[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14506-S14528]
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, 2004--Continued

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey in the Chamber. I believe he has an amendment, and if the 
pricetag is reasonable, we may be able to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the manager's interest in permitting me 
to offer this amendment. I will try to do it as quickly as I can.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2171 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, 
     Mr. Edwards, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2171.

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

   (Purpose: To maintain enforcement personnel for the Environmental 
            Protection Agency at the fiscal year 2003 level)

       On page 98, line 5, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``, of which, in addition to any other amounts 
     provided under this heading for the Office of Enforcement and 
     Compliance Assurance, $5,400,000 shall be made available for 
     that office''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski. We are pleased to have as 
cosponsors Senators Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, Leahy, 
Corzine, Durbin, Cantwell, Kennedy, and Edwards.
  This appropriations bill cuts the number of enforcement officers in 
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance by 54 positions. 
The amendment I am offering would restore those 54 positions so that 
EPA would have the same number of enforcement officers in fiscal year 
2004 that the agency had in 2003.
  Maintaining the current level of enforcement capacity is the least we 
ought to do in view of the reductions in enforcement staffing we have 
seen made in recent years.
  An EPA report that was released earlier this year on the Nation's 
enforcement of the Clean Water Act paints a disheartening picture. It 
shows additional officers are critically needed. Without this 
amendment, the total staffing reductions made since fiscal year 2001 
will equal 100 enforcement positions. That is equivalent to eliminating 
all of EPA's enforcement personnel for both the Northeast and Southeast 
regions.
  The cost of the 54 positions my amendment would retain would be 
approximately $5.4 million. This cost, as the Senator from Missouri 
noted, will be offset by a tiny reduction of .003, or three one-
thousandths of a percent, in EPA's $22.2 billion environmental programs 
and management account. Again, these positions are only going to keep 
the level of enforcement staffing where it presently is.
  Our colleagues in the House have already approved a similar 
amendment. In July, they voted to add 54 enforcement positions back 
into the bill at the same cost using the same offset as the amendment 
before us.
  The cuts in enforcement are taking a heavy toll, and the facts are 
these: Between 1999 and 2001, 76 percent of the country's major 
facilities with significant environmental violations received no formal 
enforcement action whatsoever. Inspections are down. There has been a 
45-percent decrease in enforcement actions, and the penalties that are 
levied averaged a paltry $6,000. We have practically hung out a sign 
that tells polluters it is all right to flaunt the law, and the fines 
are hardly a deterrent to businesses generally.
  The damage they do, however, is not free, and society will pay the 
price for the mounting violations, additional fish advisories, higher 
asthma rates, more trips to the hospital, and worse.
  An internal EPA survey that was leaked to the press in January 
painted a dismal and frightening picture of what is happening at some 
of the largest facilities across the country. Fifty percent of major 
facilities are exceeding their permitted toxic release limits by 100 
percent, 21 percent of the facilities are exceeding their toxic release 
limits by 500 percent, and 13 are exceeding toxic limits by an alarming 
1,000 percent.
  These are alarming statistics, and they portray a terrible picture.
  I am pleased my colleagues will be considering what it means to these 
families who live downriver or downwind from these plants. None of us 
in this Chamber would ever knowingly subject our families to 
concentrations of mercury, dioxins, or other deadly toxins in our lakes 
and rivers that are 10 times the safe level. But we are doing that. If 
we don't stop companies from violating our environmental laws, we will 
continue to do that.
  To my colleagues, I say we are not powerless; we can stop these 
dangerous violations, or at least keep them contained to a no larger 
level, which is an important first step this amendment takes care of.
  I submit this amendment for consideration by the ranking member, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, and the chairman, the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri. I understand there has been a 
review of my amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there has been a review of the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe we can accept this amendment. This 
is an increase, obviously. Our budget has been short in every area. We 
share the concern of the author of this amendment in ensuring EPA 
enforcement is strong enough.
  There is no objection on this side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the 
Lautenberg amendment. He is absolutely right. This money is needed 
because it essentially restores funding for the environmental cops on 
the beat. We wanted to do this in our bill, but circumstances shackled 
us from doing so.
  This is a good amendment. We are happy to accept it. I thank the 
Senator for his longstanding advocacy in this area.

[[Page S14507]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a request has been made by the distinguished 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that we have a voice 
vote and not just accept these amendments without objection. It would 
be in order to ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2171.
  The amendment (No. 2171) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Ensign has a statement he wishes to 
make, but in the meantime we have a number of amendments that have been 
cleared on both sides.


                Amendment No. 2172 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Hollings and Senator Graham of South Carolina. This is an 
amendment permitting the Secretary of VA to enter into an enhanced-use 
lease for the Medical University Hospital Authority in Charleston.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, for himself and Mr. Hollings, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2172 to amendment No. 2150.

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

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into 
an enhanced-use lease at the Charleston Department of Veterans Affairs 
              Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of section 8163(c) 
     of title 38, United States Code, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs may enter into an enhanced-use lease with the Medical 
     University Hospital Authority, a public authority of the 
     State of South Carolina, for approximately 0.48 acres of 
     underutilized property at the Charleston Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, 
     at any time after 30 days after the date of the submittal of 
     the notice required by paragraph (1) of that section with 
     respect to such property. The Secretary is not required to 
     submit a report on the lease as otherwise required by 
     paragraph (4) of that section.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2173.
  The amendment (No. 2173) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2173 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator 
Mikulski which provides for the Corporation National Service to refrain 
from disclosing any information. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Mikulski, for 
     herself and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 2173 to 
     amendment No. 2150.

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

   (Purpose: To require notice and comment rulemaking, and prohibit 
 disclosure of selection information, by the Corporation for National 
                         and Community Service)

       On page 92, line 22, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, for fiscal year 2004 
     and every year thereafter, the Corporation shall make any 
     significant changes to program requirements or policy only 
     through public notice and comment rulemaking:  Provided 
     further, That, for fiscal year 2004 and every year 
     thereafter, during any grant selection process, no officer or 
     employee of the Corporation shall knowingly disclose any 
     covered grant selection information regarding such selection, 
     directly or indirectly, to any person other than an officer 
     or employee of the Corporation that is authorized by the 
     Corporation to receive such information.''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It does two things. It says the Corporation for 
National Community Service must change the rules. It protects the 
integrity of the grant process by preventing corporation officials from 
disclosing sensitive grant information and insists that any changes for 
rules for volunteer programs must have public comment.
  One of my guiding principles is that people have a right to know, to 
be heard and to be represented. The Mikulski-Bond amendment upholds 
this principle. It ensures that the public gets a meaningful chance to 
comment on decisions that affect their communities and the volunteers 
who serve them.
  Recently, National Service tried to change the rules for AmeriCorps. 
I was very troubled by the corporation's actions for two reasons: the 
process and the policy. My first concern was the process or actually 
the lack of a process. The corporation acted behind closed doors 
without input from Congress, volunteer advocates, or the communities 
they serve. States, communities, and advocates were told they had just 
1 business day to review sweeping new rules, to ask questions about 
them, and to offer suggested changes. The corporation ``jackpotted'' 
advocates, volunteers, States, and local communities.
  My second concern is policy. The AmeriCorps rules changes would hurt 
communities who depend on volunteers by eliminating support for long-
standing, successful volunteer programs and by increasing financial and 
administrative burdens on communities and volunteer organizations.
  I commend the board of directors for stepping in to stop the 
corporation. But it is clear that the corporation needs specific 
direction to ensure that the public has a right to be heard. The 
corporation doesn't have a Senate-confirmed CEO. We are working on a 
bipartisan basis to get David Eisner confirmed as the new CEO, but the 
staff must not make rule changes without leadership and public comment.
  This amendment is good process, and good policy. It makes sure that 
the public has an opportunity to comment on any changes to National 
Service programs. And the amendment protects the integrity of the 
National Service grant process.
  I thank Senator Bond for working with me on this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for his strong efforts to reform 
the fiscal and sloppy practices that are at the corporation. The 
volunteers are terrific, and now with the new CEO, I think we will be 
able to move ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Maryland for her very thoughtful 
and well-crafted amendment. She has been regarded as really one of the 
greatest defenders of the concept of AmeriCorps national service. 
Nobody has been a stronger champion of volunteer service. I have been 
pleased to be a junior partner to her in this effort. She has it just 
right. The volunteers are wonderful. The purpose is wonderful. We have 
had more than a few bumps in the road in terms of how the program has 
been administered, but we have high hopes that the new administration 
in that agency, with the new head, the financial officer, the chairman, 
will be on the right track.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2173.
  The amendment (No. 2173) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now see my distinguished colleague from 
Nevada is in the Chamber. I yield the floor to him for such comments as 
he wishes to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S14508]]

                           Amendment No. 2152

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Clinton-Enzi 
amendment.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Disabled 
American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, all expressing their opposition to the Clinton-
Enzi amendment, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2003.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the more than one 
     million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), we 
     write to express our concern over your proposed amendment to 
     limit the use of funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     (VA) Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) 
     initiative, pending modification of the initiative to include 
     long-term care, domiciliary care, and mental health services 
     in addition to reconvening the Commission for further 
     hearings.
       Initially, please know that preservation of the integrity 
     of the VA health care system is of the utmost importance to 
     the DAV and our members, and we greatly appreciate your 
     efforts and insistence that long-term care, domiciliary care, 
     and mental health services are included in the CARES 
     initiative. These specialized programs are an integral part 
     of providing sick and disabled veterans comprehensive health 
     care. However, we are concerned your amendment may completely 
     stall the CARES process and prohibit VA from making the 
     necessary changes to improve its health care system and 
     enhance access and services for veteran patients.
       As you are aware, over the past 7 years, following national 
     trends, VA's Veterans Health Administration converted from a 
     primarily hospital-based system to an outpatient focused 
     health care delivery model. With these sweeping changes, 
     there clearly came a need to reassess VA's physical 
     structures and the need to realign, renovate, and modernize 
     VA facilities to meet the changing health care needs of 
     veterans today and well into the future. Many VA medical 
     facilities have an average age of 54 years and are in 
     critical need of repair. Unfortunately, VA's construction 
     budget has decreased sharply over the last several years with 
     political resistance to fund any major projects before a 
     formal plan was developed. VA responded with the CARES 
     initiative. However, many desperately needed construction and 
     maintenance projects, including seismic repairs that could 
     potentially compromise patient safety, have been 
     unnecessarily delayed. DAV strongly believes that CARES 
     should not distract VA or Congress from its obligation to 
     protect its physical assets whether they are to be used for 
     current capacity or realigned.
       On a national level, DAV firmly believes that realignment 
     of capital assets is critical to the long-term health and 
     viability of the entire VA health care system. We do not 
     believe that restructuring is inherently detrimental to the 
     VA health care system. However, we will remain vigilant and 
     press VA to focus on the most important element in the 
     process, enhancement of services and timely delivery of high 
     quality health care services to our nation's sick and 
     disabled veterans.
       VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi met with DAV and other 
     veterans service organizations this morning and gave us his 
     personal commitment that there would be no realignment or 
     reduction in services as a result of CARES for mental health 
     or long-term care until a definitive plan is developed and in 
     place to absorb the workload for these specialized services. 
     His promise to us satisfies our over-arching concern about 
     the inclusion of these essential programs. Therefore, we 
     believe the CARES process should be allowed to proceed at 
     this critical juncture.
       Again, we want to thank you for your efforts on CARES and 
     for your strong leadership and support of veterans' issues. 
     We very much look forward to continuing a positive and 
     meaningful working relationship with you regarding matters of 
     great importance to veterans. We hope that you will 
     reconsider your position on this issue based on these new 
     developments.
           Sincerely,

                                              David W. Gorman,

                                               Executive Director,
     Washington Headquarters.
                                  ____



                                            American Veterans,

                                     Lanham, MD, November 7, 2003.


                               memorandum

     To: All Members of the U.S. Senate.
     From: S. John Sisler, National Commander.
     Re: Consideration of CARES amendment in VA/HUD appropriations 
         bill.

       It is our understanding that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 
     may offer an amendment to S. 1584, the VA/HUD appropriations 
     bill, that would block the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     from spending any money to enact the CARES Commission 
     recommendations.
       On behalf of the nationwide membership of AMVETS (American 
     Veterans), I write to express our strong opposition to Sen. 
     Clinton's proposed amendment aimed to stop progress of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs National Capital Asset 
     Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Plan.
       The CARES initiative is clearly needed to assess what 
     facilities will best meet the healthcare needs of America's 
     veterans. AMVETS believes that adoption of the amendment 
     would further delay moving forward with construction projects 
     that are obviously essential to patient safety and that will 
     eventually pay for themselves as a result of modernization.
       AMVETS agrees with the Department of Veterans Affairs that 
     many of their facilities need to be upgraded or replaced. We 
     also agree with the Department that part of the solution for 
     providing high quality health care to America's veterans is 
     upgrading some facilities and replacing others with new and 
     modern medical care treatment facilities.
       AMVETS and I ask that you oppose any amendment that would 
     cause the VA National CARES process to be used as an excuse 
     to defer vital infrastructure maintenance and construction 
     projects.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 2003.
     To: All Members of the U.S. Senate.
     From: Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, VFW Washington 
         Office
     Re: Clinton/Enzi Amendment to H.R. 2861.

       On behalf of the 2.6 million members of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Ladies 
     Auxiliary, I would like to take this opportunity to urge you 
     to oppose the Clinton/Enzi Amendments to H.R. 2861, the FY 
     2004 VA/HUD Appropriations bill.
       This amendment would limit the use of funds for the Capital 
     Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. 
     The VFW is concerned that if this amendment passes, the CARES 
     process will essentially be put on indefinite hold.
       We share Senators Clinton's and Enzi's concerns regarding 
     long-term care, domiciliary care, and mental health services; 
     however, it is our understanding that the CARES Commission is 
     currently reviewing the data to include these services. 
     Therefore, at this stage, we believe it is important to move 
     ahead as the location and mission of some VA facilities need 
     to change to improve veterans' access; to allow more 
     resources to be devoted to medical care, rather than the 
     upkeep of inefficient buildings; and to adjust to modern 
     methods of health care service delivery. Our Nation's 
     veterans deserve no less.
       Again, I urge you not to support the Clinton/Enzi Amendment 
     regarding the limiting of funds for the VA CARES initiative.
                                  ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2003.
     Members,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America (PVA) I am writing to express our concerns regarding 
     an amendment we understand will be offered by Senator Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton to the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies 
     Appropriation bill. As we understand, this amendment 
     addresses the Department of Veterans Affairs' Capital Asset 
     Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) process and, if 
     passed, will limit the expenditure of funds for the process 
     greatly delaying necessary improvements to the VA's medical 
     care system.
       While PVA concurs with Senator Clinton that the CARES 
     process inadequately addresses issues of long-term care, 
     mental health services and rural health care we believe that 
     the amendment will so severely restrain in the process that 
     the many beneficial aspects of CARES will be seriously 
     harmed. Delay of CARES projects that will benefit veterans, 
     and in particular veterans with spinal cord injury or 
     dysfunction, can only serve to weaken the VA health care 
     system upon which our members and millions of other veterans 
     rely.
       Veterans' service organizations have received assurance 
     from Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principal that no 
     VA beds will be closed or capacity reduced until appropriate 
     alternative health care resources have been identified and 
     put in place. Additionally, the Secretary has assured us that 
     long term care and mental health services will be included in 
     the planning process with specificity to be provided as to 
     who will be involved, how the process will operate and what 
     timelines will be put in place. Finally the Secretary has 
     indicated that the issue of inter-VISN (Veterans Integrated 
     Service Network) planning and cooperation will be addressed.
       In light of these assurance and the need to proceed with 
     the positive findings, to date of the CARES process, PVA 
     believes any restrictions on funding for the CARES process 
     can only serve to delay improvements in capacity and access 
     of VA health care. We request that no limitation be place on 
     appropriated dollars for the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     and that the CARES process be allowed to expeditiously move 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                              Delatorro L. McNeal,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. ENZI. As we observed Veterans Day yesterday, and remembered the 
sacrifices each and every veteran has made to grant us our current 
freedoms, Congress should be doing all it can to help modernize and 
improve the VA

