to take care of those kids who are 
getting into trouble; or we need more Federal assistance for the drug 
program because we have too many crack houses and too many communities 
that are magnets for crime.

  Why? Because we don't allow them to become the kinds of communities 
we want them to be by investing up front in creating the kind of 
housing the country needs. It is inexcusable, in a nation as rich as we 
are, doing as well as we are, that we cannot find $1 billion to make 
certain we have a production program to help build the kind of housing 
that will release the pressures on the marketplace and can be felt all 
up and down the ladder in housing costs in the country.
  Some colleagues will say: Why should the Federal Government do that? 
Years ago, we made a commitment in this country about housing. We have 
come to understand that there are certain things the marketplace 
doesn't always do very well. I happen to believe we have the most 
efficient allocation of capital of any economic system anywhere on the 
face of the planet. I am proud of that. I support that in dozens of 
ways--through the Small Business Committee, Banking Committee, Commerce 
Committee, tax incentives, various ways in which we allow the private 
sector to do what it does best, which is create jobs. But sometimes 
there are certain sectors of the economy where the marketplace does not 
work as efficiently. We have always recognized that with one kind of 
tax incentive or tax credit or direct grant or other kind of incentive 
or another. Housing just happens to be one of them.
  When the supply is very tight and the demand is very high, you have a 
capacity for rents to rise and you have builders targeting their 
building to that place where they can make the most money. That is a 
natural instinct in a marketplace where you are looking for the 
greatest return on investment. You do not get your great return on 
investment from the sectors where the people can least afford the 
rents.
  That is why we need a production program, and that is why I hope in 
these final days before the Congress adjourns we will find our way to 
include in the omnibus bill the production program we need so 
desperately. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The time of the Senator from 
Massachusetts has expired.
  There are now 20 minutes equally divided among the managers of the 
bill.

[[Page S10308]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we conclude our debate on the VA-HUD 
bill, there are differences of opinion on these riders. I do hope they 
are rejected. If they are adopted, it will have a serious parliamentary 
and maybe even fiscal consequence. However, it is a democracy; people 
need to work their will. I am very proud of this bill because we do 
meet the needs of our veterans, those who fought the war over there so 
we could have peace here. I am very proud of what we have done in 
housing and urban economic development because what we want to do is 
create an opportunity ladder so people can make sure they have the 
opportunity for a better life, that there is local control in 
decisionmaking, strengthening communities whether they are in rural or 
urban America.
  I am very proud of what we have done on the environment. We have 
funded clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, the ongoing efforts 
to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and many other bays around the United 
States of America. Also, in terms of science and technology, again, we 
have increased the funding so we can come up with the new ideas that 
ultimately will save lives, generate jobs, and save communities. That 
is what this bill is all about.
  There are little known provisions, such as funding Arlington Cemetery 
where brave people who died in war are buried, and where Navy diver 
Stethem, my own Maryland resident who died as a result of an act of 
terrorism, is buried. He was on an airplane, and he wore the Navy 
uniform. They beat him up. This bill is a tribute to what people fight 
and die for around the country: That people will have a better life.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to follow up with some comments on 
the issues we have discussed today and express, again, my sincere 
appreciation to my colleague from Maryland for the tremendous 
cooperation and guidance and valuable assistance she has provided, and 
her staff, Paul Carliner and others. We have had a lot of difficulties 
in working out this bill under unusual circumstances, but we both 
extend our thanks to the chairman and the ranking member, Senator 
Stevens and Senator Byrd, for assisting us and for providing us with 
the resources we needed ultimately to put together a bill that meets 
the needs in so many important areas, from veterans to housing to the 
environment to space to science and emergency management. It has been a 
challenging time.

  The Senator from Massachusetts noted that we had made an effort with 
respect to the production of housing. Frankly, I believe there is 
nothing more important. I think we have finally gotten the attention of 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had heretofore 
focused solely on sending out new vouchers.
  They wanted new vouchers overall. And my staff did what I thought was 
a very helpful report--completed it a month or so ago--which pointed 
out in so many areas vouchers simply cannot be used. There is no place 
to use them. The nationwide average is about 19 percent. I think in 
Jersey City some 65 percent of the vouchers cannot be used. In St. 
Louis County, MO, 50 percent cannot be used. It is an empty promise, a 
hollow promise, when we give a needy family a certificate that says 
this will pay their rent, and they take it out someplace and find out 
they cannot rent anyplace with that voucher, with that section 8 
certificate. That does not do much good.
  So we did fight hard for the production program. People have 
objected. I think they had legitimate concerns about the provisions. We 
agreed that these should be considered in an authorizing vehicle. We 
hope and we urge the Banking Committee next year to take up the problem 
of housing production. Let's get all these ideas out on the table.
  My office has a lot of good ideas; I am sure others do. Let's get 
them all out and work them out in authorizing language. How sweet it 
would be if we had an authorized piece of housing legislation that 
would make it unnecessary for us to include housing provisions in the 
appropriations bill. It might be a lot duller, but I believe the 
ranking member and I could still pass the appropriations bill. So I 
urge them to deal with those housing questions.
  We also thank our colleagues from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for their helpful comments. As a member of that committee, I 
urge them to take a look at these many provisions which are included in 
our bill because of concerns over the direction we are moving in the 
environment. I would like to deal with them on the authorizing basis. I 
hope that we may do so in the future.
  Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues for their help.
  I reserve 2 minutes for the chairman of the committee at such time as 
he may choose for matters that he wishes to bring up.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield now?
  I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, who have 
worked so hard on this bill and brought us a bill now, through the 
negotiations they have had with the House, that I believe will be 
signed. It has been a very difficult bill. In working together, it is 
nice to see a good bipartisan effort on our appropriations bills.


                           Amendment No. 4310

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to offer 
an amendment at this time. The amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4310.

  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to have the amendment read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the amendment, add:


                               division c

       Sec.  . In lieu of a statement of the managers that would 
     otherwise accompany a conference report for a bill making 
     appropriations for federal agencies and activities provided 
     for in this Act, reports that are filed in identical form by 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to 
     adjournment of the 106th Congress shall be considered by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, and the agencies responsible 
     for the obligation and expenditure of funds provided in this 
     Act, as having the same standing, force and legislative 
     history as would a statement of the managers accompanying a 
     conference report.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for adoption of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4310) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know we are concluding. I express my 
thanks to Senator Stevens and to Senator Byrd, who enabled us to move 
forward with this very unusual process, and for the assistance they 
gave us in dealing with severe budgetary allocations.
  I also thank Senator Bond, as well as Congressman Walsh, for 
including the Democrats as full participants, and also the courtesy 
extended to members of the executive branch at OMB and also to the 
Council on Environmental Quality.
  I also thank Senator Bond's staff for, again, their really close work 
in relationship with us and for the professionalism that was afforded. 
And I thank my own staff. While we worked on this bill, a lot of people 
were off enjoying themselves. They went home to dinner; they went to 
fundraisers; they played with their grandchildren; and we were out here 
working. That is our job. We were happy to do it. But after we would go 
home, the staff would work, often until 10, 11, 12 o'clock at night and 
through weekends. I thank them for their hard work. But, most of all, I 
know the American people thank them for their hard work.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S10309]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4308

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment strikes two riders which are 
harmful and unfair to the American people. That is why 21 environmental 
groups support the amendment. And the League of Conservation Voters has 
indicated they are going to score this on their environmental 
scorecard.
  The first rider delays the setting of a new standard for arsenic in 
drinking water. The National Academy of Sciences tells us we must act 
on a new standard for arsenic in water because arsenic is now a known 
carcinogen. They urge swift action because they tell us that the old 
standard was based on 1942 data. Arsenic causes cancer. That is 
science. We should not delay.
  The second rider gags the EPA from informing communities that their 
air quality is harmful to their health. That is, to me, in a democracy, 
an amazing thing that we would stand here and allow this to happen, 
where the EPA would be denied the free speech to go into communities 
and say: You have to watch out for your health.
  Gag rules on clean air and delays on arsenic standards are bad 
riders. I hope we will strike them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 1 minute.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, with respect to the arsenic rider, the 
National Academy of Sciences says somebody must act, but the EPA has 
not determined what action must be taken. Give them the full year that 
the Clean Water Act envisioned. We are doing this so they can conduct 
the process and not wind up spending their time in court.
  With respect to the ozone nonattainment designations, this is simply 
saying: Don't go out and put black eyes on communities when lower 
courts have said that the EPA doesn't have the authority to issue those 
designations. Wait until you find out whether they actually have the 
authority to go out and brand a community as being out of attainment 
with this particular standard until you find out whether it is lawful.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 4308, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
4308. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The motion was 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President on rollcall No. 270, I voted aye. It was my 
intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change the outcome 
of that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that the next votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes 
each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 4309

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do I have 1 minute to describe this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It is a sense 
of the Congress and says the following:
  It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection 
Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and ocean sites around the 
Nation that have been contaminated with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metal, and 
other toxic chemicals in order to protect the public health, safety, 
and the environment.
  I think this is very straightforward. I think we should all join 
hands and support the amendment. Why do I think we need it? There is 
report language in this bill that we believe delays the cleanup of 
these sites. The managers say, no, they don't think it will result in 
delay. If that is the case, then why can't we all join hands and 
support this sense of the Congress?
  My goodness; we ought to protect our environment in this way. It 
seems to me if we have PCBs, if we have DDT with an ocean environment, 
a bay environment, or river environment, it is going to harm and it is 
harming the wildlife. That gets passed on to humans as the fish consume 
the DDT.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First, do not be deluded by the phrase ``sense of the 
Congress.'' This is not a free ride on the riders. There are 
consequences if this passes. It is a dangerous amendment. This 
amendment will then go to a formal conference. The House will not 
accept our decision. This bill will then die as so many other things 
are dying. It will die quickly, as a matter of fact.
  Second, in terms of the consequences to policy, first of all, there 
are so many exceptions in this bill, one of which is that this language 
does not apply if EPA says the site poses a threat to public health. It 
does not apply if a voluntary agreement is in place, if dredging is 
already occurring in a site. If a site has an approved plan by October 
1, 2000, it doesn't apply.
  Guess what. It sunsets on June 30, 2000. Let's just sunset the 
amendment and move on.
  Mr. BOND. I move to table and ask for yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S10310]]

  The question is on agreeing to a motion to table the amendment No. 
4309. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill will be 
read a third time.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.


                              section 404

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to discuss 
with the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies the role of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) in the Section 404 permitting process. FEMA 
and the Section 404 wetlands permitting program are subject to the 
authorization jurisdiction of the committee I chair, the Senate 
Environment and public Works Committee, and receive their funding 
through this appropriations bill.
  Mr. BOND. I would be delighted to discuss this matter with my 
colleague from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator knows, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency was not established with the intent that it 
become a regulatory agency. Rather, the principal mission of the Agency 
is to administer relief to areas of our nation that are suffering from 
catastrophic events such as floods or hurricanes. The Section 404 
permitting program under the Clean Water Act, as the Senator also knows 
well, is a complicated and controversial federal regulatory program 
administered primarily by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, the 
Environmental Protection Agency also has a major role in the 
implementation of the program that includes the ability to veto 
decisions by the Corps to issue specific Section 404 permits. I believe 
that two agencies implementing a federal regulatory program is quite 
enough.
  Mr. BOND. I am familiar with the Section 404 program and agree with 
the Senator's observations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have two specific concerns regarding 
FEMA and the Section 404 program. First, I understand that a new rule 
on nationwide permits was issued by the Corps effective June 7, 2000. 
Nationwide permits are a streamlined permitting process that apply to 
minor wetlands disturbances that have a minimal impact on the nation's 
wetlands. These permits are very important to the operation of the 
program since as many as 85 percent of the permits issued by the Corps 
each year are nationwide permits. One aspect of this new rule makes it 
very difficult to obtain nationwide permits in the one hundred year 
floodplain. According to the Corps, 53 percent of the floodplain is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Section 404 program. The rule 
provides that certain nationwide permits can be obtained in a portion 
of the hundred year floodplain if approved by FEMA or the local flood 
control agency.
  Congress has not authorized a role for FEMA in the Section 404 
permitting process. Is it your understanding that this new rule will be 
implemented in such a fashion that FEMA will not become a regulatory 
agency with respect to Section 404 nationwide permits?
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator that FEMA should not have a 
regulatory role in the Section 404 program and that there is some lack 
of clarity in the new nationwide permit rule regarding FEMA's role. The 
report of the Committee that accompanies this legislation contains 
language requesting detailed information from FEMA regarding their 
implementation plans under this new rule. I can assure the Senator that 
we will address his concerns as we work with FEMA on their funding 
needs and requests.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator for his attention to 
my concerns about FEMA's role in the 404 program. I would also call the 
Committee's attention to the related problem of the issuance of 
individual 404 permits in the 100 year floodplain. I believe it is 
important to emphasize that, just as in the case of nationwide permits. 
FEMA does not have a regulatory role in the issuance of individual 
permits under Section 404. Whether or not there should be such a policy 
in the hundred year floodplain is an issue that Congress may wish to 
address in the future. However, for now, I believe that it must be 
restated that FEMA has not been authorized a decisional role in whether 
or not an individual Section 404 permit should be issued nor the 
conditions of a Section 404 permit. We do not need a third federal 
agency with a decisional role in the Section 404 permitting program. 
Obviously, FEMA may comment on applications for Section 404 permits, as 
may any citizen or federal agency, but that opportunity must not be 
transformed into a decisional role. Does the Senator agree with me on 
this point? Is it the Senator's understanding that the funds in this 
bill will not be used by FEMA to play a decisional role in the issuance 
of individual Section 404 permits in the hundred year floodplain?
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator on this point. The funds in this 
bill are not to be used by FEMA to play a decisional role in the 
issuance of individual Section 404 permits in the hundred year 
floodplain.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished 
colleague from Missouri.


                  Assisting Veterans With Disabilities

  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?
  Mr. BOND. I will be pleased to yield for a question from the Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, I want to compliment the Chairman and the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Mikulski, for bringing this bill to the Senator floor and 
for the Subcommittee's attention to the health, rehabilitation and 
research programs funded by this bill that are critical to our Nation's 
veterans.
  I also want to compliment the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the 
subcommittee's report language that urges the VA's Rehabilitation 
Research Office to conduct a demonstration project to assess the impact 
of a new mobility technology on the ability of veterans to perform work 
functions, thereby leading to increased opportunities for veterans with 
disabilities to return to work. This innovative mobility device is a 
major advance in that it has

[[Page S10311]]

the ability to climb stairs, traverse all terrain and balance the 
seated user at standing eye-level. It should, I hope, provide veterans 
who have mobility impairments with significant additional opportunities 
in the workplace. The demonstration project called for by the 
Subcommittee's language will help clarify the additional employment 
opportunities that such a device should create for our Nation's 
veterans. I thank the Subcommittee for its assistance in making process 
on this matter.
  With new and emerging technologies becoming available that can assist 
veterans with disabilities, it is vital that the VA keep pace with the 
marketplace and ensure that veterans with disabilities have access to 
these advancements. I have had the pleasure of seeing this new mobility 
device perform its functions and it clearly holds great promise. I am 
hopeful that this demonstration project will show a significant impact 
that this device can have on the ability of veterans with disabilities 
to return to work and I am eager on review the findings of the 
demonstration. Would the Chairman agree that the demonstration that is 
requested in the Subcommittee's language be completed by May 1, 2001?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I think that the more than 7 months between now and 
May 1, 2001, is ample time to complete the demonstration project. I 
thank Senator Levin for his work on this important issue and for 
bringing it to the Subcommittee's attention.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman for his continuing leadership on this 
matter.


                                dredging

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this Manager's Amendment contains language 
which would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take no 
action to initiate or order the use of dredging or invasive remedial 
technologies where a final plan has not been adopted prior to October 
1, 2000, or where such activities are not now occurring until the NAS 
report has been completed and its findings have been properly 
considered by the Agency. Would the Senator from Maryland be willing to 
clarify a few questions about this language?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer information 
about this Amendment to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it understood that the Environmental Protection Agency 
has the discretion to define ``threat to public health'' and ``urgent 
case'' as those terms are applied to the exceptions? Further, is it 
understood that the EPA has the discretion to define ``properly 
considered.''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Missouri, the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, agree with these clarifications?
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Maryland and join in her 
interpretation of this language.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
distinguished Senators from Maryland and Missouri.


                          great waters program

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we congratulate the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with 
an Appropriations bill which addresses so many of the water quality 
issues confronting America today. We also want to reiterate our support 
for a program of great interest to our colleagues from the Great Lakes 
states.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Great Waters program, authorized by the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, assesses air deposition as a source of toxic 
contamination to key water bodies, including the Great Lakes and 
Chesapeake Bay. Research suggests that at least half of all new toxic 
pollution loadings entering the Great Lakes may be transported and 
deposited by the atmosphere. Consistent funding for the monitoring of 
air deposition of toxic contaminants is especially critical at this 
time as the international community completes negotiations of an 
international treaty on persistent organic pollutants. The Great Waters 
program will provide a key component of the database used to judge the 
effectiveness of this international agreement in lowering the toxic 
contaminants entering the Great Lakes, and other great waters of the 
United States, from foreign sources.
  Mr. DeWINE. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman if the 
bill provides sufficient funding through the parent account to restore 
funding for critical monitoring under the Great Waters program to the 
fiscal year 1999 level of effort?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senators 
from Ohio and Michigan for highlighting the importance of the Great 
Waters program. We are pleased to recommend continuation of this 
program which is so vital to understanding the impact of airborne 
toxins on aquatic ecosystems. I assure the Senator that the intention 
of this bill is to restore sufficient funding to allow assessment of 
our progress in reducing the amount of toxic pollution entering the 
nation's waters.


