[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 111 (Thursday, August 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8629-S8676]
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
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 2620, which the clerk will
report 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.
Pending:
Mikulski/Bond amendment No. 1214, in the nature of a
substitute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, is recognized to offer an amendment.
[[Page S8630]]
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am waiting for the amendment
to arrive. I seek counsel of the manager of the bill.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we know the direction in which the
Senator from Florida wants to go. He is deeply concerned about arsenic-
treated wood. What he is evaluating, based on our advice, is whether he
wants to offer something that is a mandate or pursue a more prudent
direction in terms of a study. I believe his staff is coming over with
the amendment.
The Senator has a lot of concerns about this. I recommend he state
now what those concerns are, and when staff gets here we can step back
and he can offer his amendment. I encourage the more prudent course;
however, the Senator is within his rights. Either way, we look forward
to hearing the Senator's arguments.
Also, I note the cooperation of my colleague, Senator Bond, that we
could start at 9:30 and be ready to move forward. He is missing a very
important Republican caucus and I thank him for his cooperation. I know
President Bush and the Vice President are here. In his commitment,
particularly to moving this bill and the funding for veterans and other
compelling needs, he was willing to be gracious enough to work with the
Democratic leadership and meet earlier in the day. I publicly thank
him.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to my colleague from
Maryland. Obviously, this is the most important thing we have to do. I
share Senator Mikulski's view we should begin discussion of this
serious concern of the Senator from Florida. We look forward to working
with the Senator. I thank the Chair and the manager on the Democratic
side, who has a very good idea. Normally, when she has a good idea, it
is much more successful than some of the other approaches that might be
taken. I offer that as a humble suggestion.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I note the Senator from Florida is reviewing his
materials with his staff. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1228 to Amendment No. 1214
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk an
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 1228.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . ARSENIC IN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Health and Human Services has
determined that arsenic is a known carcinogen, and the
Environmental Protection Agency has classified chromated
copper arsenate (CCA), which is 22 percent arsenic, as a
``restricted use chemical.
(2) CCA is often used as a preservative in pressure-treated
wood, and CCA-treated wood is widely used in constructing
playground equipment frequented by children.
(3) In 2001, many communities in Florida and elsewhere have
temporarily or permanently closed playgrounds in response to
elevated levels of arsenic in soil surrounding CCA-treated
wood playground equipment.
(4) The State of Florida recently announced that its own
wood-treatment plant would cease using arsenic as a
preservative.
(5) PlayNation Play Systems, which manufactures playground
equipment, announced in June 2001 that it would no longer use
CCA as a preservative in its playground products.
(6) In May 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency
announced that it would expedite its ongoing review of the
health risks facing children playing near CCA-treated wood
playground equipment, and produce its findings in June 2001.
The EPA later postponed the release of its risk assessment
until the end of the summer of 2001, and announced that its
risk assessment would be reviewed by a Scientific Advisory
Panel in October 2001.
(7) The EPA also plans to expedite its risk assessment
regarding the re-registering of arsenic as a pesticide by
accelerating its release from 2001 to 2003.
(8) The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has the
authority to ban hazardous and dangerous products, announced
in June 2001 that it would consider a petition seeking the
banning of CCA-treated wood from all playground equipment.
(9) Many viable alternatives to CCA-treated wood exist,
including cedar, plastic products, aluminum, and treated wood
without CCA. These products, alone or in combination, can
fully replace CCA-treated wood in playground equipment.
(b) Sense of the Senate.It is the Sense of the Senate that
the potential health and safety risks to children playing on
and around CCA-treated wood playground equipment is a matter
of Branch, state and local governments, affected industries,
and parents.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, shall submit a report to Congress which
shall include--
(1) the Environmental Protection Agency's most up-to-date
understanding of the potential health and safety risks to
children playing on and around CCA-treated wood playground
equipment;
(2) the Environment Protection Agency's current
recommendations to state and local governments about the
continue use of CCA-treated wood playground equipment; and
(3) an assessment of whether consumers considering
purchases of CCA-treated wood playground equipment are
adequately informed concerning the health effects associated
with arsenic.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, I thank her and
the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member, for giving me the
opportunity to offer this amendment having to do with arsenic-treated
wood. This problem has manifested itself, particularly in Florida
recently, because of arsenic leaching from treated wood on playground
equipment and then flowing into the soil. The health departments have
analyzed the soil and found the level of arsenic at a level to create
concern about the danger to the children. Thus, local governments have
been reaching out to the federal government, wondering whether they
should close their playgrounds.
We have asked EPA, the appropriate federal agency, to conduct the
study. They say it is underway. Much to my horror, as my constituency
of Florida is rising up in arms, wanting to know is this a danger or
not, EPA is on a schedule to do a study not to be completed until 2003.
I say to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, this
has nothing to do with partisan politics. This has to do with safety
standards and EPA doing a study. The question is: When are they going
to finish?
We urged the EPA to accelerate this study because of the conundrum
confronting local government in deciding whether to keep playgrounds
closed or whether to close other playgrounds that are now open. They
want some direction.
We are talking about arsenic. It is a poison. We talked about it last
night. We adopted the Boxer-Nelson amendment that will require the EPA
to take certain standards into consideration when setting the level of
arsenic in our drinking water.
What alarms so many of us, and brought about the Boxer-Nelson
amendment last night, was that the EPA--which had announced the
deadline when they were supposed to come forth imposing this reduced
amount of arsenic in drinking water--announced that they were suddenly
pushing that off, thus the reason for the amendment having to do with
arsenic in drinking water, which passed overwhelmingly last night.
Now I bring to the Senate for discussion, and hopefully adoption, an
amendment that will require the EPA to accelerate this study.
Initially, when we had voiced our concern because of the playground
situation in Florida, EPA had said it was going to complete its study
by June. Then they delayed, and said it would be sometime in the fall.
Mind you, this is after we had pushed them pretty hard, because their
study was not going to be completed until 2003.
This amendment requires them to complete this study within 30 days of
enactment of this bill, so we can give some certainty as to the
scientific conclusions. Is the arsenic in the treated lumber leaching
into the playground soil? Is this a sufficient hazard that the
[[Page S8631]]
city governments and the county governments ought to be closing those
playgrounds, or is it at such a level that, with a change in this or
that--in the construction, in the wood--that we could eliminate this
potential hazard to our children?
I bring to the Senate today a safety issue. Let me recap. What I am
asking our colleagues to do is join me in our quest to determine if
arsenic-treated playground wood is hazardous to our children. That
treated wood is everywhere. It is in our playground equipment. It is in
picnic tables. It is in desks. It is in fences. Mr. President, 98
percent of outdoor wood sold in the United States today is treated with
CCA, chromated copper arsenate.
CCA is an insecticide that is 22 percent arsenic. As I stated, in our
State and in other parts of the country, public playgrounds have been
closed or closely examined and are due to be closed because of the
potential health hazards that may be posed by high concentrations of
arsenic found in the soil in and around the arsenic-treated wood
playground equipment.
There are communities all across Florida: Gainesville, Tarpon
Springs, Tampa, Port Orange, Ormond Beach, Deland, Deltona, Clermont,
Miami, whose local governments have shut down their parks and are
looking to the federal government, the EPA, for guidance as to whether
or not those parks are safe.
Some communities, such as the one in Cambridge, MA, have already
decided to replace all of their playground and park equipment treated
with arsenic because many consumer and health groups have urged the
State of Massachusetts to ban arsenic-treated wood. Imagine the horror
of a parent whose child played in the soil on a playground with
equipment treated with arsenic, and that playground was later closed
down or torn down due to the high concentrations of arsenic in the soil
of that playground.
This amendment is designed to speed the process so the EPA will give
us an answer because parents need to know whether their children are
playing on or around equipment that poses a health hazard.
At the beginning of this year when we first asked the EPA if
chromated copper arsenate, CCA--that is arsenic-treated wood--was safe,
they said they would know in 2003, when they completed a reregistration
of CCA as a pesticide. As I said earlier, we said that was not good
enough. So the EPA revised its timetable and said they would complete
their reassessment of the arsenic-treated wood by 2002. They said they
would tell us if the arsenic-treated wood playground equipment is safe.
Then they changed that to by June of 2001. The EPA missed its own June
deadline. They now say they will complete a risk assessment regarding
children and arsenic-treated wood at the end of this summer--on into
the fall. The EPA also plans to assemble a scientific advisory panel in
October of 2001 to review the playground data.
Meantime the Consumer Product Safety Commission has agreed to conduct
a review of the safety of CCA-treated wood for use in playground
equipment. As my colleagues know, the Consumer Products Safety
Commission has the authority to immediately ban CCA-treated wood for
use in children's playground equipment if it finds that CCA-treated
wood poses an imminent and immediate risk to children.
I am heartened but I am not satisfied with all these announcements
because that is all they are: announcements, meaningless declarations,
while the American people still do not know if arsenic-treated wood
playground equipment is safe.
Earlier, I introduced S. 877 that requires the EPA to complete a risk
assessment of the hazards to children within a date certain and to
require mandatory labels on each piece of arsenic-treated wood. The
wood-preserving industry, in conjunction with EPA, recently committed
to a voluntary labeling program.
I personally think mandatory labeling is necessary to ensure the
American people are properly informed. But that fight is for another
day. We know arsenic is classified by the EPA and the World Health
Organization as a known human carcinogen.
In 1999, the National Research Council concluded that there was an
indisputable link between arsenic and skin- bladder- and lung cancer. A
University of Florida researcher commissioned by the Florida EPA
recently declared that simply touching arsenic-treated wood could be a
health risk for children. And a research team from the Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station found that arsenic is readily available
on the surface of CCA-treated wood. The Environmental Working Group has
concluded from reviewing the Connecticut study and others that
significant quantities of arsenic can be dislodged from the surface of
CCA-treated wood and that the cancer risk could be as great as 1 in
1,000. Therefore, the Environmental Working Group is seeking a ban of
the substance.
For all these reasons, we need the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to give the American people
the guidance they deserve.
This amendment stresses the sense of the Senate that the potential
health risk to children playing on and around CCA-treated wood and
playground equipment is a matter of great importance. This amendment
says the EPA must submit a report to Congress within 30 days of
enactment, detailing the most up-to-date understanding of the health
and safety risk to children playing on and around CCA-treated wood
playground equipment. It seeks the EPA's current recommendations to
state and local governments about the continued use of CCA-treated wood
playground equipment.
It mandates that within 30 days--no more delays. This amendment would
require within 30 days of the enactment that the EPA come forth with
their recommendations so the people of America will know what to do
about their children playing on these playgrounds.
Those are my remarks in offering the amendment.
Does the chairman of the committee have any particular inquiry she
would like to make at this point?
Ms. MIKULSKI. No. I wish to make some comments.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our colleague from Florida raises some
very valid concerns. All of us want to ensure that our playgrounds, our
back decks, and our picnic tables and anything with wood outside are
not harmful to our children's health. If it is harmful to our children,
it will be harmful to special needs populations such as the elderly. Of
course, there is playground equipment that has a particular risk
associated with it.
The issue of arsenic in the ground and around playgrounds has also
raised considerable attention. I acknowledge the validity of the
Senator's concerns. I also want to acknowledge his frustration that the
bureaucracy has not rigorously stood sentry over their voluntary effort
and also that they have been a little slow in moving on an evaluation
of this matter.
This is an issue of great concern to this committee. In fact, the
issue is in two agencies--the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. The good news is you have two agencies looking at it. The
bad news often is getting them to work together and move it, which
requires bilateral treaty negotiation.
We think the Senator's amendment kind of moves it because that is
what his amendment is. He doesn't take the position on the outcome. He
doesn't come in with a muscular amendment to mandate without an
evaluation. We think the Nelson approach is very prudent. He wants to
have the EPA study, but at the same time he doesn't want the study to
be a career in and of itself.
We need to know. The kids need to know. The parents need to know.
Guess what. The wood industry needs to know. They have been cooperating
with the EPA in a voluntary way for a voluntary program.
But to give you an idea of the complexity, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission has jurisdiction over treated wood and any risk that
might come from wood; the EPA has jurisdiction over the chemicals used
to treat wood. One has jurisdiction over the chemicals and the other
has jurisdiction over the wood. Now we are trying to get them to work
together to come up quickly with an evaluation on treated wood.
[[Page S8632]]
Both agencies have said they are working to ensure that wood-treated
products are safe. The EPA has a voluntary labeling program with which
the forestry industry has cooperated, but an evaluation shows that it
has some very significant flaws. They say they are now working to
enhance the program. But, again, I think we need to push them along to
come up with the report that we need.
Senator Nelson's amendment requires EPA, in consultation with the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to report to Congress on health and
safety risks of chemically-treated wood and to recommend how consumers
and State and local governments can be better informed about the
potential health risks. And I am sure the forest industry wants to know
that. They want to be good citizens. This is one of the important by-
products.
In early July, the Agency completed its review of the American Wood
Preservers Institute proposal to strengthen information available to
the consumer. The EPA says they are going to hold a public hearing of a
scientific advisory board during the week of October 2 to give peer
review on the Agency's hazardous assessment methodologies for
calculating potential exposure in playgrounds.
The Senator's amendment says 30 days within enactment; Is that
correct?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is correct.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Within enactment, or 30 days of the fiscal year?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Enactment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. That pretty much takes us into October and November.
We think that is a strong message to EPA to move this process along.
We think it is important they hold public hearings. We think it is
important that they consult with their scientific advisory board. But
we also would like them to operate within a 30-day framework to move
this issue along.
I thank the Senator. Rather than coming in saying legislate, mandate,
and regulate, let's get the report. Then we can identify the most
prudent way to protect consumers and to provide important information
for the industry.
I support this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida raises a valid
concern. We certainly want to ensure that our playgrounds, boardwalks,
and backyard decks are not harmful to our children's health, our
grandparents' health, or to our neighbors' health.
The issue of arsenic in the ground around playgrounds receives
considerable attention, as has already been indicated. Let me be more
specific. This issue is of great concern to two agencies funded in this
bill, both the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
For the information of all my colleagues, the CPSC has jurisdiction
over treated-wood products and any risks that might come from them when
the wood products are used for playground sets and decks; the EPA has
jurisdiction over the chemicals used to treat the wood. These chemicals
are used to prevent the wood in our decks, boardwalks, and playground
sets from rotting and therefore becoming unstable and unsafe. Both
agencies have been working to ensure that treated-wood products are
safe. I can appreciate the frustration the Senator from Florida feels
about the delay in seeing a result to those studies.
EPA currently oversees a voluntary labeling program so that consumers
who purchase treated-wood products are made aware of the potential
risks from the chemicals. Admittedly, the program can be more
effective. EPA has learned that the program has flaws and is now
working to improve that program. By this fall, every piece of
chemically treated wood will be labeled and there will be better
information made available to the public.
I sympathize with Senator Nelson on the media attention in his State
on wood products treated with chromated copper arsenic, or CCA. As I
said, EPA has already established a voluntary labeling program. There
has been extensive pressure on wood preserver manufacturers to ensure
voluntary compliance. Caution labels with EPA-approved wording will be
affixed to CCA-treated lumber within 90 days, and information signs
will appear in lumber stores and home centers in about 30 days.
For the information of my colleagues and those who might be watching,
there is a Web site, www.ccasafetyinfo.com, and a toll-free number,
800-282-0600, to answer consumer questions in both English and Spanish.
The products, while they may sound bad, have previously been approved
by EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have been in
use for over 70 years. As far as we are aware, no scientifically peer
reviewed medical or science journal has ever documented harm to anyone
from the regular use of CCA-treated wood. In spite of this, EPA and the
CPSC are taking steps to put any doubt to rest by conducting further
reviews specifically on the risk to children.
As the manager of the bill, the chair of the subcommittee, has
indicated, there is to be peer-reviewed scientific discussion early in
October, depending upon when this bill gets enacted. Thirty days may or
may not cover it. But it is clear that we will adopt it.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that would make sure we
do not wait until 2003 to get the results. We do not yet know when the
scientific information can be ready, but whether it is 30 days or 45
days or 60 days, I am confident it will, and must, be during this
calendar year, and sooner rather than later.
Sometimes you can set any deadline you want, but if you do not have
the scientific reviews, if they physically cannot get in, you cannot
come up with the study. I am sure EPA will do the study. This
amendment, that I trust will be adopted overwhelmingly, will send a
clear signal to them that they must put all due speed behind it and get
this study completed as quickly as humanly possible.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the
Senator for framing it in a way that makes good sense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from Florida. This is an issue that he brought
to my attention some months ago following the initial debate over the
arsenic standard. We had a good debate last night, with a very strong
vote, to ensure that we get the right kind of standard as soon as
possible so people will know what to expect from their drinking water.
We also made it very clear that we want to help communities be able to
meet these standards.
It should not be an unfunded mandate to take care of your health. We
ought to have the best scientific information, made available through
the studies that are done or commissioned, to provide the help that
communities need to be able to protect themselves, particularly their
children.
Senator Nelson came upon a problem I never knew existed. I cannot
tell you how many times I have been around playground equipment that is
wooden. I always thought it was really attractive. It is the kind I
preferred. It is what I bought for my own daughter. It certainly never
crossed my mind that--for good reasons, to prevent pest and termite
infestations--manufacturers would want to treat that wood. I never
thought about it.
But what Senator Nelson has determined--and I applaud him for this
because it became an issue in Florida, and he brought it to our
attention--is that something called CCA, chromated copper arsenic, is
widely used as a preservative in pressure-treated wood, including
playground equipment. This CCA is 22 percent arsenic.
I remember when I used to practice law, which seems as if it was a
very long time ago, I had a case that involved treated wood that was
treated at a plant in Tennessee. I went to visit it. The wood was
treated with all kinds of chemicals, but it was used for telephone
poles; it was used for railroad tracks; it was not used in playground
equipment.
What Senator Nelson has learned is that, through rain and natural
deterioration, the arsenic that is in this compound, CCA, to treat this
wood, can leach into the ground and can even come off on one's hands.
You think about all those little hands and all those little mouths and
those little bodies kind of rolling around this playground equipment.
[[Page S8633]]
I really commend the Senator for bringing this problem to our
attention. Because of his hard work, the EPA and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission are conducting reviews of the health and safety risks
to children playing on and around CCA-treated wooden playground
equipment.
I believe the Senator's amendment is necessary because, again, it
sets a deadline. Otherwise, folks can just keep studying and talking
and avoiding making a decision. But he is trying to put some teeth into
this appropriations bill, which I commend and support because just the
other day I had a friend of mine say she heard Senator Nelson speak on
this issue in relation to playground equipment. She was just about
ready to buy some playground equipment for her grandchildren. She does
not know whether to buy it or not. She does not know whether it is safe
or unsafe.
If you live in a State that gets as much rain as the good Senator's
State of Florida, you have to be even more worried. If it is as humid
as it is down there, you have to be more worried.
We do not want to make a decision that is not scientifically based,
so we need to get these science studies done and the EPA and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission making their decision. They have
asked for public comment. But we should pass this Nelson amendment
because it really directs the EPA to report to Congress as soon as
possible--which is, in effect, a report to the public--so my friend can
decide whether or not she is going to buy wooden playground equipment
or plastic or steel, or whatever choice she is going to make.
I commend the Senator for understanding this is an issue that is not
one of these abstract issues that only concerns somebody sitting in
some ivory tower somewhere. This is an issue that concerns every mother
and father who takes their child to play at a playground or anybody who
is thinking about buying equipment for their backyard.
We need to look to a nonpartisan, independent source such as the
scientists who will examine this issue, find out whether this CCA is or
is not a health hazard, or whether it can be fixed, and if it can, so
it can be a problem that can be prevented. This is one of those public
service issues to which I really think we owe the people of this
country an answer; otherwise, we may be unfairly tarring this industry.
We may be preventing people from buying playground equipment that is
totally safe. We don't know. We just know this CCA has arsenic in it.
We need to get to the bottom of whether that is harmful or not.
I commend the Senator for his approach. I hope my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will support this amendment so we can get an answer
sooner instead of later.
Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I might have been given.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think the statement of all of our
colleagues points out why we really have to move this study along. I
believe the committee is prepared to accept the Nelson amendment. As we
move to conference, we also want to consult EPA about how long it will
take them to collect their information.
Here is where we are. EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
are in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. We take our mandated
reports to agencies very seriously because then we need them for the
following year's appropriations. And the authorizers need them for the
second session of the 107th Congress.
So let's shoot for this 30 days because I think there is this sense
of urgency, particularly at the local government rec center level.
Right now they are worried about two things. They are worried about
their kids being exposed to arsenic-treated wood, and they are worried
about lawsuits.
Local government should not be worried about either one. It is our
job to stand sentry and give the best advice. I am ready to stand
sentry over the bureaucracy to ensure a timely completion of this
report so that not only will the concerns of Senator Nelson be settled,
but really the concerns of the Nation. We thank him for being so
assertive in this area.
We are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment. We
have had a discussion with the Senator. The manager on the Democratic
side and I are ready to push for this to make sure we get the
information. We are happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am so grateful to the chair
and the ranking member for their recognition of the emergency nature of
this issue. I am very grateful for their acceptance of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that after almost 40
years, the American people may finally see action that will protect the
public from arsenic.
I strongly support Senator Nelson's amendment to direct the EPA, in
consultation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to report to
Congress on levels of arsenic in children's playground equipment, and
to recommend how consumers and State and local governments can be
better informed about these potential health risks. Preliminary studies
have shown that arsenic, used as a preservative in wood may be a
harmful carcinogen, especially to children. Last April, the EPA itself
found a possible direct link between arsenic and DNA damage.
Senator Nelson's amendment sends a strong message to the EPA that
parents must know if their children are safe, and we are taking long
overdue action on other aspects of this issue too. Yesterday, we
adopted Senator Boxer's amendment, which requires EPA to immediately
put into effect a standard for arsenic in drinking water, and inform
the public about the amount of arsenic in the water. Last Friday, the
House passed an amendment to reinstate the EPA rule wrongly delayed by
the Bush administration, to reduce the accepted standard of arsenic in
drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion and
protect millions of Americans. That rule is the result of decades of
debate, scientific studies, rule-making, and public comment, and it
deserves to be implemented now.
We know that arsenic is a serious threat to public health. The 50
parts per billion standard for drinking water was originally set in
1942, and is clearly out of date. A National Academy of Sciences study
in 1999 found that arsenic in drinking water is extremely carcinogenic,
causing lung, bladder, and skin cancer. As a Wall Street Journal
article on April 19 stated on the 10 parts per billion standard, ``few
government decisions could have been more thoroughly researched, over
so many years.''
Action by Congress is long overdue. Senator Nelson's amendment is a
needed step in the continuing battle to protect Americans from the
dangers of arsenic, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1228.
The amendment (No. 1228) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are waiting for 10:30 for the Senator
from Arizona to offer an amendment. If there is no business on this
bill, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed up to 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I will take 2 or 3 minutes
to speak in anticipation of an amendment that will be offered by
Senator Kyl. I
[[Page S8634]]
reluctantly have to oppose the Senator's amendment, although I
understand the situation he faces. His amendment would alter the
formula for the State revolving fund for the Clean Water Act.
Senator Kyl's amendment would alter a Clean Water Act formula for the
SRF that has been in place since 1987. While I recognize the Senator's
concerns about the lack of funds for his State and the money that goes
to Arizona and other States in the face of these great economic needs,
I have to oppose the amendment as the ranking Republican on the
Environment and Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over the
Clean Water Act.
Very simply, this is not the place to change the formula for the
SRF--on an appropriations bill. I urge my colleague and other
colleagues, if Senator Kyl does offer the amendment, to think
seriously. They can take a look at a chart, which I will enter into the
Record, which shows how all of these formulas will affect everybody's
States. If it is simply a matter of will they get more, will they get
less, they can vote that way if they wish, but that is really not the
issue. I hope my colleagues will understand that this is not the place
to try to get into the authorizing business on something as complex as
the formula for the SRF, State revolving fund, for the Clean Water Act.
The Environment and Public Works Committee has committed to examine
the waste and drinking water concerns of our country and amend the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Jeffords has
pledged to move along those lines. I know when I was the chairman and
Senator Reid was the ranking member, we did that, and I have been
assured by Senator Jeffords that water infrastructure will continue to
be a priority for the committee.
I commit to Senator Kyl right now to examine the issue of the formula
he is looking at, and I urge him to allow us to put this together in a
way that is a proper legislative package with the appropriate vehicle.
If the Senator does offer the amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose
it and work with me and others on the committee to solve the water
infrastructure problems over the years.
Finally, I recognize Arizona and other States, mostly in the West,
have been shortchanged on this formula, but this is a complex issue. It
should not be adjusted simply by raising somebody's numbers and
lowering somebody else's, which is what is going to happen here. It is
not the way to do it. I hope we can do it otherwise, and I urge my
colleagues to consider that if there is a vote on the Kyl amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I referred be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of total Current Kyl amendment
State or Territory Need need allocation Kyl amendment allocation Net change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK.................................... 15987 12.3516 $150,144,455 8.2500 $110,818,125 -$39,326,330
CALIFORNIA.................................. 11839 9.1468 97,287,568 8.2500 110,818,125 13,530,557
ILLINOIS.................................... 11203 8.6554 61,520,850 8.2500 110,818,125 49,297,275
OHIO........................................ 7698 5.9475 76,578,683 5.9475 79,889,507 3,310,824
NEW JERSEY.................................. 7357 5,6840 55,587,715 5.6840 76,350,623 20,762,908
PENNSYLVANIA................................ 6034 4.6619 53,883,131 4.6619 62,620,587 8,737,456
FLORIDA..................................... 5400 4.1720 45,916,315 4.1720 56,040,963 10,124,648
MIAMI....................................... 5062 3.9109 58,626,146 3.9109 52,533,214 -6,092,932
INDIANA..................................... 4964 3.8352 32,783,360 3,8352 51,516,174 18,732,814
TEXAS....................................... 4702 3.6328 62,176,356 3.6328 48,797,150 -13,379,206
NORTH CAROLINA.............................. 3973 3.0695 24,550,580 3.0695 41,231,620 16,681,040
VIRGINIA.................................... 3955 3.0556 27,838,856 3.0556 41,044,817 13,205,961
MASSACHUSETTS............................... 3804 2.9390 46,453,615 2.9390 39,477,745 -6,975,870
MISSOURI.................................... 2957 2.2846 37,709,057 2.2846 30,687,616 -7,021,441
KENTUCKY.................................... 2317 1.7901 17,313,149 1.7901 24,045,724 6,732,575
ARIZONA..................................... 2245 1.7345 9,187,830 1.7345 23,298,512 14,110,682
WISCONSIN................................... 2042 1.5777 37,042,805 1.5777 21,191,786 -15,851,019
OREGON...................................... 1929 1.4903 15,366,780 1.4903 20,019,077 4,652,297
CONNECTICUT................................. 1781 1.3760 16,664,360 1.3760 18,483,140 1,818,780
WEST VIRGINIA............................... 1734 1.3397 21,207,231 1.3397 17,995,376 -3,211,855
GEORGIA..................................... 1721 1.3296 22,999,127 1.3296 17,860,463 -5,138,664
SOUTH CAROLINA.............................. 1548 1.1960 13,934,876 1.1960 16,065,076 2,130,200
KANSAS...................................... 1414 1.0925 10,935,398 1.0925 14,674,430 3,739,032
MARYLAND.................................... 1378 1.0646 32,902,909 1.0646 14,300,824 -18,602,085
PUERTO RICO................................. 1358 1.0492 17,741,646 1.0492 14,093,264 -3,648,382
WASHINGTON.................................. 1281 0.9897 23,655,976 .09897 13,294,162 -10,361,814
RHODE ISLAND................................ 1281 0.9897 11,820,600 0.9897 13,294,162 1,473,562
LOUISIANA................................... 1044 0.8066 14,979,924 0.8066 10,834,586 -4,145,338
TENNESSEE................................... 927 0.7162 19,760,551 0.7162 9,620,365 -10,140,186
IOWA........................................ 877 0.6776 18,410,585 0.6776 9,101,468 -9,309,117
MINNESOTA................................... 866 0.6691 25,001,912 0.6691 8,987,310 -16,014,602
HAWAII...................................... 837 0.6467 10,535,110 06467 8,686,349 -1,848,761
ALABAMA..................................... 801 0.6189 15,210,963 0.6189 8,312,743 -6,898,220
MISSISSIPPI................................. 797 0.6158 12,255,813 0.6158 8,271,231 -3,984,582
MAINE....................................... 782 0.6042 10,529,737 0.6042 8,115,562 -2,414,175
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................... 748 0.5779 13,593,690 0.5779 7,762,711 ................
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA........................ 609 0.4705 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
NEBRASKA.................................... 563 0.4350 6,958,035 0.5500 7,387,875 429,840
ALASKA...................................... 489 0.3778 8,141,438 0.5500 7,387,875 -753,563
COLORADO.................................... 461 0.3562 10,880,325 0.5500 7,387,875 -3,492,450
OKLAHOMA.................................... 334 0.2580 10,990,472 0.5500 7,387,875 -3,602,597
VERMONT..................................... 320 0.2472 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
UTAH........................................ 315 0.2434 7,167,582 0.5500 7,387,875 220,293
IDAHO....................................... 314 0.2426 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
ARKANSAS.................................... 270 0.2086 8,899,031 0.5500 7,387,875 -1,511,156
TERRITORIES................................. 230 0.1777 3,395,736 0.2500 3,358,125 -37,611
DELAWARE.................................... 226 0.1746 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
NEW MEXICO.................................. 161 0.1244 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
SOUTH DAKOTA................................ 130 0.1004 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
MONTANA..................................... 119 0.0919 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
NEVADA...................................... 116 0.0896 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
NORTH DAKOTA................................ 94 0.0726 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
WYOMING..................................... 39 0.0301 6,677,296 0.5500 7,387,875 710,579
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 129,433 99.9454
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sate or Territory Population Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York.......................................... 18976 15987
California........................................ 33872 11839
Illinois.......................................... 12419 11203
Ohio.............................................. 11353 7698
New Jersey........................................ 8414 7357
Pennsylvania...................................... 12281 6034
Florida........................................... 15982 5400
Michigan.......................................... 9938 5062
Indiana........................................... 6080 4964
Texas............................................. 20852 4702
North Carolina.................................... 8049 3973
Virginia.......................................... 7079 3955
Massachusetts..................................... 6349 3804
Missouri.......................................... 5595 2957
Kentucky.......................................... 4042 2317
Arizona........................................... 5131 2245
Wisconsin......................................... 5364 2042
Oregon............................................ 3421 1929
Connecticut....................................... 3406 1781
West Virginia..................................... 1808 1734
Georgia........................................... 8186 1721
South Carolina.................................... 4012 1548
Kansas............................................ 2688 1414
Maryland.......................................... 5296 1378
Puerto Rico....................................... 3809 1358
Washington........................................ 5894 1281
Rhode Island...................................... 1048 1281
Louisiana......................................... 4469 1044
Tennessee......................................... 5689 927
Iowa.............................................. 2926 877
Minnesota......................................... 4919 866
Hawaii............................................ 1212 837
Alabama........................................... 4447 801
Mississippi....................................... 2845 797
Maine............................................. 1275 782
New Hampshire..................................... 1236 748
District of Columbia.............................. 572 609
Nebraska.......................................... 1711 563
Alaska............................................ 627 489
[[Page S8635]]
Colorado.......................................... 4301 461
Oklahoma.......................................... 3451 334
Vermont........................................... 609 320
Utah.............................................. 2233 315
Idaho............................................. 1294 314
Arkansas.......................................... 2673 270
Territories....................................... 411 230
Delaware.......................................... 784 226
New Mexico........................................ 1819 161
South Dakota...................................... 755 130
Montana........................................... 902 119
Nevada............................................ 1998 116
North Dakota...................................... 642 94
Wyoming........................................... 494 39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1229 to Amendment No. 1214
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is not an objection by the assistant
majority leader or ranking members of the committee, I offer this
amendment that was just spoken about.
I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Brownback, proposes an
amendment numbered 1229 to amendment No. 1214.
Mr. KYL. 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 specify the manner of allocation of funds made available
for grants for the construction of wastewater and water treatment
facilities and groundwater protection infrastructure)
On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds made available under the heading ``state and tribal
assistance grants'' in title III for capitalization grants
for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et
seq.) shall be expended by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency except in accordance with the
formula for allocation of funds among recipients developed
under subparagraph (D) of section 1452(a)(1) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) (including
under a regulation promulgated under that section before the
date of enactment of this Act) and in accordance with the
wastewater infrastructure needs survey conducted under
section 1452(h) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(h)), except
that--
(1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under
clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of that Act (42 U.S.C.
300j-12(a)(1)(D)) shall be a minimum of 0.675 percent and a
maximum of 8.00 percent;
(2) any State the proportional share of which is greater
than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive
97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the
State; and
(3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin
Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from
New Hampshire a moment ago, but it illustrates exactly why we need this
amendment. The Senator, who is the ranking member of the authorizing
committee, says we should not be doing this amendment on an
appropriations bill, which is the pending business before the Senate;
we should allow the amendment to come out of the authorizing committee.
He is right, in theory, because almost everyone recognizes the
current formula for allocating wastewater treatment grants under the
EPA's program is unfair. It is way out of date. It is based on 1970s
data and, as he noted, especially for growth States, it is woefully
inadequate.
The problem is the authorizing committee has had 14 years to change
the formula and has not done so. There comes a time when one's patience
begins to wear thin. In representing the interests of the States that
are growth States, where needs far exceed what they were back in the
1970s or even 1980s, I think we have an obligation to say enough is
enough; it is time to change this formula.
Almost everyone in this body has at one time or another made note of
the fact that one of the unique things about the Senate is any 1 of the
100 Senators can offer amendments to change law or to fix things. In
the House of Representatives where I served, it is more difficult to do
that because of the numbers of people and the rules.
The nice thing about the Senate is we have this opportunity. That is
why it is frequently the case that amendments are offered on
legislation that comes before us, even though it would be nice to deal
with that subject in another way. We do it all the time. Mostly we do
it when the need is so great, the case is so good, and the degree of
fairness involved is such it would be unfair and unwise for us to do
anything else.
