[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8537-S8549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2620) 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, 2002, and for other purposes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am indeed quite happy and proud to 
present the Senate with the VA-HUD and independent agencies 
appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
  I thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for working with the 
subcommittee in order to give us an allocation that made the bill 
workable. The funding level falls within the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation. I also thank Senator Bond and his staff for their 
bipartisanship and cooperation in support of this bill.
  This subcommittee has had a history of bipartisanship. That tradition 
continues today.
  When we began the 107th Congress, Senator Bond chaired this 
subcommittee. It is one of the most important because it funds so many 
of the agencies that meet compelling human need as well as the long-
range needs of the United States of America.
  When the transition came, it came in an orderly, seamless, and 
collegial way. I hope that will also be the general tenor of our 
debate, that we can move forward on this bill on a bipartisan basis.
  I believe this bill is balanced, fair and meets the needs of the 
American people.
  My guiding principles in drafting this bill were simple: keep the 
promises to our veterans; meet the compelling day-to-day needs of 
working poor; re-build our neighborhoods and communities; and, invest 
in science and technology to create jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
  Based on the President's budget proposal and our subcommittee's 
allocation, we had to focus on restoring cuts in the President's budget 
and avoiding riders.
  Our overriding goal was to make sure that the core programs in 
veterans and housing were taken care of first, and we did that.
  We could not increase spending for any programs until our core 
programs for veterans and the poor were taken care of.
  While I wish the subcommittee had more resources for science, we did 
the best we could do given our allocation.
  I remain fully committed to doubling the budget for NSF over the next 
5 years, but without the support of the administration, the authorizing 
committees, and the Budget Committees, the appropriators can not do it 
alone.
  Finally, we did not break new ground this year. We are staying the 
course because this is a year of transition both in the administration 
and in the Senate.
  For our Nation's veterans, we have increased VA healthcare by $1.1 
billion over last year, for a total of $21.4 billion. This is $400 
million more than the President's request. This will allow the VA 
healthcare system to serve 4 million patients in 2002 through 172 
medical centers, 876 outpatients clinics, 135 nursing homes and 43 
domiciliaries.
  VA continues to shift from an inpatient focus to outpatient care to 
serve more veterans in their communities. The funding in this bill will 
allow VA to open more community based outpatient clinics to better 
serve our Nation's veterans. This bill provides funding for VA to open 
33 new outpatient clinics in fiscal year 2002.
  This marks the second year in a row that we have had billion-dollar-
plus increase for veterans healthcare.
  We have also increased funding for VA medical research by $40 million 
over last year and $30 million above the President's request. This 
funding level will allow VA to continue progress in the treatment of 
chronic diseases; diagnoses and treatment of degenerative brain 
diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and; research involving 
special populations, especially those who suffer from spinal cord 
injury, stroke, nervous system diseases, and posttraumatic stress 
disorder.
  VA is also a training ground for doctors, nurses, and physician 
assistants.
  VA medical care and research is a national asset that benefits both 
veterans and non-veterans.
  We have also maintained our commitment to the VA State home 
construction program. As our veterans age in place, their needs and the 
needs of their families are changing. Outpatient clinics and State 
veterans homes bring the delivery of healthcare and healtcare services 
closer to our veterans and their families. This approach reduces costs 
for the VA and improves the quality of services for the veterans.
  We have also provided funding to speed the processing of veterans 
claims. From the time a veteran files a claim, to the time he or she 
receives a decision, takes an average of 205 days or nearly 7 months. 
This bill includes $46 million to hire additional claims processors to 
help reduce waiting times to 100 days by the summer of 2003.
  For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we had two 
overall goals: expand housing opportunities for the poor, and rebuild 
our neighborhoods and communities; and help special needs populations.
  First, we have fully funded the renewal of all section 8 housing 
vouchers by funding the housing certificate fund at $15.6 billion. This 
is $1.7 billion more than last year.
  This amount includes an advance appropriation of $4.2 billion, for 
fiscal year 2003.
  This advance appropriation was included as part of the concurrent 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2002 adopted earlier this year. We 
have carried this advance appropriation for the last several years and 
continue it this year.
  Within the section 8 account, we have provided funding for 17,000 new 
or ``incremental'' vouchers to provide more vouchers for people waiting 
for section 8 assistance.
  We have restored the cuts proposed by the President to critical the 
public housing capital account.
  The Public Housing Capital Program provides funds to public housing 
authorities to repair and renovate public housing units to update 
heating, ventilation, electrical, and plumbing systems. Funds can also 
be used to construct new public housing, as well as renovating existing 
units.
  We have provided $2.9 billion for public housing capital which is 
just below last year's level.
  We have restored funding for the Drug Elimination Grant Program to 
fight crime and drugs in public housing.
  We have provided $300 million for the Drug Elimination Program, just 
below last year's funding level. President Bush eliminated this program 
in his budget.
  We cannot stop or delay our fight against drugs and crime in public 
housing. HUD needs to be a force for stability in the neighborhoods 
that surround public housing.
  We increased funding for the CDBG program by $200 million over last 
year, to just over $5 billion in FY 2002. The CDBG program is one of 
the most effective tools for local economic development efforts. It 
gives our State and local officials flexibility to use Federal funds to 
meet local needs.
  For other HUD programs, we have continued funding at last year's 
levels for: empowerment zones; brownfields; homeless grants; and 
housing for the elderly and disabled. We would like to have increased 
funding for these programs this year, but our allocation was simply not 
high enough to provide across-the-board increases.
  We have included language to raise the FHA loan limits for multi-
family housing by 25 percent this year--the first increase in many 
years.
  This proposal was included as part of the administration's budget 
request, and we included it as part of our bill. Raising the loan 
limits will help increase the supply of multi-family housing in this 
country.

[[Page S8538]]

  I wish we could do more for housing production. We cannot voucher our 
way out of our housing crisis. We need a new production program.
  I look forward to the recommendations of the Millennial Housing 
Commission and the Commission on Senior Housing. These two 
congressionally chartered commissions will give the Congress a 
blueprint for addressing the crisis in affordable housing. Once we 
receive those recommendations, I hope the Congress can take a step 
forward in solving this crisis.
  In the area of predatory lending and flipping, we are providing HUD 
with expanded legal authority to deny FHA insurance to lenders who have 
high default rates to help fight flipping and predatory lending.
  Earlier this year, I held a field hearing in Baltimore on the subject 
of flipping. Unfortunately, despite some progress, this despicable 
practice continues.
  To give HUD more resources to fight this problem, we have provided 
the Inspector General's office with $10 million specifically targeted 
to anti-predatory lending activities.
  In the area of community development, one of my highest priorities 
has been to help this country cross the digital divide. In this bill, 
we provide $80 million to help create computer learning centers in low-
income neighborhoods through competitive grants to local governments 
and non-profits.
  For EPA, we provide $7.75 billion, an increase of $435 million above 
the President's request.
  We ensure that Federal enforcement of environmental laws remains 
strong by restoring the 270 enforcement jobs cut by the President's 
request.
  The President proposed a major shift in policy this year. He proposed 
to cut 270 environmental ``cops on the beat'' and shift enforcement to 
the States through a new $25 million State enforcement grant program.
  But major concerns have been raised about this approach. The EPA 
inspector general has found numerous examples of weaknesses in State 
enforcement programs. This is a very important issue, and we need to 
hear from our authorizers about how we should allocate our resources 
before we make a major policy shift. So we did not break new ground in 
this area, and we maintained the status quo for Federal enforcement.
  This bill also keeps our commitment to clean and safe water by fully 
funding the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund at $1.35 billion.
  The Nation is facing an enormous backlog of funding for water 
infrastructure projects--some estimates say as high as $23 billion per 
year. The committee acknowledges the validity of the problems faced by 
large cities and small communities alike in upgrading sewer and 
drinking water systems.
  Unfortunately, the administration chose to fund the new Combined 
Sewer Grant Program at the expense of the Clean Water State Loan Fund. 
This approach was opposed by our authorizers, and GAO told us it was a 
bad idea because it would weaken the Clean Water Fund.
  We regret that the administration took this approach and that we 
cannot provide the $450 million requested for the sewer grant program.
  We hope that in the future, the President's request will be more 
adequate to meet the needs of our communities.
  For the Federal Emergency Management Agency, our bill provides a 
total of $3.3 billion. Of this total, $2.3 billion is designated for 
the disaster relief account to be available in the event of an 
emergency or natural disaster.
  I should note for my colleagues that of the $2.3 billion designated 
for disaster relief, $2.0 billion is designated as an emergency under 
the terms of the Budget Act.
  Tropical Storm Allison had a devastating impact on Texas, Louisiana, 
and Pennsylvania. We need to replenish the disaster account so the 
funds continue to be available for the victims of Allison and future 
disasters we may face.
  We restore $25 million for Project Impact, an important effort that 
helps to raise visibility and public awareness for the need for pre-
disaster mitigation.
  We also increase the FEMA fire grant program to $150 million. In the 
first year of this program, FEMA received over 30,000 applications 
requesting nearly $3 billion for fire fighting equipment, vehicles, and 
protective clothing.
  After seeing what our firefighters in Baltimore went through to deal 
with the Howard Street tunnel fire, the least we can do for these brave 
men and women is help give them the equipment and support they need to 
deal with the hazardous, life threatening situations they constantly 
confront on our behalf.
  We have also provided the FEMA Director with support to establish and 
run the new office of national preparedness as requested by the 
President. This new office will coordinate all the various Federal 
programs dealing with consequence management resulting from weapons of 
mass destruction. This is a very important initiative; so much so that 
the Appropriations Committee held 3 days of hearings earlier this year 
on the President's action plan.
  And we provide nearly $140 million for the emergency food and shelter 
and over $20 million to help FEMA modernize their flood mapping 
operation.
  We provide $14.6 billion for NASA programs, $50 million over the 
President's request and $300 million over last year.
  This was one of the more difficult parts of the appropriations bill 
to put together. We found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion plus 
overrun on the international space station.
  Let me say that while I am disappointed and appalled at the 
mismanagement of the space station, I am still committed to seeing the 
space station completed.
  NASA is currently having an outside review team conduct a thorough 
independent evaluation of the space station. That will give us a new 
road map for the station. Although we do make a slight reduction to the 
overall space station budget, we did not make any major decisions 
regarding the future of the station. We want to wait and see what the 
administration will do later this year and in their 2003 budget.
  Unfortunately, this is not the first cost overrun we have had with 
the space station. Since 1993 we have seen at least six different 
revised cost estimates that have taken the station's cost from $17.4 
billion up to a staggering $28.3 billion--a stunning 61 percent 
increase.
  The committee is adamant that this has to stop. We are committed to 
completing the space station and that it be the world class research 
facility it was also supposed to be. But the culture at NASA has got to 
change so that NASA management gets these costs under control.
  The committee is not going to let NASA raid other important space 
programs to pay for these space station management failures. So here's 
what we do.
  First, we provide $1.7 billion for continued construction of the 
international space station. We redirect $50 million to the shuttle for 
safety upgrades. Protecting our astronauts is one of the most important 
priorities within the committee.
  Second, we cap total space station costs over the next 4 years at a 
total of $6.7 billion. Any proposal to exceed this cap must come with a 
presidential certification that it is needed and the additional costs 
are well known.
  Third, to ensure the station is in fact a world-class research 
facility, we add $50 million to the life and microgravity research 
program, which takes the program up to $333.6 million for fiscal year 
2002. Then we transfer space station research out of the human space 
flight account into the science account where we protect it from being 
used any further to pay for space station overruns.
  Finally, we want NASA to create an independent review committee to 
develop options that will increase the amount of time crew members will 
have to conduct research on board the station.
  If this is going to a world-class research facility, we have to be 
sure the personnel on board have the time and support to carry out a 
viable research program.
  Over in the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account, we provide 
$7.7 billion. This is $478 million more than the President's request 
and is driven primarily by the transfer of the biological and physical 
sciences research program out of the space station account and into the 
science account to improve aviation safety and commercial 
competitiveness.