[[Page S14509]]

healthcare system at the earliest possible time. This amendment would 
derail this effort.
  Congress should be finding new and innovative ways to get healthcare 
services delivered in a more timely and convenient way to our former 
servicemen and women. This amendment would postpone this effort.
  Finally, Congress needs to ensure that the foundation and future of 
the VA healthcare system is stable and secure, giving our veterans the 
peace of mind that they will receive high quality and accessible 
healthcare whenever it is required. This amendment would hinder this 
effort.
  The VA will soon finalize its 20-year Capital Asset Realignment for 
Enhanced Services initiative, better known as the CARES plan, for 
updating medical facilities. Starting in the last administration and 
continuing in the present one, VA evaluated its future need for 
healthcare facilities, matched projected needs against current 
facilities, and developed a plan to match resources to needs.
  The amendment being proposed would impose unnecessary conditions 
before VA could go forward with this vital plan.
  Through CARES, VA is examining where its facilities are located, 
where veterans are projected to be living in the next 20 years, and 
what their health needs will be. Nationwide, VA provides medical care 
to almost 5 million veterans.
  VA's legacy facilities are old, with the average age over 50 years, 
many dating back all the way to World War I or even earlier. These 
initial facilities were designed to provide medicine as it was 
practiced a half century ago, and in most cases, are poorly located to 
serve veterans where they live today or are expected to live in the 
future.
  CARES will enable VA to leverage scarce resources by directing 
funding from the maintenance of obsolete facilities and applying that 
funding to the direct provision of healthcare services and staffing. It 
calls for construction of new facilities where the veteran population 
is growing, such as the southeastern and western United States. 
Additionally, it provides for the realignment of facilities that are 
redundant, out of date, or poorly located.
  The Draft National CARES Plan contains over $4.6 billion in capital 
investments, including 11 million square feet of renovation, 9 million 
square feet of new construction, 2 new hospitals, 48 new high priority 
community based outpatient clinics, 2 new blind rehabilitation centers, 
and 4 new spinal cord injury units.
  The Draft National CARES Plan, completed in August in this year, is a 
comprehensive integrated national proposal. The CARES process has been 
thorough and inclusive, combining a set of national assessment 
standards with planning at the local and regional levels.
  This plan is now under review by the independent CARES commission, 
established by Secretary Principi to objectively examine the plan, to 
obtain comments and conduct public hearings to ensure stakeholder views 
are considered. The CARES commission conducted 38 hearings, heard from 
over 700 witnesses; including employees, local government officials and 
veterans; and took over 180,000 comments.
  The bottom line is that the Draft National CARES Plan has been 
exposed to lengthy and close public analysis, and those observations 
will be included within the final plan. Next month, the CARES 
commission will submit their independent and comprehensive plan 
recommendations to the Secretary, which he will accept or reject as a 
whole.
  Placing further conditions on an already well-detailed plan, which 
this amendment would do, would hold up, and even disrupt, VA's long 
delayed modernization process.
  For example, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 
declined to provide more than minimal funding for VA medical 
constructions until VA provides a nationwide plan for managing its 
medical facilities. CARES is that plan.
  Further, this amendment would inherently prevent VA from implementing 
many critical components of the CARES plan. Anything less than full 
implementation of the CARES plan recommendations will lead to 
inequitable access to care. It cannot go forward with only parts of the 
plan. CARES is a comprehensive national plan, and it must be accepted 
in its totality to be effective.
  Knowing this to be true, four of the major national veterans' service 
organizations: the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS, have come out in 
either strong opposition or have raised serious concerns about the 
Clinton-Enzi amendment.
  I believe it is critically important that we consider the red flags 
raised by these organizations that represent almost 4 million veterans 
nationwide.
  Let us consider the actions taken by the committee of jurisdiction 
over the CARES initiative, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a 
member of this committee, I have been intimately involved in the step-
by-step process of analyzing this initiative, and I believe the VA 
committee has dedicated more than ample time and resources to the study 
of this plan.
  The committee held an extensive hearing on the CARES initiative just 
this past September, receiving updates from top VA officials and the 
Secretary himself, on the progress of the plan.
  Ultimately more important, the VA committee in September voted 
unanimously to give the Secretary the authority to implement the Draft 
National CARES plan once it is completed. In doing so, the committee 
outlined very specific priorities for the implementation of this plan.
  First, and what is paramount for the CARES process to be viable, any 
medical facility that is closed must be replaced with a facility that 
adequately serves the healthcare needs of the region. Second, any 
locality that is in need of a full-service hospital must receive one. 
And third, any region that is in need of an outpatient clinic to 
provide basic care services must receive one.
  These priorities, as agreed to by every member of the VA committee, 
emphasize, in my belief, that we support the CARES initiative and want 
it to move forward as quickly as possible. This amendment, without 
question, would not allow this to happen
  In my opposition to this amendment, I do understand the concerns of 
the sponsors. However, I believe that they have been more than 
adequately addressed.
  The sponsors believe that the CARES process has neglected to address 
the areas of long-term care, domiciliary care and mental health, mainly 
in rural areas. I strongly disagree with these assertions.
  By design, the VA seeks to provide long-term care services in the 
least restrictive setting that is compatible with a veteran's medical 
condition and personal circumstances. This allows VA to reserve nursing 
home care for veterans who can no longer be safely cared for in home- 
and community-based settings.
  VA expects to meet most of the future growth for long-term care 
services through non-institutional settings that keep veterans close to 
spouse, home and friends.
  Since there are critical renovation and replacement nursing home 
needs that have been recognized, the plan includes several needed 
nursing home renovations and replacements that are believed to be 
within the projected outcomes of the new model.
  In planning for CARES, the networks were to develop options taking 
care to preserve current bed levels for nursing home and inpatient 
long-term mental health programs.
  More recent data is now available and suggest that both disability 
among the elderly and nursing home utilization rates have diminished. 
The discrepancy between projected needs from the current planning model 
and actual current demand prompted VA, earlier this year to commence in 
an intensive review and refinement of the long-term care planning 
model.
  However, because the new data could not be incorporated into a new 
planning model for the current cycle of the CARES process, VA chose to 
treat the long-term care issues neutrally; that is, there will be no 
major changes or negative impact on care or capacity in long-term care. 
Once the data from the new model is available and analyzed, it will be 
used for future strategic planning activities.
  On the issue of rural coverage, VA is, in fact, very sensitive to the 
healthcare

[[Page S14510]]

needs of rural and frontier veterans. It was a principal factor for 
several of the CARES commission hearings to be located in rural 
locales. Additionally, the Draft National CARES plan calls for the 
designation of critical access hospitals, recognizing the vital role 
that many of VA's small facilities fulfill in providing access to acute 
hospital care in rural or less densely populated areas. Moreover, it 
recommends 48 new sites for community-based outpatient clinics, many of 
those in rural areas.
  The amendment before us is really nothing more than a solution in 
search of a problem. The VA has gone to great lengths to incorporate 
every stakeholder, especially our veterans, in the CARES process 
throughout.
  I believe they have done an excellent job in creating a realistic and 
practical vision for the future of VA healthcare services, and we in 
the United States Senate should help them make that vision a reality.
  What this all boils down to is how do we best serve the immediate and 
growing needs of our Nation's veterans. No one here is saying that the 
draft plan is perfect. However, we need to possess the wisdom and 
foresight to say we have all the necessary components in place to make 
a positive change and we should move forward.
  Many injured or ill Vietnam veterans were disillusioned and critical 
when treated at VA medical facilities designed and built to treat their 
World War II fathers or even World War I grandfathers. Veterans of Iraq 
and Afghanistan are now returning to many of those same facilities.
  It is time to take the first step toward bringing the level of care 
for all our veterans into the 21st century. They have waited long 
enough, and we need to act now to improve the lives of each and every 
veteran in America.
  In summary, we all have made commitments to our veterans that we 
should take care of them. These are the men and women who have donned 
the uniform of the United States and have made incredible sacrifices so 
that we can live in freedom. We live in the greatest country, I 
believe, in the history of the world, with the most freedoms of any 
people in the history of the world. This country of ours has only 
remained free because people have been willing to lay their lives down 
to ensure those freedoms for us, our children, and our grandchildren.
  The amendment that has been proposed today would violate the 
commitment to our U.S. veterans. I say that because the veterans are 
moving away from the old rust belt. We should be taking the health 
care, which is their primary issue, to our veterans. Services, need to 
follow where the veterans are moving. We should not be trying to prop 
up institutions, instead, we should be moving the healthcare services 
where those veterans are relocating.
  Secretary Principi is doing a wonderful job of trying to put the 
priorities of the veterans over process, over other constituencies, and 
maybe over a congressional district. He is trying to reform the system, 
recognizing that veterans are moving and that the money should follow 
so that the services are provided to those veterans.
  I live in the fastest growing State and the fastest growing 
metropolitan area in the United States. It must have the kind of 
quality of lifestyle that veterans like because they are moving there 
in droves. Per capita, our State now has the most veterans in the 
United States. Yet, for instance, the Las Vegas metropolitan area that 
has 1.6 million people does not have a VA hospital. There are a couple 
hundred thousand veterans living in the area and we have no VA 
hospital. We have VA clinics but no VA hospital. So when our veterans 
need surgery or have complicated procedures, they have to travel away 
from their families down to southern California to get those services.
  We can understand it in smaller population areas, maybe, but in a 
major metropolitan area, where veterans are choosing to live, that is 
not keeping the commitment we have made to our veterans.
  So I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and will fight 
against its passage. If there is a vote on it, we will fight against 
the votes to pass it, or if it is tried to be snuck in the omnibus 
bill, if this bill does not actually get passed today, we will fight 
against putting it in the omnibus bill. The reason why is because it is 
so important that we look the men and women in the face who are serving 
in our military today and say we are going to keep the commitment we 
are making to them today.
  They already made the sacrifices, and now we need to keep our 
commitment to them. In the future, we will keep our commitment to them 
and they can count on that.
  Secretary Principi and the administration, I believe, are trying to 
do the right thing. They are trying to say that as the veterans are 
moving, we recognize that. For a long time the VA has needed updating 
and changing, and they finally have the courage to start doing that. As 
a legislative body, let us not stop that process.

  My colleague Senator Reid and I have worked very hard on improving 
the services for veterans in our State, both in northern and southern 
Nevada, as all Senators try to do for their State. The bottom line is 
we should not hurt the services in the fastest growing areas of our 
country where the waits are so long, where people have to travel out of 
State to get the proper medical services. Let us look at our veterans 
and say no matter where they move in the United States, they are going 
to get the kind of services they have earned. And make no mistake about 
it, they have earned those services.
  Anybody who has taken a look at what I believe is this ill-conceived 
amendment will say this would, in effect, do harm to many veterans in 
this country and they deserve better than that.
  I thank the manager of the bill and the ranking member for the time, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 2174 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are 
working on some possible amendments from the Senator from Illinois. 
Also, Senator Mikulski has a major amendment. I would like to move very 
quickly to do some amendments that I believe will not require any 
extended discussion. First for myself, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2174.

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

 (Purpose: Increase funds for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
  Oversight to conduct audits, investigations and examinations and to 
                   provide for additional emergency)

       On page 61, beginning on line 7, strike out 
     ``$32,415,000,'' and all that follows through the period on 
     line 16 and insert in lieu thereof ``$39,915,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Federal 
     Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund: Provided, That not less 
     than 60 percent of total amount made available under this 
     heading shall be used for licensed audit personnel and audit 
     support: Provided further, That an additional $10,000,000 
     shall be made available until expended, to be derived from 
     the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund only upon a 
     certification by the Secretary of the Treasury that these 
     funds are necessary to meet an emergency need: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed such amounts shall be available 
     from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary 
     to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the 
     receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That 
     the general fund amount shall be reduced as collections are 
     received during the fiscal year so as to result in a final 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $0.''.

  Mr. BOND. At the request of the administration, this amendment would 
increase funding for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight, OFHEO, for this year by $7.5 million. These funds are 
intended to strengthen OFHEO's examination, legal and human resources 
functions, and the fund's special investigation. The amendment includes 
an additional $10 million that is available only upon certification by 
the Secretary of the Treasury that there is an emergency need for 
additional funds.
  There is, I believe, a compelling need to reform the regulatory 
structure governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At a minimum, the 
senior management

[[Page S14511]]

of OFHEO must be replaced, and replaced now.
  Senior management, in my view, has repeatedly failed to meet the most 
basic requirements of OFHEO's missions. For example, it took over 10 
years for OFHEO to issue its risk-based capital standards, despite the 
fact that this is OFHEO's primary mission and key to its regulatory 
oversight of the GSEs.
  This failing became even more evident when OFHEO publicly praised 
Freddie Mac's management just days before Freddie Mac's management was 
removed for accounting irregularities.
  I applaud the work of the Banking Committee in the Senate and in the 
House, Senator Shelby, Congressman Baker, and the ranking members for 
making regulatory reform of OFHEO a priority. I look forward to working 
with them next year to help develop the right regulatory system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2174) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2175 To Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Stevens relating to the Native American Housing Assistance and 
Determination Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2175 to amendment No. 2150.

  The amendment follows:

(Purpose: To provide an allocation of funding under the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 for the State of 
                                Alaska)

       On page 86, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING.

       Allocation of Funding.--Of the amounts made available to 
     carry out the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) for fiscal 
     year 2004, there shall be made available to each grant 
     recipient the same percentage of funding as each recipient 
     received for fiscal year 2003.
   Mr. BOND. This is an amendment dealing with Native American housing. 
It is a simple amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have no objection. This has been a 
longstanding issue raised by our colleague from Alaska. It is a very 
compelling situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2175) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2176 To Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. On behalf of the Senators from Illinois, Mr. Durbin and Mr. 
Fitzgerald, I send an amendment to the desk dealing with the North 
Chicago VA Medical Center, making it available to the maximum extent 
feasible. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Durbin, for 
     himself and Mr. Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2176 to amendment No. 2150.

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

    (Purpose: To insert a provision relating to VA-Navy sharing of 
             facilities at North Chicago VA Medical Center)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall make the North Chicago VA 
     Medical Center available to the Navy to the maximum extent 
     feasible. The Secretary shall report to the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee by June 30, 2004, regarding the 
     progress in modifying North Chicago VA Medical Center's 
     surgical suite and emergency and urgent care centers for use 
     by veterans and Department of Defense beneficiaries. Further, 
     the Secretary shall consider having the new joint VA/Navy 
     ambulatory care center to serve both veterans and Department 
     of Defense beneficiaries sited on or adjacent to the North 
     Chicago VA Medical Center and shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Navy to select the site for the center. The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall report to the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee on the site selection by June 30, 
     2004.

  Mr. BOND. I yield for any statement by the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chairman and the ranking Democrat for 
accepting this amendment on behalf of Senator Fitzgerald and myself. We 
are trying to encourage the cooperation of the North Chicago Veterans 
Hospital and the Great Lakes Training base for the benefit of the 
veterans, the sailors, and the taxpayers.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This is an excellent amendment. We concur.
  Mr. BOND. This is something we need to do throughout the system, and 
we need to have a better integration of the health care facilities of 
the active military and the Veterans Affairs. I commend the Senators 
from Illinois and hope this model can be adopted elsewhere.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the bill managers for 
accepting the amendment that I am offering today, along with Senator 
Fitzgerald, to encourage further sharing of health care facilities 
between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Navy in North 
Chicago, IL.
  The Illinois delegation has worked in a bipartisan manner for four 
years to encourage sharing between the North Chicago VA Medical Center 
and the Great Lakes Naval Training Center (NTC) because of the 
proximity of the medical facilities. The Navy's hospital is 1\1/2\ 
miles from the North Chicago VA Medical Center, and the VA property 
adjoins Great Lakes NTC. The aim of the delegation was to keep the 
North Chicago VA Medical Center open, improve options for medical care 
for the Navy, improve training options for VA and Navy medical 
personnel, reduce costs, and improve access to health care for veterans 
and Department of Defense beneficiaries.
  The VA's process to consolidate veteran's health care facilities in 
the Chicago area allowed the North Chicago VA Medical Center to stay 
open, but with the proviso that more sharing between the VA and the 
Navy would take place.
  The Navy agreed to use the North Chicago VA Medical Center facilities 
as much as possible, in lieu of the Navy's outdated hospital, but 
renovation of a currently closed ward at the North Chicago VA Medical 
Center is required for a surgery suite, and the emergency and urgent 
care centers must be upgraded. The VA is planning to award a design 
contract for this work at the end of this year.
  For its part, the Navy has agreed to build a new ambulatory care 
center that could be used for active duty military personnel as well as 
for veterans. It will be paid for out of the Navy's budget, but I 
believe that the VA should have input into the site selection. Having 
the ambulatory care center on or adjacent to the North Chicago VA 
Medical Center would make sense. The center will be used by both 
veterans and military personnel, and having it on or adjacent to the VA 
facility would ease veterans' access to it. The North Chicago VA 
Medical Center sits on a large tract of land, and, while the Naval base 
is accessible, it still requires gaining entry through the enhanced 
security procedures of a military base, making it more difficult for 
veterans if the center were physically on the base.
  The amendment that Senator Fitzgerald and I offer today requires a 
report regarding the progress in modifying North Chicago VA Medical 
Center's surgical suite and emergency and urgent care centers for use 
by veterans and Department of Defense beneficiaries, demonstrating 
continued Congressional interest that these plans stay on track and on 
schedule. The amendment also requires that the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs consult with the Secretary of the Navy to select the site for 
the ambulatory care center, in order to ensure a role for the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs in negotiations with the Secretary of the Navy on 
site selection.
  I appreciate the efforts of the bill managers to work with us on this 
amendment and to include it in the managers' package.