                The Centredale Manor Restoration project

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking minority Member in putting together 
this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill. I would like to clarify one 
matter of importance regarding removing an environmental threat in a 
Rhode Island community. The Centredale Manor Restoration Project is a 
Superfund site in North Providence, RI. With my encouragement, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency has been moving quickly at this site. 
The site was only added to the National Priorities List in February of 
this year and several removal actions have been conducted at the site. 
Recently, the EPA released a proposed Engineering Evaluation/Cost 
Analysis that recommends replacement of the Allendale Dam and 
excavation of contaminated soils from residential properties along the 
Woonasquatucket River. These clean-up plans--requiring excavation of 
approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soils and sediments--were intended 
to be finalized later this year after the current public comment 
period, with design and construction work to follow shortly thereafter. 
There is a great deal of local support for getting on with this clean 
up and removing dangerous contaminants from North Providence 
neighborhoods.
  I understand that the report attached to this bill contains language 
directing EPA to wait until completion of the current National Academy 
of Sciences study of sediment remediation technology, and proper 
consideration of the NAS study as it relates to EPA remedy selection, 
before finalizing any more dredging plans. The NAS study is scheduled 
to be completed no later than January 1, 2001. It seems to me this 
report language would allow the EPA to continue planning associated 
with the Centredale Manor cleanup, including replacement of Allendale 
dam and excavation of contaminated soils and sediments in and along the 
Woonasquatucket River, at the North Providence Superfund site. 
Ultimately, I believe that following consideration of the NAS study, 
EPA will be able to finalize the cleanup plan and implement that final 
plan during the 2001 construction season. I would like to confirm with 
the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee that the report 
language is not intended to delay progress toward cleaning up 
contamination at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project in North 
Providence.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is correct. 
The conference report language on dredging and EPA review of the 
pending study by the National Academy of Sciences is not intended to 
delay progress towards cleaning up contamination at the Centredale 
Manor Restoration Project in Rhode Island. It is intended to ensure 
that EPA considers the findings of the NAS study in selecting remedies 
involving contaminated sediments.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's 
clarification of this matter.


                                 TEA-21

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of 
the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on an 
important matter.
  It is my understanding that the managers' amendment that we are 
adopting includes a rider which prohibits the EPA from making 
nonattainment designations under the new 8-hour ozone standard until 
June 15, 2001, or the final adjudication of the American Trucking 
Association vs. EPA case now before the Supreme Court, whichever comes 
first. Is that right?

[[Page S10312]]

  Mr. BOND. The Senator from New Jersey is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. While I believe that inclusion of this rider is 
unfortunate as it will slow progress toward cleaner air, I understand 
that it should have little practical effect. EPA is unlikely to make 
those designations much in advance of June 15, 2001, in any case, even 
though all but about 6 states have submitted proposed areas for 
nonattainment designation.
  I would just like to make one thing very clear for the record. This 
rider is a prohibition on the expenditures of funds. It does not negate 
the requirement included in TEA-21 that areas be designated under the 
new ozone standard. It also does not in any way prejudice the 
litigation pending before the Supreme Court. Would the distinguished 
Chairman confirm that these points are true?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, Mr. President, the Senator is correct. This language 
does not modify section 6103 of TEA-21, nor is it intended to affect 
the Supreme Court's consideration of the litigation on these standards 
in any way.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the Subcommittee Chairman and the Senator 
from New Jersey.


                                 CERCLA

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a section in 
the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report. The 
language directs EPA to take no action to initiate or order the use of 
certain technologies such as dredging until certain steps have been 
taken with respect to the National Academy of Sciences report, with 
exceptions for voluntary agreements and urgent cases. It is my 
understanding that after June 30, 2001, or when EPA has properly 
considered the NAS report, whichever comes first, the conferees intend 
that EPA could proceed to finalize any such plans and act on those 
plans through steps to initiate or order dredging and other 
technologies, as appropriate.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The statement of the managers is 
not intended to limit EPA's authority to act on a plan that is 
finalized in accordance with the conditions set out.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also my understanding that in directing EPA to 
properly consider the NAS report, the conferees are not intending to 
change the normal criteria by which EPA selects remedies, such as the 
factors laid out in CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan, and 
applicable guidance. Instead, the conferees are asking EPA to 
disseminate the report to officials within the Agency who make remedy 
selection decisions and to ask them to review it as part of the larger 
body of research on scientific and technical issues associated with 
hazardous waste cleanup. The NAS report is not being singled out for 
special deference greater than it would otherwise receive.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The statement of the managers 
calling for EPA to properly consider the NAS report is not a change in 
the CERCLA remedy selection process, it is not a call for an EPA 
response to the report, and is not a direction to give the report more 
weight than it would otherwise receive.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also my understanding that urgent cases would 
include situations in which contaminated sediments, either alone or 
through their accumulation in fish, cause significant risks to public 
health such as increases in cancer risks, reproductive effects, or 
birth defects.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the subcommittee chairman and Senator 
Lautenberg.


              EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to call the 
Senate's attention to a program that the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is implementing in a way that I believe is inconsistent 
with the original intent of Congress. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program, EDSP, was created by EPA to implement language in the Food 
Quality Protection Act, FQPA, and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
1996 requiring that EPA, and I quote, ``develop a screening program, 
using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically 
relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have 
an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a 
naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effect . . .'' 
The Program was required to be implemented by August 1, 1999.
  This program has been plagued by a lack of public participation from 
key constituencies, an expansive interpretation of the Congressional 
mandate, questionable decisions as to the validation of testing 
protocols, and neglect of money appropriated for the development of 
non-animal tests.
  In October 1996 EPA formed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and 
Testing Advisory Committee, EDSTAC, under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act to advise EPA on risk assessment techniques for endocrine 
disrupting chemicals. EDSTAC included scientists and representatives 
from EPA and other government agencies, industry, national 
environmental groups, worker protection groups, environmental justice 
groups, and research scientists. More recently, EPA set up the 
Endocrine Disruptor Standardization and Validation Task Force to 
perform the work needed to develop, standardize, and validate the 
screens and tests proposed for the Program. However, one very important 
constituency was not included in either of these groups--in fact they 
were excluded--they are the animal welfare groups. Traditionally, these 
groups have been left out of the consultation process of EPA regarding 
the newly initiated chemical testing programs. Any program that 
includes testing of chemicals for toxicity or other effects involves 
the use of animals in such testing, however, the groups that advocate 
for animal welfare were excluded from providing early input in the 
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.
  As Chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the testing and 
handling of toxic chemicals, the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, I am particularly concerned about how this program is being 
administered. In addition to the lack of public input, a major concern 
deals with the large number of animals used in testing that could occur 
as a result of EPA's implementation plan for this program. On August 
25, 2000, EPA published a report to Congress on the Endocrine Disruptor 
Screening Program that sets forth the findings, recommendations and 
further actions of EPA in implementing the EDSP. The implementation 
plan that EPA has come up with is broader than the plain language of 
the FQPA. While obtaining better data on endocrine disruptors is 
certainly a worthy goal, I am concerned about the expansion of this 
congressionally mandated program. The broad interpretation by the EPA 
of the chemicals to test and the method of validation calls into 
question whether this program will be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the intent of Congress. All of these expanded 
interpretations increase the number of test animals needed to implement 
the program.
  The law specifically states that EPA is to ``use appropriately 
validated tests.'' EPA has interpreted the law to mean that animal 
tests can be validated through the EPA's own Science Advisory Board, 
however, non-animal tests must be run through a more rigorous 
Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative 
Methods (ICCVAM) process. ICCVAM was created as a standing committee in 
1997 and is composed of representatives of fifteen Federal regulatory 
or research agencies that regulate the use of animals in toxicology 
testing; EPA is a co-chair of ICCVAM. The ICCVAM process with input 
from the EPA Science Advisory Board reviews can ensure that the tests, 
animal or non-animal, will produce good results. I believe all tests 
should be assessed for validation by ICCVAM.
  My comments up until now have been critical of the plan that EPA has 
put forth for future implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor 
Screening Program. Last year, Congress appropriated $5 million for the 
development and implementation of the test methods including the high 
throughput pre-screen, a non-animal screening process. After spending 
$70,000, the Agency has stopped working to integrate the high 
throughput pre-screen into the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. 
Although this specific example concerns me, it is only one example of 
the general disinterest of EPA in integrating non-animal tests into the 
program. I

[[Page S10313]]

urge the EPA's Office of Research and Development to apportion funds to 
prioritize research, development and validation of non-animal tests.
  Mr. BOND. Thank you for your insight and comments on EPA's Endocrine 
Disruptor Screening Program. We are in agreement that EPA should 
implement the Program better. EPA should also pursue the validation and 
incorporation of non-animal testing as soon as practicable.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I want to thank the Senator from Missouri 
for his comments and hope we can continue to work together on the 
monitoring of this and other EPA programs.


                           Military Retirees

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, as you know, current law requires that for 
a military retiree to receive his VA disability compensation he must 
waive an equal part of his retirement pay. This issue is frequently 
referred to as ``concurrent receipt,'' because it would involve the 
simultaneous receipt of two types of benefits.
  The service connected disabled military retiree is the only person 
that is forced to pay for their own disability compensation. A worker 
in private industry is not forced to pay for his own disability. 
Likewise, local, State and federal civil servants, appointed and 
elected officials are not forced to pay for their own disability 
compensation.
  For several years I have worked closely with military retirees and 
veterans organizations to change the law to permit receipt of all 
deserved benefits. This is a step that this Congress must take. It is 
unfair that a person who serves his or her country and has a service-
connected disability can't draw both benefits.
  Legislation to fix concurrent receipt has been introduced during the 
past several Congresses. Last year, thanks in great part to the efforts 
of the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the Senate took a first step towards fixing this problem by 
authorizing a concurrent receipt provision for severely disabled 
military retirees. The existing concurrent receipt restrictions, 
however, remain in effect.
  This year, the Senate again made an effort to solve the concurrent 
receipt problem. During debate on the Department of Defense 
Authorization bill, the Senate included an amendment to completely 
repeal concurrent receipt laws. This would allow all veterans to 
receive their full disability compensation along with their retired 
pay. When the conference report to the Defense Authorization bill 
reached desk of the conferees, however, they were faced with an 
insurmountable financial problem.
  The Defense Authorization conference report that is being considered 
today contains crucial provisions that will enable the government to 
fulfill its first priority: to provide a strong national defense. In 
addition, the Act contains significant and necessary increases in 
overall defense spending, especially directed at improving morale and 
retention. One of the most important of these provisions is an 
amendment, fulfilling a broken promise, which will give the same health 
care benefits to military retirees as those available to active duty 
service members. Therefore, I will support the Defense Authorization 
bill.
  However, I want to take this opportunity to declare my intentions and 
to call upon my colleagues for their support. As part of the annual 
budget process next year, I will work with my colleague from Nevada, 
Mr. Reid, who has dedicated a great deal of time to this effort, to 
include budget cap room for concurrent receipt.
  I want to remind my colleagues, the service connected disabled 
military retiree is the only person who is forced to pay for his own 
disability compensation. It is simply unfair that a person who serves 
his or her country and has a service-connected disability can't draw 
both his VA and disability benefits concurrently.
  This is a situation that must be fixed and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our 
servicemembers, active duty and retired, receive the full benefits that 
they deserve.


                             housing needs

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for 
their good work on this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill. Also, I 
would like to congratulate Secretary Cuomo on the hard work he has done 
to raise awareness of the critical housing needs many Americans are 
experiencing around the country.
  As the ranking member on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee, I have a very keen interest in the portion of this bill that 
funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  This year's budget is a strong step in the right direction. The bill 
contains increases in spending for many of the critical housing 
programs that serve middle- and low-income families.
  It includes funding for nearly 80,000 new section 8 housing vouchers. 
These vouchers will provide additional housing resources for families 
experiencing critical housing needs.
  Funding for the HOME and CDBG programs has been increased by $200 
million and $300 million over last year's levels respectively. These 
are programs that local governments and non-profits rely on to build 
and rehabilitate affordable housing, as well as revitalize communities.
  The Committee has also provided for an increase in the homeless 
budget, which includes emergency shelter, permanent housing, 
counseling, and job training services. For the approximately 500,000 
people that are homeless in this country on any given night, this 
additional money will mean a better chance to find a bed in a shelter, 
a soup kitchen at which to eat, or a permanent home.
  They also took the important step of providing a stream of funding to 
renew Shelter Plus Care vouchers. This will enable local providers to 
continue to build up the infrastructure they need to serve this 
vulnerable population.
  This year's budget builds on the public housing reform legislation we 
passed two years ago by increasing the public housing operating and 
capital funds, enabling local public housing authorities to maintain 
and invest in their properties.
  Also included is a two year extension of The Federal Housing 
Administration's Down Payment Simplification Program. This will allow 
the FHA to continue using the simplified formula to extend 
homeownership to more American families.
  Additionally, there is an increase in spending for the Lead Paint 
Hazard program, a very important program for cities trying to abate the 
poisonous lead paint found in their housing stock.
  Lastly, I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their efforts 
in pushing one provision that did not make it into the bill, that is, a 
new housing production program. While I am disappointed that we were 
unable to achieve this in the end, I appreciate their acknowledgment of 
the housing crisis our nation is experiencing.
  The long-term answer to this problem will have to be the dedication 
of new resources to building additional housing. While the nearly 
80,000 new section 8 vouchers will help to alleviate the severe housing 
crunch that many working American families experience, I hope we will 
be able to revisit the topic of production again next year.
  All in all, this is a very good bill. I am very pleased and again 
congratulate my colleagues on a well thought out, well funded, piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as all Senators are aware, I have taken the 
floor on a number of occasions, not only this year, but over the past 
several years, to express my concern about the manner in which the 
Senate was disposing of certain appropriation bills. This year--as in 
three previous fiscal years, fiscal years 1997, 1999, and 2000--the 
Senate has, until today, again been unable to take up and debate and 
amend several fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills; namely, Treasury/
General Government, VA/HUD, and Commerce/Justice/State appropriations 
bills. I have been deeply concerned that the Senate is in danger of 
becoming a mere adjunct of the House, when it comes to consideration of 
appropriations bills.
  In light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, so near the 
end of the 106th Congress, I was pleased to support the unanimous 
consent agreement entered into yesterday. Under that agreement, the 
Senate has before it this morning the Fiscal Year 2001 VA/HUD 
Appropriations bill, as amended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
That Committee-reported bill has been amended by a Committee

[[Page S10314]]

substitute offered by Senators Bond and Mikulski. Despite the fact that 
the Senate has not taken up the VA/HUD Appropriations bill until today, 
the fact is that Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski have worked 
tirelessly on the substitute before the Senate today. They have worked 
with the Administration and the other body to pound out an agreement 
that is acceptable to all parties involved in those negotiations. So, I 
am pleased that the many hours that they have devoted to this effort 
have resulted in the agreement now about to be adopted by the Senate. 
As is always the case, when it comes to appropriations bills, no one is 
fully satisfied with the final agreements that are reached. I am sure 
that there are areas where members would prefer to see changes made, 
but the time has come and gone for us to complete our work on the 
Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bills--a fiscal year which began some 
12 days ago.
  Mr. President, as I explained earlier in my remarks, the Senate, 
until today, had not taken up the VA/HUD bill, or the Treasury/General 
Government bill, or the Commerce/Justice/State bill. The amendment at 
the desk places before the Senate the Committee-reported FY-2001 
Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill.
  This is the only opportunity that the Senate has had to consider the 
Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill, other than its being 
presented to the Senate on September 14th in a combined Legislative 
Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report, which was 
unamendable. The inclusion of the Treasury/General Government 
appropriations in the Legislative Branch conference report was not 
amendable and precluded the Senate's opportunity to debate and amend 
the Treasury/General Government bill on the Senate floor. Instead, on 
September 14th, Senators were asked to vote on the unamendable 
conference report, which contained not only the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, but also the Treasury/General 
Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001. The vote on that 
combined conference report was 28 yeas and 69 nays. The motion to 
reconsider that vote is still pending.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that several adjustments to 
that Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference 
report have been made in the form of amendments to the Transportation 
Appropriations bill, which were adopted in conference and were included 
as part of the Transportation conference report, which has now passed 
both Houses of Congress and is awaiting the President's signature. I do 
not intend to discuss those amendments in detail at this time, but 
instead will point out that a concern by Senator Reid regarding the 
selection of a chief administrative officer for the Capitol Police has 
been resolved in that Transportation conference, together with 
substantial increases in funding for the IRS and certain other matters 
pertaining to the Treasury/General Government portion of that combined 
conference report.
  As a result of these amendments regarding the Legislative Branch and 
Treasury/General Government conference report, it is my understanding 
that that conference report is now acceptable to the Chairmen and 
Ranking Members of those two Subcommittees, and I believe it is the 
intention of the Leadership to bring up and dispose of that combined 
Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report 
immediately following completion of consideration of the VA/HUD 
Appropriations conference report, which is currently before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I urged the Leaders to allow for the amendment to put 
before the Senate the Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill, 
as reported by the Appropriations Committee, in order to preserve, at 
least to some extent, the Senate's right to take up appropriations 
bills prior to their being inserted into unamendable conference 
reports. I appreciate that the Leaders accommodated my request. 
Although, under the unanimous consent agreement, there will be no 
opportunity to amend the Treasury/General Government Appropriations 
bill, at least we have preserved the Senate's right to consider it. I 
am encouraged by the fact that the Majority Leader, at this late hour 
of the session, has attempted, as best he could, to allow some 
semblance of Senate consideration of the VA/HUD and the Treasury/
General Government appropriations bills. I am hopeful that a similar 
agreement can be reached on the one remaining appropriations bill which 
the Senate has not yet acted upon--the Commerce/Justice/State 
Appropriations bill.
  I am also very hopeful that we can find a way to ensure that the 
Senate can return to the regular appropriations process in the next 
Congress and all congresses thereafter, whereby appropriations bills 
are reported by the Committee and taken up in the Senate for debate and 
amendment prior to their being inserted into unamendable conference 
reports.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to explain my 
votes on the amendments offered by Senator Boxer to the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill relating to legislative riders that were attached 
to the bill. Included in the bill were provisions that would 
potentially delay the issuance of rules on arsenic, the declaration of 
new ozone non-attainment areas, and ordering dredging for the clean up 
of PCB's. Senator Boxer offered amendments that would have eliminated 
or weakened these provisions. She has worked hard for our environment, 
and has been a leader on ecological issues, so I regret I had to vote 
against her proposals. Unfortunately I had to oppose her for several 
reasons. First, the amendments, if accepted would have seriously 
disrupted Congress's efforts to complete our work on the budget. These 
amendments would have resulted in additional delays, and could have 
jeopardized the fate of the bill.
  I was also concerned because the Administration did not oppose, and 
did not agree with the dire assessment of the effects of these riders. 
Staff at the EPA do not believe that these riders will result in any 
significant delays. EPA does not believe that the dredging language 
included in the bill will delay action on the Fox River in my state, 
but it will ensure that we use the best science available when EPA 
develops clean up plans.
  Senators Bond and Mikulski, along with the Administration, have done 
their best to neuter destructive language that was included in the 
House version of this bill, and I think they have done well. We would 
prefer that these riders not be included at all, but if they must, at 
least they were included in a way that is unlikely to have any negative 
effect on the environment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this year's VA, HUD 
Appropriations bill contains $1 million for the City of Detroit for the 
Detroit River walkway or promenade. The riverfront is a focal point of 
Detroit's redevelopment efforts in connection with the City's upcoming 
300th anniversary and plans are underway to construct an extensive, 
pedestrian-friendly walkway or promenade along the shoreline. I have 
personally been able to obtain support from this body for that purpose. 
The grant provided for in this bill will help defray the costs of the 
project, such as land acquisition, walkway installation and building 
demolition, and will help give Detroit a world-class waterfront.
  We also have before the Senate today two very important amendments to 
this bill. The first would strike language in the report which delays 
the Environmental Protection Agency from making a final regulation for 
arsenic in drinking water. The National Academy of Sciences has found 
that the current regulations for the levels of arsenic in our water are 
unacceptable. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to lower 
the standard from the current 50 parts per billion to 5 parts per 
billion. I support that proposal and regret that I had to vote against 
this amendment. However, this amendment contained two provisions and it 
is the other provision I do not support.
  That part of this amendment would strike language in the report which 
prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from designating an area 
in nonattainment under the Clean Air Act pursuant to the 8-hour 
national ambient air quality standard for ozone. I agree that an ozone 
standard should be in place to protect public health and

