[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15785-15834]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 2620, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2620) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Mikulski/Bond amendment No. 1214, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am waiting for the amendment 
to arrive. I seek counsel of the manager of the bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we know the direction in which the 
Senator from Florida wants to go. He is deeply concerned about arsenic-
treated wood. What he is evaluating, based on our advice, is whether he 
wants to offer something that is a mandate or pursue a more prudent 
direction in terms of a study. I believe his staff is coming over with 
the amendment.
  The Senator has a lot of concerns about this. I recommend he state 
now what those concerns are, and when staff gets here we can step back 
and he can offer his amendment. I encourage the more prudent course; 
however, the Senator is within his rights. Either way, we look forward 
to hearing the Senator's arguments.
  Also, I note the cooperation of my colleague, Senator Bond, that we 
could start at 9:30 and be ready to move forward. He is missing a very 
important Republican caucus and I thank him for his cooperation. I know 
President Bush and the Vice President are here. In his commitment, 
particularly to moving this bill and the funding for veterans and other 
compelling needs, he was willing to be gracious enough to work with the 
Democratic leadership and meet earlier in the day. I publicly thank 
him.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to my colleague from 
Maryland. Obviously, this is the most important thing we have to do. I 
share Senator Mikulski's view we should begin discussion of this 
serious concern of the Senator from Florida. We look forward to working 
with the Senator. I thank the Chair and the manager on the Democratic 
side, who has a very good idea. Normally, when she has a good idea, it 
is much more successful than some of the other approaches that might be 
taken. I offer that as a humble suggestion.

[[Page 15786]]


  Ms. MIKULSKI. I note the Senator from Florida is reviewing his 
materials with his staff. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1228 to Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk an 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1228.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ARSENIC IN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Health and Human Services has 
     determined that arsenic is a known carcinogen, and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency has classified chromated 
     copper arsenate (CCA), which is 22 percent arsenic, as a 
     ``restricted use chemical.
       (2) CCA is often used as a preservative in pressure-treated 
     wood, and CCA-treated wood is widely used in constructing 
     playground equipment frequented by children.
       (3) In 2001, many communities in Florida and elsewhere have 
     temporarily or permanently closed playgrounds in response to 
     elevated levels of arsenic in soil surrounding CCA-treated 
     wood playground equipment.
       (4) The State of Florida recently announced that its own 
     wood-treatment plant would cease using arsenic as a 
     preservative.
       (5) PlayNation Play Systems, which manufactures playground 
     equipment, announced in June 2001 that it would no longer use 
     CCA as a preservative in its playground products.
       (6) In May 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     announced that it would expedite its ongoing review of the 
     health risks facing children playing near CCA-treated wood 
     playground equipment, and produce its findings in June 2001. 
     The EPA later postponed the release of its risk assessment 
     until the end of the summer of 2001, and announced that its 
     risk assessment would be reviewed by a Scientific Advisory 
     Panel in October 2001.
       (7) The EPA also plans to expedite its risk assessment 
     regarding the re-registering of arsenic as a pesticide by 
     accelerating its release from 2001 to 2003.
       (8) The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has the 
     authority to ban hazardous and dangerous products, announced 
     in June 2001 that it would consider a petition seeking the 
     banning of CCA-treated wood from all playground equipment.
       (9) Many viable alternatives to CCA-treated wood exist, 
     including cedar, plastic products, aluminum, and treated wood 
     without CCA. These products, alone or in combination, can 
     fully replace CCA-treated wood in playground equipment.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.It is the Sense of the Senate that 
     the potential health and safety risks to children playing on 
     and around CCA-treated wood playground equipment is a matter 
     of Branch, state and local governments, affected industries, 
     and parents.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission, shall submit a report to Congress which 
     shall include--
       (1) the Environmental Protection Agency's most up-to-date 
     understanding of the potential health and safety risks to 
     children playing on and around CCA-treated wood playground 
     equipment;
       (2) the Environment Protection Agency's current 
     recommendations to state and local governments about the 
     continue use of CCA-treated wood playground equipment; and
       (3) an assessment of whether consumers considering 
     purchases of CCA-treated wood playground equipment are 
     adequately informed concerning the health effects associated 
     with arsenic.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, I thank her and 
the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member, for giving me the 
opportunity to offer this amendment having to do with arsenic-treated 
wood. This problem has manifested itself, particularly in Florida 
recently, because of arsenic leaching from treated wood on playground 
equipment and then flowing into the soil. The health departments have 
analyzed the soil and found the level of arsenic at a level to create 
concern about the danger to the children. Thus, local governments have 
been reaching out to the federal government, wondering whether they 
should close their playgrounds.
  We have asked EPA, the appropriate federal agency, to conduct the 
study. They say it is underway. Much to my horror, as my constituency 
of Florida is rising up in arms, wanting to know is this a danger or 
not, EPA is on a schedule to do a study not to be completed until 2003.
  I say to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, this 
has nothing to do with partisan politics. This has to do with safety 
standards and EPA doing a study. The question is: When are they going 
to finish?
  We urged the EPA to accelerate this study because of the conundrum 
confronting local government in deciding whether to keep playgrounds 
closed or whether to close other playgrounds that are now open. They 
want some direction.
  We are talking about arsenic. It is a poison. We talked about it last 
night. We adopted the Boxer-Nelson amendment that will require the EPA 
to take certain standards into consideration when setting the level of 
arsenic in our drinking water.
  What alarms so many of us, and brought about the Boxer-Nelson 
amendment last night, was that the EPA--which had announced the 
deadline when they were supposed to come forth imposing this reduced 
amount of arsenic in drinking water--announced that they were suddenly 
pushing that off, thus the reason for the amendment having to do with 
arsenic in drinking water, which passed overwhelmingly last night.
  Now I bring to the Senate for discussion, and hopefully adoption, an 
amendment that will require the EPA to accelerate this study. 
Initially, when we had voiced our concern because of the playground 
situation in Florida, EPA had said it was going to complete its study 
by June. Then they delayed, and said it would be sometime in the fall. 
Mind you, this is after we had pushed them pretty hard, because their 
study was not going to be completed until 2003.
  This amendment requires them to complete this study within 30 days of 
enactment of this bill, so we can give some certainty as to the 
scientific conclusions. Is the arsenic in the treated lumber leaching 
into the playground soil? Is this a sufficient hazard that the city 
governments and the county governments ought to be closing those 
playgrounds, or is it at such a level that, with a change in this or 
that--in the construction, in the wood--that we could eliminate this 
potential hazard to our children?
  I bring to the Senate today a safety issue. Let me recap. What I am 
asking our colleagues to do is join me in our quest to determine if 
arsenic-treated playground wood is hazardous to our children. That 
treated wood is everywhere. It is in our playground equipment. It is in 
picnic tables. It is in desks. It is in fences. Mr. President, 98 
percent of outdoor wood sold in the United States today is treated with 
CCA, chromated copper arsenate.
  CCA is an insecticide that is 22 percent arsenic. As I stated, in our 
State and in other parts of the country, public playgrounds have been 
closed or closely examined and are due to be closed because of the 
potential health hazards that may be posed by high concentrations of 
arsenic found in the soil in and around the arsenic-treated wood 
playground equipment.
  There are communities all across Florida: Gainesville, Tarpon 
Springs, Tampa, Port Orange, Ormond Beach, Deland, Deltona, Clermont, 
Miami, whose local governments have shut down their parks and are 
looking to the federal government, the EPA, for guidance as to whether 
or not those parks are safe.
  Some communities, such as the one in Cambridge, MA, have already 
decided to replace all of their playground and park equipment treated 
with arsenic because many consumer and

[[Page 15787]]

health groups have urged the State of Massachusetts to ban arsenic-
treated wood. Imagine the horror of a parent whose child played in the 
soil on a playground with equipment treated with arsenic, and that 
playground was later closed down or torn down due to the high 
concentrations of arsenic in the soil of that playground.
  This amendment is designed to speed the process so the EPA will give 
us an answer because parents need to know whether their children are 
playing on or around equipment that poses a health hazard.
  At the beginning of this year when we first asked the EPA if 
chromated copper arsenate, CCA--that is arsenic-treated wood--was safe, 
they said they would know in 2003, when they completed a reregistration 
of CCA as a pesticide. As I said earlier, we said that was not good 
enough. So the EPA revised its timetable and said they would complete 
their reassessment of the arsenic-treated wood by 2002. They said they 
would tell us if the arsenic-treated wood playground equipment is safe. 
Then they changed that to by June of 2001. The EPA missed its own June 
deadline. They now say they will complete a risk assessment regarding 
children and arsenic-treated wood at the end of this summer--on into 
the fall. The EPA also plans to assemble a scientific advisory panel in 
October of 2001 to review the playground data.
  Meantime the Consumer Product Safety Commission has agreed to conduct 
a review of the safety of CCA-treated wood for use in playground 
equipment. As my colleagues know, the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission has the authority to immediately ban CCA-treated wood for 
use in children's playground equipment if it finds that CCA-treated 
wood poses an imminent and immediate risk to children.
  I am heartened but I am not satisfied with all these announcements 
because that is all they are: announcements, meaningless declarations, 
while the American people still do not know if arsenic-treated wood 
playground equipment is safe.
  Earlier, I introduced S. 877 that requires the EPA to complete a risk 
assessment of the hazards to children within a date certain and to 
require mandatory labels on each piece of arsenic-treated wood. The 
wood-preserving industry, in conjunction with EPA, recently committed 
to a voluntary labeling program.
  I personally think mandatory labeling is necessary to ensure the 
American people are properly informed. But that fight is for another 
day. We know arsenic is classified by the EPA and the World Health 
Organization as a known human carcinogen.
  In 1999, the National Research Council concluded that there was an 
indisputable link between arsenic and skin- bladder- and lung cancer. A 
University of Florida researcher commissioned by the Florida EPA 
recently declared that simply touching arsenic-treated wood could be a 
health risk for children. And a research team from the Connecticut 
Agricultural Experiment Station found that arsenic is readily available 
on the surface of CCA-treated wood. The Environmental Working Group has 
concluded from reviewing the Connecticut study and others that 
significant quantities of arsenic can be dislodged from the surface of 
CCA-treated wood and that the cancer risk could be as great as 1 in 
1,000. Therefore, the Environmental Working Group is seeking a ban of 
the substance.
  For all these reasons, we need the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to give the American people 
the guidance they deserve.
  This amendment stresses the sense of the Senate that the potential 
health risk to children playing on and around CCA-treated wood and 
playground equipment is a matter of great importance. This amendment 
says the EPA must submit a report to Congress within 30 days of 
enactment, detailing the most up-to-date understanding of the health 
and safety risk to children playing on and around CCA-treated wood 
playground equipment. It seeks the EPA's current recommendations to 
state and local governments about the continued use of CCA-treated wood 
playground equipment.
  It mandates that within 30 days--no more delays. This amendment would 
require within 30 days of the enactment that the EPA come forth with 
their recommendations so the people of America will know what to do 
about their children playing on these playgrounds.
  Those are my remarks in offering the amendment.
  Does the chairman of the committee have any particular inquiry she 
would like to make at this point?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No. I wish to make some comments.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our colleague from Florida raises some 
very valid concerns. All of us want to ensure that our playgrounds, our 
back decks, and our picnic tables and anything with wood outside are 
not harmful to our children's health. If it is harmful to our children, 
it will be harmful to special needs populations such as the elderly. Of 
course, there is playground equipment that has a particular risk 
associated with it.
  The issue of arsenic in the ground and around playgrounds has also 
raised considerable attention. I acknowledge the validity of the 
Senator's concerns. I also want to acknowledge his frustration that the 
bureaucracy has not rigorously stood sentry over their voluntary effort 
and also that they have been a little slow in moving on an evaluation 
of this matter.
  This is an issue of great concern to this committee. In fact, the 
issue is in two agencies--the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission. The good news is you have two agencies looking at it. The 
bad news often is getting them to work together and move it, which 
requires bilateral treaty negotiation.
  We think the Senator's amendment kind of moves it because that is 
what his amendment is. He doesn't take the position on the outcome. He 
doesn't come in with a muscular amendment to mandate without an 
evaluation. We think the Nelson approach is very prudent. He wants to 
have the EPA study, but at the same time he doesn't want the study to 
be a career in and of itself.
  We need to know. The kids need to know. The parents need to know. 
Guess what. The wood industry needs to know. They have been cooperating 
with the EPA in a voluntary way for a voluntary program.
  But to give you an idea of the complexity, the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission has jurisdiction over treated wood and any risk that 
might come from wood; the EPA has jurisdiction over the chemicals used 
to treat wood. One has jurisdiction over the chemicals and the other 
has jurisdiction over the wood. Now we are trying to get them to work 
together to come up quickly with an evaluation on treated wood.
  Both agencies have said they are working to ensure that wood-treated 
products are safe. The EPA has a voluntary labeling program with which 
the forestry industry has cooperated, but an evaluation shows that it 
has some very significant flaws. They say they are now working to 
enhance the program. But, again, I think we need to push them along to 
come up with the report that we need.
  Senator Nelson's amendment requires EPA, in consultation with the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to report to Congress on health and 
safety risks of chemically-treated wood and to recommend how consumers 
and State and local governments can be better informed about the 
potential health risks. And I am sure the forest industry wants to know 
that. They want to be good citizens. This is one of the important by-
products.
  In early July, the Agency completed its review of the American Wood 
Preservers Institute proposal to strengthen information available to 
the consumer. The EPA says they are going to hold a public hearing of a 
scientific advisory board during the week of October 2 to give peer 
review on the Agency's hazardous assessment methodologies for 
calculating potential exposure in playgrounds.