[[Page S8539]]

  For the National Science Foundation, we provide a total of $4.7 
billion for research and education. This is an increase of $256 million 
or 6 percent over last year.
  We had hoped to provide more. Senator Bond and I--and a large number 
of our Senate colleagues--believe it is in the national interest to 
double the NSF budget over the next 5 years.
  This recommendation represents a downpayment on that policy 
objective.
  We reject the administration's proposal to cut the NSF research 
programs and instead, we increase them by $187.5 million over the 
request.
  We provide nearly $500 million for nanotechnology and information 
technology--two critically important research activities related to the 
Nation's economic competitiveness; $150 million to help meet the needs 
of developing institutions and States with $110 million for EPSCoR, 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, $25 million 
specifically for instrumentation at smaller institutions, and $15 
million for innovation partnerships between smaller schools and local 
industry.
  We provide $55 million for supercomputing hardware: $45 million for 
an earthquake research network, and $12.5 million to continue 
constructing a new radio telescope, called ALMA.
  We link hi-tech economic development with out academic centers of 
excellence through a new $10 million regional innovation clusters 
initiative designed to bring universities, industries and local 
government together to map out and carry out strategic R&D and economic 
development plans.
  Math and science education programs increase by nearly $90 million or 
11%--to over $870 million, $872.4 million. We provide $190 million for 
the President's Math and Science Partnership program, $130 million in 
this bill; additional $60 million through hi-tech visa fees. We 
increase the stipends for graduate students in science and engineering 
by nearly 20 percent (or $3,500) to $21,500 per year. We provide $20 
million for a new undergraduate workforce initiative. We increase 
support for programs related to historically black colleges and 
universities and other under-represented groups to $100 million.
  This is a Science Foundation budget that emphasizes three critical 
goals:
  (1) support for people--from the scientist to the grad student to our 
elementary and secondary school teachers of science and math;
  (2) support for the basic research enterprise of this country in 
strategic areas as well as to core disciplines in science and 
engineering; and
  (3) support for tools--the cutting edge equipment and instrumentation 
that is so crucial to move science forward.
  We have funded National Service at $420 million, which is $4 million 
more than the President's request, to keep National Service strong.
  Volunteerism is our national trademark. It highlights what is best 
about America.
  Volunteer programs are the backbone of our communities. They help 
preserve the safety net for seniors, keep our communities safe and 
clean, and get our kids ready to learn.
  The 2002 VA-HUD bill maintains our commitment to AmeriCorps by 
providing funding to support 50,000 members to continue our spirit of 
providing community service, reducing student debt, and to creating 
``habits of the heart.''
  We also continue our promise to bridging the digital divide. We 
provide $25 million to teach-the-teachers, to bring technology skills 
to those who have been left out or left behind in our digital economy.
  The bill meets compelling human needs and invests for our future.
  I would like to have been able to do more for science, technology and 
housing production, but this is the best we can do under our allocation 
and satisfy the priorities of our Members.
  To reiterate, this committee reported the bill and it compromises $84 
billion in discretionary budget authority and $88 billion in outlays. 
The bill is balanced and fair and meets the needs of the American 
people. Our job was to meet certain compelling issues.
  My guiding principles were, No. 1, to keep our promises to the 
veterans for them to have the health care they need and not stand in 
line when they have to apply for their pensions; to work in the area of 
housing and urban development, that we would develop the programs and 
policies that would empower the poor to be able to move to a better 
life as well as rebuilding our neighborhoods and our community; also to 
stand up and protect the environment and invest in science and 
technology to create jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
  Based on the President's budget proposal and the subcommittee 
allocation, we had to focus on restoring cuts in the President's budget 
and, of course, we worked very hard to avoid riders. Our overriding 
goal was to make sure that core programs in veterans and housing and 
the environment were taken care of. We did that. We could not increase 
the funding for every program that was meritorious, but we could meet 
the basic needs of our responsibilities.
  One of the areas that we were sorry we could not increase funding to 
the level we wanted was in doubling the budget for the National Science 
Foundation over the next 5 years.
  I want to talk about what we have done for veterans. We increased VA 
health care by over $1 billion. This is $400 million more than the 
President's request. It will allow the VA health care system to serve 4 
million patients through 2002, 172 medical centers, 876 outpatient 
clinics, and over 135 nursing homes. VA continues to shift from 
inpatient focus to outpatient care. The funding in this bill will allow 
VA to open more community-based clinics.
  This marks also the second year in a row that we have increased 
funding for veterans health care. We have also increased funding for VA 
medical research by $40 million over last year.
  This funding level will allow VA to continue its progress in the 
treatment of chronic diseases, also the diagnosis and treatment of 
degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and 
special populations, often those who bear the permanent wounds of war, 
that of spinal cord injury and post-traumatic stress.
  VA is a training ground for health care providers, and we have been 
able to keep our programs that encourage scholarships and other grant 
programs to do this.
  The other area we worked on was to increase the speed of processing 
for veteran claims. Right now, when a veteran files for a claim, it 
takes 205 days or nearly 7 months. We don't think veterans should have 
to stand in line to get this consideration. This bill includes $46 
million to improve technology and hire additional processors.
  In the area of HUD, for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, we had two overall goals: expand housing opportunities for 
the poor, but in an empowerment way, rebuild our neighborhoods and 
communities; and also help special needs populations.
  First, we fully fund the renewal of all section 8 housing vouchers by 
funding the housing certificate fund at $15.6 billion. This is $1.7 
billion more than last year. This amount also includes an advance 
appropriation of $4.2 billion. This advanced appropriation was included 
in the concurrent budget resolution.

  Within the section 8 account, we provided funding for 17,000 new or 
incremental vouchers. We also restored the cuts proposed by the 
President to the public housing capital account. The public housing 
capital program provides funds to public housing authorities to repair 
and renovate public housing units, to update heating, ventilation, and 
plumbing.
  These are absolutely essential. We should not be a slum landlord. We 
have to raise those standards. Also, we have provided $300 million in 
the drug elimination program. President Bush eliminated this program, 
and we have very serious question about what is the best way to 
proceed.
  This year we didn't want to break new ground in terms of our general 
policies, so we have kept in the $300 million for drug elimination. We 
asked the authorizers to hold hearings on what is the best way we can 
keep drugs out of public housing and make sure that drug dealers don't 
use public housing as small business incubators for their deals.
  We also increased funding for CDBG by $200 million, taking it to just 
over $5 billion.
  We continued funding empowerment zones, brownfields, homeless grants, 
and housing for the elderly and disabled. We would surely like to have 
increased funding for these programs, but our allocation was not enough 
to do this. We hope that in next year's budget, we could take a look at 
it because