[[Page S10315]]

the environment. However, the Environmental Protection Agency's 
authority to issue the 8-hour standard is currently under review by the 
United States Supreme Court. The Court will hear argument on November 7 
to decide whether to uphold a Court of Appeals decision that 
invalidated the 8-hour standard on the grounds that the agency had 
assumed an ``unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.'' Even 
the EPA has agreed that it cannot actually implement efforts with 
respect to the 8-hour standard. Until the Supreme Court hears this 
case, we do not know whether the EPA even had the authority to make 
this new rule. Therefore, I agree that the EPA should refrain from 
using the standard--a standard that may be struck down as 
unenforceable--until the Supreme Court has made its determination 
regarding the constitutionality of the EPA's actions.
  Now this isn't a frivolous matter. A nonattainment designation can 
detrimentally affect an area and, if not justified, would cause 
needless economic hardship, such as costly transportation conformity 
measures, should the Supreme Court rule that the 8-hour standard is 
unenforceable. Further, this standard could impose unfair economic 
burdens on a number of communities in Michigan that suffer from 
significant ozone and other pollution transported from more severely 
polluted areas. And it could be all for nought if the Supreme Court 
strikes down the standard.
  Mr. President, I support the goals of the Clean Air Act. However, it 
needs to be applied in a common sense equitable manner if it is to 
retain the support of the American People. It is not equitable to 
designate an area in nonattainment if that designation may become null 
and void in a matter of months. For these reasons I voted against the 
Boxer Amendment.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I am pleased that, with my 
support, the Senate took another step today toward fulfilling our 
country's commitment to provide health care for our veterans. The 
fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report that passed 
the Senate this afternoon contains a $1.4 billion increase in veterans 
health care funding from the last year's appropriations level.
  While I am pleased that we have finally come around to talking about 
additional funding for veterans health care, as opposed to three years 
of flat-line budget levels, I am disappointed that the funding level in 
the FY2001 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report falls short of the 
level proposed by veterans organizations.
  The authoritative Independent Budget is produced by major veterans 
organizations including AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW. The Independent Budget and 
The American Legion agree that the Veterans Administration will need at 
least $500 million more in funding than provided by this conference 
report.
  I am pleased to have led the effort last year in the Senate to 
increase veterans health care funding. Through my efforts on the Senate 
Budget Committee and on the Senate floor, we were able to start 
reversing the negative effects of three years of flat-lined veterans 
health care budgets with an increase of $1.7 billion. I am pleased that 
my efforts appear to have convinced the Administration and Members of 
Congress to start talking about increases in veterans health care 
funding instead of keeping this budget stagnant.
  This year, I was successful in getting a bipartisan amendment passed 
to the Senate Budget Resolution that added an additional $1.9 billion 
to last year's funding for veterans health care. The conference report 
that passed the Senate today fell $500 million short of this goal and 
will prevent the VA from adequately funding a number of important 
programs including medical care, research, long term care, and 
necessary facility construction and renovation.
  While the $1.4 billion increase in this year's VA budget and the $1.7 
billion increase from last year are important improvements, I'm afraid 
the funds are simply providing budgetary backfill for the years when 
the veterans health care needs were ignored. We need a VA veterans' 
health care budget that can adequately offset years of underfunding, 
the higher costs of medical care caused by consumer inflation, wage 
increases, and legislation passed by Congress. For the first time in a 
number of years, we're working with overall budget surpluses instead of 
budget deficits. Clearly, the funds are there to provide for veterans 
health care. It is simply a question of whether the political will is 
there to make veterans health care a priority instead of an 
afterthought.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will continue to do all 
I can to encourage my colleagues to approve adequate funding levels for 
veterans health care. I look forward to continue working on a 
bipartisan basis with my Senate colleagues as well as with 
representatives of the veterans community in South Dakota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President. I rise to speak about a provision in 
the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, which was 
passed by the Senate today. Specifically, I want to speak about the 
substantial backlog of civil rights claims that have been filed with 
the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Office of Civil Rights, 
OCR.
  As my colleagues know, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of 
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination 
under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 
For thirty-five years, this law has been a cornerstone of our nation's 
civil rights protections. To better implement Title VI in federal 
environmental programs, President Clinton issued an Executive Order in 
1994 requiring each federal agency ``to make achieving environmental 
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations.''
  Under EPA's Title VI implementing regulations, 40 CFR Section 7, EPA-
funded permitting agencies are prohibited from taking actions in the 
permitting process that are intentionally discriminatory or have a 
discriminatory effect based on race, color, or national origin. Under 
these regulations OCR is required to ``promptly'' investigate all 
complaints filed under Title VI unless all parties agree to a delay [40 
CFR Section 7.120]. OCR is first required to initiate complaint 
proceedings within 5 days of receipt of a complaint [40 CFR Section 
7.120(d)]. Then it must review the complaint for acceptance, rejection, 
or referral to another agency and make a determination within 25 days 
of the receipt of the complaint [40 CFR Section 7.120(d)(1)]. If a 
complaint is accepted, EPA must make a preliminary finding in the 
matter, including recommendations, if any, for achieving voluntary 
compliance, and OCR must notify the recipient of these finding within 
180 days of the start of the complaint investigation. [40 CFR Section 
7.120(d)(2)].
  Unfortunately according to the OCR's most recent log of cases filed 
on October 4, 2000, 103 Title VI claims have been filed since September 
1993. Of these, over half, 56 cases, are still pending. The remainder 
were either rejected or dismissed over jurisdictional issues. Eleven of 
the still active cases have been pending for 5 years or more, without 
resolution. Only one case has been resolved by a decision of the OCR, 
which found that there was not a legally recognizable ``adverse 
impact'' on the community and denied the community's request for 
reconsideration.
  To further complicate resolution for these civil rights claims, in 
1998 a rider was inserted in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill that 
blocked the implementation or administration of the interim Guidance to 
enforce Title VI claims issued on February 5, 1998. This rider has 
effectively stopped the EPA from investigating and responding to claims 
of race or national origin discrimination that have been filed with the 
Agency after October, 1998. That same rider has been on all subsequent 
VA/HUD bills, including this one.
  This summer the EPA revised it's Guidance, which was noticed in the 
Federal Register for public comment. The revision is titled ``Draft 
Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints 
Challenging Permits.'' I am pleased that the rider,

[[Page S10316]]

included in this VA/HUD Appropriations bill, would not apply to the 
EPA's revised Guidance.
  However a there still remains a large backlog of cases to be acted 
upon. There were 35 complaints filed after the first rider in 1998. To 
date only one has been accepted for investigation. Although the step of 
acceptance or rejection is required under Federal Regulation within 25 
days of the receipt of the complaint, 34 of these complaints are more 
than 25 days old and over half of them, 20 of 34 cases, have been 
``under review'' for more than a year.
  The EPA's own regulations are clear, regardless of any Guidance. 
Furthermore, the rider does not account for the entire backlog of 
unresolved complaints. There are still 21 complaints pending that were 
filed before the rider blocking the EPA's 1998 Guidance went into 
effect. Of these cases, 19 have been accepted, but no preliminary 
findings have been made. Two cases are still under review after 4\1/2\ 
years, and as you will recall the deadline in the federal regulations 
for accepting cases is 25 days from the initial complaint date. And 
again, half of the still active cases,--11 of 21--have been pending for 
5 years or more, without resolution.
  It appears the EPA is out of compliance with it's own regulations for 
processing civil rights complaints, both for cases filed before and 
after the effect of the rider. While the rider has no doubt been a 
hindrance to the Agency, it clearly does not absolve the Agency of its 
responsibilities under the 36 year old civil rights law. And the 
Agency's own regulations lay out a clear framework for processing and 
acting on complaints.
  Several environmental and civil rights organizations have written to 
Congressional leaders on this backlog. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter to the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee from the NAACP, and a letter from the Earthjustice Legal 
Defense Fund be entered into the Record following my statement.
  In closing, I am pleased the Administration appears to be working to 
finalize the revised Guidance. However, I remain concerned that the EPA 
has established no clear way of dealing with the backlog of civil 
rights claims that have built up over the past seven years.
  Therefore, as a Senator from Minnesota, I call on the EPA, as 
expeditiously as possible, to resolve the many backlogged civil rights 
claims, several of which have been pending for years. Only then will we 
be able to fulfill the intent of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                 Washington, DC, October 11, 2000.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond, Chairman,
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Ranking Member,
     VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski: The National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the 
     nation's oldest and largest grassroots civil rights 
     organization, strongly opposes the anti-civil rights, anti-
     environmental rider in the House version of the VA, HUD, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations bill that, for the third 
     year in a row, attempts to interfere with the obligation of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate and 
     resolve Title VI Civil Rights complaints filed with its 
     Office of Civil Rights. We urge you to not accept this rider 
     in the final version of the bill, and to instead insist on 
     bill language that requires the EPA to begin immediately 
     resolving the growing backlog of civil rights complaints 
     filed since 1993 by communities of color struggling for 
     environmental justice.
       The rider, as well as the backlog of civil rights 
     complaints, has had the effect of undermining one of the most 
     important laws in this country, Title VI of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
     race, color or national origin. The NAACP worked for the 
     enactment of Title VI and continues to work against any 
     actions that may result in racial discrimination. Therefore, 
     we are deeply troubled by acts of Congress and actions of 
     government agencies that may result in having a disparate 
     impact on communities of color.
       Any community in this nation that feels that it is 
     threatened by a state environmental agency decision must have 
     access to legal recourse to address its concerns. 
     Historically, these communities have been low-income areas 
     with high concentrations of African Americans, Latino 
     Americans and Asian Americans. The fact that communities of 
     color are disproportionately over-represented among 
     communities with these complaints leads to inevitable 
     concerns that their basic civil rights are being violated. 
     According to the EPA's Office of Civil Rights, there are now 
     56 complaints lodged with the agency that remain unresolved. 
     Many of these claims were filed with the EPA several years 
     ago. However, the agency has not even notified complainants 
     about whether their complaints have been accepted or 
     rejected--a duty required of the EPA by federal regulations. 
     Of the 21 unresolved complaints that were accepted for 
     investigation, over half were filed more than five years ago. 
     The EPA has failed to render preliminary findings for all of 
     the complaints accepted for investigation. However, federal 
     regulations require the EPA to make preliminary findings 
     within 180 days of the complaint's acceptance for 
     investigation. EPA's failure to comply with federal 
     regulations has blocked resolution of civil rights 
     complaints. As a result, people of color who lack the 
     resources for federal court civil rights litigation are 
     effectively denied access to legal redress at the 
     administrative level. This is a completely unacceptable 
     situation.
       The House anti-civil rights, anti-environmental rider makes 
     a bad situation worse. For the last two years and as proposed 
     for next year, the riders expressly prohibit the EPA from 
     investigating and resolving new civil rights complaints. The 
     result has been a maintaining the status quo of concentrating 
     polluting sources in communities of color. By blocking the 
     EPA from developing and implementing concrete manners of 
     resolving these complaints, the rider creates a chilling 
     effect on the EPA for investigating the backlog of 
     complaints. As a result, the riders clearly have added to the 
     problem of the growing backlog of unresolved civil rights 
     complaints.
       The rider is an unjust denial of a civil rights remedy for 
     people of color struggling to protect their children and 
     communities from environmental hazards and pollution. It 
     violates the spirit, if not the outright language, of the 
     Constitution of the United States that guarantees every 
     American the right to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of 
     happiness.''
       We urge you to delete all language from the final bill that 
     could interfere with EPA's ability to investigate civil 
     rights violations, and to insert into the final bill a 
     provision that requires the EPA to resolve the backlog of 
     civil rights complaints as expeditiously as possible. I hope 
     that you will feel free to contact me with any questions or 
     comments you may have on this matter. I look forward to 
     working with you to ensure that the rights of all Americans 
     are protected.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                                     EarthJustice,


                                           Legal Defense Fund,

                                                 October 12, 2000.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund is 
     a non-profit environmental law firm whose mission is to 
     enforce laws that protect our environment through litigation 
     and advocacy. One of these laws is Title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act, which expressly prohibits discrimination on the 
     basis of race, color or national origin in federally-funded 
     programs. In 1993, the New Orleans office of Earthjustice 
     successfully represented African American citizens groups in 
     Mississippi by filing the first Title VI Civil Rights 
     complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), 
     which was against the state's environmental programs that 
     concentrated waste sites in African American communities. Our 
     civil rights complaint protected Mississippi citizens, who 
     were unfairly targeted for additional proposed waste sites.
       Clearly, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is an important 
     remedy to protect people of color who are disproportionately 
     burdened by toxic facilities and waste sites. There have been 
     numerous governmental and academic reports that demonstrate 
     the racial disparities that exist in environmental permitting 
     decisions, which concentrate polluting sources in communities 
     of color. The gains that people of color have made in the 
     struggle for environmental justice have heightened public 
     awareness about this form of racism and established 
     institutional changes at the EPA and other government 
     agencies to address this issue. However, actions taken by 
     Congress over the past three years have taken away the 
     ability of people of color to exercise their civil rights in 
     defense of their health and environment.
       The right of citizens to seek legal redress--a cornerstone 
     of our democracy--is blocked by Congressional riders that 
     have prevented the EPA from investigating civil rights 
     complaints for the last two years. This rider is also 
     inserted in this year's VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
     bill. Through this rider, Congress has effectively repealed 
     civil rights protections for people who live in fear of 
     industrial accidents and daily breath a cocktail of toxic 
     chemicals spewed by facilities and waste sites in their 
     neighborhoods. As a result of the rider, there has been an 
     increase in the number of civil rights complaints filed with 
     the EPA by people of color

[[Page S10317]]

     that go unanswered. There are now 56 civil rights complaints 
     pending before the EPA's Office of Civil Rights that remain 
     unaddressed, in violation of the agency's own Title VI 
     regulations requiring prompt resolution of claims. The 
     rider's offensive prohibition against investigating new civil 
     rights complaints with tools and analyses developed by the 
     EPA silences people of color. We find that such legislation 
     is a dangerous erosion of our civil rights, which opens the 
     door to new riders that can dismantle civil rights 
     protections in housing, education, employment, and 
     transportation. We find it profoundly disturbing that with 
     one brushstroke of a pen, Congress can set back the gains of 
     the civil rights movement in this country.
       The anti-civil rights and anti-environmental rider in the 
     present VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies bill sets a 
     dangerous precedent in this country for taking away the 
     rights of citizens. We deeply appreciate your leadership in 
     opposing this rider and supporting a safe and healthy 
     environment for all communities.
           Sincerely,
     Monique Harden,
       Staff Attorney.
     Joan Mulhern,
       Senior Legislative Counsel.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered? I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Before we begin the vote, I urge all my colleagues to 
support this measure. Senator Mikulski and I have worked long and hard. 
Obviously, we have not made everybody happy, but that is not in our 
power. We hope we have done well by all of the functions and all of the 
facilities and departments we serve. We hope our colleagues will be 
sullen but not rebellious and join us in passing a measure which has so 
many good things to provide for veterans, housing, environment, space, 
science, and emergency management.
  Again, I thank all my colleagues for their indulgence as we had to go 
through this unusual episode. I thank our staff, Jon Kamarck, Carolyn 
Apostolou, Cheh Kim, and Joe Norrell. On the minority side, Paul 
Carliner and Alexa Mitrakos have been outstanding.
  The most valuable ally I have on this measure is the very 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, to whom I am deeply 
grateful, and I appreciate her leadership and guidance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I echo the expression of thanks to our 
staff and to our colleagues. I urge we move immediately to a vote and 
serve the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended, 
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) 
and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Allard
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The bill (H.R. 4635), as amended, was passed, as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 4635) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.'', do pass 
     with the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

                               DIVISION A

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       Compensation and Pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198), $22,766,276,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,419,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, 
     and 55), the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding 
     of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
     provided to pensioners as authorized.