[[Page 15788]]

  The Senator's amendment says 30 days within enactment; Is that 
correct?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Within enactment, or 30 days of the fiscal year?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Enactment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That pretty much takes us into October and November.
  We think that is a strong message to EPA to move this process along. 
We think it is important they hold public hearings. We think it is 
important that they consult with their scientific advisory board. But 
we also would like them to operate within a 30-day framework to move 
this issue along.
  I thank the Senator. Rather than coming in saying legislate, mandate, 
and regulate, let's get the report. Then we can identify the most 
prudent way to protect consumers and to provide important information 
for the industry.
  I support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida raises a valid 
concern. We certainly want to ensure that our playgrounds, boardwalks, 
and backyard decks are not harmful to our children's health, our 
grandparents' health, or to our neighbors' health.
  The issue of arsenic in the ground around playgrounds receives 
considerable attention, as has already been indicated. Let me be more 
specific. This issue is of great concern to two agencies funded in this 
bill, both the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  For the information of all my colleagues, the CPSC has jurisdiction 
over treated-wood products and any risks that might come from them when 
the wood products are used for playground sets and decks; the EPA has 
jurisdiction over the chemicals used to treat the wood. These chemicals 
are used to prevent the wood in our decks, boardwalks, and playground 
sets from rotting and therefore becoming unstable and unsafe. Both 
agencies have been working to ensure that treated-wood products are 
safe. I can appreciate the frustration the Senator from Florida feels 
about the delay in seeing a result to those studies.
  EPA currently oversees a voluntary labeling program so that consumers 
who purchase treated-wood products are made aware of the potential 
risks from the chemicals. Admittedly, the program can be more 
effective. EPA has learned that the program has flaws and is now 
working to improve that program. By this fall, every piece of 
chemically treated wood will be labeled and there will be better 
information made available to the public.
  I sympathize with Senator Nelson on the media attention in his State 
on wood products treated with chromated copper arsenic, or CCA. As I 
said, EPA has already established a voluntary labeling program. There 
has been extensive pressure on wood preserver manufacturers to ensure 
voluntary compliance. Caution labels with EPA-approved wording will be 
affixed to CCA-treated lumber within 90 days, and information signs 
will appear in lumber stores and home centers in about 30 days.
  For the information of my colleagues and those who might be watching, 
there is a Web site, www.ccasafetyinfo.com, and a toll-free number, 
800-282-0600, to answer consumer questions in both English and Spanish.
  The products, while they may sound bad, have previously been approved 
by EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have been in 
use for over 70 years. As far as we are aware, no scientifically peer 
reviewed medical or science journal has ever documented harm to anyone 
from the regular use of CCA-treated wood. In spite of this, EPA and the 
CPSC are taking steps to put any doubt to rest by conducting further 
reviews specifically on the risk to children.
  As the manager of the bill, the chair of the subcommittee, has 
indicated, there is to be peer-reviewed scientific discussion early in 
October, depending upon when this bill gets enacted. Thirty days may or 
may not cover it. But it is clear that we will adopt it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that would make sure we 
do not wait until 2003 to get the results. We do not yet know when the 
scientific information can be ready, but whether it is 30 days or 45 
days or 60 days, I am confident it will, and must, be during this 
calendar year, and sooner rather than later.
  Sometimes you can set any deadline you want, but if you do not have 
the scientific reviews, if they physically cannot get in, you cannot 
come up with the study. I am sure EPA will do the study. This 
amendment, that I trust will be adopted overwhelmingly, will send a 
clear signal to them that they must put all due speed behind it and get 
this study completed as quickly as humanly possible.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the 
Senator for framing it in a way that makes good sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Florida. This is an issue that he brought 
to my attention some months ago following the initial debate over the 
arsenic standard. We had a good debate last night, with a very strong 
vote, to ensure that we get the right kind of standard as soon as 
possible so people will know what to expect from their drinking water. 
We also made it very clear that we want to help communities be able to 
meet these standards.
  It should not be an unfunded mandate to take care of your health. We 
ought to have the best scientific information, made available through 
the studies that are done or commissioned, to provide the help that 
communities need to be able to protect themselves, particularly their 
children.
  Senator Nelson came upon a problem I never knew existed. I cannot 
tell you how many times I have been around playground equipment that is 
wooden. I always thought it was really attractive. It is the kind I 
preferred. It is what I bought for my own daughter. It certainly never 
crossed my mind that--for good reasons, to prevent pest and termite 
infestations--manufacturers would want to treat that wood. I never 
thought about it.
  But what Senator Nelson has determined--and I applaud him for this 
because it became an issue in Florida, and he brought it to our 
attention--is that something called CCA, chromated copper arsenic, is 
widely used as a preservative in pressure-treated wood, including 
playground equipment. This CCA is 22 percent arsenic.
  I remember when I used to practice law, which seems as if it was a 
very long time ago, I had a case that involved treated wood that was 
treated at a plant in Tennessee. I went to visit it. The wood was 
treated with all kinds of chemicals, but it was used for telephone 
poles; it was used for railroad tracks; it was not used in playground 
equipment.
  What Senator Nelson has learned is that, through rain and natural 
deterioration, the arsenic that is in this compound, CCA, to treat this 
wood, can leach into the ground and can even come off on one's hands. 
You think about all those little hands and all those little mouths and 
those little bodies kind of rolling around this playground equipment.
  I really commend the Senator for bringing this problem to our 
attention. Because of his hard work, the EPA and the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission are conducting reviews of the health and safety risks 
to children playing on and around CCA-treated wooden playground 
equipment.
  I believe the Senator's amendment is necessary because, again, it 
sets a deadline. Otherwise, folks can just keep studying and talking 
and avoiding making a decision. But he is trying to put some teeth into 
this appropriations bill, which I commend and support because just the 
other day I had a friend of mine say she heard Senator Nelson speak on 
this issue in relation to playground equipment. She was just about 
ready to buy some playground equipment for her grandchildren. She does 
not know whether to buy it or not. She

[[Page 15789]]

