[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25512-25516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
    INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2684, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 2684, an act making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for 
     the year ending September 30, 2000.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to extend my congratulations and 
thanks to both Senators Bond and Mikulski for the conference report 
they are presenting us today. This bill makes constructive strides 
toward improving the housing situation for many poor and low income 
working families.
  Though the Chairman and Ranking Member were under extremely tight 
budgetary constraints, they stood together and worked hard to bring us 
a conference report which restores important funding. They have 
presented us with a strong bill that invests in our nation's low income 
housing stock and continues our efforts to aid struggling communities 
in their redevelopment efforts.
  It is my understanding that this bill moved forward with the support 
of members from both sides of the aisle. I think that the Chairman and 
Ranking Member should be commended for this as well. It is notable when 
legislation receives such even handed, bipartisan support.
  Let me highlight a few of the programs that received increased 
funding in this year's appropriations bill.
  It includes 60,000 new section 8 vouchers to be used in our nation's 
most needy areas. I cannot express how important these new vouchers are 
to addressing the needs of low income Americans. As the economy soars, 
so do rents in many metropolitan areas, making it nearly impossible for 
low income families to afford an apartment. A recent report by the Low 
Income Housing Coalition shows that in no metropolitan area in this 
country can a person working at a minimum wage job forty hours a week 
afford the rent on an average two bedroom apartment.
  There are 5.3 million families that HUD classifies as ``worst case 
housing needs.'' These are families that live in substandard housing or 
pay more than 50% of their income towards rent. Sixty thousand vouchers 
will not help all of these families, but they are an important step in 
the direction of alleviating poverty and will be enthusiastically 
received by the families that benefit from them.
  Also included in this bill is funding for the important mark-to-
market plan that will allow HUD to raise section 8 payments to prevent 
landlords from opting out of the program. In addition, the bill exempts 
the old preservation deals from restructuring, which saves money and 
housing. These two provisions are important to preserving affordable 
housing in our nation's communities.
  This bill includes an additional $50 million to be used for Community 
Development Block Grants, or CDBG. These funds are used to address the 
needs of low income neighborhoods in a holistic manner. They have been 
a resource for renewal and redevelopment in many cities, including 
Baltimore and other Maryland metropolitan areas, since their creation 
in 1974. I am extremely pleased to see an increased investment in the 
hope that CDBG funds can bring needed assistance to many communities 
across America.
  There is also an increase of $55 million to aid the rehabilitation of 
disabled elderly housing programs. That includes provisions to provide 
supportive housing for the elderly, service coordinators in elderly 
facilities, grants to convert elderly housing into assisted living, and 
funds for section 8 assistance to be used for assisted living 
facilities. These levels show that we are committed to our low income 
senior citizens.
  Lastly, I want to highlight the increased commitment to improve the

[[Page 25513]]