[[Page S14512]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2176) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2177 To Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Murkowski relating to rural teacher housing, amending 
the Denali Commission Act to provide the ability of the Commission to 
make grants and loans to public school districts serving remote 
incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Murkowski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2177 to amendment No. 2150.

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

 (Purpose: To provide housing for teachers, administrators, and other 
  school staff in remote areas of Alaska since such housing is often 
extremely substandard, if it is even available at all, and rural school 
districts in Alaska are facing increased challenges, including meeting 
  the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and in recruiting and 
          retaining employees due to a lack of housing units)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RURAL TEACHER HOUSING.

       Section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 
     3121 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Rural Teacher Housing.--The Commission may make 
     grants and loans to public school districts serving remote 
     incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in Alaska 
     (including Alaska Native Villages) with a population of 6,500 
     or fewer persons for expenses associated with the 
     construction, purchase, lease, and rehabilitation of housing 
     units in such cities and communities. Unless otherwise 
     authorized by the Commission, such units may be occupied only 
     by teachers, school administrators, and other school staff 
     (including members of their households).''.

  Mr. BOND. This is carrying on our efforts to provide the best 
possible services to people in underserved areas of Alaska. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2177) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2178 To Amendment No. 2150

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2178 to amendment No. 2150.

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

        (Purpose: To provide for certain capitalization grants)

       On page 104, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       For an additional amount for capitalization grants for 
     State revolving funds, $3,000,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $1,850,000,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants from State water pollution control 
     revolving funds established under title VI of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and 
     $1,150,000,000 shall be for capitalization grants from State 
     drinking water treatment revolving loan funds under section 
     1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12): 
     Provided, That the entire amount made available under this 
     paragraph is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement under section 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Cong.).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase 
funding for our communities for our Nation's waste system. My amendment 
is simple and straightforward. It adds $3 billion to the VA-HUD bill 
for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure. My 
amendment increases funding in the EPA clean water State revolving loan 
fund to $3 billion, over $1.3 billion. My amendment also increases 
funding in the EPA drinking water revolving fund from $850 million to 
$2 billion.
  When I offer this amendment, I want to be very clear. I am in no way 
critical of the effort the committee has made. I have been part of the 
effort. I congratulate Senator Bond for his robust funding for water 
and sewer systems. I thank him for his hard work on this issue. But we 
simply did not have enough money in our allocation. The budget cut $500 
million from the President's budget from the clean water State 
revolving loan fund. Senator Bond and I worked together to restore that 
$500 million, and we are very grateful for that. But the Nation calls 
out for more.
  Our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their effort to 
provide clean water and safe water and to comply with Federal 
environmental mandates. The need for better water and sewer systems is 
much greater than the amount that we now have in the Federal checkbook.
  There have been studies, and studies after that, and the needs have 
been real and valid and have been validated by independent research.
  The Federal Government must do more to help meet these needs. Failure 
to do so places a great burden on the local taxpayers because it shifts 
the responsibility to them. We have created an unfunded Federal 
mandate. At the same time, the lack of proper water and sewer threatens 
public health and environmental safety. Our State and local governments 
are also revenue-starved to meet these mandates.
  Let me tell you about some of the studies.
  In fiscal year 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network said our water 
and sewer systems will face a funding gap of $12 billion over the next 
20 years. GAO said the cost to really do our water and sewer systems 
the way they need to meet not only environmental but public health 
concerns will be $300 billion over 20 years. There is study after study 
after study that validates this.
  In my own State of Maryland, there is $4 billion in unmet needs. This 
isn't Senator Barbara Mikulski talking; this is the State of Maryland 
speaking. Our Eastern Shore and rural communities are trying hard to 
reduce harmful nutrients that pollute the Chesapeake Bay. Every time 
they increase their bonding authority to pay for unfunded mandates, it 
means one less school or one less highway. But the needs of Maryland 
are a cameo of the needs of the Nation. We are simply not putting 
enough money in the Federal checkbook for water and sewer systems.
  In my own hometown of Baltimore, our sewer system was built over 100 
years ago. We are under a court order instituted by the EPA to rebuild 
it. It will cost $1 billion to do this. In order to be able to do this, 
ratepayers will pay the bill.
  This is an issue where growing green also generates jobs.
  The second reason this amendment is necessary is that it creates 
jobs. It is estimated for every $1 billion we spend on water 
infrastructure, 40,000 jobs are created, from the civil engineers and 
architect who design on it, to construction contractors, to heavy 
equipment manufacturers, and even those who run the lunch wagons at the 
job site. This creates jobs, but it has value for the taxpayer. It will 
give the State a much needed breather as they themselves are trying to 
meet this need.
  My amendment is temporary and it is targeted. It is a one-time $3 
billion increase. This isn't $3 billion every year; it is $3 billion 
this year. The State loan funds have widespread support and would go a 
long way in helping this.
  The President requested $3.7 billion for water and sewer projects in 
Iraq. The President requested this funding as an emergency.
  I respect what the President said, but we have an emergency here. We 
have crumbling water systems that threaten

[[Page S14513]]

public health. We need billions of dollars. We have rising rates for 
our citizens, and at the same time the local ratepayer is going to 
shoulder the responsibility. If there is an emergency in Iraq, there is 
surely a water and sewer emergency in this country.
  My amendment has widespread support--from the Water Infrastructure 
Network, a coalition of 47 nationally organized recognized 
organizations, to local officials, water and sewer service providers, 
engineers, construction contractors, labor unions, and 
environmentalists. This is the place where it all comes together--
mayors, Governors, workers, private sector.
  These will not be government jobs. These will be jobs in the private 
sector, in the local community, meeting local needs. Groups such as the 
League of Cities and the Association of Counties and others do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for my amendment 
be printed in the Record. They are from the Water Infrastructure 
Network, the Coalition of the American Rivers and Ocean Conservatory, 
and others.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Water Infrastructure Network,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 2003.

     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re support for $5.2 billion for Clean & Safe Water SRFs.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: The Water Infrastructure Network 
     (WIN) strongly supports your $5.2 billion amendment for the 
     Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds 
     (SRFs) in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Veterans, Housing and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. WIN is a broad-
     based coalition of 47 nationally-recognized organizations 
     that represent local elected officials, drinking water and 
     wastewater service providers, environmental and health 
     administrators, engineers, labor unions, construction 
     contractors, and environmentalists. WIN is dedicated to 
     preserving and protecting the health, environmental, and 
     economic gains that America's drinking water and wastewater 
     infrastructure provides.
       The SRFs help local communities meet water quality 
     standards, repair and replace old and decaying pipelines and 
     plants, protect public health, and ensure continued progress 
     in restoring the health and safety of America's water bodies. 
     This investment is a much-needed down payment to improve our 
     nation's water and wastewater treatment plants. Your support 
     for additional funding for the SRFs would help stimulate the 
     economy, create jobs and provide funds for securing our water 
     infrastructure for generations to come. WIN supports your 
     proposed increase in federal funding in FY 2004 for the Clean 
     Water SRF from its current level of $1.35 billion to $3.2 
     billion and for the Drinking Water SRF from $850 million to 
     $2 billion. WIN believes this is an important first step 
     toward developing a long-term, sustainable solution to close 
     our country's infrastructure funding gap.
       Safeguarding clean and safe water must remain one of our 
     nation's highest priorities even though funding its continued 
     improvement is one of our greatest challenges. Thank you for 
     supporting clean and safe water in America.
           Sincerely,
       American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA); American 
     Concrete Pressure Pipe Association (ACPPA); American Council 
     of Engineering Companies (ACEC); American Public Works 
     Association (APWA); American Society of Civil Engineers 
     (ASCE); American Water Works Association (AWWA); Associated 
     Equipment Distributors, Inc. (AED); Association of Equipment 
     Manufacturers (AEM).
       Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); 
     Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA); Association 
     of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA); Association of 
     Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA); California Rebuild 
     America Coalition (CalRAC); Construction Management 
     Association of America (CMAA); Chesapeake Bay Foundation 
     (CBF); Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA).
       Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI); 
     International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental 
     and Reinforcing Iron Workers; International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Union of Bricklayers and Allied 
     Craftworkers (BAC); International Union of Operating 
     Engineers, AFL-CIO (IUOE); Laborers' International Union of 
     North America (LIUNA); National Association of Counties 
     (NACo).
       National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 
     Agencies (NAFSMA); National Association of Regional Councils 
     (NARC); National Association of Sewer Service Companies 
     (NAASCO); National Association of Towns and Townships 
     (NATaT); National Heavy & Highway Alliance; National League 
     of Cities (NLC); National Precast Concrete Association 
     (NPCA); National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA).
       National Rural Water Association (NRWA); National Society 
     of Professional Engineers (NSPE); National Urban Agriculture 
     Council (NUAC); Operative Plasters' and Cement Masons' 
     International Association; Pipe Rehabilitation Council (PRC); 
     Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc. (PPI); Portland Cement 
     Association (PCA); Rural Community Assistance Program, Inc. 
     (RCAP).
       SAVE International (SAVE); Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association 
     (Uni-Bell); The Vinyl Institute; Underground Contractors 
     Association of Illinois (UCA); United Brotherhood of 
     Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC); Water Environment 
     Federation (WEF); WaterReuse Association (WasteReuse); 
     Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS).
                                  ____

                                                 October 27, 2003.
     Support Mikulski amendment to fight water pollution on VA/HUD 
         2004 appropriation bill.

       Dear Senator: We ask you to vote in favor of Senator 
     Mikulski's floor amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill 
     appropriating $3 billion this year to fund critical drinking 
     water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Our nation's 
     perpetual failure to invest in maintaining our drinking water 
     and sewer systems is endangering public heath and safety. The 
     gap between our needs and our spending is on the order of $15 
     billion each year according to EPA.
       The current funding is grossly insufficient to meet our 
     nation's water quality needs, including addressing drinking 
     water security issues, removing arsenic and other toxins from 
     our tap water, rehabilitating aging sewer plants, controlling 
     raw sewer overflows, decontaminating stormwater discharges, 
     and minimizing polluted runoff. The cumulative impact of our 
     society's failure to invest in clean water year after year 
     has begun to cause very serious harm to public health, to the 
     environment, and to our economy.
       Experts estimate 7.1 million cases of mild to moderate and 
     560,000 cases of moderate to sever infectious waterborne 
     disease in the United States each year, costing untold 
     billions of dollars in health care and other expenses.
       The CDC found that in 1999-2000 there were 39 disease 
     outbreaks associated with drinking water and 59 associated 
     with recreational water. Experts say approximately 1 in 10 
     waterborne disease outbreaks are detected.
       There are over 200,000 water main breaks/yr. in the U.S.
       The loss of swimming opportunities (beach closings) due to 
     pathogen contamination is valued at $1-2 billion annually in 
     the U.S. (EPA, 1995).
       Economic losses due to swimming-related illnesses estimated 
     at $28 billion annually (EPA, 1995).
        There are estimated to be at least 40,000 discharges of 
     raw sewage each year from ``sanitary'' sewer systems into 
     streets, playgrounds, and waterways and 400,000 basement 
     backups (U.S. EPA 2001).
       Raw sewage discharges from combined sewer systems dump 1.2 
     trillion gallons of raw sewage into waterways each year in 
     more than 700 U.S. cities.
       Over 90% of U.S. city water supplies continue to use pre-
     WWI era technology to treat drinking water.
       Earlier this year the Senate in its Budget Resolution 
     approved a $3 billion increase in funding for the SRFs above 
     last year's level, but unfortunately this proposal did not 
     survive conference with the House. The Mikulski amendment 
     would make this critical funding available through an 
     emergency designation. Since inadequate drinking water and 
     wastewater treatment results in raw sewage discharges, 
     contaminated drinking water, beach closings, and waterborne 
     disease outbreaks, this national problem clearly qualifies as 
     a public health emergency.
       We strongly urge you to support investing now in a clean 
     water future for our nation. We also ask you to support any 
     other amendments that improve environmental protection and to 
     keep the bill free of anti-environmental riders.
           Sincerely,
         S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Director of Government Affairs, 
           American Rivers, Bob Perciasepe, Chief Operating 
           Officer, National Audubon Society; Paul Schwartz, 
           National Campaigns Director, Clean Water Action; Dawn 
           Hamilton, Executive Director, Coast Alliance; Diana 
           Neidle, Public Policy Advocate, Consumer Federation of 
           America; Michele Merkel, Counsel, Environmental 
           Integrity Project; Sara Zdeb, Legislative Director, 
           Friends of the Earth.
         Lisa Ragain, GWU Medical Center, Center for Risk Science 
           and Public Health, National Association of People with 
           AIDS; Olivia B. Wein, Staff Attorney, National Consumer 
           Law Center; Nancy Stoner, Senior Attorney, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council; Catherine Hazlewood, Clean 
           Oceans Programs Manager, The Ocean Conservancy; Kyle 
           Kinner, Legislative Director, Physicians for Social 
           Responsibility; Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director, 
           U.S. Public Interest Research Group; Michele Boyd, 
           Legislative Representative, Public Citizen; Debbie 
           Boger, Deputy Legislative Director, Sierra Club.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in conclusion, my amendment helps our 
communities by providing more funding to meet immediate water and sewer

[[Page S14514]]