does not know whether it is safe or unsafe.
  If you live in a State that gets as much rain as the good Senator's 
State of Florida, you have to be even more worried. If it is as humid 
as it is down there, you have to be more worried.
  We do not want to make a decision that is not scientifically based, 
so we need to get these science studies done and the EPA and the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission making their decision. They have 
asked for public comment. But we should pass this Nelson amendment 
because it really directs the EPA to report to Congress as soon as 
possible--which is, in effect, a report to the public--so my friend can 
decide whether or not she is going to buy wooden playground equipment 
or plastic or steel, or whatever choice she is going to make.
  I commend the Senator for understanding this is an issue that is not 
one of these abstract issues that only concerns somebody sitting in 
some ivory tower somewhere. This is an issue that concerns every mother 
and father who takes their child to play at a playground or anybody who 
is thinking about buying equipment for their backyard.
  We need to look to a nonpartisan, independent source such as the 
scientists who will examine this issue, find out whether this CCA is or 
is not a health hazard, or whether it can be fixed, and if it can, so 
it can be a problem that can be prevented. This is one of those public 
service issues to which I really think we owe the people of this 
country an answer; otherwise, we may be unfairly tarring this industry. 
We may be preventing people from buying playground equipment that is 
totally safe. We don't know. We just know this CCA has arsenic in it. 
We need to get to the bottom of whether that is harmful or not.
  I commend the Senator for his approach. I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will support this amendment so we can get an answer 
sooner instead of later.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I might have been given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think the statement of all of our 
colleagues points out why we really have to move this study along. I 
believe the committee is prepared to accept the Nelson amendment. As we 
move to conference, we also want to consult EPA about how long it will 
take them to collect their information.
  Here is where we are. EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
are in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. We take our mandated 
reports to agencies very seriously because then we need them for the 
following year's appropriations. And the authorizers need them for the 
second session of the 107th Congress.
  So let's shoot for this 30 days because I think there is this sense 
of urgency, particularly at the local government rec center level. 
Right now they are worried about two things. They are worried about 
their kids being exposed to arsenic-treated wood, and they are worried 
about lawsuits.
  Local government should not be worried about either one. It is our 
job to stand sentry and give the best advice. I am ready to stand 
sentry over the bureaucracy to ensure a timely completion of this 
report so that not only will the concerns of Senator Nelson be settled, 
but really the concerns of the Nation. We thank him for being so 
assertive in this area.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment. We 
have had a discussion with the Senator. The manager on the Democratic 
side and I are ready to push for this to make sure we get the 
information. We are happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am so grateful to the chair 
and the ranking member for their recognition of the emergency nature of 
this issue. I am very grateful for their acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that after almost 40 
years, the American people may finally see action that will protect the 
public from arsenic.
  I strongly support Senator Nelson's amendment to direct the EPA, in 
consultation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to report to 
Congress on levels of arsenic in children's playground equipment, and 
to recommend how consumers and State and local governments can be 
better informed about these potential health risks. Preliminary studies 
have shown that arsenic, used as a preservative in wood may be a 
harmful carcinogen, especially to children. Last April, the EPA itself 
found a possible direct link between arsenic and DNA damage.
  Senator Nelson's amendment sends a strong message to the EPA that 
parents must know if their children are safe, and we are taking long 
overdue action on other aspects of this issue too. Yesterday, we 
adopted Senator Boxer's amendment, which requires EPA to immediately 
put into effect a standard for arsenic in drinking water, and inform 
the public about the amount of arsenic in the water. Last Friday, the 
House passed an amendment to reinstate the EPA rule wrongly delayed by 
the Bush administration, to reduce the accepted standard of arsenic in 
drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion and 
protect millions of Americans. That rule is the result of decades of 
debate, scientific studies, rule-making, and public comment, and it 
deserves to be implemented now.
  We know that arsenic is a serious threat to public health. The 50 
parts per billion standard for drinking water was originally set in 
1942, and is clearly out of date. A National Academy of Sciences study 
in 1999 found that arsenic in drinking water is extremely carcinogenic, 
causing lung, bladder, and skin cancer. As a Wall Street Journal 
article on April 19 stated on the 10 parts per billion standard, ``few 
government decisions could have been more thoroughly researched, over 
so many years.''
  Action by Congress is long overdue. Senator Nelson's amendment is a 
needed step in the continuing battle to protect Americans from the 
dangers of arsenic, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1228.
  The amendment (No. 1228) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are waiting for 10:30 for the Senator 
from Arizona to offer an amendment. If there is no business on this 
bill, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed up to 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I will take 2 or 3 minutes 
to speak in anticipation of an amendment that will be offered by 
Senator Kyl. I reluctantly have to oppose the Senator's amendment, 
although I understand the situation he faces. His amendment would alter 
the formula for the State revolving fund for the Clean Water Act.
  Senator Kyl's amendment would alter a Clean Water Act formula for the 
SRF that has been in place since 1987. While I recognize the Senator's 
concerns about the lack of funds for his State and the money that goes 
to Arizona and other States in the face of these great economic needs, 
I have to

[[Page 15790]]

oppose the amendment as the ranking Republican on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act.
  Very simply, this is not the place to change the formula for the 
SRF--on an appropriations bill. I urge my colleague and other 
colleagues, if Senator Kyl does offer the amendment, to think 
seriously. They can take a look at a chart, which I will enter into the 
Record, which shows how all of these formulas will affect everybody's 
States. If it is simply a matter of will they get more, will they get 
less, they can vote that way if they wish, but that is really not the 
issue. I hope my colleagues will understand that this is not the place 
to try to get into the authorizing business on something as complex as 
the formula for the SRF, State revolving fund, for the Clean Water Act.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee has committed to examine 
the waste and drinking water concerns of our country and amend the 
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Jeffords has 
pledged to move along those lines. I know when I was the chairman and 
Senator Reid was the ranking member, we did that, and I have been 
assured by Senator Jeffords that water infrastructure will continue to 
be a priority for the committee.
  I commit to Senator Kyl right now to examine the issue of the formula 
he is looking at, and I urge him to allow us to put this together in a 
way that is a proper legislative package with the appropriate vehicle. 
If the Senator does offer the amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
it and work with me and others on the committee to solve the water 
infrastructure problems over the years.
  Finally, I recognize Arizona and other States, mostly in the West, 
have been shortchanged on this formula, but this is a complex issue. It 
should not be adjusted simply by raising somebody's numbers and 
lowering somebody else's, which is what is going to happen here. It is 
not the way to do it. I hope we can do it otherwise, and I urge my 
colleagues to consider that if there is a vote on the Kyl amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I referred be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent of total       Current                          Kyl amendment
             State or Territory                     Need              need           allocation       Kyl amendment      allocation        Net change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK....................................             15987           12.3516      $150,144,455            8.2500      $110,818,125      -$39,326,330
CALIFORNIA..................................             11839            9.1468        97,287,568            8.2500       110,818,125        13,530,557
ILLINOIS....................................             11203            8.6554        61,520,850            8.2500       110,818,125        49,297,275
OHIO........................................              7698            5.9475        76,578,683            5.9475        79,889,507         3,310,824
NEW JERSEY..................................              7357            5,6840        55,587,715            5.6840        76,350,623        20,762,908
PENNSYLVANIA................................              6034            4.6619        53,883,131            4.6619        62,620,587         8,737,456
FLORIDA.....................................              5400            4.1720        45,916,315            4.1720        56,040,963        10,124,648
MIAMI.......................................              5062            3.9109        58,626,146            3.9109        52,533,214        -6,092,932
INDIANA.....................................              4964            3.8352        32,783,360            3,8352        51,516,174        18,732,814
TEXAS.......................................              4702            3.6328        62,176,356            3.6328        48,797,150       -13,379,206
NORTH CAROLINA..............................              3973            3.0695        24,550,580            3.0695        41,231,620        16,681,040
VIRGINIA....................................              3955            3.0556        27,838,856            3.0556        41,044,817        13,205,961
MASSACHUSETTS...............................              3804            2.9390        46,453,615            2.9390        39,477,745        -6,975,870
MISSOURI....................................              2957            2.2846        37,709,057            2.2846        30,687,616        -7,021,441
KENTUCKY....................................              2317            1.7901        17,313,149            1.7901        24,045,724         6,732,575
ARIZONA.....................................              2245            1.7345         9,187,830            1.7345        23,298,512        14,110,682
WISCONSIN...................................              2042            1.5777        37,042,805            1.5777        21,191,786       -15,851,019
OREGON......................................              1929            1.4903        15,366,780            1.4903        20,019,077         4,652,297
CONNECTICUT.................................              1781            1.3760        16,664,360            1.3760        18,483,140         1,818,780
WEST VIRGINIA...............................              1734            1.3397        21,207,231            1.3397        17,995,376        -3,211,855
GEORGIA.....................................              1721            1.3296        22,999,127            1.3296        17,860,463        -5,138,664
SOUTH CAROLINA..............................              1548            1.1960        13,934,876            1.1960        16,065,076         2,130,200
KANSAS......................................              1414            1.0925        10,935,398            1.0925        14,674,430         3,739,032
MARYLAND....................................              1378            1.0646        32,902,909            1.0646        14,300,824       -18,602,085
PUERTO RICO.................................              1358            1.0492        17,741,646            1.0492        14,093,264        -3,648,382
WASHINGTON..................................              1281            0.9897        23,655,976            .09897        13,294,162       -10,361,814
RHODE ISLAND................................              1281            0.9897        11,820,600            0.9897        13,294,162         1,473,562
LOUISIANA...................................              1044            0.8066        14,979,924            0.8066        10,834,586        -4,145,338
TENNESSEE...................................               927            0.7162        19,760,551            0.7162         9,620,365       -10,140,186
IOWA........................................               877            0.6776        18,410,585            0.6776         9,101,468        -9,309,117
MINNESOTA...................................               866            0.6691        25,001,912            0.6691         8,987,310       -16,014,602
HAWAII......................................               837            0.6467        10,535,110             06467         8,686,349        -1,848,761
ALABAMA.....................................               801            0.6189        15,210,963            0.6189         8,312,743        -6,898,220
MISSISSIPPI.................................               797            0.6158        12,255,813            0.6158         8,271,231        -3,984,582
MAINE.......................................               782            0.6042        10,529,737            0.6042         8,115,562        -2,414,175
NEW HAMPSHIRE...............................               748            0.5779        13,593,690            0.5779         7,762,711  ................
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA........................               609            0.4705         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
NEBRASKA....................................               563            0.4350         6,958,035            0.5500         7,387,875           429,840
ALASKA......................................               489            0.3778         8,141,438            0.5500         7,387,875          -753,563
COLORADO....................................               461            0.3562        10,880,325            0.5500         7,387,875        -3,492,450
OKLAHOMA....................................               334            0.2580        10,990,472            0.5500         7,387,875        -3,602,597
VERMONT.....................................               320            0.2472         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
UTAH........................................               315            0.2434         7,167,582            0.5500         7,387,875           220,293
IDAHO.......................................               314            0.2426         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
ARKANSAS....................................               270            0.2086         8,899,031            0.5500         7,387,875        -1,511,156
TERRITORIES.................................               230            0.1777         3,395,736            0.2500         3,358,125           -37,611
DELAWARE....................................               226            0.1746         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
NEW MEXICO..................................               161            0.1244         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
SOUTH DAKOTA................................               130            0.1004         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
MONTANA.....................................               119            0.0919         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
NEVADA......................................               116            0.0896         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
NORTH DAKOTA................................                94            0.0726         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
WYOMING.....................................                39            0.0301         6,677,296            0.5500         7,387,875           710,579
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................           129,433                                               99.9454
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sate or Territory                  Population    Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York..........................................      18976      15987
California........................................      33872      11839
Illinois..........................................      12419      11203
Ohio..............................................      11353       7698
New Jersey........................................       8414       7357
Pennsylvania......................................      12281       6034
Florida...........................................      15982       5400
Michigan..........................................       9938       5062
Indiana...........................................       6080       4964
Texas.............................................      20852       4702
North Carolina....................................       8049       3973
Virginia..........................................       7079       3955
Massachusetts.....................................       6349       3804
Missouri..........................................       5595       2957
Kentucky..........................................       4042       2317
Arizona...........................................       5131       2245
Wisconsin.........................................       5364       2042
Oregon............................................       3421       1929
Connecticut.......................................       3406       1781
West Virginia.....................................       1808       1734
Georgia...........................................       8186       1721
South Carolina....................................       4012       1548
Kansas............................................       2688       1414
Maryland..........................................       5296       1378
Puerto Rico.......................................       3809       1358
Washington........................................       5894       1281
Rhode Island......................................       1048       1281
Louisiana.........................................       4469       1044
Tennessee.........................................       5689        927
Iowa..............................................       2926        877
Minnesota.........................................       4919        866
Hawaii............................................       1212        837
Alabama...........................................       4447        801
Mississippi.......................................       2845        797
Maine.............................................       1275        782
New Hampshire.....................................       1236        748
District of Columbia..............................        572        609
Nebraska..........................................       1711        563
Alaska............................................        627        489
Colorado..........................................       4301        461
Oklahoma..........................................       3451        334
Vermont...........................................        609        320
Utah..............................................       2233        315
Idaho.............................................       1294        314
Arkansas..........................................       2673        270

[[Page 15791]]

 
Territories.......................................        411        230
Delaware..........................................        784        226
New Mexico........................................       1819        161
South Dakota......................................        755        130
Montana...........................................        902        119
Nevada............................................       1998        116
North Dakota......................................        642         94
Wyoming...........................................        494         39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 1229 to Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is not an objection by the assistant 
majority leader or ranking members of the committee, I offer this 
amendment that was just spoken about.
  I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Brownback, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1229 to amendment No. 1214.