I say to my friend from New Hampshire, who says let us take care of
it in the authorizing committee, he has had many years to do that. This
act has not been reauthorized since it was passed in 1987. It needs to
be reauthorized, and it needs to be fixed.
I commend Senator Jeffords, the new chairman of the committee, for
saying he intends to take this up so he can get a reauthorization. I
hope that is done, and I hope it is done this fall. I also hope it
includes a formula reallocation if we are not able to do it in this
bill, but we have heard that story year after year after year and
nothing happens. There is a reason nothing happens--because the States
that have it good under the formula do not want to change. That is
human nature. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them.
As a simple matter of fairness, if a formula has grown so out of
whack over the years that it treats more than half of the people in
this country very unfairly, then something needs to be done. We have it
within our power to do it.
This amendment is germane and will be ruled such by the
Parliamentarian if there is a question about it and, therefore, it will
be offered and it will be voted on.
Since there are far more Senators whose States benefit under this
amendment than those that would lose funds because they are getting
more than their fair share today, I hope it will be adopted. Those
Senators who vote against this amendment, notwithstanding the fact
their States benefit, will certainly have some explaining to do to the
folks back home.
What does the amendment do? We have some funds in the Federal
Government that help localities construct facilities to ensure their
drinking water is safe and that they have good wastewater treatment
facilities. These are conducted under the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The EPA does a needs survey every 4 years. It decides what
communities need. It does this on a State-by-State basis. We base the
allocations of the drinking water fund strictly on the basis of that
needs survey because we recognize EPA is not being political in this
endeavor. EPA understands what the needs are. It does this survey and
says: Here are the communities that need the money the most.
The formula for the drinking water is based upon that EPA quadrennial
needs survey. EPA also does a quadrennial needs survey for wastewater
treatment, but we do not base our allocations for wastewater facilities
on the basis of that needs survey. No, we base it on a 1970s era
construction grant program which has no relevance to wastewater
treatment, is way out of date, even if it ever did, is based on 1970
census data, I believe, and, therefore, has been overcome by events and
time with respect to the real needs throughout the United States.
Based on the chart, we can see visually what the situation is. There
are several States that have a need, and that need, represented by the
red bar, is based on the percentage of need the States are currently
receiving. In other words, EPA says: This is how much you need, and
then here is how much Congress gives.
To use my State of Arizona as an example, we can see Arizona receives
a very small amount, less than 1 percent. This is why I am offering the
amendment. My State is being treated very unfairly. Under the formula
which does not provide a 100-percent allocation, Arizona, as all of the
other States, would get up to this minimal level. We can see on the
chart the blue line for all the States is the same. Those States below
the line would be brought up to that level.
The State of Maryland is the State that has the highest bar on this
particular chart. The percentage of current need fulfilled in the State
of Maryland is far in excess of my State
[[Page S8636]]
of Arizona, even though my State of Arizona has more population and is
faster growing. Is that fair? This is according to the EPA. This is not
according to population, Jon Kyl, or the Governor of Arizona. This is
the Environmental Protection Agency's survey of needs. Here is Arizona,
less than 1 percent, and here is Maryland, much higher.
What we are saying is, let's even it out and make sure everybody gets
at least a percentage of what the EPA says they deserve to have. That
is what we are trying to do, to make it fair for everybody.
Incidentally, the formula change is very simple. The amendment is a
two-page amendment. It reads as follows: ``shall be a minimum of 0.675
percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent'' of the needs survey of the EPA.
So there is a top and a bottom, and within that, everybody receives
funds according to the percentage that EPA has recommended.
It reads further:
(2) any State the proportional share of which is greater
than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive
97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the
State.
That is the percent everybody within the maximum and minimum will
receive.
(3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin
Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.
I note that even though the EPA lists Arizona as No. 16 on the list
of the States in terms of need--we rank 16th from the top--we are 53rd
in how much money is received after a couple of the territories and the
District of Columbia. That is why I am standing before you today.
There are many other States--I think 28--in addition to Arizona that
are in the same box. Some are in a little worse shape than Arizona--
actually, I do not think any are in worse shape than my State of
Arizona, but there are several that receive more because EPA has said
they need more than the State of Arizona. States such as New Jersey and
Illinois, for example, receive substantially more money under this
amendment.
This is not about anything complicated. It does not take a lot of
work to figure out how it works. It is simply a readjustment based on
EPA's own figures.
Included in the appropriations bill on VA-HUD and independent
agencies is an increase in funding of $500 million over that requested
by the President in the EPA's clean water State revolving fund. It is
my understanding that the increase brings current year funding up to a
historic level of $1.35 billion.
I applaud both Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, who are the
chairman and ranking member respectively of the committee, for the work
they put in on it. Having been a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I know how difficult it is and how hard they work on this. I
appreciate the work they have put in on it.
I wish to make it clear that I support the funding for this program
established under the Clean Water Act of 1987. Our States do depend on
this revolving fund to provide much needed financial assistance. It
comes in the form of low interest rate loans to sewer utility
ratepayers who otherwise bear the brunt of the costs associated with
compliance of EPA clean water regulations. This is one of the ways in
which we impose a mandate on communities but then help them to fulfill
that mandate financially.
It is particularly beneficial for customers of the small rural water
companies that serve so much of the population in the Western and
Midwestern States. Unfortunately, the EPA has been administering this
program since its inception with a very seriously flawed allocation
formula that I described earlier. It was based on a formula that was
derived for Federal construction loans using data that was gathered in
the early 1970s.
During these 30 years, I think we are all aware of the fact that the
demographic distribution in the country has changed dramatically, as
have the other factors that would cause the EPA to rank localities
based upon their need for this kind of funding.
In my State of Arizona, our population has nearly tripled from 1.8
million to 5.1 million since 1970. Just think about the changes that
has required in terms of infrastructure in the State. I might add, that
does not include a very large population that is probably not counted.
Much of that shift in population has come from other regions of the
country, so you not only have burgeoning needs in the growth States--
and I know the State of the Presiding Officer is in the same position--
but you also have declining need in some of the other States that
historically have a higher population and receive more money to take
care of that population.
It should be obvious that over time these formulas should be
adjusted, but as I say, it has never been adjusted, and I have no
reason to believe that circumstances today create any greater
opportunity for us to do that than last year or the year before or the
year before that.
The formula that currently exists reflects neither this current
population distribution nor the EPA's documented need of individual
States as established in its quadrennial wastewater infrastructure
needs survey. The EPA will update its wastewater needs survey in the
year 2002, but based on the most recently completed survey from 1998,
there is a vast discrepancy in the percentage of need fulfilled from
State to State.
I have no doubt that after this next survey, this chart is going to
be even more skewed. States that are primarily the growth States are
going to be in an even more difficult situation--States such as
California, for example, and my own State of Arizona.
Let me illustrate this disparity using, however, the 1998 EPA
wastewater infrastructure need survey and the actual clean water
revolving fund allocations to the States in fiscal year 2000. The State
of Arizona received funding in fiscal year 2000 to address only .41
percent; that is four-tenths of 1 percent of the validated
infrastructure needs. By contrast, four States with populations very
similar to Arizona--Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, and Louisiana--each
received funding that met from 4 times to 7 times the percentage
received by my State: 1.43 percent in the case of Louisiana and 2.89
percent in the case of Minnesota. So there is a 7-to-1 ratio of States
with almost equal population.
That is not fair. I understand why the Representatives of those
States want to defend what they have, but they cannot defend its
fairness, so they are relegated to an argument that procedurally we
should not do it on this bill but on another bill. But we never get
around to doing it on another bill. It is a catch-22 for us.
My constituents back home ask, Why is Congress so partisan and why
can't it ever just act in a fair way to get things done. I have a hard
time explaining it in this case because it is a totally bipartisan
issue. There are winner States and States that have to give back some
of the money they are in effect receiving today, in the future. And it
doesn't respect party lines. People from both parties are winners and
losers under this current formula and would be under the new formula. I
don't think anybody can defend a formula that, based upon EPA's own
recommendations, gives one State seven times more than another State of
the very same population. It is very hard to defend.
If my colleagues would refer to the floor chart again, we see by
graph what I illustrated in terms of actual numbers. It only includes
those States not covered by the minimum or maximum shares under the
proposed formula, so it avoids a skewed representation.
I make another point about this amendment because there is another
fund out of which the committee is able to allocate money, and it is
based on so-called earmarks. My change here, this amendment, this
formula change, does not in any way affect those earmarks. I make that
crystal clear to everybody. Their earmarks are not affected today or
tomorrow. They are totally outside the scope of this amendment.
Let me illustrate how the earmarks also work. There is only one State
that has double-digit millions of dollars in earmarks. That is the
State of Missouri, which receives $10.250 million in earmark funds, in
addition to the formula funds. My State, by the way, gets $1 million.
So there is a 10-to-1 ratio.
For those who say we even it out in the earmarks, no, it is not
evened out
[[Page S8637]]
in the earmarks. There are only three other States that received over
$5 million in earmarks: Maryland, Mississippi, and Arkansas. We have a
situation where not only does the formula discriminate but the earmarks
also discriminate.
We have and will hear the argument we should not be legislating on an
appropriations bill. After having complimented the chairman and ranking
member, I note they represent two of these four States. They are able,
in the committee, to ensure that their State is treated as they would
consider to be very fairly. However, they argue that those not on the
committee shouldn't be able to do anything on the floor of the Senate;
that would be legislating on an appropriations bill; we cannot do that.
Again, it is a catch-22. You have to be on the Appropriations
Committee; otherwise, if you are not on the Appropriations Committee,
don't offer an amendment on the floor or they will come to the floor
and say they will stick together and urge their colleagues to vote
against this amendment because it would be legislating on an
appropriations bill. Again, a catch-22 situation.
Last year, I was on the Appropriations Committee, I voluntarily left,
so I guess I can't complain, but I didn't think I would be treated
unfairly as a result of leaving the committee. This boils down to a
matter of unfairness. Every one of my colleagues, I know, has only the
best interests of both their constituents and the country at large in
their mind. But nobody wants to give up an advantage. If you are
inadvertently given $100 in change from a clerk who should have given
you $10, do you keep the $100? Most would say no. It is similar here.
The allocation of funds boils down to fairness and honesty. I defy
anybody in this body to tell me there is a more equitable distribution,
a more equitable fashion to distribute these funds than on the basis of
a proportional share of the total validated need as determined by EPA.
I don't ask anything more than a fair share of funding for the people
of Arizona, my State, and for all other Americans.
As I said, mine is not the only State that is adversely affected. In
fact, a majority of the States are adversely affected by the unfair and
outdated formula that is in the bill today. Using the simple needs-
based formula that I proposed, 27 States and the District of Columbia
will receive more than they are currently receiving--not their total
percentage share but at least more than they are receiving now. Using
this formula, all but three States receive, at a minimum, their exact
proportion of share of total need.
This is a very fair way to make an adjustment. Ordinarily, you have
to take away from half and give to the other half. This formula works
in such a way that very few States could argue they are being
shortchanged. In the case of those States, they have simply been
receiving far too much in comparison to what EPA has said their needs
are. Two of the three States I noted subjected to the cap in the
formula will still receive substantially more than they do under the
current system.
It is time to do something to rectify what I think is a gross
disparity that impacts the health and welfare of so many of our
citizens. I ask my colleagues to recognize the inequity and join me in
supporting a reasonable reformulation that takes into account both the
aging systems in the East and the growing infrastructure needs in the
West that have been driven by this population shift over the last 30
years.
I close by talking just a little bit about the way the committee has
legislated on an appropriations bill because we will hear we cannot do
that, and also to talk directly to some of my colleagues on the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
I note the distinguished chairman of the committee is here. I
complimented him--I don't know if he was here--on his, I think,
publicly expressed but certainly privately expressed desire to take up
in his committee later this fall the reauthorization of the underlying
legislation which is very sorely needed. I applaud the Senator for
that. Obviously, there is no commitment to take up the formula or to
change the formula, and it will be too late for the fiscal year 2000
funds which, again, will fall far short of what is needed and will be
unfairly distributed.
Before anyone votes no on this amendment because Members think it is
an inappropriate vehicle, think for a moment about what happens to the
fiscal year 2002 funds that we are appropriating if the necessary
authorization bill is not passed in time to affect the allocations. I
suspect my colleague from Vermont will confirm that would be a tall
order to get a formula changed, done in time, and signed into law to
affect the appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
Back to the question of legislation on an appropriations bill.
Ordinarily, we shouldn't do something dramatically different on an
appropriations bill than the appropriators have put in the bill. But it
is not true that the amendment is outside of the norm of what we do.
Let me focus attention on just a section of the State and tribal
assistance grants, which is where we find the funding for the State
clean water revolving fund. In other words, you do not have to go very
far afield. You can stay right in the same section and find out that we
have legislated on an appropriations bill.
On page 76, line 3, I see we are providing funding:
. . . for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under
section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended,
except that notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the Safe Water
Drinking Act, as amended, none of the funds made available
under this heading in this Act, or in previous appropriations
Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator for health
effects studies on drinking water contaminants.
On page 76, line 21, grants specified in the Senate report
accompanying this Act are provided:
. . . except that, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the funds herein and hereafter appropriate under this
heading for such special needs infrastructure grants, the
Administrator may use up to 3 percent of the amount of each
project appropriated to administer the management and
oversight of construction of such projects through contracts,
allocation to the Corps of Engineers, or grants to the
States.
And on page 78 line 4:
Provided further, That no funds provided by this
legislation to address the water, wastewater and other
critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United
States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made
available to a county or municipal government unless that
government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or
other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the
development or construction of any additional existing
colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia
[or] the construction of any new home, business, or other
structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary
infrastructure.
So that is pretty heavy duty legislating, I would say. It comes
straight out of the appropriations bill before us, in fact the exact
same section I am attempting to amend.
Basically what we are saying is the Appropriations Committee can
amend and legislate when the bill is before the committee, but the rest
of the Senators are denied that opportunity when the bill comes to the
floor.
As I said, as a general rule it is probably a good thing to let most
of the work be done by the committee. But in a case such as this where
there is so much disparity, so much unfairness, and where we have not
been able to get the authorizers to do this reauthorizing
notwithstanding many years of effort, I think we have to take the
opportunity that lies before us.
Mr. Fitzgerald from Illinois, Mr. Brownback from Kansas, and Mr.
McCain are all cosponsors of this amendment and they and some other
Members would wish to speak on this amendment. But at this point, since
I see the distinguished ranking member from Missouri here and the
chairman of the authorizing committee, I will yield the floor to them
for their comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to
respond to the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona, mixed
emotions because, No. 1, I could not agree more with the emphasis he
has put on the need for clean water, safe drinking water, and proper
water infrastructure in this country.
One of the most important things we do on this committee is to get
the money that we need to assure healthy water--healthy wastewater
systems and healthy drinking water systems
[[Page S8638]]
throughout this country. When we look at the needs for water
infrastructure, they are overwhelming. We have an annual shortfall of
funding of about $12 billion per year for clean water. Over the next 20
years it is estimated we are going to need $200 billion in water
infrastructure. That excludes operation and maintenance.
We, the distinguished chair and I, have fought every year to increase
the amount of money set out by OMB. We have always said the President
is underfunding water, but we all know OMB represents the bad guys.
They have always decided to cut the money going to the State revolving
funds to fund other priorities. So each year we have taken the
inadequate--grossly inadequate--funds for State revolving funds for
water infrastructure and increased them. We have increased them because
even with the increases we have been able to include, we are falling
far short.
I do not think there is any other environmental program which has the
potential to have more impact on the health of this country than
assuring clean drinking water, safe drinking water, and cleaning up
wastewater. If we do not do those jobs well, we will have failed in the
most basic health requirements for our country.
I have heard, in every area of this country, the cries for more water
infrastructure. There is not a community in this country, I do not
believe, urban or rural, that does not have tremendous funding needs to
upgrade water and sewer systems: Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Safford,
AZ. We all need it. It could be Delaware--the whole State could use
some. I know because this is a broad-scale problem. I appreciate the
Senator from Arizona raising it to the level of bringing it to the
floor because I have been adamant, demanding of our ranking member on
EPW and our chairman of EPW that they focus on water problems. I am a
humble toiling servant of the EPW committee, and I have said we have to
have water issues high on our agenda. It has been too long since we
have dealt with the Clean Water Act.
Certainly the funding formula ought to be one component of that
review because we have tremendous water needs throughout our country.
Whether it is east coast, west coast, the Great Plains, the South, the
North, we have water needs. That is why I am glad he brought it up.
The other part of the emotion is it is the wrong place. I am sorry,
but we cannot deal with reviewing a complicated formula as part of an
overarching programmatic review that is needed on the entire water
issue on this appropriations bill.
We come to the floor and we have just now received an amendment. The
amendment says that its proportional share, if there is a minimum of
.675 percent and a maximum of 8 percent but the State proportional
share is greater than the minimum, then they shall receive 97.5 percent
of the proportionate share.
If we fell below the minimum, if we really were way down and we fell
below a minimum somehow, then we would be shut out. What happens to
those who fall below the minimum? What happens to those who are above
the maximum? How do you calculate the proportionate share?
These are all issues that ought to be worked out in a committee
markup. They are complicated issues. I have questions that I could
debate all day long on how to make this formula work. I do not want to
do that in this Chamber. I don't think we have time to do that here. I
would like to have my staff spend time, working on a bipartisan basis
with the staffs of both sides, with the EPA, with the others who are
knowledgeable, to figure out how this works, getting input from the
States and the localities that receive the funds to see how it works.
Then I can turn in anger and disgust to a staff member if they cannot
explain it to me.
Right now we are looking at something that I think has great
problems. For that reason, among many others, I say, please, let's take
this to the authorizing committee.
If the author of this amendment had come to me last year or the year
before or the year before or the year before, I would have been more
than happy to sign on to a bill that says let's update this formula. I
would be happy to sign on. And I have supported broader measures that
said let's deal with this whole problem and figure out how we are going
to meet the $200 billion water infrastructure needs over the next 20
years. This is a vitally important matter for human health.
We talk about a lot of things that have only that much, that tiny
impact on the health of our country. We spend so much time debating
things that are about a gnat's eyebrow worth of difference, if we do
this or do that.
What we are talking about now is something that makes a huge
difference, that makes a difference between whether communities are
healthy, whether the children, the older people, the people who are
sick, who are needy, are getting healthy water. Are the people in that
community subject to the disease that comes from untreated wastewater?
These are vitally important questions that need to be referred to the
committee.
I know the new chairman of the committee has put this issue at the
top of his agenda. I know EPA is currently working on a needs survey
for clean water funding.
I understand the survey will be completed in early 2002. I would love
to get in the middle of the debate over how we utilize these SRF funds.
I would like for the authorizing committee to send a clear signal to
OMB, to our Budget Committee, and to the Appropriations Committee that
we need more money in State revolving funds, or find another means of
funding them, because we are falling far behind.
I appreciate very much this significant issue being raised. I know if
I were in Arizona I would want to have a good water infrastructure
myself because you get thirsty out there in the heat. But this,
unfortunately, as the Senator so well surmised, is not the place, this
is not the time, and this is not the vehicle. I wish him well in some
other venue. I will be a strong supporter trying to help him get it
done.
I urge and plead with my colleagues to recognize the importance of
the issue he raised but to vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to say that the way the opposition to
my amendment was delivered by the distinguished Senator just proves yet
again why he is such an effective Member of this body and such a great
representative of his State and the constituents of the whole country.
He has in some sense agreed that we need to do something, but makes an
argument, which he indicated last night he would have to make, in
opposition to the amendment. I appreciate that fact. But I don't think
one could ever ask for an opponent to an amendment who has more
graciously expressed his views. I want to let the distinguished Senator
from Missouri know that I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as was pointed out, I am chairman of the
committee that has jurisdiction over this matter. I appreciate the
Senator from Arizona bringing to the attention of this body the
seriousness of the freshwater problems that we have in this country.
When I became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure
that the Federal Government meet its responsibilities to assist
communities in meeting their drinking water and waste water
infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of our ranking member,
Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun to
investigate proper procedures to ensure that every community in this
country has good freshwater and is able to dispose of their waste
water.
I think it is important that we discuss this, and it has been brought
up. But I would have to object very strenuously to the amendment. It is
under the jurisdiction of our committee, and we are dedicated to trying
to help make sure that we have better quality water and the quantity of
funds available for making sure that we improve our freshwater system.
I have to object to the amendment on the basis that it is under the
jurisdiction of my committee. But I will certainly do all I can to work
with the Senator from Arizona as we move forward in the process of
developing a better system.
[[Page S8639]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me also acknowledge the comments of the
Senator from Vermont. They are very welcome. I appreciate the fact that
the authorizing jurisdiction lies within the committee that he chairs,
and that in the ordinary course of events he is absolutely right; the
formula should be modified when the act is reauthorized under his
committee. There are reasons why we make exceptions to that.
Sometimes in the U.S. Congress, the exceptions prove the rule. There
are frequent times when we don't do the work in the authorizing
committee but rather do it on appropriations bills. In fact, every one
of my colleagues--including, I am sure, the distinguished chairman of
the committee--will acknowledge that on more than one occasion we have
ground our teeth and said it looks as if the authorizing committees are
no longer relevant around here; that the appropriators are taking the
jurisdiction from us and are making all of the decisions. It is
probably a bit of an exaggeration, but I am sure every one of us has
felt that at times.
I certainly appreciate the concerns expressed by the chairman of the
committee, who has to protect his committee's jurisdiction. I
absolutely understand that. As I said, in the normal course of events,
I wouldn't disagree with him at all, as a member now of several
authorizing committees, having gotten off of the Appropriations
Committee. But we are in a situation today where I think almost
everybody will acknowledge that the formula is unfair, and yet we
haven't been able to get a reauthorization of this act since its
inception in 1987. That is not the fault of the distinguished chairman.
But the fact is, it is very difficult to ever change formulas once
they are in place because of the opposition of the Senators who
perceive that they would be losing under the formula. Let me turn to a
chart that I think will also make the point.
Under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain legislation, some States will lose
some of the windfalls that they have been receiving. But every State
except three, as I have pointed out, still does very well. If you look
in the far corner, there is a State that is pretty much above every
other State. The line for New York State is way up here. It is true
that under our amendment it would be brought down to here. But every
other State else in the formula is down here.
While it is true that there are States that will lose--and New York
State, I confess to my colleagues from New York, will lose funding
under this act. They have been getting a windfall for a number of
years. That must be a testament to their great work before the
committee. And I suspect a former Senator from New York also had a
little something to do with that.
My point is, yes, there are a few States that will lose funding
because they have been getting too much, and almost all of the other
States that are within this minimum-maximum range are way down here. I
don't think one can say it is unfair.
With respect to the comment that my colleague from Missouri made,
that is a complicated formula. I want to make it very clear exactly
what we are talking about because it is the epitome of simplicity.
Three factors. In accordance with the wastewater infrastructure needs
survey, what does EPA recommend?
You get 97.5 percent of the funds that are available. There is a
minimum and a maximum. The minimum is 1.675, and the maximum is 8.0.
It couldn't be simpler. We have available a chart that shows exactly
the dollars and percentages--which States receive more, which States
receive less, and how the earmarks relate to that. We don't affect the
earmarks in any way. The earmarks are untouched. The 2002 earmarks are
indicated on this particular chart.
I don't think the formula is at all complicated. I don't think it
takes a lot of work to figure out how you fared under the amendment.
I also note that while the Senator from Missouri was concerned about
States that receive the minimum amount, actually we shouldn't be
concerned about the States receiving the minimum because, according to
the survey, they actually would receive less money than that but we
guarantee that all States receive a minimum amount. They actually end
up receiving more percentage-wise than they should based upon the
recommendations.
I think it is a very fair formula. It is very similar to other
formulas that we have. We already have a similar kind of formula with
respect to drinking water under the same act. The EPA makes a
recommendation. We have a formula that allocates funding based upon
those recommendations.
I think, A, it is fair; B, the minimum States are protected; and, C,
you can see that only a few States that have been receiving what I
would refer to as windfalls are going to be rather substantially
reduced. Everyone else is reduced only a small amount. There are a few
States that actually increase a fair amount. That is, frankly, because
of the fact that they have been significantly shortchanged in the past.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to relate a few of the
statistics.
The distinguished Presiding Officer represents the State of Delaware,
which is currently receiving $6.7 million but would receive $9.1
million under the formula.
Let me start at the top. We all know California is a fast-growing
State. It is slated to receive $97 million under the current
allocation. It would receive $108 million under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-
McCain amendment.
I think the State of Illinois has been significantly shortchanged
probably more than any other State. It received $61 million. According
to the allocation, it should receive $108 million. It would gain $48
million.
I think for the citizens of Illinois, it is just unconscionable that
it has fallen that far behind.
The State of Ohio similarly has been receiving less.
The State of New Jersey, which is receiving $55 million, would
receive almost $75 million--about a $21 million increase.
This just illustrates the point. I could go on down the list.
Next is Pennsylvania, which is receiving $54 million but would
receive $61 million. The State of Florida receives $46 million; it
would receive $55 million. The State of Indiana receives $32 million;
it would receive $50 million.
You can see how there are States that are really significantly below.
Just in the spirit of full disclosure, going down to my own State of
Arizona, it receives $9 million; it should be receiving $22 million.
My point is, there are a lot of States that are way behind what EPA
thinks they should be receiving. There are a few States that are way
ahead of what they should be receiving. But as I said, only three
States will actually receive less as a result of our amendment. Let's
see if I actually have those States listed.
All but three States will receive, at a minimum, their exact
proportionate share of total need. And two of them subjected to the cap
in the formula will still receive substantially more than they do under
the current system
Mr. President, there are other Members who would like to speak to
this amendment. I promised them they would have the opportunity. At
least two of them are tied up in the Commerce Committee, which I assume
is going to be done with its business pretty soon. So I would like to
have an opportunity for them to speak. But I also note the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is in this Chamber.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to table the pending amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator withhold? I want to speak. I also
understand there are two other Members who wish to speak. Will the
Senator withhold because I understand the other Senator from Arizona
wishes to speak?
Mr. KYL. That is correct.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator makes his motion to table, does that
terminate the debate? I ask the Senator, in the spirit of----
Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my motion to table at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators because last night
[[Page S8640]]
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, said he would be here at 10:30 this
morning, ready to offer his amendment and ready to debate it and line
up his speakers. He really met that commitment. We thank him for
honoring that commitment.
Also, he made it very clear last night that the other Senator from
Arizona wished to speak. We want to be able to accommodate him because
I think we have been moving along in a spirit of comity. I would just
ask the proponent of the amendment if we could encourage those speakers
to come to the Chamber. My remarks will not be of a prolonged nature.
If the two Commerce Committee Senators could come over, I believe we
could have this amendment wrapped up before lunch and, I think, would
be moving in a well-paced way.
Again, we want to keep the kind of atmosphere of civility that has
set the tone of the bill. If everyone would notice, there has not even
been a quorum call. So I am ready to make my remarks. We would then go
to those two other colleagues to speak.
I ask the Senator, are they coming?
Mr. President, we are going to have a little quorum call, just for
clarification.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Arizona
for proposing his amendment and moving with a promptness that is
appreciated by both Senator Bond and I. I acknowledge the validity of
many of the concerns that the Senator from Arizona raises.
When you have a State such as Arizona, that certainly is growing in
population, and you find out you are down on a list of Federal funds,
it is, indeed, troubling.
I also acknowledge the fact that the Nation is facing a clean water
funding crisis. It is estimated that we have an annual funding
shortfall for clean water infrastructure of at least $12 billion. I can
honestly tell the Senator that if I gave $1 billion to every State in
the Union over and above what is in our bill, it would be well used
because it is needed.
We have heard about water problems from failing septic tanks in the
Delmarva region that you and I represent, where the rural poor really
do not have the bucks to do it. We have heard about the big failing
water systems in the Chicagos and the Baltimores, where they were built
over 100 years ago, and it is beyond the scope of this Appropriations
Committee to deal with it.
We need full-scale authorizing hearings on the needs for America's
water infrastructure--both the needs and the formula. So I acknowledge
that this is a big deal and a big problem.
There is not a community in this country--urban or rural--that does
not have some important funding need related to water, whether it is
from Baltimore to St. Louis to Stafford or Scottsdale, AZ. However, I
must say, Senator Kyl's amendment is outside of the scope of the VA-HUD
bill. I truly believe, because it is a formula change, that it will
trigger essentially a water war on the VA-HUD bill.
This is, indeed, an authorizing issue and should be addressed by the
authorizers in comprehensive water infrastructure legislation.
Last night we had an excellent discussion on the issue of arsenic. We
all agreed that arsenic is a problem. We all agreed that complying with
the Federal mandate on arsenic will also be a problem. So our
colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, offered an
amendment for authorizing on funding. We thought that was an excellent
way to go and, wow, suddenly you had a Domenici-Mikulski-Schumer-
Clinton-Bond--an amazing list of cosponsors. The message of that was
not only that arsenic is a problem, but, like last night when we talked
about it, how do we pay for these water issues?
What we have done--again, working on a bipartisan basis--the VA-HUD
bill does not break new ground on environmental issues. We essentially
broke no new ground, whether it was on enforcement, whether it was
reallocating from sewers to State revolving funds, and so on. We
essentially kept the framework from last year to get the President to
put his arms around it, to get our new EPA Administrator to put her
arms around it, to then look at what EPA should be and what are some of
the new changes we need to make.
We think we have gotten off to a good start. Because this is a year
of transition, both within the executive branch and also within this
subcommittee, that was the framework we approached, so that we could be
prudent, that we would not lurch ahead in either the executive or
legislative branch and make mistakes that we would have to then go back
and evaluate.
As my colleagues know, often on environmental issues, we end up with
either unfunded mandates or, in some instances, unintended consequences
to what seems to be a good idea.
The new chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
believes that water should be at the top of his agenda. He is here
today to speak on that. EPA is currently working on a needs survey for
clean water funding. This should be done early in the next calendar
year.
I cannot support the Kyl amendment until the authorizers have had an
opportunity to examine the needs survey and we have the very important
census data related to growth that the Senator from Arizona has talked
about. We all acknowledge that Arizona has grown, but we want to have
more data on that. Then we need to have recommendations on how to
clearly allocate our clean water.
There is also another issue with the actual formula that the Senator
is proposing. It is going to be a little geeky here so stick with me.
This amendment would require EPA to allocate the fiscal year 2002
clean water State revolving fund appropriation to the States using an
allocation formula for the drinking water State revolving loan fund.
Remember, we have two revolving loan funds: one for clean water and
the other for drinking water. You might say: Why is that such a big
deal? Dirty water is dirty water, and why not commingle the formulas?
This is really inconsistent with the Nation's wastewater and clean
water needs. Drinking water systems and wastewater systems are
fundamentally different. They deal with two different problems. They
focus on different pollutants. Wastewater systems concentrate on
removing pollution that deteriorates our rivers, lakes, and our bays--
the Chair is familiar with it--the nitrogens, the phosphorous. That is
why we have those problems on the Chesapeake Bay.
The drinking water system removes pollutants and treats water to make
sure it is safe to drink. One, we are drinking it; and the other drops
it into the big drink like the Chesapeake Bay --two different things
and two different kinds of pollution.
When we get our drinking water, we are not dealing with phosphorous
and nitrogen and those issues with which we have had to deal.
In addition, the wastewater systems need to address shortcomings from
the past, such as combined sewer overflows. Anyone from the city knows
that this combined sewer overflow and the sanitary overflows are really
big issues. There is no parallel to those issues in the drinking water
systems. You can see how they are different. Then to use the same
formulas, it gets to be a problem.
Also, this amendment has another fundamental flaw. It references a
water infrastructure needs survey to be conducted under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. EPA has advised the committee today that no such
survey exists. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean
Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act.
We are going to get lost here. We don't want to get lost on the
Senator's needs or what we want to accomplish. This shows exactly why
this is the wrong place to offer this amendment. It is so complicated.
We have needs surveys. We have formulas. We have safe water. We have
clean water. We have drinking water. We have dirty water. We have
wastewater. We need to be clear that the formulas are based on the
problem to be addressed as well as on population.
[[Page S8641]]
Section 2 of the Senator's amendment is unclear. The Agency would be
at a loss on how to calculate the formula given this direction.
The needs for surface water quality projects differ geographically
from drinking water projects. For example, some communities are served
by central drinking water systems, but there is no municipal wastewater
system. In another circumstance, a community may have a minor drinking
water problem but might have a terrible or significant combined sewer
overflow or a sanitary sewer overflow. As a result, surveying the
construction needs of drinking water systems has no connection to the
wastewater treatment system in the same community.
The Presiding Officer was a Governor. I am sure he follows that. But
most of all, local government follows it.
Which brings me to another issue: Changes of this magnitude applied
here with such scant notice would severely disrupt State programs.
States must plan ahead. They have to use an expected range of
capitalization grants for planning purposes. You have to know what you
are going to get and when you are going to get it. Changes of the size
implicit in the amendment would stop the State CWSRF, the clean water
State revolving fund, loan programs for a significant period of time.
This means that States would have to scurry around, prepare new
intended-use plans, hold public hearings, try to get their bond issues
straightened out.
As you know, States have capital budgets. We don't. Capital budgets
are based on what is going to come out of general revenue and what able
Governors take to the bond market. A lot of our water and sewer is done
on bonds, particularly at the local level.
This is going to wreak havoc in all States. I know the Senator's
intention is to get more money into some States. It will wreck havoc
even in his own State.
Keep in mind, we will not only have the loss of money but we will
have the loss of time. It will affect our drinking water as well as our
commitment to the environment.
The clean water State revolving fund addresses clean water needs
which are very different from drinking water. I have talked about that.
The use of the drinking water State revolving fund would misdirect
resources, resulting in a mismatch between the allocation of Federal
funds by States and by the State's needs.
I could go on: Who are winners, and who are losers.
The important thing is, when it comes to water, there should be no
losers. We all have our needs. We all have our problems. These formulas
were originally established to meet those needs.
Maybe there is the need to adjust those formulas. In every formula,
some States gain and some States do not do as well as they should.
Formulas are really complicated. They do approach the level of treaty
negotiations.
To try to do this on this bill would wreck havoc. It would trigger
Senators coming to see what they are going to get and what they are
going to lose.