needs so our communities can have clean and safe water. Water and sewer 
funding provides dual value for the taxpayers. It helps public health, 
it helps the environment. We will have clean water and safe water, and 
it creates jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide $3 billion 
more for our communities because I know every single State could use at 
least $1 billion more and I wish we could do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the underlying bill 
as well as to make some general comments about the Defense 
authorization bill we just passed and a few comments about the veterans 
provisions generally.
  I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their good work on the 
underlying bill. I understand we hope to pass this very important 
appropriations bill before 6 o'clock this evening.
  I was unable to be here earlier today. I want to make a couple of 
comments regarding veterans generally.
  There are 400,000 veterans in Louisiana, and 12,000 of them are 
directly affected in a very positive way by the underlying bill.
  Before I speak about that, I wish to say that the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia, and our ranking 
member, Senator Levin, should be commended for crafting a very good 
Defense authorization bill at a very difficult time.
  I was formerly a member of the Armed Services Committee and worked 
for many years to fashion a bill, and I know how difficult it is even 
in times that are not stressful, much less in a time when we are in a 
war against terror in Iraq, here at home and other places around the 
world. It seems to me, as a former member of the committee, that the 
conference could have imploded many different times. But to Senator 
Warner's and Senator Levin's credit and very good bipartisan working 
relationship, that bill was passed earlier today.
  While I don't agree with all the provisions of it, there are a couple 
which are very important to our troops in Louisiana: No. 1, the 4.1 
percent pay raise for all of our troops. And, No. 2, we moved closer to 
completely eliminating the disability tax on veterans in Louisiana with 
20 years of service; that is, 12,000 men and women who now, when they 
retire, do not get their full retirement and disability benefits but 
basically have to give up 50 percent of that benefit. This bill we 
passed earlier today corrects that. For those families and their loved 
ones, that will mean immediate help.
  In addition, the TRICARE eligibility expansion for guardsmen and 
reservists, if they are unemployed or cannot acquire health insurance 
from their employers, is a tremendous gesture to the Guard and Reserve 
who we are counting on and depending on to help defend us at this time. 
We literally could not win this war or even begin this endeavor without 
their commitment.
  We must remain committed to the quality of life of our veterans and 
to letting our Guard and Reserve men and women know how much we 
appreciate them. We must keep ever vigilant, particularly when it comes 
to the Guard and Reserve. We are getting ready to send another 43,000.
  I wish to make a couple of comments about the tax treatment of our 
Guard and Reserve and speak about some disappointment in that area.
  Yesterday, with some fanfare, the Military Family Tax Relief Act was 
passed. It is a help, but in my mind it is an insufficient gesture. It 
is too modest for what our men and women in uniform deserve. The bill 
provided $1.1 billion in tax relief, which was asked for and which is 
most certainly deserved. It doubles the amount of payments to survivors 
of soldiers killed in action from $6,000 to $12,000--not a lot of 
money, but it helps the families better than the $6,000 that was in the 
previous law. It allows guards and reservists to deduct travel 
expenses, it allows troops to deduct the cost of equipment they buy 
themselves, and it reduces the residency requirement so our troops can 
take full benefit of the capital gains provision in the law as do other 
Americans who are not in the service.
  But this bill did not go far enough. I wish to speak for a minute 
about this and my strong objection to moving forward with it without 
additional help and support.
  The bill that was signed, Tax Relief for Families in the Military, 
represented .006 percent of the $1.75 trillion in tax relief that has 
been passed by this Congress at the urging of this administration. Let 
me repeat. The bill that was signed on Tuesday for the military only 
represented .006 percent of the tax cuts that have been provided by 
this administration to Americans generally. Yet the military, the men 
and women in uniform today, the over 1 million men and women in 
uniform, are providing 100 percent of our security, one could argue. 
That is not to diminish the role of our men and women in uniform, 
police and fire on the home front, but protecting our borders, fighting 
the battles overseas, they are providing 100 percent of the protection. 
Yet they only receive in this bill .006 percent of the tax cut.
  We asked, Republicans and Democrats alike, to please include a 
provision that would have allowed the Guard and Reserve who are leaving 
their jobs and leaving their businesses to go fight in Iraq, to please 
have the Federal Government recognize that many of these families are 
losing income, sometimes as much as 60, 70, or 80 percent. We are 
asking them not just to go and put their life on the line, but we are 
asking them to put their livelihood on the line.
  When some Members petitioned this administration, and particularly 
the House Republican leadership, to give some relief, to provide some 
tax relief to these businesses to encourage them to maintain those 
salaries for our Guard and Reserve, we were told: We do not have enough 
money.
  We had 1.75 trillion to give tax cuts generally to people not in the 
military, but we could not find a few pennies to help our businesses in 
this country, to help their employees meet their salaries for the 
benefit of their families. I know the Senator wants to get back to the 
HUD bill, and I will in a minute, but I want to make this point and 
then get to the underlying bill, VA-HUD.
  What we have to do in every way we can, whether it is this veterans 
bill we are debating now, whether it is in Defense authorization, or 
whether it is in our tax bills, to recognize our first priority should 
be to our men and women in uniform, overseas and here on our home 
front. When we design tax packages and tax benefits, they should be the 
first, not the last, to receive the help. They should be getting the 
lion's share or the essence or the core, not the crumbs that fall from 
the table.
  Unfortunately, still, despite the lives that are being given, despite 
the effort that is being made, they still are receiving crumbs when 
they deserve the whole loaf of bread.
  I will submit for the Record an article about a reservist reward for 
MSG Rodriguez: His reward was bankruptcy. When MSG Rodriquez and his 
company were activated for 1 year, they were given an 8-hour notice. He 
had to leave behind his wife to run the couple's construction company. 
He comes home and his daughter, of course, is crying and in tears, his 
wife is upset because they lost their business. Their income was cut by 
80 percent. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From CBS Evening News, Nov. 11, 2003]

                    A Reservist's Reward--Bankruptcy

       On a sun soaked street in northern California, Air Force 
     reservist Oscar Rodriguez is finally back home from active 
     duty, where, as CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, 
     the high and unexpected cost of war has taken a toll.
       ``They ain't giving us a loan cause I got bad credit,'' 
     says Rodriguez.
       ``It was hard seeing my mom,'' says his daughter Desiree. 
     ``I mean seeing her stressed and seeing her cry--it hurts a 
     lot.''
       When Master Sgt. Rodriguez and his company were activated 
     for one year--on eight hours notice--he left behind his wife 
     to run the couple's construction company.
       ``My dad was away and so she's pretty much was doing this 
     on her own cause he can't do anything about it when he's 
     gone, and I can't really do anything about it, but I try,'' 
     says Desiree.
       They all tried, but with Rodriguez at war, repairing Air 
     Force cargo planes, the family income was cut by 80 percent.
       ``I lost the bids for my construction projects,'' says 
     Rodriguez. ``I lost my savings. I lost my credit. My credit 
     history--it's in shambles.''

[[Page S14515]]

       Despite federal laws protecting active duty reservists from 
     creditors during wartime, the creditors kept calling. Their 
     home is now in foreclosure.
       ``You do everything that you're supposed to do without 
     asking for help,'' says his wife Kathy. ``All you want is for 
     everyone to do the right thing.''
       The Rodriguez family aren't the only ones who've 
     sacrificed. Of the nearly 200,000 reservists on active duty 
     in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, one-third have 
     taken a pay cut in order to serve their country.
       Rodriguez is now trying to rebuild his business one step at 
     a time. He's gone from building hotels to kitchen counters. 
     He's suing his creditors as much for the principle as the 
     money.
       ``It's about every soldier, sailor, airman or marine,'' 
     says Rodriguez. ``Anybody who's serving our country has a 
     right to at least not be concerned about the wolves knocking 
     at the door.''
       Asked if they're going to recover, Rodriguez and his wife 
     say they aren't sure.
       ``We're separated,'' said Kathy Rodriguez, as her husband 
     sat silently beside her.
       The strain of duty and debt may have cost this couple their 
     marriage. Yet, Rodriguez has re-enlisted.
       He's a member of an Air Force Honor Guard.
       For him, sacrifice isn't a slogan. In war there are 
     casualties, both overseas and at home.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. The efforts some Members made to get this issue dealt 
with were rejected because we did not have enough money to help this 
reservist or the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are fighting 
for us, taking the cut in pay and losing their companies in the 
process.
  Also I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
printed regarding 120,000 Federal employees who serve in the National 
Guard and Reserve. Nearly 14,000 have been called to active duty to 
help fight the war in Iraq. Senator Durbin and I wanted to get in the 
tax bill that was passed a provision that would allow them to maintain 
their salaries, their Federal salaries, so as not to fall down, 
basically, to receive the lower salary they receive in the Guard and 
Reserve. The sad thing is it would not have cost the Government 
anything because we had already budgeted to pay them their full 
salaries. This was rejected.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From Government Executive Magazine, Apr. 2, 2003]

             Bill Would Close Pay Gap for Active Duty Feds

                         (By Tanya N. Ballard)

       Three Senate lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that 
     would require the government to pay the difference between 
     civilian and military wages for federal employees called to 
     active duty.
       More than 120,000 federal employees serve in the National 
     Guard and Reserves, and nearly 14,000 of them have been 
     called to active duty to help fight the war in Iraq. But most 
     of those employees earn less as active duty reservists than 
     as civilian workers, according to Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. 
     Durbin joined with Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Barbara 
     Mikulski, D-Md. to introduce legislation that would close the 
     gap between military and civilian pay for those workers.
       ``We cannot simultaneously encourage Americans to serve 
     their country in the National Guard and Reserves and then 
     punish those who enlist by taking away a large portion of 
     their income,'' Durbin said.
       The Illinois senator described the case of one Air Force 
     reservist who took a $45,000 cut in pay when he was called to 
     duty and left his job as an air traffic controller in 
     Chicago.
       ``This was a severe blow to his family,'' Durbin said.
       According to Landrieu, several local and state governments, 
     as well as private companies, have a pay gap plan in place to 
     address this issue and the federal government needs to do the 
     same.
       ``Reserve and guard employees--whether working in the 
     public or private sector--should not have to take a pay cut 
     when called to active duty, and that's exactly what's 
     happening now,'' Landrieu said. ``These men and women are not 
     getting a tax cut, they are taking a pay cut to serve. It 
     does not make sense.''
       According to Durbin, the gap in salary can range from 2 
     percent to 48 percent.
       ``We must provide our reservist employees with financial 
     support so they can leave their civilian lives to serve our 
     country without the added burden of worrying whether their 
     loved ones back home can make the monthly mortgage payment or 
     provide new shoes for their kids.'' Durbin said. ``They are 
     doing so much for us, we should do no less for them.''

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I say for the benefit of the people in Louisiana, we do 
not understand how we can give our tax credits to everybody but the 
Guard and Reserve. We can give out help to everybody except those 
Federal employees who take off one uniform and put on another, leave 
their homes for 6 months to a year, sometimes longer, and we expect 
them to take a cut in pay when we are giving tax credits to people who 
are not fighting.
  If I could conclude on this one issue which really pours salt into 
the wound, when people say, Senator, we could not afford it, we 
actually found a way to pay for it. We said we should pay for it by 
making people who are right now evading U.S. taxes because they have 
made so much money in America because our troops have put their life on 
the line to protect the way of life which allows business people to 
make a lot of money in America, these business people who have made a 
lot of money because of what these men and women are doing in the Armed 
Forces, these business people are now deciding they are paying too much 
in tax, so they go to another country. They do not want to pay their 
taxes.
  So we said let's make those folks pay their taxes and use those 
proceeds to pay for tax relief for the men and women in the military. 
We were told we cannot do that. We cannot possibly make people who owe 
taxes to America pay their taxes so that we can pay the men and women 
in uniform and give them a tax cut. I hope we will change our policy 
because it is wrong. We have missed an opportunity to help these 
families.
  I conclude by thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their 
hard work on behalf of veterans. They have restored a lot of the cuts 
that were proposed by this administration. I am proud to be part of 
helping to pass a veterans bill. But let's not forget it is not just 
about appropriations bills where we can help our men and women in 
uniform. Tax bills can help them. Other direct spending bills can help 
them. No one deserves our help more than people who put on a uniform 
every day and actually put their life on the line.
  This Senator does not think we are doing enough and can afford to do 
more when we found an offset to make regular people pay the taxes they 
owe. If they do not want to put on a uniform and fight, that is fine, 
but at least give the benefits to the people who are protecting their 
ability to make a living.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Lautenberg-
Mikulski amendment increasing funding for the enforcement activities of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I would like to voice my 
strong support for this amendment. Without effective enforcement, our 
environmental laws will never succeed in reducing pollution and 
improving environmental quality. Simply put, the best environmental 
laws in the world mean nothing without vigorous enforcement.
  Unfortunately, this administration does not share this sentiment. 
Just last week, the administration directed the EPA to abandon ongoing 
investigations of some 50 different facilities for violations of the 
Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions. Apparently, gutting the 
rule itself was not enough. Pardons for big polluters--many of them 
large political contributors--seem to be the administration's preferred 
approach to environmental enforcement.
  Lack of enforcement is hardly confined to the Clean Air Act. Indeed, 
a recent report from the EPA inspector general reveals an Agency 
failing to keep up with its enforcement duties across a number of 
different programs. According to the report, a majority of special 
agents-in-charge of environmental crimes states that they will not open 
a new case if they lack the resources necessary to pursue the case. In 
addition, formal enforcement actions under several key Clean Water Act 
programs have declined dramatically over the last 3 years. 
Specifically, the number of formal enforcement actions brought under 
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System declined by 45 
percent between 1999 and 2001. Clear Water Act enforcement actions 
against large concentrated animal feeding operations declined by more 
than 90 percent between 2000 and 2002.
  I ask my colleagues: What kind of message does this send to the 
Nation's polluters? What kind of message does it send to the American 
people?
  On one hand, we have an administration that is openly hostile to 
environmental enforcement. On the other

[[Page S14516]]

hand, we have an EPA that is unable to initiate new environmental 
crimes cases and is dramatically scaling back on several major civil 
enforcement programs because the agency lacks adequate resources. I 
hope that Administrator Leavitt will work to remedy this situation, but 
I fear that much of the problem may ultimately lie with the White 
House.
  Mr. President, the additional appropriation contained in this 
amendment represents a modest increase in the Agency's enforcement 
budget. But it is crucial one given the Agency's inability to keep up 
with its obligations to enforce this country's environmental laws. This 
amendment also sends a signal to the EPA and to the administration that 
the Senate takes environmental enforcement seriously. At the end of the 
day, the answer is not, as the administration would have it, to abandon 
existing enforcement actions.
  Rather, the answer is to provide adequate resources and to demand 
more oversight to ensure that our environmental laws will not be empty 
words in the statute books.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise before you today to join my 
colleague, Senator Mikulski, in offering this amendment to increase the 
funds available for water infrastructure spending.
  Since assuming the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee in 2001, I have spent many hours in the committee and here on 
the Senate floor discussing the pressing need for investment in our 
Nation's water infrastructure.
  In the 107th Congress, the committee passed S. 1961, the Water 
Investment Act, which I introduced with Senators Graham, Crapo, and 
Smith of New Hampshire, which would have increased water infrastructure 
spending by $35 billion, providing $3.2 billion for clean water in the 
first year, and $2 billion for drinking water in the first year
  The Bush administration opposed the bill, stating, ``. . . the 
administration does not support the funding levels contained in S. 
1961.''
  In December 2002, Senators Sarbanes and Voinovich and I, along with 
38 Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, sent a letter to 
the President asking him to provide $3.2 billion for clean water 
spending, and $2 billion for drinking water spending.
  Instead, President Bush responded by proposing a 40 percent cut in 
water infrastructure spending to Congress in his fiscal year 2004 
budget.
  In March 2003, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Mikulski, 
Sarbanes, Graham and Crapo to increase the allocation for water 
infrastructure spending in the budget resolution to $3.2 billion for 
clean water, and $2 billion for drinking water.
  It was accepted by the Senate and dropped in conference with the 
House.
  I do appreciate the work that the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee did to 
restore clean water infrastructure spending to $1.35 billion, up from 
the President's request of $800 million--a significant step in the 
right direction.
  The ironic thing about this issue, the actions we have taken over the 
last 2 years, and the lack of major progress is that there appears to 
be bipartisan consensus that water infrastructure spending has 
significant need, is critical to our Nation's water quality, leads to 
job growth, and enjoys broad support among the American people.
  First--the needs are substantial. The EPA's own estimates show a $535 
billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and 
wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional 
investments are not made.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the spending gap for 
clean water needs is estimated to be between $132 billion and $388 
billion over 20 years, and the spending gap for drinking water needs at 
between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.
  It is not solely the Federal Government's responsibility to fill this 
gap. However, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
a reasonable investment in water infrastructure, given the size of the 
anticipated needs.
  Second--repair of a quickly deteriorating water infrastructure is 
critical to our Nation's water quality.
  Our towns and cities, along with the Federal Government, have 
invested billions of dollars over the last 30 years to build the 
infrastructure to treat our wastewater and drinking water. It is with 
this infrastructure that the country has been able to return about 60 
percent of our waters to swimming and fishing standards.
  Even with those investments, we continue to fail to fully protect our 
waters from pollution, with over 40 percent of our Nation's waters 
still impaired.
  Now, the progress we have made over the last 30 years stands on the 
brink of evaporation as the extensive water and wastewater 
infrastructure we have built nears the end of its useful life, and we 
are failing to reinvest
  Third, estimates show that for every billion dollars invested in 
water infrastructure spending, approximately 40,000 jobs would be 
created. We must take action to prevent our economy from faltering. We 
are proposing to invest $5.2 billion in the State revolving funds.
  The States will provide a 20-percent match of just over $1 billion. 
This could create over 200,000 jobs.
  Yet despite the apparent consensus that there are significant needs, 
that healthy water infrastructure is in need of repair, that investment 
will increase job growth, and that Americans support investing in water 
infrastructure, we fail to act. Why? I cannot answer that question.
  Just last month, the President recognized the importance of water 
infrastructure needs in Iraq with his request for an $87 billion 
supplemental spending package that provided about $4 billion for water 
infrastructure improvements.
  It is appalling to me that the President is willing to support water 
infrastructure investment overseas while failing to recognize that 
Americans have the same needs here at home.
  However, the fact that the President failed to recognize our water 
infrastructure needs, requested a 40-percent drop in water 
infrastructure spending, and sought emergency spending for water 
infrastructure in Iraq that was four times the amount he requested for 
domestic water infrastructure spending, does not justify the same 
failure by this Senate.
  The amendment that I offer today with Senator Milkulski provides a 
downpayment on our water infrastructure needs. It provides an 
additional $3 billion for domestic water infrastructure improvements. 
This increase is $1.3 billion less than the amount this Senate approved 
for Iraq less than 2 weeks ago.
  By voting aye on the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, 
each of you can take direct action to improve both the state of our 
Nation's waters and the state of our Nation's economy.
  Today could be the day that the Senate finally changes the course of 
water infrastructure spending and votes decisively to live up to our 
responsibility and improve the quality of our Nation's waters.
  The outcome is up to us. I urge you to support the amendment proposed 
by the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, by my colleague Senator Mikulski to boost federal funding 
for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds (SRF) 
by an additional $3 billion. I spoke earlier this year on a similar 
amendment which I offered to the Senate budget resolution and I just 
want to underscore some of the key reasons this amendment is needed.
  The President's Fiscal 2004 budget severely short changes the funds 
needed by State and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater 
and drinking water infrastructure. The President's budget provided only 
$1.7 billion for both State Revolving Funds, split equally. The 
Committee-approved bill provided an additional $500 million, restoring 
the President's budget cut to the Fiscal 2003 enacted level of funding 
of $2.2 million--but is still short of what is needed.
  Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports 
that more than 40 percent of our nation's lakes, rivers and streams are 
still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and 
failing seweage systems, urban storm water and other sources, continue 
to pose serious threats to our nation's waters, endangering not only 
public health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population growth 
and development are