                         Readjustment Benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61, 
     $1,634,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That expenses for rehabilitation program services and 
     assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under 
     section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than 
     under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5) and (11) of that section, 
     shall be charged to the account: Provided further, That funds 
     shall be available to pay any court order, court award or any 
     compromise settlement arising from litigation involving the 
     vocational training program authorized by section 18 of 
     Public Law 98-77, as amended.


                   Veterans Insurance and Indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $19,850,000, to remain available until expended.


         Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     2001, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 
     in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for 
     specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $162,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


                  Education Loan Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $3,400.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $220,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

[[Page S10318]]

            Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $52,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,726,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $432,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


          Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $532,000, which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.


  guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
                                account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Not to exceed $750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this 
     Act for ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' 
     may be expended for the administrative expenses to carry out 
     the guaranteed loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 
     37, subchapter VI.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              Medical Care

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing 
     recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral, 
     burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for 
     beneficiaries receiving care in the department; 
     administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the department; 
     oversight, engineering and architectural activities not 
     charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or 
     providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under 
     the jurisdiction of the department, not otherwise provided 
     for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees 
     and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal 
     expenses of the department for collecting and recovering 
     amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq., $20,281,587,000, plus reimbursements: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $900,000,000 is for the equipment and land and 
     structures object classifications only, which amount shall 
     not become available for obligation until August 1, 2001, and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be available until September 
     30, 2002: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, not to exceed $28,134,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses'': Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct by contract a 
     program of recovery audits for the fee basis and other 
     medical services contracts with respect to payments for 
     hospital care; and, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), 
     amounts collected, by setoff or otherwise, as the result of 
     such audits shall be available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, for the purposes for which funds are appropriated 
     under this heading and the purposes of paying a contractor a 
     percent of the amount collected as a result of an audit 
     carried out by the contractor: Provided further, That all 
     amounts so collected under the preceding proviso with respect 
     to a designated health care region (as that term is defined 
     in 38 U.S.C. 1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net of payments 
     to the contractor, to that region.
       In addition, in conformance with Public Law 105-33 
     establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
     Collections Fund, such sums as may be deposited to such Fund 
     pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729A may be transferred to this 
     account, to remain available until expended for the purposes 
     of this account.
       None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the 
     Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting tobacco 
     litigation.


                    Medical and Prosthetic Research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002, $351,000,000, plus reimbursements.


      Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities, $62,000,000 plus reimbursements: Provided, That 
     technical and consulting services offered by the Facilities 
     Management Field Service, including project management and 
     real property administration (including leases, site 
     acquisition and disposal activities directly supporting 
     projects), shall be provided to Department of Veterans 
     Affairs components only on a reimbursable basis, and such 
     amounts will remain available until September 30, 2001.

                      Departmental Administration


                       General Operating Expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General 
     Services Administration for security guard services, and the 
     Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail, 
     $1,050,000,000: Provided, That expenses for services and 
     assistance authorized under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1), (2), (5) 
     and (11) that the Secretary determines are necessary to 
     enable entitled veterans (1) to the maximum extent feasible, 
     to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable 
     employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily 
     living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $45,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2002: Provided further, That funds under this heading shall 
     be available to administer the Service Members Occupational 
     Conversion and Training Act.

                    national cemetery administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     the National Cemetery Administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; cemeterial 
     expenses as authorized by law; purchase of two passenger 
     motor vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $109,889,000: Provided, That travel 
     expenses shall not exceed $1,125,000: Provided further, That 
     of the amount made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $125,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

                      office of inspector general


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $46,464,000: Provided, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $28,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


                      Construction, Major Projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes 
     set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 
     8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, 
     including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
     maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated 
     with equipment guarantees provided under the project, 
     services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm 
     drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, 
     where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more 
     or where funds for a project were made available in a 
     previous major project appropriation, $66,040,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That except for advance 
     planning of projects (including market-based assessments of 
     health care needs which may or may not lead to capital 
     investments) funded through the advance planning fund and the 
     design of projects funded through the design fund, none of 
     these funds shall be used for any project which has not been 
     considered and approved by the Congress in the budgetary 
     process: Provided further, That funds provided in this 
     appropriation for fiscal year 2001, for each approved project 
     shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a construction 
     documents contract by September 30, 2001; and (2) by the 
     awarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2002: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall promptly report in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations any approved 
     major construction project in which obligations are not 
     incurred within the time limitations established above: 
     Provided further, That no funds from any other account except 
     the ``Parking revolving fund'', may be obligated for 
     constructing, altering, extending, or improving a project 
     which was approved in the budget process and funded in this 
     account until one year after substantial completion and 
     beneficial occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
     the project or any part thereof with respect to that part 
     only.


                      Construction, Minor Projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the 
     purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 
     8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 8122, and 8162 of title 38, United 
     States Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less 
     than $4,000,000, $162,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, along with unobligated balances of previous 
     ``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are 
     hereby made available for any project where the estimated 
     cost is less than $4,000,000: Provided, That funds in this 
     account shall be available for: (1) repairs to any of the 
     nonmedical facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use 
     of the department which are necessary because of loss or 
     damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2) 
     temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize 
     further loss by such causes.

[[Page S10319]]

                         Parking Revolving Fund

       For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     8109, income from fees collected, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be available for all authorized 
     expenses except operations and maintenance costs, which will 
     be funded from ``Medical care''.


       Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


        Grants for the Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 2408, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2001 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to 
     any other of the mentioned appropriations.
       Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 for salaries and 
     expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for 
     ``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor 
     projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be 
     available for the purchase of any site for or toward the 
     construction of any new hospital or home.
       Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or 
     examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled 
     under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and 
     persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or 
     42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to 
     the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may be fixed by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of 
     prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law 
     against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last 
     quarter of fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of 
     the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance 
     Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating 
     expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided, 
     That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus 
     earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year 
     2001, that are available for dividends in that program after 
     claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
     have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of 
     administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of 
     surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement 
     shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost 
     of administration for fiscal year 2001, which is properly 
     allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to 
     the provision of any total disability income insurance 
     included in such insurance program.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     collections authorized by the Veterans Millennium Health Care 
     and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117) and credited to the 
     appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs accounts in fiscal 
     year 2001, shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure unless appropriation language making such funds 
     available is enacted.
       Sec. 109. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the following obligated balance shall be 
     exempt from subchapter IV of chapter 15 of such title and 
     shall remain available for expenditure until September 30, 
     2003: funds obligated by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     for a contract with the Institute for Clinical Research to 
     study the application of artificial neural networks to the 
     diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer through the 
     Cooperative DoD/VA Medical Research program from funds made 
     available to the Department of Veterans Affairs by the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-335) under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide''.
       Sec. 110. As HR LINK$ will not be part of the Franchise 
     Fund in fiscal year 2001, funds budgeted in customer accounts 
     to purchase HR LINK$ services from the Franchise Fund shall 
     be transferred to the General Administration portion of the 
     ``General operating expenses'' appropriation in the following 
     amounts: $78,000 from the ``Office of Inspector General'', 
     $358,000 from the ``National cemetery administration'', 
     $1,106,000 from ``Medical care'', $84,000 from ``Medical 
     administration and miscellaneous operating expenses'', and 
     $38,000 shall be reprogrammed within the ``General operating 
     expenses'' appropriation from the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration to General Administration for the same 
     purpose.
       Sec. 111. Not to exceed $1,600,000 from the ``Medical 
     care'' appropriation shall be transferred to the ``General 
     operating expenses'' appropriation to fund personnel services 
     costs of employees providing legal services and 
     administrative support for the Office of General Counsel.
       Sec. 112. Not to exceed $1,200,000 may be transferred from 
     the ``Medical care'' appropriation to the ``General operating 
     expenses'' appropriation to fund contracts and services in 
     support of the Veterans Benefits Administration's Benefits 
     Delivery Center, Systems Development Center, and Finance 
     Center, located at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center, Hines, Illinois.
       Sec. 113. Not to exceed $4,500,000 from the ``Construction, 
     minor projects'' appropriation and not to exceed $2,000,000 
     from the ``Medical care'' appropriation may be transferred to 
     and merged with the Parking Revolving Fund for surface 
     parking lot projects.
       Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in 
     this Act for ``Medical care'' appropriations of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs may be obligated for the 
     realignment of the health care delivery system in Veterans 
     Integrated Service Network 12 (VISN 12) until 60 days after 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs certifies that the 
     Department has: (1) consulted with veterans organizations, 
     medical school affiliates, employee representatives, State 
     veterans and health associations, and other interested 
     parties with respect to the realignment plan to be 
     implemented; and (2) made available to the Congress and the 
     public information from the consultations regarding possible 
     impacts on the accessibility of veterans health care services 
     to affected veterans.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        Housing Certificate Fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary 
     displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the 
     disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock, 
     expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for 
     which amounts are provided under another heading in this Act) 
     or expiration of use restrictions, or other changes in 
     housing assistance arrangements, and for other purposes, 
     $13,940,907,000 and amounts that are recaptured in this 
     account to remain available until expended: Provided, That of 
     the total amount provided under this heading, 
     $12,972,000,000, of which $8,772,000,000 shall be available 
     on October 1, 2000 and $4,200,000,000 shall be available on 
     October 1, 2001, shall be for assistance under the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (``the Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 
     1437): Provided further, That the foregoing amounts shall be 
     for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 
     subsidy contracts, for amendments to section 8 subsidy 
     contracts, for enhanced vouchers (including amendments and 
     renewals) under any provision of law authorizing such 
     assistance under section 8(t) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (47 U.S.C. 1437f(t)), contract administrators, 
     and contracts entered into pursuant to section 441 of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: Provided 
     further, That amounts available under the first proviso under 
     this heading shall be available for section 8 rental 
     assistance under the Act: (1) for the relocation and 
     replacement of housing units that are demolished or disposed 
     of pursuant to section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 or to other authority for the revitalization of severely 
     distressed public housing, as set forth in the Appropriations 
     Acts for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for fiscal years 
     1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997, and in the Omnibus Consolidated 
     Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996; (2) for the 
     conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section 
     8; (3) for funds to carry out the family unification program; 
     (4) for the relocation of witnesses in connection with 
     efforts to combat crime in public and assisted housing 
     pursuant to a request from a law enforcement or prosecution 
     agency; (5) for tenant protection assistance, including 
     replacement and relocation assistance; and (6) for the 1-year 
     renewal of section 8 contracts for units in a project that is 
     subject to an approved plan of action under the Emergency Low 
     Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or the Low-Income 
     Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990: 
     Provided further, That $11,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance 
     of information technology systems: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided under this heading, $40,000,000 
     shall be made available to nonelderly disabled families 
     affected by the designation of a public housing development 
     under section 7 of the Act, the establishment of preferences 
     in accordance with section 651 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1361l), or the restriction 
     of occupancy to elderly families in accordance with section 
     658 of such Act, and to the extent the Secretary determines 
     that such amount is not needed to fund applications for such 
     affected families, to other nonelderly disabled families: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, $452,907,000 shall be made available for 
     incremental vouchers under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 on a fair share basis and administered by 
     public housing agencies: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount provided under this heading, up to $7,000,000 shall be 
     made available for the completion of the Jobs

[[Page S10320]]

     Plus Demonstration: Provided further, That amounts available 
     under this heading may be made available for administrative 
     fees and other expenses to cover the cost of administering 
     rental assistance programs under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937: Provided further, That the fee 
     otherwise authorized under section 8(q) of such Act shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 8(q), as in effect 
     immediately before the enactment of the Quality Housing and 
     Work Responsibility Act of 1998: Provided further, That 
     $1,833,000,000 is rescinded from unobligated balances 
     remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development under this heading or the 
     heading ``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'' or any 
     other heading for fiscal year 2000 and prior years: Provided 
     further, That any such balances governed by reallocation 
     provisions under the statute authorizing the program for 
     which the funds were originally appropriated shall not be 
     available for this rescission: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall have until September 30, 2001, to meet the 
     rescission in the proviso preceding the immediately preceding 
     proviso: Provided further, That any obligated balances of 
     contract authority that have been terminated shall be 
     canceled.

                      public housing capital fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out 
     capital and management activities for public housing 
     agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437), 
     $3,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     up to $50,000,000 shall be for carrying out activities under 
     section 9(h) of such Act, for lease adjustments to section 23 
     projects and $43,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of 
     information technology systems: Provided, That no funds may 
     be used under this heading for the purposes specified in 
     section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount, up to $75,000,000 
     shall be available for the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to make grants to public housing agencies for 
     emergency capital needs resulting from emergencies and 
     natural disasters in fiscal year 2001.

                     public housing operating fund

       For payments to public housing agencies for the operation 
     and management of public housing, as authorized by section 
     9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g), $3,242,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no funds may be used under this 
     heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937.


             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For grants to public housing agencies and Indian tribes and 
     their tribally designated housing entities for use in 
     eliminating crime in public housing projects authorized by 42 
     U.S.C. 11901-11908, for grants for federally assisted low-
     income housing authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11909, and for drug 
     information clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     11921-11925, $310,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, up to $3,000,000 shall be solely for technical 
     assistance, technical assistance grants, training, and 
     program assessment for or on behalf of public housing 
     agencies, resident organizations, and Indian tribes and their 
     tribally designated housing entities (including up to 
     $150,000 for the cost of necessary travel for participants in 
     such training) for oversight, training and improved 
     management of this program, $2,000,000 shall be available to 
     the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the operating and 
     start-up costs of clubs located in or near, and primarily 
     serving residents of, public housing and housing assisted 
     under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996, and $10,000,000 shall be used in 
     connection with efforts to combat violent crime in public and 
     assisted housing under the Operation Safe Home Program 
     administered by the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development: Provided further, That of the 
     amount under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be provided to 
     the Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home: 
     Provided further, That of the amount under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for the New Approach Anti-Drug 
     program which will provide competitive grants to entities 
     managing or operating public housing developments, federally 
     assisted multifamily housing developments, or other 
     multifamily housing developments for low-income families 
     supported by non-Federal governmental entities or similar 
     housing developments supported by nonprofit private sources 
     in order to provide or augment security (including personnel 
     costs), to assist in the investigation and/or prosecution of 
     drug-related criminal activity in and around such 
     developments, and to provide assistance for the development 
     of capital improvements at such developments directly 
     relating to the security of such developments: Provided 
     further, That grants for the New Approach Anti-Drug program 
     shall be made on a competitive basis as specified in section 
     102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform 
     Act of 1989.


     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (Hope VI)

       For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site 
     revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based 
     assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, $575,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended, of which the Secretary may use up 
     to $10,000,000 for technical assistance and contract 
     expertise, to be provided directly or indirectly by grants, 
     contracts or cooperative agreements, including training and 
     cost of necessary travel for participants in such training, 
     by or to officials and employees of the department and of 
     public housing agencies and to residents: Provided, That none 
     of such funds shall be used directly or indirectly by 
     granting competitive advantage in awards to settle litigation 
     or pay judgments, unless expressly permitted herein.


                  Native American Housing Block Grants

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as 
     authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) 
     (Public Law 104-330), $650,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $6,000,000 shall be to support the 
     inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
     training, and technical assistance in the training, 
     oversight, and management of Indian housing and tenant-based 
     assistance, including up to $300,000 for related travel: 
     Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, 
     $6,000,000 shall be made available for the cost of guaranteed 
     notes and other obligations, as authorized by title VI of 
     NAHASDA: Provided further, That such costs, including the 
     costs of modifying such notes and other obligations, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize the total principal amount of any 
     notes and other obligations, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $54,600,000: Provided further, That 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, up to $150,000 from amounts in the first proviso, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be used only 
     for the administrative costs of these guarantees: Provided 
     further, That of the amount provided in this heading, 
     $2,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for development and maintaining information technology 
     systems.

           indian housing loan guarantee fund program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 3739), $6,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the costs of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $71,956,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $200,000 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be 
     used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.

                   Community Planning and Development


              Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

       For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
     AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $258,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall renew all 
     expiring contracts that were funded under section 854(c)(3) 
     of such Act that meet all program requirements before 
     awarding funds for new contracts and activities authorized 
     under this section: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     use up to 1 percent of the funds under this heading for 
     training, oversight, and technical assistance activities.


                 rural housing and economic development

       For the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $25,000,000 
     to remain available until expended, which amount shall be 
     awarded by June 1, 2001, to Indian tribes, State housing 
     finance agencies, State community and/or economic development 
     agencies, local rural nonprofits and community development 
     corporations to support innovative housing and economic 
     development activities in rural areas: Provided, That all 
     grants shall be awarded on a competitive basis as specified 
     in section 102 of the HUD Reform Act.