The more prudent way would be for there to be some type of
instruction to EPA for evaluation. We would be happy to enter into a
colloquy with both Senators from Arizona. We would be happy to sign a
letter to the very able Administrator at the EPA outlining the concerns
the Senators have. But we don't think we should have this amendment. If
we pass this amendment, it is going to wreak havoc in the States with
their ability to administer their programs; it is going to wreak havoc
with the capital programs; it is going to wreak havoc with their bonds;
and, most of all, it is going to wreak havoc with, really, the
confusion that is going to come with using one formula for wastewater
and use it also for drinking water. We really encourage--because it is
not sound--this is not the place to enter into such a significant,
complex public policy debate with enormous consequences to our
constituents, to our communities, to our States and their ability to
meet their fiscal responsibility as well as their environmental and
public health stewardship. I am telling you, this is really the very
wrong place to do this amendment. I oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the
subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for laying out the concerns,
first, that the EPA has about it. I am relieved to see I was not the
only one confused by the formula. I tried to figure out how the formula
in section 2 would work, and I found a lot more questions than answers.
The EPA has advised us that they don't know how the formula would
work. That is why I said a few moments ago that on these complicated
items there needs to be substantive hearings. There should be hearings
on how the changes might affect existing water bonding issues, existing
water programs in the States. There should be hearings on how these
changes would affect the States where the needs are. Most important, we
need to sit down with all of the players and make sure we have a
formula that everybody understands and that works.
So I believe the EPA has given us the reasons that we described in
general about the problems in trying to adopt a significant change on
the floor. Having said that, I am very enthusiastically a supporter of
the suggestion the chair of the committee has made that we join either
in a colloquy, letters and instruction, first, to the EPA, to present
to us options for revising and updating the formula, if needed, for
both the drinking water revolving fund and the clean water revolving
fund and the one that deals with wastewater, to give us their best
assessment and to actually provide that to the Environment and Public
Works Committee so we will have something with which to work.
As I have said before, I am a most enthusiastic proponent of revising
these formulas and finding ways to put more money into this very badly
needed area, for investments for the future health and well-being of
our community.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues I very much
support the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are tremendous needs
throughout America and in our Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in
the southwestern region of Virginia.
This issue deals with wastewater and the need for cleaning up our
wastewater, where there are combined sewer overflow situations in
Lynchburg, Richmond, and other areas, as well as the Northern Virginia
area, which flows into the Potomac, which affects the Chesapeake Bay,
which is important to Virginia and the State of Maryland; and the
Chair's home State of Delaware has a few tributaries that flow into the
Chesapeake Bay. It is also important to Pennsylvania and New York,
which are also part of that watershed.
Now, again, I am very much in favor of all these ideas. The question
is: How do you meet the needs? In trying to determine how you meet the
needs for clean water, drinking water, and clean water as regards
wastewater treatment, you want to have a good, objective, up-to-date
determination of needs.
The drinking water allocations are based on EPA's recommendations.
There is a needs survey. But as I best understand it--and I may ask, in
a moment, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to join me to explain
this because some fellow Senators are saying they don't understand
this, and I want to have a better understanding.
The wastewater moneys are based on a 1970s population number and have
not changed since the law was passed in 1987, 14 years ago. As I
understand this formula change, what it attempts is to bring in
fairness and equity and address the needs for wastewater cleanup and
base the numbers on EPA's wastewater needs survey. So it is a similar
sort of logic and formula and survey that is used for drinking water
that we would want to use for wastewater.
It strikes me, regarding the matter of fairness, that a minority of
States in this proposal get way more than the percentage EPA recommends
under the current formula and a majority receive much less--mostly in
States that are growing faster. Regardless, everyone recognizes--and I
haven't heard anybody listening to the debate on the floor or in
between saying that the current formula is right--now is the time
[[Page S8642]]
to make sure the wastewater allocations, the taxpayer dollars, are
being utilized in a way that addresses the needs of the various States.
The formula change also does not affect the so-called earmarks. That
is separate and in a smaller pot of money. I ask the Senator from
Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if he will please take the floor and let me ask him a
few questions so we can clear up any misunderstandings that have been
proffered here by others who may not seem to understand this proposal.
I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The current plan, the current
allocation for wastewater moneys, is it a formula based on population
from the 1970 census?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, my staff
has tried to find out the basis for the current formula, and they have
had a very difficult time getting anybody to tell them what it is. We
have gone back in the debates, in the records, and so on. As best we
can tell, it is a formula that is based upon a construction grant
program using 1970s data, including population data. That is as clear
as I can be about it. I urge anybody--of course, I find it interesting
that those who are opposing the amendment do so on procedural grounds,
not defending the existing formula. I haven't found anybody to defend,
let alone explain, what the basis of the existing formula is.
Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I ask
the Senator from Arizona this: The formula he is proposing here,
though, is based, as he states, on needs, actual needs. How do you
determine those needs? What is the formula? What is the criterion by
which needs are addressed?
Mr. KYL. I appreciate that question from the Senator because there
has been, I think, a misunderstanding here. My understanding is that
EPA has at least two different ``needs surveys,'' as they call them.
They survey needs of communities for drinking water, and we use that
survey with a formula for the allocation of drinking water moneys in a
different place in this bill. They also do a survey for wastewater
needs.
It is my proposal that we use that survey as the basis for the
allocation of wastewater funds. Those are different surveys. We should
not confuse the two. We are not suggesting that we use the drinking
water survey for wastewater allocations. Leave the drinking water
survey for the drinking water allocations and use the wastewater survey
for the wastewater allocations.
It is further my understanding that each of these is redone every 4
years on a rotating basis.
In 2002, there will be the new 4-year wastewater treatment survey.
Two years ago, we had the most recent drinking water survey. So every 2
years, we have a new survey. One is for drinking water; one is for
wastewater. My concern is we will wait until the 2002 wastewater
survey, and then it will be at least fiscal year 2003, or later, when
it can be implemented, even if we are all in agreement to use that
survey. Clearly, we will be yet another year or even 2 years down the
road without having made the formula safe.
To summarize, the Senator from Virginia is correct. There are two
different needs surveys, one for drinking water and one for wastewater.
We are not using the drinking water survey; we are using the wastewater
survey. The formulas also differ slightly.
I believe there is a 1-percent minimum on drinking water for that
fund. In ours, it is a .675-percent minimum, 8-percent maximum, and
everybody else within that range receives 97.5 of what is available. It
is a very simple formula and not dissimilar to the drinking water
formula, but it is not the same formula.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a
further question.
There was an assertion that this will affect some of the bonding and
expected amounts of money. The Senator is saying after the 2002
analysis, or the survey for wastewater monies, which is calculated on
an antiquated, outdated, inaccurate formula, there would be a change.
Even if nothing happened, even if the Senate does not act in a
farsighted, appropriate way and vote for the amendment, there still
would be changes in allocations to the different States anyway. Isn't
that correct?
Mr. KYL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. That is based on two
primary factors:
First, as both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from
Missouri have noted, they have fought very hard for increased funding.
One never knows. Each year, from one year to the next, we never know
what amount of money is going to be available; that is very true. It
would be folly for someone to count on a particular amount of money.
Second, as I said, we do not touch the earmarks. The earmarks come
from a separate pot, basically, if we want to simplify it. That comes
from a separate pot of money, and the committee can certainly do a lot
of adjusting within their earmark authority from year to year. We
cannot predict, obviously, from year to year what that would be.
So, yes, the Senator is correct. There are at least two bases, and
maybe others, for not knowing exactly how much money one is going to
get from one year to the next, even under the existing formula.
Mr. ALLEN. As far as that is concerned in bonding and hypothecating
expected revenues from the Federal Government, it is a risky business
for State governments or local or regional municipal waterworks anyway.
As I understand it, the Senator is trying to make sure we are
allocating scarce taxpayer resources; we are making a priority.
Obviously, on drinking water--and that is not affected by this--in the
wisdom of the Senate, the House, and the Federal Government, they
said--before the Presiding Officer and I were in the Senate, but it
made sense--let us make sure the money is getting to those who need it
the most.
The same logic is applied in the measure of the Senator from Arizona,
as far as wastewater is concerned, which is very important for
recreation, for water treatment and, obviously, for our enjoyment and
health.
It seems to me the Senator from Arizona is moving forward, making
sure, when the survey is done next year, it will utilize a needs
assessment, not outdated population figures that are 20 or 30 years
old, and making sure we are getting the funds to the areas that need it
the most.
Most tributaries do not just flow out of one State; they start in one
State and sometimes travel through several others. For example, as I
mentioned, Delaware: Folks from Delaware say everything flows into the
Atlantic Ocean or towards the oceanside. Some of the rivers or streams
will flow through Maryland into the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, if there
is some waste coming from a stream that--and I am sure there would not
be too much, but there can be from time to time, as we all know, on the
Delmarva peninsula. But the point is, if one is cleaning it up on the
riparian areas of the river in Delaware, that helps Maryland and that
helps Virginia as well.
Sometimes we look at it on a State-by-State basis. The Colorado River
flows, obviously, out of Colorado through Utah, through Arizona,
through a part of or at least the border of Nevada and California. The
Potomac River actually starts some of the tributaries in Virginia, goes
through West Virginia, obviously through Maryland, and obviously on the
banks of Virginia. The same with the Missouri, the Mississippi, the
Ohio, the Kanawa, the Cheat--all sorts of rivers go through many
States.
I ask the Senator from Arizona one final question: What would he say
is the most salient point in how his proposal would more accurately
reflect the actual wastewater treatment needs of this country than the
old formula that is admitted by all to be outdated and wrong? How would
his proposal, in the most salient way, make it a more accurate
determination and allocation of scarce funds to the actual needs of
wastewater cleanup?
Mr. KYL. I will answer the question of the Senator from Virginia by
simply saying it is based upon EPA recommendations. We know growth
States, population changes, account for a big part of the increased
needs.
The Senator is also correct that there are some other localized
factors, including waterways, the existence of waterways and other
factors that bear on this. That is why I note that States that have
been significantly underfunded include a big growth State such as
California and the State of Illinois.
[[Page S8643]]
I just do not understand why Illinois has been so drastically
underfunded. Ohio, maybe that is because both Ohio and Illinois have
substantial waterways, as the Senator from Virginia does.
New Jersey is another State that has been woefully underfunded. Yet
it is not as big a growth State as California or my own State of
Arizona.
Indiana is another State that is underfunded. It could be that series
of rivers in the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois area. I cannot explain why
the EPA recommends exactly what it recommends and, in comparison to the
existing formula, why some States are so much out of skew. One general
reason is that of population growth. There are others, as the Senator
has pointed out.
The main reason this formula makes sense is EPA looks at all of this,
applies a needs-based test, makes the recommendations, and those are
the recommendations that we plug into the formula.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting the Senator from Arizona. I think it is the
Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.
It is a matter of fairness. It is addressing actual needs, and there
is a reason population would be more of a concern, because as
population increases, obviously there may be a corresponding increase
in wastewater treatment needs.
I conclude by saying I urge my colleagues to use objective standards.
Do not use politics but look at objective needs to clean up the
wastewater in this country.
I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for spending this
amount of time and effort to try to correct this inequity. It seems to
have been around for several decades, and this is the time to act. Who
knows when we will have another chance, the way the Senate moves.
Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this amendment. It will be good for the water in
their States and the water throughout the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reiterate before a fellow Bay Senator
leaves the Chamber, EPA has informed me why this amendment has a
fundamental flaw. The amendment references a wastewater infrastructure
needs survey to be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No such
survey exists, according to EPA. The wastewater needs survey is
required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act. I
wanted to make that point.
I have a question for the Senator from Arizona. I know he has put a
lot of work into trying to develop this formula, but I really wanted to
bring to his attention what EPA has apprised me of, and I think we need
to check that. I know the Senator likes to always operate off the basis
of fact.
The EPA says the agency would be at a loss as to how to calculate a
formula given this direction. So there is no needs survey on which to
calculate it. We are getting ``section this of that act'' and ``section
that of that act,'' et cetera, which is why we need this in an
authorizing bill and not on an appropriations bill. I do not dispute
the Senator believes this--I want to share this information with him.
I suggest the absence of a quorum to share this information with the
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORZINE). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl
amendment be temporarily set aside at the concurrence of the managers,
Senator Kyl and Senator Reid, and that when Senator Schumer offers his
amendment regarding the HUD gun buyback, there be 60 minutes of debate
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree
amendments in order to either the Kyl or Schumer amendments; that at
12:30 p.m. today, Senator McCain be recognized to speak with reference
to the Kyl amendment, with that time not charged against the time on
the Schumer amendment; that any time remaining after the time for
debate on the Schumer amendment be equally divided among Senators
Mikulski, Bond, and Kyl, with the understanding that Senator Fitzgerald
will have some of Senator Kyl's time; that at 1:55 p.m. today, there be
2 minutes for explanation prior to a vote in relation to the Kyl
amendment, to be followed by 2 minutes prior to a vote in relation to
the Schumer amendment, with the time equally controlled and divided in
the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that in case Senator
Kyl, in his original offer of amendments, cited the wrong statutory
section, he have the right to modify his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side. We believe this is an
appropriate accommodation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1231 to Amendment No. 1214
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside and we move to the Schumer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1231.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make drug elimination grants for low-income housing
available for the BuyBack America program)
On page 25, line 23, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount under
this heading, $15,000,000 shall be available for the BuyBack
America program, enabling gun buyback initiatives undertaken
by public housing authorities and their local police
departments''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Chair of the
VA-HUD subcommittee for her help on this amendment and for her general
help to this Senator, for which I am forever appreciative.
I rise to introduce an amendment to restore a valuable initiative to
reduce gun violence in the Nation's public housing authorities. The
amendment sets aside $15 million of the $300 million that we allocate
to the public housing drug elimination program for BuyBack America, a
gun buyback program to eradicate violence in our Nation's public
housing authorities. BuyBack America was introduced by the Department
of HUD in November, 1999. In the first year alone, it helped local
police departments in 80 cities take 20,000 guns off our streets. Guns
were bought back for around $50. The guns were taken in and then
destroyed.
Since the gun buyback policy was first introduced through New York
City's Toys for Guns programs in 1993--someone I have come to know, Mr.
Mateo, was the initiator--thousands of low-crime, underserved
neighborhoods have seized the opportunity to eradicate gun violence.
The program works. From Annapolis to Atlanta, from San Francisco to
Schenectady, it has helped raise gun control awareness and lower rates
of violence. However, HUD last week announced its plans to discontinue
BuyBack America. The program has been targeted as part of a campaign,
in my judgment at least, by the administration against any kind of gun
control, no matter how moderate, how rational, and how protective of
the rights of legitimate gun owners--which this program clearly is.
In fact, the President's budget this year zeroed out funding for the
entire Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which had been funded
through Senator Mikulski's leadership, and I know my colleague has been
involved as well, for which we thank him.
If we do not set aside a certain amount for gun buyback programs, it
will not be done by the administration,
[[Page S8644]]
given its unfriendly position toward even modest measures dealing with
taking guns away from kids and criminals.
So I ask that this amendment be supported. I, temporarily at least,
yield back my time with the right to come back later and speak further
on the amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I acknowledge the cooperation of the Senator working
with us. Before I speak on the amendment, I am going to inform the
Senator that we are scheduled to move his amendment aside at 12:30 when
those tied up in Commerce are coming over. Then we are scheduled to
come back to the amendment of the Senator, I believe, at quarter of 1.
I want to advise the Senator of that. I think he was dealing with a
very pressing New York need and did not hear the unanimous consent
agreement, though we had the cooperation of his staff.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. I will be back
at 12:45 to resume the debate.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Before he leaves, the Senator from New York should know
I am going to support his amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Once again, the Senator from Maryland hits a home run
for New York, Maryland, and America. Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, one of the things that occurred in the
VA-HUD budget as it came from the President was to eliminate $300
million for drug elimination in public housing.
The Presiding Officer's predecessor was one of the champions of that,
the distinguished former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. We
worked hands on, on many of the items. We think that $300 million in
drug elimination is a very important program.
At the same time as we have been saying to the Senator from Arizona
and others we are not going to break new ground in this bill because of
the transitions both of the executive branch as well as the legislative
branch, the committee has restored the $300 million in drug elimination
funds. We have restored that because we know we have to get drugs out
of public housing. We know we have to make sure, in getting the drugs
out of public housing, that public housing provides an opportunity to
be not only a way of life, but to lead to a better life.
We turned to the authorizers and we encouraged them to hold hearings
on what has the most efficacy, making sure public housing is neither a
slum landlord nor an incubator for drug dealing, and we encouraged them
to do that. The Schumer amendment mandates that we keep the gun buyback
program which Secretary Martinez would like to eliminate.
We think, again, it is the executive branch acting and so on. We need
conversation, again, on what is the most effective way to deal with
crime in our communities, gun violence in our communities. I have had
in the past several years the most gruesome statistics in Maryland. I
like being from a State of Super Bowl champions, and I love the show
``Homicide'' that was on, that was so terrific. But what I did not like
was the homicide rate. Thanks to Mayor O'Malley and Commissioner
Norris, we are bringing that down. But gun violence--we are like a war
zone.
The Schumer amendment would give our local police departments and our
public housing authorities the opportunity to operate a gun buyback
program using Federal dollars. But it is their choice. In other words,
the Feds do not say you must do it, nor do the Feds say you cannot do
it; it leaves it up to the local community whether they think it has
efficacy in that area. It might not work in every community. We do not
have that one-size-fits-all on how to deal with ending violence and
getting drugs out of public housing. But each city or county should
have the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program if it chooses.
Many public housing complexes function almost as small cities unto
themselves. They have their own police departments; they have their own
governing authority. They really are, in some instances, small towns.
We, of course, would like to make sure they have the sense of being a
village. They have unique needs, require special help and attention.
This program was started in 1999 during the Clinton administration.
It provided up to $500,000 for police departments around the country to
buy back and destroy weapons. During the first year of operation,
20,000 guns were taken off the street in 80 different cities.
The amendment gives our local police more resources in fighting
crime. We should not second-guess those local decisions on how to do
it. Whether it is the cops on the beat or gun buybacks, it will allow
the local authorities to do that. We must do everything we can to
protect our citizens who live in public housing and those who live
around public housing because everything that goes bad with public
housing goes bad with the neighborhood near public housing.
I support this Schumer amendment. I look forward to its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the opponent's
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the
subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for explaining why this is an
important but misdirected amendment.
First, I express my sincere appreciation to the chair of the
subcommittee for including in the bill the money that was zeroed out by
the administration for the drug elimination program. I worked with the
distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina several years ago to
include money for eliminating drugs in public housing because it has
been our heartfelt belief for a long time that we need to make assisted
housing--whether it be public housing or whether it be section 8
financed housing--the kind of housing where a mother, or mother and
father, would want to raise their children in a proper atmosphere.
Getting drugs out of public housing, making sure it is safe, is
probably one of the very first steps in addition to keeping the rain
out and keeping the cold out in winter. Making sure it is safe and drug
free is vitally important. I was very disappointed that the
administration zeroed it out.
We now have it back in the bill, and there is the flexibility in the
PHAs to use this money however they want. The amendment by the Senator,
my good friend from New York, would establish a $15 million set-aside
in the public housing drug elimination fund for the gun buyback
program. It is unnecessary because right now, if they wish to do so, a
PHA can use money for the buyback. It takes away the choice and the
decision from the local levels.
Local public housing authorities can conduct drug buy-back programs
under the drug elimination grant. The bottom line is it is not
mandatory. The PHA makes a choice, based upon its need to eliminate
crime and illegal drug activity, what is the best thing we can do in
this community to protect our friends and neighbors from drug crime.
That is a legitimate choice. I support that local choice, despite the
fact to my knowledge there is no evidence that gun buyback programs
actually reduce crime or illegal drug activity. They make people feel
good. It is a feel-good program.
But let me ask you, my colleagues. Let's apply a commonsense test.
Sometimes back home some of the things you hear on the street corner at
the place where you have breakfast make a whole lot more sense than
some of the very sophisticated things that we discuss up here. I was
talking to some of the guys out at the livestock market breakfast place
where I go out for breakfast every Saturday morning. They said: Tell
me. If you were a criminal and they had a gun buyback program, would
you go in and sell your gun to the gun buyback program?
I said: What do you mean? Say the cops or the PHA have a gun buyback
program. Rather than using my good gun to go out and make holdups, I am
going to get $5 for the buyback.
He said: No. You find an old gun that doesn't work, or you go out and
steal a few more guns. Say I have 15 or 20 guns that are inoperable,
outdated, and ineffective. I will trade them in. You know what I can do
with that money. I can either get drugs or buy some ammunition for my
good gun.
Ask the gang back home. Go to the town square and ask them. How many
[[Page S8645]]
criminals do you think are going to sell their guns to the buyback
program? They are going to tell you none, or fewer.
That is just common sense. I don't believe there is any evidence on
the other side.
Having that said, if PHA believes it will make everybody feel good,
and if they think it will help to use money for a gun buyback program,
go for it.
But I tell you it is one program that I just think doesn't meet the
commonsense test. It just does not make any sense to me.
I urge my colleagues to leave the discretion with the public housing
authorities and not seek to take money away from security needs, or
from other things, or from programs that have some questions about it.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy. I
know they appreciate the fact that we had a markup of some important
legislation this morning in the Commerce Committee. I apologize for any
delay that may have caused in completing this very important
appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator
from Missouri for their courtesy in not only allowing me to speak on
the amendment of my colleague from Arizona but also for allowing me to
propose my amendment.
I understand that it is the wish of the managers that it be laid
aside after I propose it, and then I would speak on it after 2 o'clock.
I ask the Senator from Maryland if that is the case.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona repeat his
question?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary
procedure is that at this time I will speak on behalf of the Kyl
amendment, propose my amendment, then ask that it be laid aside, and
that I would be allowed to speak on my amendment after the two votes at
2 o'clock.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, we have a very
complicated unanimous consent here to accommodate Senators. I wish to
bring to the Senator's attention that at about 5 until 2 we are going
to have two votes: one on Kyl and one on Schumer. Then we will be happy
for the Senator to send up his amendment. Maybe we will not be happy
with the Senator's amendment, but we will be happy for the Senator to
offer it.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Again, I express my appreciation for her accommodation. I know it is
difficult to accommodate each Senator who has a very busy schedule. I
thank the managers for their accommodation to mine.
amendment no. 1229
I rise to support my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a cosponsor of his
amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I believe this is a very
good amendment, one that is entirely appropriate to this bill as it
directly relates to a more fair distribution of Federal dollars for
water and wastewater infrastructure needs among the 50 States and
territories of our nation.
This amendment is simple--it will address a funding inequity in EPA
funding by applying the formula under the Safe Drinking Water Act
revolving loan fund to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund for
fiscal year 2002.
Why is this important?
For about 12 years, the EPA has managed a Clean Water State revolving
loan fund for capitalization purposes to construct water infrastructure
and related projects. The funds are distributed on a State-by-State
basis and utilized as seed money for State-administered loans for water
infrastructure needs. It operates as an important source of capital
with State flexibility to set their own priorities.
Back in 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to establish a
similar State revolving loan fund to address safe drinking water
infrastructure needs.
While these two operating loan funds are similar in intent, the Clean
Water revolving loan fund utilizes outdated information in its
allocation distributions. As my colleague, Senator Kyl, has noted, it's
very difficult to address the various States' growing needs when the
allocation formula is based on information relevant to the 1970's.
I would like to describe how my State has changed since the 1970s. We
have grown from a very small State in the 1970s with two Members of
Congress. As a result of the latest census, we are now a very medium to
a large State that will now have eight members of our congressional
delegation. Our State has grown, according to the 1990 to the 2000
census, in a 10-year period 40 percent--40-percent growth in a 10-year
period.
There has been similar growth in other States in the West. New
Mexico, Colorado, California, and a number of other States have grown
significantly--perhaps not percentage-wise as large as ours but
certainly in the case of numbers; Nevada has also experienced dramatic
growth.
What Senator Kyl and I are arguing here is that there needs to be a
reformulation to reflect demographic reality.
I want to point out what everyone who lives west of the Mississippi
knows. Water is more precious than gold. Water is the limiting factor
in the growth of our States in the West. Water is what will be and has
been the cause of major disputes throughout the West.
I believe Mark Twain said that in the West whiskey is for drinking
and water is for fighting. Mark Twain had it right because water is the
key factor in the ability of our States to sustain the growth and
maintain a lifestyle that allows people to choose to move to the West
and have the kind of lifestyle that they deserve. The formula has not
been updated to consider states with substantial growth or more recent
documented needs established by the EPA in its own analyses.
In contrast, the similar Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund has
been operating by the designated allocation formula under the 1996 Act
that required the EPA to allocate funding according to the agency's
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. While these two revolving
funds are substantially similar, only one uses updated and relevant
data. This is an unfortunate discrepancy and it should be fixed.
This amendment simply tries to fulfill the intended purpose of the
original Clean Water Act by allocating important Federal dollars on a
needs-based system that is current and valid to the States' identified
priorities.
Communities in my home State of Arizona have been frustrated by the
formula distribution inequity as their water and wastewater needs
continue to be underfunded and ignored. The Arizona State water
authority estimates it may have lost out on $250-300 million due to the
oversight in establishing a fair and updated formula. However, this is
not just about Arizona. It is about a majority of the States funded
through the current Clean Water revolving loan fund distribution
formula whom are facing the same disparities.
Unfortunately, the Clean Water Act has not been amended since 1987.
While authorization for the act expired in 1990, the programs under act
are continued by annual appropriations while the Congress continues to
work toward a comprehensive reauthorization.
In the meantime, Congress has circumvented the act by earmarking as
much as 30 percent of the general funds available for water and
wastewater needs for special interest projects through this
appropriations bill. Many of these funded projects are not authorized
in the Clean Water Act and do not abide by the funding distributions
process identified in the act.
This continuing earmarking process is not a practice favored by State
water quality officials, State infrastructure financing officials, or
by the EPA. Earmarking funds from the overall State revolving fund
decreases the amount available to other communities that desperately
need assistance. It undermines the intent of the State revolving loan
fund; it does not allow States to determine their own priorities; and,
it prolongs the wait for States to receive the necessary funds to
address their water needs.
In my review of the EPA section of this appropriations bill, I found
that one-fourth of the earmarks of the 180 earmarks included in the EPA
section are not targeted for States--but for
[[Page S8646]]
consortiums, universities, or foundations. How is this abiding by the
intent of the law?
While I disagree with the earmarking process and I hope that it
changes, I also understand that this amendment does not affect those
projects identified for funding in this bill under the current water
and wastewater accounts. We did that, with all due respect, because we
knew that if we affected any earmarking, we would remove whatever
chance we might have of adoption of this amendment. What it will impact
is the undesignated amounts of funding for the clean water revolving
loan fund to ensure a more fair and equitable distribution for this
coming fiscal year. This is particularly important as this VA-HUD
appropriations bill proposes to increase overall funding in this
account by $500 million, for a total of $1.35 billion.
With an estimated $300 billion needed over the next 20 years to fix
our existing water systems and build new ones, we simply cannot allow
this inequity to continue.
EPA's guidelines stipulate that the intent of the revolving loan fund
is:
To provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible
water quality projects for state revolving fund funding.
Let's remedy this problem and fulfill the intent of this important
act.
Mr. President, I would just like to mention my appreciation for
Senator Kyl's efforts on this issue. As many of my colleagues may know,
Senator Kyl's background in the legal profession was on issues of
water. I would put his credentials against those of anyone in this body
on this very important issue.
I already described earlier how important water is in the whole
future of the western part of the United States, particularly those of
us in the Southwest. Barry Goldwater, my predecessor, used to say quite
often, only half humorously: ``We have so little water in Arizona, the
trees chase the dogs.'' We have not reached that point yet, but the
fact is, what we do need, as in every situation where there have been
demographic changes--and in the Southwest and in the West there have
been profound demographic changes, as we all know, since the 1970s and
the 1980s--we just need to upgrade and modernize this formula.
We are not asking for a special deal for Arizona. We are not asking
for a special deal for any State. We are simply asking--and we are not
even affecting the present earmarking process, on which my views are
well known in this body--that an update year 2001 formula be
implemented so that everyone can receive funding according to the
greatest need, again, according to the guidelines that are stipulated,
``to provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water
quality projects for state revolving fund funding.''
I thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing forward what some view
as an esoteric issue in some respects but a vital issue--a vital issue
for all of those States that are now not being treated on an equal
basis--of our water supplies and projects.
So I thank my colleague from Arizona and urge my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to
the amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill offered by Senator Kyl.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am
the new Chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Through the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund provisions of this act, Federal
funding is provided to communities throughout the Nation to protect
water quality. Senator Kyl's amendment would significantly alter the
formula'' used in the ``SRF'' to allocate these federal funds among
States.
Last evening, in the debate related to arsenic, many Senators noted
the tremendous financial challenge that communities face in continuing
to provide clean, affordable drinking water. It is important to
recognize that these communities face an equally tremendous challenge
when it comes to keeping pace with the wastewater treatment, stormwater
management, and other types of water infrastructure they need to
protect water quality.
The Clean Water SRF was specifically designed to help communities
meet these water infrastructure needs. However, over the next 20 years,
the water infrastructure needs of our Nation are estimated to be as
much as $1 trillion--$1 trillion. The current annual level of funding
provided through the SRF--averaging roughly $1 billion per year--comes
nowhere near meeting needs of this magnitude.
Because these funds are so desperately needed by so many communities,
the Senate should proceed very cautiously when making changes to the
Clean Water SRF.
When I became the chair of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, I stated that one of my top priorities was to craft
legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meets its
responsibility to assist communities in meeting their drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of the now
ranking member, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has
already begun this process.
I am committed to continuing this effort, and I look forward to
working closely with Senator Smith, the chair and ranking member of our
Water Subcommittee, and other members of the committee and the Senate
as we move forward.
The Environment and Public Works Committee will carefully consider a
number of issues critical to meeting our national water infrastructure
needs as this legislation develops. Among these issues will be the
subject addressed by Senator Kyl's amendment--the allocation of money
to States through the Clean Water SRF.
We will be thoroughly studying the current ``formula'' used for
allocating Federal funds by this program and, if appropriate, we will
modify it to ensure it is fair and adequately serves the Nation.
As I mentioned previously, the tremendous water infrastructure needs
faced by our Nation--coupled with inadequacy of Federal resources
currently available to help communities meet them--demands that we
proceed cautiously.
I am concerned that changing the funding ``formula'' for the Clean
Water SRF in an appropriations bill, as we rush to complete Senate
business before August recess, is not such a cautious approach.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment,
and allow the Environment and Public Works Committee the opportunity to
craft legislation that reflects a carefully and thorough consideration
of the solutions to our Nation's water tremendous infrastructure needs.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the issue that my
distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought to the attention of
the Senate with his amendment, and that is the need to re-evaluate how
we distribute funding to the states under the Clean Water Revolving
Fund. The Senator is right. It appears that it has been a long time
since we took a hard look at where our most pressing infrastructure
needs are. And don't get me wrong, Montana looks like it would do very
well if Senator Kyl's amendment were to succeed.
But addressing the serious problems that exist with our Nation's
water and wastewater infrastructure is something that falls squarely
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works. This is an issue that needs the full time and attention of the
authorizing Committee. What is the most appropriate floor, or minimum
share for each state, because that's where Montana would fall. What is
the most appropriate ceiling? Again, I think this just is too important
an issue to address in a short debate over an amendment to an
appropriations bill. I understand that this is one of the issues
Chairman Jeffords plans to take up in the fall, and I will encourage
him to do that, because frankly, I agree with Senator Kyl that it's
high time we took a look at these formulas to make sure we are spending
our limited resources in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Amendment No. 1226, As Modified, To Amendment No. 1214
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this time I rise to offer an amendment.
I have a modification to my amendment. I believe it is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an
amendment numbered 1226, as modified to amendment No. 1214.
[[Page S8647]]
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, No. 1226, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce by $5,000,000 amounts available for certain
projects funded by the Community Development Fund of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and make the amount available for
veterans claims adjudication)
On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. 428. (a) Reduction in Amounts Available for Projects
Funded by Community Development Fund.--The amount
appropriated by title II under the heading ``Empowerment
Zones/Enterprise Communities'' under the paragraph
``community development fund'' is hereby reduced by
$5,000,000. The amount of the reduction shall be derived from
the termination of the availability of funds under that
paragraph for projects, and in amounts, as follows:
(1) $375,000 for the Fells Point Creative Alliance of
Baltimore, Maryland, for development of the Patterson Center
for the Arts.
(2) $150,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the
Heritage Trails project.
(3) $375,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School
of the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina.
(4) $50,000 for development assistance for Desert Space
Station in Nevada.
(5) $125,000 for the Center Theatre Group, of Los Angeles,
California, for the Culver City Theater project.
(6) $500,000 for the Louisiana Department of Culture,
Recreation, and Tourism for development activities related to
the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration.
(7) $225,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for
the development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams Park
and Zoo.
(8) $100,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode
Island, for historical renovation.
(9) $125,000 for the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, for
revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District.
(10) $150,000 for Studio for the Arts of Pocahontas,
Arkansas, for a new facility.
(11) $500,000 for the Southern New Mexico Fair and Rodeo in
Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for infrastructure improvements
and to build a multi-purpose event center.
(12) $500,000 for Dubuque, Iowa, for the development of an
American River Museum.
(13) $500,000 for Sevier County, Utah, for a multi-events
center.
(14) $50,000 to the OLYMPIA ship of Independence Seaport
Museum to provide ship repairs which will contribute to the
economic development of the Penn's Landing waterfront area in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(15) $250,000 for the Lewis and Clark State College, Idaho,
for the Idaho Virtual Incubator.
(16) $500,000 for Henderson, North Carolina, for the
construction of the Embassy Cultural Center.
(17) $50,000 to the Alabama Wildlife Federation for the
development of the Alabama Quail Trail in rural Alabama.
(18) $175,000 for the Urban Development authority of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Harbor Gardens Greenhouse
project.