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

 (Purpose: To specify the manner of allocation of funds made available 
   for grants for the construction of wastewater and water treatment 
         facilities and groundwater protection infrastructure)

       On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds made available under the heading ``state and tribal 
     assistance grants'' in title III for capitalization grants 
     for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et 
     seq.) shall be expended by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency except in accordance with the 
     formula for allocation of funds among recipients developed 
     under subparagraph (D) of section 1452(a)(1) of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) (including 
     under a regulation promulgated under that section before the 
     date of enactment of this Act) and in accordance with the 
     wastewater infrastructure needs survey conducted under 
     section 1452(h) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(h)), except 
     that--
       (1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under 
     clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300j-12(a)(1)(D)) shall be a minimum of 0.675 percent and a 
     maximum of 8.00 percent;
       (2) any State the proportional share of which is greater 
     than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive 
     97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the 
     State; and
       (3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
New Hampshire a moment ago, but it illustrates exactly why we need this 
amendment. The Senator, who is the ranking member of the authorizing 
committee, says we should not be doing this amendment on an 
appropriations bill, which is the pending business before the Senate; 
we should allow the amendment to come out of the authorizing committee.
  He is right, in theory, because almost everyone recognizes the 
current formula for allocating wastewater treatment grants under the 
EPA's program is unfair. It is way out of date. It is based on 1970s 
data and, as he noted, especially for growth States, it is woefully 
inadequate.
  The problem is the authorizing committee has had 14 years to change 
the formula and has not done so. There comes a time when one's patience 
begins to wear thin. In representing the interests of the States that 
are growth States, where needs far exceed what they were back in the 
1970s or even 1980s, I think we have an obligation to say enough is 
enough; it is time to change this formula.
  Almost everyone in this body has at one time or another made note of 
the fact that one of the unique things about the Senate is any 1 of the 
100 Senators can offer amendments to change law or to fix things. In 
the House of Representatives where I served, it is more difficult to do 
that because of the numbers of people and the rules.
  The nice thing about the Senate is we have this opportunity. That is 
why it is frequently the case that amendments are offered on 
legislation that comes before us, even though it would be nice to deal 
with that subject in another way. We do it all the time. Mostly we do 
it when the need is so great, the case is so good, and the degree of 
fairness involved is such it would be unfair and unwise for us to do 
anything else.
  I say to my friend from New Hampshire, who says let us take care of 
it in the authorizing committee, he has had many years to do that. This 
act has not been reauthorized since it was passed in 1987. It needs to 
be reauthorized, and it needs to be fixed.
  I commend Senator Jeffords, the new chairman of the committee, for 
saying he intends to take this up so he can get a reauthorization. I 
hope that is done, and I hope it is done this fall. I also hope it 
includes a formula reallocation if we are not able to do it in this 
bill, but we have heard that story year after year after year and 
nothing happens. There is a reason nothing happens--because the States 
that have it good under the formula do not want to change. That is 
human nature. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them.
  As a simple matter of fairness, if a formula has grown so out of 
whack over the years that it treats more than half of the people in 
this country very unfairly, then something needs to be done. We have it 
within our power to do it.
  This amendment is germane and will be ruled such by the 
Parliamentarian if there is a question about it and, therefore, it will 
be offered and it will be voted on.
  Since there are far more Senators whose States benefit under this 
amendment than those that would lose funds because they are getting 
more than their fair share today, I hope it will be adopted. Those 
Senators who vote against this amendment, notwithstanding the fact 
their States benefit, will certainly have some explaining to do to the 
folks back home.
  What does the amendment do? We have some funds in the Federal 
Government that help localities construct facilities to ensure their 
drinking water is safe and that they have good wastewater treatment 
facilities. These are conducted under the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  The EPA does a needs survey every 4 years. It decides what 
communities need. It does this on a State-by-State basis. We base the 
allocations of the drinking water fund strictly on the basis of that 
needs survey because we recognize EPA is not being political in this 
endeavor. EPA understands what the needs are. It does this survey and 
says: Here are the communities that need the money the most.
  The formula for the drinking water is based upon that EPA quadrennial 
needs survey. EPA also does a quadrennial needs survey for wastewater 
treatment, but we do not base our allocations for wastewater facilities 
on the basis of that needs survey. No, we base it on a 1970s era 
construction grant program which has no relevance to wastewater 
treatment, is way out of date, even if it ever did, is based on 1970 
census data, I believe, and, therefore, has been overcome by events and 
time with respect to the real needs throughout the United States.
  Based on the chart, we can see visually what the situation is. There 
are several States that have a need, and that need, represented by the 
red bar, is based on the percentage of need the States are currently 
receiving. In other words, EPA says: This is how much you need, and 
then here is how much Congress gives.
  To use my State of Arizona as an example, we can see Arizona receives 
a very small amount, less than 1 percent. This is why I am offering the 
amendment. My State is being treated very unfairly. Under the formula 
which does not provide a 100-percent allocation, Arizona, as all of the 
other States, would get up to this minimal level. We can see on the 
chart the blue line for all the States is the same. Those States below 
the line would be brought up to that level.

[[Page 15792]]

  The State of Maryland is the State that has the highest bar on this 
particular chart. The percentage of current need fulfilled in the State 
of Maryland is far in excess of my State of Arizona, even though my 
State of Arizona has more population and is faster growing. Is that 
fair? This is according to the EPA. This is not according to 
population, Jon Kyl, or the Governor of Arizona. This is the 
Environmental Protection Agency's survey of needs. Here is Arizona, 
less than 1 percent, and here is Maryland, much higher.
  What we are saying is, let's even it out and make sure everybody gets 
at least a percentage of what the EPA says they deserve to have. That 
is what we are trying to do, to make it fair for everybody.
  Incidentally, the formula change is very simple. The amendment is a 
two-page amendment. It reads as follows: ``shall be a minimum of 0.675 
percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent'' of the needs survey of the EPA. 
So there is a top and a bottom, and within that, everybody receives 
funds according to the percentage that EPA has recommended.
  It reads further:

       (2) any State the proportional share of which is greater 
     than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive 
     97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the 
     State.

  That is the percent everybody within the maximum and minimum will 
receive.

       (3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.

  I note that even though the EPA lists Arizona as No. 16 on the list 
of the States in terms of need--we rank 16th from the top--we are 53rd 
in how much money is received after a couple of the territories and the 
District of Columbia. That is why I am standing before you today.
  There are many other States--I think 28--in addition to Arizona that 
are in the same box. Some are in a little worse shape than Arizona--
actually, I do not think any are in worse shape than my State of 
Arizona, but there are several that receive more because EPA has said 
they need more than the State of Arizona. States such as New Jersey and 
Illinois, for example, receive substantially more money under this 
amendment.
  This is not about anything complicated. It does not take a lot of 
work to figure out how it works. It is simply a readjustment based on 
EPA's own figures.
  Included in the appropriations bill on VA-HUD and independent 
agencies is an increase in funding of $500 million over that requested 
by the President in the EPA's clean water State revolving fund. It is 
my understanding that the increase brings current year funding up to a 
historic level of $1.35 billion.
  I applaud both Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, who are the 
chairman and ranking member respectively of the committee, for the work 
they put in on it. Having been a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I know how difficult it is and how hard they work on this. I 
appreciate the work they have put in on it.
  I wish to make it clear that I support the funding for this program 
established under the Clean Water Act of 1987. Our States do depend on 
this revolving fund to provide much needed financial assistance. It 
comes in the form of low interest rate loans to sewer utility 
ratepayers who otherwise bear the brunt of the costs associated with 
compliance of EPA clean water regulations. This is one of the ways in 
which we impose a mandate on communities but then help them to fulfill 
that mandate financially.
  It is particularly beneficial for customers of the small rural water 
companies that serve so much of the population in the Western and 
Midwestern States. Unfortunately, the EPA has been administering this 
program since its inception with a very seriously flawed allocation 
formula that I described earlier. It was based on a formula that was 
derived for Federal construction loans using data that was gathered in 
the early 1970s.
  During these 30 years, I think we are all aware of the fact that the 
demographic distribution in the country has changed dramatically, as 
have the other factors that would cause the EPA to rank localities 
based upon their need for this kind of funding.
  In my State of Arizona, our population has nearly tripled from 1.8 
million to 5.1 million since 1970. Just think about the changes that 
has required in terms of infrastructure in the State. I might add, that 
does not include a very large population that is probably not counted.
  Much of that shift in population has come from other regions of the 
country, so you not only have burgeoning needs in the growth States--
and I know the State of the Presiding Officer is in the same position--
but you also have declining need in some of the other States that 
historically have a higher population and receive more money to take 
care of that population.
  It should be obvious that over time these formulas should be 
adjusted, but as I say, it has never been adjusted, and I have no 
reason to believe that circumstances today create any greater 
opportunity for us to do that than last year or the year before or the 
year before that.
  The formula that currently exists reflects neither this current 
population distribution nor the EPA's documented need of individual 
States as established in its quadrennial wastewater infrastructure 
needs survey. The EPA will update its wastewater needs survey in the 
year 2002, but based on the most recently completed survey from 1998, 
there is a vast discrepancy in the percentage of need fulfilled from 
State to State.
  I have no doubt that after this next survey, this chart is going to 
be even more skewed. States that are primarily the growth States are 
going to be in an even more difficult situation--States such as 
California, for example, and my own State of Arizona.
  Let me illustrate this disparity using, however, the 1998 EPA 
wastewater infrastructure need survey and the actual clean water 
revolving fund allocations to the States in fiscal year 2000. The State 
of Arizona received funding in fiscal year 2000 to address only .41 
percent; that is four-tenths of 1 percent of the validated 
infrastructure needs. By contrast, four States with populations very 
similar to Arizona--Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, and Louisiana--each 
received funding that met from 4 times to 7 times the percentage 
received by my State: 1.43 percent in the case of Louisiana and 2.89 
percent in the case of Minnesota. So there is a 7-to-1 ratio of States 
with almost equal population.
  That is not fair. I understand why the Representatives of those 
States want to defend what they have, but they cannot defend its 
fairness, so they are relegated to an argument that procedurally we 
should not do it on this bill but on another bill. But we never get 
around to doing it on another bill. It is a catch-22 for us.
  My constituents back home ask, Why is Congress so partisan and why 
can't it ever just act in a fair way to get things done. I have a hard 
time explaining it in this case because it is a totally bipartisan 
issue. There are winner States and States that have to give back some 
of the money they are in effect receiving today, in the future. And it 
doesn't respect party lines. People from both parties are winners and 
losers under this current formula and would be under the new formula. I 
don't think anybody can defend a formula that, based upon EPA's own 
recommendations, gives one State seven times more than another State of 
the very same population. It is very hard to defend.
  If my colleagues would refer to the floor chart again, we see by 
graph what I illustrated in terms of actual numbers. It only includes 
those States not covered by the minimum or maximum shares under the 
proposed formula, so it avoids a skewed representation.
  I make another point about this amendment because there is another 
fund out of which the committee is able to allocate money, and it is 
based on so-called earmarks. My change here, this amendment, this 
formula change,