[[Page S14517]]

placing additional stress on the nation's water infrastructure and its 
ability to sustain hard-won water quality gains.
  Combined sewer systems or so-called CSOs can be found in more than 
750 communities in 32 States and the District of Columbia. EPA 
estimates that annual combined sewer systems discharge nearly 1,300 
billion gallons of untreated or under-treated wastewater. To eliminate 
sewer overflows, the City of Baltimore alone must invest more than $900 
million to upgrade its sewer system and comply with a consent decree 
with the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency. 
Many other cities across the nation face similar challenges. In fact, 
three years ago, in 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to 
authorize a $1.5 billion grant program to help cities reduce these wet 
weather flows, but funds have not been available to implement the 
program.
  Nearly 20,000 municipalities have separate sewer systems or SSOs, 
serving a population of 150 million. Unlike CSOs, these separate 
sanitary collection systems are not intended to carry significant 
volumes of extraneous water, such as storm water runoff, but frequently 
do because of infiltration and inflow, aging systems, and other 
factors. EPA acknowledges that sanitary sewer overflows pose a severe 
problem to the environment and public health.
  Across the nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are 
aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a 
century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, 
current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals. Recent 
modeling of the EPA's Bay Program has found that the 304 major 
municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed will have to 
reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent to restore the 
Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. Achieving this goal 
is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.
  In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a broad 
coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater 
service providers, state environmental and health administrators, 
engineers and environmentalists released a report, Clean & Safe Water 
for the 21st Century. The report documented a $23 billion a year 
shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public 
health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act 
and to replace aging and failing infrastructure.
  In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that 
estimated the spending gap for Clean Water needs between $132 billion 
and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water 
needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.
  In September 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking Water 
Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that there will be a $535 
billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and 
wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional 
investments are not made. This figure does not even account for 
investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired 
waters, like Chesapeake Bay.
  The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water 
infrastructure is clearly documented.
  But, States, localities and private sources can't meet the funding 
gap alone.
  Local communities already pay almost 90 percent of the total cost or 
about $60 billion a year to build, operate, and maintain their water 
and wastewater systems. But as former Administrator Whitman pointed 
out, ``(t)he magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly beyond 
the ability of any one entity to address.''
  Water pollution is an interstate problem. The Congress understood the 
interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bi-partisan majority 
passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment 
infrastructure. In 1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in 
Clean Water construction grants alone to assist states and 
municipalities with wastewater infrastructure needs. Over the years, 
budgetary pressures and other factors have reduced that funding level, 
and in Fiscal 2003, we provided only $1.34 billion in Clean Water State 
Revolving loan funds.
  It is vital that the Federal government maintain a strong partnership 
with states and local governments in averting the massive projected 
funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the 
nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant 
resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water 
standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved 
bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the Clean Water Act 
SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to 
address this funding gap.
  An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 billion and 
for the Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal 2004 is the first 
step necessary to meet the Federal government's longstanding commitment 
in this regard.
  This isn't a make-work public works project. It is an investment in 
the health of Americans and in a clean environment. It is an investment 
that will pay substantial dividends.
  Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of 
pollutants each year from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and 
coasts they also help prevent water-borne diseases and make waters safe 
for swimming and fishing.
  According to the Water Infrastructure Network, ``Clean water supports 
a $50 billion a year water-based recreation industry, at least $300 
billion a year in coastal tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial 
fishing and shell fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars 
a year in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean rivers, 
lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local communities and 
increase land values on or near the water, which in turn, create jobs, 
add incremental tax base, and increase income and property tax revenue 
to local, state, and federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking 
water systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million 
Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants that cause 
disease, these systems reduce sickness and related health care costs 
and absenteeism in the workforce.''
  They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs and provide 
stimulus to the economy.
  Each $1 billion in sewer and water improvements creates an estimated 
40,000 jobs. With more than $5 billion in water infrastructure projects 
ready for construction, these jobs would be created immediately with 
Federal assistance. According to OMB, every federal dollar invested in 
water infrastructure generates up to $4 for project loans, so the 
potential for job creation from this amendment is tremendous.
  The case for this amendment is compelling. Today, maintaining clear, 
safe water remains one of our greatest national and global challenges.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the 
massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks 
undermining thirty years of progress in cleaning up our nation's 
waters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are on the amendment, the emergency 
designation by my friend and colleague from Maryland. She seeks to add 
$3 billion to the vitally important State revolving funds that are so 
important to cleaning up our environment. I could not agree with her 
from my heart more strongly because this is an area of need. We have 
fought very hard to get our funding up to where it is. That is not 
enough. We have not been able to fund the National Science Foundation 
as we should. We had a major effort by the leadership of the full 
committee to get us the money that we need to get an additional $1.3 
billion for veterans health care.
  Having said that, this, unfortunately, is far beyond the budget 
allocated to the committee. It is in conflict with the stated position 
of the OMB with respect to emergency designations. Therefore, it is 
with regret that out of necessity I note that section 502, House 
Concurrent Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on 
the budget, created a point of order against an emergency designation 
on nondefense spending.
  The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency 
designation; therefore, pursuant to section 502

[[Page S14518]]

of H. Con. Res. 95, the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the 
budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation 
contained in the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 502(c)(6) of H. Con. 
Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, 
I move to waive the 502(c) of that concurrent resolution for purposes 
of the pending amendment.
  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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator 
from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 49, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 449 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burns
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the emergency designation is stricken.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Parliamentary inquiry: Does the amendment fall without the 
emergency designation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs to make a point of order.
  Mr. BOND. I make a point of order that this exceeds the budget 
allocation and, therefore, must fall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken, and the 
amendment falls.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I have six amendments to offer.
  Mr. REID. Without the Senator losing his right to the floor, I direct 
a question through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri. We are wondering, how much longer do the managers believe it 
would take to finish this bill?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I have now heard from about five Members 
on the other side who have amendments on which we would have to have 
votes. If that is 20 minutes a vote, that would be 100 minutes at 
least.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the distinguished Democratic whip, I think we 
can do this in 2 hours. I think there are amendments that require more 
conversation and modification, that might not require votes.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will continue yielding, I believe with five 
Democratic amendments the Senator has spoken about and the persuasive 
nature of the Democratic manager of this bill, some of them would not 
require votes, and I believe we could finish this in 2 hours.
  I suggest to the leadership on the other side--I know everyone is 
chomping at the bit to go to 6 o'clock, but if we could have another 
couple hours, we could finish this bill. On this side, that would cut 
the marathon down to 28 hours. Although I have no authority to do this 
and this is not in the form of a unanimous consent request, I think we 
would be willing to give up part of our time in those 2 hours to finish 
this bill.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am truly overwhelmed by the generosity 
of my good friend from Nevada, but regrettably I am not driving this 
bus. I believe there is a unanimous consent order that cannot be 
altered without talking to the leadership. I apologize to my friends. I 
would love to finish the bill, but now that I have the floor, I do have 
a number of amendments that have been cleared on both sides.


                Amendment No. 2180 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to 
conduct and negotiate a rulemaking for purposes of changes to the 
formula governing the public housing operating fund. I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2180 to amendment No. 2150.

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

  (Purpose: To require HUD to make any changes to the operating fund 
                   formula by negotiated rulemaking)

       On page 86, after line 11, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 226. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall conduct negotiated rulemaking with representatives from 
     interested parties for purposes of any changes to the formula 
     governing the Public Housing Operating Fund. A final rule 
     shall be issued no later than July 31, 2004.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are no objections on the other side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No, I do not have an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I be recognized? May I be recognized 
for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I have sought the floor at this moment to urge the 
leadership to extend the time on this bill for 2 hours. I have heard 
the distinguished Democratic whip say it, I believe I have heard the 
Senator from Maryland, the manager of the bill, and the ranking member 
on this side, Senator Mikulski, say it, and I believe I have heard the 
manager indicate we might be able to finish this bill with an 
additional 2 hours.
  We have completed 10 appropriations bills for floor action. There are 
only 13. That means there are three more. If we could finish this bill 
in 2 hours, that would leave only two appropriations bills that have 
not had floor action: CJS and District of Columbia.
  So I urge, Madam President, that the leadership extend the time on 
this measure that is before the Senate just 2 hours.
  Let us finish this bill before going to other matters.

[[Page S14519]]

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, who is the most experienced person in 
the Senate as far as moving matters on the floor, I mentioned to the 
two managers that we have momentum on this bill now. If we come back 
some other time with 2 hours, it just is not the same. All of us who 
are in the Senate, we know these measures develop momentum and that is 
what we have now.
  As I indicated to the two managers earlier and through the Chair to 
my distinguished friend, the Senator from West Virginia, we could 
finish this bill in 2 hours. It would not be easy, but if we made a 
commitment to do that, we would, and I think we should. It will not 
take anything away from the 6 show. It would just put it over for a 
couple of hours. Would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I do.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a question without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Through the 
Chair, I ask the Senator, who is more familiar with the rules than 
anyone, if the Senator from West Virginia made a unanimous consent 
request now that we went until 8 p.m., for example, and finish this 
bill for the veterans, the Veterans' Administration, would that be in 
order?
  Mr. BYRD. It certainly would be in order.
  Mr. DURBIN. In order to bring us to closure on this important 
legislation before we begin the long debate?
  Mr. BYRD. It certainly would.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would ask the Senator from West 
Virginia to seriously consider that.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I will not only consider it, I will make the request. 
I would like for the leadership to be here and let the leadership 
consider making the request. I am talking about the majority leader. I 
do not want to try to impose myself in his stead in a matter of this 
nature, but I do think the Senate ought to go for a couple more hours, 
if that would do it, and let us finish this bill.
  We have finished 10 appropriations bills. I am the ranking member on 
the Appropriations Committee. It certainly is in order for me to 
attempt to try to get this bill acted on. We are so close. This is a 
veterans bill, the VA-HUD bill, that is so important. We have soldiers, 
men and women, dying in Iraq. Why not pass this bill within 2 hours? We 
are within 2 hours, and if we work hard we might complete it before 
that 2 hours. Maybe some of the amendments could be peeled off so we 
could cut the time.
  I ask, Is there anyone who would get the majority leader to come to 
the floor and let us consider this?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President----
  Mr. BYRD. I have the floor.
  Mr. BOND. I was going to respond.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Let me protect myself, though. I ask unanimous consent 
that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri so that he 
can propound a question to the Chair and that I retain my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, we are coming up on a 6 p.m. deadline, I 
say to my friend from West Virginia, that has been long announced and 
been planned for. I say to the distinguished Senator that unless and 
until we are able to get concurrence from the leadership, the work on 
this bill tonight will stop. I further ask the Senator from West 
Virginia if he would permit us to continue with the cleared amendment 
that is at the desk. There are five more cleared amendments, four of 
them by Members from his side of the aisle, that we would like to be 
able to clear if he would allow me to do so.
  Also, I announce to my colleagues there are visiting dignitaries from 
the European Parliament. My colleagues may wish to greet them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am going to propound a request. That 
request will include--did the Senator from Missouri say there were four 
amendments that were cleared?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is one measure pending at the desk, 
and there are five more amendments that have been cleared on both 
sides. Excuse me. Coming in over the transom, there are now two more. 
So that makes a grand total of seven amendments, five of them from 
Members on the other side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, before I make a request, let me 
congratulate the Senator from Missouri. He is a good member of the 
Appropriations Committee. He works hard. He is a productive member. I 
have a great deal of admiration for him and for the work he does. I say 
the same about my friend, the Senator from Maryland. She has done 
tremendous work on this bill. It is the VA-HUD bill. She always applies 
her total energies and talents to working on this measure. With her 
good work and cooperation, the manager of the bill, Mr. Bond, has been 
able to bring the bill to the floor. He has done great work. I do not 
want to take away from his work. I want to add to it, and so I 
compliment him.
  As I understand it, there are seven amendments at the desk that have 
been cleared on both sides?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, these are not at the desk, only submitted.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield only if I may retain my right to the floor.
  I yield to the Senator that he may make that statement, and ask that 
I may retain my right to the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, as I said, there are seven amendments that 
are to be offered. There is one at the desk and there are seven more 
now that have been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May I say again, we have finished 10 of the 13 
appropriations bills on this floor. We lack three: CJS, District of 
Columbia, and VA-HUD. VA-HUD is before the Senate. We are within reach 
of completing floor action on that bill. We ought to do that. If we 
fail, having come this close, what is the Senate going to look like? We 
have to complete action on appropriations bills one way or another 
before we can adjourn sine die. I hope we could finish floor action on 
this bill.
  Think of all the time that has gone into the consideration of this 
bill in the committee. The chairman and ranking member have held 
hearings. They have had a markup of this bill. They have worked hard 
over a period of many months. They have heard witnesses. All of this 
ought not to be for naught.
  I hope Senators will agree. I had hoped the distinguished majority 
leader would be on the Senate floor so that I could urge him to 
propound this request. We are only 11 minutes away from 6. Now, a 
unanimous consent request entered into at this point will prevail over 
any previous unanimous consent request dealing with that same matter. 
So I have the floor. I know what my rights are, and I know what my 
duties are, also, as the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  May I ask the Chair, am I wrong in anything I have said? Am I 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. And am I correct that a unanimous consent request 
agreed to at this moment to extend the hour of 6, which was in a 
previous request, would be the prevailing motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield for a question without giving up 
the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Presiding Officer, I would like to ask the 
Senator from West Virginia, could you not make part of your unanimous 
consent request an agreement that the pending amendments will be 
considered in a timely fashion?
  Mr. BYRD. That would be part.
  Mr. DURBIN. So there is no effort to extend this beyond a reasonable 
period, but an effort to complete this bill for our veterans, for the 
Veterans Administration, before we begin the 30-hour debate. Could you 
not include that in your unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, indeed.
  So, Madam President, I really hesitate to make this request. I had 
hoped the majority leader would be in the Chamber because he is the 
person to be

[[Page S14520]]

recognized at 6 o'clock, under the previous order. I don't want to 
appear to be discourteous. That is not my intention.
  Why do you think I am doing this? I am the ranking member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. In the 7 years, I believe it was, that 
I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we never had--I don't 
think we ever had--I think we finished all 13 appropriations bills 
every year. We could finish another one. I know Senator Stevens has 
worked hard. I asked Senator Stevens during the last rollcall if he was 
agreeable to extending this time, since we are so close. He indicated 
he would work to do that.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer apologizes to the 
Senator from West Virginia for being temporarily distracted.
  Mr. BYRD. I didn't understand the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer apologizes to the 
Senator from West Virginia for being temporarily distracted.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  I am trying to avoid appearing to intrude on the majority leader's 
previous request and his time. I don't want to appear to be 
discourteous. I want to make the request when the majority leader is 
here.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to make a 
unanimous consent request and that, if it is agreed to--or whether or 
not it is agreed to, that I be recognized for another unanimous consent 
request, with the understanding that in any event I will be recognized 
1 minute before 6 p.m. today to make such request.
  Mr. BOND. I object on behalf of the leadership, Mr. President, and I 
seek recognition.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't lose the floor by virtue of having 
made a unanimous consent request, even though it is objected to. I 
don't lose the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator does not lose the floor by 
making a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a 
question, reserving his right to the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland with the 
understanding I do not lose my right to the floor, and I yield for a 
question only.
  Mr. SARBANES. If I could have the attention of the Senator from 
Missouri as I pose this question? Would the Senator entertain a 
unanimous consent request that allowed the amendments that are lined up 
here to be offered and to be accepted? I understand they are all going 
to be taken by voice.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't yield the floor for that purpose.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am not asking. I am just inquiring of the Senator's 
view of that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven 
amendments at the desk, to which the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri alluded, be considered agreed to, the motion to reconsider be 
laid on the table, and that the Senate immediately proceed to the 
further consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the 
understanding that time on that bill would end no later than 8 
o'clock--or would end at 8 o'clock this evening, and that there would 
be a vote on the VA-HUD bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BOND. On behalf of the leadership, I object.
  Mr. BYRD. Senators will understand I used to propound these requests 
without their being in writing. I am carefully trying to approach this, 
so I will start over.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments that 
have been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. 
Bond, and are at the desk, that have been cleared, be considered agreed 
to and adopted to the bill. I further ask that the time originally set 
for recognition of the majority leader, at 1 minute until 6, be delayed 
2 hours, that in the meantime the Senate consider action and complete 
action on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and that the motions to 
reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. On behalf of the leadership, I object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.