public housing projects that remain. Over the last few years many 
politicians have pointed to the failing of public housing, but have not 
provided the necessary funds to improve those developments. Senators 
Bond and Mikulski's bill takes the important and necessary action of 
increasing the public housing operating fund by $320 million. I look 
forward to seeing and hearing about the new and positive improvements 
that will occur as a result of this new funding.
  I will continue in the years to come to press for an increased 
commitment to housing programs that serve our nations' working and low 
income families. Overall, the bill we are presented with today is a 
good bill, with funding for many vital housing programs.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1997, Congress created the Mark-to-
Market program, which was designed to preserve the affordability of 
low-income rental housing and reduce the long-term costs to the Federal 
government. The program is designed to restructure the mortgages for 
HUD insured properties so that they can be supported by market based 
rents.
  Under the Mark-to-Market program, HUD enters into agreements with 
State and local housing finance agencies, as well as a limited number 
of private firms, called Participating Administrative Entities or PAEs. 
The PAEs underwrite and recommend the financial restructuring of these 
properties. Under the agreement, the PAEs determine rent levels, how 
much of a new mortgage the property can support with those rents, and 
how much of a second mortgage HUD will have to hold on the property in 
order to ensure that the restructuring is economically feasible. The 
program also allows the housing finance agencies to provide financing 
for the new first mortgage on the property, even though they have 
inside knowledge of how the agreement is negotiated and structured.
  However, the legislation creating the program recognizes that a 
conflict of interest can exists where the housing finance agency that 
is charged with restructuring the mortgage provides financing for the 
same property. In this situation, HUD is to establish guidelines to 
prevent conflicts of interest. Despite this provision, the legislation 
before us today requires the Secretary to approve financing by a HFA 
under the risk sharing program where the financing meets certain terms 
and conditions. Under this language, it is possible that the housing 
finance agency can gain an unfair advantage over other lenders who want 
to compete to provide financing. This could happen if the housing 
agency has the opportunity to review all submissions for financing and 
structure its own proposal so that no other lender can compete. In 
addition, property owners will have virtually no voice in determining 
who provides a mortgage on their property if they wish to stay in the 
program.
  It is the intent of this bill, in the interest of all parties, that 
all lenders be given the opportunity to compete on a level playing 
field in providing financing. To this end, HUD should exercise its 
authority under the conflict of interest requirement and undertake an 
independent review of the financing proposals. This could be 
accomplished, for example, by having the housing finance agency submit 
all lenders' proposed financing packages to HUD and include a statement 
justifying its position on the recommended financing. This independent 
review will allow the best financing alternative to be used for 
restructuring and will allow lenders to compete on a level playing 
field.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I must vote against this 
conference report. Once again, I have the unpleasant task of speaking 
before my colleagues about unacceptably high funding levels of 
parochial projects throughout this bill. In addition, the conferees 
have included several legislative provisions that were not in either 
bill, nor were these initiatives considered by either the House or 
Senate before they were summarily added to this bill. Therefore, 
despite the fact that the bill contains funding for many purposes which 
I strongly support, I oppose its passage because of these objectionable 
provisions.