[[Page S8540]]

these certainly are very meritorious. We have also included language to 
raise the FHA loan limit for multiple family housing by 25 percent. 
This is the first increase in many years. This proposal was included in 
the administration's budget request. Raising the loan limit will 
increase the supply of multiple family housing in this country. We need 
more affordable apartments. Rents are going sky high. We cannot voucher 
our way out of a housing crisis. We also need it for the middle class.
  Also, again, on a bipartisan basis, we know we need a new production 
program. We are looking forward to the recommendations of the housing 
commission and the Commission on Senior Housing so that we could then 
get a framework for proceeding.
  Also, my senior colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, chairing the 
Housing and Banking Committee, has been leading the fight against 
predatory lending. We started that fight in this committee under 
Senator Bond, and we are going to continue that. We have added funds in 
the inspector general's office to target the antipredatory lending 
activities.
  Also, we have provided in this bill $80 million to create computer 
learning centers in low-income neighborhoods. These will be competitive 
grants to nonprofits and to local governments. I prefer to keep it to 
nonprofits. This will help cross the digital divide and, we believe, 
can be used for job training during the day, structured afterschool 
activities in the afternoon, and essentially be one of the important 
empowerment tools.
  Let's move on to the environment. For EPA, we provide $7.5 billion, 
an increase of $435 million above the President's request. We ensure 
that the Federal enforcement of environmental programs remains strong. 
We restore 270 enforcement jobs cut by the President. The President 
proposed a major shift in policy this year. These 270 jobs are like our 
environmental cops on the beat. The President wanted to shift this to a 
grants program of $25 million. We again felt we were breaking new 
ground without the authorizers taking a look at what is the best way to 
enforce the environmental laws. We know it needs to be a Federal-State 
partnership. But we didn't want to eliminate our current framework 
until we had really a very clear, well-thought-through process.
  The EPA inspector general found numerous examples of weaknesses in 
State enforcement programs. That is why we had so many yellow flashing 
lights.
  This bill keeps our commitment to clean and safe water by fully 
funding the clean water State revolving loan fund at $1.35 billion. 
This Nation is facing an enormous backlog of funding for water 
infrastructure projects--some estimate as high as $23 billion per year. 
Out of all the requests we got for congressionally designated projects, 
probably the largest number and those that just cried out for a 
response were in water and sewer, from very small rural communities 
that are on the brink of disaster to large metropolitan water supplies 
where the water and sewer was built over 100 years ago and are on the 
verge of collapse.
  Mr. President, we really hope that it will be a major initiative of 
the authorizing committee to look at our infrastructure needs. I think 
this is very important in terms of a public investment for our 
communities.
  Let's go to FEMA. Our bill provides, for the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, $3.3 billion. Of this total, $2.3 billion is 
designated for the disaster relief account to be available in the event 
of an emergency or natural disaster.
  I should note for my colleagues that of the $2.3 billion designated 
for disaster relief, $2 billion is designated as an emergency under the 
terms of the Budget Act. Tropical Storm Allison had a devastating 
impact on Texas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. We have to replenish this 
disaster account and at the same time have a cushion for these 
impending disasters. We restore $25 million for Project Impact and 
increase the FEMA fire grant program to $150 million. I will be saying 
more about that in the course of the bill.
  Mr. President, I want to move on to NASA. We provided $1.46 billion 
for NASA programs--$50 million over the President's request--and $300 
million over last year. This was one of the more difficult parts of our 
appropriations. We found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion-plus 
overrun on the international space station. I will say that again. We 
found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion overrun on the international 
space station. I am very disappointed and dismayed at the way the space 
station is being managed. I am going to be very clear on the record. I 
am absolutely committed to the space station, and I am going to do all 
I can to see that it is completed. But NASA needs to get its act 
together on the space station and deal with these cost overruns.
  We really want to ensure that we do complete the space station but 
not at the expense of cannibalizing other programs or reducing the 
space station to only three astronauts. You cannot do the space station 
science for which this whole project was completed with three 
astronauts. We also need to be sure that our astronauts can return 
safely. We need to focus on the safety of our astronauts, and this is 
one of the other reasons we are working on shuttle upgrades.
  On the National Science Foundation, know that Senator Bond and I 
wanted to double it, but we could not. We did increase it by $256 
million. We hope to provide more. Senator Bond and I, and a large 
number of colleagues, think it is in our national interest to do so. 
This recommendation represents a downpayment on that policy objective.
  We provide nearly $500 million for nonotechnology and information 
technology, and $150 million to meet the needs of institutions and 
States. We also are increasing math and science education, as well as 
supercomputing hardware.

  The Science Foundation budget will emphasize three goals: Support for 
people--from the scientist to the graduate student; to develop support 
for the basic research enterprise of this country; and also support for 
the tools we need for future science and technology.
  Let me go into national service. We funded national service at $420 
million. This keeps national service strong. Voluntarism is our 
trademark and it highlights the best of America. What we did here was 
provide $25 million to teach-the-teachers in technology. We have 
included that in the bill to encourage veterans to volunteer with our 
young people. Again, we could have done more, but we just didn't have 
the money. I think what we did do meets these needs.
  This speech is kind of boring because it is about numbers and data--
$500 million over here, $300 million this, and the President's that, 
and our requests, et cetera. But when you get down to it, what this 
money represents is really a commitment to honoring our veterans, 
building our communities, housing and urban development, protecting our 
environment, and investing in space in the National Science Foundation 
so that we have the new ideas to come up with the new products, 
encouraging voluntarism.
  We also provide that in the event any community is hit by a national 
disaster, while they have to go through the records, they would not 
have to forage for funds to pay for it.
  I thank Senator Bond and his very capable staff for their most 
collegial and cooperative efforts in moving this bill forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to stand wholeheartedly in 
enthusiastic support of S. 1216, the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002 
appropriations bill as reported from the Committee on Appropriations.
  My compliments to Senator Mikulski as the new chair of the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for her hard work and 
her commitment to making this bill a balanced piece of legislation for 
all Members, for the administration and, most of all, for the people 
who are served by it--and they are many--as the Senator has so 
eloquently outlined.
  I could not ask for a better chair and, previous to the 
transmogrification, a better ranking member. I know that some identify 
us as one of the more collegial teams in this Chamber. I am proud of 
that. I think we make a good team.
  After extensive, hard work on the very important and difficult and 
complex issues in this bill, we agree on the

[[Page S8541]]

policy outlines and on the specific allocation included in this bill 
for the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002 bill. I think the bill is grounded both 
in good policy and fiscal responsibility. As the Senator from Maryland 
has discussed, the legislation is within our 302(b) discretionary 
funding allocation of $84 billion-plus in budget authority and some $88 
billion in outlays.
  In addition, while no bill is perfect or addresses every Member's 
concerns--and certainly we had many hundreds and thousands of 
concerns--I think the bill strikes the right balance in funding both 
the Members' priorities and the administration's priorities.
  In particular, despite our tight allocation, we have done our best to 
satisfy the priorities of Senators who made special requests for 
economic development grants, water infrastructure improvements, as well 
as requests for other State and local priorities. Such requests 
numbered over 1,600 individual requests, totaling over $22 billion, 
which illustrates the level of interest and demand for assistance in 
the bill. That means, on the average, each Senator submitted 16 
requests, costing a total of $220 million for our humble little bill. 
We obviously could not address all of these requests, but we have tried 
hard to address as many of the most pressing needs as we could.
  We have also met most of the administration's funding priorities. I 
compliment the administration for not looking to create a series of new 
programs, but instead focusing on--with some exceptions--maintaining 
existing program levels and reforming program implementation to ensure 
that the agency can deliver the needed assistance under existing 
program requirements.
  Again, I emphasize that we don't need a lot of new programs in this 
bill. We do need to ensure that existing programs are managed well and 
effectively and the people who are to be served receive the benefits 
that are intended in the bill.
  I will be relatively brief in my review of the bill because the VA 
and veterans' needs remain the highest priority, and funding decisions 
in the bill are designed to ensure the best quality of medical care for 
our veterans, to keep the best doctors in the VA system. To achieve 
this, we have funded VA medical care at $21.4 billion, an increase of 
some $400 million over the President's request, and over $1.1 billion 
over the 2001 level.
  I know some Members believe the funds are inadequate, but I emphasize 
we have increased this account every year and have worked hard to 
ensure there are adequate funds for the medical needs of our veterans. 
In fairness, we can spend only so many funds efficiently and 
effectively. I believe we have done the best we can.
  Moreover, Senator Mikulski and I are committed to meeting the medical 
needs of veterans, and we are working with VA to ensure successful 
implementation of the new CARES process that will result in better VA 
facilities, the better targeting of services and medical care 
throughout the country, assuring we do not waste money that is meant 
for veterans medical care on maintaining unneeded or excessive capacity 
buildings.
  The 2002 VA-HUD Senate appropriations bill provides $31 billion for 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is $443 million 
over the budget request and $2.5 billion over last year's level. This 
includes funding needed to renew all expiring section 8 contracts and 
also provides funds for 17,000 incremental vouchers.
  I personally remain deeply concerned that vouchers do not work well 
in many housing markets. We need to develop new production programs 
that assist extremely low-income families in particular.
  We have also included $650 million for the Public Housing Capital 
Fund over and above the President's budget request, and have added $300 
million for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, a program the 
administration sought to eliminate in its budget. These are both 
important programs, and the VA-HUD bill essentially preserves last 
year's funding levels.
  In particular, I emphasize my support for the public housing capital 
funding, which is critically needed to address some $20 billion in 
outstanding public housing capital needs. We must ensure those people 
who live in assisted housing have decent housing in which to live and 
to raise their families. As a civilized and developed nation, we owe 
the least of our citizens, in terms of economic wealth, at least that 
much.
  In addition, we maintain funding for both the CDGB and HOME programs 
at the 2001 level, while rejecting an administration set-aside of $200 
million in home funds for a new downpayment program. The set-aside is 
unnecessary, in our view, since this activity is already eligible under 
the HOME program. I stress my support for both HOME and CDBG because 
they rely on decisionmaking guided by local choice and need. We are 
asking the people who are there on the ground, in the community, to 
determine how best to use funds for community development and to meet 
the housing needs of the population in their communities.
  I hope and trust these funds are used by States and localities as an 
investment in housing production to meet the increasing housing needs 
of low-income and extremely low-income families.
  In addition, the bill funds section 202 elderly housing at $783 
million; section 811 housing for disabled at $217.7 million. These 
funding levels are the administration's requests and approximately the 
same as the 2001 level. The bill includes over $1 billion for homeless 
funding, with a separate account of almost $100 million for the renewal 
of the expiring shelter plus care contract. Again, these funding levels 
reflect the administration's request at last year's funding levels.