[[Page 15793]]

does not in any way affect those earmarks. I make that crystal clear to 
everybody. Their earmarks are not affected today or tomorrow. They are 
totally outside the scope of this amendment.
  Let me illustrate how the earmarks also work. There is only one State 
that has double-digit millions of dollars in earmarks. That is the 
State of Missouri, which receives $10.250 million in earmark funds, in 
addition to the formula funds. My State, by the way, gets $1 million. 
So there is a 10-to-1 ratio.
  For those who say we even it out in the earmarks, no, it is not 
evened out in the earmarks. There are only three other States that 
received over $5 million in earmarks: Maryland, Mississippi, and 
Arkansas. We have a situation where not only does the formula 
discriminate but the earmarks also discriminate.
  We have and will hear the argument we should not be legislating on an 
appropriations bill. After having complimented the chairman and ranking 
member, I note they represent two of these four States. They are able, 
in the committee, to ensure that their State is treated as they would 
consider to be very fairly. However, they argue that those not on the 
committee shouldn't be able to do anything on the floor of the Senate; 
that would be legislating on an appropriations bill; we cannot do that. 
Again, it is a catch-22. You have to be on the Appropriations 
Committee; otherwise, if you are not on the Appropriations Committee, 
don't offer an amendment on the floor or they will come to the floor 
and say they will stick together and urge their colleagues to vote 
against this amendment because it would be legislating on an 
appropriations bill. Again, a catch-22 situation.
  Last year, I was on the Appropriations Committee, I voluntarily left, 
so I guess I can't complain, but I didn't think I would be treated 
unfairly as a result of leaving the committee. This boils down to a 
matter of unfairness. Every one of my colleagues, I know, has only the 
best interests of both their constituents and the country at large in 
their mind. But nobody wants to give up an advantage. If you are 
inadvertently given $100 in change from a clerk who should have given 
you $10, do you keep the $100? Most would say no. It is similar here.
  The allocation of funds boils down to fairness and honesty. I defy 
anybody in this body to tell me there is a more equitable distribution, 
a more equitable fashion to distribute these funds than on the basis of 
a proportional share of the total validated need as determined by EPA. 
I don't ask anything more than a fair share of funding for the people 
of Arizona, my State, and for all other Americans.
  As I said, mine is not the only State that is adversely affected. In 
fact, a majority of the States are adversely affected by the unfair and 
outdated formula that is in the bill today. Using the simple needs-
based formula that I proposed, 27 States and the District of Columbia 
will receive more than they are currently receiving--not their total 
percentage share but at least more than they are receiving now. Using 
this formula, all but three States receive, at a minimum, their exact 
proportion of share of total need.
  This is a very fair way to make an adjustment. Ordinarily, you have 
to take away from half and give to the other half. This formula works 
in such a way that very few States could argue they are being 
shortchanged. In the case of those States, they have simply been 
receiving far too much in comparison to what EPA has said their needs 
are. Two of the three States I noted subjected to the cap in the 
formula will still receive substantially more than they do under the 
current system.
  It is time to do something to rectify what I think is a gross 
disparity that impacts the health and welfare of so many of our 
citizens. I ask my colleagues to recognize the inequity and join me in 
supporting a reasonable reformulation that takes into account both the 
aging systems in the East and the growing infrastructure needs in the 
West that have been driven by this population shift over the last 30 
years.
  I close by talking just a little bit about the way the committee has 
legislated on an appropriations bill because we will hear we cannot do 
that, and also to talk directly to some of my colleagues on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee.
  I note the distinguished chairman of the committee is here. I 
complimented him--I don't know if he was here--on his, I think, 
publicly expressed but certainly privately expressed desire to take up 
in his committee later this fall the reauthorization of the underlying 
legislation which is very sorely needed. I applaud the Senator for 
that. Obviously, there is no commitment to take up the formula or to 
change the formula, and it will be too late for the fiscal year 2000 
funds which, again, will fall far short of what is needed and will be 
unfairly distributed.
  Before anyone votes no on this amendment because Members think it is 
an inappropriate vehicle, think for a moment about what happens to the 
fiscal year 2002 funds that we are appropriating if the necessary 
authorization bill is not passed in time to affect the allocations. I 
suspect my colleague from Vermont will confirm that would be a tall 
order to get a formula changed, done in time, and signed into law to 
affect the appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
  Back to the question of legislation on an appropriations bill. 
Ordinarily, we shouldn't do something dramatically different on an 
appropriations bill than the appropriators have put in the bill. But it 
is not true that the amendment is outside of the norm of what we do. 
Let me focus attention on just a section of the State and tribal 
assistance grants, which is where we find the funding for the State 
clean water revolving fund. In other words, you do not have to go very 
far afield. You can stay right in the same section and find out that we 
have legislated on an appropriations bill.
  On page 76, line 3, I see we are providing funding:

       . . . for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under 
     section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 
     except that notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the Safe Water 
     Drinking Act, as amended, none of the funds made available 
     under this heading in this Act, or in previous appropriations 
     Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator for health 
     effects studies on drinking water contaminants.

  On page 76, line 21, grants specified in the Senate report 
accompanying this Act are provided:

       . . . except that, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of the funds herein and hereafter appropriate under this 
     heading for such special needs infrastructure grants, the 
     Administrator may use up to 3 percent of the amount of each 
     project appropriated to administer the management and 
     oversight of construction of such projects through contracts, 
     allocation to the Corps of Engineers, or grants to the 
     States.

  And on page 78 line 4:

       Provided further, That no funds provided by this 
     legislation to address the water, wastewater and other 
     critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United 
     States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made 
     available to a county or municipal government unless that 
     government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or 
     other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the 
     development or construction of any additional existing 
     colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia 
     [or] the construction of any new home, business, or other 
     structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary 
     infrastructure.

  So that is pretty heavy duty legislating, I would say. It comes 
straight out of the appropriations bill before us, in fact the exact 
same section I am attempting to amend.
  Basically what we are saying is the Appropriations Committee can 
amend and legislate when the bill is before the committee, but the rest 
of the Senators are denied that opportunity when the bill comes to the 
floor.
  As I said, as a general rule it is probably a good thing to let most 
of the work be done by the committee. But in a case such as this where 
there is so much disparity, so much unfairness, and where we have not 
been able to get the authorizers to do this reauthorizing 
notwithstanding many years of effort, I think we have to take the 
opportunity that lies before us.
  Mr. Fitzgerald from Illinois, Mr. Brownback from Kansas, and Mr.

[[Page 15794]]

McCain are all cosponsors of this amendment and they and some other 
Members would wish to speak on this amendment. But at this point, since 
I see the distinguished ranking member from Missouri here and the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, I will yield the floor to them 
for their comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to 
respond to the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona, mixed 
emotions because, No. 1, I could not agree more with the emphasis he 
has put on the need for clean water, safe drinking water, and proper 
water infrastructure in this country.
  One of the most important things we do on this committee is to get 
the money that we need to assure healthy water--healthy wastewater 
systems and healthy drinking water systems throughout this country. 
When we look at the needs for water infrastructure, they are 
overwhelming. We have an annual shortfall of funding of about $12 
billion per year for clean water. Over the next 20 years it is 
estimated we are going to need $200 billion in water infrastructure. 
That excludes operation and maintenance.
  We, the distinguished chair and I, have fought every year to increase 
the amount of money set out by OMB. We have always said the President 
is underfunding water, but we all know OMB represents the bad guys. 
They have always decided to cut the money going to the State revolving 
funds to fund other priorities. So each year we have taken the 
inadequate--grossly inadequate--funds for State revolving funds for 
water infrastructure and increased them. We have increased them because 
even with the increases we have been able to include, we are falling 
far short.
  I do not think there is any other environmental program which has the 
potential to have more impact on the health of this country than 
assuring clean drinking water, safe drinking water, and cleaning up 
wastewater. If we do not do those jobs well, we will have failed in the 
most basic health requirements for our country.
  I have heard, in every area of this country, the cries for more water 
infrastructure. There is not a community in this country, I do not 
believe, urban or rural, that does not have tremendous funding needs to 
upgrade water and sewer systems: Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Safford, 
AZ. We all need it. It could be Delaware--the whole State could use 
some. I know because this is a broad-scale problem. I appreciate the 
Senator from Arizona raising it to the level of bringing it to the 
floor because I have been adamant, demanding of our ranking member on 
EPW and our chairman of EPW that they focus on water problems. I am a 
humble toiling servant of the EPW committee, and I have said we have to 
have water issues high on our agenda. It has been too long since we 
have dealt with the Clean Water Act.
  Certainly the funding formula ought to be one component of that 
review because we have tremendous water needs throughout our country. 
Whether it is east coast, west coast, the Great Plains, the South, the 
North, we have water needs. That is why I am glad he brought it up.
  The other part of the emotion is it is the wrong place. I am sorry, 
but we cannot deal with reviewing a complicated formula as part of an 
overarching programmatic review that is needed on the entire water 
issue on this appropriations bill.
  We come to the floor and we have just now received an amendment. The 
amendment says that its proportional share, if there is a minimum of 
.675 percent and a maximum of 8 percent but the State proportional 
share is greater than the minimum, then they shall receive 97.5 percent 
of the proportionate share.
  If we fell below the minimum, if we really were way down and we fell 
below a minimum somehow, then we would be shut out. What happens to 
those who fall below the minimum? What happens to those who are above 
the maximum? How do you calculate the proportionate share?
  These are all issues that ought to be worked out in a committee 
markup. They are complicated issues. I have questions that I could 
debate all day long on how to make this formula work. I do not want to 
do that in this Chamber. I don't think we have time to do that here. I 
would like to have my staff spend time, working on a bipartisan basis 
with the staffs of both sides, with the EPA, with the others who are 
knowledgeable, to figure out how this works, getting input from the 
States and the localities that receive the funds to see how it works. 
Then I can turn in anger and disgust to a staff member if they cannot 
explain it to me.
  Right now we are looking at something that I think has great 
problems. For that reason, among many others, I say, please, let's take 
this to the authorizing committee.
  If the author of this amendment had come to me last year or the year 
before or the year before or the year before, I would have been more 
than happy to sign on to a bill that says let's update this formula. I 
would be happy to sign on. And I have supported broader measures that 
said let's deal with this whole problem and figure out how we are going 
to meet the $200 billion water infrastructure needs over the next 20 
years. This is a vitally important matter for human health.
  We talk about a lot of things that have only that much, that tiny 
impact on the health of our country. We spend so much time debating 
things that are about a gnat's eyebrow worth of difference, if we do 
this or do that.
  What we are talking about now is something that makes a huge 
difference, that makes a difference between whether communities are 
healthy, whether the children, the older people, the people who are 
sick, who are needy, are getting healthy water. Are the people in that 
community subject to the disease that comes from untreated wastewater? 
These are vitally important questions that need to be referred to the 
committee.
  I know the new chairman of the committee has put this issue at the 
top of his agenda. I know EPA is currently working on a needs survey 
for clean water funding.
  I understand the survey will be completed in early 2002. I would love 
to get in the middle of the debate over how we utilize these SRF funds. 
I would like for the authorizing committee to send a clear signal to 
OMB, to our Budget Committee, and to the Appropriations Committee that 
we need more money in State revolving funds, or find another means of 
funding them, because we are falling far behind.
  I appreciate very much this significant issue being raised. I know if 
I were in Arizona I would want to have a good water infrastructure 
myself because you get thirsty out there in the heat. But this, 
unfortunately, as the Senator so well surmised, is not the place, this 
is not the time, and this is not the vehicle. I wish him well in some 
other venue. I will be a strong supporter trying to help him get it 
done.
  I urge and plead with my colleagues to recognize the importance of 
the issue he raised but to vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to say that the way the opposition to 
my amendment was delivered by the distinguished Senator just proves yet 
again why he is such an effective Member of this body and such a great 
representative of his State and the constituents of the whole country. 
He has in some sense agreed that we need to do something, but makes an 
argument, which he indicated last night he would have to make, in 
opposition to the amendment. I appreciate that fact. But I don't think 
one could ever ask for an opponent to an amendment who has more 
graciously expressed his views. I want to let the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri know that I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as was pointed out, I am chairman of the 
committee that has jurisdiction over this matter. I appreciate the 
Senator from Arizona bringing to the attention of this body the 
seriousness of the