  This bill, in total, contains more than $700 million in low-priority, 
wasteful, and unnecessary spending. This is an unacceptable waste of 
the taxpayers' hard-earned money, and I will not be a party to 
Congress' pork-barrel spending habits.
  I very much regret having to oppose a bill that contains critical 
funding for programs for our Nation's veterans.
  I would like to point out that I actively supported adding $3 billion 
for veterans medical health care in this year's appropriations bill. I 
cosponsored several amendments introduced in the Senate, including the 
Wellstone amendment, which would have provided an additional $3 billion 
above the President's VA budget request. Although the Wellstone 
amendment failed, the amendment proposed by Senators Byrd and Bond, 
which I also supported, passed overwhelmingly, increasing the total 
amount of VA funding to $1.7 billion above the President's request.
  I commend the conferees for keeping the $1.7 billion for essential 
health care programs for veterans in the conference report. This 
represents the largest annual increase since the Department of Veterans 
Affairs was created. Although I sincerely welcome this increase, I will 
continue to do all in my power to find additional money in the budget 
to fund veterans health care at an amount that will guarantee a higher, 
sustainable level of quality health care for all veterans.
  It is important to note that the level of earmarks and set-asides in 
the Veterans Affairs section of this conference report is down from 
previous years. The total value of specific earmarks in the Veterans 
Affairs section of the VA-HUD conference report is $31.3 million, about 
one third of the amount that was inserted in this section of the 
Senate- approved VA-HUD appropriations funding measure.
  Certain provisions in this section, however, illustrate that Congress 
still does not have its priorities in order. For example, it is 
disturbing to me and many other Senators who stood on the floor of this 
body to fight for additional funding for veterans benefits to learn 
that the conferees have agreed to direct some of the critical dollars 
from veterans health care to fund wasteful projects like the 
``mothballing'' of four historic buildings in Dayton, Ohio.
  There are other notable examples of unnecessary items included in the 
conference report. An especially troublesome expense, neither budgeted 
for nor requested by the Administration for the past eight years, is a 
provision that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue 
the eight-year-old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West 
Virginia VAMC and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia 
University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained 
a plus-up of $2 million to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the 
Administration's line-item veto list--even the Administration concluded 
that this was truly wasteful.
  Like the transportation and military construction funding bills, the 
VA-HUD funding bill also includes many construction project additions 
to the President's budget request. For example, the VA-HUD 
appropriations conference report adds $1 million for the advance 
planning and design of the Lebanon VAMC renovation of patient care 
units and other enhancements for extended care programs. An additional 
$500,000 was provided for planning national cemeteries in Atlanta, 
Georgia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Miami, Florida; and Sacramento, 
California. Although all of these areas likely are deserving of 
veterans cemeteries, I just wonder how many other national cemetery 
projects in other states were leapfrogged to ensure that these states 
received the VA's highest priority. This bill directs VA to award a 
contract for design, architectural, and engineering services in this 
month for a new National Cemetery in Lawton (Oklahoma City/Fort Sill), 
Oklahoma and also directs the President's fiscal year 2001 budget to 
include construction funds for a new National Cemetery in Oklahoma. 
This is an amazing feat, since this appropriations bill is supposed to 
provide single-year appropriations, yet is attempting to direct next 
year's funding, too.

