[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 154 (Thursday, November 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11594-S11603]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill, H.R. 2620, and ask for its immedidate
consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2620) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, boards, commission, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes, having met have agreed that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
and agree to the same with an amendment, signed by all of the
conferees on the part of both Houses.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of November 6, 2001, at page H7787.)
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of pride that I
bring this conference report to the Senate. I take this opportunity to
thank my Republican colleague, the ranking member, Senator Bond of
Missouri. This has been a year of tumultuous change in our country.
On Tuesday a year ago, we thought we had elected the President. It
went on for 35 days--unprecedented. We were turned into a 50-50
Senate--again unprecedented.
Senator Bond chaired the committee in January and then, after Senator
Jeffords' decision, the reins passed to me.
I say publicly, I thank Senator Bond for the graciousness in the way
he transited the gavel and the chairmanship to me. He did it with
graciousness and efficiency. His staff could not have been more
cooperative or collegial. Because of that, our subcommittee didn't miss
a beat, and we didn't miss a buck. We went to work on behalf of
veterans, housing, the environment, investments in space, science,
technology, as well as other agencies. I thank him for that.
I bring to the Senate's attention a summary of the bill. This act
provides for a total of $112.7 billion for all the programs within the
bill, which is $4.8 billion or 4 percent over the fiscal year
[[Page S11595]]
2001 level. This includes $27.3 billion in mandatory funding, an
increase of $1.8 billion over the fiscal year 2001 level, and $85.4
billion in discretionary spending, which is an increase of $3 billion
over last year.
What this bill essentially does is meet compelling human need. It
meets compelling human need in terms of our veterans, in terms of the
poor, meeting the day-to-day needs of the working poor. It helps
rebuild our neighborhoods and communities. Through its funding for
FEMA, it protects our homeland security. And it invests in science and
technology through NASA and the National Science Foundation.
For our veterans, we have increased veterans health care by over $1
billion from last year, bringing it to a total of $21.3 billion. This
would allow the VA healthcare system to serve 4 million patients
through 2002. This conference agreement also provides the VA the
ability to open 33 new outpatient clinics. It would also continue to
allow research and treatment of chronic disease; diagnosis and
treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's; look at the issues again of
special populations, such as stroke and spinal cord injury; and
continue its groundbreaking research in the area of prostate cancer.
In terms of our veterans, we also make a substantial effort to reduce
the claim time for how long a veteran has to wait in order to get their
disability benefit. They had to often stand in line when they were in
the U.S. military. But after the way they serve their country, they
should not have to stand in line for almost a year in order to see if
their disability claim can be processed. We are working on a bipartisan
basis to shorten that.
As to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we had three
goals: Expand housing opportunity for the poor, rebuild our
neighborhoods, and help special-need populations. To do that, we have
renewed all the section 8 housing vouchers. We have funded this program
at $15.6 billion. This is $1.7 billion over last year.
At the same time, we restored cuts proposed by the President to the
critical public housing capital program by funding it at $2.8 billion.
We have increased funding for the public housing operating cost by $250
million over last year for a total of $3.5 billion.
Knowing that many of our colleagues believe the decisions are best
made locally, we wanted to keep our commitment to the community
development block grant money, and we have increased that by over $200
million. This year CDBG will be funded at $5 billion.
For other HUD programs, we have continued at last year's level the
funding for brownfields, housing for the elderly, and housing for the
disabled. But we have, in order to create home ownership, included
language to raise the FHA loan limit for multifamily housing by 25
percent this year. This came from the private sector, home builders, as
well as the AFL-CIO. I believe this will mean more rental property will
be available. We cannot voucher our way out of our housing crisis. We
need a new production program. This has long been a position held by my
colleague, Senator Bond. I look forward to the recommendation of the
Millennial Housing Commission and the Commission on Senior Housing. We
look to those in the private sector and the nonprofit sector to give us
guidance on what a 21st century HUD should look like, which will create
real hope and opportunity. We provided the inspector general with no
less than $5 million, and this will also be going after predatory
lending.
Let's move on now to EPA. For EPA, the conference agreement provides
$7.9 billion, an increase of $587 million above the budget level. This
is $75 million above what we funded last year. What do we get for our
money? First of all, we get EPA enforcement. This is funded at last
year's level of $465 million. We can keep the current level of
enforcement.
The conference agreement also keeps our commitment to clean and safe
water by fully funding the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund at
$1.35 billion, which is an increase over the President's budget
request. We also fully fund the Drinking Water SRF at $850 million, an
increase of $27 million over the President's budget request.
This country is facing an enormous backlog of funding for water
infrastructure projects. Every single one of my colleagues talks to me
about sewer or water infrastructure projects, failing septic tanks, how
to comply with the new arsenic requirement; we have aging systems in my
own region, as do New Orleans and Chicago. I could give every single
Senator a billion dollars to take back to their State, and it would be
just a drop in the bucket for this need.
I hope, as we look at the stimulus package, we look at how we can
fund clean water and safe drinking water projects because, at the end
of the day, I believe we will stimulate the local economy and create
jobs but have value for our dollar.
We also kept our commitment to cleanup. We provided $1.27 billion for
the cleanup of Superfund sites. This also includes $95 million for
brownfields. We have included $22.6 million for the National Estuary
Program. Again, we have worked closely with the administrator.
For FEMA, we maintain our commitment to protecting our homeland by
providing FEMA with $3 billion. We provide $2.1 billion for disaster
relief to ensure that we are ready to respond to any future disaster.
We have also worked very closely with Joe Allbaugh, the FEMA Director,
to be sure we respond to the needs of New York and local communities
and, at the same time, are ready for those natural disasters like
hurricanes and tornadoes that could affect us.
We also wanted to support America's heroes, our firefighters, and in
this bill we fund the Fire Grant Program at $150 million in order to be
able to fund the firefighters' need of protective gear and equipment.
This program is authorizing $3 billion. We would prefer to do more and
look forward to doing more in the stimulus package. We understand
Senator Byrd is going to work closely with us to do this.