[[Page 15795]]

freshwater problems that we have in this country.
  When I became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure 
that the Federal Government meet its responsibilities to assist 
communities in meeting their drinking water and waste water 
infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of our ranking member, 
Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun to 
investigate proper procedures to ensure that every community in this 
country has good freshwater and is able to dispose of their waste 
water.
  I think it is important that we discuss this, and it has been brought 
up. But I would have to object very strenuously to the amendment. It is 
under the jurisdiction of our committee, and we are dedicated to trying 
to help make sure that we have better quality water and the quantity of 
funds available for making sure that we improve our freshwater system.
  I have to object to the amendment on the basis that it is under the 
jurisdiction of my committee. But I will certainly do all I can to work 
with the Senator from Arizona as we move forward in the process of 
developing a better system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me also acknowledge the comments of the 
Senator from Vermont. They are very welcome. I appreciate the fact that 
the authorizing jurisdiction lies within the committee that he chairs, 
and that in the ordinary course of events he is absolutely right; the 
formula should be modified when the act is reauthorized under his 
committee. There are reasons why we make exceptions to that.
  Sometimes in the U.S. Congress, the exceptions prove the rule. There 
are frequent times when we don't do the work in the authorizing 
committee but rather do it on appropriations bills. In fact, every one 
of my colleagues--including, I am sure, the distinguished chairman of 
the committee--will acknowledge that on more than one occasion we have 
ground our teeth and said it looks as if the authorizing committees are 
no longer relevant around here; that the appropriators are taking the 
jurisdiction from us and are making all of the decisions. It is 
probably a bit of an exaggeration, but I am sure every one of us has 
felt that at times.
  I certainly appreciate the concerns expressed by the chairman of the 
committee, who has to protect his committee's jurisdiction. I 
absolutely understand that. As I said, in the normal course of events, 
I wouldn't disagree with him at all, as a member now of several 
authorizing committees, having gotten off of the Appropriations 
Committee. But we are in a situation today where I think almost 
everybody will acknowledge that the formula is unfair, and yet we 
haven't been able to get a reauthorization of this act since its 
inception in 1987. That is not the fault of the distinguished chairman.
  But the fact is, it is very difficult to ever change formulas once 
they are in place because of the opposition of the Senators who 
perceive that they would be losing under the formula. Let me turn to a 
chart that I think will also make the point.
  Under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain legislation, some States will lose 
some of the windfalls that they have been receiving. But every State 
except three, as I have pointed out, still does very well. If you look 
in the far corner, there is a State that is pretty much above every 
other State. The line for New York State is way up here. It is true 
that under our amendment it would be brought down to here. But every 
other State else in the formula is down here.
  While it is true that there are States that will lose--and New York 
State, I confess to my colleagues from New York, will lose funding 
under this act. They have been getting a windfall for a number of 
years. That must be a testament to their great work before the 
committee. And I suspect a former Senator from New York also had a 
little something to do with that.
  My point is, yes, there are a few States that will lose funding 
because they have been getting too much, and almost all of the other 
States that are within this minimum-maximum range are way down here. I 
don't think one can say it is unfair.
  With respect to the comment that my colleague from Missouri made, 
that is a complicated formula. I want to make it very clear exactly 
what we are talking about because it is the epitome of simplicity.
  Three factors. In accordance with the wastewater infrastructure needs 
survey, what does EPA recommend?
  You get 97.5 percent of the funds that are available. There is a 
minimum and a maximum. The minimum is 1.675, and the maximum is 8.0.
  It couldn't be simpler. We have available a chart that shows exactly 
the dollars and percentages--which States receive more, which States 
receive less, and how the earmarks relate to that. We don't affect the 
earmarks in any way. The earmarks are untouched. The 2002 earmarks are 
indicated on this particular chart.
  I don't think the formula is at all complicated. I don't think it 
takes a lot of work to figure out how you fared under the amendment.
  I also note that while the Senator from Missouri was concerned about 
States that receive the minimum amount, actually we shouldn't be 
concerned about the States receiving the minimum because, according to 
the survey, they actually would receive less money than that but we 
guarantee that all States receive a minimum amount. They actually end 
up receiving more percentage-wise than they should based upon the 
recommendations.
  I think it is a very fair formula. It is very similar to other 
formulas that we have. We already have a similar kind of formula with 
respect to drinking water under the same act. The EPA makes a 
recommendation. We have a formula that allocates funding based upon 
those recommendations.
  I think, A, it is fair; B, the minimum States are protected; and, C, 
you can see that only a few States that have been receiving what I 
would refer to as windfalls are going to be rather substantially 
reduced. Everyone else is reduced only a small amount. There are a few 
States that actually increase a fair amount. That is, frankly, because 
of the fact that they have been significantly shortchanged in the past.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to relate a few of the 
statistics.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer represents the State of Delaware, 
which is currently receiving $6.7 million but would receive $9.1 
million under the formula.
  Let me start at the top. We all know California is a fast-growing 
State. It is slated to receive $97 million under the current 
allocation. It would receive $108 million under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-
McCain amendment.
  I think the State of Illinois has been significantly shortchanged 
probably more than any other State. It received $61 million. According 
to the allocation, it should receive $108 million. It would gain $48 
million.
  I think for the citizens of Illinois, it is just unconscionable that 
it has fallen that far behind.
  The State of Ohio similarly has been receiving less.
  The State of New Jersey, which is receiving $55 million, would 
receive almost $75 million--about a $21 million increase.
  This just illustrates the point. I could go on down the list.
  Next is Pennsylvania, which is receiving $54 million but would 
receive $61 million. The State of Florida receives $46 million; it 
would receive $55 million. The State of Indiana receives $32 million; 
it would receive $50 million.
  You can see how there are States that are really significantly below. 
Just in the spirit of full disclosure, going down to my own State of 
Arizona, it receives $9 million; it should be receiving $22 million.
  My point is, there are a lot of States that are way behind what EPA 
thinks they should be receiving. There are a few States that are way 
ahead of what they should be receiving. But as I said,

[[Page 15796]]

