[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.
____________________