[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.

                          ____________________