In order to be protected by the firefighters, we need to protect them
and make sure they have the protective gear, respiratory gear, and the
technological tools to go into horrific situations. In order to be able
to protect us, they need to have the right equipment. Many firefighters
in America are volunteers; we ask them to do it on their own time and
on their own dime. We can't protect our firefighters and give them the
equipment they need based on bingo and fish fries at the local level--
although, I sure like those bingo games and fish fries. They are fun
things to do, but they are not a reliable funding stream. We have to
back them.
Let's go to NASA. We provide $14.8 billion for NASA programs, which
is $500 million over last year. Our top priority remains the safety of
our astronauts. We made a significant investment in shuttle upgrades,
including $207 million allocated for safety upgrades to the space
shuttle. By improving the safety of the shuttle, we reduce the risks to
our astronauts.
We fully fund the rest of the shuttle program at over $3 billion for
fiscal year 2002. For the space station, we redirected $75 million to
other pressing needs such as safety upgrades to the shuttle and other
science and aeronautics programs. We know that former astronaut Tom
Young is taking a look at our space station. We like it; we think it is
very important to our country and to the world. But we also believe
that the management of the space station has had a fiscal
permissiveness that has allowed unacceptable cost overruns. They had
over $4 billion in overruns. We can't let that stand.
This independent review team, chaired by former astronaut Tom Young,
has given us a new roadmap for the station. I can assure the Senate and
our taxpayers that we will be holding hearings and meetings to be able
to ensure that we keep our commitment to the space station, do our
research, keep our astronauts safe, but at the same time have fiscal
responsibility.
For the National Science Foundation, the conference agreement
provides $4.8 billion, an increase of 8.4 percent over last year. This
represents a downpayment on an effort initiated by Senator Bond and
myself to double the NSF budget. We want to do that in 5 years. I think
we might have to wait 6 years to do it, but we are convinced it is in
the Nation's long-term interest that funding for basic research in all
science and engineering disciplines must increase substantially.
We have increased the funding in several areas for research, such as
information technology and nanotechnology
[[Page S11596]]
and, of course, in agricultural biotech, on which, of course, the
ranking member has been a leader. But also, at the same time, we really
try to back our young researchers so that young Americans will choose
science and scientific research as a career.
We have also maintained the Corporation for National Service.
Voluntarism is our national trademark, and this agreement maintains our
commitment to AmeriCorps and other agencies within it.
There are also 25 other agencies, but I am not going to go through
all 25. We have kept our commitment to them. I thank the President for
giving us the opportunity to work with very excellent Cabinet people.
Again, we were under very difficult circumstances, with a late start,
but there was an orderly transition.
I think we have met our charge to the compelling needs of our
constituents, the long-range needs of our Nation and done it with
fiscal stewardship, which I believe the taxpayers require from us.
Mr. President, that concludes my summary of the bill.
I thank Paul Carliner, Gabriel Batkin, and Joel Widder of my staff
for giving me the support that I needed. I thank John Kamarck and Cheh
Kim from Senator Bond's staff for their cooperation and collegiality.
Mr. President, I hope that at the conclusion of our debate, when we
take the rollcall, the Senate will support this conference report. They
can go back and talk to every single one of their constituents, whether
it is a veteran from the ``greatest generation,'' or the firefighters,
the warriors of this generation, or the scientists who are giving us
the ideas to keep America strong and safe, or the poor who depend on us
even at this time. We have a great bill and I hope that this bill will
pass.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the conferees of this bill for
their hard work in completing this conference report for this
legislation.
The report provides critical Federal funding for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies. The conference report spends at a level of 4.1 percent higher
than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001.
In real dollars, this is $2.1 billion in additional spending above
the amount requested by the President, and a $4.4 billion increase in
spending from last year.
Once again I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking
before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another conference
report. I have identified over $1 billion in earmarks, which is greater
than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed last
year. Last year, it was $970 million. So far this year, the total of
appropriations pork-barrel spending has already hit a staggering $9
billion.
Before I go into some specifics--and it will not be many on this
bill--I would like to quote from an article by Deroy Murdoch of the
Scripps Howard News Service that was published on October 14, 2001. He
says:
Each dollar spent on pork-barrel projects is one less
dollar that can be devoted to the War on Terror. This
inescapable fact somehow has escaped members of Congress.
While senators and representatives swiftly and wisely
approved $40 billion in recovery and defense funds after the
Sept. 11 massacre, they quickly relapsed into old habits.
Congress again is spending money as recklessly and
foolishly as it did on Sept. 10. Even as U.S. warships steam
toward the Persian Gulf, Citizens Against Government Waste, a
Washington-based fiscal watchdog group, has calculated in
military terms the opportunity cost of business as usual.
Sidewinder missiles sell for $41,300 each. . . . Tomahawk
Cruise missiles are $1 million apiece while one F-15 fighter
jet costs $15 million. Pork projects chew right through cash
that could purchase these and other weapons the Pentagon will
need to crush the international terror network and its state
sponsors.
For instance, on Sept. 13, the Senate adopted the fiscal
2002 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations
Bill. Consider just several items the Senate approved while
the Pentagon and Ground Zero still smoldered:
--$2 million for the Oregon Groundfish Outreach Program and
$850,000 for Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research.
Cost: 69 sidewinders.
--$6 million for the National Infrastructure Institute in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cost: Six cruise missiles.
--$204 million for the Advanced Technology Program, a
quintessential corporate welfare boondoggle, for which the
Bush administration requested only $13 million.
Cost: Thirteen F-15 fighters.
Even more maddening is a brand-new bill to expand farm
subsidies one year before the existing spending plan expires.
The Farm Security Act would increase agricultural pork by
$73.1 billion over the next 10 years. Added to the $96.9
billion budget baseline, Uncle Sam would plow $170 billion
into the ground through the year 2011.
This bill authorizes $101 million for honey producers. The
once-terminated wool and mohair program rises again, $202
million strong. Peanut farmers can expect $3.48 billion. This
bill would also revive a $37.1 billion in ``counter-cyclical
assistance'' which was scrapped in 1996.
I talked about this at another time.
The U.S. Agriculture Department released a study last month
that describes these subsidies as spectacularly wasteful and
fundamentally unfair. Forty-seven percent of agricultural
payments go to commercial farms with average household
incomes of $135,397, more than 2\1/2\ times the average
American household's $51,855 in earnings.
According to the Associated Press, just 10 percent of farm
owners shared 63 percent of last year's $27 billion in
federal agriculture payments.
