Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 127 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)

[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:

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

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.

____________________