(b) Increase in Amount Available for Veterans Claims
Adjudication.--The amount appropriated by title I under the
heading ``Departmental Administration'' under the paragraph
``general operating expenses'' is hereby increased by
$5,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available
for veterans claims adjudication.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
No. 1226 be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl,
Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire be added
as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. At this time I understand it is the wish of the managers
that I lay aside this amendment and that we debate it following the
votes that will take place beginning at 1:55.
Mr. REID. I did not hear the request.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be laid aside until following the votes that will take place at 1:55.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 1231
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains for
both sides on the Schumer amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the
opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. CRAIG. Could you repeat that? The sponsor has how much time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the
opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will now speak on the Schumer amendment,
and I will use such time as I might consume on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator may proceed.
Amendment No. 1231
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New York brings an
amendment to this Chamber--certainly, I think, with the most sincere of
intent--to set aside $15 million; in other words, to mandate the gun
surrender program that just a few weeks ago the Bush administration
announced it was terminating, largely because it does not work. So what
I thought I would do, for the next few moments, is sketch for us the
facts about gun surrender programs over the last several years and why
they do not work.
As we know, there is no mandate in the law. President Clinton and
Secretary Cuomo changed the description of the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program to allow public housing authorities to make grants
available for gun surrender initiatives. It is interesting that of the
1,000 housing authorities this change affected, only about 100 took
advantage of the program.
There is a peculiar reason they took advantage of the program. Very
early on, starting back in 1978, it became obvious gun surrender
programs were a great photo opportunity for local law enforcement and,
in some instances, certain housing agencies or groups. Never mind that
they did nothing to deter crime. In fact, they were not taking off the
streets guns being used in crimes. It was an opportunity to get rid of
some old guns, some antiques, something that filled your closet that
your granddad had given you that might not be worth anything and you
wanted to get rid of any way; and you did not know how to get rid of
it; and along came local law enforcement that said: ``We are going to
have a gun surrender program.'' So you take a gun down to the police
station and get $50 or $100 or $150 for it.
The guns turned in belonged to people who least likely were involved
in the commission of a crime. For example, senior citizens and spouses
who had inherited guns that may have been their husbands' who had
passed away were the ones most often who came to sell their guns.
Some guns turned in were the cheap handguns purchased, as the Senator
from Missouri mentioned, for the express purpose of selling them: You
go out on the street and buy a gun for $15 or $20 and sell it for $100.
Hey, let me tell you, folks are not stupid, they are going to play an
advantage if they can find one, and in many instances they did.
So let me give you a little history.
In 1978, when we first saw gun buyback programs, overall crime was
not significantly reduced in the 17-month period following the gun
buyback program in Baltimore, MD. I believe that was the first one, in
1978. Who reports that? The Comptroller General of the United States.
Then we look at the 1992 Seattle gun surrender program. It too
failed. It did not reduce gun injuries, deaths, or crimes. It didn't
save anyone from being victimized by crime. But it made for a great
photo opportunity.
In 1996, the program that collected the greatest number of guns, as
was mentioned, was the Baltimore program. Yet the rate of gun killings
rose 50 percent and gun assaults more than doubled while the program
was in effect. This was the largest gun surrender program ever
implemented, in terms of the number of guns purchased. Gun deaths shot
up 50 percent. And assaults more than doubled.
If you want politics and you want publicity, then gun surrender
programs are great. You can show tables covered with 15- or 20-year-old
guns that would never have been used in the commission of a crime. It
is a great photo op.
In 1998, according to the National Institute of Justice looked at
various crime fighting measures and asked, ``What doesn't work?'' Their
answer? Gun surrender programs. They failed to reduce violent crime in
even two more cities: St. Louis, and Seattle.
Many of us who live part time in this city saw the publicity that
went on and the very good-faith effort the Washington, DC, police made
in 1999 with
[[Page S8648]]
their gun surrender program. More than half of the 2,912 weapons bought
by the District of Columbia police for $100 were 15 years of age or
older, according to the District of Columbia police themselves.
The Senator from New York knows as well as I do that guns used in
crimes are typically 9-millimeter or .38 caliber semiautomatic pistols.
Those are the ones most often cited in crime reports that are used in
the commission of a crime. Such are not the guns collected by these
programs.
Gun surrender programs don't work. That is why the Bush
administration--the President, HUD Secretary Martinez--came forward and
said: This is a bad use of scarce resources. If we are interested in
making public housing safer--and we are--if we are interested in
getting drugs out of public housing--and we are--then the $15 million
the Senator from New York would waste on photo opportunities would
better be used in law enforcement efforts within public housing and
elsewhere.
What the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member of the
appropriations subcommittee, has said is that within the current law,
it is an option. In other words, if a housing agency wants to divert
some of its funds for a gun buyback, they can do so. But the reason
none of them do it is because they know it doesn't work. They know that
funds are limited, and they know that they can use their money
elsewhere to more effectively improve the safety of the citizens who
live within those housing units and the community at large.
That is why gun surrender programs are on the wane today, are no
longer popular, unless you are interested in a photo op. The facts are
out there. They don't work. In many instances, unless you have good law
enforcement on the street and you have let the criminal know that if he
uses a gun in the commission of a crime he is going to have to do time,
then the use of guns in the commission of a crime goes up. It has been
proven in Baltimore. It is clearly true in Seattle. I don't think it
changed the statistics in Washington, DC.
We did get a lot of old guns and some antiques out of the closets of
law-abiding citizens because it was a way for them to market them, in
some instances, for a great deal more than they might otherwise have
gotten for them.
With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of our time.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Schumer's amendment would, if
accepted, waste $15 million in taxpayer money on a program that has
proved to be a failure. This amendment has more to do with partisan
politics than sound public policy. In my view, we should not spend even
one red cent of taxpayer money for such purposes.
Housing, Urban and Development Secretary Mel Martinez was right to
terminate the gun buyback program. And he did so for a single, sound
reason: such programs do not reduce crime. I will cite just a few of
the conclusions reached by those who have examined these programs.
First, ``overall crime was not significantly reduced in the 17-month
period following the [Baltimore] buyback program.'' Report to the
Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, Handgun
Control: Effectiveness and Costs, 2/6/78.
In addition, gun buyback programs may encourage gun thefts, with the
Government serving, in effect, as a reliable fence for the stolen guns.
Such programs also give offenders a profitable way to dispose of
weapons used in crimes. Dr. Philip J. Cook, criminologist at Duke
University.
Finally, another study found that ``[1992] Seattle buy-back program
failed to reduce significantly the frequency of firearms injuries,
deaths, or crimes.'' Callahan, et al., ``Money for Guns: Evaluation of
the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program,'' Public Health Reports, July-August
1994.
Thus, this debate should not be about gun politics. It should be
about our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. If the
supporters of this amendment truly care about public safety, we should
spend the $15 million dollars on hiring additional police officers to
patrol high-crime public housing areas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I think I have 21 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, it is always a pleasure to debate with my good
friend from Idaho, Senator Craig. He makes very good but not persuasive
arguments, at least in my opinion.
Let me say a couple things about this issue. First, we all know about
methods of proof. Senator Craig is citing statistics: Crime went up
here, gun use went up here while there was a buyback program. I could
find just as many localities where crime went down while there was a
buyback program.
The bottom line is, the buyback programs mainly occur in cities where
there is lots of other factors going on, and no one can prove one way
or the other whether this works or doesn't work. You can't prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's use commonsense logic. Commonsense logic is, if a gun is not in
the hands of a family, a person who doesn't want it, isn't our society
likely to have less gun violence? It is very hard to prove that is
wrong.
Certainly, if you believe there is a moral imperative that everyone
have a gun, you are against this program. If you believe the way to
reduce law enforcement is to give every man and woman and child a gun--
there are some who believe that--oppose this amendment. But if you
believe gun owners have rights and Americans are entitled to have guns,
but there is also some danger to guns and that we should be careful,
why not have a program that says: If you want--you are not being
compelled--if you want to bring your gun back in and get $50 for it,
you can. It is perfectly sensible and logical to think that works.
I don't want to oversell this program. It is not a panacea. We have
not put hundreds of millions of dollars in but merely 15. In the eyes
of most people who should know, it has worked.
Let me quote the mayor of Houston in the State of Texas, hardly a
State and a city known for its strong advocacy of gun control. Mayor
Lee Brown was the former police commissioner of New York City so he has
a great deal of law enforcement background:
Having spent my career in law enforcement, I recognize that
gun buybacks are a very effective way of reducing the number
of guns in circulation.
This has worked all over the country. In Lexington, KY, 1,517 guns
were purchased; Toledo, OH, 1,050; Atlanta, 838. We can talk about
criminals and kids going out and using the guns. What about accidents?
If a family doesn't want a gun in a home and doesn't know how to
dispose of it, doesn't allowing them to go to their local police
precinct and have the gun bought back help?
Let's not debate theology here. I would be happy to debate theology,
and I did with my good friend from Idaho in many different areas in
terms of guns. But this is not a theological issue unless you are part
of that small band who believe that the best thing that can happen to
America is everyone should have a gun. I don't. I am sort of agnostic.
I don't think we should take away everybody's gun, and I don't think we
should give everybody a gun. I think we should let law-abiding people
make their own decisions. But the very logic that my good friend from
Idaho uses: let people make their own decisions, is gainsaid by this
amendment.
Let's say somebody has bought a gun and wants to get rid of it. Why
not? I don't understand the logic of the opposition. I do understand
the opposition.
Let me say to my colleagues that the Bush administration, very
quietly but really, has begun a campaign to roll back the moderate,
sensible measures that we have had to keep guns out of the hands of
children and criminals, not just in this issue. Attorney General
Ashcroft sent a letter to the NRA, where he said there had to be a
compelling State interest to have a gun control law. As a lawyer, we
both know that ``compelling State interest'' is next to impossible to
prove. Many lawyers argue that under that theory the Brady law could be
thrown out as unconstitutional, despite the fact that not a single
person has ever been shown to be legally deprived of a gun because of
the Brady law. Yet it has
[[Page S8649]]
kept hundreds of thousands of felons from buying them.
Then, amazingly enough--you know, we keep records on everything; the
IRS keeps records; every agency keeps records--well, the FBI has kept
records on gun purchases, as the ATF has, by gun dealers. Jim Kessler,
on my staff, a few years ago, found out something that changed the way
we think about gun control. He found that 50 percent of the guns used
in crimes came from 1 percent of the dealers. Let me repeat that
because it is an astounding finding. Fifty percent of the guns used in
crimes come from 1 percent of the dealers. When we found those numbers,
I thought there was a real breakthrough because the NRA had always
said, ``Don't pass new laws, enforce the existing laws.''
I, again, want to do something to reduce gun violence. And here we
had the opportunity to go after the 1 percent of the dealers who are
putting guns, a hugely disproportionate amount of guns, into criminal
hands. We could come down on them and not come down on all the others--
the very thing the NRA preaches, that most people who own and sell guns
are law abiding was proven by this report and we could just come down
on the 1 percent. All of a sudden, the administration wants to destroy
the records so we can no longer come to 1 percent.
I will tell you what happened here. The administration stealthily has
been moving to an extreme position on gun control. President Bush, when
he campaigned, did not take such positions, but that is where they are
moving. On issue after issue after issue, that has happened. That is
why this buyback proposal, modest as it was, was taken out of the HUD-
VA appropriation, not because they had done exhaustive studies about
whether it works or not, not because we could not afford it; these are
no new dollars; they come out of an existing program, but because that
narrow band of ideologues, way out of the mainstream, the kind of
people who think many of our brave law enforcement people are black-
booted thugs, it was said, put pressure on the administration to move
way over. Hence, they removed this provision.
Again, I say to my colleagues, anyone who tells you absolutely that
this program doesn't work doesn't have the statistics. Conversely,
anyone who tells you we can prove beyond any doubt that it does work is
also overselling because they don't have the statistics either, and I
don't want to claim that. But by simple logic, particularly in inner
cities where we know there are too many guns, giving people an
incentive to sell the gun back, an unwanted gun, it is very hard to
disagree that it would reduce the amount of accidents caused in the
home by guns and the amount of crime caused by kids and criminals with
guns.
So if you want to brandish your ideological sword, show the NRA that
you are with them all the way, vote against this amendment. If you want
to reduce crime or have a good chance of doing it, get some very
dangerous things out of the hands of those who don't want them, vote
for this amendment.
This is hardly the most important issue on gun control we will
debate. I am amazed it has brought such opposition, such attention, and
such focus from the administration. But I do believe, with all due
respect to my colleague from Idaho, that the motivation to remove this
amendment is not people's safety, but an ideology that says everybody,
everybody, everybody should have a gun, and that makes America a better
place.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Idaho is
recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use such time as I might consume
within our time limitation. I, too, enjoy engaging my colleague from
New York on this issue. The Senator from New York, as I said while he
was not on the floor, does, I think, bring this amendment with good
intent. He has been an outspoken advocate of gun control and wants to
eliminate crime in which guns are used. I certainly want to eliminate
guns crime. We all do.
Let me suggest to you today that while the Senator from New York
might like to engage me in a theological debate, this isn't one. This
debate is over $15 million and how it can best be used in housing
authorities to combat crime and drug use.
The committee has worked its will. They have said it is an option. If
you want to do a gun surrender program, it is an option but it is not
mandatory.
Let me tell you one reason why.
I think the Senator from New York would find this an interesting fact
because it comes from New York City. If I may have the attention of the
Senator from New York, I found this a fascinating problem because what
is happening out there is that somebody is gaming a bad program.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. When the Senator said this was an option before the
amendment, it was an option for the administration. As I understand it,
it would not be an option in the New York City Housing Authority, or
any housing authority that got $20 million out of this program; they
would not be allowed to take $1 million and set that aside for a
buyback program. The administration has the option of not allowing
these funds for this purpose under the present statute. If the Senator
will answer that.
Mr. CRAIG. We have the chairman of the subcommittee on the floor. I
have not read the specifics of the provision within the appropriation.
But I was told by the ranking member that housing authorities, under
this current legislation, have the option, if they choose, to do a gun
buyback. Is that accurate or inaccurate? I don't want to misstate the
reality of the legislation.
Mr. SCHUMER. If I may answer----
Mr. CRAIG. I ask the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on
VA-HUD if that flexibility exists within the law. Does the chairman
know that?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me advise the Senator what my staff told me. I
might also need a moment for additional clarification.
As I understand the legislation, there is currently an option. What
the Schumer amendment does is do a setaside, am I correct?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that clarify it?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes. Therefore, the statement I made was accurate. I said
that within the law there is an option to use the money, if an
authority wishes to, for the purpose of a gun buyback. Is that an
inaccurate statement?
Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield, it is true, it is an option.
As I understand it----
Mr. CRAIG. That is all I need to have.
Mr. SCHUMER. If I might finish.
Mr. CRAIG. On your time only.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to answer on
my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. The option has been foreclosed by the administration.
They said they would not spend any of this money and not allow the
housing authorities to spend any of this money for a buyback program.
That is what has happened. It would not be available to the housing
authority, even though in the law it is an option. The administration
sets out regulations, and the buyback program would not be part of the
regulation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. I think that is appropriate. I am not going to disagree
with the Senator from New York on that proviso, because what is in the
law today was done by the Clinton administration and not a mandate of
the Congress itself.
President Clinton and Secretary Cuomo did that by regulatory change.
So there is flexibility. What is true in the law, which we are dealing
with in this Chamber, is the option. The Schumer amendment would
mandate a specific amount of money to be used for that purpose.
Let me quote an article I found most fascinating from the New York
Daily News Online, July 28, 2000:
A gun buyback program to get illegal weapons off the
streets had to be altered yesterday after a stampede of court
officers [that is, law enforcement officers] tried to cash
in. Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes ordered changes
in the initiative when he found out that court officers--some
of them in uniform--were handing in their old .38 caliber
service revolvers. Because the program had pulled in only
about 200 guns since the one-month window began on July 1,
Hynes upped the reward on Monday from $100 to $250 per gun.
[[Page S8650]]
In other words, it was not working, a point that has been driven home
numerous times. The Senator from New York says: It feels good. So let
us dump $15 million because it feels good, while we all know it is a
whale of a photo-op.
Here is what happened, and this is a quote from the district
attorney:
We had a surge last night of about 100 guns and they all
seemed to be .38 [caliber] service revolvers.
According to the article:
One court officer collected $1,500 by turning in six guns.
And even though people were gaming the system, officials had to pay
for the guns because they had made the offer. The point is----
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish.
Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish my thought, and then I will be happy to give
the Senator his time to debate.
The reality is, it confirms the point that the program gets gamed. In
1978, in Baltimore, it did not work. Crime went up. In this city over
2,000 guns were purchased, many of them 15 years of age and older. They
are not the current weapon used on the street in street crime.
If a family finds a gun on their hands which they inherited and they
do not know what to do with it, they could take it down to the local
police department and hand it in. They could do that. They do not have
to be paid to get rid of a gun. They can hand it in or they can take it
down to a pawn shop and get a little money.
I find this a fascinating quote, and I think the Senator from New
York will find it fascinating also. The Boston Globe, Tuesday October
24, 2000:
The threat was gun violence--
And I must say the threat today is still gun violence.
the stakes, the lives of urban youth.
The stakes today, in many instances, the lives of urban youth. Both
the Senator from New York and I are concerned about that.
The image was a body face down in blood and the sound was the wail of
sirens, funeral hymns, and more gunfire. Amid the violence that gripped
urban centers nationwide in the 1990s, America's call to stop the
violence was a cry of civic activism: Everybody turn in your guns.
It caught on with the made-for-television popularity. Guns for money.
Guns for food. Guns for concert tickets. Guns for therapy, for shopping
trips, and in one town in Illinois, firearms for a free table dance at
a strip club.
In this case, the offer was and I quote
Buns for Guns. Around the country and in Boston, gun
buybacks spurred intense publicity. Private sponsors poured
money into the programs. Led by groups Citizens for Safety,
Boston collected 2,800 guns in four years.
With gun violence again on the rise this year--
That is the year 2000--
the cry to bring back the buyback is growing among some
Boston activists. But almost five years after the last goods-
for-guns event, crime specialists and some police officials
are warning against them, saying gun buybacks were and are
among the least effective tools for public safety.
Studies of gun buybacks, including a Harvard analysis --
And I know the Senator from New York says statistics do not matter.
This is just a feel good amendment, but we are talking about $15
million in taxpayer money
of Boston's program, say unanimously that the programs don't
work. In an interview yesterday, Boston Police Commissioner
Paul F. Evans said that in retrospect, buybacks failed to
produce the impact many had hoped for or expected.
I could go on to quote more of the Boston Globe article. Whether it
is food for guns, tickets for guns, or money for guns, it did not work.
That is why the Bush administration has said it is a bad use of money.
I do not care if one feels good or feels bad, or one does not want to
believe in the statistics that come from Harvard University, the
reality is we have to get at crime in our housing and it is not done by
throwing $15 million at a program that flat out does not work.
If someone has an old gun in their closet and they want to get it out
of the hands of anybody in their family, take it to the police
department and give it to them. They do not have to be paid, or they
could take it to a pawn shop and get 5 or 10 bucks maybe.
The problem is that much of what we were buying for $100 to $250 was
not pawnable because it was old, it was antique, and it was
nonfunctional. As the Senator from New York says, though, if it feels
good, then maybe we ought to do it. We should not do it for $15
million, not when our budgets are tight and not when we are scrambling
over where to get money to do all other kinds of programs that are
important to the American people.
I do not always agree with Harvard, but Harvard has studied the
program in Boston and they say it does not work. Law enforcement says
it does not work and ought not be used. My guess is, that is why
President Bush and Secretary Martinez said, let's don't do it anymore.
It is not a philosophical or evangelical reason. The reality is: It
does not work.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho is trying to
oversell his point. He says it does not work. He cited one anecdote
from a police commissioner in Boston. Then he talked about the Brooklyn
program. And then he talked about food and theater tickets. That is
like saying we ought to scrap all automobiles because the Edsel did not
work.
We are not talking about those programs. We are not talking about
$100; we are not talking about $250; and we are not talking about
theater tickets. We are not talking about any of those. We are not even
talking about law enforcement unless they live in a public housing
project, and I do not think many do. We are talking about a program
that housing authorities have run with great success. Again, I am not
going to cite statistics.
My friend from Idaho has some police saying this is ``feel good.''
No, this is not feel good. It is life and death.
I am trying to be honest in saying neither he nor I can prove whether
these programs affect the statistics. It cannot be proven because there
is no control. We do not have two identical cities or two identical
housing projects, one that had the program and one that did not.
I do not have to oversell my case because it is such a strong case.
The strong case is a simple case, and that is when guns are off the
streets and not in unwanted hands, our society is likely to be safer.
I go back to the argument I made before. There are some--maybe my
friend from Idaho--who do not believe that, but there are some who
believe the more guns people have the better. Most people, most
Americans, most gun owners do not believe that.
As for his argument about old guns being turned in, the Senator is an
expert on law enforcement. Old guns are more dangerous. They misfire
more frequently; they fire inaccurately more frequently. And the
program, as it is set up, is not supposed to give a reward for a gun
that does not work but only those that do. Again, more strawman
arguments, maybe about some programs somewhere that did not work, but
this program has.
We cannot cite the name and case, but someone is alive today because
of this program. Probably more than one person is alive because of this
program.
I ask my colleagues not to get wrapped up in the whole ideological
fervor here; rather, to commonsense arguments, not some program about
movies for guns and not about some program about $250 for guns but
about this program which has a track record. Ask housing authorities
throughout the country and law enforcement people in those housing
authorities throughout the country if they
Because of this administration's assault on rational laws that keep
guns out of the hands of criminals, they took it out. It would be a lot
better for our society if we put it back.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time,
time will be charged equally against both sides.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 4 minutes 24
seconds remaining; the Senator from New York has 6 minutes 43 seconds
remaining. Time will be taken from both sides until someone yields
time.
[[Page S8651]]
Mr. REID. I say to my friends, if they do not wish to use all their
time, they can yield it back. Senator Kyl can speak on his amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be happy--I just made eye contact
with my friend from Idaho--to yield back my time. I believe he will
yield back his, and we will vote at 1:55 p.m.
I yield back my time.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some articles
and some of those terrible statistics from different gun buyback
programs be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 2, 1994]
Add Gun Buybacks to the Public Wish List
(By Erik Eckholm)
It may have started as a holiday exercise in wishful
thinking. But last week, as a ``toys for guns'' exchange in
Manhattan's embattled Washington Heights continued to draw in
scores of weapons each day, grizzled police veterans were
becoming believers and even the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People had joined in, laying plans to
sponsor similar programs in other cities.
Before Christmas, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelley had
compared the new program to chicken soup: can't do any harm.
But his tone changed as the guns poured in in response to a
local businessman's offer of a $100 Toys-R-Us gift
certificate for each surrendered weapon, on top of $75 in
cash offered from an existing city gun-purchase program.
``I'm converted,'' the Police Commissioner told reporters.
``Sometimes chicken soup works.''
The N.A.A.C.P. saw the buoyant response as a glimmer of
sanity in a culture of urban violence that is especially
devastating to blacks. Other private sponsors have gotten on
board, with makers and sellers of athletic shoes and even
Dial-A-Mattress pledging gift certificates for their
products. And there was talk in Congress of tax breaks for
corporations that contribute.
Gun-purchase programs have been tried over the years in
many cities, with varied results. In New York City, the
standing cash-for-guns program had yielded modest numbers of
guns; somehow, this new combination of toys, Christmas,
private leadership, tabloid frenzy and a general desperation
about gunfire has worked magic, drawing in some 550 guns in
the first eight days of the program, which began Dec. 22.
In Dallas, too, an offer of coveted goods--tickets to
Cowboys games--seemed to pull in more weapons than cash
alone. Still, probably the most spectacular response yet to
any gun buying program involved cash only. In St. Louis in
the fall of 1991, the police over a one-month period
collected 7,547 guns by offering $50 for handguns and $25 for
rifles. But the program was not continued, a St. Louis police
official said last week, for one reason: money. The cost had
been $351,000, and no police department can sustain that
level of spending for long.
Corporate donations may help support the new programs, but
the question of costs and benefits remains. It is easy to be
skeptical. After all, what difference does it make to melt
down a few thousand guns in a country owning 200 million of
them? And nobody thinks criminals are selling off the tools
of their trade.
Buyback proponents point instead to more modest possible
benefits. Fewer guns in dresser drawers, they say, may mean
fewer accidental shootings, fewer crimes of passion, fewer
guns stolen for later use in crime and reduced chances of
teenagers grabbing household weapons to settle scores.
``Taking guns out of circulation is a good thing in itself,''
said Jeffery Y. Muchnick, legislative director of the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
But some criminologists are unenthusiastic about gun
purchase programs, arguing that resources could be better
spent and warning about possible unintended consequences.
Lawrence W. Sherman, a professor at the University of
Maryland and president of the Crime Control Institute, said
gun buybacks would have to be coupled with a national ban on
new sales of handguns, or at least of the semiautomatic
pistols wreaking the most havoc, to do any good over the long
term. ``Otherwise,'' he said, ``taking guns out of
circulation in the face of constant market demand unwittingly
subsidizes the gun industry.''
Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke
University, studies the economics of street guns and warns
that the entry of a major new gun buyer, albeit the police
department, can have unforeseen effects.
``You can't see this as exempt from normal market
processes,'' he said. Between vouchers and cash, a person
could get $175 for a gun last week in New York, well above
the retail price of many new handguns. Dr. Cook says buyback
programs may encourage gun thefts, with government serving,
in effect, as a reliable fence. Such programs also give
offenders a profitable way to dispose of weapons used in
crimes, he said.
On the positive side, Dr. Cook said that if a sustained
gun-purchase program were to succeed in raising the floor
price for privately traded guns in a community, some teenager
seeking illegal guns could be priced out of the market. But
this would be achieved at enormous expense, he added, raising
questions about the best use of resources. In New York City,
at least, where restrictive laws have already prompted black
market prices of $250 to $300 for pistols retailing in the
South for $39, and prices of $500 or more for higher-quality
weapons, that floor would have to be quite high to seriously
alter the market.
At best, a gun-purchase program nibbles at the edges of gun
violence. ``The central problem of criminal justice is not
just to get the guns off the street, but to get the gunmen
off the street,'' said Thomas Repetto, a former police
officer and head of the private Citizen's Crime Commission in
New York. He calls for more aggressive enforcement of the gun
laws, using specially trained gun squads to identify and
arrest gun carriers, drawing on knowledge gleaned by
community police officers.
Still, whatever their weak points, buybacks are here and
happening. Even skeptics have to appreciate their symbolic
value in dispirited neighborhoods; responses like the one
elicited in Washington Heights suggest that people have had
it with senseless killings. ``You work on many fronts at
once,'' Mr. Repetto said, ``What's most impressive about
Washington Heights is the outpouring of community sentiment
against guns. That's even more impressive than the numbers of
guns turned in.''
____
[From the Boston Globe, Oct. 24, 2000]
Specialists Cool on Calls to Revive Gun Buybacks
(By Francie Latour)
The threat was gun violence. The stakes, the lives of urban
youth. The image was a body face-down in blood and the sound
was a wail of sirens, funeral hymns, and more gunfire.
Amid the violence that gripped urban centers nationwide in
the 1990s, America's call to stop the violence was a cry of
civic activism: Everybody turn in your guns.
It caught on with made-for-television popularity.
Guns for money. Guns for food. Guns for concert tickets.
Guns for therapy, for shopping trips, and in one town in
Illinois, firearms for a free table dance at a strip club:
Buns for Guns.
Around the country and in Boston, gun buybacks spurred
intense publicity. Police unveiled bins of guns. Private
sponsors poured money into the programs. Led by the group
Citizens for Safety, Boston collected 2,800 guns in four
years.
With gun violence again on the rise this year, the cry to
bring back the buyback is growing among some Boston
activists. But almost five years after the last goods-for-
guns event, crime specialists and some police officials are
warning against them, saying buybacks were--and are--among
the least effective tools for public safety.
Studies of gun buybacks, including a Harvard analysis of
Boston's program, say unanimously that the programs don't
work. In an interview yesterday, Boston Police commissioner
Paul F. Evans said that in retrospect, buybacks failed to
produce the impact many had hoped for or expected.
And despite Mayor Thomas M. Menino's appearance on the
White House lawn last year, where he and other mayors landed
President Clinton's $15 million federal program to fund
buybacks through local housing authorities, the city has yet
to take advantage of its share of that money and is unlikely
to do so.
``We'll never know the impact of taking even one gun off
the street in terms of how many lives that act could have
saved,'' Evans said yesterday. ``But you have to step back
and analyze the bottom-line results. We found the
neighborhoods where we needed the guns to come in were the
neighborhoods that brought in the fewest guns.''
A series of studies published by the Washington D.C.-based
Police Executive Research Forum offers a bleak analysis.
In cities such as St. Louis and Seattle, surveys of buyback
participants showed that a significant minority planned on
using the money to buy a new gun. In St. Louis, the surveys
showed that those who had been arrested at least twice were
three times as likely as law-abiding citizens to say they
would buy a new weapon; 18- to 34-year-olds were 10 times
more likely than older participants to say they would do so.
According to a study of Boston's 1993 and 1994 gun buybacks
by Harvard criminologist David Kennedy, few buyback guns were
the semiautomatic pistols used in crimes. Nearly 75 percent
of the guns were made before 1968, with some qualifying as
museum pieces.
That was the case as recently as April, when Springfield
conducted a gun buyback using the federal funds. Malden and
Worcester have also participated in the federally funded
buybacks, which started last fall.
A spokesman for the Springfield Housing Authority, Raymond
Berry, said the city's Police Department took 287 guns off
the street. They included some handguns, but no assault
weapons, and some guns were donated to the Springfield Armory
National Historic Firearms Museum.
The Boston Housing Authority said this week it could spend
up to $20,000 from its drug prevention funding to coordinate
its own buyback. According to HUD, the federal government
would provide $43 for every $100 the city uses toward the
program. In the past, the city has paid $50 per gun.
[[Page S8652]]
Some Boston Activists, including the gang-intervention
group Gangpeace and former members of Citizens for Safety,
have said that with gun violence on the rise, it is time to
take advantage of the federal money for a program that, at
the very least , offers residents a safe way to get rid of
unwanted handguns.
``I think Boston is making a mistake by not reinstituting
the buybacks that relieved our streets of almost 3,000
firearms,'' said Lew Dabney, who participated in buybacks
from 1993 to 1996.
The payoff from buybacks was not just in removing guns from
homes, Dabney argued, but in the way it empowered residents
to take action against gun violence. It allowed ordinary
volunteers to become civic heroes, broke down racial
barriers, and created memorable images such as that of
author/activist Michael Patrick McDonald coaxing teens to
turn over firearms.
According to HUD, the national buyback program has
recovered 21,600 guns from 95 public housing developments.
But a spokeswoman for the BHA said investments in youth
activities, community policing, and drug intervention were
more cost-effective ways to reduce violence.
Even of BHA wanted to initiate a program, spokeswoman Lydia
Agro said, it could not do so without the Police Department.
Yesterday, Commissioner Evans said he had discussed the
buybacks with BHA oficials, but none was planned so far.
``I wouldn't rule another buyback out, ``Evans said. But
with the limited resources we have, and the money and man
hours in setting up a buyback, you have to ask what is the
value?''
Next to none, according to Kennedy, who authored the
Harvard study.
``I don't think anybody who's looked at buybacks in my
detail thinks they have very much impact,'' Kennedy said.
On the one hand, he said, the buybacks offer a civic
function akin to garbage disposal, to help people remove
unwanted guns they are too afraid to handle.
But the cost of police departments can be considerable,
from staffing checkpoints and overtime costs to ballistics
testing and disposing of the guns.
The decision to pump $15 million into a national buyback
comes two years after a 1997 study commissioned by the
Justice Department called buybacks the lest effective use of
crime control dollars.
``I think the best conclusion to draw is that the federal
HUD buyback program will be a waste of money,'' said Lawrence
Sherman, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania
who authorized the Justice Department study. ``The problem
is, there is still this wonderful idea of one life at a time,
one gun at a time, that you can associate with these
programs. There's an emotional aspect to crime prevention
that has nothing to do with the evidence about whether they
work or don't work.''
[From the National Review, June 15, 2000]
The Madness of Gun Buybacks--Andrew Cuomo's Policy is Full of Holes
(By Dave Kopel, of the Independent Institute)
Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo held a press conference last
week to announce his success in paying Americans not to
exercise their constitutional rights. Although Congress never
appropriated money for the project, Cuomo has used federal
tax dollars to conduct a ``BuyBack America'' program, which
Cuomo says has claimed more than 10,000 guns in recent weeks.
The program isn't really a ``buyback.'' Since Cuomo's
Department of Housing and Urban Development didn't sell the
guns in the first place, it can't buy them ``back.'' Nor will
the program contribute anything to public safety.
A criminal, for whom a gun is a tool of the trade, is
unlikely to sell his tool for $50. Instead, the typical
sellers in a ``buyback'' are the widows of hunters, other
older people, or other non-dangerous types--rather than
teenage gangsters who have suddenly decided to abandon a life
of violence.
Because most people who surrender their guns are very
unlikely to commit a violent gun crime, the public safety
benefit of a buyback, if any, must lie in reducing the supply
of guns which can be stolen, or in removing a potential
suicide instrument. But the buyback doesn't even provide much
in the way of disarmament: a study of a gun buybacks in
Seattle reported that sixty-six percent of sellers had
another gun that they did not surrender. Indeed, three
percent of gun sellers said they would use the money to buy
another gun, or would donate the proceeds to the National
Rifle Association. [Charles M. Callahan, et al., Money for
Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program 84 PUB.
HEALTH REP. 474 (1994).]
Moreover, the guns sold at buybacks are often old or
defective. This shouldn't be surprising; a rational person
with a gun worth more than $50 would sell the gun at a gun
store for a fair price, rather than giving it to the
government for $50.
Unsurprisingly, the social science evidence shows that
buybacks have absolutely no positive effect in reducing gun
crime, gun accidents, or any other form of gun misuse. The
research is detailed is Under Fire: gun Buybacks,
Exchanges and Amnesty Programs, a book published by the
D.C.-based Police Foundation (a think tank for big-city
police chiefs).