Media tycoon Ted Turner received farm aid, as did Portland
Trail Blazer Scottie Pippen. Modestly paid waitresses and
school bus drivers pay twice for largesse--first through
taxes, then again as agricultural price supports hike their
grocery bills. . . .
These legislative hijinks are bad enough in peacetime.
America is at war. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are
kissing their loved ones goodbye and shipping out to face a
vicious and bloodthirsty enemy lurking in foreign shadows.
Right now, Congress should grow up and stop treating the
domestic budget as a political Toys R Us. Americans already
are making huge sacrifices. Weak tourist revenues have
lowered the curtains on five Broadway shows. Hotel beds have
gone empty as conferences have been canceled, and weddings
have been scaled back or postponed. Major U.S. airlines have
fired 87,000 employees since terror struck.
Amid such national belt-tightening, it is beyond ugly to
watch public servants loosen their belts as their pork-laden
bellies swell. If the American people must live with less, so
must their representatives.
I would like to read the words of OMB Director Mitch Daniels who said
that in time of war:
Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. . . .
Situations like this can have a clarifying benefit. People
who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before
may now see the need.
Mr. President, we obviously have not seen the need in this conference
report, and I intend to clarify some items stuffed in the bill. Let us
take a look at this year's porkbarrel spending projects in the VA-HUD
conference report before us.
No. 10: $1 million for Spring Hill College in Mobile, AL, for
construction of the Regional Library Resource Center;
No. 9: $175,000 for the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, CA, for
construction needs of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum;
No. 8: $1 million for Dubuque, IA, for the development of an American
River Museum;
No. 7: $300,000 for the Central Missouri Lake of the Ozarks
Convention and Visitor Bureau Community Center;
No. 6: $750,000 for the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
at Iowa State University;
No. 5: $1 million for the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace Complex in West
Virginia.
You will notice, Mr. President, each one of those is earmarked to a
specific location. For example, in my State of Arizona, we just voted a
bond issue to expand our convention facilities. They are not going to
have to do that in the Central Missouri Lake of the Ozarks because they
are going to build a convention center, and we are going to give them
$300,000 to do so.
Again, No. 5, $1 million for the State of West Virginia, which seems
to pop up quite a bit.
There is an additional $250,000 to Maui for the control of nuisance
seaweed accumulations on the beaches of Kihei, Maui, HI;
$100,000 for the Memphis Zoo in Memphis, TN, for the Northwest
Passage Campaign;
$140,000 for the city of El Reno, OK, for development of a trolley
system;
And $190,000 for the city of Spartanburg, SC, for the Motor Racing
Museum of the South.
Mr. President, we are in a war. Isn't this really unconscionable?
Isn't it
[[Page S11597]]
really unacceptable? Isn't it really quite a commentary that the
earmarks in this year's bill are higher than last year's bill? Isn't it
interesting that each one of these is earmarked for a specific place?
Perhaps the Presiding Officer's home State would like to compete for
money for a Motor Racing Museum of the Midwest since we are giving
money to Spartanburg, SC, for the Motor Racing Museum of the South.
We are now about to have a big fight with the President and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle about increased spending. How
can my colleagues on this side of the aisle go into that battle with
clean hands when we continue to add porkbarrel project after porkbarrel
project--$9 billion so far of unrequested, unauthorized items that are
specifically earmarked for certain powerful members of the
Appropriations Committee. That is not right, Mr. President.
Sooner or later, we are going to educate the American people about
this, and it is going to come to a halt. I am afraid it may be later
rather than sooner. It continues to lurch out of control, and no one
believes we have enough money for defense spending. No one believes
that. That is why we are spending extra money on defense, and yet these
projects continue to be added both in conference as well as in the
bills themselves, and it is not acceptable.
It is not acceptable. If the average American knew more about this,
they would reject it.
I intend to do as I have done in the past to make sure as many
Americans understand where their tax dollars are spent.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in strong support of a
conference report on H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002
appropriations bill. The chair of the committee, Senator Mikulski, has
done an excellent job in crafting this measure. I am deeply grateful
for her leadership.
She was kind enough to talk about the smooth transition. It was not
something we desired, but it was something that worked extremely well
because we have had the good fortune of being able to work closely on
this measure for a number of years. In fact, it was a seamless
transition.
I believe the legitimate wishes and concerns of Members of this body,
the needs of the veterans, those who depend upon housing for Federal
Government assistance, those who depend upon the Environmental
Protection Agency to clean up our rivers and our waters and our air,
are well served by this measure.
I add my compliments to Congressman Walsh, the chair of the House VA-
HUD Committee, and Congressman Mollohan, the ranking member. This bill
has been a very tough one because of the limitation on funding, but I
believe it strikes the right balance. We have met many of the
administration's funding priorities, and I compliment the
administration for not looking to create a series of new programs but
instead focusing on some exceptions, maintaining existing program
levels and reforming program implementation to ensure that agencies can
deliver assistance under existing program requirements.
The Senator from New Mexico has asked for a few minutes out of my
time, so I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when I have used 9
minutes of time. I do wish to reserve some time for Senator Domenici
for a very pressing issue he must address.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the respective leaders have asked the
vote be held at 4:30, so we are going to have some extra time. We can
accommodate the Senator for as much time as he or the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico would like to have.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my chairman. I will try to be
reasonably brief, but there are some important things I wish to
include.
To return to the analysis of the bill, the VA and veterans needs
remain the highest priority of the bill. The funding decisions in this
bill are designed to ensure the best quality of medical care for our
veterans and to keep the best doctors in the VA system. Furthermore,
Senator Mikulski and I are committed deeply to meeting the medical
needs of veterans, and we are working with the VA and the
administration to ensure the successful implementation of the new CARES
process, which is designed to assure that VA has the facilities it
needs, that targets the services and the medical care throughout the
country, and gets rid of unneeded facilities that drain money away from
needed care for veterans.
In addition, the VA-HUD bill appropriates some $30.2 billion for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, an increase of $1.7
billion. This includes funding to renew all expiring section 8
contracts and provides for 18,000 incremental vouchers. I do remain
deeply concerned that vouchers do not work well in many housing
markets. We do, as the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned, need to
develop new production programs that assist extremely low-income
families in particular. This is a need that we must address, and we
look forward to working with the authorizing committees, the Millennium
Housing Commission, and others, to ensure it is addressed.