                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

       For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities, $90,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $75,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     for ``Urban Empowerment Zones'', as authorized in the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, including $5,000,000 for each 
     empowerment zone for use in conjunction with economic 
     development activities consistent with the strategic plan of 
     each empowerment zone: Provided further, That $15,000,000 
     shall be available to the Secretary of Agriculture for grants 
     for designated empowerment zones in rural areas and for 
     grants for designated rural enterprise communities.

                       community development fund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For assistance to units of State and local government, and 
     to other entities, for economic and community development 
     activities, and for other purposes, $5,057,550,000: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided, $4,410,000,000 is for carrying 
     out the community development block grant program under title 
     I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
     amended (the ``Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301), to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That 
     $71,000,000 shall be for grants to Indian

[[Page S10321]]

     tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act, 
     $3,000,000 shall be available as a grant to the Housing 
     Assistance Council, $2,600,000 shall be available as a grant 
     to the National American Indian Housing Council, $10,000,000 
     shall be available as a grant to the National Housing 
     Development Corporation, for operating expenses not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 and for a program of affordable housing 
     acquisition and rehabilitation, and $45,500,000 shall be for 
     grants pursuant to section 107 of the Act of which $3,000,000 
     shall be made available to support Alaska Native serving 
     institutions and native Hawaiian serving institutions, as 
     defined under the Higher Education Act, as amended, and of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be made available to tribal colleges 
     and universities to build, expand, renovate, and equip their 
     facilities: Provided further, That not to exceed 20 percent 
     of any grant made with funds appropriated herein (other than 
     a grant made available in this paragraph to the Housing 
     Assistance Council or the National American Indian Housing 
     Council, or a grant using funds under section 107(b)(3) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
     amended) shall be expended for ``Planning and Management 
     Development'' and ``Administration'' as defined in 
     regulations promulgated by the department: Provided further, 
     That $15,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund for the development and maintenance of information 
     technology systems: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall 
     be for grants pursuant to the Self Help Housing Opportunity 
     Program.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $28,450,000 shall be made available for capacity building, of 
     which $25,000,000 shall be made available for ``Capacity 
     Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing'', 
     for LISC and the Enterprise Foundation for activities as 
     authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 
     (Public Law 103-120), as in effect immediately before June 
     12, 1997, of which not less than $5,000,000 of the funding 
     shall be used in rural areas, including tribal areas, and of 
     which $3,450,000 shall be made available for capacity 
     building activities administered by Habitat for Humanity 
     International.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may use up to 
     $55,000,000 for supportive services for public housing 
     residents, as authorized by section 34 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and for residents of housing 
     assisted under the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and for grants for 
     service coordinators and congregate services for the elderly 
     and disabled residents of public and assisted housing and 
     housing assisted under NAHASDA.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $44,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives 
     that are utilized to improve the conditions of distressed and 
     blighted areas and neighborhoods, to stimulate investment, 
     economic diversification, and community revitalization in 
     areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or 
     declining economic base, or to determine whether housing 
     benefits can be integrated more effectively with welfare 
     reform initiatives: Provided, that any unobligated balances 
     of amounts set aside for neighborhood initiatives in fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000 may be utilized for any of the 
     foregoing purposes: Provided further, That these grants shall 
     be provided in accord with the terms and conditions specified 
     in the statement of managers accompanying this conference 
     report.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $60,000,000 shall 
     be available for YouthBuild program activities authorized by 
     subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall 
     be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made 
     available under this heading: Provided, That local YouthBuild 
     programs that demonstrate an ability to leverage private and 
     nonprofit funding shall be given a priority for YouthBuild 
     funding: Provided further, That no more than ten percent of 
     any grant award may be used for administrative costs: 
     Provided further, That not less than $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for grants to establish YouthBuild programs in 
     underserved and rural areas: Provided further, That of the 
     amount provided under this paragraph, $4,000,000 shall be set 
     aside and made available for a grant to Youthbuild USA for 
     capacity building for community development and affordable 
     housing activities as specified in section 4 of the HUD 
     Demonstration Act of 1993, as amended.
       Of the amounts made available under this heading, 
     $2,000,000 shall be available to the Utah Housing Finance 
     Agency for the temporary use of relocatable housing during 
     the 2002 Winter Olympic Games provided such housing is 
     targeted to the housing needs of low-income families after 
     the Games.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $292,000,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic 
     Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of targeted 
     economic investments in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions specified in the statement of managers 
     accompanying this conference report.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $29,000,000, as 
     authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize total loan principal, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $1,261,000,000, notwithstanding any 
     aggregate limitation on outstanding obligations guaranteed in 
     section 108(k) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That in addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $1,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''.


                       Brownfields Redevelopment

       For Economic Development Grants, as authorized by section 
     108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 
     as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment projects, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     make these grants available on a competitive basis as 
     specified in section 102 of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.

                  home investment partnerships program


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act, as amended, $1,800,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That up to $20,000,000 of these 
     funds shall be available for Housing Counseling under section 
     106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968: 
     Provided further, That $17,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance 
     of information technology systems.

                       homeless assistance grants


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized 
     under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act, as amended); the supportive housing 
     program (as authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such 
     Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room 
     occupancy program (as authorized under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless 
     individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus care 
     program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such 
     Act), $1,025,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not less than 30 percent of these funds shall 
     be used for permanent housing, and all funding for services 
     must be matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee: 
     Provided further, That all awards of assistance under this 
     heading shall be required to coordinate and integrate 
     homeless programs with other mainstream health, social 
     services, and employment programs for which homeless 
     populations may be eligible, including Medicaid, State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families, Food Stamps, and services funding through the 
     Mental Health and Substance Abuse Block Grant, Workforce 
     Investment Act, and the Welfare-to-Work grant program: 
     Provided further, That up to 1.5 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading is transferred to the Working 
     Capital Fund to be used for technical assistance for 
     management information systems and to develop an automated, 
     client-level Annual Performance Report System: Provided 
     further, That $500,000 shall be made available to the 
     Interagency Council on the Homeless for administrative needs.


                       SHELTER PLUS CARE Renewals

       For the renewal on an annual basis of contracts expiring 
     during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 under the Shelter Plus Care 
     program, as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That each Shelter Plus Care project with an expiring contract 
     shall be eligible for renewal only if the project is 
     determined to be needed under the applicable continuum of 
     care and meets appropriate program requirements and financial 
     standards, as determined by the Secretary.

                            Housing Programs

                    housing for special populations


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For assistance for the purchase, construction, acquisition, 
     or development of additional public and subsidized housing 
     units for low income families not otherwise provided for, 
     $996,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That $779,000,000 shall be for capital advances, including 
     amendments to capital advance contracts, for housing for the 
     elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance, and 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for 
     the elderly under such section 202(c)(2), and for supportive 
     services associated with the housing, of which amount 
     $50,000,000 shall be for service coordinators and the 
     continuation of existing congregate service grants for 
     residents of assisted housing projects and of which amount 
     $50,000,000 shall be for grants under section 202b of the 
     Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q-2) for conversion of 
     eligible projects under such section to assisted living or 
     related use: Provided further, That of the amount under this 
     heading, $217,000,000 shall be for capital advances, 
     including amendments to capital advance contracts, for 
     supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as 
     authorized by section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, for project rental assistance, for 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, and 
     supportive services associated with the housing for persons 
     with disabilities as authorized by section 811 of such Act: 
     Provided further, That $1,000,000, to be divided evenly 
     between the appropriations for the section 202 and section 
     811 programs, shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund for the development and maintenance of information 
     technology systems: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     designate up to 25 percent of the amounts earmarked under 
     this paragraph for

[[Page S10322]]

     section 811 of such Act for tenant-based assistance, as 
     authorized under that section, including such authority as 
     may be waived under the next proviso, which assistance is 5 
     years in duration: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     waive any provision of such section 202 and such section 811 
     (including the provisions governing the terms and conditions 
     of project rental assistance and tenant-based assistance) 
     that the Secretary determines is not necessary to achieve the 
     objectives of these programs, or that otherwise impedes the 
     ability to develop, operate, or administer projects assisted 
     under these programs, and may make provision for alternative 
     conditions or terms where appropriate.


                         Flexible Subsidy Fund

                          (transfer of funds)

       From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 
     balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2000, 
     and any collections made during fiscal year 2001, shall be 
     transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by 
     section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

                     Federal Housing Administration

             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 2001, commitments to guarantee loans to 
     carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of 
     $160,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 2001, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $250,000,000: 
     Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales 
     of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and 
     formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed and direct loan program, $330,888,000, of which 
     not to exceed $324,866,000 shall be transferred to the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''; and not to 
     exceed $4,022,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Office of Inspector General''. In addition, for 
     administrative contract expenses, $160,000,000, of which 
     $96,500,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for the development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems: Provided, That to the extent guaranteed loan 
     commitments exceed $65,500,000,000 on or before April 1, 2001 
     an additional $1,400 for administrative contract expenses 
     shall be available for each $1,000,000 in additional 
     guaranteed loan commitments (including a pro rata amount for 
     any amount below $1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made 
     available by this proviso exceed $16,000,000.

             fha--general and special risk program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections 
     238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 
     and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee 
     modifications (as that term is defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended), $101,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, any 
     part of which is to be guaranteed, of up to $21,000,000,000: 
     Provided further, That any amounts made available in any 
     prior appropriations Act for the cost (as such term is 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974) of guaranteed loans that are obligations of the funds 
     established under section 238 or 519 of the National Housing 
     Act that have not been obligated or that are deobligated 
     shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development in connection with the making of such guarantees 
     and shall remain available until expended, notwithstanding 
     the expiration of any period of availability otherwise 
     applicable to such amounts.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of 
     the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000; of 
     which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing 
     in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties 
     owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under such Act; 
     and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the 
     sale of single-family real properties owned by the Secretary 
     and formerly insured under such Act.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $211,455,000, of 
     which $193,134,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Salaries and expenses''; and of which $18,321,000 shall 
     be transferred to the appropriation for ``Office of Inspector 
     General''. In addition, for administrative contract expenses 
     necessary to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan 
     programs, $144,000,000, of which $33,500,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development 
     and maintenance of information technology systems: Provided, 
     That to the extent guaranteed loan commitments exceed 
     $8,426,000,000 on or before April 1, 2001, an additional 
     $19,800,000 for administrative contract expenses shall be 
     available for each $1,000,000 in additional guaranteed loan 
     commitments over $8,426,000,000 (including a pro rata amount 
     for any increment below $1,000,000), but in no case shall 
     funds made available by this proviso exceed $14,400,000.

                Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the 
     purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed 
     $200,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,383,000 to 
     be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to 
     exceed $9,383,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Salaries and expenses''.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        Research and Technology

       For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs 
     of research and studies relating to housing and urban 
     problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title 
     V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out 
     the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $53,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of the 
     amount provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) 
     Initiative: Provided further, That $3,000,000 shall be for 
     program evaluation to support strategic planning, performance 
     measurement, and their coordination with the Department's 
     budget process: Provided further, That $500,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for a commission as 
     established under section 525 of Preserving Affordable 
     Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st 
     Century Act.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        Fair Housing Activities

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise 
     provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
     1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987, as amended, $46,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, of which $24,000,000 
     shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section 
     561: Provided, That no funds made available under this 
     heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative 
     branches of the Federal Government in connection with a 
     specific contract, grant or loan.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control

                         lead hazard reduction

       For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by 
     sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard 
     Reduction Act of 1992, $100,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be for CLEARCorps and 
     $10,000,000 shall be for the Healthy Homes Initiative, 
     pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1970 that shall include research, studies, 
     testing, and demonstration efforts, including education and 
     outreach concerning lead-based paint poisoning and other 
     housing-related environmental diseases and hazards.

                     Management and Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative and non-administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $1,072,000,000, of which $518,000,000 shall be provided from 
     the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration, 
     $9,383,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government 
     National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 shall be provided 
     from the ``Community development fund'' account, $150,000 
     shall be provided by transfer from the ``Title VI Indian 
     federal guarantees program'' account, and $200,000 shall be 
     provided by transfer from the ``Indian housing loan guarantee 
     fund program'' account: Provided, That the Secretary is 
     prohibited from using any funds under this heading or any 
     other heading in this Act from employing more than 77 
     schedule C and 20 noncareer Senior Executive Service 
     employees: Provided further, That not more than $758,000,000 
     shall be made available to the personal services object 
     class: Provided further, That no less than $100,000,000 shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the 
     development and maintenance of Information Technology 
     Systems: Provided further, That the Secretary shall fill 7 
     out of 10 vacancies at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels until the 
     total number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions in the Department 
     has been reduced from the number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions 
     on the date of enactment of this provision by two and one-
     half percent: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     submit a staffing plan for the Department by May 15, 2001: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary is prohibited from using 
     funds under this heading or any other heading in this Act to 
     employ more than 14 employees in the Office of Public Affairs 
     or in any position in the Department where the employee 
     reports to an employee of the Office of Public Affairs.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $85,000,000, of which $22,343,000 shall be provided 
     from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration 
     and $10,000,000 shall be provided from the amount earmarked 
     for Operation Safe Home in the appropriation for ``Drug 
     elimination grants for low-income housing'': Provided, That 
     the Inspector General shall have independent authority over 
     all personnel issues within the Office of Inspector General.

[[Page S10323]]

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed 
     $500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $22,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     derived from the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund: 
     Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available 
     from the General Fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary 
     to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the 
     receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That 
     the General Fund amount shall be reduced as collections are 
     received during the fiscal year so as to result in a final 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $0.

                       Administrative Provisions

                      financing adjustment factors

       Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget authority, 
     or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts associated 
     with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects 
     described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
     628; 102 Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be rescinded, or in the case 
     of cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts 
     of budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or 
     remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State housing 
     finance agencies or local governments or local housing 
     agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development for which settlement occurred after 
     January 1, 1992, in accordance with such section. 
     Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Secretary may 
     award up to 15 percent of the budget authority or cash 
     recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to the Treasury to 
     provide project owners with incentives to refinance their 
     project at a lower interest rate.

                      fair housing and free speech

       Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act 
     may be used during fiscal year 2001 to investigate or 
     prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful 
     activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the 
     filing or maintaining of a non-frivolous legal action, that 
     is engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or 
     preventing action by a Government official or entity, or a 
     court of competent jurisdiction.


           housing opportunities for persons with aids grants

       Sec. 203. (a) Eligibility.--Notwithstanding section 
     854(c)(1)(A) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12903(c)(1)(A)), from any amounts made available under this 
     title for fiscal year 2001 that are allocated under such 
     section, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     allocate and make a grant, in the amount determined under 
     subsection (b), for any State that--
       (1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year under 
     clause (ii) of such section; and
       (2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for fiscal 
     year 2001 under such clause (ii) because the areas in the 
     State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas that 
     qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2001 do not have the 
     number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome 
     required under such clause.
       (b) Amount.--The amount of the allocation and grant for any 
     State described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on 
     the cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that 
     State that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that 
     qualify under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in 
     fiscal year 2001, in proportion to AIDS cases among cities 
     and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of such 
     section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
       (c) Environmental Review.--Section 856 of the Act is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection at the end:
       ``(h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental 
     review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as 
     assistance for a special project that is subject to section 
     305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform 
     Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued 
     by the Secretary to implement such section.''.

                     enhanced disposition authority

       Sec. 204. Section 204 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended by striking 
     ``and 2000'' and inserting ``2000, and thereafter''.


             Maximum Payment Standard for Enhanced Vouchers

       Sec. 205. Section 8(t)(1)(B) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 is amended by inserting ``and any other 
     reasonable limit prescribed by the Secretary'' immediately 
     before the semicolon.


                  Due Process for Homeless Assistance

       Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated under this or any 
     other Act may be used by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to prohibit or debar or in any way diminish the 
     responsibilities of any entity (and the individuals 
     comprising that entity) that is responsible for convening and 
     managing a continuum of care process (convenor) in a 
     community for purposes of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act from participating in that capacity unless the 
     Secretary has published in the Federal Register a description 
     of all circumstances that would be grounds for prohibiting or 
     debarring a convenor from administering a continuum of care 
     process and the procedures for a prohibition or debarment: 
     Provided, That these procedures shall include a requirement 
     that a convenor shall be provided with timely notice of a 
     proposed prohibition or debarment, an identification of the 
     circumstances that could result in the prohibition or 
     debarment, an opportunity to respond to or remedy these 
     circumstances, and the right for judicial review of any 
     decision of the Secretary that results in a prohibition or 
     debarment.


                       HUD Reform Act Compliance

       Sec. 207. Except as explicitly provided in legislation, any 
     grant or assistance made pursuant to Title II of this Act 
     shall be made in accordance with section 102 of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 
     1989 on a competitive basis.


Expansion of Environmental Assumption Authority for Homeless Assistance 
                                Programs

       Sec. 208. Section 443 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 443. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

       ``For purposes of environmental review, assistance and 
     projects under this title shall be treated as assistance for 
     special projects that are subject to section 305(c) of the 
     Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, 
     and shall be subject to the regulations issued by the 
     Secretary to implement such section.''.


    Technical Amendments and Corrections to the National Housing Act

       Sec. 209. (a) Section 203 Subsection Designations.--Section 
     203 of the National Housing Act is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (u);
       (2) redesignating subsection (s), as added by section 329 
     of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as 
     subsection (t); and
       (3) redesignating subsection (v), as added by section 504 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as 
     subsection (w).
       (b) Mortgage Auctions.--The first sentence of section 
     221(g)(4)(C)(viii) of the National Housing Act is amended by 
     inserting after ``December 31, 2002'' the following: ``, 
     except that this subparagraph shall continue to apply if the 
     Secretary receives a mortgagee's written notice of intent to 
     assign its mortgage to the Secretary on or before such 
     date''.
       (c) Mortgagee Review Board.--Section 202(c)(2) of the 
     National Housing Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``or their 
     designees.'' and inserting ``and'';
       (3) by adding the following new subparagraph at the end:
       ``(G) the Director of the Enforcement Center; or their 
     designees.''.


                   indian housing block grant program

       Sec. 210. Section 201(b) of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6) respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Law enforcement officers.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1), a recipient may provide housing or housing assistance 
     provided through affordable housing activities assisted with 
     grant amounts under this Act to a law enforcement officer on 
     the reservation or other Indian area, who is employed full-
     time by a Federal, state, county or tribal government, and in 
     implementing such full-time employment is sworn to uphold, 
     and make arrests for violations of Federal, state, county or 
     tribal law, if the recipient determines that the presence of 
     the law enforcement officer on the Indian reservation or 
     other Indian area may deter crime.''.


PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF 
                            TOBACCO PRODUCTS

       Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act may be used by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to provide any grant or other assistance to 
     construct, operate, or otherwise benefit a facility, or 
     facility with a designated portion of that facility, which 
     sells, or intends to sell, predominantly cigarettes or other 
     tobacco products. For the purposes of this provision, 
     predominant sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products 
     means cigarette or tobacco sales representing more than 35 
     percent of the annual total in-store, non-fuel, sales.


      PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PUERTO RICO PUBLIC HOUSING 
                  ADMINISTRATION Settlement Agreement

       Sec. 212. No funds may be used to implement the agreement 
     between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico 
     Public Housing Administration, and the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development, dated June 7, 2000, related to the 
     allocation of operating subsidies for the Puerto Rico Public 
     Housing Administration unless the Puerto Rico Public Housing 
     Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development submit by December 31, 2000 a schedule of 
     benchmarks and measurable goals to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations designed to address issues of 
     mismanagement and safeguards against fraud and abuse.


                   HOPE VI Grant for Hollander Ridge

       Sec. 213. The Housing Authority of Baltimore City may use 
     the grant award of $20,000,000 made to such authority for 
     development efforts at Hollander Ridge in Baltimore, Maryland 
     with funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996 under the 
     heading ``Public Housing Demolition, Site Revitalization, and 
     Replacement Housing Grants'' for use, as approved by the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--
       (1) for activities related to the revitalization of the 
     Hollander Ridge site; and
       (2) in accordance with section 24 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937.

[[Page S10324]]

              Computer Access for Public Housing Residents

       Sec. 214. (a) Use of Public Housing Capital and Operating 
     Funds.--Section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)(E), by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, including the establishment and 
     initial operation of computer centers in and around public 
     housing through a Neighborhood Networks initiative, for the 
     purpose of enhancing the self-sufficiency, employability, and 
     economic self-reliance of public housing residents by 
     providing them with onsite computer access and training 
     resources'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (I), by striking the word ``and'' at 
     the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding after subparagraph (J) the following:
       ``(K) the costs of operating computer centers in public 
     housing through a Neighborhood Networks initiative described 
     in subsection (d)(1)(E), and of activities related to that 
     initiative.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking the word ``and'' at the 
     end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) assistance in connection with the establishment and 
     operation of computer centers in public housing through a 
     Neighborhood Networks initiative described in subsection 
     (d)(1)(E).''.
       (b) Demolition, Site Revitalization, Replacement Housing, 
     and Tenant-Based Assistance Grants for Projects.--Section 24 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)(G), by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, including a Neighborhood 
     Networks initiative for the establishment and operation of 
     computer centers in public housing for the purpose of 
     enhancing the self-sufficiency, employability, an economic 
     self-reliance of public housing residents by providing them 
     with onsite computer access and training resources''; and
       (2) in subsection (m)(2), in the first sentence, by 
     inserting before the period the following ``, including 
     assistance in connection with the establishment and operation 
     of computer centers in public housing through the 
     Neighborhoods Networks initiative described in subsection 
     (d)(1)(G)''.


                         Mark-to-Market Reform

       Sec. 215. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     properties known as the Hawthornes in Independence, Missouri 
     shall be considered eligible multifamily housing projects for 
     purposes of participating in the multifamily housing 
     restructuring program pursuant to title V of the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 
     105-65).


                       Section 236 Excess Income

       Sec. 216. Section 236(g)(3)(A) of the National Housing Act 
     is amended by striking out ``fiscal year 2000'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``fiscal years 2000 and 2001''.


                            cdbg eligibility

       Sec. 217. Section 102(a)(6)(D) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 is amended by--
       (1) in clause (v), striking out the ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (vi), striking the period at the end; and
       (3) adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii)(I) has consolidated its government with one or more 
     municipal governments, such that within the county boundaries 
     there are no unincorporated areas, (II) has a population of 
     not less than 650,000, over which the consolidated government 
     has the authority to undertake essential community 
     development and housing assistance activities, (III) for more 
     than 10 years, has been classified as an entitlement area for 
     purposes of allocating and distributing funds under section 
     106, and (IV) as of the date of enactment of this clause, has 
     over 90 percent of the county's population within the 
     jurisdiction of the consolidated government; or
       ``(viii) notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, any county that was classified as an urban county 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 1999, at the 
     option of the county, may hereafter remain classified as an 
     urban county for purposes of this Act.''.


 EXEMPTION FOR ALASKA AND MISSISSIPPI FROM REQUIREMENT OF RESIDENT ON 
                              BOARD OF PHA

       Sec. 218. Public housing agencies in the States of Alaska 
     and Mississippi shall not be required to comply with section 
     2(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 
     during fiscal year 2001.


             USE OF MODERATE REHABILITATION FUNDS FOR HOME

       Sec. 219. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make the 
     funds available under contracts NY36K113004 and NY36K113005 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development available 
     for use under the HOME Investment Partnerships Act and shall 
     allocate such funds to the City of New Rochelle, New York.


                        LOMA LINDA REPROGRAMMING

       Sec. 220. Of the amounts made available under the sixth 
     undesignated paragraph under the heading ``Community Planning 
     and Development--Community Development Block Grants'' in 
     title II of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-276) for the 
     Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for grants for targeted 
     economic investments, the $1,000,000 to be made available 
     (pursuant to the related provisions of the joint explanatory 
     statement in the conference report to accompany such Act 
     (House Report 105-769)) to the City of Loma Linda, 
     California, for infrastructure improvements at Redlands 
     Boulevard and California Streets shall, notwithstanding such 
     provisions, be made available to the City for infrastructure 
     improvements related to the Mountain View Bridge.


            NATIVE AMERICAN ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ROSS PROGRAM

       Sec. 221. (a) Section 34 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``PUBLIC HOUSING'' and 
     inserting ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting after ``residents,'' the following: 
     ``recipients under the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (notwithstanding section 502 
     of such Act) on behalf of residents of housing assisted under 
     such Act,'' and
       (B) by inserting after ``public housing residents'' the 
     second place it appears the following: ``and residents of 
     housing assisted under such Act'',
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting after ``project'' the first place it 
     appears the following: ``or the property of a recipient under 
     such Act or housing assisted under such Act'';
       (B) by inserting after ``public housing residents'' the 
     following: ``or residents of housing assisted under such 
     Act''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``public 
     housing project'' the following: ``or residents of housing 
     assisted under such Act''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``State or local'' 
     and inserting ``State, local, or tribal''.
       (b) Assessment and Report.--Section 538(b)(1) of the 
     Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 is 
     amended by inserting after ``public housing'' the following: 
     ``and housing assisted under the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''.


      treatment of expiring economic development initiative grants

       Sec. 222. (a) Availability.--Section 220(a) of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (Public Law 106-74; 113 Stat. 1075) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2001''.
       (b) Applicability.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take such 
     actions as may be necessary to carry out such section 220 (as 
     amended by this subsection (a) of this section) 
     notwithstanding any actions taken previously pursuant to 
     section 1552 of title 31, United States Code.


           home program disaster funding for elderly housing

       Sec. 223. Of the amounts made available under Chapter IX of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993 for assistance 
     under the HOME investment partnerships program to the city of 
     Homestead, Florida (Public Law 103-50; 107 Stat. 262), up to 
     $583,926.70 shall be made available to Dade County, Florida, 
     for use only for rehabilitating housing for low-income 
     elderly persons, and such amount shall not be subject to the 
     requirements of such program, except for section 288 of the 
     HOME Investment Partnerships Act (42 U.S.C. 12838).


                        cdbg public services cap

       Sec. 224. Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``1993'' and 
     all that follows through ``City of Los Angeles'' and 
     inserting ``1993 through 2001 to the City of Los Angeles''.


  extension of applicability of downpayment simplification provisions

       Sec. 225. Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(10) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(10)(A)) is amended, 
     in the matter that precedes clause (i), by striking 
     ``mortgage'' and all that follows through ``involving'' and 
     inserting ``mortgage closed on or before December 31, 2002, 
     involving''.


    use of supportive housing program funds for information systems

       Sec. 226. Section 423 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act is amended under subsection (a) by adding the 
     following paragraph:
       ``(7) Management information system.--A grant for the costs 
     of implementing and operating management information systems 
     for purposes of collecting unduplicated counts of homeless 
     people and analyzing patterns of use of assistance funded 
     under this Act.''.


                  Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Reform

       Sec. 227. Section 184 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or as a result of a 
     lack of access to private financial markets''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``refinance,'' after 
     ``acquire,''.


                 Use of Section 8 Vouchers for Opt-Outs

       Sec. 228. Section 8(t)(2) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 is amended by inserting after ``contract for rental 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 for such housing project'' the following: 
     ``(including any such termination or expiration during fiscal 
     years after fiscal year 1996 prior to the effective date of 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001)''.


                 Homeless Discharge Coordination Policy

       Sec. 229. (a) Discharge Coordination Policy.--Subtitle A of 
     title IV of the Stewart B.

[[Page S10325]]

     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 402. DISCHARGE COORDINATION POLICY.

       ``The Secretary may not provide a grant under this title 
     for any governmental entity serving as an applicant unless 
     the applicant agrees to develop and implement, to the maximum 
     extent practicable and where appropriate, policies and 
     protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded 
     institutions or systems of care (such as health care 
     facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or 
     correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent 
     such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for 
     such persons.''.
       (b) Assistance Under Emergency Shelter Grants Program.--
     Section 414(a)(4) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act is amended-
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     a comma after ``homelessness'';
       (2) by striking ``Not'' and inserting the following: 
     ``Activities that are eligible for assistance under this 
     paragraph shall include assistance to very low-income 
     families who are discharged from publicly funded institutions 
     or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster 
     care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and 
     institutions). Not''.


             TECHNICAL CHANGE TO SENIORS HOUSING COMMISSION

       Sec. 230. Section 525 of the Preserving Affordable Housing 
     for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century Act'' 
     (42 U.S.C. 12701 note) is amended in subsection (a) by 
     striking ``Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Care 
     Facility Needs in the 21st Century'' and inserting 
     ``Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs 
     for Seniors in the 21st Century''.


              INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS REFORMS

       Sec. 231. Title II of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act is amended--
       (1) in section 202, under subsection (b) by inserting after 
     the period the following: ``The positions of Chairperson and 
     Vice Chairperson shall rotate among its members on an annual 
     basis.''; and
       (2) in section 209 by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``2005''.


                 section 8 pha project-based assistance

       Sec. 232. (a) In General.--Paragraph (13) of section 8(o) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)(13)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(13) PHA project-based assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--A public housing agency may use amounts 
     provided under an annual contributions contract under this 
     subsection to enter into a housing assistance payment 
     contract with respect to an existing, newly constructed, or 
     rehabilitated structure, that is attached to the structure, 
     subject to the limitations and requirements of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Percentage limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of 
     the funding available for tenant-based assistance under this 
     section that is administered by the agency may be attached to 
     structures pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(C) Consistency with pha plan and other goals.--A public 
     housing agency may approve a housing assistance payment 
     contract pursuant to this paragraph only if the contract is 
     consistent with--
       ``(i) the public housing agency plan for the agency 
     approved under section 5A; and
       ``(ii) the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding 
     housing and economic opportunities.
       ``(D) Income mixing requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not more than 25 percent of the dwelling 
     units in any building may be assisted under a housing 
     assistance payment contract for project-based assistance 
     pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Exceptions.--The limitation under clause (i) shall 
     not apply in the case of assistance under a contract for 
     housing consisting of single family properties or for 
     dwelling units that are specifically made available for 
     households comprised of elderly families, disabled families, 
     and families receiving supportive services.
       ``(E) Resident choice requirement.--A housing assistance 
     payment contract pursuant to this paragraph shall provide as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Mobility.--Each low-income family occupying a 
     dwelling unit assisted under the contract may move from the 
     housing at any time after the family has occupied the 
     dwelling unit for 12 months.
       ``(ii) Continued assistance.--Upon such a move, the public 
     housing agency shall provide the low-income family with 
     tenant-based rental assistance under this section or such 
     other tenant-based rental assistance that is subject to 
     comparable income, assistance, rent contribution, 
     affordability, and other requirements, as the Secretary shall 
     provide by regulation. If such rental assistance is not 
     immediately available to fulfill the requirement under the 
     preceding sentence with respect to a low-income family, such 
     requirement may be met by providing the family priority to 
     receive the next voucher or other tenant-based rental 
     assistance amounts that become available under the program 
     used to fulfill such requirement.
       ``(F) Contract term.--A housing assistance payment contract 
     pursuant to this paragraph between a public housing agency 
     and the owner of a structure may have a term of up to 10 
     years, subject to the availability of sufficient appropriated 
     funds for the purpose of renewing expiring contracts for 
     assistance payments, as provided in appropriations Acts and 
     in the agency's annual contributions contract with the 
     Secretary, and to annual compliance with the inspection 
     requirements under paragraph (8), except that the agency 
     shall not be required to make annual inspections of each 
     assisted unit in the development. The contract may specify 
     additional conditions for its continuation. If the units 
     covered by the contract are owned by the agency, the term of 
     the contract shall be agreed upon by the agency and the unit 
     of general local government or other entity approved by the 
     Secretary in the manner provided under paragraph (11).
       ``(G) Extension of contract term.--A public housing agency 
     may enter into a contract with the owner of a structure 
     assisted under a housing assistance payment contract pursuant 
     to this paragraph to extend the term of the underlying 
     housing assistance payment contract for such period as the 
     agency determines to be appropriate to achieve long-term 
     affordability of the housing or to expand housing 
     opportunities. Such a contract shall provide that the 
     extension of such term shall be contingent upon the future 
     availability of appropriated funds for the purpose of 
     renewing expiring contracts for assistance payments, as 
     provided in appropriations Acts, and may obligate the owner 
     to have such extensions of the underlying housing assistance 
     payment contract accepted by the owner and the successors in 
     interest of the owner.
       ``(H) Rent calculation.--A housing assistance payment 
     contract pursuant to this paragraph shall establish rents for 
     each unit assisted in an amount that does not exceed 110 
     percent of the applicable fair market rental (or any 
     exception payment standard approved by the Secretary pursuant 
     to paragraph (1)(D)), except that if a contract covers a 
     dwelling unit that has been allocated low-income housing tax 
     credits pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42) and is not located in a qualified 
     census tract (as such term is defined in subsection (d) of 
     such section 42), the rent for such unit may be established 
     at any level that does not exceed the rent charged for 
     comparable units in the building that also receive the low-
     income housing tax credit but do not have additional rental 
     assistance. The rents established by housing assistance 
     payment contracts pursuant to this paragraph may vary from 
     the payment standards established by the public housing 
     agency pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), but shall be subject to 
     paragraph (10)(A).
       ``(I) Rent adjustments.--A housing assistance payments 
     contract pursuant to this paragraph shall provide for rent 
     adjustments, except that--
       ``(i) the adjusted rent for any unit assisted shall be 
     reasonable in comparison with rents charged for comparable 
     dwelling units in the private, unassisted, local market and 
     may not exceed the maximum rent permitted under subparagraph 
     (H); and
       ``(ii) the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(C) shall not 
     apply.
       ``(J) Tenant selection.--A public housing agency shall 
     select families to receive project-based assistance pursuant 
     to this paragraph from its waiting list for assistance under 
     this subsection. Eligibility for such project-based 
     assistance shall be subject to the provisions of section 
     16(b) that apply to tenant-based assistance. The agency may 
     establish preferences or criteria for selection for a unit 
     assisted under this paragraph that are consistent with the 
     public housing agency plan for the agency approved under 
     section 5A. Any family that rejects an offer of project-based 
     assistance under this paragraph or that is rejected for 
     admission to a structure by the owner or manager of a 
     structure assisted under this paragraph shall retain its 
     place on the waiting list as if the offer had not been made. 
     The owner or manager of a structure assisted under this 
     paragraph shall not admit any family to a dwelling unit 
     assisted under a contract pursuant to this paragraph other 
     than a family referred by the public housing agency from its 
     waiting list. Subject to its waiting list policies and 
     selection preferences, a public housing agency may place on 
     its waiting list a family referred by the owner or manager of 
     a structure and may maintain a separate waiting list for 
     assistance under this paragraph, but only if all families on 
     the agency's waiting list for assistance under this 
     subsection are permitted to place their names on the separate 
     list.
       ``(K) Vacated units.--Notwithstanding paragraph (9), a 
     housing assistance payment contract pursuant to this 
     paragraph may provide as follows:
       ``(i) Payment for vacant units.--That the public housing 
     agency may, in its discretion, continue to provide assistance 
     under the contract, for a reasonable period not exceeding 60 
     days, for a dwelling unit that becomes vacant, but only (I) 
     if the vacancy was not the fault of the owner of the dwelling 
     unit, and (II) the agency and the owner take every reasonable 
     action to minimize the likelihood and extent of any such 
     vacancy. Rental assistance may not be provided for a vacant 
     unit after the expiration of such period.
       ``(ii) Reduction of contract.--That, if despite reasonable 
     efforts of the agency and the owner to fill a vacant unit, no 
     eligible family has agreed to rent the unit within 120 days 
     after the owner has notified the agency of the vacancy, the 
     agency may reduce its housing assistance payments contract 
     with the owner by the amount equivalent to the remaining 
     months of subsidy attributable to the vacant unit. Amounts 
     deobligated pursuant to such a contract provision shall be 
     available to the agency to provide assistance under this 
     subsection.
     Eligible applicants for assistance under this subsection may 
     enforce provisions authorized by this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Applicability.--In the case of any dwelling unit that, 
     upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is assisted under 
     a housing assistance payment contract under section 8(o)(13) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)(13)) as in effect before such enactment, such 
     assistance may be extended or renewed notwithstanding the 
     requirements under subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of such 
     section 8(o)(13), as amended by subsection (a).