  As for the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill includes $7.75 
billion, which is some $435 million over the 2002 budget request. It 
includes $25 million for State information systems as requested by the 
administration.
  We did reject the administration's request to transfer some $25 
million for State EPA and enforcement efforts, keeping these funds at 
EPA. I support that premise. As one who was a Governor, I ran 
environmental protection programs in my State. I have a great regard 
and a great respect for the work done at the State level, but the 
proposed transfer of enforcement responsibilities from EPA to the 
States may be premature. It appears to us a number of States may need 
to upgrade their enforcement capacity before a transfer of EPA 
enforcement responsibilities to States is warranted.
  In addition, the bill maintains funding of the clean water State 
revolving fund at $1.35 billion instead of reducing this amount by $500 
million for the funding of a new sewer overflow grants program.
  Funding of this new sewer overflow program is premature without 
additional funding. Both the clean water and drinking water State 
revolving funds are key to building and rebuilding our Nation's water 
infrastructure systems and should not be compromised with new programs 
without significant new funding.
  I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of continuing to 
maintain funding for these State revolving funds. For clean water 
infrastructure financing alone, there is a need for some $200 billion 
over the next 20 years, excluding replacement costs and operations and 
maintenance.
  For FEMA, the bill appropriates an additional $2 billion in disaster 
relief. The chairman and I intend to offer an amendment to make these 
funds available upon enactment. We feel strongly these additional funds 
should be available as soon as possible in the event we face disasters 
beyond the normal expectations during the remainder of this fiscal 
year. If we do not have that money, then this body is going to be put 
in a real bind to try to respond to a disaster which might occur in any 
of our States. I believe every Member should support this program 
because almost everyone represents a State which has benefited recently 
from the availability of these important disaster assistance funds in 
the face of some unexpected and unfortunate disaster in their States.
  We need to ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to meet all possible 
emergency contingencies during this fiscal year and the next fiscal 
year. The VA-HUD appropriations bill also funds NASA at $14.56 billion. 
This is an increase of $307.5 million over last year. It is $50 million 
above the budget request. This includes $6.87 billion for human space 
flight, while capping the

[[Page S8542]]

funds available for the international space station at $1.78 billion.
  Senator Mikulski and I share huge concerns over the current status of 
the space station, as she has so forcefully and eloquently noted, 
especially when cost overruns currently exceed $4 billion this year 
alone. There also appears to be a total loss of management control by 
NASA with regard to the space station.
  In the current configuration, the space station must depend upon the 
Russian Soyuz for any emergency escape capacity from the station, and 
there continues to be inadequate habitation space that is needed for 
science research, the primary justification for the construction of 
this station.
  Right now, they can only hold three astronauts in the space station. 
The time of two and a half of them is required to operate the station. 
That means we go through all the work and trouble of sending up a space 
shuttle, sending up astronauts, and we get one-half of one FTE working 
on science. That is a disaster, and it is and should be an 
embarrassment for NASA.
  Not to be too bleak, however, NASA is making great strides in other 
areas of research, including space and Earth science. Remote sensing is 
becoming a viable and important technology and many of our space 
science missions are unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
  In addition, the bill continues our commitment to the space launch 
initiative, the SLI. This is a critical program that should provide for 
the development of alternative technologies for access to space. 
Nevertheless, I have heard some reports that NASA may be losing control 
of the SLI program. Again, NASA needs to keep a tight focus on 
technologies being proposed and the funding which is approved.
  In addition, the bill reaffirms our commitment to aeronautics, and 
NASA's leadership role is part of the Government-industry partnership 
to develop breakthrough technologies for the aviation community.
  Finally, I restate emphatically my support for the National Science 
Foundation, again in total agreement with my friend and chair of the 
subcommittee. Because of our budget allocation limitations, we were 
only able to provide $4.67 billion for the National Science Foundation 
for the coming year, a $256 million increase to the budget. This is 
still a $200 million increase over the President's budget, but it is 
not nearly as much as we want.
  I believe this funding level is the best we can do under the 
circumstances without jeopardizing the needs of our Nation's veterans, 
our commitment to EPA, and our investment in affordable housing for 
low-income families.
  Let me be clear. I am committed to working with Senator Mikulski and 
our House counterparts to find more funds for NSF in conference. I am 
committed to doubling the Foundation's budget over 5 years and will do 
everything I can to keep us on that important path.
  I call on my colleagues who believe the future of the United States 
depends upon our continuing to make great strides in the field of 
science and engineering to join with us to make solid the commitment of 
this body to doubling the funding.
  We have seen in the past great strides made in the National 
Institutes of Health. They are developing wonderful new cures, but they 
tell us that the work of NIH depends upon continuing work and 
development by the National Science Foundation. If you talk with people 
in the field of scientific endeavor, they will tell you that we are way 
out of balance because we have not done enough to keep up with basic 
science and making sure we continue to be the leader in the world in 
all forms of technology and science, not limited to space and health, 
but to biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the many other exciting 
issues on which the National Science Foundation is working.
  I am not always sure everyone understands our investment in science 
and technology greatly influences the future of our Nation's economy 
and our quality of life. How goes the funding goes the future.
  I thank Senator Mikulski's staff and my staff for the many long and 
hard hours they spent advising us and working on legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
strong support for the fiscal year 2002 HUD/VA appropriations bill. 
Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator Bond have done an exemplary job of 
providing HUD with the resources it needs, even while working within a 
very tight allocation for all of the agencies within their 
jurisdiction.
  The administration's budget request for HUD, the agency that provides 
housing assistance to this Nation's poorest families and funding for 
community development and revitalization, was sorely inadequate. The 
administration's proposal would not even have provided the funding 
necessary to maintain HUD programs at current levels. Instead of 
fighting to expand housing opportunities to meet growing needs, the 
Administration's budget request has put us in the unfortunate position 
of fighting just to retain current program levels.
  We have a severe housing crisis in this country, and the need for 
housing assistance continues to grow. There are almost 5 million very 
low-income households in this country who have worst case housing 
needs, either paying more than half of their income towards rent or 
living in severely substandard housing. Another 2 million people will 
experience homelessness this year. At a time when so many families are 
in need of housing assistance, housing programs need additional 
funding.
  One area of great concern are the proposed cuts in public housing, a 
program that provides housing to over 1.3 million of this Nation's 
poorest households.
  Senators Mikulski and Bond realized that a significant number of 
families would be affected if they went along with the proposal to cut 
over $1 billion in funding for public housing programs. The 
administration proposed cutting $700 million, or 25 percent, from the 
Capital Fund, the fund used to repair and modernize public housing. 
There is a significant need for these funds. HUD estimates that there 
is currently a $22 billion backlog in needed capital repairs in public 
housing. A cut of this magnitude would have led to further 
deterioration of this Nation's public housing stock. The 
administration's budget says that this program can withstand such a cut 
because there are unexpended balances in the Capital Fund that can be 
used to fill in the gaps left by the budget cut. However, this is not 
the case. HUD's own data show that Capital Funds are being spent well 
within the legal time-frames established in a bipartisan manner just a 
few short years ago. Fortunately, the bill before us today provides 
almost $3 billion for the Capital Fund, helping us to maintain a much 
needed resource and to ensure that the federal investment in this 
housing is protected. This is an important accomplishment of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  In addition, this bill restores funding for the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program, which supports anti-crime and anti-drug activities 
in public housing. The administration's proposed elimination of this 
program would have resulted in housing authority police officers being 
laid off, after-school centers being shut down, and safety improvements 
not being made. The bill before us today provides $300 million for this 
important program that helps to improve the lives of public housing 
residents.
  Unfortunately, the administration's budget did away with other 
important programs as well, including the Rural Housing and Economic 
Development Program, which provides funding for housing and economic 
development in rural areas. This program helps to greatly enhance the 
capacity of rural non-profits to fund innovative efforts to supply 
housing and develop rural areas. HUD's own budget justifications state 
that ``The previous rounds of funding recognize that rural communities 
face different socio-economic challenges than do cities . . . Many 
rural areas have been by-passed by employment, and low, stagnating 
wages. It is imperative that rural regions have greater access to 
community and economic development funds that would foster investment 
in economic opportunities.'' I am pleased that the bill before us today 
provides $25 million in funding for this program which allows rural 
America to access essential resources.
  While most of this bill helps to further the goals of ensuring that 
all

[[Page S8543]]