The money wasted on the Cuomo buyback came from a Drug
Elimination Grant Program. Although Congress gave HUD money
for the battle against drugs (which are illegal), Cuomo used
the money to get rid of guns, which are not only legal, but
are specifically protected by the Second Amendment and by
forty-four state constitutions.
Why is so much energy invested in buybacks by the anti-gun
forces? One reason is that it's a path of relatively little
resistance. Gunowners may fight against efforts to take their
guns, but they are indifferent to the government buying guns
from other people.
Second, buybacks can be initiated without legislative
approval, as long as there's an executive branch official,
like Cuomo, willing to spend tax money ``creatively'' or
unlawfully.
More importantly, anti-gun activists really do believe that
guns are inherently evil. The people who want the government
to buy and destroy guns enjoy the same satisfaction that
others have enjoyed at book burnings, or at the
prohibitionists' rally where whiskey is poured into the
river. From the destroyers' viewpoint, there's no need to
wait for social science to find benefits from the
destruction. The destruction of the wicked object is good in
itself.
In a free country, destructionists have every right to
their own opinions, including opinions that paying other
people to stop exercising constitutional rights is a good
idea. But it's hard to balance the motives of a politician
who claims not to be against law-abiding citizens owning
guns--and then takes satisfaction every time a citizen
surrenders her firearms to the government to be melted into a
slab of useless metal.
____
[From the New York Daily News, July 28, 2000]
Gun Buy-Back Backfires When Officers Cash In
(By Mike Claffey)
A gun buy-back program to get illegal weapons off the
streets had to be altered yesterday after a stampede of court
officers tried to cash in.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes ordered changes in
the initiative when he found out that court officers--some of
them in uniform--were handing in their old .38-caliber
service revolvers.
Because the program had pulled in only about 200 guns since
the one-month window began July 1, Hynes upped the reward on
Monday from $100 to $250 per gun.
``We had a surge last night of about 100 guns and they all
seem to be .38 service revolvers,'' said a source in the
prosecutor's office.
One court officer collected $1,500 by turning in six guns.
``This is a program with good intentions to get illegal
guns off the street and shouldn't be bastardized by people
looking for a quick buck,'' said Hynes' spokesman, Kevin
Davitt.
``We're going to be contacting those people who abused the
program and ask for our money back,'' Davitt said.
But a spokesman for the court system, David Bookstaver,
said it is not clear that the officers can be forced to do
that.
``District Attorney Hynes has indicated that this is really
not in the spirit of what the program was designed for,''
Bookstaver said.
But he added that court officials `` have no authority'' to
tell the officers to give the money back.
He said, however, that word was going out yesterday that
court officers can no longer participate.
Some court officers in Brooklyn were upset that Hynes had
forbidden them from participating in the buy-back offer. The
officers were allowed to keep their revolvers after they were
issued 9-mm. semiautomatics last year.
``I have the flyer right here and it says, `Any working
handgun, sawed-off shotgun or assault rifle. No questions
asked.' '' said Bob Patelli a Senior Court Officers
Association delegate at Brooklyn Supreme Court.
``If the DA sees fit to discontinue the program, fine. But
he's bound legally to pay for the guns he's already taken.''
Patelli added that the program was achieving its goal of
getting extra guns out of circulation.
``It gets the gun off the street instead of leaving it is a
closet where children or a burglar could find them,'' he
said.
Last year, 659 firearms were turned in for $100 each. The
money comes from drug forfeiture funds, Davitt said.
``We thought that perhaps $100 was not meeting the value
that some people place on these weapons,'' he said.
To be turned in, guns must be wrapped in brown paper and
can be taken to any Brooklyn precinct house. If the gun is
deemed operable, the desk officer is supposed to give the
person a pink voucher that can be redeemed at the district
attorney's office at 350 Jay St.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the status of the amendment in
relation to when will it be voted on?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55 p.m. there will be a sequence of
votes, and this will be the second vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to table the amendment for the vote at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to table the
amendment.
[[Page S8653]]
Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I understand that is within the unanimous consent time
sequence that has already been established.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on the Schumer
amendment.
Amendment No. 1229
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 1:55 p.m. is evenly
divided among the two managers of the bill and the Senator from
Arizona. Does the Senator from Arizona seek recognition?
Mr. KYL. Yes. I thank the Chair. First, I have two unanimous consent
requests. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as
cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1229, As Modified
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment at the
desk and I ask that the amendment be modified accordingly. A copy has
been provided to Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds made available under the heading ``state and tribal
assistance grants'' in title III for capitalization grants
for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et
seq.) shall be expended by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency except in accordance with the
formula for allocation of funds among recipients developed
under subparagraph (D) of section 1452(a)(1) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) (including
under a regulation promulgated under that section before the
date of enactment of this Act) and in accordance with the
wastewater infrastructure needs survey conducted under
section 516 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1375), except that--
(1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under
clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) shall be a minimum of
0.675 percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent;
(2) any State the proportional share of which is greater
than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive
97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the
State; and
(3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin
Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is only one other speaker
besides myself. I am informed Senator Fitzgerald is on his way. When he
arrives, he will address the amendment, and after that, other than
myself, as I said, I do not think there are any other speakers, unless
the distinguished assistant majority leader wishes to be recognized to
comment at this point.
Mr. President, I apologize for one bit of confusion, and I thank the
Senator from Maryland, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee,
for catching an error. The wrong section was cited in one part of the
amendment. She correctly noted we had referred to the wrong section,
and the modification which has just been adopted refers to the right
section. I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.
I do think it has caused some confusion because I am in receipt of
one document which I understand has been circulated to some Members of
the majority that criticizes the amendment in two primary ways, the
first of which is a suggestion that this amendment uses the same
formula as used in the drinking water section of the bill. I suspect
the citing of the section might have created some of that confusion.
It has been clear from the outset, as I have described this over and
over and I went through the description with the Senator from Virginia,
that the whole point of this amendment is to use a formula which is
based upon a needs survey established by the Environmental Protection
Agency relating to wastewater treatment. I pointed out that there are
two such needs-based surveys: One relates to drinking water; one
relates to wastewater.
Obviously, the drinking water needs survey should relate to drinking
water. That is exactly what the law provides. That is the survey that
is used for the formula for drinking water. By the same token, the
wastewater needs survey should apply to wastewater, but it does not.
The law today has a different formula and it is very difficult to
understand the origins. As near as anybody can figure out, it relates
to a construction grants program that was in existence in the 1970s. It
has nothing to do with this needs survey.
We say, just as we should have a needs survey by EPA driving the
decisions for drinking water, which we do, we should have a similar
kind of formula for wastewater. The wastewater formula is not based on
the drinking water needs survey, it is based on the wastewater needs
survey.
I note, in this document that has been circulated at least among some
Members of the majority, that the criticism is we should not have the
same formula apply to drinking water apply to wastewater. It does not.
To the extent there was confusion because one of the sections was
miscited in the amendment, I apologize for that, again. I thank the
Senator from Maryland for allowing me to make that correction.
We are talking about two different needs surveys, two different
formulas. We simply want the type of needs survey EPA conducts to apply
to the formula in this case.
The second item I want to point out about the document is a complete
error in one of its comments. I quote from this document:
A number of other States, for example, Ohio, Illinois,
Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey, would receive reduced
allocations.
I assure all my colleagues from those States that is not only true,
but the reality is that the States cited are among the States that
receive the highest benefits of the formula change--Ohio, Illinois,
Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey. In fact, I think they are the
highest. Let me go through the numbers precisely.
For the State of Ohio, it would today receive $76,845,000. Under the
formula, the pending amendment, it would receive $78,423,000. The net
increase is $3,577,000, when you take the earmarks into account.
For the State of Illinois, which I think receives the highest
benefit--I confess to the Presiding Officer, I do not know why Illinois
would have been so shortchanged in the past, but I appreciate his
willingness to cosponsor the amendment because of the clear
discrepancy--under the current allocation, the State of Illinois would
receive $61,735,000. Under the pending amendment, Illinois would
receive $108 million, which is a net gain of $48,764,000, again taking
into account the $2.5 million earmarks. That is an increase from $61 to
$108 million. The next State cited is Florida. Florida goes from $46
million to $55 million; Indiana goes from $32 million to $50 million;
New Jersey goes from $55 million to almost $75 million.
This document floating around titled ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,''
is not only in error; it is almost 180 degrees off. I can't explain why
anyone would make this conclusion. The miscitation of the section
number has nothing to do with these numbers. Somebody has grossly
misunderstood the amendment, misunderstood the charts or the formula,
or in some other way deliberately misstated the facts.
I say to my Democratic colleagues who might have received this
document, ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,'' this page-and-a-half document
is wrong. It is wrong in the first half because we are not using the
same formula as the safe drinking water formula. And it is wrong in the
second half, for what reason I don't know, but it is grossly wrong. It
could not be more wrong with respect to the States it claims are
receiving reductions. Those States happen to be the States receiving
the largest increases.
For the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for the earlier
part of the debate, let me explain what we are talking about while I am
waiting for
[[Page S8654]]
Senator Fitzgerald, a cosponsor of the amendment. The bill we are
debating deals with, among other things, EPA, and it has sections
dealing with funding from different funds for projects that the U.S.
Government has mandated: To protect drinking water and to protect
communities from problems relating to improper wastewater treatment. We
provide those mandates. Congress, therefore, provides funding to help
local communities create the proper infrastructure to meet the
requirements of the statute and EPA.
As Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have eloquently pointed out, it
is always a struggle to get the funding to fill these needs, but they
have done a great job in getting additional funding this year for that
purpose.
The problem is, whereas the drinking water portion is allocated on
the basis of EPA's recommendations and what they call the needs survey,
there is no such reference to EPA recommendations with respect to
wastewater treatment. Instead, we are reverting to a formula based on
1970s data. It has never been updated since the action was put into
place in 1987.
There is a legitimate suggestion we ought to go to the authorizing
committee to try to fix this. The authorizing committee has had 14
years to try to correct this, and my staff has repeatedly tried to make
contact with people to see if they would be interested in doing it.
Thus far, we have not had any success. Despite the fact that the
chairman of the committee has indicated his willingness to take up the
reauthorization this fall, there is no commitment to take up a
modification of the formula to meet the needs of the high gross States
about which I have been talking. There is absolutely no reason to think
we will succeed this year in modifying the formula through the
authorizing committee. Even if we were to succeed in doing that, the
States I named would receive tremendous shortfalls for the fiscal year
2002. There is no way to fix it for the fiscal year 2002. I have a
couple of communities in my State that are in dire need of this
funding. There is no way they can get it.
We suggested this formula change, which is very simple. It says we
should use the needs survey of the EPA and provide 97.5 percent of the
funding available in accordance with that recommendation, and we have a
minimum and a maximum so that no State gets more than 8 percent and no
State gets less than the minimum we provide. That is similar to other
formulas. It is very fair. It is very simple. It is easy to apply. The
net result, based upon the charts I showed earlier, will go a
significant degree toward not only providing funding for those States
and localities that need it the most, but reducing the significant
unfairness in the formula that exists today. That is what we are
talking about. It is that simple.
For those Senators from the following States, I hope since they will
receive more money--again, let me note we are not affecting earmarks.
We have included the earmarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from
Arizona has expired.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First, an inquiry about the time. Did the Senator from
Arizona consume the time to be allocated to the Senator from Illinois,
Mr. Fitzgerald?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. I inquire of the Senator from Maryland, maybe I
misunderstood the unanimous consent request. I thought because the
Schumer time had been yielded back that all the remaining time was
divided.
Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. That is my understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the time is parsed into
three allocations, three 10-minute segments: One for the Senator from
Arizona, one each for the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking
member.
Mr. KYL. I say to Senator Mikulski, if Senator Fitzgerald arrives,
perhaps we can accommodate him in some way.
Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member has
10 minutes. I am sure he will be happy to yield. We will not preclude
Senator Fitzgerald from offering a comment.
We have debated the contents on this bill for a good part of the
morning. I think it has been a very constructive debate and a civil
debate, which we hope the Senate would be.
I will talk about process for a minute. The Kyl amendment is
legislating on appropriations. Ordinarily, I would offer a point of
order exactly on that, to knock it down on the point of order under the
rules of the Senate.
Because of something the House did--and remember, we work off the
House bill, as I understand it, and I believe the Senator's analysis is
accurate. We are not able to do that, so this will be a straight up or
down--it will not be straight up or down. Either Senator Bond and I
have declared our intent to offer a motion to table, which I am not yet
offering, but we really are legislating on appropriations. This is so
complicated.
Even with the good will from the standpoint of the Senator from
Arizona, myself, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, where we tried
to explain this formula over that formula or that survey, it shows how
complex this is. In fairness, to make sure we have a formula that works
for constituents, works for the communities, works for the taxpayer, we
cannot deal with this formula on the Senate floor. This truly must be
done through the authorizing process.
I acknowledge the problems the Senator from Arizona has had when he
says it has been 14 years and it is time to take a new look and a fresh
look. Acknowledging the need for a new and fresh look, I also encourage
the Senator in the most collegial tone possible, to also be in
discussions with the very able administrator of EPA. I have found
Administrator Whitman to be able, accessible, interested in hearing
about specific issues and specific problems. We did bring the Senator's
amendment to the EPA staff. They furnished a very competent
analysis. In fact, it was through them that we identified the error in
the drafting.
I do not really recommend that this amendment be agreed to. We really
do not know the consequences of the amendment. There is no way to
evaluate the consequences of the amendment. It could have very dire
effects.
There is no latitude to offer a point of order. We will be offering a
motion to table the amendment, but we do not want to table the problem.
The problem is a real problem. This is why, again, with the
encouragement of the authorizers, I really share with my colleagues,
working with Administrator Whitman has been a very positive experience
from this Senator's viewpoint. I suggest perhaps the Senator and
colleagues who are so passionate about this issue, as they have
expressed themselves on the floor, meet with her and get EPA to start
working on the analysis of exactly the consequences, which we would
need should we come to an authorizing hearing. Then, if the authorizing
hearings do not quite get to it, we would have the benefit of their
analysis and their thinking.
Let's not table the problem. One of us will move to table this
amendment. But, again, I do not want to table the problem.
I know the time is growing short. We are awaiting Senator Fitzgerald.
We know Senator Bond is temporarily off the floor at a meeting with
some of his Republican colleagues. I believe the moderates are meeting.
He is available.
I will reserve my time for the end. I ask the Presiding Officer, how
much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3 minutes 10
seconds remaining. The Senator from Missouri has 10 minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he
will need.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Only a couple of minutes; 5 minutes will be fine.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes from the time of the
minority be allocated to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her
generosity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for
yielding me the time.
I rise to support my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and compliment
[[Page S8655]]
him on the amendment he has introduced. I think he has studied this
issue very carefully. He has noticed that many States--in fact, about
29 States--appear to get severely shortchanged in the current formula
in the clean water development fund. His is a new formula that has a
better rationale to it. We cannot really figure out what formula was
used back in 1987 in the conference committee. They just picked an
arbitrary formula that seemed to steer a lot of money to a select
handful of States. But most States, the majority of States, come up
short under the current formula.
As I understand it, Senator Kyl's new formula is based on the same
formula that is used in the safe drinking water revolving fund. It
certainly will make for a better need-based distribution of these
important allocations of funds for wastewater treatment around the
country.
I rise to support Senator Kyl's amendment. I understand the Presiding
Officer has joined as a cosponsor. This seems to be good legislation
for our State and a majority of States around the country. We all know
from local communities around our States how important these funds are
for these water treatment projects.
I hope we will have a majority vote in favor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen from Virginia be
also listed as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be deducted from
the time remaining to both sides.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let's be clear. This amendment totally
changes the water formula--totally. New York loses $14 million,
Maryland loses $2 million. There are winners and there are losers.
Under what I am suggesting, we table this and end this debate but we
encourage the authorizers to really face the problem of water
infrastructure needs and to ask the Administrator of the EPA to
evaluate these formulas, taking into consideration the needs of our
communities, the new census data, and that we act in a prudent and
measured way.
This is not the place to do this legislation. It is absolutely not
the place to do this legislation.
I yield the floor and ask how much time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 1 minute 15
seconds remaining.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 7 minutes 45
seconds.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me just check on the time status. We are
to begin the votes at 1:50; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55.
Mr. BOND. Is there to be a time period for the proponents and
opponents prior to that 1:50, or are we to use the time that is now
allotted to us?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55 there will be 2 minutes equally
divided before the first vote and 2 minutes equally divided before the
second vote.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time I
have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 46 seconds remaining.
Mr. BOND. I will use that.
Mr. President, again, I commend Senator Kyl, the Senator from
Arizona, for bringing to our attention the very important issue of how
these vitally important funds are allocated. I have raised my concerns
that the allocation he seeks to add in the appropriations bill should
go through a thorough process in the authorizing committee because it
is very complex.
I have looked at the formula that has developed. I find that it has
many, many different aspects. He has figured in earmarks that are not
included in the allocation. There is a 1-year formula that is extremely
confusing. The EPA has already advised us they would not know how to
implement it. Certainly the more I see of it the more I believe it must
have a thorough discussion, debate, hearings, and the work of the
markup in the authorizing committee.
I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I urge my
colleagues to support our tabling motion.
On behalf of the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, I move to table the Kyl amendment. I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield back her
time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the time.
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.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Bond
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Edwards
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--41
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Johnson
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Domenici
The motion was agred to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1231
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes evenly divided before
a vote on the Schumer amendment.
Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very contentious amendment.
The Senator from Idaho is entitled to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is this a motion to table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. A motion to table has been made.
Mr. BOND. Is the first time to be taken by the proponents of the
measure or by the proponents of the tabling?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Craig sought recognition in support of
the motion to table.
Mr. BOND. I suggest that Senator Hutchison would wish 30 seconds.
Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Not at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order before we proceed.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 2 minutes
equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAIG. Or per side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute in support of the amendment and 1
minute in opposition.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am speaking on the motion to table the
Schumer amendment. Mr. Schumer wishes to allocate $15 million of this
appropriation to what we call gun buybacks. He is taking $15 million
away from AIDS and the homeless and Native American housing and the
revitalization of the public housing.
I am telling you what the record says. Since 1978, law enforcement in
America has clearly said gun buybacks
[[Page S8656]]
don't work. They buy back old and obsolete and unused guns off the
street, yes; out of homes, yes. Do they take away the semi-automatics
or the .38s used in the commission of crimes? Absolutely not. That is
why law enforcement in America today is backing away from gun buybacks.
The commissioner of law enforcement in Boston said, ``We won't use our
money there anymore because it is ineffective.'' Crime goes up. Yes,
they are great photo opportunities, but it does not work.
That is why, 2 weeks ago, the Bush administration said we will
allocate money in HUD for those things that work, where we can get at
crime through interdiction and law enforcement and not through a photo
opportunity.
I ask you to vote to table the Schumer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. It says
we ought to continue, at a very modest sum of $15 million, a gun
buyback program. Contrary to what my friend said, it is supported by
law enforcement. It has worked in public housing authorities, where it
is most needed. We are not putting any restrictions on anyone who wants
to keep their gun or use their gun, but if people wish to turn in their
guns for a modest sum, get it out of the home to avoid accidents, avoid
a criminal getting their hands on the gun, avoid a kid going out with
the gun on the street, creating havoc, why not?
We should not make this any kind of ideological test. It is simple,
common sense that buyback programs have worked. It is funded very
modestly. The administration wants to rescind it. We should keep it
going. It is that plain and simple.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is
absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kyl
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--33
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Domenici
Gregg
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1226, As Modified
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe my amendment, which I offered
earlier, is the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. I seek recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support and
cosponsorship of this amendment of Senators Kyl, Smith, and Graham of
Florida. I am also especially grateful for the key support of
organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American
Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Council for a Livable
World, and Citizens Against Government Waste.
This amendment provides funding for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs--top priority--by adding $5 million that is desperately needed
for veterans claims adjudication and eliminating more than $5 million
in nonveteran-related earmarked funds contained in the VA-HUD
legislation.
I want to get right to it. Currently, it takes an average of 215
days--215 days--at any of the 58 VA regional offices to make a decision
on the hundreds of thousands of claims filed annually. There is
presently a backlog of over 600,000 claims by our veterans.
That is an unacceptable situation. What we are talking about in this
amendment is a matter of priorities.
The amendment will not exceed the budget resolution caps because it
is fully offset by cutting funding for 18 separate earmarks by 50
percent, not totally. I am not eliminating the funding for any program
or earmark this year. I am eliminating half of the money. Frankly, $5
million is a small amount as compared with the more than $40 million or
$50 million that is needed as stated by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
I repeat, I am only cutting half from these specific earmarks in the
community development fund account of title II.
For the record, of the 255 total number of earmarked projects in this
fund, nearly 9 out of 10 are for States well represented on the
Appropriations Committee. The earmarks I propose to cut in half are
just a few examples of the pages of earmarks totaling more than $140
million that are funded from the community development fund.
Unfortunately, the appropriators have substituted their judgment on
how best to spend the funds and have earmarked moneys for programs such
as bicentennial celebrations, botanical gardens, art museums, art
centers, and heritage trails.
I point out the bill language as to what a community development
program is all about:
The wide range of fiscal, economic, and social development
activities are eligible with spending priorities determined
at the local level--
Spending priorities determined at the local level--
but the law enumerates general objectives which the block
grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate housing, a
suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate
income.
``Principally for persons of low and moderate income.'' I am going to
point out some things such as the deprived area of Newport, RI, that is
supposed to get some of this money, and other deprived areas of the
country, as I say 9 out of 10 of which are in the States represented on
the Appropriations Committee.
I cannot stand here and tell my colleagues that some earmarked
projects are not valid and important, but decisions as to whether a
project should get taxpayers' funds should not be made by
appropriators, bypassing the legitimate funding process. If we earmark
funds in this way, I would just as soon transfer some of the funds to
help our veterans, unless we are willing to strike all the earmarks so
the community development fund can operate as intended. I doubt there
will be any takers.
Secretary Principi testified before the VA-HUD subcommittee of the
Senate Appropriations Committee on May 2, 2001, that his No. 1 priority
is to drastically decrease the backlog in claims against the VA.
President Bush also recently emphasized this priority and has promised
a top-to-bottom review of VA benefits claims process.
Currently, it takes an average of 215 days--215 days--at any of the
58 regional VA offices to make a decision on the hundreds of thousands
of claims filed annually. Furthermore, the Veterans of Foreign Wars
wrote me on July 30, 2001, that an investigation of claims processing
delays of their members found ``a lengthy list of hundreds of claims
pending over 720 days.''
[[Page S8657]]
Balance 720 days for a VA claim with a World War II veteran, one of
our greatest generations. We know how old they are. Isn't our
obligation to the living as well as to the deceased?
Today there are nearly 600,000 outstanding claims awaiting
adjudication by the VA, and that number is expected to continue to
rise.
I imagine the managers of the bill are going to say this $5 million
is unnecessary. Let me tell you what the veterans say. Let me tell you
what the Veterans of Foreign Wars say:
On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States, and its Ladies Auxiliary,
I would like to take this opportunity to express our support
for your amendment to S. 1216 that would increase the amount
available for veterans claims adjudication by $10 million.
That has been reduced to $5 million.
As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not
completing quality work on benefits claims in an efficient
manner. In fact, an original claims for service connected
disability that does not require substantial development is
averaging 215 days. . . . Additionally, a recent request by
the VA Claims Processing Task Force for a list of original
claims pending over 720 days resulted in a lengthy list of
hundreds of claims.
Your amendment would provide additional dollars crucial to
VA's attempt to improve the quality and timeliness of
veterans' claims processing.
Thank you for all you do for American veterans.
From the DAV:
On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I am writing to express our
support for your proposed amendment to add $10 million for
adjudication of veterans' claims to S. 1216, the Fiscal Year
2002 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill.
As you are aware, the claims backlog at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals is at an unacceptable level of
approximately 600,000 cases. These long delays that veterans
or claimants must endure for claims benefits decisions are
unconscionable.
That is what the disabled veterans say.
More needs to be done to ensure quality, timely decisions.
Employees need to be added to deal with this backlog. This
amendment will provide needed funds to assist in this effort.
Paralyzed Veterans of America:
On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I am
writing to offer our support for your proposed amendment to
S. 216 . . . to provide additional funding for veterans'
claims adjudication, would bring this important account
closer to the level recommended by the Independent Budget,
which is co-authored by the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars.
The chronic backlog faced by veterans seeking the benefits
they have earned is simply unconscionable. We must take
action. This additional funding will not solve the problem
overnight, but will be an important step forward to ensure
that veterans receive timely and accurate claims decisions.
We appreciate your commitment to addressing this problem.
In another letter:
Dear Senator McCain: AMVETS fully supports your amendment.
. . .
Disabled veterans must now wait months and sometimes years
for their benefit claims to be decided. Your amendment will
help VA fulfill its mission and improve the overall quality
and timeliness of the service provided to veterans and their
families.
We urge the Senate to approve your amendment. Veterans have
earned our respect and gratitude, and we thank you for your
good work on behalf of American veterans.
Now, the analysis for the Associated Press last year found that the
benefits administration takes longer to process claims than it did a
decade ago. It took 164 days in 1991 to complete an original claim,
compared with currently 215 days, and up to 3 years if appealed. There
are more than a few veterans, such as 72-year-old Wayne Young of
Cuyahoga Falls, OH, who for more than 44 years has been waiting for
final adjudication of his veterans claim benefits by the VA.
Secretary Principi directed a 10-person blue ribbon claims processing
task force that will review the Department's handling of applications
for veterans benefits. This task force will officially report to him
this fall. However, preliminary results indicate that the Secretary
will need an additional $40 million on top of the additional $132
million provided in the bill to hire additional claims adjudicators to
assist already overworked VA employees in reducing the time it takes to
process claims.
I am sure the managers of the bill will say they put in a sufficient
amount of money. I respect that view. I respect more the views of the
veterans organizations who are the ones who are the advocates for and
defenders of the veterans of this Nation. I appreciate the dedication
and efforts on behalf of veterans that the Senator from Maryland and
the Senator from Missouri have displayed year after year, time after
time. I just believe we need additional money.
The additional $5 million in funding that I am proposing in this
amendment for claims adjudication matters would allow the Department of
Veterans Affairs to hire approximately 100 additional claims
adjudication personnel to begin chipping away at this backlog or, at
the very least, slowing its growth a bit.
The current staff members handling these claims are considerably
overworked. For every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits, 4
are actually decided incorrectly, thereby increasing the number of
outstanding claims for veterans awaiting to have their healthcare needs
met. This already unacceptable number will continue to increase, unless
the Congress appropriately funds the VA for personnel adjudication.
In an effort to try and accelerate the claims process and drive down
the backlog, claims personnel often ignore the Department's own rules
in deciding claims. When the regional offices have rejected a claim, a
veteran can appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Last year that
panel overturned the regional offices 26 percent of the time, and sent
back another 30 percent of cases. The VA special appeals court returned
64 percent of its cases, mostly because of procedural problems. All the
while, our veterans continue to wait for us to fulfill our promise to
them.
Secretary Principi has stated that his ``top priority is to the
living veterans, not the decreased. Many veterans die before their
claims are handled, we need to do a much better job of processing these
claims before these veterans die. Only 5 million of the 16 million
World War II vets who saved the world are alive today. Every day, World
War II veterans are passing on before their claims are decided, and
that's a real tragedy.''
I stand alongside Secretary Principi on this most worthy endeavor to
reform this badly broken system.
Mr. President, our veterans risked their lives in defense of our
nation, whether charging the beaches of Normandy and Inchon, fighting
in Vietnam, or putting themselves into harms way in Iraq and Kosovo.
Yet these great Americans must now wait and wait and wait just to get
an answer from the Veterans Administration.
Instead of fulfilling a promise that America would take care of their
mental and physical injuries incurred while honorably serving our
country, we ``reward'' them with an overworked, inefficient process
that results in thousands of veterans everyday being turned away from
benefit that were earned, deserved, and promised.
This amendment will go a long way to help our veterans. It also
recognizes our government's solemn obligation to take care of these
veterans' mental and physical health needs that resulted while
defending our great nation. In the words of President Abraham Lincoln,
given during his second inaugural address on Mary 4, 1865, ``To care
for him who shall have borne the battle and his widow and his orphan.''
Secretary Principi is dedicated to carrying out this sacred
responsibility, and I have every confidence that properly funded, he
and the others in his Department will ensure that we here in Congress
fulfill our promise to the Veterans of the United States of America.
I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
Now I will talk about the projects for which the money has been
reduced, actually cut in half. One is the desert space station in
Nevada, of $100,000. Please remember in the context of what the
community development programs are supposed to be for, and that is, of
course, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and
an expanded opportunities prescription appeal for persons of low and
moderate income, requiring grant recipients to use 70 percent of the
block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income
persons.
I repeat: Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 percent of
[[Page S8658]]
their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-
income persons.
The title is out of this world. Tourists can look for
extraterrestrials in the Nevada desert. Visitors to Las Vegas might
find an extraterrestrial or two if they knew where to look. Las Vegas
is no stranger to the weird. Many would say the city is a weirdness
magnet unless proliferating Elvises, drive-through wedding chapels, and
elaborate faux cities make sense. A bird's eye look at the town,
however, shows that Las Vegas is simply a small, beautiful cluster of
lights sitting within a vast and very dark desert expanse.
Some people come to this city looking for something out of the
darkness, something extraterrestrial. When it comes to alien mania, Las
Vegas is as popular as Roswell, NM. On the lonely roads that cross
Nevada, one of the least densely populated States, reports of swirling
lights, government coverups, and UFO crashes are not considered odd but
commonplace occurrences.
When your client is ready for a break from the gaming tables and the
glitz of the strip, you can suggest alien hunting as an alternative to
Las Vegas' many wonders. Despite the secrecy, this craze won't go away
anytime soon.
An hour away from the strip, in Pahrump, NV, a museum is being built
in the shape of a spaceship, to be completed by 2005. It will be the
official Area 51 artifact and information center. It will offer a 3-D
IMAX center theater, a digistar planetarium, and an Area 51 theme
restaurant in the expectation of attracting 374,000 visitors annually.
The 95,000-square-foot facility will call itself the Desert Space
Station Science Museum. What it is all about is the Area 51.
Adventure Las Vegas offers commissionable day tours that take
visitors to the perimeter of this top secret installation. Clients stop
in Slot Canyon along the way to view ancient Indian petroglyphs that
some believe to be drawings of aliens. Then they travel through some
remote and very mysterious areas, such as a dry lake bed where UFOs are
rumored to have been observed. After observing these strange sightings,
they will drop into the Little Ale Inn Cafe. There they will have the
chance to view top secret documents taken from Area 51 and possibly
have a conversation with Capt. Chuck Clark, and ex-Air Force captain
and the author of The Area 51 Manual. The Area 51 Research Center,
located at this quirky location, has a large amount of information
about this mysterious region on display, as well as for sale.
We are asking to take half a million dollars for the Desert Space
Station Science Museum and give it to help our veterans have their
claims processed.
I mentioned earlier about the community development grant programs
being for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons:
$200,000 is for the Newport Air Museum.
Welcome to Newport: Rich in history, Newport prides itself
on being a vibrant community offering a wide variety of
events and activies year-round. Whether you were drawn here
to enjoy the music festivals, yachting regattas, mansion
tours, professional tennis at the Newport Casino or a day at
the beach, Newport offers you a picturesque location to relax
and enjoy.
This unique island community instantly blends the old and
the new--colonial homes stand feet away from modern
condominiums and offices. The bustling harbor glistens as
elegant yachts, luxury liners and lobster boats compete for
space. All of these combined are the charm that is Newport .
. .
* * * * *
However, Newport was rediscovered in the 1800's by the
country's wealthy citizens as the ideal location to spend
their summers. Suddenly, elaborate mansions and villas sprung
up along Bellevue Avenue and Ocean Drive--each more ornate
and luxurious than the one next door. These ``summer
cottages'' provided the perfect backdrop for ``The 400,'' an
elite group of the very rich. This extravagant era officially
opened the door to America's first resort.
They are going to spend $200,000 on an art museum in Newport, RI.
Harbor Gardens Greenhouse Project:
When some people think of Pittsburgh, they still envision
steel mills and smoky skies. Others identify the city by its
sports teams or its three rivers or its colleges and
hospitals or Heinz ketchup.
But who'd ever think Pittsburgh could become known for
producing orchids?
Well, Bill Strickland would.
The president of the Bidwell Training Center on the North
Side is trying to come up with $3 million to create something
called Harbor Gardens Greenhouse.
It would be a 46,000-square-foot glass facility located at
Bidwell offices on Metropolitan Street in Manchester and
``dedicated to producing orchids,'' according to a recent
funding request submitted to the city's Urban Redevelopment
Authority.
Strickland readily admits that growing the delicate,
beautiful flowers would be ``untraditional'' for Pittsburgh
but insists that untraditional thinking is what may be needed
now.
I really believe it would be a good idea to grow orchids in
Pittsburgh. I also happen to believe our veterans need their claims
processed as a greater priority.
Here is $1 million for a multi-purpose events center in Utah. I have
a copy of the minutes of the Richfield City Council meeting held on
Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Richfield City office building located at 75 East Center, Richfield,
Utah.
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor David Kay Kimball.
Roll Call was answered . . .
Ruth Jackson, representing the committee promoting the
multi events center gave a presentation to the Council. She
explained that they are going throughout the County giving
this presentation to educate the voters about the multi
events center and the upcoming bond election. They showed a
model representing what the building will look like when
constructed. It was also explained that there would be an
advisory board over the maintenance and operation manager of
the building and that some one from the City could sit on
this board giving the city some voice in how the building is
utilized. One point made is that the community may not need
this facility now, but it will within the next five to ten
years.
There is a beach resort shore trail in Hawaii. There is a
bicentennial party, Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Commission party
for $1 million; a river museum in Iowa, a couple of million dollars;
Culver City Council Theater.
Idaho Virtual Incubator--that is kind of an interesting one. I don't
quite understand it--$500,000, the Idaho Virtual Incubator:
The Idaho Virtual Incubator prepares businesses for e-
commerce, offers students ``hands-on'' experience through
virtual internships and fosters partnerships for job
creation, expansion and retention.