[[Page S10326]]

  disposition of hud-held and hud-owned multifamily projects for the 
                          elderly or disabled

       Sec. 233. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     managing and disposing of any multifamily property that is 
     owned or held by the Secretary and is occupied primarily by 
     elderly or disabled families, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall maintain any rental assistance 
     payments under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 that are attached to any dwelling units in the property. 
     To the extent the Secretary determines that such a 
     multifamily property owned or held by the Secretary is not 
     feasible for continued rental assistance payments under such 
     section 8, the Secretary may, in consultation with the 
     tenants of that property, contract for project-based rental 
     assistance payments with an owner or owners of other existing 
     housing properties or provide other rental assistance.


                       family unification program

       Sec. 234. Section 8(x)(2) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f(x)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any family (A) who is otherwise eligible 
     for such assistance, and (B)'' and inserting ``(A) any family 
     (i) who is otherwise eligible for such assistance, and 
     (ii)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and (B) for a period not to exceed 18 months, 
     otherwise eligible youths who have attained at least 18 years 
     of age and not more than 21 years of age and who have left 
     foster care at age 16 or older''.


 permanent extension of fha multifamily mortgage credit demonstrations

       Sec. 235. Section 542 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``demonstrate the 
     effectiveness of providing'' and inserting ``provide''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``demonstration'' 
     and inserting ``the'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``determine the 
     effectiveness of'' and inserting ``provide''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (5), and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Insurance authority.--Using any authority provided in 
     appropriation Acts to insure mortgages under the National 
     Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under 
     this subsection for risk-sharing units.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``test the effectiveness 
     of'' and inserting ``provide''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Insurance authority.--Using any authority provided in 
     appropriation Acts to insure mortgages under the National 
     Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under 
     this subsection for risk-sharing units.'';
       (4) by striking subsection (d);
       (5) by striking ``pilot'' and ``Pilot'' each place such 
     terms appear; and
       (6) in the section heading, by striking ``DEMONSTRATIONS'' 
     and inserting ``PROGRAMS''.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official 
     motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of 
     such countries, $28,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant 
     to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, including hire of 
     passenger vehicles, and for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem 
     equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior level 
     positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376, $7,500,000, $5,000,000 of 
     which to remain available until September 30, 2001 and 
     $2,500,000 of which to remain available until September 30, 
     2002: Provided, That the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
     Investigation Board shall have not more than three career 
     Senior Executive Service positions: Provided further, That 
     there shall be an Inspector General at the Board who shall 
     have the duties, responsibilities, and authorities specified 
     in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended: Provided 
     further, That an individual appointed to the position of 
     Inspector General of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (FEMA) shall, by virtue of such appointment, also hold the 
     position of Inspector General of the Board: Provided further, 
     That the Inspector General of the Board shall utilize 
     personnel of the Office of Inspector General of FEMA in 
     performing the duties of the Inspector General of the Board, 
     and shall not appoint any individuals to positions within the 
     Board.

                       Department of the Treasury

              Community Development Financial Institutions


              Community Development Financial Institutions

                          fund program account

       To carry out the Community Development Banking and 
     Financial Institutions Act of 1994, including services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3, 
     $118,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be for technical assistance and 
     training programs designed to benefit Native American 
     Communities, and up to $8,750,000 may be used for 
     administrative expenses, up to $19,750,000 may be used for 
     the cost of direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program: Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $53,000,000.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal 
     awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to 
     Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $52,500,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                National and Community Service Programs

                           Operating Expenses

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service (referred to in the matter under this 
     heading as the ``Corporation'') in carrying out programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this 
     heading as the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), 
     $458,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That not more than $31,000,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses authorized under section 
     501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12671(a)(4)) with not less 
     than $2,000,000 targeted for the acquisition of a cost 
     accounting system for the Corporation's financial management 
     system, an integrated grants management system that provides 
     comprehensive financial management information for all 
     Corporation grants and cooperative agreements, and the 
     establishment, operation and maintenance of a central 
     archives serving as the repository for all grant, cooperative 
     agreement, and related documents, without regard to the 
     provisions of section 501(a)(4)(B) of the Act: Provided 
     further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not more than $70,000,000, to remain available without fiscal 
     year limitation, shall be transferred to the National Service 
     Trust account for educational awards authorized under 
     subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.), 
     of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     national service scholarships for high school students 
     performing community service: Provided further, That not more 
     than $231,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading 
     shall be available for grants under the National Service 
     Trust program authorized under subtitle C of title I of the 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) (relating to activities 
     including the AmeriCorps program), of which not more than 
     $45,000,000 may be used to administer, reimburse, or support 
     any national service program authorized under section 
     121(d)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)); and not more 
     than $25,000,000 may be made available to activities 
     dedicated to developing computer and information technology 
     skills for students and teachers in low-income communities: 
     Provided further, That not more than $10,000,000 of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be made available for 
     the Points of Light Foundation for activities authorized 
     under title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That no funds shall be available for 
     national service programs run by Federal agencies authorized 
     under section 121(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12571(b)): 
     Provided further, That to the maximum extent feasible, funds 
     appropriated under subtitle C of title I of the Act shall be 
     provided in a manner that is consistent with the 
     recommendations of peer review panels in order to ensure that 
     priority is given to programs that demonstrate quality, 
     innovation, replicability, and sustainability: Provided 
     further, That not more than $21,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be available for the 
     Civilian Community Corps authorized under subtitle E of title 
     I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further, 
     That not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for school-
     based and community-based service-learning programs 
     authorized under subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12521 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than 
     $28,500,000 shall be available for quality and innovation 
     activities authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.): Provided further, That not more 
     than $5,000,000 shall be available for audits and other 
     evaluations authorized under section 179 of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Corporation shall increase significantly the 
     level of matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by 
     the private sector, shall expand significantly the number of 
     educational awards provided under subtitle D of title I, and 
     shall reduce the total Federal costs per participant in all 
     programs: Provided further, That of amounts available in the 
     National Service Trust account from previous appropriations 
     Acts, $30,000,000 shall be rescinded: Provided further, That 
     not more than $7,500,000 of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be made available to America's Promise--
     The Alliance for Youth, Inc. only to support efforts to 
     mobilize individuals,

[[Page S10327]]

     groups, and organizations to build and strengthen the 
     character and competence of the Nation's youth: Provided 
     further, That not more than $5,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be made available to the 
     Communities In Schools, Inc. to support dropout prevention 
     activities: Provided further, That not more than $2,500,000 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be made 
     available to the Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. to 
     support childhood parent education and family support 
     activities: Provided further, That not more than $2,500,000 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be made 
     available to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to establish 
     an innovative outreach program designed to meet the special 
     needs of youth in public and Native American housing 
     communities: Provided further, That not more than $1,500,000 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be made 
     available to the Youth Life Foundation to meet the needs of 
     children living in insecure environments.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $5,000,000, which shall be available for obligation 
     through September 30, 2002.


                        administrative provision

       The Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (Public Law 106-74) is amended under the heading 
     ``Corporation for National and Community Service, National 
     and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses'' in title 
     III by reducing to $229,000,000 the amount available for 
     grants under the National Service Trust program authorized 
     under subtitle C of title I of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (with a corresponding 
     reduction to $40,000,000 in the amount that may be used to 
     administer, reimburse, or support any national service 
     program authorized under section 121(d)(2) of the Act), and 
     by increasing to $33,500,000 the amount available for quality 
     and innovation activities authorized under subtitle H of 
     title I of the Act, with the increase in subtitle H funds 
     made available to provide a grant covering a period of three 
     years to support the ``P.A.V.E. the Way'' project described 
     in House Report 106-379.

                  Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. 7251-7298, $12,445,000, of which $895,000 shall be 
     available for the purpose of providing financial assistance 
     as described, and in accordance with the process and 
     reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-229.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $17,949,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                     National Institutes of Health


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For necessary expenses for the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set 
     forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended, $63,000,000.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances 
     and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set 
     forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
     (SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act, as amended, $75,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund pursuant to section 
     517(a) of SARA (26 U.S.C. 9507): Provided, That not 
     withstanding any other provision of law, in lieu of 
     performing a health assessment under section 104(i)(6) of 
     CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may conduct other 
     appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities, 
     including, without limitation, biomedical testing, clinical 
     evaluations, medical monitoring, and referral to accredited 
     health care providers: Provided further, That in performing 
     any such health assessment or health study, evaluation, or 
     activity, the Administrator of ATSDR shall not be bound by 
     the deadlines in section 104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for the Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry to issue in excess of 40 
     toxicological profiles pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA 
     during fiscal year 2001, and existing profiles may be updated 
     as necessary.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

                         science and technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $696,000,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002.


                 Environmental Programs and Management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $2,087,990,000, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue 
     rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of 
     implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the 
     Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in 
     Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference of the Parties to the 
     United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which 
     has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent 
     to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, 
     of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered 
     into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to implement or administer the interim guidance 
     issued on February 5, 1998, by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency relating to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     and designated as the ``Interim Guidance for Investigating 
     Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits'' with 
     respect to complaints filed under such title after October 
     21, 1998, and until guidance is finalized. Nothing in this 
     proviso may be construed to restrict the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from developing or issuing final guidance 
     relating to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 
     1412(b)(12)(A)(v) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 
     the Administrator shall promulgate a national primary 
     drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than June 22, 
     2001.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, $34,094,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2002.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $23,931,000, to remain available until expended.

                     hazardous substance superfund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $1,270,000,000 (of which $100,000,000 shall not become 
     available until September 1, 2001), to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $635,000,000, as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $635,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as 
     authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, $11,500,000 shall be transferred to the 
     ``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, and $36,500,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Science and technology'' appropriation 
     to remain available until September 30, 2002.


                Leaking Underground Storage Tank program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $72,096,000, to remain available until expended.


                           oil spill response

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.


                   State and Tribal Assistance Grants

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants

[[Page S10328]]

     for State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, 
     $3,628,740,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,350,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for 
     the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; $825,000,000 
     shall be for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water 
     State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act, as amended, except that, notwithstanding section 
     1452(n) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of 
     the funds made available under this heading in this Act, or 
     in previous appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the 
     Administrator for health effects studies on drinking water 
     contaminants; $75,000,000 shall be for architectural, 
     engineering, planning, design, construction and related 
     activities in connection with the construction of high 
     priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the 
     United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the 
     appropriate border commission; $35,000,000 shall be for 
     grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water and 
     wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native 
     Villages; $335,740,000 shall be for making grants for the 
     construction of wastewater and water treatment facilities and 
     groundwater protection infrastructure in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions specified for such grants in the 
     conference report and joint explanatory statement of the 
     committee of conference accompanying this Act, except that, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds 
     herein and hereafter appropriated under this heading for such 
     special needs infrastructure grants, the Administrator may 
     use up to 3 percent of the amount of each project 
     appropriated to administer the management and oversight of 
     construction of such projects through contracts, allocation 
     to the Corps of Engineers, or grants to States; and 
     $1,008,000,000 shall be for grants, including associated 
     program support costs, to States, federally recognized 
     tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air 
     pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media 
     pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for 
     making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for 
     particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the 
     limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control 
     revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the 
     fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in 
     loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2001 and prior years 
     where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund 
     to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable 
     by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other 
     assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the 
     fund, including administration: Provided further, That for 
     fiscal year 2001, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the 
     Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated 
     for any fiscal year under section 319 of that Act to make 
     grants to Indian tribes pursuant to section 319(h) and 518(e) 
     of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2001, 
     notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, up to 
     a total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds appropriated for State 
     Revolving Funds under Title VI of that Act may be reserved by 
     the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of such 
     Act: Provided further, That no funds provided by this 
     legislation to address the water, wastewater and other 
     critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United 
     States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made 
     available after June 1, 2001 to a county or municipal 
     government unless that government has established an 
     enforceable local ordinance, or other zoning rule, which 
     prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction 
     of any additional colonia areas, or the development within an 
     existing colonia the construction of any new home, business, 
     or other structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other 
     necessary infrastructure: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all claims for 
     principal and interest registered through any current grant 
     dispute or any other such dispute hereafter filed by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency relative to construction 
     grants numbers C-180840-01, C-180840-04, C-470319-03, and C-
     470319-04, are hereby resolved in favor of the grantee: 
     Provided further, That EPA, in considering the local match 
     for the $5,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the 
     City of Cumberland, Maryland, to separate and relocate the 
     city's combined sewer and stormwater system, shall take into 
     account non-federal money spent by the City of Cumberland for 
     combined sewer, stormwater and wastewater treatment 
     infrastructure on or after October 1, 1999, and that the 
     fiscal year 1999 and any subsequent funds may be used for any 
     required non-federal share of the costs of projects funded by 
     the federal government under Section 580 of Public Law 106-
     53.


                       administrative provisions

       For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the obligated balances 
     of sums available in multiple-year appropriations accounts 
     shall remain available through the seventh fiscal year after 
     their period of availability has expired for liquidating 
     obligations made during the period of availability.
       For fiscal year 2001, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal 
     program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
     recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if 
     authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the 
     Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs 
     for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that 
     no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds 
     designated for State financial assistance agreements.
       Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this subsection shall 
     not apply with respect to an area designated nonattainment 
     under section 107(d)(1) until one year after that area is 
     first designated nonattainment for a specific national 
     ambient air quality standard. This paragraph only applies 
     with respect to the national ambient air quality standard for 
     which an area is newly designated nonattainment and does not 
     affect the area's requirements with respect to all other 
     national ambient air quality standards for which the area is 
     designated nonattainment or has been redesignated from 
     nonattainment to attainment with a maintenance plan pursuant 
     to section 175(A) (including any pre-existing national 
     ambient air quality standard for a pollutant for which a new 
     or revised standard has been issued).''.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,201,000.


  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,900,000: 
     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: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 202 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist of one member, 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and exercising all 
     powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      office of inspector general


                          (transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $33,660,000, to be derived from the Bank 
     Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and 
     the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            Disaster Relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $300,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42 
     U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not 
     to exceed $2,900,000 may be transferred to ``Emergency 
     management planning and assistance'' for the consolidated 
     emergency management performance grant program; and up to 
     $15,000,000 may be obligated for flood map modernization 
     activities following disaster declarations: Provided, That of 
     the funds made available under this heading in this and prior 
     Appropriations Acts and under section 404 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to the 
     State of Florida, $3,000,000 shall be for a hurricane 
     mitigation initiative in Miami-Dade County.
       For an additional amount for ``Disaster relief'', 
     $1,300,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.


            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,678,000, as authorized by 
     section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $427,000.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5

[[Page S10329]]

     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of 
     attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at 
     meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness; 
     transportation in connection with the continuity of 
     Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10 
     U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $215,000,000.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $10,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall also serve as the Inspector 
     General of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
     Board.


              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
     405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $269,652,000: 
     Provided, 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), $25,000,000 of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be available until expended for project grants.


                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2001, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-74, shall not be less than 100 
     percent of the amounts anticipated by FEMA necessary for its 
     radiological emergency preparedness program for the next 
     fiscal year. The methodology for assessment and collection of 
     fees shall be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of 
     providing such services, including administrative costs of 
     collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section 
     shall be deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and 
     will become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 
     2001, and remain available until expended.


                   Emergency Food and Shelter Program

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $140,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ percent of the 
     total appropriation.

                     national flood insurance fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, 
     not to exceed $25,736,000 for salaries and expenses 
     associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance 
     operations, and not to exceed $77,307,000 for flood 
     mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under 
     section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, which 
     amount shall be available for transfer to the National Flood 
     Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2002. In fiscal year 
     2001, no funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating 
     expenses; (2) $455,627,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; 
     and (3) $40,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall 
     be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations.
       In addition, up to $17,730,000 in fees collected but 
     unexpended during fiscal years 1994 through 1998 shall be 
     transferred to the Flood Map Modernization Fund and available 
     for expenditure in fiscal year 2001.
       Section 1309(a)(2) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, is further amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2001''.
       The first sentence of section 1376(c) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2001''.

                     national flood mitigation fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
     $20,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2002, for 
     activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to 
     structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

                    General Services Administration


                federal consumer information center fund

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Consumer Information 
     Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,122,000, to be deposited into the Federal Consumer 
     Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations, 
     revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be 
     available for necessary expenses of Federal Consumer 
     Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of 
     $12,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2001 in excess of 
     $12,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                           human space flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, and services; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including revitalization and modification of 
     facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities, facility planning and design, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications 
     activities including operations, production, and services; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $5,462,900,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002.

                  science, aeronautics and technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including revitalization, and 
     modification of facilities, construction of new facilities 
     and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and 
     design, and acquisition or condemnation of real property, as 
     authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft control and 
     communications activities including operations, production, 
     and services; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $6,190,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.