The bill also reflects our continuing support for CDBG, the HOME
Program, homeless assistance, FHA mortgage insurance, and assistance
for abatement of lead hazards in housing.
As for the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill includes a $587
million increase to $7.9 billion, $74 million over the fiscal year 2001
level. The bill maintains funding of the clean water State revolving
fund at $1.35 billion and drinking water at $850 million. I cannot
emphasize enough the importance of continuing to maintain funding for
these State revolving funds.
The clean water infrastructure financing alone, there is a need in
this country for some $200 billion over the next 20 years, excluding
replacement costs and operation and maintenance.
I want to address some comments made about spending characterized in
this bill as porkbarrel. The Members of this body know this bill funds
monies that go through to State and local governments. This is a
measure that includes funds for the Community Development Block Grant
Program. Under that program, we take Federal dollars and send it back
to the local communities so Governors, mayors, and city council members
can allocate the needs in their community.
Is that porkbarrel? I happen to think that providing money for needed
community improvements is not porkbarrel spending. This measure also
sends, as I just said, $1.35 billion for the clean water state
revolving funds to clean up sewers, and $850 million for safe drinking
water. Is that porkbarrel? I do not think so.
The greatest need for many of our communities, whether they be large
or small communities, is to have the money they need to develop
projects that will make them strong communities and to assure that the
water systems are healthy. We provide that money.
Now my colleague was addressing the fact that out of that money, we
send back for community development block grants some 6.8 percent. Less
than 10 percent has been designated by Members of the House or the
Senate for particular high need activities and investments in
communities in their State.
Do Members of Congress somehow know less about the needs of their
communities for community development? Do Members of Congress somehow
know less about the need for critical improvements to water and sewer
supply systems? I think not.
This money goes to those communities that have needs for tremendous
efforts to improve community life, whether it be facilities that will
bring in more business or whether it be money to go to drinking water
or cleaning up sewer water in the States. This is one of the areas
where those legislators in Congress who are concerned and who pay
attention to the needs of their State can find areas where there are
pressing needs. I believe, by and large, they do an excellent job, and
we do a good job.
One may quarrel with some of the decisions made by local officials on
community development block grants. One may quarrel with some of the
decisions made on clean water in State revolving funds for drinking
water, but the fact
[[Page S11598]]
remains there are tremendous needs in all of these areas. So I am very
proud of the fact we are able to assist States, communities, and
localities in taking care of their needs.
Mr. President, I do not see the Senator from New Mexico. I believe we
have additional time remaining so I will continue and intend to address
the subject he was going to address because I know he feels very
strongly about it. One of the major controversial areas we have
addressed in this bill concerns the level of arsenic in drinking water.
In this case, the bill supports the current regulation of 10 parts per
billion for arsenic levels in drinking water, and while this level is
supported by a number of scientific studies, the requirement that the
communities must meet these new requirements by 2006 is very troubling
because there are communities in the United States, especially
communities in the West, communities in New Mexico and Idaho and other
States, where there are high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in
the water.
Unfortunately, for communities which are small and do not have the
financial ability to meet these requirements, the possibility is some
very unwanted consequences of forcing through a regulation on all
communities. We provide some relief in these communities through a
temporary waiver. Our colleagues on the authorizing committees objected
to this approach even though the leaders of the committee on both the
House and Senate sides believed it was warranted. The conference report
defers to those committees and suggests the authorizing committees pay
attention to an evaluation to be done by EPA on the affordability of
these projects and how a small system variance and exemption programs
should be implemented for arson. This is a serious issue. Congress will
have to address and balance this need over the next few years, both the
financial burdens and health concerns faced by the small communities on
the new arsenic standards.
To be blunt, the last thing we need is to push these communities,
with high arsenic levels in their drinking water, to abandon local
municipal water systems which are reducing the levels of arsenic and
force residents to go back to untreated and unregulated wells where
they would be getting potentially higher levels of arsenic and
potentially being exposed to greater health risks, not only from
arsenic but from other sources of water pollution that would be treated
in the municipal water systems.
For FEMA, the conference report includes $1.5 billion in emergency
disaster assistance, funding for firefighters, and flood mapping and
mitigation. I join with my colleague from Maryland in expressing my
gratitude for the way FEMA moved in. They have our highest
appreciation. They stepped up to the plate and assisted the citizens of
our Nation during this time of need.
I will address for my colleagues the fact, at the request of
Representatives and Senators from New York, that we took special note
of the economic needs of the people and businesses in New York that
have been devastated by the tragic terrorist attack of September 11.
The President allocated $700 million for New York for the VA/HUD
community development block grant. In this bill we included authority
for HUD to meet these needs through existing programs, including broad
authority to waive a part of the statute--except for labor standards,
environmental standards, fair housing, and antidiscrimination--to meet
these truly pressing needs. I understand a community economic
development corporation has been established to allocate these funds.
I believe the Governor and the mayor set up a Lower Manhattan
Redevelopment Corporation that will hand out the funds. I raise this
point because today the Environment and Public Works Committee passed
out of committee a new measure setting up a different form of
allocating these funds. I caution members of that committee, on which I
happen to serve, that we not set up a competing structure. We need to
do the job well. We need to do it right. We need to do it one time and
not have two different structures stumbling all over each other. We
have, we think, dealt with the concerns, and we will be happy to work
with friends and colleagues from New York to make sure we do it
effectively.
Finally, I mention in addition to funding NASA at $14.78 billion, we
have expressed grave concerns about the serious cost overruns. The
costs of the International Space Station have continued to grow, over
$4 billion above more recently; it is probably now $5 or $6 billion.
There seems to be a total loss of management control by NASA with
regard to the space station. We have received a report from the Young
commission to study the International Space Station. I believe it is a
top priority for the administration to find a new Administrator as soon
as possible to review the extensive analysis and major recommendations
of the Young commission and make whatever program and management
reforms are necessary to ensure the ISS and other NASA programs meet
our expectations and not rob the funding for NASA.