only three States will actually receive less as a result of our 
amendment. Let's see if I actually have those States listed.
  All but three States will receive, at a minimum, their exact 
proportionate share of total need. And two of them subjected to the cap 
in the formula will still receive substantially more than they do under 
the current system
  Mr. President, there are other Members who would like to speak to 
this amendment. I promised them they would have the opportunity. At 
least two of them are tied up in the Commerce Committee, which I assume 
is going to be done with its business pretty soon. So I would like to 
have an opportunity for them to speak. But I also note the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is in this Chamber.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to table the pending amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator withhold? I want to speak. I also 
understand there are two other Members who wish to speak. Will the 
Senator withhold because I understand the other Senator from Arizona 
wishes to speak?
  Mr. KYL. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator makes his motion to table, does that 
terminate the debate? I ask the Senator, in the spirit of----
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my motion to table at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators because last night 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, said he would be here at 10:30 this 
morning, ready to offer his amendment and ready to debate it and line 
up his speakers. He really met that commitment. We thank him for 
honoring that commitment.
  Also, he made it very clear last night that the other Senator from 
Arizona wished to speak. We want to be able to accommodate him because 
I think we have been moving along in a spirit of comity. I would just 
ask the proponent of the amendment if we could encourage those speakers 
to come to the Chamber. My remarks will not be of a prolonged nature. 
If the two Commerce Committee Senators could come over, I believe we 
could have this amendment wrapped up before lunch and, I think, would 
be moving in a well-paced way.
  Again, we want to keep the kind of atmosphere of civility that has 
set the tone of the bill. If everyone would notice, there has not even 
been a quorum call. So I am ready to make my remarks. We would then go 
to those two other colleagues to speak.
  I ask the Senator, are they coming?
  Mr. President, we are going to have a little quorum call, just for 
clarification.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Arizona 
for proposing his amendment and moving with a promptness that is 
appreciated by both Senator Bond and I. I acknowledge the validity of 
many of the concerns that the Senator from Arizona raises.
  When you have a State such as Arizona, that certainly is growing in 
population, and you find out you are down on a list of Federal funds, 
it is, indeed, troubling.
  I also acknowledge the fact that the Nation is facing a clean water 
funding crisis. It is estimated that we have an annual funding 
shortfall for clean water infrastructure of at least $12 billion. I can 
honestly tell the Senator that if I gave $1 billion to every State in 
the Union over and above what is in our bill, it would be well used 
because it is needed.
  We have heard about water problems from failing septic tanks in the 
Delmarva region that you and I represent, where the rural poor really 
do not have the bucks to do it. We have heard about the big failing 
water systems in the Chicagos and the Baltimores, where they were built 
over 100 years ago, and it is beyond the scope of this Appropriations 
Committee to deal with it.
  We need full-scale authorizing hearings on the needs for America's 
water infrastructure--both the needs and the formula. So I acknowledge 
that this is a big deal and a big problem.
  There is not a community in this country--urban or rural--that does 
not have some important funding need related to water, whether it is 
from Baltimore to St. Louis to Stafford or Scottsdale, AZ. However, I 
must say, Senator Kyl's amendment is outside of the scope of the VA-HUD 
bill. I truly believe, because it is a formula change, that it will 
trigger essentially a water war on the VA-HUD bill.
  This is, indeed, an authorizing issue and should be addressed by the 
authorizers in comprehensive water infrastructure legislation.
  Last night we had an excellent discussion on the issue of arsenic. We 
all agreed that arsenic is a problem. We all agreed that complying with 
the Federal mandate on arsenic will also be a problem. So our 
colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, offered an 
amendment for authorizing on funding. We thought that was an excellent 
way to go and, wow, suddenly you had a Domenici-Mikulski-Schumer-
Clinton-Bond--an amazing list of cosponsors. The message of that was 
not only that arsenic is a problem, but, like last night when we talked 
about it, how do we pay for these water issues?
  What we have done--again, working on a bipartisan basis--the VA-HUD 
bill does not break new ground on environmental issues. We essentially 
broke no new ground, whether it was on enforcement, whether it was 
reallocating from sewers to State revolving funds, and so on. We 
essentially kept the framework from last year to get the President to 
put his arms around it, to get our new EPA Administrator to put her 
arms around it, to then look at what EPA should be and what are some of 
the new changes we need to make.
  We think we have gotten off to a good start. Because this is a year 
of transition, both within the executive branch and also within this 
subcommittee, that was the framework we approached, so that we could be 
prudent, that we would not lurch ahead in either the executive or 
legislative branch and make mistakes that we would have to then go back 
and evaluate.
  As my colleagues know, often on environmental issues, we end up with 
either unfunded mandates or, in some instances, unintended consequences 
to what seems to be a good idea.
  The new chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
believes that water should be at the top of his agenda. He is here 
today to speak on that. EPA is currently working on a needs survey for 
clean water funding. This should be done early in the next calendar 
year.
  I cannot support the Kyl amendment until the authorizers have had an 
opportunity to examine the needs survey and we have the very important 
census data related to growth that the Senator from Arizona has talked 
about. We all acknowledge that Arizona has grown, but we want to have 
more data on that. Then we need to have recommendations on how to 
clearly allocate our clean water.
  There is also another issue with the actual formula that the Senator 
is proposing. It is going to be a little geeky here so stick with me.
  This amendment would require EPA to allocate the fiscal year 2002 
clean water State revolving fund appropriation to the States using an 
allocation formula for the drinking water State revolving loan fund.
  Remember, we have two revolving loan funds: one for clean water and 
the other for drinking water. You might say: Why is that such a big 
deal? Dirty water is dirty water, and why not commingle the formulas?
  This is really inconsistent with the Nation's wastewater and clean 
water

[[Page 15797]]

needs. Drinking water systems and wastewater systems are fundamentally 
different. They deal with two different problems. They focus on 
different pollutants. Wastewater systems concentrate on removing 
pollution that deteriorates our rivers, lakes, and our bays--the Chair 
is familiar with it--the nitrogens, the phosphorous. That is why we 
have those problems on the Chesapeake Bay.
  The drinking water system removes pollutants and treats water to make 
sure it is safe to drink. One, we are drinking it; and the other drops 
it into the big drink like the Chesapeake Bay --two different things 
and two different kinds of pollution.
  When we get our drinking water, we are not dealing with phosphorous 
and nitrogen and those issues with which we have had to deal.
  In addition, the wastewater systems need to address shortcomings from 
the past, such as combined sewer overflows. Anyone from the city knows 
that this combined sewer overflow and the sanitary overflows are really 
big issues. There is no parallel to those issues in the drinking water 
systems. You can see how they are different. Then to use the same 
formulas, it gets to be a problem.
  Also, this amendment has another fundamental flaw. It references a 
water infrastructure needs survey to be conducted under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. EPA has advised the committee today that no such 
survey exists. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean 
Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  We are going to get lost here. We don't want to get lost on the 
Senator's needs or what we want to accomplish. This shows exactly why 
this is the wrong place to offer this amendment. It is so complicated. 
We have needs surveys. We have formulas. We have safe water. We have 
clean water. We have drinking water. We have dirty water. We have 
wastewater. We need to be clear that the formulas are based on the 
problem to be addressed as well as on population.
  Section 2 of the Senator's amendment is unclear. The Agency would be 
at a loss on how to calculate the formula given this direction.
  The needs for surface water quality projects differ geographically 
from drinking water projects. For example, some communities are served 
by central drinking water systems, but there is no municipal wastewater 
system. In another circumstance, a community may have a minor drinking 
water problem but might have a terrible or significant combined sewer 
overflow or a sanitary sewer overflow. As a result, surveying the 
construction needs of drinking water systems has no connection to the 
wastewater treatment system in the same community.
  The Presiding Officer was a Governor. I am sure he follows that. But 
most of all, local government follows it.
  Which brings me to another issue: Changes of this magnitude applied 
here with such scant notice would severely disrupt State programs. 
States must plan ahead. They have to use an expected range of 
capitalization grants for planning purposes. You have to know what you 
are going to get and when you are going to get it. Changes of the size 
implicit in the amendment would stop the State CWSRF, the clean water 
State revolving fund, loan programs for a significant period of time. 
This means that States would have to scurry around, prepare new 
intended-use plans, hold public hearings, try to get their bond issues 
straightened out.
  As you know, States have capital budgets. We don't. Capital budgets 
are based on what is going to come out of general revenue and what able 
Governors take to the bond market. A lot of our water and sewer is done 
on bonds, particularly at the local level.
  This is going to wreak havoc in all States. I know the Senator's 
intention is to get more money into some States. It will wreck havoc 
even in his own State.
  Keep in mind, we will not only have the loss of money but we will 
have the loss of time. It will affect our drinking water as well as our 
commitment to the environment.
  The clean water State revolving fund addresses clean water needs 
which are very different from drinking water. I have talked about that. 
The use of the drinking water State revolving fund would misdirect 
resources, resulting in a mismatch between the allocation of Federal 
funds by States and by the State's needs.
  I could go on: Who are winners, and who are losers.
  The important thing is, when it comes to water, there should be no 
losers. We all have our needs. We all have our problems. These formulas 
were originally established to meet those needs.
  Maybe there is the need to adjust those formulas. In every formula, 
some States gain and some States do not do as well as they should. 
Formulas are really complicated. They do approach the level of treaty 
negotiations.
  To try to do this on this bill would wreck havoc. It would trigger 
Senators coming to see what they are going to get and what they are 
going to lose.
  The more prudent way would be for there to be some type of 
instruction to EPA for evaluation. We would be happy to enter into a 
colloquy with both Senators from Arizona. We would be happy to sign a 
letter to the very able Administrator at the EPA outlining the concerns 
the Senators have. But we don't think we should have this amendment. If 
we pass this amendment, it is going to wreak havoc in the States with 
their ability to administer their programs; it is going to wreak havoc 
with the capital programs; it is going to wreak havoc with their bonds; 
and, most of all, it is going to wreak havoc with, really, the 
confusion that is going to come with using one formula for wastewater 
and use it also for drinking water. We really encourage--because it is 
not sound--this is not the place to enter into such a significant, 
complex public policy debate with enormous consequences to our 
constituents, to our communities, to our States and their ability to 
meet their fiscal responsibility as well as their environmental and 
public health stewardship. I am telling you, this is really the very 
wrong place to do this amendment. I oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for laying out the concerns, 
first, that the EPA has about it. I am relieved to see I was not the 
only one confused by the formula. I tried to figure out how the formula 
in section 2 would work, and I found a lot more questions than answers.
  The EPA has advised us that they don't know how the formula would 
work. That is why I said a few moments ago that on these complicated 
items there needs to be substantive hearings. There should be hearings 
on how the changes might affect existing water bonding issues, existing 
water programs in the States. There should be hearings on how these 
changes would affect the States where the needs are. Most important, we 
need to sit down with all of the players and make sure we have a 
formula that everybody understands and that works.
  So I believe the EPA has given us the reasons that we described in 
general about the problems in trying to adopt a significant change on 
the floor. Having said that, I am very enthusiastically a supporter of 
the suggestion the chair of the committee has made that we join either 
in a colloquy, letters and instruction, first, to the EPA, to present 
to us options for revising and updating the formula, if needed, for 
both the drinking water revolving fund and the clean water revolving 
fund and the one that deals with wastewater, to give us their best 
assessment and to actually provide that to the Environment and Public 
Works Committee so we will have something with which to work.
  As I have said before, I am a most enthusiastic proponent of revising 
these formulas and finding ways to put more money into this very badly 
needed area, for investments for the future health and well-being of 
our community.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

[[Page 15798]]