[[Page 25514]]

  The bill also directs the VA to reprogram $11.5 million originally 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to renovate Building 9 at the VAMC in 
Waco, Texas, to instead be used for renovation and construction of a 
joint venture cardiovascular institute at the Olin E. Teague VAMC in 
Temple, Texas. This unusual procedure is outside of the established 
reprogramming process--unfortunately, it sends the message to the VA 
that the money can be reprogrammed ``as long as the money stays in 
Texas.''
  Other VA construction projects--outside the President's original 
budget request--include: $3.9 million to convert unfinished space into 
research laboratories at the ambulatory care addition of the Harry S. 
Truman VAMC in Columbia, Missouri; $3 million for renovations of the 
research building at the Bronx VAMC in Bronx, New York (next door to 
the prestigious Mount Sinai Hospital); and $500,000 for preparation of 
the satellite site to expand the National Cemetery at Salisbury, North 
Carolina. Some final egregious examples of unrequested, additional 
spending include the following: the VA is directed to provide $1 
million to the National Technology Transfer Center to establish a pilot 
program to assess, market, and license medical technologies researched 
in VA facilities; $750,000 is provided to continue the VA's 
participation with the Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network; and 
Marshall County, Mississippi, Hardin County Tennessee and Letcher 
County, Kentucky were inserted ahead of other remote areas to become 
federally funded Community Health Care Centers to provide outpatient 
primary and preventive health care services to veterans in their home 
communities. These areas appear to have been added ahead of higher 
priority communities because their interests were well-represented in 
the Appropriations Conference.
  I am encouraged by the increase in veterans health care funding, and 
if this title of the bill had been separately presented to the Senate, 
I would have wholeheartedly supported it, despite the earmarks and set-
asides it contains.
  This title of the bill contains the funding for many programs vital 
in meeting the housing needs of our nation and for the revitalization 
and development of our communities. Many of the programs administered 
by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, assist low-
income families obtain affordable housing, combat discrimination in the 
housing market, assist in rehabilitating neighborhoods and help our 
nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged--have 
access to safe and affordable housing.
  When the Senate debated this bill, I highlighted for my colleagues 
numerous funding earmarks for specific housing proposals and set asides 
contained in the Senate version of this bill. Unfortunately, I find 
myself coming to the floor today to again highlight the numerous 
budgetary violations which remain or were added to this conference 
report. The list of projects which received priority billing is quite 
long but I will highlight a few of the more egregious violations.
  $3,000,000,000 to Olympic Regional Development Authority, New York 
for upgrades at Mt. Van Hoevenberg Sports Complex.
  New language inserted in conference providing $15,000,000 for urban 
empowerment zones.
  $1,000,000 to the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for housing 
infrastructure improvements for the Olympics and Paraolympics.
  $1,000,000 to Syracuse University in New York for rehabilitation and 
community redevelopment of the Marshall Street Area.
  Directive language to the Secretary requiring the continuation of 
providing interest reduction payment in accordance with the existing 
authorization schedule for Darlinton Manor Apartments, 100-Unit project 
located at 606 North 5th Street, Bozeman, Montana, which will continue 
as affordable housing pursuant to a use agreement with the state of 
Montana.
  In addition to the numerous budgetary violations which this report 
contains, I am also concerned about the legislative initiatives which 
have suddenly appeared during conference which were not contained in 
the Senate or House appropriation bills. The intent of this legislative 
language is certainly laudable--providing safe, quality and affordable 
housing for seniors and the disabled is and must remain a priority for 
our nation. However, we cannot and should not be passing comprehensive 
legislation which makes substantial changes to the housing system 
without allowing both chambers of Congress to debate and provide 
valuable input to such an important proposal. Certainly, an issue as 
important as meeting the housing needs of our most vulnerable 
population, deserves thoughtful deliberation and careful review through 
the established legislative process and should not be attached at the 
last moment to a funding conference report. This is not the manner in 
which we should be implementing meaningful reform intended to benefit 
the citizens of our nation.
  After reviewing the sections funding the Environmental Protection 
Agency, I find that the conferees continued to run rampant in their 
pork-barrelling in this section of the bill. There are few areas in 
this final conference report that clearly indicate the level of 
parochial actions than those targeted in EPA's budget.
  Just last month, the Senate passed a bill providing funding for 
environmental protection programs, which included $207 million in 
unrequested and low-priority earmarks. However, the number of earmarks 
has seriously inflated in the conference report by $73 million to a new 
grand pork total of $280 million.
  I understand that we have critical needs around our country dealing 
with leaking underground storage tanks, water and wastewater 
infrastructure, air pollution, pesticide abatement, and other important 
environmental issues. Many of the projects identified in this 
conference report are no doubt critical to many communities who are 
forced to deal with these serious environmental threats.
  I do not question their merit at all. I do question the process by 
which the appropriators have made decisions that prioritize certain 
projects over many others across our nation in such a blatant and 
provincial manner. For example, $1 million is earmarked for the Animal 
Waste Management Consortium that will benefit the University of 
Missouri, Iowa State University, North Carolina State University, 
Michigan State University, Oklahoma State University, and Purdue 
University to deal with animal waste management. Again, this may very 
well be important, but there is little background provided in the 
report to explain the national priority interest of earmarking a 
million dollars to deal with animal waste management in six specific 
states.
  EPA has an established process by which the agency administers grant 
and loan programs that are supposed to be awarded on a competitive and 
priority basis. However, these guidelines are simply thrown out the 
window when the conferees direct the agency through earmarks and 
directive language to give priority consideration to various states and 
projects rather than undergoing a competitive review. Despite stated 
budget constraints, the conferees found a way to include an additional 
$68 million more in wastewater infrastructure funding than previously 
agreed to by both houses for locale-specific earmarks.
  I know first-hand that many of my constituents in Arizona have a 
great need to improve their water and wastewater systems, but they will 
be forced to wait in line while other projects are given priority 
treatment through this conference report.
  Clearly, no title of the bill was left unsullied by pork-barrel 
spending. For the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there is 
$10 million available to the State of California for pilot projects to 
demonstrate seismic retrofit technology. For the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA), this Report also includes earmarks of 
money for locality-specific projects such as $3 million for the Adler 
Planetarium in Chicago, Illinois,

[[Page 25515]]