   Amendments Nos. 2151, 2180, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186 to 
                           Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we do have these six measures--seven--eight 
measures, now, at the desk, that I propounded? We have one from Senator 
Murkowski on pioneer homes in the State of Alaska; we have one from 
Senators Dorgan, Rockefeller, and Landrieu on access to primary health 
care for veterans in rural areas; we have one from Senator Snowe--
Senator Sarbanes, Senators Collins, Byrd, Santorum, and others, a sense 
of the Senate with respect to section 8 vouchers; an amendment by 
Senator Clinton and others relating to the Corporation for National 
Service volunteers; another from Senator Landrieu with respect to the 
States' deduction for administrative expenses in the Housing and 
Community Development Act; an amendment by Senator Levin and others 
relating to Federal water pollution control; a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment by Senator Boxer about human dosing studies of pesticides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned amendments be sent to 
the desk, the titles read, that they be approved, and that a motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have no objection except I am sorry we 
can't finish this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                amendment no. 2151 to amendment no. 2150

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of funds that may be used by States 
 for technical assistance and administrative costs under the community 
                    development block grant program)

       On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 418. Section 106(d) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``shall not exceed 2 
     percent'' and inserting ``shall not, subject to paragraph 
     (6), exceed 3 percent'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``not to exceed 1 
     percent'' and inserting ``subject to paragraph (6), not to 
     exceed 3 percent'';
       (3) by redesignating the second paragraph (5) and paragraph 
     (6) as paragraphs (7) and (8), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Of the amounts received under paragraph (1), the 
     State may deduct not more than an aggregate total of 3 
     percent of such amounts for--
       ``(A) administrative expenses under paragraph (3)(A); and
       ``(B) technical assistance under paragraph (5).''.


                AMENDMENT NO. 2180 to Amendment No. 2150

   (Purpose: To require HUD to make any changes to the operating fund 
                   formula by negotiated rulemaking)

        On page 86, after line 11, insert the following new 
     section:
        Sec. 226. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall conduct negotiated rulemaking with representatives from 
     interested parties for purposes of any changes to the formula 
     governing the Public Housing Operating Fund. A final rule 
     shall be issued no later than July 31, 2004.


                Amendment No. 2181 to Amendment No. 2150

 (Purpose: To provide for the treatment of the Pioneer Homes in Alaska 
                     as a State home for veterans)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec.  116. (a) Treatment of Pioneer Homes in Alaska as 
     State Home for Veterans.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     may--
       (1) treat the Pioneer Homes in the State of Alaska 
     collectively as a single State home for veterans for purposes 
     of section 1741 of title 38, United States Code; and
       (2) make per diem payments to the State of Alaska for care 
     provided to veterans in the Pioneer Homes in accordance with 
     the provisions of that section.
       (b) Treatment Notwithstanding Non-Veteran Residency.--The 
     Secretary shall treat the Pioneer Homes as a State home under 
     subsection (a) notwithstanding the residency of non-veterans 
     in one or more of the Pioneer Homes.
       (c) Pioneer Homes Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Pioneer Homes'' means the six regional homes in the State 
     of Alaska known as Pioneer Homes, which are located in the 
     following:
       (1) Anchorage, Alaska.
       (2) Fairbanks, Alaska.

[[Page S14521]]

       (3) Juneau, Alaska.
       (4) Ketchikan, Alaska.
       (5) Palmer, Alaska.
       (6) Sitka, Alaska.


                Amendment No. 2182 to Amendment No. 2150

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the access to primary 
    health care of veterans living in rural and highly rural areas)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 116. (a) Findings on Access to Primary Health Care of 
     Veterans in Rural Areas.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has appointed a 
     commission, called the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
     Services (CARES) Commission, and directed it to make specific 
     recommendations regarding the realignment and allocation of 
     capital assets necessary to meet the demand for veterans 
     health care services over the next 20 years.
       (2) The Department of Veterans Affairs accessibility 
     standard for primary health care provides that at least 70 
     percent of the veterans enrolled in each of the regional 
     ``markets'' of the Department should live within a specified 
     driving time of a Department primary care facility. That 
     driving time is 30 minutes for veterans living in urban and 
     rural areas and 60 minutes for veterans living in highly 
     rural areas.
       (3) The Draft National CARES Plan issued by the Under 
     Secretary for Health would place veterans in 18 rural and 
     highly rural regional markets outside the Department 
     accessibility standard for primary health care until at least 
     fiscal year 2022, which means that thousands of veterans will 
     have to continuing traveling up to 3-4 hours each way to 
     visit a Department primary care facility.
       (4) The 18 rural and highly rural markets that will remain 
     outside the Department accessibility standard for primary 
     health care comprise all or parts of Arkansas, Idaho, 
     Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 
     Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North 
     Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, 
     Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
       (5) Health care facilities for veterans are 
     disproportionately needed in rural and highly rural areas 
     because the residents of such areas are generally older, 
     poorer, and sicker than their urban counterparts.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the CARES Commission should give as much attention to 
     solving the special needs of veterans who live in rural areas 
     as it does to providing for the health care needs of veterans 
     living in more highly populated areas;
       (2) the CARES Commission should reject the portions of the 
     Draft National CARES Plan that would prevent any regional 
     market of the Department from complying with the Department 
     accessibility standard for primary health care, which 
     provides that at least 70 percent of the veterans residing in 
     each market be within specified driving times of a Department 
     primary care facility; and
       (3) the CARES Commission should recommend to the Secretary 
     the investments and initiatives that are necessary to achieve 
     the Department accessibility standard for primary health care 
     in each of the rural and highly rural health care markets of 
     the Department.


                Amendment No. 2183 to Amendment No. 2150

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that housing vouchers are 
   a critical resource and that the Department of Housing and Urban 
 Development should ensure that all vouchers can be used by low-income 
                               families)

       On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) 30 percent of American families have housing 
     affordability problems, with 14,300,000 families paying more 
     than half of their income for housing costs, and 17,300,000 
     families paying 30 to 50 percent of their income towards 
     housing costs;
       (2) 9,300,000 American families live in housing that is 
     overcrowded or distressed;
       (3) 3,500,000 households in the United States will 
     experience homelessness at some point this year, including 
     1,350,000 children;
       (4) the number of working families who are unable to afford 
     adequate housing is increasing, as the gap between wages and 
     housing costs grows;
       (5) there is no county or metropolitan area in the country 
     where a minimum wage earner can afford to rent a modest 2-
     bedroom apartment, and on average, a family must earn over 
     $15 an hour to afford modest rental housing, which is almost 
     3 times the minimum wage;
       (6) section 8 housing vouchers help approximately 2,000,000 
     families with children, senior citizens, and disabled 
     individuals afford a safe and decent place to live;
       (7) utilization of vouchers is at a high of 96 percent, and 
     is on course to rise to 97 percent in fiscal year 2004, 
     according to data provided by the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development;
       (8) the average cost per voucher has also steadily 
     increased from just over $6400 in August of 2002, to $6,756 
     in April, 2003, due largely to rising rents in the private 
     market, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
     the cost per voucher in fiscal year 2004 will be $7,028, $560 
     more per voucher than the estimate contained in the fiscal 
     year 2004 budget request; and
       (9) the congressionally appointed, bipartisan Millennial 
     Housing Commission found that housing vouchers are ``the 
     linchpin of a national housing policy providing very low-
     income renters access to privately-owned housing stock''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) housing vouchers are a critical resource in ensuring 
     that families in America can afford safe, decent, and 
     adequate housing;
       (2) public housing agencies must retain the ability to use 
     100 percent of their authorized vouchers to help house low-
     income families; and
       (3) the Senate expects the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development to take all necessary actions to encourage full 
     utilization of vouchers, and to use all legally available 
     resources as needed to support full funding for housing 
     vouchers in fiscal year 2004, so that every voucher can be 
     used by a family in need.


                Amendment No. 2184 to Amendment No. 2150

    (Purpose: To provide VISTA volunteers the option of receiving a 
                  national service educational award)

       On page 92, line 22, insert ``: Provided further, That the 
     Corporation shall offer any individual selected after October 
     31, 2002, for initial enrollment or reenrollment as a VISTA 
     volunteer under title I of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act 
     of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4951 et seq.) the option of receiving a 
     national service educational award under subtitle D of title 
     I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12601 et seq.)'' after ``programs''.


                Amendment No. 2185 to Amendment No. 2150

   (Purpose: To authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control 
                                grants.

       On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.

       Section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1301) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``2002 and 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2005 and 2006'';
       (2) in subsection (g)(1)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2005''; and
       (B) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2005'';
       (3) in subsection (g)(2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2006''; and
       (B) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2006''; and
       (4) in subsection (i), by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2006''.


                Amendment No. 2186 to Amendment No. 2150

       It is the sense of the Senate that human dosing studies a 
     pesticides raises ethical and health questions.


                           Amendment No. 2183

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a 
Sense of the Senate amendment that Senator Sarbanes and I are offering 
with respect to the section 8 housing voucher program. This amendment 
states that section 8 housing vouchers are a critical housing resource, 
that public housing authorities must be able to use all of their 
authorized vouchers, and that the Senate expects the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to take all necessary steps to encourage 
full voucher utilization.
  Our Nation is facing a critical shortage of affordable housing. A 
recent study by the Joint Center on Housing Studies at Harvard 
University indicates that approximately 30 percent of American families 
have housing affordability problems, with as many as 14.3 million 
families paying more than half of their income for housing costs and 
17.3 million families paying 30 to 50 percent of their income toward 
housing costs. The same study indicates that 9.3 million families live 
in housing that is overcrowded or distressed, and 3.5 million 
households in the United States will experience homelessness at some 
point this year. That last number includes more than 1.3 million 
children.
  As the gap between wages and housing costs grows, the number of 
working families who are unable to afford adequate housing continues to 
increase. On average, a family must earn over $15 per hour to afford 
modest rental housing, and in many cases, rising costs have led to 
families simply being priced out of the housing market. In my home 
state of Maine, the City of Portland offers a prime example of this 
phenomenon. The National Housing Conference reports that, in 1999, the 
median home price in Portland was $12,500. By 2001, that median price 
had increased to $158,000. During this period, Fair Market Rent for a 
two-bedroom apartment jumped from $641 to

[[Page S14522]]

$817 per month, and this trend of increasing disparity between wages 
and housing costs shows little sign of abating.
  Section 8 housing vouchers help approximately 2 million families with 
children, senior citizens, and disabled individuals afford a safe and 
decent place to live. The congressionally appointed, bipartisan 
Millennial Housing Commission found that housing vouchers are ``the 
linchpin of a national housing policy providing very low-income renters 
access to privately owned housing stock. Currently, utilization of 
vouchers is at a high of 96 percent, and is on course to rise to 97 
percent in fiscal year 2004, according to data provided by HUD. The 
average cost per voucher has also steadily increased from just over 
$6,400 in August of 2002, to $6,756 in April, 2003, and the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost per voucher in FY 
2004 will be $7,028.
  Our amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that: 1. 
housing voucher are a critical resource in ensuring that families in 
America can afford safe, decent, and adequate housing; 2. public 
housing agencies must retain the ability to use 100 percent of their 
authorized vouchers to help house low-income families; and 3. the 
Senate expects the Department of Housing and Urban Development to take 
all necessary actions to encourage full utilization of vouchers, and to 
use all legally available resources as needed to support full funding 
for housing vouchers in fiscal year 2004, so that every voucher can be 
used by a family in need.
  To many families, older, and disabled individuals, section 8 housing 
vouchers are the difference between having a safe, decent place to live 
and homelessness. it should be the sense of the Senate that HUD use all 
legally available funds to support every authorized voucher, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator 
Sarbane's resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that 
Section 8 housing vouchers are a critical resource and that the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development should ensure that all 
vouchers can be used by low-income families. I have joined many of my 
colleagues as an original cosponsor of this amendment and would like to 
thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for including it in the 
pending VA/HUD Appropriations bill. I would like to commend the 
Senators for their commitment to balancing the competing housing 
priorities we face given the constraints they were working under. The 
Senate provisions are a big improvement over the House bill and would 
greatly reduce the chances of cuts to this program.
  Earlier this year, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to 
Secretary Martinez expressing our reservations and concerns about the 
President's proposal to block grant this critical program. Experience 
with block grants tells us that this plan could have actually 
undermined the program and reduced the number of families being served, 
so I was pleased that both the House and the Senate Committee rejected 
it.
  The fact is the gap between wages and housing costs is growing and is 
pushing affordable housing beyond the reach of an increasing number of 
working families. On average, a family in this country must earn $15.21 
an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment, which is almost three 
times the minimum wage. In my home State of New York, a minimum wage 
worker would have to work 147 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom 
apartment at fair market rent. Section 8 vouchers make housing 
affordable and are making a real difference in the lives of 
approximately 2 million elderly and disabled individuals as well as 
families with children across the Nation. We should expand the program 
so that more families can receive assistance they so desperately need, 
but if we cannot expand it we should preserve it to ensure that 
families receiving vouchers can continue to depend on the support they 
have been promised.
  New York's housing crisis is particularly alarming. In my State more 
than 500,000 renter households, roughly one-fourth of all renters, 
continue to pay more than half of their income in rent. These rents 
impose enormous pressures on them and add on to the financial burdens 
they already face. Many severely disadvantaged households find 
themselves unable to pay rent and meet their other basic needs. Some 
are forced to live on the street or in shelters. More than 38,000 
homeless people sleep in New York City's shelter system each night, 
almost double the number of just 5 years ago and the largest annual 
increase since the Great Depression. The largest and fastest-growing 
segment of this homeless population is families with children. Section 
8 housing vouchers provide a lifeline that helps these individuals make 
ends meet. We must help America afford safe and decent housing so that 
parents are not forced to choose between finding the money to pay for 
rent and putting food on the table.
  The Housing Choice Voucher program is more than just a housing 
program. We know that affordable housing helps families increase their 
employability, earnings, educational outcomes, and children's well 
being.
  In New York, Section 8 housing vouchers are assisting approximately 
200,000 seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children. 
Under the House VA-HUD appropriations bill, New York could lose 6,020 
vouchers, of which approximately 1,840 would go to working families, 
1,020 to elderly households, 1,320 to disabled households, and 1,840 to 
other households. If the final VA-HUD conference report retains the 
Senate provisions referenced in the Sense of the Senate--directing HUD 
to fund these vouchers--then none of these vouchers would be lost and 
all of these families would be helped.
  As this bill moves forward during conference, I urge my colleagues to 
support this language. It sends a message to HUD that America is 
depending on housing vouchers to ensure that all of our families can 
afford a safe, decent and adequate place to live.


                           Amendment No. 2184

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator Clinton's 
amendment relating to VISTA.
  Since its creation in 1965, as part of the War on Poverty, over 
120,000 Americans have performed national service as VISTA volunteers.
  VISTA, Volunteers In Service To America, members serve in hundreds of 
nonprofit organizations and public agencies across the country, helping 
to find solutions to the problems caused by urban and rural poverty. 
VISTA volunteers fight illiteracy, improve health services, increase 
housing opportunities, bridge the digital divide, create businesses, 
and so much more.
  Unfortunately, VISTA volunteers have been shortchanged for more than 
a year.
  Since the creation of education awards in 1994, VISTA volunteers, 
upon completion of their service, have been eligible to receive either 
a $4,725 education award or end-of-service stipend of $1,200. Education 
awards can be used to pay education costs at qualified institutions of 
higher education or to repay qualified student loans.
  However, the Corporation for National and Community Service has 
refused to offer education awards to last year's and this year's 
volunteers.
  This summer, I was alerted to this unfortunate change in policy by 
several Rhode Islanders.
  Section 129(b) of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 contains the following language:

       Reservation of Approved Positions--The Corporation shall 
     ensure that each individual selected during a fiscal year for 
     assignment as a VISTA Volunteer under title I of the Domestic 
     Volunteer Service Act of 1973 . . . shall receive the 
     national service educational award described in subtitle D if 
     the individual satisfies the eligibility requirements for the 
     award. Funds for approved national service positions required 
     by this paragraph for a fiscal year shall be deducted from 
     the total funding for approved national service positions to 
     be available for distribution under subsectons (a) and (d) 
     for that fiscal year.