I express my strong feeling, as the chair of our subcommittee has,
for the need to double the National Science Foundation budget. We have
to meet pressing human priorities. But for the long run, the pressing
human needs of this country are going to be met to the extent that we
fund the scientific exploration that goes on in the National Science
Foundation. We should not be shorting the basic scientific research. I
hope we can have the support of our colleagues to get the money to
increase it next year to put us on the path of doubling.
In addition to thanking Senator Mikulski, I express my sincere thanks
to the members of the subcommittee and my staff, Jon Kamarck, Cheh Kim,
and Isaac Green, who worked long and hard. They have become very good
friends and worked closely, particularly in the new setting with
limited space, with our good friends, Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin
and Joel Widder, for their quality work and commitment to the process.
They have done an excellent job, and we are very proud of the work they
do.
I, too, commend this bill to my colleagues and urge unanimous
support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my
support for the fiscal year 2002 HUD-VA conference report. I
congratulate Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator Bond for the outstanding
job they have done to provide HUD with the resources it needs, while
working within a very tight allocation for all of the agencies within
their jurisdiction.
The conference report before us today is a great improvement over the
administration's budget request. The budget request for HUD, the agency
that provides housing assistance to this Nation's poorest families, was
sorely inadequate. Their proposal would not even have provided the
funding necessary to maintain HUD programs at current levels.
The appropriators recognized the great need for housing assistance in
this country by providing more funding than the administration
requested in almost every program area.
The increases included in this bill are clearly needed. We have a
severe housing crisis in this country, and the need for housing
assistance continues to grow. In addition to the 5 million very low-
income households in this country who have worst case housing needs,
which means they are either paying more than half of their income
towards rent or living in severely substandard housing, another 2
million people will experience homelessness this year. These families
face greater challenges today, as the Nation's low-income housing stock
continues to shrink. In the past decade, the number of units available
to extremely low-income renters has dropped by 14 percent, a loss of
almost a million units.
These statistics make clear that programs to aid low-income families
must not be cut, but must be expanded to meet the growing need.
Unfortunately, the overall funding level requested by the
administration put Congress in the untenable position of choosing
between maintaining the current affordable housing stock or funding
additional needed housing units. The appropriators were forced to
forego expanding housing opportunities so that scarce Federal resources
could be used to maintain existing housing, a choice that is both cost-
effective and necessary. While we need to expand Federal housing
programs, we have an obligation to ensure that the affordable housing
that exists is habitable and safe.
[[Page S11599]]
For this reason, I am pleased that the conference report increases
funding for public housing, a program that houses over 1.3 million of
this Nation's poorest families. This bill provides $2.84 billion for
the Public Housing Capital Fund, the fund used to repair and modernize
public housing--$550 million above the administration's request. There
is a significant need for Public Housing Capital Funds as HUD estimates
that there is currently a $22 billion backlog in needed capital repairs
in public housing. A cut of the magnitude proposed by the
administration would have led to further deterioration of this Nation's
public housing stock. Fortunately, the bill before us today provides
additional funding, helping us to maintain a much needed resource and
to ensure that the Federal investment in public housing is protected.
Recognizing the importance of public housing, the conference report
funds the Public Housing Operating Fund at $3.5 billion, $110 million
above the administration's request. I am disappointed that this bill
does not separately fund the Public Housing Drug Elimination Fund. The
administration requested no funding for this critical program which
helps to fight drugs and crime in our public housing communities. The
conference report provides $250 million more for the Operating Fund
than provided in fiscal year 2001 to ensure that PHAs will not have to
cut all of their anticrime activities. While this increase will assist
PHAs in continuing after-school programs, mentoring activities, and
safety patrols, I am concerned that PHAs may be forced to use the
increased funding to pay for rising utility costs, leading to a
reduction in activities normally funded by the Drug Elimination Fund.
In addition to ensuring that public housing is maintained, this bill
fully funds the Homeless Assistance Programs. I am pleased that the
bill provides $100 million to fund Shelter Plus Care renewals. Shelter
Plus Care provides permanent housing to formerly homeless people, and
this $100 million will maintain all of these housing units, while
allowing communities to continue to meet the demand for additional
homeless services.
The conference report continues to expand the section 8 voucher
program. I am concerned that we are only providing an additional 17,000
incremental vouchers, as compared to 79,000 vouchers provided last
year. While I had hoped we would be able to provide as many vouchers as
last year, I appreciate the effort of the appropriators to continue
expanding the voucher program even with such a tight budget allocation.
One area of concern in this bill is the cut in section 8 reserves
from 2 months to 1 month. These reserves are used in the event of
higher program costs so that the section 8 program can continue to
serve the same number of families. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, this cut could result in a decrease of almost 25,000
vouchers being used this year. This would be an unfortunate, and
devastating consequence. Fortunately, the appropriators included report
language directing HUD to ensure that PHAs can fund all of their
vouchers, and I expect HUD to implement these changes so that the
number of families receiving vouchers is not decreased.
Housing assistance for elderly people and those with disabilities is
also increased in this bill. Housing for the elderly is funded at $783
million, an increase of $4 million over the fiscal year 2001 level, and
housing for people with disabilities is funded at $240 million, an
increase of $23 million. In addition, I am pleased that the conference
report provides $277 million for Housing for Persons with AIDS, an
increase of $20 million over last year's funding level. This $20
million will ensure that additional communities in need of housing
assistance for people with HIV and AIDs will receive Federal funding.
These increases will go a long way in providing needed housing to this
nation's most vulnerable citizens.
At this time of economic uncertainly, it is imperative that we not
turn our backs on low-income families in need of housing assistance.
Though it is unfortunate that the administration's budget request
forced us to forgo expanding affordable housing opportunities further,
the bill fully funds the HOME program, which is a primary vehicle for
building affordable rental housing. The need for new affordable rental
housing is growing, and I hope that we can work over the next year to
secure additional funding for housing construction.