$14 million for infrastructure needs at the University of Missouri, 
Columbia, and $10 million for the Regional Application Center in Cayuga 
County, New York. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF), 
there is $60 million for the Plant Genome Research Program. When will 
this outrageous pork-barrel spending stop?
  The conferees have also included legislative initiatives that were 
clearly out of scope of the conference. The bill includes a general 
provision authorizing NASA to carry out a new program to demonstrate 
the commercial feasibility and economic viability of private business 
operations involved in the International Space Station. This provision 
has not had the benefit of consideration in any hearings or public and 
private industry discussions. It would seem logical for private sector 
views to be considered if we hope to attract them to this venture.
  The bill also shifts the way NASA will operate both the space station 
and the space shuttle program. We have already heard from some small 
companies that this program will put NASA and use of the shuttle for 
commercial payloads in direct competition. We do not want to stifle the 
creativity and ingenuity of these small launch companies, nor should we 
rely upon NASA to provide all the answers to our space problems, 
especially in the area of commercialization of space. I think NASA has 
enough problems with the space station, including the fact that it is 
two years behind schedule and $9 billion over budget.
  Finally, the conferees have included two provisions related to 
commercial space launch indemnification extensions and insurance and 
indemnification for experimental vehicles. Neither of these provisions 
were included in either of the appropriations bills and they clearly 
fall within the jurisdiction of the appropriate authorizing committees.
  The appropriators should abide by the rules and procedures of the 
Senate and refrain from usurping the power of the authorizing 
committees, in fact, the rest of the Senate, by including these 
legislative provisions in a conference report written behind closed 
doors.
  I am gravely disappointed that I am unable to vote for this 
conference report. This measure contains funding for many critical 
programs which help provide important resources to our communities. It 
includes vitally important funding to fulfill our obligation to our 
nation's veterans, those who fought for the peace and security we enjoy 
today. Included in this bill is funding for section 202 housing which I 
know most, if not all, of my colleagues would agree helps meet the 
needs of America's seniors by ensuring they have homes which are safe, 
affordable and accommodates the demands of aging. Also included is 
valuable funding for section 811 which helps disabled individuals have 
an opportunity to live independently as part of a community in quality 
and reasonably priced homes.
  Because of the egregious amount of pork-barrel spending in this bill 
and the addition of legislative provisions clearly outside the scope of 
the conference, I must oppose its passage. I regret doing so because of 
the many important and worthy programs included in the conference 
agreement, but I cannot endorse the continued waste of taxpayer dollars 
on special-interest programs, nor can I acquiesce in bypassing the 
normal authorizing process for legislative initiatives.
  Mr, President, the full list of the objectional provisions is on my 
Senate website.


                high production volume chemical testing

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to confirm my 
understanding with Chairman Bond regarding the conference report 
concerning the HPV chemical testing program. My understanding regarding 
the ``agreement'' is that it is actually a letter from EPA asking 
participants in the challenge program to make certain changes, and not 
in fact an ``agreement'' to do so. Is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And is it also correct that by using the word 
``consistent,'' the conferees did not intend or imply that the test 
rule must be the exact equivalent of the voluntary part of the program 
in terms of the actual testing requirements?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.