  Given this clear language in the statute, I wrote to the Corporation 
seeking its rationale for denying the opportunity for VISTA volunteers 
to elect education awards. In his response, the General Counsel for the 
Corporation argued that the Corporation, not this language, determines 
whether a VISTA volunteer is in an ``approved national service 
position'', and only if that is the case, is the volunteer entitled to 
the opportunity to elect to receive an education award. The General 
Counsel

[[Page S14523]]

has ruled that all VISTA slots are not ``approved national service 
positions.'' Moreover, the General Counsel states that the Corporation 
has the authority to modify program rules based on funding levels.
  As a result, 3,200 volunteers in fiscal year 2003 have been denied 
the option of an education award that has been of great benefit to 
countless volunteers. In Rhode Island, this has affected nearly 20 
VISTA volunteers at City Arts, AS220, Providence Public Library, Family 
Life Center, RI Training School, RI Free Clinic, Southside Community 
Land Trust, New Urban Arts, and RI Coalition for Domestic Violence.
  In order to continue to attract high quality and talented individuals 
willing to serve as VISTA volunteers, the Clinton amendment requires 
the Corporation to offer individuals, selected after October 31, 2002, 
for initial enrollment or reenrollment as a VISTA volunteer the option 
of receiving a national service education award.
  This is an important amendment as we look to revitalize service in 
our country after months of mishaps at the Corporation for National and 
Community Service, and I urge its passage.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2183

   Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer an 
amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill to ensure that the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development does all it can to make 
sure that the section 8 housing voucher program is fully funded and 
fully operational. I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, 
including Senators Reed, Kennedy, Allen, Santorum, and Byrd. In 
addition, I want to thank Senator Collins, who is a cosponsor, and was 
instrumental in drafting and gaining support for the amendment.
   This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that housing 
vouchers, which now assist almost 2 million low-income families around 
the country, are a critical housing resource and should receive full 
funding. This amendment reaffirms our commitment to the voucher program 
by reiterating that public housing agencies can lease all of their 
authorized vouchers, and that HUD must use all available funds to 
support these needed vouchers.
   Unfortunately, too many families in America find it difficult to 
afford decent and safe places to call home. In fact, the number of 
working families who are paying over half of their income in rent is 
steadily rising, as the gap between wages and housing costs continues 
to widen.
   According to a recent study conducted by the National Low Income 
Housing Coalition, on average, a family in the United States must earn 
over $15 an hour to afford a modest apartment without forgoing other 
necessities. This is almost 3 times the minimum wage. In my home State 
of Maryland, this number is almost $19 an hour.
   These numbers make clear that there is a pressing need for housing 
assistance. The section 8 housing voucher program is a market-based 
housing program that has had strong bipartisan support since the 
program's inception. The housing voucher program has long been regarded 
as a successful way to help families in need find and afford rental 
housing.
   Housing vouchers enable low-income families to go out into the 
private rental market and rent housing of their choice subject to a cap 
on the rental amount. Housing vouchers help families move closer to 
employment and educational opportunities, while providing stability so 
that families can better retain employment and children can succeed in 
school. Every study that has looked at the impact of vouchers has found 
a positive effect on employment and earnings, in addition to finding 
that housing vouchers help make the transition from welfare to work a 
successful one.
  It is evident that the voucher program is one that works, and this 
has been recognized by past administrations and by Members of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, this administration simply 
did not ask for adequate funding for this program. According to recent 
HUD data, the budget request submitted this year by the administration 
underfunds this critical program by nearly $1.25 billion.
  This $1.25 billion shortfall could have easily been avoided had the 
Department used updated data for its budget estimate, and I thank 
Senators Bond and Mikulski for calling on HUD to do just that. Recent 
HUD data show that a greater percentage of vouchers are being used now 
than ever before. According to this data, utilization is at a high of 
96 percent, and is expected to rise to 97 percent in fiscal year 2004. 
In addition, due to rising rents, the actual cost per voucher is much 
higher than estimated by the administration. As rents rise, HUD must 
seek adequate funding to meet the needs in ever-changing housing 
markets.
  While the bill before us today does not contain enough newly 
appropriated funds for the voucher program, we have reason to believe 
that HUD has enough available funding to meet the needs in the program 
in fiscal year 2004. I appreciate the efforts of Senators Bond and 
Mikulski to address this issue in the bill by directing HUD to ensure 
that public housing agencies can continue to issue turnover vouchers, 
and by calling on HUD to request supplemental funds if necessary.
  The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Collins and 
others, is a companion to this important language. It expresses the 
sense of the Senate that we expect HUD to do all it can to ensure that 
housing agencies can lease up to their authorized level of vouchers. 
The ability to lease 100 percent of authorized vouchers is critical and 
we fought hard last year to make sure that this right was retained. 
This bill reiterates this right and directs HUD to make sure all 
vouchers, including turnover vouchers, can be used by low-income 
families. In addition, this amendment calls on HUD to live up to its 
obligations by using all legally available funds to renew housing 
vouchers. Without using this additional funding, the $1.25 billion 
shortfall could translate into over 100,000 families losing their 
voucher assistance and their homes.
  The amendment we are offering sends a message to HUD that this would 
be unacceptable, and that we expect it to do everything possible to 
ensure that families with vouchers do not lose their housing assistance 
and that low-income families on waiting lists can gain access to 
vouchers. These vouchers are being used in every community across the 
country, providing not only housing, but economic opportunities to low-
income families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which 
reaffirms our commitment to housing low-income people in this Nation.


                           amendment no. 2184

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would 
provide education awards to all volunteers who are part of the VISTA--
Volunteers in Service to America--program, which is administered by the 
Corporation for National and Community Service.
  Before I begin, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for 
all the hard work they have done to support national and community 
service. They have been real champions of this program. I would also 
like to thank Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Chafee, Harkin, Reed, Murray, 
and Dodd for co-sponsoring this amendment. This amendment that I rise 
to offer today is not a partisan amendment--I know that I have support 
on both sides of the aisle because the VISTA program has such deep, 
strong roots among many political leaders on both sides of the aisle.
  The VISTA program was first envisioned by President Kennedy soon 
after the Peace Corps was created. And in 1965, as part of President 
Johnson's War on Poverty, President Kennedy's dream was realized.
  VISTA, like Head Start and so many other lasting anti-poverty 
programs, was created to serve the needs of the poorest Americans. On 
December 12, 1964, just four months after the legislation was enacted, 
President and Lady Bird Johnson welcomed the first group of twenty 
VISTA volunteers with these remarks:

       Your pay will be low; the conditions of your labor often 
     will be difficult. But you will have the satisfaction of 
     leading a great national effort and you will have the 
     ultimate reward which comes to those who serve their fellow 
     man.

  When my husband championed the effort to dramatically expand national 
service and create AmeriCorps, he wanted to preserve this important 
part of President Kennedy and President Johnson's legacy. The VISTA 
program was authorized within the National and

[[Page S14524]]

Community Service Trust Act and today it is administered by the 
Corporation for National and Community Service.
  A staple of the program since its inclusion within the National and 
Community Service Trust Act is that every member who signs up shall 
receive a choice--a scholarship toward their education or a cash 
stipend. In recent years, more than two-thirds of the individuals 
participating in the VISTA program have opted for the education 
scholarship instead of the cash stipend.
  In November of 2002, the Corporation for National and Community 
Service began denying new volunteers the option of receiving education 
awards. They were provided cash stipends, regardless of their 
preference.
  I began hearing from New Yorkers who were frustrated by the decision. 
They felt like they had been duped--given a bait and switch. Their 
morale dropped dramatically and some have resigned as a result. Many 
saw a fundamental problem of equity. Members were passed over for 
education and awards while those who enrolled just two months later 
received them. I'm sure we all agree that this is unfair.
  New Yorkers described to me the difference that VISTA has made in 
their life and in the lives of people they serve and expressed their 
frustration about what has happened to the program. Two New York VISTA 
members serving in West Seneca, New York developed a pilot program for 
ex-offenders, and I want to tell you a little bit about the first 
graduate: ``he got his driver's license and was getting things in order 
for this first apartment ever--he had been incarcerated for 28 years, 
since his youth. The joy on the guy's face was unbelievable and I was 
proud to know that two VISTA members had made it possible,'' said one 
of them.
  Across the country, at least 1,766 volunteers who were affected by 
this decision, according to the Corporation for National and Community 
Service. The organization established to support the VISTA program--
called Friends of Vista--estimates the impact at 3,200.
  I do not want to haggle over the numbers or argue about who's to 
blame. I simply want the problem addressed.
  This amendment is straightforward and simple. It says that VISTA 
volunteers shall be provided the option of receiving an education award 
or a cash stipend, consistent with the law and current practice. It 
does not have a cost associated with it, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment and rectify this injustice.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, have the amendments been adopted?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what time----
  Mr. SARBANES. Have the amendments been adopted?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments were adopted by unanimous 
consent, as requested.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider and lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           nsf epscor program

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research program or EPSCoR. First, I would like to thank the 
distinguished chair of the subcommittee for including $100 million in 
the EPSCoR program. This is a very important program in my State of 
Montana--and very important for the other 22 EPSCoR states that are 
trying to develop a competitive research program.
  I would also like to mention that I have talked with the EPSCoR 
project director and other participants in the program from Montana and 
that they have told me that the infrastructure improvement components 
of the program is critical to all other efforts to develop research 
capacity and to compete successfully for other NSF funding. I would 
like it to be clear that the research infrastructure component is 
central to the program and that we have provided funds to ensure that 
states can be fully funded.
  Mr. BOND. I, too, have heard about the importance of the research 
infrastructure program and I want to assure the Senator that we have 
sought to provide sufficient funding to cover existing commitments and 
states that are currently under review.
  Mr. BURNS. That is very important. Finally, I would just add that I 
hope NSF will make every effort to include the EPSCoR states in its new 
cyber infrastructure activities. NSF did a very fine job a few years 
ago in helping secure high-speed connections for research institutions 
in EPSCoR states. The new NSF cyberinfrastructure program is evolving 
and I hope that they will include states like Montana in these efforts 
since networking and advanced computing are essential to keeping our 
research universities connected to cutting-edge research and allow them 
to collaborate and use equipment at remote locations.
  Mr. BOND. I understand the Senator's interest.


                            cares initiative

  Mr. SCHUMER. It is my understanding that the managers of this 
legislation have agreed to work to address the concerns shared by Sen. 
Clinton, Sen. Enzi, myself and others through the inclusion of language 
in the conference report on the FY04 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. It is 
my further understanding that this language will specifically address 
our concerns regarding the CARES Initiative's impact on long-term care, 
domiciliary care and mental health care as well as the ability of 
veterans to attend and participate in hearings regarding facility 
closings and the special needs of rural veterans in the process. I also 
understand that the managers have agreed to send a letter to Secretary 
Principi on these matters. In addition I understand that I will join my 
colleagues and the managers in submitting a longer colloquy for the 
record with the specific language to be included.
  Mr. BOND. That understanding is correct and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on this issue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I share that understanding as well and thank my 
colleagues.


               NON-ELDERLY DISABLED INCREMENTAL VOUCHERS

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague, 
Senator Bond, in a colloquy on the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's (HUD) Section 8 program. Senator Bond, it is my 
understanding that the section of the bill allocating funding for the 
Section 8 Housing Certificate Fund includes language that allows HUD to 
target up to $36 million for incremental vouchers to non-elderly people 
with disabilities that are adversely affected by the designation of 
public and assisted housing as ``elderly only.'' Is this correct?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The bill includes more than $461 
million for the HUD Secretary to support a range of activities related 
to the Section 8 program including contract amendments and other 
measures to ensure that housing authorities are able to lease up to 
their authorized unit levels. In addition, the bill allows HUD to 
allocate up to $36 million for new vouchers tied to the designation and 
occupancy restrictions imposed in public and assisted housing 
developments for the elderly. This continues a policy established by 
Congress in 1996 to ensure alternative resources for non-elderly people 
with disabilities who are being excluded from certain public and 
assisted housing properties.
  It is important to note that the bill requires the HUD Secretary to 
ensure that there are adequate funds to renew all existing rental 
vouchers before allocating additional funds for disability vouchers for 
Fiscal Year 2004. It is the expectation of both Senator Mikulski and 
myself that HUD will be able to make a mid-year assessment in Fiscal 
Year 2004 to determine if the amounts appropriated for voucher renewals 
and contract amendments exceed the expected requests from housing 
authorities for authorized voucher renewals. In our view, such an 
assessment can be made as part of the periodic measurements HUD 
routinely makes regarding the pace of voucher renewals. It should also 
be part of the requirement set forth in S. Rpt. 108-143 by the 
Appropriations Committee for development of a real-time data model to 
identify the actual use of vouchers.
  Further, it is our view that every effort should be made to ensure 
that public housing designation plans for elderly-only housing are 
linked to the vouchers, should they become available in Fiscal Year 
2004. I do not believe that HUD should be prevented from including 
these disability vouchers in its annual consolidated Notice of Funding 
Availability or SuperNOFA. This would

[[Page S14525]]

allow the agency to allocate expeditiously these vouchers before the 
end of Fiscal Year 2004 to housing authorities that are able to target 
them effectively to non-elderly people with disabilities who have been 
adversely affected by the designation of public and assisted housing as 
elderly only.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his support on 
this important issue.


                       NSF ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of funding 
for astronomy within the National Science Foundation. I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with Senators Bond and Mikulski, the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies.
  Mr. BOND. I would be happy to engage in such a discussion with the 
Senator from Hawaii, a member of the Committee and the ranking member 
on the Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. INOUYE. The committee's bill recognizes that the budget request 
provided inadequate funding for NSF's astronomical facilities. In 
response, the committee bill provided additional funding for radio 
astronomy facilities, but the funding level in other areas remains 
inadequate. For example, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory 
would be reduced below last year's level.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. We were unable to provide 
additional funds for the NOAO due to our tight 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. INOUYE. One specific high priority area for investment in optical 
astronomy that will be needed to develop the next generation of ground-
based telescopes is in the area of adaptive optics. This will enable a 
major advance in astronomy that will have far-reaching effects in other 
areas, including national security. The National Academy of Sciences 
Decadal Survey in Astronomy has identified this as the enabling 
breakthrough that will be needed for the Giant Segmented Mirror 
Telescope, the top priority for optical astronomy.
  For fiscal year 2004, about $5 million in additional funding for 
adaptive optics development is needed in order to develop the future 
generation of ground based telescopes, particularly for the GSMT. Would 
the chairman and ranking member be willing to join me in examining this 
possibility during conference on this bill?
  Mr. BOND. We face a very tough conference with the House with our 
tight allocation and other competing funding priority areas such as 
veterans' health care, affordable housing, and other science and space 
programs. Nevertheless, I will look at this issue in conference.
  Mr. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to support the Senator.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would like to raise another issue. The Advanced 
Technology Solar Telescope was identified as the highest priority solar 
astronomy initiative for the coming decade. Presently, the National 
Solar Observatory is leading a national effort to identify a site for 
this future telescope and to make the overall project a success by 
addressing the long lead technologies. Progress on these is essential 
in order for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope to achieve 
operations by 2007-2008 when NASA's complimentary space mission, the 
Solar Dynamics Observer, is launched. The combination of these two 
observatories will provide an unprecedented synergy between space- and 
ground-based solar observations that we believe will be of great 
scientific benefit. Unfortunately, the budget request does not provide 
the necessary funding to accommodate these needs.
  One specific area that has emerged as critical is to begin the 
preparatory work on the mirror for this telescope and to develop fully 
the fabrication and polishing techniques that will be necessary. Would 
the chairman and ranking member join me in helping to identify $2 
million in additional funding during conference to address this issue?
  Mr. BOND. Speaking for Senator Mikulski and myself, we would be happy 
to look at this issue in conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank both Senators for their leadership in helping the 
U.S. remain scientifically and technologically competitive by providing 
critical investments in research.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am very interested in the need to provide 
funding through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 
National Research Council to study whether the use of coal combustion 
wastes, otherwise known as coal fly ash, poses health and/or safety 
threats to the public or to the environment when used for reclamation 
purposes in both active and abandoned coal mines.
  For more than twenty years, the EPA has been grappling with the issue 
of whether and how the use of these power plant combustion wastes 
should be regulated and the manner in which they should be regulated, 
if at all, under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act or the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. With this amendment, the 
National Research Council will be able to provide much-needed research 
assistance to the EPA as the agency continues to consider the 
development of national regulations in this area.
  This study serves an important purpose and will help answer important 
questions about the impact of disposing coal combustion wastes in coal 
mines. Further, this study would offer timely information to EPA policy 
makers as these experts continue to assess the need for regulations 
governing this practice.
  In summary, there is a great need for this study. It could be funded 
within existing resources and under existing authorizations. I hope 
that my colleagues will be able to consider this important request 
during the VA/HUD conference. I thank them for their consideration of 
this issue.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks, and 
I will be working to ensure that this important study will be included 
in the conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I also thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, and 
I, too, will support his request for such a study during the conference 
negotiations. This is an important matter for the State of West 
Virginia and other coal-producing States.