Americans have access to decent, safe and affordable housing, I have a 
number of concerns with provisions in the bill related to Section 8 
vouchers.
  This bill only provides funding for an additional 17,000 section 8 
vouchers. This is only half the vouchers requested by the 
administration, and less than a quarter of the 79,000 new vouchers 
Congress funded last year. I recognize that the committee is concerned 
with voucher utilization and the effectiveness of the program, as am I. 
However, section 8 vouchers work in most areas of the country, allowing 
families to choose where to reside while lowering their rent burdens. I 
agree that there are improvements that must be made to strengthen this 
program and to ensure that all families who receive vouchers are able 
to find adequate housing. However, I strongly believe that we must 
continue to expand the voucher program so that we can meet the needs of 
the many poor families waiting to receive housing assistance.
  In addition to the decrease in section 8 vouchers, the administration 
has proposed cutting section 8 reserves by $640 million, from two 
months to one month. These reserves are used in the event of higher 
program costs so that the section 8 program can continue to serve the 
same number of families. The administration is correct that some of 
these funds may not be necessary; however, HUD must have the 
flexibility to meet the needs of PHAs that must access more than one 
month of reserves in order to continue serving the families who 
currently receive vouchers. The House appropriations bill, which does 
not give HUD this flexibility, will lead to a reduction in the number 
of poor families who receive housing assistance. I am pleased that the 
Senate did not adopt the flawed approach taken by the House, and I hope 
that the conference report will give HUD the flexibility to provide 
more than one month of reserves to housing authorities that will 
otherwise be forced to cut their section 8 programs.
  I am also concerned by language in this bill that has the potential 
to reduce funding for critical housing programs by diverting funds from 
HUD to other agencies. I appreciate and support the efforts of the 
chair and ranking member to protect funds allocated to the 
subcommittee. However, I am concerned that, as drafted, this provision 
could inadvertently result in funds being transferred from already 
strapped housing programs and hinder the effective functioning of the 
voucher program. I hope that the final legislation will ensure that all 
of the funds allocated to housing are used to meet the growing housing 
needs in this country.
  As a whole, I support this bill, and commend my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for reporting out a bill that affirms our 
commitment to housing this Nation's poor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for S. 1216, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  Including an advance appropriation into 2002 of $4.2 billion, the 
Senate bill provides $84.052 billion in nonemergency discretionary 
budget authority, of which $138 million is for defense spending. The 
$84 billion in budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of 
$40.489 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are 
taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total 
$88.463 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is at its section 302(b) 
allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
  In addition, the Senate bill provides new emergency spending 
authority of $2 billion to the Federal emergency Management Agency for 
Disaster Relief, which is not estimated to result in any outlays in 
2002. In accordance with standard budget practice, the budget committee 
will adjust the appropriations committee's allocation for emergency 
spending at the end of conference. The bill also provides an advance 
appropriation for section 8 renewals of $4.2 billion for 2003. That 
advance is allowed under the budget resolution adopted for 2002.
  I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as 
Senators Mikulski and Bond, for their bipartisan effort in moving this 
and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in 
this year's appropriations process.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying 
the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     S. 1216, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN
   DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, 2002; SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  General
                                  purpose   Defense  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.............    83,915       138     26,898   110,951
  Outlays......................    88,327       136     26,662   115,125
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority.............    83,915       138     26,898   110,951
  Outlays......................    88,463         0     26,662   115,125
House-reported:
  Budget Authority.............    83,995       138     26,898   111,031
  Outlays......................    87,933       136     26,662   114,731
President's request:
  Budget Authority.............    83,221       138     26,898   110,257
  Outlays......................    87,827       136     26,662   114,625
 SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
               TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority.............         0         0          0         0
  Outlays......................         0         0          0         0
House-reported:
  Budget Authority.............      (80)         0          0      (80)
  Outlays......................       394         0          0       394
President's request:
  Budget Authority.............       694         0          0       694
  Outlays......................       500         0          0       500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a ``firewall'' in the Senate
  between defense and nondefense spending that will become effective
  once a bill is enacted increasing the discretionary spending limit for
  2002. Because the firewall is for budget authority only, the
  appropriations committee did not provide a separate allocation for
  defense outlays. This table combines defense and nondefense outlays
  together as ``general purpose'' for purposes of comparing the Senate-
  reported outlays with the subcommittee's allocation.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency, including removal of emergency funds ($2 billion in
  BA, $0 in outlays) and inclusion of a 2002 advance appropriation ($4.2
  billion in BA, $2.52 billion in outlays). The Senate Budget Committee
  increases the committee's 302(a) allocation for emergencies when a
  bill is reported out of conference. For enforcement purposes, the
  Budget Committee compares the Senate-reported bill to the Senate
  302(b) allocation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 1214

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1214.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1214.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                Amendment No. 1217 to Amendment No. 1214

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1217 to amendment 
     No. 1214.

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

  (Purpose: to make $2,000,000,000 for FEMA disaster relief available 
                            upon enactment)

       On page 81, line 2 of the amendment after 
     ``2,000,000,000,'' insert: ``to be available immediately upon 
     the enactment of this Act, and''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It provides that FEMA disaster funding shall be 
available upon enactment of this bill. It means that when the President 
signs the VA-HUD conference report, which we hope will be in September, 
disaster funding will become immediately available without waiting 
until October 1.
  Why is this important? FEMA is down to $168 million as of yesterday 
that has not been allocated or distributed. Normally FEMA has a cushion 
of $1 billion during hurricane season.
  This is a very tough time of the year for many parts of our States 
for natural disasters. Coastal States are hurricane prone. We know the 
prairie States are prone to tornadoes now, and our Western States are 
prone to terrible fires. We want to be sure there is enough money for 
FEMA to respond. Therefore, in this bill we want to have a cushion.
  Yesterday, President Bush announced he was releasing $583 million

[[Page S8544]]

to cover the cost of recovering from tropical storm Allison. We sure 
support that. As a result, there is now almost a zero balance in the 
contingency fund. This is far below what we need to prepare and 
respond. This is why Senator Bond and I are offering this amendment. We 
cannot be left unprepared, and upon completion of the remarks of my 
colleague, I will urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an extremely important amendment. It 
should be an important amendment for every Member of this body. 
Unfortunately, we do not know for which Members it will be important 
because we do not know where the next disaster will strike.
  Based on our past experience, as the chair has mentioned, there are 
problems along the coast. We have tornadoes, we have hurricanes, we 
also have fires in the West, and we still do floods, and wherever these 
disasters strike, FEMA must be ready to respond. If we do not have a 
problem, then the money is not spent.
  With the release of the $583 million in contingent disaster relief 
for previously declared disasters, including the assistance of victims 
of tropical storm Allison, several States of recent storms, flooding in 
Montana, Texas, West Virginia, and Virginia, and other declared 
disasters, there are no additional funds available for release this 
year. FEMA is perilously close to a situation where it does not have 
enough disaster funds for the rest of the year.
  We do not know where or when or what kind of disaster will strike, 
but we do know we should not roll the dice and be without this funding 
available to FEMA should it be needed.
  FEMA provides critical assistance in times of emergency. We want to 
be sure they have this emergency assistance available. I join with my 
colleague in asking it be adopted.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we know of no one who wishes to speak 
against this amendment. This is not a money amendment; it is a timing 
amendment. We have the support of our colleagues. Knowing there is no 
one else who wishes to speak on it, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 1217) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the bill, of course, is open to 
amendment by any Member. We know our colleague, Senator Wellstone, has 
an amendment, and after that, we know our colleague, Senator Boxer, 
will also be offering amendments. Then hopefully after that, Senator 
Kyl will have an amendment. If everybody comes to the Chamber and 
cooperates the way Senator Wellstone immediately came to the floor, it 
is conceivable we can finish this bill this evening, a record time.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 1218 to Amendment No. 1214

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say through the chair to the Senator 
from Maryland, I am cooperating. She has a way of eliciting 
cooperation. I made sure I got to the Chamber and cooperated with the 
Senator from Maryland and, of course, the Senator from Missouri.
  I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1218 to amendment No. 1214.

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

    (Purpose: To increase the amount available for medical care for 
                       veterans by $650,000,000)

       On page 7, line 19, strike ``$21,379,742,000'' and insert 
     ``$22,029,742,000''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can describe this amendment for 
colleagues. This amendment will add $650 million to the funding that is 
contained in this bill for veterans health care.
  I will go through the numbers carefully because Senators have voted 
for more than this amount of additional funding in prior votes. First I 
will speak in a general way and then more specifically.
  I thank both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri 
for their fine work on this bill and their fine work on behalf of 
veterans. I know, and they know, there is not nearly enough funding in 
medical or housing needs. I propose this amendment to bump up the 
funding. It does not get all the way there. I am not trying to do any 
showcasing. I have been involved in these amendments year after year 
after year, sometimes with success, sometimes without success. I will 
continue to force the issue when it comes to the funding because I 
know, and I am sure other Senators know as well, in the most concrete 
personal way just from our office in Minnesota and the number of people 
calling.
  I admit to every Senator in the Senate that I was completely naive 
about this when I was elected. I never thought a large part of my work 
would end up being veterans work. I didn't think that would be what I 
would be doing. This all came about because our office is fortunate to 
have great people: Josh Syrjamaki and Mike Siebenaler are heroes in the 
veterans community. They come through for people. The better we do for 
an individual person, the more the word gets around, and other people 
come for help.
  We helped a Vietnam vet. His daughter wrote me a poem about her dad. 
She said, my dad was fine, and one day he took a shower, he came out of 
the shower, and he had a complete mental breakdown, posttraumatic 
stress breakdown. It was a plea for help.
  I will not use names because I don't know if families approve. I 
think Tim Gilmore's family would not mind. Tim was struggling with 
Agent Orange and still not getting the compensation he needed. If he 
did not get it and he passed away before receiving it, the family would 
not get benefits. He was not thinking about himself any longer--he knew 
he would die--but he didn't know whether his family would get any help.
  When helping people such as these, with good people in your office--
and I have the best--more and more people come for help. It turns out 
this has been a lot of the work we do. People fall between the cracks.
  Quite frankly, this appropriations bill is way under what we should 
provide. I will add it up in a moment with concrete numbers. The 
medical inflation alone, counted at 4 percent a year, gets close to $1 
billion. Look at the commitment we made to treat veterans with 
hepatitis C. Look at the Millennium Program and the commitment we are 
supposed to be making to an ever-aging veterans community and the kind 
of help we will give them, or we say we will give them, and look at the 
whole scandal of the number of homeless veterans. I venture to say 
probably a third of adult men who are homeless in this country are 
veterans, many of them Vietnam veterans, many of them struggling with 
mental health issues, with substance abuse issues. Look at the 
commitment we are supposed to be making toward expanding mental health 
services, and look at the long delays it takes for people to get the 
care they are supposed to receive from our VA medical system because we 
do not have the systems in place or we do not have enough of the 
personnel, and then look at the crisis in nursing. This is no way to 
say thank you to veterans.
  This amendment has the support of the Disabled American Veterans, 
AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the VFW; the American Legion supports this amendment. A lot of 
the American service organizations support this amendment for good 
reason.
  Now the specifics. During the debate on the budget resolution--I want 
Senators or staff to please listen because I am determined to pass this 
amendment--the Senate passed by a vote of 53-46 an amendment to fully 
fund veterans health care. This amendment, which I introduced, added 
$1.7 billion to veterans health care above the President's request. 
This was based on