                            mission support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out mission support for human space flight programs 
     and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including 
     research operations and support; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including revitalization and modification of 
     facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities, facility planning and design, 
     environmental compliance and restoration, and acquisition or 
     condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     travel expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to 
     exceed $40,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $2,608,700,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $23,000,000.

                       administrative provisions

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by 
     the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities 
     as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity 
     shall remain available until expended. This provision does 
     not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support'' 
     pursuant to the authorization for minor revitalization and 
     construction of facilities, and facility planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction 
     of facilities shall remain available until September 30, 
     2003.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of 
     Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for 
     personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001 and may be used to enter 
     into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated 
     with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year. Funds for announced 
     prizes otherwise authorized shall remain available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, until the prize is claimed or the 
     offer is withdrawn.
       Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in the joint 
     explanatory statement of the committee of conference 
     accompanying this Act, no part of the funds appropriated for 
     ``Human space flight'' may be used for the development of the 
     International Space Station in excess of the amounts set 
     forth in the budget estimates submitted as part of the budget 
     request for fiscal year 2001.
       No funds in this or any other Appropriations Act may be 
     used to finalize an agreement prior to December 1, 2001 
     between NASA and a nongovernment organization to conduct 
     research utilization and commercialization management 
     activities of the International Space Station.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       central liquidity facility


                     (including transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 2001, gross obligations of the Central 
     Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct 
     loans to member credit unions, as authorized by 12 U.S.C. 
     1795 et seq., shall not exceed $1,500,000,000: Provided, That 
     administrative expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility 
     shall not exceed $296,303: Provided further, That $1,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Community Development Revolving 
     Loan Fund, of which $650,000, together with amounts of 
     principal and interest on loans repaid, shall be available 
     until expended for loans to community

[[Page S10330]]

     development credit unions, and $350,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance to low-income and 
     community development credit unions.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and 
     the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 
     1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     authorized travel; maintenance and operation of aircraft and 
     purchase of flight services for research support; acquisition 
     of aircraft; $3,350,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $275,592,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar 
     research and operations support, and for reimbursement to 
     other Federal agencies for operational and science support 
     and logistical and other related activities for the United 
     States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available 
     until September 30, 2002: Provided, That receipts for 
     scientific support services and materials furnished by the 
     National Research Centers and other National Science 
     Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that 
     the amount appropriated is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally: 
     Provided further, That $65,000,000 of the funds available 
     under this heading shall be made available for a 
     comprehensive research initiative on plant genomes for 
     economically significant crops: Provided further, That no 
     funds in this or any other Act shall be used to acquire or 
     lease a research vessel with ice-breaking capability built or 
     retrofitted by a shipyard located in a foreign country if 
     such a vessel of United States origin can be obtained at a 
     cost no more than 50 per centum above that of the least 
     expensive technically acceptable foreign vessel bid: Provided 
     further, That, in determining the cost of such a vessel, such 
     cost be increased by the amount of any subsidies or financing 
     provided by a foreign government (or instrumentality thereof 
     ) to such vessel's construction: Provided further, That if 
     the vessel contracted for pursuant to the foregoing is not 
     available for the 2002-2003 austral summer Antarctic season, 
     a vessel of any origin may be leased for a period of not to 
     exceed 120 days for that season and each season thereafter 
     until delivery of the new vessel.


                        Major Research Equipment

       For necessary expenses of major construction projects 
     pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended, including authorized travel, $121,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                     Education and Human Resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $787,352,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less 
     than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     included program activities, all amounts, including floors 
     and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those 
     program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced 
     proportionally: Provided further, That $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Innovation Partnerships.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $160,890,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses'' 
     in fiscal year 2001 for maintenance and operation of 
     facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the 
     next fiscal year.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $6,280,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $90,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a homeownership program that is used in conjunction 
     with section 8 assistance under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937: Provided, That of the amount made available, 
     $2,500,000 shall be for an endowment to establish the George 
     Knight Scholarship Fund for the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
     Training Institute.

                        Selective Service System


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian 
     employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; $24,480,000: Provided, That 
     during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this 
     appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever 
     he deems such action to be necessary in the interest of 
     national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection 
     with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of 
     this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific 
     limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such 
     travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this provision does not apply 
     to accounts that do not contain an object classification for 
     travel: Provided further, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the 
     President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel 
     performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection 
     with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency 
     motor pools where separately set forth in the budget 
     schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles 
     I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget 
     estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the 
     expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the 
     amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same 
     proportion.
       Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National 
     Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
     Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member 
     thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within 
     the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 
     as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
       Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made; or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between their domicile and their place of employment, with 
     the exception of any officer or employee authorized such 
     transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
       Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used, 
     directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
     Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law, 
     or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection; and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on 
     which the list is made available to the public and of all 
     contracts on which performance has not been completed by such 
     date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be 
     updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description 
     of the work to be performed under each such contract.
       Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this

[[Page S10331]]

     Act shall be obligated or expended by any executive agency, 
     as referred to in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), for a contract for services 
     unless such executive agency: (1) has awarded and entered 
     into such contract in full compliance with such Act and the 
     regulations promulgated thereunder; and (2) requires any 
     report prepared pursuant to such contract, including plans, 
     evaluations, studies, analyses and manuals, and any report 
     prepared by the agency which is substantially derived from or 
     substantially includes any report prepared pursuant to such 
     contract, to contain information concerning: (A) the contract 
     pursuant to which the report was prepared; and (B) the 
     contractor who prepared the report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
       Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2001 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the 
     Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to each such 
     corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make 
     such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be 
     necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the 
     budget for 2001 for such corporation or agency except as 
     hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these 
     corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or 
     mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly 
     provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of 
     other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior 
     appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not 
     apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of 
     these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.
       Sec. 420. Notwithstanding section 320(g) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)), funds made 
     available pursuant to authorization under such section for 
     fiscal year 2001 may be used for implementing comprehensive 
     conservation and management plans.
       Sec. 421. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     term ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national 
     service education awards shall mean any loan made directly to 
     a student by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary 
     Education, in addition to other meanings under section 
     148(b)(7) of the National and Community Service Act.
       Sec. 422. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act, no 
     part of any appropriation for the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall be available for any activity in 
     excess of amounts set forth in the budget estimates submitted 
     to the Congress.
       Sec. 423. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final 
     regulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide 
     tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, 
     or any similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency 
     may proceed with the development of such a rule.
       Sec. 424. Except in the case of entities that are funded 
     solely with Federal funds or any natural persons that are 
     funded under this Act, none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     used for the planning or execution of any program to pay the 
     expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties to 
     lobby or litigate in respect to adjudicatory proceedings 
     funded in this Act. A chief executive officer of any entity 
     receiving funds under this Act shall certify that none of 
     these funds have been used to engage in the lobbying of the 
     Federal Government or in litigation against the United States 
     unless authorized under existing law.
       Sec. 425. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other 
     than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 426. None of the funds provided in title II for 
     technical assistance, training, or management improvements 
     may be obligated or expended unless HUD provides to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a description of each proposed 
     activity and a detailed budget estimate of the costs 
     associated with each activity as part of the Budget 
     Justifications. For fiscal year 2001, HUD shall transmit this 
     information to the Committees by November 1, 2000, for 30 
     days of review.
       Sec. 427. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the designation, or approval of the designation, 
     of any area as an ozone nonattainment area under the Clean 
     Air Act pursuant to the 8-hour national ambient air quality 
     standard for ozone that was promulgated by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency on July 18, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 38,356, p. 
     38855) and remanded by the District of Columbia Court of 
     Appeals on May 14, 1999, in the case, American Trucking 
     Ass'ns. v. EPA (No. 97-1440, 1999 Westlaw 300618) prior to 
     June 15, 2001 or final adjudication of this case by the 
     Supreme Court of the United States, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 428. Section 432 of Public Law 104-204 (110 Stat. 
     2874) is amended--
       (a) in subsection (c) by inserting ``or to restructure and 
     improve the efficiency of the workforce'' after ``the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration'' and before 
     ``the Administrator'';
       (b) by deleting paragraph (4) of subsection (h) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof--
       ``(4) The provisions of subsections (1) and (3) of this 
     section may be waived upon a determination by the 
     Administrator that use of the incentive satisfactorily 
     demonstrates downsizing or other restructuring within the 
     Agency that would improve the efficiency of agency operations 
     or contribute directly to evolving mission requirements.''
       (c) by deleting subsection (i) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof--
       ``(i) Reports.--The Administrator shall submit a report on 
     NASA's restructuring activities to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate not later than 
     September 30, 2001. This report shall include--
       ``(1) an outline of a timetable for restructuring the 
     workforce at NASA Headquarters and field Centers;
       ``(2) annual Full Time Equivalent (FTE) targets by broad 
     occupational categories and a summary of how these targets 
     reflect the respective missions of Headquarters and the field 
     Centers;
       ``(3) a description of personnel initiatives, such as 
     relocation assistance, early retirement incentives, and 
     career transition assistance, which NASA will use to achieve 
     personnel reductions or to rebalance the workforce; and
       ``(4) a description of efficiencies in operations achieved 
     through the use of the voluntary separation incentive.''; and
       (d) in subsection (j), by deleting ``September 30, 2000'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2002''.
       Sec. 429. Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``December 31, 2000'', and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2001''.
       Sec. 430. All Departments and agencies funded under this 
     Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing 
     statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of 
     ``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of 
     their business practices and public service activities.
       Sec. 431. Title III of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Act of 1958, Public Law 85-568, is amended by adding the 
     following new section at the end:
       ``Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for 
     fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in three 
     accounts, `Human space flight', `Science, aeronautics and 
     technology', and an account for amounts appropriated for the 
     necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General. 
     Appropriations shall remain available for 2 fiscal years. 
     Each account shall include the planned full costs of the 
     Administration's related activities.
       ``(b) To ensure the safe, timely, and successful 
     accomplishment of Administration missions, the Administration 
     may transfer amounts for Federal salaries and benefits; 
     training, travel and awards; facility and related costs; 
     information technology services; publishing services; 
     science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and 
     other administrative services among accounts, as necessary.
       ``(c) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, shall determine what 
     balances from the `Mission support' account are to be 
     transferred to the `Human space flight' and `Science, 
     aeronautics and technology' accounts. Such balances shall be 
     transferred and merged with the `Human space flight' and 
     `Science, aeronautics and technology' accounts, and remain 
     available for the period of which originally appropriated.''.

           TITLE V--FILIPINO VETERANS' BENEFITS IMPROVEMENTS

       Sec. 501. (a) Rate of Compensation Payments for Filipino 
     Veterans Residing in the United States.--(1) Section 107 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page S10332]]

       (A) by striking ``Payments'' in the second sentence of 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (c), payments''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) In the case of benefits under subchapters II and IV 
     of chapter 11 of this title paid by reason of service 
     described in subsection (a) to an individual residing in the 
     United States who is a citizen of, or an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in, the United States, the 
     second sentence of subsection (a) shall not apply.''.
       (2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     benefits paid for months beginning on or after that date.
       (b) Eligibility for Health Care of Disabled Filipino 
     Veterans Residing in the United States.--Section 1734 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) An individual who is in receipt of benefits under 
     subchapter II or IV of chapter 11 of this title paid by 
     reason of service described in section 107(a) of this title 
     who is residing in the United States and who is a citizen of, 
     or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the 
     United States shall be eligible for hospital and nursing home 
     care and medical services in the same manner as a veteran, 
     and the disease or disability for which such benefits are 
     paid shall be considered to be a service-connected disability 
     for purposes of this chapter.''.
       (c) Health Care for Veterans Residing in the Philippines.--
     Section 1724 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Within the limits of an outpatient clinic in the 
     Republic of the Philippines that is under the direct 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, the Secretary may furnish a 
     veteran who has a service-connected disability with such 
     medical services as the Secretary determines to be needed.''.

                        TITLE VI--DEBT REDUCTION

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                       Bureau of the Public Debt

      gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

       For deposit of an additional amount for fiscal year 2001 
     into the account established under section 3113(d) of title 
     31, United States Code, to reduce the public debt, 
     $5,172,730,916.14.

                               DIVISION B

         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

       Sec. 1001. Such amounts as may be necessary are hereby 
     appropriated for programs, projects, or activities provided 
     for in H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2001, to the extent and in the manner 
     provided for in the conference report and joint explanatory 
     statement of the committee of conference (House Report 106-
     907) as filed in the House of Representatives on September 
     27, 2000, as if enacted into law, except:
       (1) that such conference report shall be considered as not 
     including those provisions in section 103 of the conference 
     report on H.R. 4733 as filed in the House of Representatives 
     on September 27, 2000;
       (2) that such conference report on H.R. 4733 filed in the 
     House of Representatives on September 27, 2000 shall be 
     considered as providing $1,000,000 for the Upper Susquehanna 
     River Basin, New York, investigation within available funds 
     under General Investigations in Title I;
       (3) that such conference report on H.R. 4733 filed in the 
     House of Representatives on September 27, 2000 shall be 
     considered as appropriating $1,717,199,000 for Construction, 
     General under Title I, including $8,400,000 for the Elba, 
     Alabama, flood control project; $10,800,000 for the Geneva, 
     Alabama, flood control project; $1,000,000 for the 
     Metropolitan Louisville, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky, project; 
     $3,000,000 for the St. Louis, Missouri, environmental 
     infrastructure project authorized by section 502(f)(32) of 
     Public Law 106-53; and $2,000,000 for the Black Fox, Murfree 
     and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, Tennessee, project;
       (4) that such conference report on H.R. 4733 filed in the 
     House of Representatives on September 27, 2000 shall be 
     considered as including the following at the end of Title I:
       ``Sec. 106. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, is authorized to construct the locally 
     preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration 
     and recreation, Murrieta Creek, California, described as 
     Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek Feasibility Report 
     and Environmental Impact Statement dated October 2000, at a 
     total cost of $89,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $57,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,115,000.
       ``Sec. 107. Within available funds, the Secretary of the 
     Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to 
     continue construction of the Rio Grand de Manati flood 
     control project at Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, which was 
     initiated under the authority of the Section 205 program 
     prior to being specifically authorized in the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999.'';
       (5) that such conference report on H.R. 4733 filed in the 
     House of Representatives on September 27, 2000 shall be 
     considered as providing that $19,158,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under the Central Utah Project Completion 
     Account under Title II shall be deposited into the Utah 
     Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account;
       (6) that such conference report on H.R. 4733 filed in the 
     House of Representatives on September 27, 2000 shall be 
     considered as not including those provisions in section 211, 
     and shall be considered as including the following new 
     section 211:
       ``Sec. 211. Section 106 of the San Luis Rey Indian Water 
     Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 100-675, 102 Stat. 4000 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       `` `(f) Requirement to Furnish Water, Power Capacity and 
     Energy.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order 
     to fulfill the trust responsibility to the Bands, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, 
     shall permanently furnish annually the following:
       `` `(1) Water.--16,000 acre-feet of the water conserved by 
     the works authorized by title II, for the benefit of the 
     Bands and the local entities in accordance with the 
     settlement agreement: Provided, That during construction of 
     said works, the Indian Water Authority and the local entities 
     shall receive 17 percent of any water conserved by said works 
     up to a maximum of 16,000 acre-feet per year. The Indian 
     Water Authority and the local entities shall pay their 
     proportionate share of such costs as are provided by section 
     203(b) of title II or are agreed to by them.
       `` `(2) Power capacity and energy.--Beginning on the date 
     when conserved water from the works authorized by title II 
     first becomes available, power capacity and energy through 
     the Yuma Arizona Area Aggregate Power Managers (Yuma Area 
     Contractors), at no cost and at no further expense to the 
     United States, the Indian Water Authority, the Bands, and the 
     local entities, in amounts sufficient to convey the water 
     conserved pursuant to paragraph (1) from Lake Havasu through 
     the Colorado River Aqueduct and to the places of use on the 
     Bands' reservations or in the local entities' service areas 
     in accordance with the settlement agreement. The Secretary, 
     through a coterminus exhibit to Bureau of Reclamation 
     Contract No. 6-CU-30-P1136, shall enter into an agreement 
     with the Yuma Area Contractors which shall provide for 
     furnishing annually and permanently said power capacity and 
     energy by said Yuma Area Contractors at no cost and at no 
     further expense to the United States, the Indian Water 
     Authority, the Bands, and the local entities. The Secretary 
     shall authorize the Yuma Area Contractors to utilize federal 
     project use power provided for in Bureau of Reclamation 
     Contracts numbered 6-CU-30-P1136, 6-CU-30-P1137, and 6-CU-30-
     P1138 for the full range of purposes served by the Yuma Area 
     Contractors, including the purpose of supplying the power 
     capacity and energy to convey the conserved water referred to 
     in paragraph (1), for so long as the Yuma Area Contractors 
     meet their obligation to provide sufficient power capacity 
     and energy for the conveyance of said conserved water. If for 
     any reason the Yuma Area Contractors do not provide said 
     power capacity and energy for the conveyance of said 
     conserved water, then the Secretary shall furnish said power 
     capacity and energy annually and permanently at the lowest 
     rate assigned to project use power within the jurisdiction of 
     the Bureau of Reclamation in accordance with Exhibit E 
     ``Project Use Power'' of the Agreement between Water and 
     Power Resources Service, Department of the Interior, and 
     Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy 
     (March 26, 1980).
       `` `Sec. 106A. Annual Repayment Installments. During the 
     period of planning, design and construction of any of the 
     works authorized by title II of Public Law 100-675 and during 
     the period that the Indian Water Authority and the local 
     entities referred to in said Act receive up to 16,000 acre 
     feet of the water conserved by said works, the annual 
     repayment installments provided in Section 102(b) of Public 
     Law 93-320 shall continue to be nonreimbursable. Nothing in 
     this Section shall affect the National obligation set forth 
     in Section 101(c) of Public Law 93-320.'.''; and
       (7) that such conference report shall be considered as not 
     including those provisions in section 605 of the conference 
     report on H.R. 4733 as filed in the House of Representatives 
     on September 27, 2000.
       Sec. 1002. In publishing this Act in slip form and in the 
     United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall 
     include after the date of approval at the end an appendix 
     setting forth the text of the bill referred to in section 
     1001.

                               DIVISION C

       In lieu of a statement of the managers that would otherwise 
     accompany a conference report for a bill making 
     appropriations for Federal agencies and activities provided 
     for in this Act, reports that are filed in identical form by 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to 
     adjournment of the One Hundred Sixth Congress shall be 
     considered by the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
     agencies responsible for the obligation and expenditure of 
     funds provided in this Act, as having the same standing, 
     force and legislative history as would a statement of the 
     managers accompanying a conference report.
       Titles I-IV of division A of this Act may be cited as the 
     ``Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Fitzgerald) appointed Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Stevens, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy,

[[Page S10333]]

Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Inouye 
conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________