                                  nasa

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the 
subcommittee staff for their outstanding work in bringing this 
legislation to the Senate for consideration.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for his kind comments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the chairman knows, I have had a longstanding 
interest in NASA's research partnerships with universities and 
industry, particularly in the area of developing commercial 
applications in remote sensing. I am pleased that the committee report 
includes the following language, which directs NASA to continue these 
partnerships:

       The Committee also expects NASA to continue its work on 
     long-term plans to partner with U.S. universities and 
     industry in a variety of NASA-related science research, 
     including research related to nanotechnology, information 
     technology and remote sensing. These are all areas of 
     investment that have a commercial application that will have 
     an increasing impact on society, the economy, and quality of 
     life.

  Mr. BOND. I share and strongly support the Senator's view that NASA 
should continue to work with universities and industry on NASA-related 
scientific research.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senator's response and would make the 
point that, while the Committee is supportive of these partnerships, 
the committee report proposes to decrease funding for the Earth Science 
Applications by $15,000,000 below the President's Budget request. I am 
concerned that this reduction will not only limit NASA's ability to 
partner with universities in the future, but may put at risk several 
current and on-going NASA contracts with universities for remote 
sensing research.
  I am particularly concerned that NASA has sufficient funds in fiscal 
year 2004 to continue, at the fiscal year 2003 contracted amounts, 
three important NASA-university partnerships--the Enterprise for 
Innovative Geospatial Solutions, the Institute for Advanced Education 
in Geospatial Sciences, and the GeoResources Institute. I would inquire 
whether the Chairman would agree that it is not the Committee's 
intention that this Bill's proposed reduction in the Earth Sciences 
account will be applied by NASA to reduce the fiscal year 2004 funding 
for these three partnerships.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator bringing his concerns to my 
attention. He has my assurance that the Committee's proposed reduction 
in the Earth

[[Page S14526]]

Sciences account is not intended to reduce the funding for the three 
university partnership programs he has described. I also share your 
concerns that this reduction could curtail some of the valuable 
research which we expect and which needs to be accomplished, and 
therefore intend to work in conference to increase the funding for 
Earth Science Applications to prevent any unintended shortfalls to 
existing programs as well as to needed new investments. As NASA 
continues to implement full cost accounting, we will confront a number 
of funding issues which will need additional scrutiny as we seek to 
understand NASA's new requirements with regard to what costs apply to 
programs under full cost accounting.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senator's assurance and look forward to 
working with him to ensure Earth Science Applications and these 
important NASA-university partnerships will be fully funded in fiscal 
year 2004.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to speak to an amendment to 
the VA-HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill which 
increases the bill's funding for AmeriCorps up to the funding level 
requested by President Bush in this year's budget. The bill currently 
includes $340 million in a combined account for AmeriCorps grants, 
national and state grants, and education awards. My amendment would add 
$93 million to increase the total to $433 million, the President's 
budget request. The amendment is paid for by the necessary across-the-
board reduction in the bill as a whole. As a part of the USA Freedom 
Corps initiative, President Bush is committed to providing resources 
for 75,000 AmeriCorps participants this coming year. Earlier this year, 
in July, the Senate supported an increase of $100 million in Fiscal 
Year 2003 funding. Unfortunately, the funding was not ultimately 
included in the supplemental spending bill to the detriment of many 
committed community service programs around the country and in 
Pennsylvania.
  Major community service and volunteer programs funded by the Federal 
Government are authorized under two laws: the National and Community 
Service Act of 1990, NCSA, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 
1973, DVSA. The Corporation for National and Community Service, CNCS, 
an independent Federal agency, generally administers the programs 
authorized under these laws.
  The NCSA and DVSA have not been reauthorized since 1993, with the 
passage of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, P.L. 
103-82). This measure established: No. 1, the AmeriCorps program; No. 
2, CNCS to administer NCSA and DVSA programs; No. 3, a National Service 
Trust to fund educational awards to AmeriCorps and other community 
service participants; and No. 4, State commissions on national and 
community service to receive funding under NCSA. Although authorization 
for the appropriation of funds for NCSA and DVSA programs expired at 
the end of fiscal year 1996, funding for the programs has been 
maintained through annual appropriations legislation. Specifically, 
NCSA programs are funded through the Veterans Affairs, VA, and Housing 
and Urban Development, HUD, appropriations bill, while DVSA programs 
are funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services, HHS, and 
Education appropriations bill.
  AmeriCorps funds are distributed through the following channels: 
State formula programs, State competitive programs, national grants, 
and set-asides for Indian tribes. One of the benefits eligible 
AmeriCorps participants receive is an education award of $4,725 at the 
end of their service term. As a result of accounting and management 
complications and reduced funding, the AmeriCorps program expects to 
fall short of funding the 50,000 available volunteer slots for 2003.
  Significant progress continues to be made to improve and reform the 
AmeriCorps program. Under the leadership of former Senator Harris 
Wofford and some States, significant steps were taken to improve the 
management of the AmeriCorps program of the Corporation for National 
Service, CNS. Les Lenkowsky had a vision to continue that progress and 
a commitment to community service. I recognize the dedication and 
contributions of AmeriCorps participants. I also believe that more can 
be done to improve the effectiveness of AmeriCorps by expanding the 
opportunities for service and I have previously introduced legislation 
intended to further that effort. In August 2001, I introduced S. 1352, 
the AmeriCorps Reform and Charitable Expansion Act. The goal of this 
legislation was to expand service opportunities through the AmeriCorps 
program and better equip AmeriCorps volunteers to reach out and serve 
Americans in low-income communities. We must continue to focus our 
efforts on serving Americans in our society who are most in need of a 
helping hand. My bill would have enabled participants to focus their 
efforts on helping Americans who are often overlooked in our society 
and help bring about renewal in our low-income communities. The bill 
would have dramatically increased service opportunities in low-income 
communities through a voucher system, which would have encouraged 
AmeriCorps volunteers to choose locations predominantly serving low-
income individuals. In addition to increasing the funding, I believe it 
is important to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service this 
Congress.
  As a significant additional step, on June 18, 2003, Senator Kit Bond 
of Missouri introduced S. 1276, the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act. 
I cosponsored this bipartisan legislation, which allowed the CNCS to 
fund education award grants using ``conservative estimates'' of 
AmeriCorps volunteer awards. CNCS is expected to enroll nearly 50,000 
volunteers in 2003. The bill also provides safeguards for the program 
by establishing a central reserve fund to guard the Corporation against 
overenrollment; requiring the Chief Executive Officer to certify that 
the National Service Trust Fund contains sufficient resources to meet 
education award liabilities; and requiring an independent audit of the 
corporation's funding formula. S. 1276 was passed unanimously by the 
Senate, with my strong support, and was subsequently passed by the 
House of Representatives the following day. Passage of this legislation 
was a positive step towards addressing the needs of the AmeriCorps 
program.
  I am disappointed that additional AmeriCorps funds were not 
ultimately included in the supplemental this year. However, I am 
pleased that increased funding has been included in both the Senate and 
House fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations 
bill. The House passed this legislation on July 21, and it contains 
$244 million for the aforementioned grants and education awards. 
President Bush requested $313.2 million for fiscal year 2004; the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2003 was $173.9 million.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to 
expand the number of AmeriCorps participants and fully fund the 
President's request. I also believe that Congress should refocus the 
program on poverty alleviation efforts, expanded service location 
options for participants, and placing a greater emphasis on serving 
charities and the needy communities they serve to enable an even more 
strategic contribution from this federally supported program for 
Americans in need.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for agreeing to withdraw his amendment to 
further increase funds for the AmeriCorps program. I look forward to 
working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in the effort in conference 
to fully fund the President's request for AmeriCorps.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering H.R. 
2861, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
  The pending bill provides $91.334 billion in total budget authority 
and $96.549 billion in total outlays for Fiscal Year 2004 and within 
the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. For discretionary spending the 
Senate bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget 
authority and below the allocation by $.018 billion or .02 percent in 
outlays. The Senate bill is $1.699 billion or 1.8 percent in BA and 
$.708 billion or .7 percent in outlays above the President's budget 
request.
  The pending bill funds the programs of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs,

[[Page S14527]]

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Corporation for National and Community Service, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 
Foundation and several other agencies.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  S. 1584, VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS, 2004.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal Year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                   purpose \1\   Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill: \2\
    Budget authority.............       91,334       32,911      124,245
    Outlays......................       96,549       32,685      129,234
Senate Committee allocation:
    Budget authority.............       91,334       32,911      124,245
    Outlays......................       96,567       32,685      129,252
2003 enacted:
    Budget authority.............       86,817       30,318      117,135
    Outlays......................       93,061       29,859      122,920
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       89,635       32,911      122,546
    Outlays......................       95,841       32,685      128,526
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............       90,033       32,482      122,515
    Outlays......................       95,478       32,266      127,744
 
                    Senate-Reported Bill Compared To
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................          -18            0          -18
2003 enacted:
    Budget authority.............        4,517        2,593        7,110
    Outlays......................        3,488        2,826        6,314
President's request
    Budget authority.............        1,699            0        1,699
    Outlays......................          708            0          708
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............        1,301          429        1,730
    Outlays......................        1,071          419        1,490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted for floor amendment striking contingent emergency
  designation.
\2\ This bill contains $25 million in lost revenue in FY 2004 due to a
  provision that blocks pesticide fees.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

   Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support for the HUD/VA fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill currently 
before us. This bill is a great improvement over the administration's 
budget which sought to terminate a number of important housing 
programs. Under the leadership of Senators Bond and Mikulski, the 
Appropriations Committee was able to restore cuts contained in the 
administration's budget.
   I first want to underscore the importance of the housing programs 
funded under this bill. These programs meet a critical need in 
communities around this country. Thirty percent of American families 
have housing affordability problems, with over 14 million families 
paying more than half of their income for rent. Many working families 
are unable to afford housing costs and this problem is growing as 
housing costs rise.
   The importance of housing programs is clear. Unfortunately, each 
year we must fight to ensure that these programs are adequately funded. 
While I support the overall bill that we are considering, it does not 
contain adequate funding to meet the needs of low-income people around 
this country. What this bill does, however, is improve upon the 
administration's budget request.
   I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for including language in this 
bill which will help to ensure that thousands of families do not lose 
their homes. Under the administration's budget, the section 8 housing 
voucher program, which assists almost 2 million families across the 
country, would be underfunded by over $1 billion.
   Fortunately, we have reason to believe that HUD has funds from prior 
years to use on voucher renewals, and the bill before us directs HUD to 
use all legally available funds for this purpose. The bill contains 
important provisions that preserve a housing agency's right to lease up 
to its authorized level of vouchers, and to overlease in a given month 
where necessary to achieve full utilization. It is my hope that these 
provisions avert any problems that could be caused by the low level of 
appropriations for this program. However, I fully support language in 
the report directing HUD to seek additional funding through a 
supplemental if necessary.
   The bill before us restores funding for a number of small, but 
important programs that the President's budget sought to terminate. 
This bill continues the Rural Housing and Economic Development program, 
a $25 million program to help address the unique housing needs in rural 
communities, and provides $25 million for brownfields development.
   Fortunately, homeless programs in this bill are provided with $108 
million more than in fiscal year 2003. Over 1 million children will 
experience homelessness at some point this year, and each extra dollar 
for homeless programs is clearly needed to ensure that no child has to 
live on the street.
   While there are many positive aspects to this appropriations bill, 
the public housing program, which houses approximately 1.5 million 
families, is underfunded yet again. each year, the administration has 
cut the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is used for maintenance and 
repairs. There is already a backlog of over $20 billion in needed 
capital repairs, yet, the administration's budget, as well as this 
bill, cuts the Capital Fund by $69 million. Without adequate funding, 
this backlog will continue to grow, threatening the homes of 1.5 
million American families and the Federal Government's substantial 
investment in this housing.

  The Public Housing Operating Fund is level funded; however, even that 
level is not adequate. Under last year's appropriations, HUD was unable 
to provide housing authorities with 100 percent of their needed 
subsidies. In addition to these cuts, in the past few years, housing 
authorities have lost the ability to run youth programs and provide for 
safety patrols as a result of the termination of the Public Housing 
Drug Elimination Program.
  Despite these cuts, public housing agencies, in general, provide 
decent and safe housing for millions of low-income Americans. However, 
there are some public housing developments that do not provide adequate 
housing and contribute to neighborhood blight and deterioration. These 
developments are being transformed through the HOPE VI program, which 
provides grants to demolish and rebuild the deteriorated housing, 
helping to revitalize communities. I can tell you that in Baltimore 
City, the HOPE VI program has been an integral part of our 
revitalization efforts and its effects are felt throughout the city. I 
commend Senators Bond and Mikulski for continuing to fund this 
important program in the face of the administration's efforts to 
terminate HOPE VI.
  The appropriations bill before us also contains a number of changes 
to existing programs. I want to raise a concern about the adoption in 
this bill of language authorizing HUD to move forward with a proposal 
to allow for subprime FHA lending. I do not believe that HUD is 
prepared for such a program. FHA has been an important tool for 
creating first time homebuyers, particularly new minority homebuyers. 
However, in some areas, as the committee report recognizes, FHA has 
been misused so as to lead to neighborhood disinvestment. The potential 
for abuse is too large to allow HUD to move forward with this new 
product. I urge members of the committee to ask HUD to provide a 
detailed plan on how it would implement a subprime FHA product prior to 
empowering HUD to do so.
  I also thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their strong and 
ongoing support of the Asset Control Area, ACA, program. This program 
was established by the appropriators with the goal of turning 
distressed neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates, low homeownership 
rates, and disinvestment into areas of hope and growth. HUD has not 
administered this program effectively, as the Senate report points out. 
The Congress gave HUD considerable flexibility to run this program and 
I strongly agree with the views expressed in the report that HUD has 
not used this flexibility to effectively work with the local 
governments and nonprofits to make this program useful. I agree with my 
colleagues that HUD ought to work with these groups to ensure that they 
possess the necessary tools to invest in and rehabilitate these 
communities.
  Restoring neighborhoods that have fallen victim to disinvestment is 
important; however, it is more cost effective to prevent the 
disinvestment from happening in the first place. That is why we must do 
more to prevent FHA foreclosures in troubled neighborhoods. I applaud 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their continued efforts to find 
ways to stop the foreclosure and flipping problems that plague many 
neighborhoods. I support the requirement contained in the committee 
report that HUD explore ways to protect both these communities and FHA 
homebuyers from bad loans that lead

[[Page S14528]]

to foreclosures. The idea that FHA homebuyers in these specific areas 
would have someone who is responsible for watching out for their 
interests could help reduce flipping, predatory lending, and other 
abusive practices that undermine a community's stability and I thank my 
colleagues for including this in the bill before us.
  Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for ensuring that low-
income families continue to have access to decent and safe housing and 
for helping to address some of the tough issues that affect many 
neighborhoods around the country--vacant homes, predatory lending, and 
revitalization efforts.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what time is it?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is 5:58.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that are left I just 
want to thank my colleague for the spirited way he has tried to move 
this bill. We worked with energy. We had momentum. We had bipartisan 
support. With the 2 minutes left on this bill, I really must express my 
very keen disappointment that we were not allowed at least another hour 
or two to finish. I know the other side has the issues they want to 
raise on Federal judgeships, but this bill stands up for what America 
stands for--veterans, empowerment of communities, and housing. And for 
2 hours, in a show of respect to them, we could finish this bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of 6 o'clock having arrived, the 
majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________