[[Page S8545]]

the work of veterans organizations which put together an independent 
budget. We said to veterans organizations, we are tired of hearing you 
tell us what you are against. Tell us what you favor.
  A variety of different veterans organizations did careful research 
and said, this is what we need to make this veterans health care budget 
work. They put together this budget and, based on their work, I 
introduced this amendment. It came out of the tax cut.
  This amendment brought us to a level of funding recommended by the 
independent budget--I didn't pick it out of thin air--which was the 
$2.6 billion over fiscal year 2001.
  The Senate then adopted an amendment offered by Senator Bond that 
added an additional $900 million above the $1.7 billion. That passed 
99-0. So the amendment I am offering today for an additional $650 
million is only a quarter of the amount the Senate has gone on record 
in favor of adding to the President's request.
  Members can't vote for the budget resolutions and say they are for 
this and, when the rubber meets the road, vote against the additional 
appropriation. I feel strongly about this. The budget amendments were a 
test of our priorities. Some Senators would not agree with this, and it 
doesn't matter; I think you should vote for this amendment out of a 
commitment to veterans. I never saw the sense in spending so darn much 
money on the tax cuts. Too much of it I thought was Robin Hood in 
reverse, too much going to the very top of the population.
  I thought there were other needs: Of course, education; children; we 
will be talking about defense later on; we are going to be talking 
about prescription drug benefits, affordable prescription drug 
benefits. What about veterans and veterans health care?
  When it came to the vote, the Senate rose to the occasion in a 
positive vote for more money than I am now asking, to make veterans a 
priority. Unfortunately, the budget resolution that the Congress 
ultimately adopted, which was basically the President's budget, 
shortchanged veterans by requesting a $700 million increase for health 
care. In other words, to put this number in context, last year's 
requested increase for the VA health care system alone was $1.4 
billion.
  The simple inflation rate, 4.3 percent in the VA health care system, 
would mean approximately $900 million would just go to cover medical 
inflation; $900 million is already gone. So the administration's 
proposed budget barely covered the cost of medical inflation.
  The House did a little bit better than the administration, and the 
Senate appropriators did better still. I give credit where credit is 
due. The Senate VA-HUD has a $1.1 billion increase over last year's 
level for health care. That is $400 million more than the President. 
The appropriators got us part of the way there but nowhere near all the 
way. The independent budget produced by AMVETS and the VFW and the 
Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans demonstrates that 
the VA will face approximately $2.6 billion more in health care costs 
in fiscal year 2002 than we face in the current fiscal year. So $1.1 
billion is nowhere close to $2.6 billion.
  Here is what we are talking about: Uncontrollable costs such as 
medical inflation and salaries, $1.3 billion; Millennium Act long-term 
care initiative, $800 million; and other initiatives, including mental 
health care, pharmacy benefits for new patients, and I also argue, 
again, some assistance for homeless vets.
  I just think this amendment could not be more reasonable, frankly, in 
terms of what we ought to do.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, I think long-term care ought to be one 
of our highest priorities. Last year we passed landmark legislation 
called the Veterans Millennium Healthcare and Benefits Act which 
significantly increased noninstitutional long-term care. For the first 
time it would be available to all veterans who are enrolled in the VA 
health care system. The legislation is costly, if we are going to 
really back it with resources, but it is critical for veterans and 
their families.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Nebraska, I learned 
about this in a very personal way, and every Senator probably has had 
the same experience. We have a wonderful VA medical center, a flagship, 
really, in Minneapolis. I will go and visit veterans. If you should 
spend a little bit of time with their spouses--say, for example, you 
are visiting her husband and he is a World War II veteran or Korean War 
veteran. Then maybe you can get away from where her husband is and you 
go out into the lounge and you sit down on the couch and maybe have a 
cup of coffee and you talk. She is terrified because she does not have 
the slightest clue what she is going to do when he gets home because 
she cannot take care of him any longer, not by herself.
  I went through this with my mom and dad. My dad had advanced 
Parkinson's disease. I know exactly what this is about.
  Do you know what. More and more veterans--just more and more 
Americans, thank God--are living to be 80 and 85 and 90 years of age. 
We have our collective heads in the sand when it comes to veterans 
health care if we are not going to back our rhetoric with resources and 
put some resources into this Millennium Health Care Act. It is not done 
on the cheap. Long-term care is not done on the cheap. Enabling a 
veteran to live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible, 
with dignity--which is what we should do--is not done on the cheap.
  Currently, we have 9 million veterans who are 65 years of age or 
older. Over the next decade, half of the veteran population is going to 
be 65 years of age or older. According to the Federal Advisory 
Commission on the Future of VA Long Term Care, about 610,000 veterans a 
day need some form of long-term care. That was in 1997, that study.
  As the veterans population ages, long-term services are an 
increasingly important part of our commitment to health care for 
veterans, and we are not funding it. We are not providing the necessary 
funding.
  The Millennium Act also ensures emergency care coverage for veterans 
who do not have any other health insurance options. This is costly. It 
is another thing that has to be covered, but it is necessary. Nearly 1 
million veterans enrolled with the VA are uninsured, and they are in 
poorer health than the general population.
  Furthermore, we made the commitment to treating hepatitis C, we have 
other complex diseases such as HIV infection, and we have made the 
commitment to provide care for veterans, but we do not have the 
adequate funding.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that full implementation of 
the Millennium Act would cost over $1 billion in 2001--$1 billion 
alone. This is on top of the other initiatives, $500 million for 
initiatives such as mental health, the homeless reintegration program, 
and treatment for hepatitis C.

  When you take all the challenges and all the costs that the VA health 
care system is going to face, including long-term care, emergency care, 
essential treatments, and medical inflation, a budget increase of $2.6 
billion is needed. That is the independent veterans budget. We are not 
even halfway there with what we have done, and I am now saying at least 
let's add an additional $650 million.
  The last 2 years have been a downpayment to the veterans health care 
budget, enabling the VA to get back on course in delivering world class 
service that is rightfully due to our Nation's veterans. I thank, 
again, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for 
their work. These funding increases have been welcome. But the problem 
is they have not erased the prior years of flat funding. We all know 
what that means. Year after year, we had flat funding where we did not 
at all increase any of the appropriations, the money the veterans 
needed. Over the last decade, the VA health care budget has experienced 
deep cuts in real dollar terms, at a time when it should have been 
addressing an aging and increasingly health-care-dependent veterans 
population. That is the ``why'' of this amendment.
  Let me repeat that because it is the unpleasant truth. Over the last 
decade, all together, in real dollar terms, because of these flat 
budgets, actually the VA health care budget was experiencing deep cuts, 
in real terms, at the same time we had more and more veterans who were 
aging, more and more veterans with health care needs.
  Based on VA statistics from January 2001, the national average 
waiting time