Hard choices had to be made in hammering out a final version of this
bill, and I understand that all of our priorities could not be funded
at the desired levels. As a whole, I support this bill, and commend
Chairwoman Mikulski and the other members of the Appropriations
Committee for negotiating a bill that greatly improves on the
inadequate budget request, and affirms our commitment to housing this
Nation's poor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget
Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2620,
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
Including an advance appropriation into 2002 of $4.2 billion, the
conference report provides $85.434 billion in discretionary budget
authority, of which $143 million is for defense spending. The
conference report will result in new outlays in 2002 of $40,489
billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into
account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $88.463
billion in 2002. The conference report is within its section 302(b)
allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
Included within the $85.434 billion in budget authority for 2002 is
$1.5 billion in emergency-designated sending authority for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief activities. The
emergency funding, which is not estimated to result in any outlays in
2002, is consistent with the revised 2002 budget reached between
President Bush and Congressional leaders last month. Per section 314 of
the Congressional Budget Act, I have adjusted the Appropriations
Committee's allocation for 2002 by the amount of the emergency funding.
In addition, the conference report provides an advance appropriation
for section 8 renewals of $4.2 billion for 2003. That advance is
allowed under the budget resolution adopted for 2002. Finally, the
report would reduce federal revenues by $32 million in 2002. By law,
the revenue loss, which results from changes made to certain HUD and
EPA fees, will be placed on the PAYGO scorecard.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying
the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2620, CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose \1\ Defense \1\ Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report: \2\
Budget Authority............................ 85,291 143 26,898 112,332
Outlays..................................... 88,326 137 26,662 115,125
Senate 302(b) allocation: \3\
Budget Authority............................ 85,415 138 26,898 112,451
Outlays..................................... 88,463 0 26,662 115,125
President's request:
Budget Authority............................ 83,221 138 26,898 110,257
Outlays..................................... 87,827 136 26,662 114,625
House-passed:
Budget Authority............................ 85,296 138 26,898 112,332
Outlays..................................... 87,909 136 26,662 114,707
[[Page S11600]]
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority............................ 85,905 138 26,898 112,941
Outlays..................................... 88,320 136 26,662 115,118
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation: \3\
Budget Authority............................ -124 5 0 -119
Outlays..................................... 0 0 0 0
President's request:
Budget Authority............................ 2,070 5 0 2,075
Outlays..................................... 499 1 0 500
House-passed:
Budget Authority............................ -5 5 0 0
Outlays..................................... 417 1 0 418
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority............................ -614 5 0 -609
Outlays..................................... 6 1 0 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The split between general purpose and defense spending is for illustrative (i.e., nonenforceable) purposes
only. The 2002 budget resolution includes a ``firewall'' between defense and nondefense spending, contingent
on an increase in the discretionary caps. That contingency has not been met.
\2\ The conference report includes $1.5 billion in general purpose emergency spending authority for FEMA
disaster assistance.
\3\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the conference report to the Senate 302(b)
allocation. In addition to the amounts shown, the conference report also would reduce federal revenues by $32
million in 2002. By law, the revenue loss, which will result from changes made to HUD manufactured housing and
EPA registration fees, will be placed on the PAYGO scorecard.
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD
conference report, H.R. 2620. I appreciate the conferee's recognition
of the importance of the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement
budget, as well as full funding for state revolving loan funds. These
are priorities for the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Another priority for the Committee is ensuring the American public
that when they turn on their faucets in their homes and businesses, day
care centers and hospitals, they will fill their cups with clean, safe
water. The new standard for arsenic in drinking water is a welcome
measure to improve the quality of drinking water nationwide. Earlier
this year, I was concerned when this Administration announced its
intention to review the new, lower arsenic standard issued by the last
Administration. Last week, I was relieved when EPA Administrator
Whitman announced her intention to abide by the 10 parts per billion
standard as well as the 2006 compliance date.
As Administrator Whitman stated in her letter to me on October 31st,
the science clearly supports an arsenic standard no higher than 10
parts per billion. Over the past several months, three new independent
scientific studies have been conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and EPA's
Science Advisory Board. These studies tell us that arsenic in drinking
water is a public health concern, and that the levels allowed by
current law are much too high. In fact, these studies support a
standard lower than 10 parts per billion. EPA tells me they have
received more than 55,000 comments from the public on this subject.
Clearly, this new, lower standard confers an important protection,
supported by many of our citizens.
I am aware of the concerns that some of my colleagues have expressed
about the ability of small communities to comply with the new arsenic
standard. I have read the conference report language directing EPA to
study this issue, and I look forward to receiving EPA's report. Indeed,
with the significant public health concern associated with arsenic in
drinking water, we care greatly that all communities are able to
comply. Although current law contains affordability criteria as well as
waiver and variance provisions, I would hope that we can provide
financial assistance to these communities, if they need it, so that
they can comply with the new standard in accordance with the compliance
deadline and without having to avail themselves of these mechanisms.
With such a pressing health issue at stake, what the public needs is
timely compliance, not delay.
I also thank the conferees for their attention to a hazardous waste
issue known as the ``mixture and derived from rule.'' While EPA will
continue to pursue exemptions for certain low-risk wastes, the
conferees' commitment to supporting exemptions only where sound science
applies will ensure protection of human health and the environment.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on
the VA-HUD Appropriations bill includes a provision requiring the Bush
administration to end its delay of the Clinton rule establishing a
tougher standard on arsenic in drinking water.
The statutory language is similar to the amendment I offered to this
bill, which passed the Senate 97-1. This language will result in a 10
parts per billion standard for arsenic and will ensure the community's
right to know when unhealthy levels of arsenic are present in the
drinking water
I am concerned, however, about language in the conference report. It
says that the Administrator should focus on developing procedures that
would result in extensions of time for small systems to comply with the
arsenic standard. Clearly, those extensions would have to be consistent
with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. But they would only
result in further delay.
In addition, the Administrator is asked to report to Congress on
legislative proposals that address further extensions of time for
compliance by small systems. The focus of EPA's limited resources
should be on helping these systems to accelerate compliance--by
providing technical and financial assistance--not on how to further
delay compliance.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that will
be my focus. I will be working to provide funding for small communities
to meet the 10 parts per billion standard, and I will not support
legislative proposals that provide additional extensions and delay even
more the time when all Americans have safer drinking water.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while I will support the fiscal year 2002
VA-HUD and Independent Agencies conference report, I must express my
strong disappointment in the funding level included in the bill for
YouthBuild. I strongly believe that YouthBuild proves that the Federal
Government, working in cooperation with community-based non-profits,
can make a real difference in the lives of young people, the young
people that most Americans have given up on. During Senate
consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I successfully
included an amendment to provide a $10 million increase in funding for
YouthBuild. A similar amendment was included in the House, so the
amount allocated to YouthBuild was approximately $70 million in each
bill.