Madam President, I think I have made my point. We have over 60,000
unprocessed claims. The committee very wisely--and I appreciate it--has
added funding to help address this issue. We are trying to add more
funding. Not just in my view but the view of every veterans
organization in America, this money is needed. Because of the rules,
obviously, that I would be subject to a budget point of order, I have
found projects that I think are of lower priority than that of
processing the claims of our veterans. Some of them are interesting,
some of them entertaining; some of them are outrageous.
But the point is, none of these projects that I have identified could
possibly, in the view of any objective observer, have priority over the
processing of our veterans' claims.
I mentioned earlier, only 5 million of our 16 million World War II
veterans survive today. They are leaving us at a rate of 30,000 every
single month. It seems to me our first obligation would be to provide,
as rapidly as possible, a process where the claims they may have for
injuries or disabilities incurred in the service of this country would
take priority over desert space stations, or greenhouses, Wildwood
vacation resorts, botanical gardens, multi-event systems, multipurpose
radio, multipurpose events centers, et cetera, et cetera.
I think the choice is clear. I am not saying the earmarks themselves
are something that I approve of; I do not. I am not attacking the
earmarks. I am not trying to have them removed. I am trying to cut them
in half so we can have an extra $5 million, which is not a lot of money
when you consider the entire budget of this VA-HUD appropriations bill,
so we can begin, at least, working with Secretary Principi, to provide
for veterans.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, on occasion I have an opportunity to travel
[[Page S8659]]
with my colleague from Arizona and go through an airport somewhere in
the country. I remember not too long ago going to Dallas, TX, on our
way to Phoenix. Veterans coming up to my colleague--he is a lot more
recognizable than I am--and saying, ``Thank you, Senator McCain, for
fighting for us.''
Madam President, does the Senator from Maryland wish to speak at this
moment? If I took her time, I apologize for doing that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to speak in behalf of the McCain
amendment?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, that is what I am doing, yes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. It was my understanding we would follow the tradition
of alternating.
Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Maryland.
I did not realize she wished to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, thank you very much. I thank the
junior Senator from Arizona.
Madam President, first of all, know that in talking about veterans
and about the claims processing, not only wouldn't I argue with John
McCain, but I wouldn't argue with all the history that we have had on
this almost intractable problem. Cutting the time that a veteran must
wait for a decision on claims processing has been one of my highest
priorities since I originally chaired the committee in 1990. It seems
as if we never get a handle on this issue.
The items of concern that were listed by the Senator from Arizona are
accurate. Those are exactly the same problems my distinguished
colleague and ranking member, Senator Bond, and I had in an extensive
discussion with Administrator Principi during our VA hearing.
They are absolutely right. It takes too long for claims. It is
absolutely wrong that our veterans who were willing to risk their lives
and put their lives in the line of fire to defend the United States of
America have to wait in line to find out about adjudication,
particularly for a disability benefit. There is absolute agreement that
it is wrong for veterans to have to wait 205 days or 7 months to get a
decision on the claim.
Having agreed on the problem, what my colleagues in the Senate need
to know is, on a bipartisan basis, working with the executive branch we
have attempted to solve this problem.
First of all, for the VA-HUD bill, we put $1.1 billion in for the
administration of benefits. That is $1 billion-plus for the
administration of the benefits. We have also increased it by $132
million. Where did we get that number? We got that number from George
Bush. We got that number from President Bush. This isn't Barbara
Mikulski's number. This isn't Kit Bond's number. This isn't something
that we pulled off a Ouija board. This came from President Bush.
My colleague from Arizona says: I don't want to argue with you about
what the veterans have to say. I don't want to dispute our veterans.
But I have to believe that President Bush and Tony Principi, the
Administrator of Veterans Affairs, knew what it would take to begin to
really solve this problem this year, which has been a disaster for more
than a decade. The money recommendation came from President George
Bush. That is from where the $132 million come.
Let's talk about our very able new Administrator of Veterans Affairs.
I think the world of our new Administrator. I want to say this as a
Democrat. I think President Bush has given us an outstanding Veterans
Affairs Administrator. I am so excited about the possibility of working
with Administrator Principi, a Vietnam vet himself, a former Under
Secretary of VA during the Bush-Quayle administration, and with a
substantial stint in the private sector picking up even more management
skills.
Secretary Principi brings to us the heart and soul of a veteran--and
committed to it because he was a foxhole guy himself; all the way up
now to the considerable experience he has had not only with VA but also
with the private sector.
I am telling you that Tony Principi and the President say we need
$132 million. I am willing not only to take it to the bank, but I am
willing to take it to the Federal checkbook. That is where we got the
money. I believe that it will really make a substantial dent.
We haven't been laggards, nor have we been deleterious, nor have we
invented numbers out of the thin air.
Let me tell you what we are going to buy with this new money. We are
going to buy close to 900 new employees to handle the backlog, and also
to handle the new cases triggered by legislation enacted last year.
Forty-six million dollars of that will be to hire these processors to
implement what they call ``duty to assist''--to actually help the
veterans prepare their claims.
One of the problems in doing claims is that our veterans often don't
prepare them properly. It is through no fault of the veterans. Many of
them have visual problems. They are old. They are not well. If you have
a disability, you stand to be pretty sick. And also you are pretty sick
of the bureaucracy and you are pretty sick of the paperwork. But some
of these new people will actually help the veterans do it right so we
can get it done in the right time.
There is a new law to require the VA to review 98,000 cases--we have
to go over the backlog--and another 244,000 that were pending when the
legislation was enacted.
By the way, the VA will be able to also carry out a new policy of
adding type 2 diabetes to the list of presumptive disability
conditions. Over 100,000 new claims are expected to be in this
category, particularly from our Vietnam vets.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2001 supplemental spending also gave
the Veterans Affairs $19 million in this category. We have $132
million, and in the supplemental that we just passed there is another
$19 million. I think that takes us to $151 million. That is not potato
chips, but it will buy us a lot of microchips to try to move this
backlog.
I think we are keeping our promises to our veterans. We have not been
laggards. We don't want to dump money on the problem, but we want to
engage in solving the problem. That is why we ask the administration to
give us the right amounts needed, and we will see that we step up and
do that. That is where we come in on the money. That is why I am going
to oppose the Senator's amendment. We are honoring President Bush's
request, and we think if President Bush thinks it is adequate, the
Senate ought to think it is adequate.
The other issue I am going to take up is this question of earmarks.
People use the term ``earmarks'' as if it is a Darth Vader stain on the
bill. Let me tell you, we can look at these projects; we can analyze
them; we can joke about them, and so on. But when you talk to
colleagues the way I have, we often end up meeting very compelling
community needs. I know the Presiding Officer has spoken to me about
the desperate need in her community to help the Meals on Wheels
community. As I understand, the ability to really meet that
overwhelming caseload is tremendous. We are going to try to work with
her. I do not know if you are on this hit list or not. But I do know
that when we follow the earmark, it is not something that a Senator
makes up out of thin air.
My distinguished colleague and I wanted to weed out the pork. We
established criteria that is within the framework of the community
development block grant. We don't even consider a project unless a list
is filled out for a project. You filled one out. In fact, you filled
out more than one because of the needs of the State of Michigan.
What is it that we ask? Question No. 1, can you demonstrate that it
will create jobs or a compelling human need? Does it create jobs or
meet a compelling human need? Does it benefit a low- or moderate-income
neighborhood? Does it eliminate physical or economic stress? Is there
matching funds from a non-Federal source to show that there is
grassroots support behind this? And is it essentially limited to a 1-
year endeavor? That is what we ask our colleagues.
Does it create jobs? Does it help poor or moderate neighborhoods?
Does it eliminate that distress? Can you show there is money from other
sources? And also, this is not meant to be a year to year to year to
year entitlement.
[[Page S8660]]
I want to talk about one in my own neighborhood. It is money for
something called the Fells Point Creative Alliance to develop the
Patterson Center for the Arts. I think when you read it, I can
understand where someone might think this is for some yuppie, artsy,
Gucci, woo woo kind of thing. I am not into ``woo woo,'' but I am into
empowerment.
Let me tell you about the neighborhood. This neighborhood is called
Highlandtown. In the city of Baltimore, neighborhoods have names
because Baltimore, the very nature of it, is a city of neighborhoods.
And, God, I love it. And I am so proud of it. I love those
neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are really what make Baltimore.
It is not the Inner Harbor and not Camden Yards and not PSI Net
Stadium. The Inner Harbor is great in terms of an entertainment area,
but it is the neighborhoods that are the heart and soul of Baltimore.
This Highlandtown neighborhood was made up of people who represented
the Polish, the Italian, the German, and the Greek community. They
built this country. They sat on their white steps. They went to war.
And while the men were at war on the battled front, the women were at
home being ``Rosy the Riveters'' on the home front. We are both men and
women, the veterans of World War II.
That neighborhood is aging in place, as are the people in it. I have
a substantial number of aging World War II, GI, red-blooded Americans
in that neighborhood, and their wives, who worked in factories called
Bethlehem Steel, Martin Marietta, building the radar at Western
Electric, who live in that neighborhood.
They are old. And we are fighting off the predators, the predatory
lending crowd, the flipping crowd. We are fighting off the drug
dealers. What was once a proud neighborhood is now teeter-tottering on
disaster.
Now we have a new mayor and a new spirit. And guess what we are
doing. We are transforming that teeter-tottering neighborhood into
revitalization and creating a new village, with this theater being one
anchor and the regional library being another. We are creating a new
village, not only to keep out the bad but to build up the good.
With these young artists, we are creating a new sense of a new kind
of village. So this isn't some gooshy little Playdough project. This is
not a gooshy little Playdough project.
Now, if the mayor of the city of Baltimore is ready to work to anchor
it, we have the right people ready to anchor it. The police
commissioner is working to keep out the drug dealers. Our housing
commissioner is keeping out the predatory lenders. I do not think we
should eliminate this to keep out the empowerment money.
I will tell you, our people fought for their country. I think they
now are trying to fight for their neighborhood. That is what this
project is all about.
So I wanted to talk about mine. But behind every one of these
congressionally designated projects is a story such as this. So if you
really want to help the veterans of Highlandtown, you let me bring this
help to them.
So, Madam President, I feel very strongly about this. I feel so
strongly about those veterans who are waiting in line. I do not want
them in line any more than my colleague does. He and I would be
partners in this, including my wonderful colleague from Missouri. We
are ready to go hand in hand. But do not punish neighborhoods to be
able to help the neighborhoods.
Remember, our veterans fought for the neighborhoods. Now we have to
fight for the neighborhoods and fight for our veterans, and not pit
them against each other.
Madam President, I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 4 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form
with respect to the pending McCain amendment No. 1226; that no
amendments be in order to the McCain amendment; that the only other
amendment in order during this period be a managers' amendment; and
that at 4 p.m., if the managers' amendment has not been agreed to, the
amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, if the amendment has been agreed upon by the two managers
and the two leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott; that the Senate
then vote in relation to the McCain amendment; that upon disposition of
the above amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate
vote on passage of the bill, with the above occurring with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have a difference of opinion,
obviously. Do we want these projects that I described, or do we want to
go along with the strong recommendations of our veterans organizations?
It really isn't too much more complicated than that. Some of these
projects are absolutely ridiculous, but we have seen many other
ridiculous projects in this porkbarrel spending which has lurched
totally out of control.
But the fact is, do we want to have these projects funded--9 out of
10 of them are the Appropriations Committee; things such as desert
space stations and orchid greenhouses--or do we want to add $5
million--which we are not destroying; we are only cutting in half--or
do we want to take the strong advice and recommendation of every
veterans organization in America? It is that simple.
I would be willing to vote. I will be glad to be on record siding
with the veterans of America, with whom I have had some experience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I started to comment earlier about the
degree to which veterans organizations and individual veterans around
the country have relied upon my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain,
to carry their flag in battles here in the Congress.
It always personally impresses me when I see people come up to him,
as I frequently do, and thank him for the work that he has done or
their behalf.
It always pains me when either of us--and sometimes both of us--have
had to vote against the VA-HUD appropriations bill, which has money for
many veterans programs, because of our concern that not enough of the
money is allocated to veterans programs vis-a-vis the HUD programs.
I have explained to my very good friend and colleague, Senator Bond
from Missouri, on many occasions why I have cast that vote, wishing
very much that I could support the good work that he and others have
done in support of our veterans.
I recognize that, as a result, this particular amendment is, in many
respects, a symbolic amendment. It only takes half of the funding away
from these projects that Senator McCain described. And it is a
relatively small amount of the money that we believe will be necessary
to supplement the funds that have been made available for the
resolution of these veterans' claims.
It is true that the committee has set forth an amount that was
recommended for the resolution of those claims, but it is also true
that this fall--when the blue ribbon task force established to make
recommendations comes out with its recommendations--we anticipate that
they will be for a lot more money that is needed to adjudicate the
claims of the veterans. It will be too late by then to get that money
in this appropriations bill.
Senator McCain's effort was a modest attempt to put a very small
amount of money, but symbolically important to our veterans, as he
noted, back into the veterans part of this bill. It is for that reason
I strongly support it.
I will not go through all of the other arguments Senator McCain has
so eloquently cited as the basis for his amendment.
[[Page S8661]]
I appreciate very much what Senator Mikulski said. She has taken the
amount recommended by the administration and put that in the bill. As I
said, all of us recognize, as she noted, it is not nearly enough. The
question is, do we exercise some independent judgment here, anticipate
that there will be a recommendation for funding in the future, but that
it will come too late in this appropriations process or do we put that
money into projects Senator McCain has targeted for at least some
treatment under his amendment?
I agree with him. The choice is clear. I tell all of my veteran
friends when they confront me and ask, why did you have to vote against
that VA-HUD appropriations bill there is a process in Washington to put
the sweet with the sour, to make sure that whatever you do that doesn't
go down very easily, you put something sweet with it so it is hard to
vote against it.
Nobody wants to vote against veterans programs. We all want to
support our veterans. That is why you take programs that can be subject
to some criticism in the HUD portion of the bill, put them with the VA
part of the bill and, voila, you have a recipe for success; Members
will not dare vote against it.
I have voted against it. I will probably vote against it again in the
future. I hope my veteran friends, by observing what is occurring here
today, appreciate the fact that when we try very hard to move some of
that money from programs that we think are not as useful for people
into the veterans part of the budget, you can see how hard that is
going to be. That is why, at the end of the day, we fight as hard as we
can to get as much support for the veterans in the bill. And if we
can't get more than we have been getting, then in many cases we end up
opposing the bill. While it is true and in some respects symbolic, I
think the symbolism is very important.
I urge my colleagues to support Senator McCain's amendment to begin
to send two messages. The first message is to our veterans, that we
understand your needs, we understand your requirements, and we support
you. Secondly, to those who have the difficult job of putting together
this bill, it is time to begin to exercise some discretion here, and
with respect to these projects that each Member likes so much, all
earmarked projects, put less money against those projects and transfer
some of that money into the veterans part of the budget.
As Senator McCain said with respect to these World War II veterans,
they don't have much time left. I hope my colleagues will support his
amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator
McCain's amendment to S. 1216, the appropriations bill for VA HUD.
This amendment would remove badly needed resources for many
communities throughout the country and specifically in Sevier County in
my home State of Utah. It furthermore seeks to overturn the carefully
crafted work performed by the Senate Appropriations Committee when
putting together this bill. I understand that legislating oftentimes
means making difficult decisions, but the cuts proposed by Senator
McCain go too far and would hurt too many.
I urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KYL. Might I inquire of the Senator from Missouri or Maryland if
it would be all right if I take a couple minutes off the subject of the
McCain amendment to simply talk about a part of what will be included
in the managers' amendment?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I assume the Senator from Arizona is
controlling the time of the other Senator from Arizona. He is free to
utilize such time as he wishes. We will extend him our good wishes.
ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND
Mr. KYL. Let me thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from
Maryland for agreeing to accept as part of the managers' amendment an
amendment which I was going to offer. They have done this in good
faith. I especially appreciate the fact that they have expressed
support for what I am trying to achieve. I will explain it very
briefly.
It was an amendment that expressed the sense of the Senate
essentially that since we were not able to modify the formula for the
wastewater treatment programs under EPA by an amendment on the floor on
this appropriations bill, largely because of the argument that it is
more appropriately done on the authorization bill, the authorizing
committee, in September, should take up the reauthorization of the
legislation, including an attempt to deal with this particular formula.
The operative paragraph says:
It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate should be prepared
to enact authorizing legislation (including an equitable
needs-based formula) for the State water pollution control
revolving fund as soon as practicable after the Senate
returns from recess in September.
That is the result of the fact that my earlier amendment was defeated
but, frankly, defeated on a technicality, as most of the individuals
noted.
There is a good case to be made for evaluating the current formula
for distribution of these funds, that it can be done in the authorizing
committee, that it should be done shortly after we return here, and I
hope it can be done in time for changes to be made to affect the fiscal
year 2002 numbers. That is the only way the formula can be made more
fair for this next year.
I express to my colleagues, the managers of this legislation, my
thanks for their willingness to include this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution in the managers' amendment as a way of at least moving
forward on the reform that most people agreed to earlier but were not
willing to make on the appropriations bill itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim such time from the time of the
opponents of this amendment as I may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
Mr. BOND. First, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for his
amendment that is going to be in the managers' amendment. It is a
pleasure to be working with the Senator from Arizona again. He formerly
was on this committee. We regret he is no longer on our appropriations
subcommittee. We still miss him, but I assure you, our aim is getting
better.
I would like to tell the Senator from Arizona that we strongly
support his admonition/instruction to the Environment and Public Works
Committee to move on the subject which he addresses. That subject, of
course, is the equitable allocation and the badly needed funding for
our water infrastructure. I cannot emphasize too much how important
that is to the health and well-being of all of our people and to the
progress of this country.
He has done a great service, raising the question about allocation of
the revolving funds, and we look forward to working with him. We are
going to have to provide more resources than are now available. I
assure him and my other colleagues that we want to do that in an
equitable manner. I look forward, as a member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, to working with our chairman and ranking member
to see that that occurs.
Amendment No. 1226, As Modified
Mr. BOND. With respect to the amendment by the other Senator from
Arizona, Mr. McCain, while I am very sympathetic to the point he has
made about the need to improve VA's claim processing, I join with the
manager of the bill, the distinguished chair, in opposing it.
We have been concerned. We have worked all year long to assist VA in
dealing with the unacceptable backlog in VA claims processing. Nobody
has been a more forceful, consistent spokesperson about the need to
bring up-to-date and up-to-speed VA claims processing than the Senator
from Maryland. I have listened to her for hours on end in the
Appropriations Committee as she has sought more money, as she has
admonished officials of the VA to get with it and get on the ball and
get these claims processed.
This has really been a crusade she has led. I agree with her 100
percent. We are totally in agreement that VA claims processing is
extremely important. It is a matter of justice and fairness to the
people who have protected our country, and we have a long way to
[[Page S8662]]
go. We believe this should be the highest priority.
I agree with her, and I thank her for her kind words about Secretary
Principi. We are excited to have a man of his background, his
commitment, and his dedication at the helm in VA.
This is a difficult management problem. It is a resource problem. It
is a personnel problem. We are totally committed to supporting
Secretary Principi as far as we can. Secretary Principi has set a goal
of processing regional disability claims within 100 days by the summer
of 2003. That is an admirable and, unfortunately, ambitious goal
considering that it now takes VBA more than 200 days to process a
claim.
Nevertheless, he has set forth a timetable. He has set forth a budget
he needs. He has set forth his plan to develop an effective processing
operation that will assure that our Nation's veterans receive the
service and the compensation they deserve. To address this need, to
fulfill our part of the bargain, the bill before us provides
significant funding increases to the VA, as requested by Secretary
Principi. He said: This is my goal; this is where I want to be, no more
than a hundred days. We will get there by 2003. He told us what he
needed.
Our bill provides $1.1 billion for the administration of benefits.
That is $132 million, or a 13-percent increase over the fiscal year
2001 level. And, at the request of the administration, we have already
provided the additional $19 million in the recently enacted fiscal year
2001 Supplemental Appropriation Act that gives the VA the ability to
hire new claims processors immediately. So that is actually $151
million that we are putting into Veterans Affairs.
This funding will increase the VA's budget and allow the VA to hire
much needed additional staff, increase training, and modernize and
upgrade information technology. Specifically, the VA will be able to
hire and train 890 new employees to help resolve the backlog of cases
and handle new cases due to legislation, such as the ``duty to assist''
enacted last year. This is a significant hiring increase. Bringing on
all these people is a tremendous workload for the personnel section.
Therefore, we have questions as to whether they could do more. They
have outlined for us what they think is the optimum capacity for hiring
new personnel, bringing them on board, giving them the training so they
can accomplish the goal that Secretary Principi has sent down the pike
for the 100-day limit for the processing of claims.
Frankly, the money that the Senator from Arizona has proposed is not
in his request. It has not been requested by the person who has to do
the job, who has to administer and make sure the money is well spent.
Frankly, I believe we need to stay with the responsible work plan that
the Secretary has outlined.
Finally, let me talk about some of the rhetoric we have heard on
porkbarrel. I come from a background of working in State government.
One of the most important things we can do for the people in our States
is to assure that we have strong communities. That means education,
health care, and housing. But it also means strong communities. I spent
a great deal of time, when I was Governor, working on how we develop
communities, how we bring together the facilities that are needed to
make sure we have livable communities.
Now, housing, obviously, in this budget is second only in priorities
to taking care of our veterans. Veterans are our first priority.
Housing is second. Below that, is assuring that the communities have
what they need to be strong communities. We need good communities to
support good housing so families can raise their children in the proper
setting.
I am very pleased that we have been able to put money into community
development. This is a very important priority. This is something that
is recognized across this country and is strongly supported.
There is $5,012,993,000 going into the community development fund.
These funds go back and are administered by locally elected officials
and State-elected officials--except for roughly 2.8 percent of those
funds that are allocated here.
Now, if you don't think any of these buildings or any community
development activities should be carried forward, you could save $5
billion by knocking out community development funds. Given the many,
many different objects for spending, I can assure you, as one who lives
in a small town and who travels to communities of all sizes in our
State, the community development activities are vitally important from
a governmental standpoint, from a quality-of-life standpoint, and from
an economic development standpoint. They help draw and attract the
kinds of economic activities and the kinds of community activities that
are beneficial. I believe in them. I believe it works.
Community development block grant funds are extremely important, and
I will strongly oppose anybody who wants to cut the $5 billion we put
into community development block grants.
It is easy to pick out a project that has been recommended here and
included by an elected Senator--anything you want--that goes to a
different State than yours and call it ``pork.'' If it is in your own
State, it is a ``strategic investment.'' How is that $5 billion
allocated? It is allocated by elected officials. That is what this
process of government is all about. It is a republican form of
government. They elect people at the local level and State level to
make decisions on how to spend the money that is raised in taxes. A
small portion of it--$5 billion out of the total budget--goes to
community development.
Who is best to make these decisions? We say, by and large, the
decisions should be made at the local and State level. This is money
the Federal Government raises and sends back for community development.
But do the people who are elected to serve their States in the Senate
know what some of those priorities are? I happen to think they do. I
travel around my State, and I know the need and the opportunities that
economic development initiative grants and community development block
grants can meet. I think those are very important.
Do we make decisions on all these funds? No, only about 2.8 percent.
I think that anybody in this body who takes their job seriously is
going to be seeing needs in their States. They are going to have the
ability to identify improvements and projects or buildings that would
benefit the communities--particularly the communities most in need, the
communities needing a handout.
I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Maryland
and with most of my colleagues. The 1600 requests we had went to
communities all over this Nation to try to provide some funds for the
top priorities as identified by our colleagues from the 50 States in
the Nation. I will be happy to discuss at any length the contention of
those who think that community development funds from the Federal
Government through the community development block grant are not
necessary. They make a great difference, and I do not apologize for the
fact that those elected by the voters of the 50 States ought to have a
say in allocating 2.8 percent of that.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the committee chairman and the
ranking member of the subcommittee for their commitment and adherence
to the needs of our veterans. I appreciate it very much. I know that
all veterans and all Americans do as well.
I point out that there was a $132 million addition for the VA, and it
was a $211 million addition over the President's budget for community
development grants. I listened carefully to the comments by the Senator
from Missouri about elected officials being wise enough to determine
spending for projects in their own State. I wonder if that wisdom now
resides in the Appropriations Committee, where 9 out of 10 of the
earmarks came from. I am sorry the rest of us are not as well informed.
In fact, I read this: Missouri, 15 projects, the largest number of
projects, for $9.150 million. And, of course, we can go down the list
of the Appropriations Committee: Maryland, 13 projects, $5.260 million;
West Virginia, $8 million; Alaska, $7.490 million. Of course, there is
a dramatic demarcation there between these funds and those who are not
members of the Appropriations Committee.
That may be some coincidence. I believe $5 million is a very modest
[[Page S8663]]
amount of money. I described the projects that half the money is taken
from, and I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Pending VA Cases by State
Vermont, White River Junction--1,420
West Virginia, Huntington--5,926
Maryland, Baltimore--5,958
Ohio, Cleveland--13,715
Alabama, Montgomery--13,758
Wisconsin, Milwaukee--10,049
Missouri, St. Louis--11,561
New Mexico, Albuquerque--5,859
South Dakota, Sioux Falls--1,919
Montana, Fort Harrison--2,454
Alaska, Anchorage--2,674
Idaho, Boise--3,031
Iowa, Des Moines--5,183
New Hampshire, Manchester--2,224
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia/Pitts.--14,854
Kentucky, Louisville--10,724
South Carolina, Columbia--9,394
Mississippi, Jackson--7,442
Illinois, Chicago--10,832
North Dakota, Fargo--2,399
Louisiana, New Orleans--9,198
Texas, Houston/Waco--38,598
Colorado, Denver--9,001
Utah, Salt Lake City--1,574
Washington, Seattle--13,091
California, Oak./L.A./S.D.--47,448
Nevada, Reno--7,105
Massachusetts, Boston--5,147
Rhode Island, Providence--4,042
New York, NYC/Buffalo--22,745
Connecticut, Hartford--3,411
Maine, Togus--4,395
New Jersey, Newark--7,384
Indiana, Indianapolis--6,289
Michigan, Detroit--9,687
Delaware, Wilmington--1,984
Virginia, Roanoke--17,635
Georgia, Atlanta--16,714
North Carolina, Winston-Salem--20,784
Tennessee, Nashville--14,276
Florida, St. Petersburg--33,218
Nebraska, Lincoln--4,229
Minnesota, St. Paul--7,357
Kansas, Wichita--6,971
Arkansas, Little Rock--7,881
Oklahoma, Muskogee--10,767
Oregon, Portland--12,368
Arizona, Phoenix--8,687
Hawaii, Honolulu--4,481
District of Columbia--6,872
Puerto Rico, San Juan--11,581
Philippines, Manilla--7,890
Total cases pending: 524,186
____
STATE COSTS BY PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Total (in
State projects thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri......................................... 15 $9,150
Rhode Island..................................... 14 3,900
Pennsylvania..................................... 13 3,700
Maryland......................................... 13 5,260
Alabama.......................................... 12 4,400
Illinois......................................... 12 3,000
South Dakota..................................... 11 3,750
Wisconsin........................................ 10 3,000
California....................................... 9 3,700
Nevada........................................... 9 4,000
Louisiana........................................ 8 2,900
Vermont.......................................... 8 5,000
Iowa............................................. 7 4,000
New York......................................... 7 2,000
Hawaii........................................... 6 3,000
Mississippi...................................... 6 5,250
New Mexico....................................... 6 4,400
Alaska........................................... 5 7,490
West Virginia.................................... 5 8,050
South Carolina................................... 5 3,000
North Dakota..................................... 4 3,300
New Hampshire.................................... 4 2,500
Washington....................................... 4 3,300
Massachusetts.................................... 4 1,050
New Jersey....................................... 4 1,050
Colorado......................................... 3 2,800
Ohio............................................. 3 2,500
Texas............................................ 3 2,000
Florida.......................................... 3 2,050
Delaware......................................... 3 1,100
Georgia.......................................... 3 1,050
Indiana.......................................... 3 1,800
Nebraska......................................... 3 1,800
Oregon........................................... 3 1,750
Maine............................................ 3 2,750
Tennessee........................................ 3 1,850
Idaho............................................ 2 1,500
Montana.......................................... 2 1,750
Utah............................................. 2 1,800
Michigan......................................... 2 1,050
Minnesota........................................ 2 1,050
Arkansas......................................... 2 1,300
Connecticut...................................... 2 600
North Carolina................................... 2 1,300
Kansas........................................... 2 1,500
Oklahoma......................................... 1 1,000
Kentucky......................................... 1 3,500
Virginia......................................... 1 1,000
Arizona.......................................... ......... ..........
Wyoming.......................................... ......... ..........
----------------------
50 states.................................... 255 140,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2001.
Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the one million members
and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste (CCAGW), I would like to express our support for your
efforts to reduce wasteful spending in the fiscal 02
appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development (VA/HUD). Your leadership
on these issues is greatly appreciated.
Last year, CCAGW chronicled a record of 6,333 pork-barrel
items in spending for fiscal 01 that totaled $18.5 billion.
Congress seems to be on track to beat that dubious
achievement. Ignoring the absence of earmarks in this year's
House VA/HUD spending bill, the Senate exceeded the record
levels of last year and added 256 earmarks in Community
Development Block Grants (CDBGs), totaling $138 million.
Some examples of this self-indulgence include: $1,000,000
for a multi-purpose center for the Southern New Mexico Fair
and Rodeo in Dona Ana County, New Mexico; $750,000 for
development of an arts center in Baltimore, Maryland;
$500,000 for the Idaho Virtual Incubator at Lewis and Clark
State College in Idaho; $350,000 for the Harbor Gardens
Greenhouse project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for
a heritage trails project in Kauai, Hawaii; $300,000 for a
new facility for Studio for the Arts in Pocahontas, Arkansas;
$250,000 for the Culver City Theater Project in Culver City,
California; $100,000 for development assistance for the
Desert Space Station in Nevada; and $100,000 for the
development of the Alabama Quail Trail.
Your amendment will eliminate much of this egregious
spending and spare the taxpayers from being forced to pay for
the appropriators' largess. CCAGW applauds your efforts and
urges your colleagues to support your amendment. The vote on
your amendment will be among those considered for CCAGW's
annual Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Thomas Schatz,
President.
____
[Citizens Against Government Waste release, July 26, 2001]
Pork Alert: CAGW's Pork Patrol Takes a Closer Look at Fiscal 2002 VA/
HUD Pork
Next week, the Senate is expected to consider the FY 2002
appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development (VA/HUD). The Senate
ignored the House request of zero earmarks and picked up
beyond where they left off last year, adding 256 earmarks
totaling $138 million for the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program in the bill. The 13 VA/HUD
Appropriations subcommittee members gobbled up 101 of those
earmarks (39 percent), totaling $54.7 million. The other 16
Senate appropriators received another 104 earmarks (41
percent), totaling $55.7 million. That means 29 percent of
the Senate would get 80 percent of the projects and dollars,
proving, once again, that appropriators abuse their
privileges. A few examples:
Taxpayers Left Out in the Cold, Alaska. Senate
Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Ted Stevens (R-
Alaska) earmarked $2.25 million for the city of Fairbanks to
provide winter recreation alternatives to military and
civilian residents. Sen. Stevens might just have asked
federal taxpayers to send their old sleds and ice skates up
north.
Leadership Has Its Privileges, Missouri. Senate VA/HUD
Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Christopher
``Kit'' Bond (R-Mo.) earmarked $7.1 million in CDBGs for his
home state, including: $1 million for the City Market
renovation project in Kansas City; $1 million for the
University of Missouri-Kansas City Life Sciences Initiative;
and, $250,000 to the city of St. Joseph for redevelopment of
its downtown area.
We Have Enough Bull, New Mexico. Cowboys, cotton candy, and
kicking bulls must be on the mind of VA/HUD Approriations
subcommittee member Pete Dominici (R-N.M.). The senator
earmarked $1 million for infrastructure improvements and for
a new multi-purpose and event center for the Dana County
Rodeo and Fair. YEE-HAW!
Out of This World, Nevada. As if the International Space
Station didn't cost enough, a new tribute to man's heavenly
aspirations is being built in the desert. Senate
Appropriations Committee member Harry Reid (D-Nev.) must be
seeing stars over the $100,000 that was earmarked for a
futuristic space museum in his home state. It won't fly with
taxpayers.
Not-so Bravo, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Appropriators are taking taxpayers to the cleaners and the
theater. Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont are slated to
receive a total of $1.1 million for the refurbishment of
theaters and performance centers. Although some theaters may
be historic, preserving the past probably took a back seat to
preserving their starring role on Capitol Hill for VA/HUD
Appropriations subcommittee member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and
Appropriations Committee members Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Taxpayer Always Comes Last, Nevada. Known for tourists,
gambling, and friendly service, Las Vegas has made a name for
itself with its billion-dollar hospitality industry. From
showgirls to costumed Romans, the customer always comes
first. The taxpayer, though, obviously comes last. Senate
Appropriations Committee member Harry Reid D-Nev.) gamble
away $700,000 for a hospitality training facility in Las
Vegas.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are coming now to the closing
moments of this bill. I know we are waiting for a clearance to take up
the manager's amendment, and we should be coming to that shortly. As
soon as we have cleared the manager's amendment, I will be offering it.
[[Page S8664]]
As we go into the final minutes, I am going to make some final
comments on the bill. We have really done a good job, and we have done
a good job working on a bipartisan basis, working with President Bush
and his Cabinet.
There are 13 appropriations subcommittees. The big three are Defense,
Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. VA-HUD spends $84 billion of the taxpayers'
money. Of that, $51 billion goes to veterans, and it is worth every
nickel of it. Housing and Urban Development receives $31 billion. A
substantial amount of that goes to community development block grant
money, which is decided by the local community: housing for the
elderly, the special needs population, and housing for the poor. We
have tried to use the best ideas and the best practices to make sure
subsidies are not a way of life but a way to a better life. That is
what we have concentrated on again in this bill.