[[Page S8546]]

for a routine next-available appointment for primary care medicine is 
64 days. Do you hear me? Sixty-four days, with a range of between 36 
and 80 days. For specialty care, the statistics are even worse. Eye 
care average waiting time, 94 days; cardiology, average waiting time, 
53 days; orthopedics, average waiting time, 47 days; urology, average 
waiting time, 79 days. Some veterans are waiting up to 18 months to get 
care from the VA in Minnesota, and Minnesota is not alone, and that is 
not acceptable. There should be support for this amendment.
  In an era of budget surpluses, these stories are outrageous. I could 
go on and on. I will not because I know my colleagues want to move the 
legislation forward. I do not think that veterans, America's veterans, 
Minnesota's veterans, Nebraska's veterans, Missouri's veterans, 
understand why, with the Federal coffers overflowing, their budget is 
nowhere near fully funded.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about returning the surplus to 
taxpayers. We have been told the Federal coffers are overflowing and we 
should return the excess. Certainly some of the tax cuts were in order. 
But in all due respect, if you listen to the veterans community, if you 
visit VA facilities, if you talk with the staff, it is clear that part 
of the surplus we have been enjoying has been paid for on the backs of 
American veterans. That is why there should be support for this 
moderate amendment that just bumps up the funding so we can do a little 
bit better.
  I have about 5 more minutes to conclude my statement. I will wait for 
my colleague's response.
  The counterargument is: Wait a minute. This goes beyond the spending 
caps.
  I want Senators to listen to this. It is true that this amendment is 
not offset. I could have tried to pay for this amendment by cutting 
into housing programs in this appropriations bill. But the truth is, 
housing is underfunded. In fact, it is absolutely unbelievable that 
affordable housing is not made the top priority in the Senate. It is 
going to soon become the crisis issue in the country. It is now. We 
just haven't faced up to it.
  The opponents of the amendment are asking that we make a tradeoff--
that I am supposed to ask more for veterans and take something away 
from affordable housing; that I am supposed to choose between science 
and veterans. I reject the tradeoff. I think Minnesotans reject the 
tradeoff. I think the American people reject the tradeoff. Colleagues, 
the Senate rejected the tradeoff when we debated the budget resolution. 
Let me go back to how you voted. Fifty-three Senators said: Let us do 
right by veterans and reduce the cost of the tax cut with this 
amendment. Ninety-nine Senators said: Let us add at least an additional 
$900 million and just take it from the surplus with no offset. Ninety-
nine Senators voted for this. Ninety-nine Senators said: Let's add an 
additional $900 million and just take it off the surplus with no 
offset. This amendment adds only $650 million.
  By the way, between these two amendments, the Senate voted 
overwhelmingly to add four times as much money to veterans health care 
as the amendment I am offering today. You are on record. We are on 
record. We didn't do our work. We did it because of the overwhelming 
need that is out there.
  Let me simply say that I make no apology for the amendment. I think 
Senators should vote for it.
  I just say this to colleagues. Some historian is going to look back 
at this vote in one way. We know darn well that we are going to go 
beyond the budget caps and limits when it comes to defense. We are 
going to do that. We already know it. We also know that we are not 
going to stick to the caps when it comes to education. Every Senator 
knows that, or should. We can't make the kind of investment that we 
have rhetorically committed to education within these existing caps. We 
can't make the kind of commitment that many have made to defense within 
these existing caps. We cannot honor the commitment that we made to 
veterans within these caps.
  It is crystal clear to me that we are on record. Ninety-nine Senators 
said: Let's add an additional $900 million and let's take it off 
surplus with no offset. I said: Let's ask for $750 million. That is not 
even the $900 million for which 99 Senators voted.
  I finish on this point: The reason for all the support from all of 
these veterans organizations is this very real need. I come out here to 
speak about it. I feel strongly about it because I know we have to do 
better. I hope this amendment will pass.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to comment on Senator Wellstone's 
amendment. First of all, I have a great deal of admiration for my 
colleague from Minnesota. His advocacy for veterans has been 
longstanding from the day he walked into the Senate. He has been, first 
of all, a champion for health care for all Americans. He has also been 
particularly vigorous in the issues related to veterans health care. He 
has been one of the few to speak up for the so-called ``atomic 
veterans''--those exposed to nuclear testing and nuclear radiation. He 
has spoken for the veterans who are homeless and mentally ill. I know 
he is very closely identified with the veterans service organizations, 
especially those that produce something called the independent budget 
where the veterans organizations themselves look at what the President 
is proposing. They gave commentary.
  Senator Bond and I met with leaders of those veterans service 
organizations. They made compelling cases. They told us stories from 
the waiting room about what our veterans were facing.
  Senator Bond and I really would love to have increased veterans 
funding even more. But we had an allocation. The allocation enforced 
budget caps. This subcommittee intends to live within its budget caps.
  This is why it is with great reluctance that I oppose Senator 
Wellstone's amendment, because it is an addition of $650 million 
without an appropriate offset. This essentially breaks the caps.
  What does breaking the caps mean? It puts us into deficit spending. 
And it could also result, because of other budget and tax break 
decisions, in putting us even up against the Medicare and Social 
Security trust funds.
  I don't dispute many of the compelling arguments that my colleague 
made, but at the same time this subcommittee had the difficult task of 
balancing many needs--veterans health care, the need of housing, the 
need of low-income Americans to really try to deal with the terrible 
problems that children face with lead paint poisoning--I know that is 
something the Senator from Minnesota has championed--protecting the 
environment, and other issues that we have enumerated in the bill.
  We have a very tight allocation. I think we did a good job. First of 
all, we did not abandon the veterans. We did not break any promises to 
the veterans. In fact, we added $1 billion more in veterans health care 
than we had last year--$1 billion more than last year. This is actually 
even $400 million over what President Bush requested. It is over $100 
million more than what is in the House bill that they sent over to us.
  We think we have put our promises into the Federal checkbook.
  What does this bill do? This level of funding will allow VA to open 
at least 33 more community-based outpatient clinics. It also makes sure 
that we cut down on the waiting time for veterans to receive health 
care.
  We have also increased funding in veterans medical research. There is 
$390 million for VA medical and prosthetic research. What do we do 
there?
  The Senator has spoken about the chronic problems of aging veterans. 
He is absolutely right. That is why we want to increase research for 
their treatment, and also to pay particular attention to Alzheimer's 
and Parkinson's.
  Also, our research program encourages even more breakthroughs in 
prostate cancer. At the same time, we provide funds to recruit and 
retain high-quality medical professionals.
  We are in a war for talent. There is a shortage of nurses. We are in 
bidding wars to be able to get those nurses. While we keep the nurses, 
we have to try to recruit new ones. We are trying to create 
opportunities for nursing education so they can get their education

[[Page S8547]]

through VA so they will be there to maximize the care that veterans 
need.
  I want to talk about claims processing, this whole issue of standing 
in line in order to get your claims processed. What are we talking 
about? We are talking about pensions. And we are talking about 
disability benefits that are service related, taking 205 days--7 
months--to get the first decision. We think that is too long. We also 
think it is wrong. Therefore, working with our very able administrator, 
Mr. Principi, we have come up with funds to be able to hire and train 
more claims processors and improve technology and cut down that waiting 
time.
  We also want to talk about long-term care. There is money in this 
bill for what we call GREC, G-R-E-C. What does that mean? It means that 
these are geriatric evaluation centers. What does a geriatric 
evaluation center do? It makes sure that veterans get appropriate care; 
that we do not abandon them; and that we do not warehouse them. But a 
geriatric evaluation gives a complete physical, a complete neurological 
and mental health evaluation, to determine why someone might be 
suffering a loss of memory or undergoing behavioral changes. It could 
be Alzheimer's or it could be a brain tumor; we want to know. It is 
really in veterans health care where we are providing pioneering work 
in doing those evaluations.
  I must say, it is the only place in the Federal budget where anyone 
pays real attention to developing a cadre of geriatricians focusing 
primarily on veterans. So we meet those funds. Could we open more 
GRECs? You bet. Could we train more geriatricians? I wish we could. But 
I will promise you that each year we move further along, and we will 
continue to do that.
  At the same time, our veterans often do face the need for long-term 
care. We like the partnerships between the Federal Government and the 
State governments. This is why we provide $100 million for something 
called State Home Construction for the Care of Aging Veterans. This 
doubles the President's request and addresses the $285 million backlog 
in high-priority needs. We do have a backlog, and the backlog is not a 
wish list, it is a priority list.
  So we believe we have really met veterans' needs. Have we met them 
completely? No. Have we met them robustly? I believe yes. The total 
funding for the Veterans' Administration part of the VA-HUD bill is $51 
billion.
  I would really commend to those on my side of the aisle to read the 
Democratic Policy Committee analysis of what the bill is. We hear 
numbers and statistics, and we can get lost in this. I hope they will 
take the time to see what we really did do for veterans in this bill, 
as well as improve construction projects--major and minor--and the 
processing of claims, et cetera, that we said.
  So again, I acknowledge the outstanding advocacy of my colleague, 
Senator Wellstone from Minnesota. I acknowledge the validity of many of 
the points he has made. I thank the veterans service organizations for 
their very keen analysis of the independent budget. I say to them, I 
wish we could do more; but without breaking the caps, without coming 
right up against the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, we could 
not do more.
  So it is with great sadness but, nevertheless, fiscal responsibility 
to honor the budget caps that I will be opposing the Wellstone 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it has been suggested that we find a time to 
be agreed upon for a vote on the motion to waive the point of order 
which will be raised. I wish to speak only about 5 minutes. I see the 
distinguished assistant majority leader in the Chamber.
  Mr. President, I ask consent that there be 15 minutes of debate prior 
to a vote in relation to the Wellstone amendment No. 1218, with the 
time equally divided between Senators Wellstone, Mikulski, and Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I would ask my friend to 
amend that to say there would be no second-degree amendments in order.
  Mr. BOND. And there would be no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would withhold just for a 
second, if I could just say, for the benefit of all Senators, there 
should be a vote on this at around 6 o'clock if everyone uses all their 
time. Senators should further be advised that following this vote, 
because of an order previously entered, there will be a vote on the Asa 
Hutchinson nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration that 
will immediately follow this vote. I should say, there is going to be 
some time allowed to talk about the Asa Hutchinson nomination, but it 
will be right after this vote.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, just to straighten this out, might I ask the 
Chair: I understood there had been time set aside for debate on the 
Hutchinson vote. So for my colleagues' edification, what is the time 
agreed to for debate on Hutchinson prior to the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. BOND. It is a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Asa 
Hutchinson?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BOND. I understand after this vote there will be 30 minutes 
equally divided on the nomination of Mr. Hutchinson prior to the 
confirmation vote on the nomination; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. I have just spoken to the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. He said he doubts he will use all of his time. So we will 
have a vote whenever they finish using whatever time they decide to 
use. And we will come back to this bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, now that we are thoroughly edified, may I 
return to the Wellstone amendment?
  What my colleague, the chairman, has said is quite true. Veterans, 
veterans health care particularly, has been the top priority, and will 
be the top priority, of this committee. In a time of tight budgets, we 
provided a $400 million increase over the President's request for VA 
medical care. This is $1.1 billion over the current fiscal year.
  This is why I say VA medical care is again our top priority in this 
bill. This continues our commitment to our Nation's veterans, to ensure 
that they receive the health care they deserve.
  We have heard about flat funding. I can say that in the past several 
years this committee has worked very hard to increase, significantly 
over the President's budget request, the amount we apply for veterans 
health care. In the past 2 fiscal years, we added $3 billion to the 
President's request for medical care in order to ensure no veterans 
would be turned away, no layoffs of critical medical staff would occur, 
and that funds needed for treating hepatitis C, the homeless, the 
mentally ill, and other critically important needs of veterans would be 
fully funded.
  As a result, the VA has been treating more veterans in its medical 
program than ever. We intend to assure that they can continue to treat 
those veterans with the highest degree of medical care.
  This budget would provide for additional substantial increases for 
hepatitis C screening, treatment, new long-term care programs, and for 
a continued increase in the number of veterans served by the VA medical 
system.
  I believe everybody in this body wants to make sure we provide all of 
the funds we can possibly find and that can be well used by the VA.
  I question, however, two points: No. 1, busting the budget 
agreement--spending more money than has been allocated to this 
committee--but, secondly, why we would wish to provide additional 
scarce resources to the veterans medical care account when the VA has 
advised us they will likely not be able to spend all those funds in 
fiscal year 2002--the funds we have just provided. In fact, according 
to VA's own budget, they already expect to have about $1 billion in 
carryover funds in this current year going into the next fiscal year 
under their budget request. They could not spend more than the funds 
that are already provided in this bill for veterans health care, in 
addition to medical care funding, which we all agree is vitally 
important.