While I understand the difficult allocation which the Subcommittee
operates, I am nevertheless very disappointed that in the Conference
Report included only $65 million for YouthBuild. With strong support
for YouthBuild in both the House and the Senate, I believe this program
deserved $70 million in fiscal year 2002. These additional funds would
have assisted YouthBuild in expanding its programs across the nation
and assisted more at-risk youths.
YouthBuild is designed to serve those that, too often, have proven to
be the
[[Page S11601]]
hardest to serve. In return, they serve us, by getting job training,
learning a skill, completing their educations, and working in
communities across the country rebuilding housing, providing
desperately needed affordable housing to other needy families.
Many low-income young adults are having great difficulty achieving
success in our society. YouthBuild attracts low-income young adults who
have dropped out of school. Many participants have been adjudicated,
are from welfare families, have children already and live in public
housing projects. The premise of YouthBuild is that these young adults
need and deserve a second chance, that they are eager to live
productive, constructive lives, and we cannot afford not to provide
them with that second chance. Skills, education, inspiration and
support provided by YouthBuild help them make the transition to the
jobs or higher education.
YouthBuild is the only national program that provides young adults an
immediately productive role in the community while at the same time
providing all of the following benefits to participants: basic
education toward a diploma; skills training toward a decent paying job;
leadership development toward civic engagement; adult mentoring to help
overcome personal problems; and participation in a supportive mini-
community with a positive set of values.
Of those that enter YouthBuild, 67 percent complete the program. 85
percent of YouthBuild graduates are placed in college, or get a job
with an average wage of $7.53 per hour. Many become leaders in their
communities, both while they are in the program and thereafter.
YouthBuild receives bipartisan support for one simple reason--it
works. The program fills a major gap in public policy by addressing the
needs of at-risk, out of school young adults in a more comprehensive
way than any other existing national program. That is why I circulated
a letter with Senator Mike DeWine, which was cosigned by 63 Senators,
in support of increasing funding for YouthBuild to $90 million.
YouthBuild program has grown from 15 sites which served 600 at-risk
youth in 1993, to 145 sites serving approximately 5,800 youth in 40
States today. The engine of this growth has been the HUD appropriation.
The fuel has been the highly motivated local leaders whose commitment
keeps the program on the cutting edge of community needs. They have
raised State, local, and private funds to supplement Federal funds and
extend the reach of this important program. Major support from the Ford
Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The DeWitt Wallace-
Reader's Digest Fund, local Rotary Clubs, The Home Depot, US Bancorp,
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company demonstrates that the network
is highly regarded by leaders in the private sector. YouthBuild
attracts, motivates, educates, and trains precisely the young people
who have fared least well in virtually all other existing systems.
The demand and need for YouthBuild programs far exceeds the resources
allocated to it. Successful YouthBuild programs have 6 to 10 times more
applicants each year than they can accept. In this period, with the
economy in need of qualified workers and the number of at-risk adults
is increasing, it is excellent public policy to invest in a proven
national model that can bring these young adults into employment, post-
secondary education, and constructive civic engagement.
The best way for me to explain to you the importance of YouthBuild is
to tell you about one the YouthBuild programs. YouthBuild Springfield,
MA, has received more than 250 applications for its services since it
opened in 1999, and has been able to serve 80 young people in a
comprehensive, year round programs which includes education and
employment training, as well as community and leadership development.
Over half of the participants are young women, many with dependent
children. All of the participants commit to being drug free,
participate in weekly drug education workshops, and agree to random
drug testing. They provide four therapy groups each week and access
private therapy as needed. They have maintained a 77 percent retention
rate, 86 percent attendance rate, and 82 percent placement rate at an
average wage of $8.10 per hour. Another 10 percent have gone on to
further training or college.
With the strong bipartisan support for YouthBuild, I am hopeful that
we will be able to increase the appropriation for this important
program in fiscal year 2003.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the vote on adoption of this
conference report to accompany H.R. 2620, the VA/HUD appropriations
bill, occur at 4:30 p.m. today and that if all time for debate has
expired, the time until 4:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled by
the two managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from
Texas such time as she may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the VA/HUD bill
which has a number of good parts to it. I know the managers have worked
very hard to divide up the dollars. It is always hard when there are
not as many dollars as projects.
I specifically want to talk about the issue of NASA. I know of the
great concerns, because it is very obvious from the bill, and, frankly,
they are valid concerns, about the management of the space station and
the cost overruns. I also understand there are concerns about the
overruns hurting other programs within NASA.
When you are doing something new, when you are pushing the envelope
of technology, you cannot always be precise. This is not to say some of
the overruns have been invalid, incomprehensible in some ways, and I
don't understand some of them myself. I do not think you can set an
exact budget when you are experimenting. We all know you have to have
some freedom in science in order to be able to make a mistake, learn
from the mistake, and do something else.
I appreciate the $150 million cut in the original Senate bill was
halved to $75 million in the conference. I hope NASA can work within
that $75 million and the rest of the budget for the space station to
continue to move ahead. I am told by the people at NASA it will delay
the space station, but it will certainly not kill it.
But I think the overriding issue is the one that was mentioned by the
Senator from Missouri, and that is we need to have a new administrator
appointed for NASA right away. Dan Goldin has done a terrific job, but
he is leaving at the middle of this month. So we need to have that
leadership.
I urge that the new leader of NASA look at what NASA can do. Let's
decide, what is the science that we want to create? What is the goal of
NASA? NASA has given us so much in the past, in new technologies that
create new industries and new jobs. It has been part of the
revitalization of our economy. We want to continue to push ahead. We
want to continue to be the leader of the world in technology. To do
that, we are going to have to have a clear vision for NASA and new
leadership.
I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for
working with me to make sure we do have the expenses that must be paid
for NASA to stay in place. I think their concerns are valid, but let's
not throw out the baby with the bath water. We cannot starve NASA if we
are going to stay in the forefront of technology.