We have the Environmental Protection Agency. We have worked to clean
up the environment. We have the National Space Agency and the National
Science Foundation, very important for public investments in new ideas,
in new knowledge, which always leads to America being on the
competitive edge and the cutting edge.
We try to inspire young people through a national service program
where they get value by working in the community and taxpayers get
value by the work they do, and we create the habits of the heart that
hopefully will inspire the next generation to have the spirit of
voluntarism.
We think we have done a very good job in this bill. The reason we
have done a good job is cooperation, collegiality, courtesy, and
civility. I thank my ranking member, Senator Bond of Missouri, for the
way we have worked together on this bill.
This has been a very difficult year. First, there was the delayed
transition of the executive branch. President Bush took office in a
timely manner, but because of the delayed transition we were late
getting started. The President was late getting started. We have worked
to catch up, and he has given us some terrific Cabinet people to work
with in VA-HUD, our Secretary of Housing, and our Administrator of the
Environment. I extolled the virtues of our Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
So many people think we are pretty prickly in politics, but we think
we have worked well with the Bush administration. I have been delighted
at their courtesy.
It was the Senator from Missouri, when there was the transition of
power with the Democrats taking control, who, with enormous
graciousness, provided practical help in transitioning the gavel to me.
He was so courteous and the transition so effective and so seamless,
that we did not miss a beat in terms of holding our hearings, trying to
be responsible to the needs of our communities, and trying to be
responsible to the needs of the taxpayer.
In the most sincere and genuine way, I want to thank my colleague for
his graciousness because I believe we have truly been able to serve the
people and serve the Nation.
He has an outstanding staff, and I want to thank them now:--Jon
Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and John Stoody--for their wonderful work with my
staff. I thank my staff--Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin and Joel
Widder, a detailee from the National Science Foundation--for the
outstanding job they have done.
This committee has also had a tradition of bipartisanship. We have
kept that tradition, and I think America benefits from it. As we now
come to these closing minutes, we will really be able to complete our
bill with pride.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time to yield. The time has
expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 3
minutes in order to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished
Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Madam President, I congratulate the two Senators who have been
managing this bill. I thank them for their vision with regard to
America's space program, and indeed I have entered into a written
colloquy with the Chair of the committee that will be inserted in the
Record. I want to take this opportunity to express my concern and share
that concern with the Chair and the ranking member of the committee. I
have been afraid there may be some attempt, because NASA has had almost
$5 billion of overruns in the space station, that there may be some
attempt to punish NASA by the administration.
I want to express my concern that if we starve NASA of the funds it
needs, particularly with regard to the space shuttle upgrades, that
could endanger the safety of the space shuttle program. I do not have
to even conjecture further for the chairman and the ranking member that
should there be another catastrophe in the manned space flight program,
that could severely not only cripple but end the manned space flight
program.
I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for recognizing space
shuttle upgrades need to be addressed, not only in the bill but when we
go to conference. I want to state clearly and unequivocally we cannot
starve this space shuttle upgrade program, because if we do, we are
getting to the point of risking the safety of the crews we fly.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I assure the Senator from Florida that we are safety-
obsessed when it comes to the safety of our astronauts. In this bill,
we have actually provided $3.2 billion for the shuttle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would suspend, the Senator has
used 3 minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. We agree. The Senator can count on it, and everyone
should know he is a Senator-astronaut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to make one additional comment to
the Senator from Florida for whom I have the highest respect,
admiration, and appreciation of his advocacy for the space program. I
say in all candor to the Senator from Florida, he knows these cost
overruns go on and on. There is no one more qualified than the Senator
from Florida to start exercising some fiscal discipline because we do
not have an unlimited amount of taxpayers' dollars.
Unfortunately, before the authorizing committee, the Director of NASA
keeps coming back and back saying: We have it under control; we keep
imposing caps, and every year they tend to increase.
Madam President, I say to the Senator from Florida, whom I admire
enormously, he is beginning to lose support when the costs just
continue without any end in sight, and that should be of concern most
of all to the Senator from Florida who is the advocate and spokesperson
for this very important part of our Nation.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If I may respond----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 4 minutes. The
time of the Senator from Maryland has expired.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland and 2
minutes to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I will claim 1 minute. I say to my colleagues from
Arizona and Florida, first, on the cost overruns, Senator Bond and I
absolutely agree. The space station is running a $4 billion overrun. We
want to shake, rattle, and roll this culture of permissiveness with
these overruns. We are trying to work with the administration to deal
with it.
While we are dealing with that, though, we want to ensure for each
and every mission that we can send our astronauts into space and return
them home safely and maintain our shuttle upgrades.
I yield back whatever time is remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding
2 minutes. I agree with him. It is inexcusable that there is the lack
of discipline so that the overruns to the tune of $5 billion have
occurred on the space station. I agree with Senator McCain on that.
The fact is, however, that the space shuttle account has been starved
40 percent less over the last 10 years, and
[[Page S8665]]
we cannot continue to rob from Peter to pay Paul in other parts of the
program without endangering the safety of the program.
The Senator and I share the vision of this country. We share the
character of the American people, which is, by nature, we are
explorers; we are adventurers. We never want to give that up because if
we do, we are dead as a country; we are a second-rate country. We want
to continue to explore into the unknown, but we have to do that with
the utmost of safety. We all suffered through the tragic explosion of
the 25th flight of the space shuttle, and from that we learned that we
simply have to have the two-way communication and we have to have
adequate resources.
There is a plan over the next 10 years of upgrading the shuttle so
that it provides reliable and safe access to space, and that is what I
am advocating.
Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Arizona has 1 minute 10 seconds remaining.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. It is
appropriate to say, though, when he says the budget was starved, that
budget was recommended by NASA. We agreed to administration budget
requests, and we were told time after time they could live within those
budgets. I do not disagree with the Senator's depiction that the budget
was ``starved'' or reduced, but those were the budget requests to which
we agreed. Therefore, we have to get much more realistic estimates of
the costs so that we can plan on them and also impose fiscal
discipline, which I think the Senator from Florida will agree with me
is somewhat lacking, at least in comparison to the pledges they make to
the Congress of the United States.
I thank the Senator from Florida. I look forward to discussing this
with him in the committee and also on the floor. It is a very important
issue and one to which we have not paid enough attention. Now that the
Senator from Florida is here, I think we will be paying a lot more
attention.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. Nickles, I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announed--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wyden
NAYS--30
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Dayton
Ensign
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Rockefeller
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Domenici
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment our two managers. We have
come a long way, and, I understand we are not far off from the point
where we can have final passage. The managers have done an outstanding
job. My hope is that we could go back on Agriculture.
I announce to my colleagues that we have two remaining pieces of
business. We have, of course, the Agriculture bill, and we have
nominations that I would like to be able to take up and complete.
If there is any way we could finish it tonight, there would be no
session tomorrow. I hope, perhaps, we can all work together to see if
there might be a way to accomplish the rest of our work tonight. There
is still plenty of time. Then we can go all make our plane reservations
for tomorrow. I announce that if there is a way to do it, we sure would
like to find a way.
Again, let me compliment our colleagues for getting us to this point.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the leader very much for those
kind words.
I have a unanimous consent request, and then we will go to final
passage.
Once again, I thank Senator Bond and his staff and my staff for their
cooperation. I also thank Senator Harry Reid who helped us move the
amendment process.
As you noticed, this bill had a minimum, and we are proud of our
content and proud of our process.
Amendment No. 1338
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send the VA-HUD managers' amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski), for herself and
Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1338.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the amendment includes the Harkin
amendment for a 1-year public housing agency, an Iowa issue;
A Hollings amendment on earmark corrections;
An Inouye amendment on the eligibility standards for mortgages for
Hawaii homeland;
A Lincoln-Hutchison amendment certifying the eligibility of HOME
program funds project;
A Torricelli amendment to conduct a study at VA on particular
diseases;
A Mikulski amendment clarifying a plan on HOPE VI;
A Wellstone amendment preventing discrimination in the rental or sale
of housing--a nondiscrimination provision;
A Lott amendment to ensure that NASA-funded rocket propulsion testing
is assigned according to existing procedures;
A Dorgan amendment on funding for EPSCoR programs;
A Conrad amendment on technical and other assistance for Turtle
Mountain;
A Dorgan amendment on the eligibility of North Dakota cemeteries;
A Durbin amendment extending the comment period on this network 12
cares process by 60 days;
A Kerry amendment on increasing funds for Youthbuild;
And a Kyl amendment on the sense of the Senate that the Environment
and Public Works Committee should report equitable clean water funding
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland still has the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alabama why he
surprised us.
[[Page S8666]]
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have to clarify one of the amendments
that we thought was cleared. We ask our colleagues to please stay
because we think we will be able to clear it.
While we are doing this clarification with our colleague from
Alabama, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
managers' amendment, as previously offered, with the deletion of the
Lott amendment, be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1338) was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. 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 Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my sincere appreciation for
the work of the chair of the committee. She has done an excellent job
by making sure everybody knows what is going on. We have taken care of
many of the problems and challenges that arise in this bill. I thank
her for the tremendous cooperation she has provided us throughout.
She said some kind words about collegiality, but on this side, what
we know about collegiality we have learned from the distinguished
Senator from Maryland, which she has shown us in the past, on how to
work effectively, both as chair and ranking member. It is my great
pleasure to work with her. And I share her enthusiasm for cleaning up
the Chesapeake Bay. I assure you, Mr. President, it is one of my
highest priorities.
I express my appreciation to Senator Mikulski's staff: Paul Carliner,
Gabrielle Batkin, Joel Widder; and, obviously, to my staff: Jon
Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and John Stoody. They have made a very difficult
bill work well.
I hope now that we can accept this bill and send it on to conference.
I appreciate the work and accommodation of all of our colleagues who
were kind and understanding to know why we could not take all 1,600
proposed amendments worth $22 billion to add on to the bill.
Amendment No. 1214
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1214,
as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1214), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to.
epa's regulation of pesticides
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important
issues facing agriculture and EPA's regulation of the use of
pesticides.
First, as my colleagues know, 1996 capped a major shift in pesticide
policy in this country with the unanimous passage by this House of the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This act, which was later signed
into law, provided new protections for infants, children, and other
subpopulations potentially vulnerable to the effects of pesticide
residues.
That act accelerated a trend in our country to move toward safer,
reduced risk pesticides. It is important that all pesticides on the
market meet FQPA's safety standards, and safer products allow farmers
and others to better protect public health and safeguard our
environment. It is a winning situation for everyone. Ensuring that
effective, reduced risk pesticides continue to come to market is
essential to ensuring that farmers and others continue to have a
complete, effective, and affordable toolbox to address pest issues
facing agriculture, industry, and our urban areas.
An additional $5 million is needed to adequately support the
registration of additional safer, reduced risk compounds. I would ask
that this need be considered when this bill goes to conference.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I wanted to commend the Senator for bringing this matter
to the attention of the Senate. It is my understanding that, in the
last few years, over half of the applications received by EPA for new
pesticides are for reduced risk, safer products.
In addition, there is a commitment by everyone, environmental groups,
industry, farmers, and others, that it is important to review the older
pesticides to ensure they meet today's higher health and safety
standards.
Given that some of the older pesticides have had their uses adjusted
as a result of FQPA, this additional money will help ensure that our
farmers have a complete tool box to control the pests that threaten our
agriculture. It will help bring new, cost-effective products to market
and will help provide adequate alternatives for farmers.
It also helps ensure that farmers have the tools they need to
continue to provide a safe and abundant supply of food. I want to
express my support for these additional funds as well.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his support and his
help on this issue. He and I have worked together closely on several
pesticide issues over the years on the VA/HUD subcommittee, and I
always value his insights into agricultural issues facing this body.
The second issue I wanted to discuss involves EPA's pesticide
evaluation process. Making evaluations of a particular pesticide's
safety requires complex scientific analyses that ultimately depend on
having complete and reliable data to base the analyses upon. Data that
you need include pesticide residues in food and water and exposures to
applicators and farm workers, among others.
While EPA's ability to conduct through scientific analyses on
possible pesticide exposures from drinking water and to farm workers
has improved, additional work remains to be done.
I am urging that the conference committee consider including an
additional $1 million for this purpose.
Mr. CRAIG. Again, I commend my colleague for bringing this matter to
our attention.
It is my understanding that this additional money could be used by
EPA in a collaborative way between industry and the environmental
community to strengthen EPA's information and assessment techniques.
Better data, with enhanced methods to evaluate potential pesticide
exposures, will result in more accurate and scientifically sound risk
assessments, thereby contributing to better quality decisions by EPA.
I look forward to working with my colleague from Iowa to include
these funds in the final conference report.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the gentlemen will yield, I thank the Senators for
their discussion. Reduced-risk pesticides can provide farmers and
others with alternative pesticides that may present lower risks to
public health and the environment, and can help ensure that farmers
continue to have the tools they need. Also, given the difficult task
that EPA faces in making timely, scientific decision about pesticides,
providing the tools that EPA needs to improve its decision making
should be a high priority.
I will work to ensure that these items receive every appropriate
consideration as the VA/HUD bill moves forward.
Mr. BOND. I rise in support of the statements by my colleagues Mr.
Craig and Mr. Harkin, I have a longstanding interest in ensuring that
pesticides meet FQPA's safety standards based on factual, reliable
scientific data. The additional funding discussed by Mr. Craig and Mr.
Harkin for strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on
[[Page S8667]]
worker exposure and drinking water would also help enhance sound
scientific decisions by EPA. Moreover, the additional funding for
faster review and approval of reduced risk pesticides will enable these
products to be on the market sooner, and help ensure that farmers and
others have a complete tool box to control pests that attack their
crops and threaten public health.
I look forward to working with Mr. Craig, Mr. Harkin, and Ms.
Mikulski to consider these additional funds in the conference report.
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the distinguished chair and ranking
member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee for their consideration. I am also
hopeful that we will be able to agree upon a legislative package that
will address several issues with pesticide fees currently facing the
EPA and chemical industry. The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and I
have been working together in the Agriculture Committee to come up with
long-term fix for several pesticide fee provisions that expire this
year.
I am very hopeful that this work could lead to an agreement that
could help resolve issues that are likely to arise in conference on the
VA/HUD bill.
Mr. CRAIG. I would like to commend Senators Harkin and Lugar for
their work in the Agriculture Committee on pesticide fees.
As they and my colleagues know, the legal authorization for the
collection of fees from pesticide manufacturers soon expires. The
expiration of the so-called maintenance fee authorization will mean
that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it attempts to
implement FQPA.
There has been a widespread consensus in Congress to prevent the
tolerance fee rule from taking effect. We have postponed the rule for 2
consecutive years, and another year postponement is included in this
bill, as well as the House's version. I would urge the Senate to follow
the House's action and reauthorize maintenance fees at $20 million for
fiscal year 2002. I would hope this is the first year of a multi-year
fix. This would help maintain the critical base funding necessary to
ensure that FQPA protections for public health are realized.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague from Idaho for putting his finger on
exactly why it is so important to come to a resolution on these
pesticide fee issues.
Mr. CRAIG. I would like to thank the Senators Harkin and Lugar for
their efforts and leadership on this issue. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to find an agreement that is acceptable to all
parties on pesticide fees.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senators from Iowa and Idaho for
their remarks. You've laid out the issues regarding pesticide fees and
EPA funding very well, and I look forward to working with them and the
Senator from Missouri to resolve them.
Mr. REID. As we have discussed, the legal authorization for the
collection of fees from pesticide manufacturers soon expires. The
expiration of the so-called maintenance fee authorization will mean
that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it attempts to
meet important FQPA pesticide protections for children. EPA is far
behind the schedule we set for them in that unanimously adopted law.
This means that the important FQPA provisions we wrote 5 years ago to
protect children from the dangers posed by toxic pesticides are still
not being fully implemented.
At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on EPA's
proposed budget, EPA Administrator Whitman testified that she supported
these important protections. She has taken additional steps during her
tenure which demonstrate her support in concrete ways. At the hearing,
the Administrator recognized that the shortfall I've mentioned above
would cause a reduction of 200 EPA employees dedicated to making sure
our pesticide standards protect kids. She promised that those
reductions would absolutely not occur.
To her credit, Administrator Whitman testified that this shortfall
would not be realized because she pledged to complete the so-called
tolerance fee rule proposed during the Clinton administration. The
administration to its credit also took this position in its budget. The
tolerance rule would provide roughly $51 million in fees to support and
accelerate FQPA work. That was an important statement. It was an
affirmation of FQPA's provisions that the costs of pesticide programs
should be paid for by the pesticide industry rather than by the
taxpayer. I look forward to working with the Administration to follow
through on its pledge.
Recognizing, however, that it may be difficult to complete that
rulemaking on schedule, it is extremely important that we extend the
maintenance fee authorization in conference to ensure that EPA has the
funds to at least continue their current level of work. I would
underscore the remarks of my colleague from Idaho that this
authorization needs to include an increase so that funding meets at
least the $20 million level.
Will my colleague from Maryland work in conference to ensure that EPA
is provided with the critical base funding for FQPA children's health
protections by supporting the extension of such fees?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for raising
this issue. I look forward to working with him as well to resolve this
issue in conference.
NESCAUM
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding funding for the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). As she
knows, for many years now, NESCAUM has received support in the VA-HUD
conference reports. The $300,000 in funds provided in previous
Subcommittee bills has enabled the organization to do outstanding work
that is helping to protect the health and welfare of citizens in
Vermont and the Northeast from air pollution.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to echo the words of my
colleague from Vermont. As Senators Bond and Mikulski know, I have
supported funding for NESCAUM before and would hope that we can
continue that at current levels in the fiscal year 2002 bill. The
organization is very important to developing workable and cost-
effective air pollution control strategies in the Northeast. I
encourage the Chair to continue that past support.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the views of the chairman and ranking
Member of the authorizing committee. As they have indicated, NESCAUM
has received support from the subcommittee from the past and I will
ensure that it receives every appropriate consideration as we move
forward.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair for her consideration.
National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished Senator from Maryland and chairman of the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. As the Senator knows,
several years ago, NASA established the National Space Biomedical
Research Institute (NSBRI) to enlist the broad scientific community in
the effort to develop solutions to the health-related problems and
physical and psychological challenges men and women will face on long-
duration space flights. These 2 to 3 year missions will one day allow
astronauts to travel to other planets and explore our solar system. The
Institute also investigates ways to deliver medical care on these
missions through new technologies and remote treatment advances. While
addressing these space issues, the NSBRI plans to rapidly transfer
discoveries that will also benefit human health on Earth.
As the distinguished Senator knows, the NSBRI is headquartered in
Houston, TX at the Baylor College of Medicine. Eleven other prestigious
research organizations make up the 12-member consortium of NSBRI
Institutions, including the renowned Johns Hopkins University in
Maryland. If we are to meet our established goals for human space
flight and the continued exploration of the final frontier, we must
better understand the physiological and psychological effects of space
travel on the brave men and women who we launch into space. The NSBRI
is the primary institution charged with this task.
[[Page S8668]]
I know that the Senator from Maryland shares my concern that NSBRI
receive adequate funding. I have been informed that in order to fully
fund current NSBRI research projects, an increase above the president's
Fiscal Year 2002 budget is required.
I ask the Senator from Maryland to work with me in ensuring that
NSBRI is provided with an increase in funding for NSBRI within the
available amounts appropriated in the bill.
Mr. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I
share her concern for the brave men and women who risk their lives to
achieve the national goals that we have established for space travel. I
agree that the health effects of these travels must be better
understood, and that we should not endanger our astronauts who engage
in long-term space travel without fully understanding the effects such
travel has on the human body.
I thank the Senator from Texas for raising this important issue, and
I offer my commitment to work with her to provide the NSBRI with the
resources to achieve the goals we both share.
philadelphia's neighborhood transformation initiative
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to enter into a
colloquy with Senator Bond to discuss efforts to assist the city of
Philadelphia in its Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. On Monday,
July 30, 2001, I met with Mayor John Street for an hour and a half
regarding this initiative, which seeks to eliminate ``blight'' in the
city of Philadelphia as well as focus on the elements that are
essential for a neighborhood to thrive. These elements include the
development of recreational facilities, retail opportunities,
transportation, secure streets, cultural outlets and quality schools. I
was very impressed with Mayor Street's plan to transform the city. I
believe that the city is on the right track and could provide the
prototype for addressing overall blight that plagues so many American
neighborhoods.
In order to assist Philadelphia in reducing inner city blight, I aim
to provide even greater flexibility in the use of CDBG funds. I believe
this increased flexibility is imperative in order for the city to
develop a long-term plan with a predictable funding stream.
Additionally, I understand that there may be additional funds
available in the HUD Neighborhood Initiative program when the VA/HUD
appropriations bill goes to conference. I would appreciate any funds
that may be available for implementation of the city of Philadelphia's
blight removal plan.
Mr. BOND. I understand that like so many neighborhoods in large urban
cities, the neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia have been
devastated by depopulation and that other Philadelphia neighborhoods
are experiencing the initial signs of decline with stagnant or
declining property values, rising crime, and a breakdown in public
infrastructure. Still, other neighborhoods are largely stable, but are
hardly flourishing.
I respect what the Senator from Pennsylvania seeks to accomplish with
these provisions. The CDBG is a flexible block grant program used by
States and communities for critical projects such as affordable
housing, economic development, and human service projects. Last year
the committee provided approximately $5 billion for the program. While
this program is already a very flexible program, I am happy to work
with the Senator from Pennsylvania to assist the city of Philadelphia
to use CDBG funding to develop a long-term blight removal plan.
I understand that the city of Philadelphia is in dire need of
neighborhood development and blight removal, and I would be glad to
work with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference to try to secure
funding under the Neighborhood Initiative effort for this meritorious
program.
NASA
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, one of the agencies funded in
this bill is particularly important to me and to my constituents in
Florida: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA
supports programs that invest in our Nation's future. At present,
NASA's most significant and visible investment is the International
Space Station. But, we have a problem on our hands: The Space Station
is now expected to cost almost $5 billion dollars more than projected
just a few months ago. If we are going to complete this project, we
have to find the money somewhere. Does the Senator agree?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I wholeheartedly agree. We must complete this project.
It is an investment in our children's future. This laboratory of the
heavens will allow us to conduct research in tissue growth, looking at
the causes of cancer and potential medical treatments. We are going to
investigate new drugs, and develop a whole new understanding of the
building blocks of life. Using the microgravity environment of space,
our industries will develop new advanced materials that may lead to
stronger, lighter metals and more powerful computer chips. The station
will also house experiments in combustion science, that could lead to
reduced emissions from power plants and automobiles, saving consumers
billions of dollars. And these are just a few of the possibilities. At
the same time, I am deeply disturbed about the recent cost overruns in
the Space Station program. We have to find funds to complete the
station, and as Chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, I attempted to
balance this need with those of other programs within the agency.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator, and agree with her that
recently announced ISS cost increases are disturbing. Funding these
cost overruns without adding more money to NASA's budget--as the Bush
Administration has proposed--necessitates cutting many of NASA's
programs, and possibly endangering the future viability of the station
itself. At the same time, there are many other worthwhile projects
being conducted at NASA--that have nothing to do with the space
station--such as research in extra-galactic astronomy using the Hubble
Space Telescope, global climate change research by remotely sensing the
Earth, and launch technology development that could decrease the cost
of getting to space by a factor of 10 or more. Not to mention the other
human space flight programs impacted by station cost overruns. Cuts to
the Space Shuttle Program may have catastrophic consequences. We have
to continue supporting these and other projects, but where will all the
money come from? I recognize that this situation has tied the hands of
appropriators in both chambers, and applaud the efforts of Senators
Mikulski and Bond, as well as Representatives Walsh and Mollohan in the
House, in attempting to solve this problem. While the Chambers are far
apart in their approaches, I understand that Senator Mikulski plans to
work with conferees to support a combination of the priorities in each
bill. Is this correct?
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. The committee has endorsed the
projects included in the bill's report. At the same time, I also
recognize the need to support some of the priorities that were endorsed
by the House. I plan to press for a marriage of the two bills during
conference, combining the priorities of each Chamber. In fact, during
this year's appropriations process, I have especially appreciated the
input of Senator Nelson, as I believe that the combined interests of
his constituents in Florida, and my own constituents in Maryland best
represent the diversity of programs supported by NASA. Although
programs in Florida largely focus on human space flight and supporting
a robust commercial space industry, and programs in Maryland center
around the remote sensing of Earth and exploring our own solar system,
we both believe in doing everything we can to support a robust civilian
space program for our Nation and the world. For this reason, I look
forward to continuing to work with Senator Nelson and his staff in best
representing the interests of both of our constituencies, as well as
those of the rest of my colleagues.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the distinguished Senator. I appreciate her
support and that of her staff on this issue, and look forward to
continuing to work with her.
International Space Station
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with
the Senator from Maryland and chairwoman of the VA-HUD-Independent
[[Page S8669]]
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee concerning the International Space
Station and NASA's funding.
We are both concerned about the recently projected cost growth for
the International Space Station. I support a space station that is
fully functioning, and in order to achieve that goal, NASA must work
within the budget that Congress has given it. At the same time, I
understand the difficulty in estimating the costs of such an amazing
engineering feat. We are now within a year of the station being ``core
complete,'' and I believe Congress must adequately fund the station so
that we can begin to see the benefits of its unique scientific
research.
NASA's projected 5-year cost growth of over $4 billion includes many
program liens that reflect 2 years of actual operational experience for
the station. That on-orbit experience has eliminated many unknowns and
has significantly enhanced NASA's awareness of what it takes to operate
the space station. Unfortunately, the greater awareness has come a
price tag that threatens reaching the full capability of the space
station as originally planned in terms of research, a permanent crew of
six, and a crew rescue vehicle.
I understand NASA is dealing with the budgetary challenges and has
proposed a ``core complete'' plan for the station to stay within budget
constraints. Importantly, NASA and OMB have put into place an
independent external review board to assess the space station's budget
and to assure the station will provide maximum benefit to the U.S.
taxpayer. This external review board will evaluate the costs and
benefits for enhancing research, a habitation module for a crew of six
and a crew rescue vehicle.
Does the Senator agree it is important in conference that we not
preclude the full review of these potential enhancements by the
independent external review board, and not preclude the ability of NASA
to undertake these enhancements, in order to ensure the originally
planned capability for the space station?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I am concerned about the continued cost overruns on the
space station and the lack of real urgency at NASA to really get the
station budget under control. We have to send NASA a message that it
cannot keep spending more and more money that is meant for other
programs. The committee supports administration's objectives of reining
in station cost growth, reforming program management to avoid cost
overruns in the future, and creating an independent panel to validate
the budget estimates and management reforms. The external review
committee will present its recommendations this fall to address the
space station funding problem. We are, necessarily, in a ``wait and
see'' mode until NASA and OMB give us a new plan that will be the
result of the independent external review.
I agree that we should not take any action that would prevent the
achievement of the original scientific mission of the station. Despite
the space station funding challenge, the committee is committed to
completing the station: one that is capable of supporting world-class
research.
But let me say, I will ensure that the space station problems do not
threaten NASA's science programs. We can never shortchange safety or
the science, and I'm afraid with the overruns we are going to be
shortchanging science.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator and would like to reassert that I
do not disagree with what you said about the real concerns with cost
overruns that, it unchecked, will limit the space station's ability to
perform as intended. I want to work with you to make sure that we do
not cut off capabilities of the space station, and thereby never see
the scientific contributions for which we have already made a
significant investment.
VETERANS' HEALTH CARE
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maryland, the
chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, to enter into a colloquy.
I had intended to offer an amendment to the bill before us to
increase the spending for veterans' health care.
I think the need is there, as the President's budget plainly shows
that next year VA will need nearly $1 billion to cover the cost of
payroll and inflation. But the President's budget only provided an
additional $800 million.
VA needs additional funding to pay for the long-term care needs of an
aging population, emergency care coverage in non-VA hospitals,
hepatitis C treatment, and new outpatient clinics.
I do understand the very restrictive allocation that Senator
Mikulski's subcommittee faces--due to a budget resolution not of her
own making. Because of that, I have decided against offering my
amendment, but I would like to ask the Senator a question.
Toward the end of the year, I feel certain that Congress will need to
revisit various spending bills. I feel strongly that one of the areas
which should receive more attention at that time is VA health care. I
ask, therefore, for the Senator's assurance that we can go back and add
additional funding for VA health care.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The subcommittee recognizes that increased funding for
VA healthcare is very important to keeping our promises to our nation's
veterans.
Within our allocation, which was very tight, we were able to provide
$21.4 billion for VA medical care. This is $1.1 billion above the
fiscal year 2001 level, $400 million above the President's request, and
$100 million above the House.
The VA also retains copayments from veterans and third-party health
insurance. CBO estimates that these will provide an additional $900
million for VA medical care in fiscal year 2002.
VA will also carry over $882 million in unobligated medical care
funding from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002.
This level of funding will allow VA to open at least 33 more
community based outpatient clinics, and improve waiting times for
veterans to receive care.
We also provide $390 million for VA medical and prosthetic research.
This is $40 million above the fiscal year 2001 level, and $30 million
above the President's request. This funding is critical to making more
progress in: One, recruiting and retaining high quality medical
professionals; two, the treatment of chronic diseases; three, diagnosis
and treatment of degenerative brain diseases like Alzheimers and
Parkinsons; and four, research involving special populations,
especially those who suffer from spinal cord injury, stroke, nervous
system diseases, and post traumatic stress disorder.
So within our tight allocation, the subcommittee was able to keep our
promises to our nation's veterans.
But we recognize that there is always more we can do.
So I assure Senator Rockefeller that within our available resources
we will continue to do all we can to meet the needs of our Nation's
veterans, and keep the promises we made to them.
Establishment of an Outpatient Clinic in Passaic County, NJ
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. president, I request unanimous consent to engage
the distinguished chairwoman of the VA/HUD appropriations Subcommittee
in a colloquy about a critical health care matter facing the veterans
in my State of New Jersey.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to accommodate my colleague from New
Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. In
my State of New Jersey, the veterans population is facing an epidemic
in receiving the health care services they need. They have earned these
health care benefits by virtue of their service to our country in the
Armed Forces, and I believe, as many other Members of this body
believe, that we should make every effort to ensure that the men and
women who have served their country in times of war should have access
to quality and dependable health care when they need it.
The problems that the veterans of New Jersey come across in receiving
the care that they need are many. Each year, under the Veterans Service
Integrated Network, our region has been seeing its veterans health care
funding dwindle as it is reallocated to other parts of the country.
This means that there are fewer hospital beds, fewer doctors, fewer
nurses, and fewer support staff members to respond to the needs of the
750,000 veterans who still live in New Jersey.
This also means that there are fewer facilities where veterans can go
to get checkups, prescriptions for much needed drugs or therapy and
rehabilitation for ailments incurred during their service.
[[Page S8670]]
Indeed, a veteran in New Jersey who puts in a request to have a
routine checkup may have to wait several months before they receive an
appointment. I cannot overstate the critical situation that thousands
of New Jersey veterans face each day. There is a severe backlog of
appointments at all of the New Jersey's veterans hospitals and
outpatient clinics and unless this matter is addressed in the near
future, the problem will only become more acute.
Earlier this year, I met with members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
from New Jersey. In our conversation, they stated that one of the ways
we can alleviate the current problem being faced by the veterans in our
state is to establish a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, NJ.
This new clinic could provide services to veterans throughout the
northern part of my state where a large concentration of veterans live.
Currently, many veterans in this region of New Jersey have to travel
long distances to get health care, some even as far as New York City.
The House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the merits
of establishing a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, and
encouraged the VA to establish one there. It is my hope that the
members of the Senate will recognize this need as well and encourage
the VA to locate a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County. It will
provide a great measure of relief to a veterans population that has
been underserved for many years.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his thoughts on
this matter.
mooresville, nc library project
Mr. EDWARDS. Senator Mikulski, you have made available $140,000,000
for the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of
economic development efforts. I want to make you and your committee
aware of a project I think is worthy of an EDI grant.
The town of Mooresville, NC is in dire need of assistance in
rebuilding its library. The current library has more than 60,000 books,
despite the fact that it was built to hold only 26,000. The Town plans
to add 20,000 square feet to house library materials as well as
community room as well as a large research and reference area. The
library is on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. I am certain
this project will contribute to the overall revitalization of the
neighborhood.
I am certain the Senator would agree that the Mooresville project is
a worthwhile investment. I respectfully ask you to urge members of the
conference committee to provide $1 million in EDI funds for the
Mooresville library project.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for bringing
this project to the committee's attention. The subcommittee will give
it every appropriate consideration as we move forward.
state and tribal assistance grants
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy
with Senator Mikulski, the chair of the VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies Subcommittee.
As the Senator is aware, I have always been a supporter of the State
and Tribal Assistance Grants program administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Over the years, the STAG program has provided
millions of dollars to many of the rural communities throughout the
State for wastewater treatment, waters systems, and programs designed
to improve air quality.
For good reason, this program is tremendously popular with Members
and I know that the chairwoman receives far more requests for funding
that she can possibly accommodate.
However, I would like to ask my friend to consider two STAG grant
requests for the State of Nevada should additional funds become
available to the subcommittee in conference.
The first involves funding for restoration of the Las Vegas Wash. As
my friend knows, the Las Vegas is the primary wetland area in southern
Nevada that filters the drinking water that supplies Las Vegas and the
rapidly growing areas around it. For several years, the local, State,
and Federal governments have been working cooperatively--a remarkable
success story--to restore and protect these wetlands. This STAG grant
will allow this important work to continue.
The second request is for Lake Tahoe. As the Senator from Maryland
knows, I have always marveled at her commitment and dedication to
saving the Chesapeake Bay. I have similar passion for protecting and
restoring the Jewel of the High Sierra's, Lake Tahoe. The relatively
modest STAG grant I am seeking for Lake Tahoe will provide funding for
a series of air and water quality projects that will contribute to
fulfilling the requirements of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement
Program, a 10 year Federal, State, local, and private sector blueprint
for saving Lake Tahoe.
All I ask is that my friend and colleague give these two requests her
consideration during the House-Senate conference committee.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished assistant majority leader for
his thoughtful words. I agree that the two matters you have brought to
my attention are important and worthy. Senator Bond, our ranking
member, and I will certainly work with the House conferees and consider
these grant requests for funding.
sewer infrastructure funding for michigan
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year
2002 Appropriations Act for VA/HUD and Independent Agencies, which
includes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, I wonder if
the distinguished Senator from Maryland would be willing to consider in
conference funding for sewer projects in Michigan.