                       warrior hotel edi project

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understood that the conference report 
was supposed to contain the following language concerning an economic 
development initiative item approved in the FY 99 VA-HUD Appropriations 
measure: ``The description of the Warrior Hotel EDI project in the FY 
99 HUD-VA Appropriations report is modified to the following: $1 
million for the restoration of the Warrior Hotel in Sioux City, IA, to 
be used for adult day care and other services or uses consistent with 
the revitalization of the Central Business District''. Unfortunately, 
this language was inadvertently left out of the report.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Iowa is correct, the language was 
inadvertently left out of the FY 2000 conference report and it was our 
intention to have the language included.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the remarks of Chairman Bond and Senator 
Harkin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I offer my strong support for the fiscal 
year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report and am pleased to 
join my Senate colleagues in passing this important piece of 
legislation today. Rural America, and my state of South Dakota, is in 
the midst of an affordable housing shortage crisis. According to 
reports, 5.3 million Americans pay more then 50 percent in their annual 
income to rent or living in substandard conditions. This is 
unacceptable for a society as wealthy as ours, and we must make real 
progress now to improve housing conditions for all Americans.
  Although I supported the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill on the Senate 
floor last month, I was disappointed that the bill failed to provide 
additional Section 8 rental assistance for the thousands of American 
families that desperately need it. Additional Section 8 rental 
assistance, like that proposed by the President, would have allowed 321 
families in South Dakota to receive Section 8 vouchers to help them 
afford adequate housing. In addition, I objected to the elimination of 
the Community Builders program in the original bill. In South Dakota, 
Community Builders have worked with local governments and housing 
authorities to provide needed rental assistance statewide.
  I joined my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Banking and Housing 
Committee in writing to Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski, 
asking them to fund additional Section 8 vouchers and restore the 
Community Builders program during their negotiations with conferees 
from the House of Representatives. I am pleased that Chairman Bond and 
Ranking Member Mikulski were able to secure funding for an additional 
60,000 Section 8 vouchers. The VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report 
also reiterates the need for Community Builders in HUD to help bring 
important HUD programs to an increasing number of Americans.
  This legislation will help address the affordable housing shortage in 
my state of South Dakota. Currently, South Dakota families in need of 
housing assistance spend an average of 9 months on a waiting list for 
current Section 8 vouchers. While not helping all of those in need, the 
additional Section 8 vouchers contained in the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Conference Report will begin to shorten the time it takes for low-
income families to receive much needed assistance.
  Community Builders will also be able to continue to work with South 
Dakota communities to increase access for affordable housing. In the 
past, Community Builders worked with the Northeastern Council of 
Governments in South Dakota to spread information to several 
northeastern counties on the services that HUD provides, and how to 
access these services. Community Builders have facilitated FHA loans 
for the construction of affordable homes in Rapid City, while also 
helping the

[[Page 25516]]

Sioux Empire Housing Partnership become a HUD-approved housing 
counseling agency. The Community Builder program has begun to address 
the housing needs in historically underserved communities, including 
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Community Builders have enabled 
tribal leaders to better utilize HUD's programs to the benefit of one 
of the most poor populations in the nation.
  I would like to thank Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski for 
improving the VA-HUD Appropriations bill despite the strict budget 
constraints the committee faced. I believe it is a wise investment in 
our country's future when we ensure that our working families have 
adequate housing, and I look forward to continue working with my 
colleagues to find ways to help South Dakota families and families 
across the nation address their housing needs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the conference agreement on 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the departments of Veterans 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and other independent agencies.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their hard work and 
commitment to providing adequate health care for our veterans and 
housing for our citizens.
  The conference agreement provides $19 billion for veterans health 
care, $1.7 billion more than the President requested. I am pleased that 
Congress has made a commitment to take care of our veterans. I do wish 
that we had agreed to Senator Wellstone's amendment to provide $20.3 
billion, but I believe that our nation's veterans will be cared for 
under this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased that housing needs will also be 
addressed with this legislation. First, the agreement provides a much 
needed 60,000 additional Section 8 vouchers. A far greater need for 
vouchers exists in California, let alone across the nation. But this is 
a much acknowledged vital step in the right direction towards 
addressing the housing needs for the poorest of Americans. Second, 
public housing, Housing for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and homeless 
assistance programs will all experience an increase in funding. Third, 
the agreement also provides additional tools for preserving existing 
affordable housing. Specifically, HUD will be provided with significant 
new legal authority to address the Section 8 ``opt-out'' crisis--
including longer contract renewal terms. Last, the agreement exhibits 
strong support for HUD's Community Builder program. This program has 
been a key component of HUD's reinvention efforts and is working. I 
received numerous letters from elected officials and nonprofit 
organizations throughout California expressing support for the 
Community Builder program and am grateful that the conference committee 
agreed to reinstate earlier cuts to the program.
  The conference agreement also addresses other key areas, such as the 
environment and space exploration and research. The Environmental 
Protection Agency will receive $7.59 billion to carry out its important 
functions. The National Aeronautical and Space Administration is funded 
at $13.65 billion. I am pleased that the conferees agreed to restore 
the drastic cuts in NASA programs that were in the House version of the 
bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays on the VA-HUD 
appropriations conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
adoption of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent because of family illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Bayh
     Feingold
     Kyl
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Kennedy
       
  The conference report 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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________