I look forward to working with the Senators from Maryland and
Missouri during the next year, hopefully with a new Administrator from
NASA, so we can have a clear vision and we can continue America's lead
in technology that will have a major impact, not only on our future
defense and our future programs, but also for our economy for the
future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senator from New Mexico
wishes to speak. We have guaranteed him this time. I say to the Senator
from Texas, she has been a longstanding advocate of the space program.
I have traveled with her to Texas to see the first-class, world-class
research that is going on there.
I, too, look forward to working with the new Administrator of NASA.
We
[[Page S11602]]
should also recognize the current one because I think he has tried his
best. But we have to have a NASA for the 21st century. I look forward
to working with her to be able to do that.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their important discussion. I am
now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator
Bond for their sensitivity to the issue of the new arsenic standards in
water and its impact on thousands of communities throughout America.
Let me say, I have given up on attempting to challenge the 10-parts-
per-billion standard the administration has now found to be the
standard that is necessary in drinking water in America for the water
to be healthy and safe. Saying that I cannot fight it any longer does
not mean I agree with it, nor that I think the Congress can ignore the
consequences of this new standard on many communities across this land.
More than 140 communities in my home State of New Mexico face this
new burden at an estimated cost of more than $440 million, from the
smallest of water supply systems to the very largest in the city of
Albuquerque.
Why would one be concerned enough about this to bring it to the floor
of the Senate? It is a highly controversial issue as to whether the
exact same standards on arsenic should apply in every community across
the breadth and width of America because if you come from a State such
as New Mexico, Nevada, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and many more,
whatever human beings have lived in those parts of America, from the
earliest arrival of men to the modern American living in these
communities, there has been arsenic in the water that did not come from
anything that human beings did by their actions or nonactions. Arsenic
was in the water for all the time that humans have lived and found this
water and drank of it. The arsenic was there because of the rock
formations, that geology, over which the rainwater, after it rippled
down, ran and percolated into lakes and reservoirs and areas
underground which were then used for drinking water.
Many hundreds of thousands of people drank of that water with no ill
effects. I know it is almost the wrong thing to say scientifically, but
it seems as if it is factual that the citizens in those areas to which
I have alluded, including my State of New Mexico, are healthier,
whatever is allegedly the damage that arsenic in the water produces.
In other words, the diseases that are attributable to having more
arsenic in the water are present less frequently in States such as mine
than they are in other States that have not, for all this period of
time, had drinking water which had naturally flowing arsenic as a
component of the compound.
Since I believe that, it doesn't mean I am advising that we not
follow the law. But what I am suggesting is that soon small, medium-
sized, and large communities in all of these States, including Nevada,
including West Virginia, including New Mexico, including Arizona and
many others, are going to start getting the estimates as to how they
make these small water systems, these medium-sized ones, and these
large ones--how do you get them down to 10 parts per billion of
arsenic. They are going to get these big estimates.
They are going to get estimates of rebuilding whole waterworks for
this purpose. Then the citizens are going to be asking, after seeing
the headlines: What is this all about?
What I think we should have done in this conference is we should have
let the Department--the Environmental Protection Agency--which adopted
the new standard, deal with it in a normal manner. Actually, they would
have 6 years before the implementation date. But they could at least
work with cities. They could perhaps work on waivers attributable to
good research which said if they are given 2 more years, they are going
to come out with new science and it is going to be much less costly to
Las Vegas, NV, and Reno, NV.
I see my friend, the junior Senator from Nevada is here.
But we went one step further in this bill and we prohibited the
Environmental Protection Agency from doing anything other than
enforcing this standard, literally, specifically, no exemptions, no
waivers.
I say to the two Senators who are managing this bill, the Chair and
Senator Bond have been most understanding. They have both pledged if we
can find a way to help with this, by either partial financing or in
some reasonable way, they are going to do that.
I want to tell the Senate there is some exciting research going on.
That is getting funded, too. So we might make a breakthrough where we
don't have to clean the arsenic out of the water in the manner expected
of us today. There will be a newer way, cheaper, more reasonable, and
perhaps we can get something done.
To reiterate, I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their
sensitivity to the issue of the new arsenic standard and its impact on
thousands of communities throughout the nation. I am not arguing
against the new standard of 10 parts per billion, since the
administration has announced that it will support this level of arsenic
in our water. But, we all know that achieving this new level will cost
literally billions of dollars for communities, most of which will never
be able to afford the equipment to meet this standard by the year 2006.
I wish that we in the conference on VA-HUD could have addressed this
issue in a substantive fashion, perhaps by establishing direct funding
to help these communities. We were not able to do so, but I am assured
by the many Senators who agreed with me that this issue is critical. We
must establish a new program to help through grants and loans the
communities that face virtual ruin if they try to fund this new
equipment themselves. More than 140 communities in my home state alone
face this new burden, at an estimated cost of more than $440 million.
I hope that my colleagues will join with me, and with others, like
Senator Reid of Nevada, as we try to forge a program as soon as
possible, perhaps even later this session of Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me conclude by thanking the Senator from Missouri
for all his help and cooperation, and his staff--all of whom were
working on it. I take this opportunity to thank the people who worked
directly with the bill, worked directly in the Senate.
There are a lot of people who work in this institution.
We are coming up on the second month anniversary of the aerial attack
on the United States of America. I thank all the people here at the
Capitol who continue to show up every day and every way to support us
so we can keep democracy's doors open.
First, I thank our young pages. They are high school students. They
could have gone back home and been prom queens and football heroes, but
instead they chose to serve their country by being right here in this
Chamber. We thank them for their support for us and the confidence
their families showed in us.
All of the people who run the food service, who run the elevators,
and who are trying to clean up the Hart Building need to be
acknowledged. By supporting us, they really support democracy. As we
pass this bill that honors America's veterans and protects our homeland
security, I thank all the people from the pages to the elevator
operators, to the carpenters, and so on, who just show up every day and
help us keep democracy's door open and functioning.
I bring you the VA-HUD bill and say God bless the U.S. Senate and God
bless America. Let's vote and pass this bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the
[[Page S11603]]
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Leahy), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) and
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 7, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
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--7
Bayh
Ensign
Feingold
Gramm
Helms
Kyl
McCain
NOT VOTING--6
Boxer
Cleland
Enzi
Leahy
Miller
Voinovich
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move lay on that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. 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.
____________________