In Michigan, we are facing an urgent need to maintain and improve our
aging sewer systems. In southeast Michigan alone this will cost between
$14 and $26 billion over the next 30 years. I would greatly appreciate
the committee's assistance in protecting water quality in Michigan by
funding these much-needed sewer projects.
Ms. MIKULSKI. So many of our communities are facing enormous funding
needs to upgrade aging wastewater infrastructure, including Michigan
communities, and we regret that we could not fund the new combined
sewer overflow program within existing funding constraints. The Senator
from Michigan's request will receive every appropriate consideration as
we move forward.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Maryland and the committee for
their hard work in putting together this important legislation.
georgia community redevelopment initiative
Mr. MILLER. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished
subcommittee chairwoman about a very important community development
initiative taking place within the great State of Georgia.
First, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman for her
continued support of community redevelopment and empowering
neighborhoods. Additionally Senator Mikulski, through her tenure as
ranking member and now chair, has always made education one of her top
priorities.
In my State of Georgia, three institutions of higher education, which
are also Historically Black Colleges and Universities, are
participating in a group community redevelopment initiative. Morehouse
College, the Morehouse School of Medicine and Spelman College have
formed a nonprofit corporation--College Partners, Inc.--and are working
with the city of Atlanta in a land acquisition deal. The deal will
result in the expansion of the Atlanta University Center, AUC, space,
as well as surrounding community development and revitalization.
The West End community, which sits at the boundary of these AUC
campuses, has been unable to significantly capitalize on the renewed
interest in residential and commercial development within the Atlanta
area. This community has high unemployment, low educational attainment,
deteriorating and/or vacant housing, and a preponderance of families
that live at or below the Federal poverty level. All of this exists
less than three miles from downtown Atlanta, where there sits prime
commercial developments.
Acquisition of the land in question will allow the campuses to expand
and enable the surrounding community development process to continue
and remain on target with the objectives of the city's empowerment
zone, which already has improved the neighborhoods east and north of
the campuses.
[[Page S8671]]
Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate very much the comments from the Senator
from Georgia. How will the surrounding neighborhood benefit from the
result of the land acquisition?
Mr. MILLER. Each participating school, which are all currently land-
locked, will be able to expand their capabilities and establish and/or
expand programs in their particular areas of expertise. But what makes
the initiative so worthwhile is that the program expansion will move
beyond the confines of the institutions and out into the community. For
instance, Morehouse College will continue its partnership with Fannie
Mae Foundation and HUD to provide leadership training to community
organizers, local nonprofit organizations, and members of the
Neighborhood Planning Units. Morehouse also plans to establish a
charter school. Morehouse School of Medicine will be expanding its
Community Health and Preventive Medicine Programs, as well as expand an
initiative to stimulate the interest of and introduce minority
elementary and middle school students to medical and science careers
early in their education. Finally, Spelman College plans to provide
local residents with training in early childhood development and
childcare while simultaneously providing a hands-on laboratory for
student education majors. In addition to the request for the CPI
project, as we have discussed, Spelman College is seeking additional
funds to renovate one of their primary buildings, Packard Hall, and
include its use in the larger community revitalization efforts.
Specifically, $1 million is sought from the Economic Development
Initiatives account in your bill for each of these projects, for a
total of $2 million. This funding is urgently needed to ensure the
completion of this vital community development initiative.
I hope that language for both College Partners, Inc., and Spelman
College can be included in the conference report for these initiatives
that work to further community revitalization and educational
attainment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the inquiry from the Senator from Georgia
and the subcommittee will work with him and Mr. Cleland to ensure that
these initiatives receive every appropriate consideration as we move
forward.
Acquisition and Revitalization of Atlanta's West End
Mr. Cleland. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished Senator from Maryland, the chairman of the Subcommittee,
Ms. Mikulski, regarding a joint collaboration between three of
Georgia's finest academic institutions, Morehouse School of Medicine,
Morehouse College and Spelman College. As the Senator is aware, these
neighboring institutions have come together for the purpose of
acquiring and revitalizing an 11 acre parcel of land in Atlanta's West
End community that is contiguous to all three schools. The acquisition
of this land is critical to the future success of each institution, due
to the fact that all three schools are essentially landlocked.
The acquisition of this property will enable each school to
significantly expand their education and community based programs, as
well as contribute to the revitalization of Atlanta's West-End
Community. All three institutions are working very hard to secure
private resources for this project. However, given the scope of this
initiative, the schools are also seeking federal support from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic Development
Initiative program.
I applaud the Chairman for her leadership in promoting community
revitalization programs in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I would ask
the Chairman if she would give every consideration to supporting the
important initiative I have just described in the upcoming conference
with the House on the VA-HUD bill.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the joint collaboration between these
three Historically Black institutions in Atlanta, and I applaud their
effort to contribute to the revitalization of Atlanta's West-End
Community. I would tell the Senator that during the development of this
year's bill, we received a large number of meritorious requests for
projects within HUD's Economic Development Initiative account--
including the project he just described. With respect to the
conference, I can assure my friend from Georgia that this project will
receive every appropriate consideration.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and look
forward to working with her as the process moves forward.
Spina Bifida
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention
of my colleagues the No. 1 permanently disabling birth defect in the
United States. Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect and occurs when the
central nervous system does not for properly close during the early
stages of pregnancy. The most severe form of Spina Bifida occurs in 96
percent of the children born with this disease. People with Spina
Bifida often have paralysis of muscle groups, difficulties with bowel
and bladder control, and learning and developmental challenges. There
are approximately 70,000 individuals living with the challenges of
Spina Bifida in our Nation.
This is also a very preventable birth defect. Sixty million women are
at risk of having a child born with Spina Bifida, and each year
approximately 4,000 pregnancies in this country are affected by Spina
Bifida. Unfortunately, only 2,500 of these children are born. This
translates into approximately 11 Spina Bifida and neural tube defect
affected pregnancies in this country each and every day. Yet, if all
women of childbearing age were to consume 0.4 milligrams of folic acid
before becoming pregnant, the incidence of folic acid-preventable Spina
Bifida would be reduced between 50-75 percent. Let me repeat this. If
all women of childbearing age had a multivitamin with 0.4 milligrams of
folic acid everyday with breakfast, we could reduce the incidence of
this birth defect by 50-75 percent.
Fortunately, we are working to get the word out regarding the
importance of folic acid consumption. Created by the Children's Health
Act of 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National
Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities' mission is to
improve the health of children by preventing birth defects and
developmental disabilities. I have just heard that the center's folic
acid prevention campaign has reduced neural tube defect births by 20
percent. This public health success should be celebrated, but it is
only half of the equation--2,500 babies are born each year with Spina
Bifida.
Much more must be done to improve the quality of life for those
70,000 individuals and their families that live with this disease day
in and out. Major medical advances have permitted babies born with
Spina Bifida to have a normal life expectancy and live independent and
fulfilling lives. However, living with this disease can be expensive--
emotionally, physically, and financially. The lifetime costs associated
with a typical case of Spina Bifida--including medical care, special
education, therapy services, and loss of earnings--exceed $500,000. The
total societal cost of Spina Bifida exceeds $750 million per year. The
Social Security Administration payments to individuals with Spina
Bifida exceed $82 million per year. Tens of millions of dollars are
spent on medical care covered by Medicaid and Medicare. Clearly we need
to do more to improve the quality of life for people suffering from
Spina Bifida. With improved quality-of-life for individuals and
families affected for Spina Bifida, the stigma and fear associated with
a Spina Bifida birth will decrease significantly.
I support efforts to examine the current state of and opportunities
in the practice of secondary prevention--including in utero surgery--
and efforts to reduce and prevent secondary health effects of Spina
Bifida. One step of many we must take to improve the quality of life
for those suffering from this disease is in the creation of a national
registry of persons affected by Spina Bifida and its secondary
conditions so we can know who is affected and how we can help them.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, share my distinguished colleague's concern
about this permanent and disabling birth defect. The exact causes of
Spina Bifida are unknown. While we know that consumption of the
recommended daily dosage of folic acid plays a tremendous part in the
prevention of this disease,
[[Page S8672]]
we still have much to learn. We also need to help those that suffer
from this disease and their loved ones deal with the day-to-day
challenges of living with this birth defect. As more and more
individuals with Spina Bifida live longer, it is increasingly important
to ensure that their quality-of-life is maximized--this includes
educational and vocational attainment, amelioration of secondary health
effects, and ongoing support for them and their families. In 1996, this
Senate passed the Agent Orange Benefits Act which provides benefits for
persons affected by Spina Bifida whose biological father or mother is
or was a Vietnam veteran. I was proud to support this important Act,
but I am troubled that not all of the 3,000 eligible families have been
identified by the Veterans Administration.
Mr. BOND. How many families have been identified under the Agent
Orange Benefits Act?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Only 900 families out of the 3,000 eligible have been
identified for these benefits.
Mr. BOND. Is there a reason why less than half of the eligible
families have been identified since passage of the Agent Orange
Benefits Act.?
Mr. BROWNBACK. The Veterans Administration's funding capacity to
conduct outreach, educational, and programmatic initiatives has been
limited to this number so far.
Mr. BOND. I, too, am concerned about the effects of this devastating
disease and am pleased to stand with two of my colleagues on this
important public health issue. I supported the passage of the
Children's Health Act last year that created the new birth defects
center at CDC and I am pleased that their prevention education efforts
have already led to a downturn in Spina Bifida cases. I am also pleased
that the identified families to date are utilizing the benefits under
the Agent Orange Benefits Act. I, in addition to the distinguished
Senators from Kansas and Maryland, support efforts that would improve
the quality of life for those suffering from this condition and further
support the development of a national registry. Both the CDC and the
Veterans Administration are making strides in the study of this disease
and I support a collaborative initiative for the two agencies to
improve upon existing registries of persons affected by Spina Bifida,
and other birth defects, especially for those whose father or mother
served our nation during the Vietnam war.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleague from Missouri. The key to
developing and maintaining a national registry will be the
collaboration between the various federal agencies. I also support
collaboration between the CDC and the Veterans Administration to
further conduct outreach education initiatives to ensure that all of
the 3,000 eligible families receive benefits as designated under the
Agent Orange Benefits Act.
I thank the Senators from Kansas and Missouri for their support of
this bipartisan effort to begin to establish the groundwork for
improving the quality of life for individuals affected by Spina Bifida.
NSF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (EPSCoR)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Mikulski and Ranking
Member Bond for their foresight and leadership in providing a $256
million, or 6 percent, increase for the National Science Foundation. I
also appreciate their willingness to provide $85 million for the NSF
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR,
program. EPSCoR is a proven program that is helping researchers in
historically underfunded States to improve their competitiveness for
federal R&D.
The managers of this bill have been gracious enough to accept an
amendment from me that increases the EPSCoR funding in the Senate bill
to $90 million in fiscal year 2002. This modest $5 million increase
does not need to be offset because it comes out of the amount already
appropriated through the NSF Education and Human Resources line-item.
EPSCoR helps these States to build infrastructure and expertise in
areas of scientific importance to the States and the Nation by
providing seed money that allows smaller research universities to hire
faculty, obtain equipment, support the development of young faculty
members, and other vital tasks that the Stanfords and MITs of the world
take for granted.
While I am glad that the EPSCoR level in the Senate bill is $10
million above the current level and the President's budget request, we
are still falling woefully short of the level needed to help under-
funded States. The top 5 States--California, New York, Massachusetts,
Colorado, and DC--received 48 percent of total NSF funding in 2000. One
State alone receives twice as much NSF funding as the 21 EPSCoR States
combined. California received $452 million in NSF funding in fiscal
year 2000, which is 15 percent of the total NSF funding. The 21 EPSCoR
States, plus Puerto Rico, share only 7 percent of total NSF funding,
$207 million.
In 1990, the NSF EPSCoR budget was only $8 million. While it is true
that this funding has grown steadily in the years since then, these
increases have been extremely modest in comparison to total Federal R&D
expenditures. In fact, even with the additional co-funding that NSF
provides to EPSCoR grantees, the $90 million, plus the $25 million in
co-funding, in total EPSCoR funding provided under my amendment would
still represent only 2.5 percent of the total NSF budget in fiscal year
2002.
I have already heard from a number of my colleagues who support my
amendment and 17 Members of the Senate joined Senator Nickles and me in
sending a letter to the subcommittee requesting this funding level.
EPSCoR is good Federal policy. At its most basic, scientific research
is about ideas. When you have research institutions in 5 States
receiving half of the basic science research funding, a whole universe
of ideas are left unexplored. EPSCoR has been invaluable to States like
North Dakota becoming more competitive for Federal research dollars.
North Dakota's total NSF funding increased by 307 percent from 1990-
1999. The number of competitive NSF awards that North Dakota
researchers received increased by 71 percent between 1993-1998. More
than 30 topnotch young faculty were brought to North Dakota, through
the support of EPSCoR, that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. Those
EPSCoR-supported researchers have successfully competed for more than
$12 million in Federal and private R&D funding.
EPSCoR is also a key to economic development in EPSCoR States like
North Dakota. A single, typical $100,000 research grant generates
$230,000 back into the local economy, according to an analysis by NDSU.
EPSCoR-supported researchers were awarded 12 patents between 1986-1999.
Michael Chambers, whose early research was supported by an EPSCoR
award, has now founded Aldevron, a biotech company in Fargo. The Small
Business Administration named Michael its Region 8 Young Entrepreneur
of the Year in 2000.
The NSF EPSCoR program has also funded an innovative program in North
Dakota that supports university faculty and students in providing
technical expertise to North Dakota companies with scientific questions
and problems. More than 180 students, a dozen faculty members, and 75
companies have benefitted from the program so far. For instance, Dr.
Joel Jorgenson of Fargo designed an on-board recorder, monitoring and
read-out system to solve a problem for Global Electric MotorCars (GEM)
of Fargo, which is now the nation's largest manufacturer of
Neighborhood Electrical Vehicles. GEM has since been acquired by
Daimler-Chrysler and will be doubling its 130-employee workforce by the
end of 2001. Dr. Robert Nelson with North Dakota State University
devised a means for Ottertail Power Company to detect when and where a
fault has occurred on its power line, increasing the efficiency of the
transmission lines.
Despite the progress being made to help EPSCoR States improve their
competitiveness, they still tend to lag behind--especially in winning
large-scale center and multidisciplinary awards. Addressing this
challenge is the next step needed to improve competitiveness, and full
funding for EPSCoR at the $90 million level called for by the amendment
I have offered is key.
I think $90 million for the NSF's Education and Human Resources for
the EPSCoR program is important to ensure full implementation of the
NSF EPSCoR's new infrastructure program.
[[Page S8673]]
The additional $25 million in cofunding will ensure a robust NSF
EPSCoR program next year. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee for agreeing to include my amendment.
low-income housing assistance in new york and massachusetts
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that we need to provide additional
clarification regarding section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, that provides a prohibition of
public housing funding for certain State-developed housing in New York
and Massachusetts, covering some 12,000 units. This transfer has been
described as the ``federalization'' of this housing, but it should be
called a sham, with the analogy of a husband walking out on his wife
and children and leaving them with nothing. This housing was developed
by State government with no nexus to public housing.
To be clear, the Senator Banking Committee in the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act of 1998 had sought to fund the long-term
housing needs of low-income housing developed with New York and
Massachusetts funding with new Federal public housing funding, despite
the fact, as I have noted, that these are not public housing units and
have absolutely no nexus to public housing or any Federal housing
program.
As a result, the Congress passed section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal
Year 1999 Appropriations Act to ensure for fiscal year 1999 and every
following fiscal year, including all appropriation acts in every
succeeding fiscal year, that these state-developed low-income housing
units remain the responsibility of New York and Massachusetts, and not
create the unusual, unfair and unique precedent of requiring the
Federal Government to fund this housing as public housing. The costs of
this ``federalization'' will exceed $100 million annually for New York
alone, totaling well over $1 billion in the next 10-year period. This
likely is an underestimate of costs. I warn all Members that this
scheme will result in a reduction of funds to all PHAs throughout the
Nation, each will see a loss of needed funds whether the public housing
is in Baltimore, MD; Kansas City, MO; Anchorage, AK; San Francisco;
West Virginia and every other State.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The legislation is clear on its face that it is a
permanent law and a permanent prohibition on funding these State-
developed low-income housing units as public housing. In addition, to
fund State-developed units as public housing, there must be an
affirmative change in law, a change I cannot support.
Frankly, it is not fair to other States to have their funding cut to
pay for State-developed and supported housing in New York and
Massachusetts.
Mr. BOND. I agree with everything you have said and I am embarrassed
for these States and their attempt to transfer the responsibility for
their own low-income housing responsibilities to the Federal Government
through public housing funding. Even more important, unlike the current
chairman and ranking member of the House VA/HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, we were responsible as Senate chair and ranking member
for the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act which included this
provision that rejected the federalization of these State-developed
units as public housing. The law was drafted as a permanent prohibition
on the use of Federal funding for these units and I urge both New York
and Massachusetts to acknowledge their responsibility to maintain this
low-income housing for low-income families. We have been in a period of
economic growth and these States should accept their responsibilities
to their State residents consistent with their promise to provide
affordable low-income housing.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and
Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation
which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies.
Unfortunately, I must again speak about the unacceptably high funding
levels of parochial projects in this appropriations bill. Although the
level of add-ons in some sections of this bill has decreased, this bill
still contains approximately $523 million in porkbarrel spending.
Overall, this bill spends 7.6 percent higher than the level enacted
in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in
discretionary spending that the President wanted to adhere to. In real
dollars, this is $2.69 billion in additional spending above the amount
requested by the President, and $8.015 billion higher than last year.
So far this year, with the appropriations bills considered, spending
levels have exceeded the President's budget request by nearly $7
billion. A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial
spending for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified 492
separate earmarks totaling $523 million, which is greater than the 400
earmarks totaling $472 million, in the legislation passed last year.
The committee provides $23.8 billion in discretionary funding for the
VA. That amount is $452.7 million more than the President's budget
request and $1.5 billion above the amount in fiscal year 2001. Some
progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks for the
VA in this spending bill. Chairman Byrd of the Appropriations
Committee, and Chairman Mikulski of the VA-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, have held the amount in earmarks to approximately $24
million this year. Nonetheless, it is $24 million that will not be
available for higher priorities.
Among other Senators who have stood on the Senate floor to fight for
additional funding for veterans healthcare, I am concerned that the
Committee has directed critical dollars from veterans healthcare to
fund spending projects that have not been properly reviewed. Certain
provisions funded under the VA in this legislation illustrate that
Congress still does not have its priorities in order.
One especially troubling expense, neither budgeted for nor requested
by the Administration over the past ten years, is a provision that
directs the VA to continue the ten year old demonstration project
involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia, Veterans Affairs Medical
Center (VAMC) and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia
University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained
a plus-up of $2 million for the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the
Administration's line-item veto list and since then the millions keep
flowing.
Last year, the Committee ``recommended'' $1 million for the design of
a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, West Virginia, VAMC. This year
they strengthened their report language urging ``the VA to accelerate
the design of the nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC.''
This year, for Martinsburg, West Virginia, the Committee provides $1
million for a feasibility study to establish a Center for Healthcare
Information at the Office of Medical Information Security Service at
the Martinsburg VAMC to identify solutions to protect the privacy,
confidentiality, and integrity of the sensitive medical records of the
VA patient population.
Alaska also has a number of items that will include funding above the
budget request of the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The Committee report directs the VA to start up and operate by 2002 a
community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) on the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley, Alaska, costing $1 million. The Committee initially directs the
VA only to report by March 30, 2002, on its progress to establish a
Matanuska-Susitna Valley CBOC, but then expects the VA to ensure it is
operational by 2002. It further recommends that all veterans living
farther than a 50-mile radius from Anchorage be authorized to use
contract care from local private physicians.
For St. Louis, MO, the committee ``encouraged'' the VA to pursue an
innovative approach at a cost of $7 million for leasing parking spaces
at the John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis as a
means to address a parking shortfall at the VA hospital. The committee
also suggests that funds be transferred from the minor construction VA
account in order to secure additional private sector investment for
this VA Medical Center.
The Committee also directs the VA to explore new uses for the Miles
City, Montana VA facility and to continue to support the Hawaii VA
Pacific Tele-
[[Page S8674]]
medicine Project. In addition, the Committee directs the VA to conduct
a feasibility study on the need for a VA Research Center for the
Clarksburg VAMC on the campus of West Virginia University.
Additionally, the committee ``expects'' the continuation at the
current spending level of the Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at
the White River Junction, VT VAMC. The current level is an astounding
$7 million.
On a more positive note, one provision directs the VA to submit a
report on the number of homeless veterans and the type of homeless
veterans services that the VA provides. I am pleased that the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee has focused on the critical plight of our
Nation's homeless veterans. I had hoped, however, that they would have
prevailed in conference in recent years on a relevant amendment that I
had first offered to the VA-HUD appropriations bill in 1999, which was
adopted, but later dropped in conference. I hope that the proposed VA
report provides the catalyst for legislation next year. I am
disappointed that it has already taken this long to address this
matter. We owe it to these less fortunate veterans who served their
country so well only to find nowhere to call home.
Although the Committee report calls for yet another study on the
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system, I continue to be
pleased by the General Accounting Office and the VA reports, which
recommend that veterans health care funding should be shifted from
northeastern states to southern and southwestern states. This helps
ensure that critical health care funding for veterans follows them to
the actual locations where their medical care takes place.
While I am encouraged by the increase specifically in veterans health
care funding over last year's enacted levels, we must do much more. We
made a promise to our veterans that we would take care of their mental
and physical health needs incurred for their many sacrifices for our
Nation. The VA currently has a backlog of 600,000 claims. Currently,
four our of every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits are
decided incorrectly further contributing to the backlog. The millions
in dollars wasted in porkbarrel spending would go a long way to
decreasing the backlog in veterans claims by funding additional claims
adjudicators and training.
This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our Nation's
families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain
affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market,
assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our Nation's most
vulnerable the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have access to safe
and affordable housing.
Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing
and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process
and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that
received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair
to the many communities and families who do not have the good fortune
of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Some of the earmarks for special projects in this bill include:
$300,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the Heritage Trails
project; $750,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School of the
Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina; $100,000 for development
assistance for the Desert Space Station in Nevada; $1 million for the
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for
development activities related to the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial
Celebration; $450,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for the
development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams Park and Zoo;
$200,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode Island for
historical renovation; and $500,000 for the Lewis and Clark State
College for the Idaho Virtual Incubator.
This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency which
provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance
capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental
needs. I support directing more resources to communities that are most
in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from
environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a review of this year's
bill for EPA programs, I find it difficult to believe that we are fully
responding to the most urgent environmental issues. Nearly one-fourth
of the 180 earmarks provided for the EPA are targeted for consortiums,
universities, or foundations.
There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home
state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long
as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-
review process.
For example, some of the earmarks include: $250,000 for the Envision
Utah Project; $250,000 for the Central California ozone study; $750,000
for the painting and coating assistance initiative through the
University of Northern Iowa; $2.5 million for the National Alternative
Fuels Training Consortium in Morgantown, West Virginia; and $3.9
million for the Mine Waster Technology Program at the National
Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center in
Butte, Montana.
While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than
other environmental priorities? It is also important to note that none
of the 180 earmarks for the EPA were even requested by the President's
budget.
For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality-
specific projects such as: $5 million for the planetarium for the Clay
Center of the Arts and Sciences in Charleston, West Virginia; and $2
million for the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center.
I also want to comment on the many cost overruns and management
problems at NASA. Last year, as part of the authorization bill for
NASA, Congress established a cost cap on the International Space
Station. Before establishing this cost cap, we worked with NASA to
ensure that the funding levels of the cap were accurate. NASA indicated
that the funding levels were sufficient to complete the Station.
Earlier this year, NASA notified the Commerce Committee of $4 billion
in cost overruns for the International Space Station.
I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to envision NASA
having cost overruns for one year that amount to twice its annual
budget. I can only conclude that either NASA did not know about the
cost overruns or they knew and did not notify Congress about these
problems. In either case, it is a major shortfall in the program's
management.
However, NASA has attempted to pay for these cost overruns from
within existing budgetary limits. NASA has proposed drastic reductions
in the station design. Included in these reductions is the crew return
vehicle. This cut has reduced the maximum crew for the station to three
astronauts. Given the fact that two and a half astronauts are required
to operate the facility, only half of an astronaut's time can be
devoted to research.
A recent NASA and OMB agreement reveals that research time by the
permanent crew will be limited to 20 hours per weeks. This amount of
time may be further reduced if NASA makes its goal of providing 30
percent of the research time available to the commercial sector. NASA
is currently exploring several options of how to increase crew research
time. With this limitation on research time, the question for us is
whether the Government wants to continue spending on this project which
may add up to $100 billion, for only 20 hours of research per week in
return.
To further add to the cost concerns, NASA announced earlier this year
that the X-33 program, a joint program with Lockheed Martin, would be
canceled. This cancellation represented another $1 billion investment
with no final product. It is our understanding that the Defense
Department is reviewing the program to see if they can utilize any of
the project.
I continue to be concerned about NASA fundamental management
approaches. An example of NASA's mismanagement is the ill-fated
Propulsion Module that was supposed to provide a U.S. capability for
long-term propulsion of the space station. This program
[[Page S8675]]
was canceled, due to cost growth and poor management. According to the
General Accounting Office, NASA began to build the Propulsion Module
for the Space Station before it had completed a project plan, a risk
management plan, or developed realistic cost and schedule estimates.
Further review revealed that the propulsion model design proposed a
tunnel diameter that was too small to accommodate crew operations and
did not have detailed analyses to even quantify the amount of
propulsion capability that would be required. This lack of planning led
to a $265 million increase--from $479 to $744 million--and schedule
slippage of 2 years.
I am greatly concerned that NASA has significant infrastructure
problems for the Space Shuttle program looming in the near future. Many
of the vital facilities to support the Shuttle program are literally
falling apart. The Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space
Flight Center, built in the early 1960s for assembly of Apollo/Saturn
vehicles and currently used to prepare the Space Shuttle launch
assembly, has nets inside the building to prevent concrete from falling
from the roof onto the workers and equipment below. The sidings on the
outside of the building are becoming loose due to time and weather.
Addressing the risks associated with a crumpling infrastructure is in
of itself a Shuttle upgrade project that has potential to increase the
overall safety and reliability of the Shuttle program. These
renovations along with many others will be costly. NASA must start
making plans today to address these infrastructure problems on an
agency-wide basis in order to prevent a crisis. We must get these
management problems under control.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Mikulski and
Senator Bond for all of the hard work they have put into the Fiscal
Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Given the serious fiscal
restraints facing the Congress this year as a result of the budget
resolution and the unsound tax cut, they have masterfully negotiated
the many and often competing demands of the programs under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
In particular, I would like to thank Senators Mikulski and Bond for
restoring much needed funds to a number of important Department of
Housing and Urban Development programs that were slated for drastic
cuts under the President's budget.
Despite the economic prosperity that our country has experienced,
many Americans are still lack safe and affordable housing. In my own
state of Rhode Island, 46 percent of Rhode Islanders are unable to
afford this rent without spending over 30 percent of their income on
housing. In terms of homeownership, the average sales price of a home
in Rhode Island went up by $24,000 between 1999 and 2000. In the same
period, the number of houses on the market decreased by over 50
percent, and only 25 percent of these homes were affordable to low-
income families.
This housing affordability crisis has been affecting families around
the country. The latest HUD worst case housing needs study indicates
that there are over 4.9 million low-income Americans who pay more than
50 percent of their income for rent. In addition, a broader study done
by the National Housing Conference, the mortgage bankers and others
shows that 14 percent or 13.7 million American families have worst case
housing needs. Ten million of these people are elderly or work full or
part-time.
This is why I was so concerned about the President's budget proposal
to cut HUD programs by $1.7 billion. Once you factor in inflation, the
Administration was proposing to cut housing programs by $2.2 billion,
an 8 percent real spending decrease compared to Fiscal Year 2001.
One of the President's cuts that most concerned me was the $859
million net cut in public housing, the program that supports some of
our nation's most vulnerable families. In my own state of Rhode Island,
approximately two-thirds of our public housing units are used by the
elderly and disabled.
I also was disappointed by the Administration's decision to eliminate
the public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP). This flexible,
community-based program has made public housing much safer by helping
local housing agencies create comprehensive anti-crime and anti-drug
strategies.
I applaud both Senators Mikulski and Bond for restoring funding to
both of these programs. The VA-HUD bill before us today contains almost
$3 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, $650 million more than
the President's request, and $300 million for the drug elimination
grant program.
I also approve of the bill's requirement that 30 percent of the
funding for HUD homeless programs be set aside for permanent housing
for the disabled homeless. This shows the Senate's commitment towards
helping end homelessness, not just funding programs for those who are
homeless. Likewise, the committee's allocation of $500,000 for the
Interagency Council on the Homeless will help Federal Government
agencies better coordinate their programs for preventing and ending
homelessness. I also want to commend the committee for putting Shelter
Plus Care renewals for the homeless in a separate account. As chairman
of the Housing Subcommittee, I personally believe that the long-term
solution to the renewal problem should be solved by transferring
renewals to the Section 8 program, and I hope the committee considers
doing this in the future.
I am also pleased about the language in the bill supporting the
reauthorization of the Mark-to Market program. I held a subcommittee
hearing on this issue on June 19, 2001, and the Banking Committee
successfully marked up a reauthorization bill yesterday morning on
August 1, 2001. It is my hope that this important legislation will be
enacted into law well before the expiration of the original program on
September 30, 2001.
I also would like to commend both the administration and the
committee on increasing funding for HUD's office of Lead Hazard Control
by $10 million. Nonetheless, much more needs to be done. I, and a
number of my colleagues, believe that this number should be much higher
and will continue to work to increase funding for this extremely
important program. No family in this country should be forced to live
in housing that can cause permanent brain damage to their children.
Finally, I was pleased to see language in the bill asking HUD to
institute a computer program to adequately calculate the amount of
credit subsidy necessary to support the FHA multifamily mortgage
insurance programs and to establish a task force to determine the costs
of multifamily defaults. I am disappointed that the administration has
chosen to allow this program to stay shut down. Clearly, the FHA
multifamily program has some problems that need to be solved; however,
the administration's solution of raising the insurance premiums misses
the larger point of ensuring that these programs continue to construct
affordable housing. Thus, I also support the bill's language regarding
the need for FHA premium changes to be made through notice and comment
rule making. I hope to work with my colleagues over the next several
months to see if we can't come up with a longer term solution to the
repeated shutdown of this important FHA insurance premium program.
There are two issues with this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill that
I hope we can address as the bill moves forward. The first is the
Committee's decision to cut Section 8 reserves from two months to one
month, without protecting public housing authorities from budget
shortfalls. The second is the implications of the decision to expand
the traditional rescission language to include all funds recaptured
from the Section 8 program.
I know that the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee care
very much about supporting hard-pressed parents who are struggling to
provide a decent home for their children. The Section 8 program is the
principle source of housing assistance for these extremely low-income
parents who face the most acute housing needs of any segment of our
population. It is an especially critical support for parents who have
just left welfare and who may be earning too little to afford decent
housing. It also helps parents move their kids out of areas of
concentrated poverty and into neighborhoods with educational and
employment opportunities.
For all these reasons, we must maintain our commitment to the Section
8
[[Page S8676]]
program and make sure it works efficiently. Keeping the Section 8
reserves at adequate levels is an important part of making this housing
program work. Basically, the Section 8 reserves provide additional
funds to Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) whose voucher program costs
exceed their budget allocation in a given year. Thus, if a PHA
approaches the final months of its fiscal year and needs more funds to
pay landlords or pay for utility costs, it can request up to 2 months
of additional funding from HUD. The reserves are critical to the
program's financing because HUD bases each PHA's annual budget not on
its expected costs in the coming fiscal year, but rather on its actual
costs in the prior year. Since the factors that cause such increases
can be unpredictable from year to year, sufficient reserves are
necessary so that PHAs won't be forced to reduce the number of families
they serve.
I am also concerned about the current rescission language in the
bill. It is not unusual for Congress to reclaim Section 8 monies that
HUD does use. However, this year's bill goes one step further by
rescinding all future recaptures from Fiscal Year 2002 and prior years,
and diverting them into other accounts, some of which are not even
related to the housing needs of low-income families.
As I mentioned previously, PHAs' budgets are based on the prior
year's actual costs and not on their expected costs if they adopt
changes to serve more families. They may need additional resources
beyond their budget allocations if they succeed in making their
programs work better. But this bill cuts the Section 8 reserves that
could provide these additional resources. And, by rescinding all
recaptures that HUD could make this year and next, it deprives HUD of
funds to ensure that PHAs that are increasing voucher utilization do
not get caught in a budget squeeze. HUD may also use recaptures to
adjust contracts with owners under the project-based Section 8 program
if unforseen costs arise, such as rising utility prices. If HUD does
not have the resources to make these adjustments, these owners may opt-
out of the Section 8 program. Finally, HUD can currently redirect at
least some recaptures to offset Section 8 costs in the upcoming fiscal
year, reducing the appropriated dollars needed to maintain the size of
the program. This in turn, frees up funds to provide more new vouchers.
If we are serious about helping extremely low-income families benefit
from voucher assistance, then we need to ensure that the needed
resources are available to make this program work well and efficiently.
But this bill contains two provisions that run the risk of doing just
the opposite. Both the reduction in reserves and the rescission could
run the risk of undermining the financing of the Section 8 program, and
undermining efforts to serve more families with vouchers. Let's not run
this risk. Let's ensure that the Section 8 program is our first
priority for use of recapture funds.
Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for all of their hard work
on this bill and I hope that we will be able to discuss these matters
in more detail, and that we work together to find ways to address these
issues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read
a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--5
Feingold
Gramm
Kyl
McCain
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Domenici
The bill (H.R. 2620), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its
amendments and request a conference with the House, and that the Chair
be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the
Senate.
____________________