  We have included a number of other significant funding items to 
improve the condition of our veterans. For example, we provided an 
increase of $30

[[Page S8548]]

million over the President's request to fund medical research. We want 
to make sure that the health care provided to our veterans is the 
finest available and that we are doing research on the leading edge.
  This places the VA medical research account at a record level of $390 
million. That is how we attract and maintain top quality researchers 
and health care providers in the system. We have also restored cuts to 
the State home construction program to increase the number of nursing 
home care facilities for veterans. Our funding would also support the 
opening of 33 more community-based outpatient clinics to improve access 
and service delivery.
  As one who travels around my State, I find the community-based 
outpatient clinics to be the best innovation we have developed in the 
past 10 years to make sure that health care is readily available, 
convenient, accessible, and efficient for veterans.
  When the time expires, I will raise a point of order. I will yield 
the floor now for any comments my colleagues wish to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first say to both Senators, they 
have done a superb job within the allocation they had. My quarrel is 
with the allocation.
  Again, the President's budget was about $1 billion over what we had. 
It doesn't even deal with medical inflation which is over $1 billion, a 
little over 4 percent per year. Everybody knows that. Then we added 
another $400 million. That is terribly important.
  If you look at inflation, for long-term care, home-based care for 
elderly veterans, hepatitis C, homeless veterans, mental health 
services, covering veterans now who were not covered before with 
emergency room care, we are nowhere near what we need to do. That is 
why every one of these veterans organizations supports this. That is 
why they did the independent budget.
  My colleagues have done their best within this allocation. The 
problem is with the allocation. Frankly, I would have had an 
amendment--I say to both of my colleagues; I have such respect for 
them--I would have had an amendment that would have offset this from 
the tax cut. Then it would have been blue-slipped because it would not 
have originated from the House. I didn't want to mess things up for 
this bill. I couldn't do that.
  Here is the only place of disagreement. All of what I have to say is 
praise. If I keep doing that, maybe I will even get your votes; you 
deserve it.
  Actually, the truth is two- or threefold. No. 1, there has not been 
one appropriations bill signed by the President. So actually this isn't 
busting the overall budget cap. We are early on in the process. It goes 
beyond this allocation with which I quarrel and you quarrel because you 
don't have the resources. If we are going to start saying that an 
additional $600 million to help veterans health care all of a sudden is 
a raid on Social Security and Medicare, then watch out, everybody, 
because come this fall, that is exactly what is going to happen with 
the Pentagon budget. There is not one Senator here who does not know 
that. That is exactly what is going to happen with the education 
budget. I am talking about appropriations. There is not one Senator who 
doesn't know that.

  I would venture to say there is not one Senator who will come to the 
floor right now and challenge me on this point. We all know we are 
going to bust the cap. We all know we are going to spend additional 
money. And we should. I am just being honest about this in my advocacy 
for veterans.
  I don't know why in the world right now we can't do this. There is 
nothing in the world that says you can't do it. As a matter of fact, 
again, 99 Senators voted for $900 million in an amendment offered by 
Senator Bond--$900 million additional. There was no offset for that.
  Two or three points: This is a vote that is a test of our priorities. 
We should do the right thing for veterans, and we should do it now. At 
the end of the game, come this fall, we know darn well we are going to 
be investing additional resources in education and the Pentagon. We 
ought to do it for veterans. That is what this is about.
  I say to every Senator, you are on record supporting this. It is not 
a game. It is to meet some very real needs. We all know we are going to 
have to make additional investments anyway, so it goes a little bit 
above the allocation.
  Finally, what do we say to veterans who have waited a long time? What 
do we say to veterans who are desperate for some care so they can stay 
at home and not be in nursing homes? What do we say to veterans who are 
homeless veterans and we are not getting the care to them? I couldn't 
vote for it because it was in violation of an allocation? People don't 
understand that. We ought to do the right thing. I hope Senators will 
support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I don't know what we are going to do in 
the fall. I don't know what we are going to do in the Pentagon budget. 
I don't know what we are going to do on Labor-HHS appropriations 
related to busting the caps.
  I do know what we have done on VA-HUD. We have met the needs of 
America's veterans. We have done it in very important areas, from 
actual care to long-term care, to recruiting new personnel, to creating 
educational opportunities, to improving our cemeteries and also 
improving both major and minor construction.
  Make no mistake: When we vote on this bill, I need my colleagues to 
be clear. It is not, are you for or against the veterans? That would 
pass 100 to nothing. Of course we are for our veterans. It is not, are 
you for or against veterans health care? We, of course, are for 
veterans health care. That is why we worked so hard on this committee 
to add $1 billion more, $400 million over what the President initially 
thought he needed.
  This vote is, are you or are you not going to use the VA-HUD bill to 
break the budget caps. I don't want to get into geek-speak here about 
this cap or a feather in your cap. I am talking about ceilings that 
were placed on spending so that we could have fiscal responsibility, 
fiscal restraint, and at the same time move very important legislation 
and put much-needed funds in the Federal checkbook.
  A vote for Wellstone is a vote to break the caps. People might want 
to do that, but I want them to be very clear that that is what that is. 
The consequence of breaking the cap means it will put us into deficit. 
It will also put us right smack up against having to dip into Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds.
  I voted against the budget because I thought it was too tight. That 
was several months ago.
  I voted against the tax bill because I thought it was too lavish. But 
this is the hand that was dealt to us. I voiced opposition, as I know 
the excellent colleague from Minnesota has done. But we had an 
allocation. What does an allocation mean? It means we get a 302(b). 
That is geek-speak for saying this is the amount of money you can 
spend. If you go over it, you plunge the Nation into deficit, and it is 
going to take 60 Senators to do that if we raise a point of order.
  Let's be clear. This is not a vote about veterans health care. This 
is a vote about do we or do we not want to break the budget caps on 
this bill when, in fact, we have added a billion dollars more for 
veterans health care?
  I really oppose the Wellstone amendment, not because it doesn't meet 
a need but because it will cause us to go into deficit and to dip into 
these trust funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I second the very thoughtful comments of the 
Senator from Maryland. This is a very important and significant area. 
We have allocated as much as we can based on the needs as identified 
and the ability of the VA to spend money on medical care.
  This amendment would spend money we do not have. We have to operate 
within guidelines. We do have a budget and we have an allocation that 
has been accorded to this committee.
  I, therefore, raise a point of order that this amendment violates 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act and provides spending in 
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

[[Page S8549]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Wellstone amendment 
to provide additional resources for veterans health care. We all 
recognize that the limits on discretionary spending contained in the 
budget resolution are totally inadequate. However, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee is doing its best to produce responsible bills 
that meet the needs of the American people. Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Bond have done an excellent job in bringing the VA/HUD bill to 
the floor.
  The pending bill provides $21,379,742,000 for Veterans Health Care, 
an increase of $1.1 billion or nearly 6 percent over fiscal year 2001 
and $400 million over the President's request. Given the tight spending 
limits in the budget resolution, this is a responsible level of 
funding.
  I voted against the budget resolution because it provided for an 
irresponsible tax cut and inadequate discretionary spending limits; but 
now is not the time to break the budget. This bill meets the needs of 
America's veterans. I urge Senators to oppose the motion to waive the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of 
the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 25, nays 75, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--75

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). On this vote, the ayes are 25, 
the nays are 75. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of 
order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what is the regular order? I 
understand we are to move temporarily off VA-HUD for the Hutchinson 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the regular order.

                          ____________________