  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues I very much 
support the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are tremendous needs 
throughout America and in our Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in 
the southwestern region of Virginia.
  This issue deals with wastewater and the need for cleaning up our 
wastewater, where there are combined sewer overflow situations in 
Lynchburg, Richmond, and other areas, as well as the Northern Virginia 
area, which flows into the Potomac, which affects the Chesapeake Bay, 
which is important to Virginia and the State of Maryland; and the 
Chair's home State of Delaware has a few tributaries that flow into the 
Chesapeake Bay. It is also important to Pennsylvania and New York, 
which are also part of that watershed.
  Now, again, I am very much in favor of all these ideas. The question 
is: How do you meet the needs? In trying to determine how you meet the 
needs for clean water, drinking water, and clean water as regards 
wastewater treatment, you want to have a good, objective, up-to-date 
determination of needs.
  The drinking water allocations are based on EPA's recommendations. 
There is a needs survey. But as I best understand it--and I may ask, in 
a moment, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to join me to explain 
this because some fellow Senators are saying they don't understand 
this, and I want to have a better understanding.
  The wastewater moneys are based on a 1970s population number and have 
not changed since the law was passed in 1987, 14 years ago. As I 
understand this formula change, what it attempts is to bring in 
fairness and equity and address the needs for wastewater cleanup and 
base the numbers on EPA's wastewater needs survey. So it is a similar 
sort of logic and formula and survey that is used for drinking water 
that we would want to use for wastewater.
  It strikes me, regarding the matter of fairness, that a minority of 
States in this proposal get way more than the percentage EPA recommends 
under the current formula and a majority receive much less--mostly in 
States that are growing faster. Regardless, everyone recognizes--and I 
haven't heard anybody listening to the debate on the floor or in 
between saying that the current formula is right--now is the time to 
make sure the wastewater allocations, the taxpayer dollars, are being 
utilized in a way that addresses the needs of the various States.
  The formula change also does not affect the so-called earmarks. That 
is separate and in a smaller pot of money. I ask the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if he will please take the floor and let me ask him a 
few questions so we can clear up any misunderstandings that have been 
proffered here by others who may not seem to understand this proposal.
  I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The current plan, the current 
allocation for wastewater moneys, is it a formula based on population 
from the 1970 census?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, my staff 
has tried to find out the basis for the current formula, and they have 
had a very difficult time getting anybody to tell them what it is. We 
have gone back in the debates, in the records, and so on. As best we 
can tell, it is a formula that is based upon a construction grant 
program using 1970s data, including population data. That is as clear 
as I can be about it. I urge anybody--of course, I find it interesting 
that those who are opposing the amendment do so on procedural grounds, 
not defending the existing formula. I haven't found anybody to defend, 
let alone explain, what the basis of the existing formula is.
  Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I ask 
the Senator from Arizona this: The formula he is proposing here, 
though, is based, as he states, on needs, actual needs. How do you 
determine those needs? What is the formula? What is the criterion by 
which needs are addressed?
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate that question from the Senator because there 
has been, I think, a misunderstanding here. My understanding is that 
EPA has at least two different ``needs surveys,'' as they call them. 
They survey needs of communities for drinking water, and we use that 
survey with a formula for the allocation of drinking water moneys in a 
different place in this bill. They also do a survey for wastewater 
needs.
  It is my proposal that we use that survey as the basis for the 
allocation of wastewater funds. Those are different surveys. We should 
not confuse the two. We are not suggesting that we use the drinking 
water survey for wastewater allocations. Leave the drinking water 
survey for the drinking water allocations and use the wastewater survey 
for the wastewater allocations.
  It is further my understanding that each of these is redone every 4 
years on a rotating basis.
  In 2002, there will be the new 4-year wastewater treatment survey. 
Two years ago, we had the most recent drinking water survey. So every 2 
years, we have a new survey. One is for drinking water; one is for 
wastewater. My concern is we will wait until the 2002 wastewater 
survey, and then it will be at least fiscal year 2003, or later, when 
it can be implemented, even if we are all in agreement to use that 
survey. Clearly, we will be yet another year or even 2 years down the 
road without having made the formula safe.
  To summarize, the Senator from Virginia is correct. There are two 
different needs surveys, one for drinking water and one for wastewater. 
We are not using the drinking water survey; we are using the wastewater 
survey. The formulas also differ slightly.
  I believe there is a 1-percent minimum on drinking water for that 
fund. In ours, it is a .675-percent minimum, 8-percent maximum, and 
everybody else within that range receives 97.5 of what is available. It 
is a very simple formula and not dissimilar to the drinking water 
formula, but it is not the same formula.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a 
further question.
  There was an assertion that this will affect some of the bonding and 
expected amounts of money. The Senator is saying after the 2002 
analysis, or the survey for wastewater monies, which is calculated on 
an antiquated, outdated, inaccurate formula, there would be a change. 
Even if nothing happened, even if the Senate does not act in a 
farsighted, appropriate way and vote for the amendment, there still 
would be changes in allocations to the different States anyway. Isn't 
that correct?
  Mr. KYL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. That is based on two 
primary factors:
  First, as both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from 
Missouri have noted, they have fought very hard for increased funding. 
One never knows. Each year, from one year to the next, we never know 
what amount of money is going to be available; that is very true. It 
would be folly for someone to count on a particular amount of money.
  Second, as I said, we do not touch the earmarks. The earmarks come 
from a separate pot, basically, if we want to simplify it. That comes 
from a separate pot of money, and the committee can certainly do a lot 
of adjusting within their earmark authority from year to year. We 
cannot predict, obviously, from year to year what that would be.
  So, yes, the Senator is correct. There are at least two bases, and 
maybe others, for not knowing exactly how much money one is going to 
get from one year to the next, even under the existing formula.
  Mr. ALLEN. As far as that is concerned in bonding and hypothecating 
expected revenues from the Federal Government, it is a risky business 
for State governments or local or regional municipal waterworks anyway.
  As I understand it, the Senator is trying to make sure we are 
allocating scarce taxpayer resources; we are making a priority. 
Obviously, on drinking water--and that is not affected by this--in the 
wisdom of the Senate, the House, and the Federal Government, they 
said--before the Presiding Officer and I were in the Senate, but it 
made sense--let us make sure the money is getting to those who need it 
the most.

[[Page 15799]]

  The same logic is applied in the measure of the Senator from Arizona, 
as far as wastewater is concerned, which is very important for 
recreation, for water treatment and, obviously, for our enjoyment and 
health.
  It seems to me the Senator from Arizona is moving forward, making 
sure, when the survey is done next year, it will utilize a needs 
assessment, not outdated population figures that are 20 or 30 years 
old, and making sure we are getting the funds to the areas that need it 
the most.
  Most tributaries do not just flow out of one State; they start in one 
State and sometimes travel through several others. For example, as I 
mentioned, Delaware: Folks from Delaware say everything flows into the 
Atlantic Ocean or towards the oceanside. Some of the rivers or streams 
will flow through Maryland into the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, if there 
is some waste coming from a stream that--and I am sure there would not 
be too much, but there can be from time to time, as we all know, on the 
Delmarva peninsula. But the point is, if one is cleaning it up on the 
riparian areas of the river in Delaware, that helps Maryland and that 
helps Virginia as well.
  Sometimes we look at it on a State-by-State basis. The Colorado River 
flows, obviously, out of Colorado through Utah, through Arizona, 
through a part of or at least the border of Nevada and California. The 
Potomac River actually starts some of the tributaries in Virginia, goes 
through West Virginia, obviously through Maryland, and obviously on the 
banks of Virginia. The same with the Missouri, the Mississippi, the 
Ohio, the Kanawa, the Cheat--all sorts of rivers go through many 
States.
  I ask the Senator from Arizona one final question: What would he say 
is the most salient point in how his proposal would more accurately 
reflect the actual wastewater treatment needs of this country than the 
old formula that is admitted by all to be outdated and wrong? How would 
his proposal, in the most salient way, make it a more accurate 
determination and allocation of scarce funds to the actual needs of 
wastewater cleanup?
  Mr. KYL. I will answer the question of the Senator from Virginia by 
simply saying it is based upon EPA recommendations. We know growth 
States, population changes, account for a big part of the increased 
needs.
  The Senator is also correct that there are some other localized 
factors, including waterways, the existence of waterways and other 
factors that bear on this. That is why I note that States that have 
been significantly underfunded include a big growth State such as 
California and the State of Illinois. I just do not understand why 
Illinois has been so drastically underfunded. Ohio, maybe that is 
because both Ohio and Illinois have substantial waterways, as the 
Senator from Virginia does.
  New Jersey is another State that has been woefully underfunded. Yet 
it is not as big a growth State as California or my own State of 
Arizona.
  Indiana is another State that is underfunded. It could be that series 
of rivers in the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois area. I cannot explain why 
the EPA recommends exactly what it recommends and, in comparison to the 
existing formula, why some States are so much out of skew. One general 
reason is that of population growth. There are others, as the Senator 
has pointed out.
  The main reason this formula makes sense is EPA looks at all of this, 
applies a needs-based test, makes the recommendations, and those are 
the recommendations that we plug into the formula.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the Senator from Arizona. I think it is the 
Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.
  It is a matter of fairness. It is addressing actual needs, and there 
is a reason population would be more of a concern, because as 
population increases, obviously there may be a corresponding increase 
in wastewater treatment needs.
  I conclude by saying I urge my colleagues to use objective standards. 
Do not use politics but look at objective needs to clean up the 
wastewater in this country.
  I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for spending this 
amount of time and effort to try to correct this inequity. It seems to 
have been around for several decades, and this is the time to act. Who 
knows when we will have another chance, the way the Senate moves.
  Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this amendment. It will be good for the water in 
their States and the water throughout the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reiterate before a fellow Bay Senator 
leaves the Chamber, EPA has informed me why this amendment has a 
fundamental flaw. The amendment references a wastewater infrastructure 
needs survey to be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No such 
survey exists, according to EPA. The wastewater needs survey is 
required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act. I 
wanted to make that point.
  I have a question for the Senator from Arizona. I know he has put a 
lot of work into trying to develop this formula, but I really wanted to 
bring to his attention what EPA has apprised me of, and I think we need 
to check that. I know the Senator likes to always operate off the basis 
of fact.
  The EPA says the agency would be at a loss as to how to calculate a 
formula given this direction. So there is no needs survey on which to 
calculate it. We are getting ``section this of that act'' and ``section 
that of that act,'' et cetera, which is why we need this in an 
authorizing bill and not on an appropriations bill. I do not dispute 
the Senator believes this--I want to share this information with him.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum to share this information with the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORZINE). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl 
amendment be temporarily set aside at the concurrence of the managers, 
Senator Kyl and Senator Reid, and that when Senator Schumer offers his 
amendment regarding the HUD gun buyback, there be 60 minutes of debate 
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree 
amendments in order to either the Kyl or Schumer amendments; that at 
12:30 p.m. today, Senator McCain be recognized to speak with reference 
to the Kyl amendment, with that time not charged against the time on 
the Schumer amendment; that any time remaining after the time for 
debate on the Schumer amendment be equally divided among Senators 
Mikulski, Bond, and Kyl, with the understanding that Senator Fitzgerald 
will have some of Senator Kyl's time; that at 1:55 p.m. today, there be 
2 minutes for explanation prior to a vote in relation to the Kyl 
amendment, to be followed by 2 minutes prior to a vote in relation to 
the Schumer amendment, with the time equally controlled and divided in 
the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that in case Senator 
Kyl, in his original offer of amendments, cited the wrong statutory 
section, he have the right to modify his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side. We believe this is an 
appropriate accommodation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 15800]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1231 to Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and we move to the Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1231.

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

   (Purpose: To make drug elimination grants for low-income housing 
               available for the BuyBack America program)

       On page 25, line 23, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount under 
     this heading, $15,000,000 shall be available for the BuyBack 
     America program, enabling gun buyback initiatives undertaken 
     by public housing authorities and their local police 
     departments''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Chair of the 
VA-HUD subcommittee for her help on this amendment and for her general 
help to this Senator, for which I am forever appreciative.
  I rise to introduce an amendment to restore a valuable initiative to 
reduce gun violence in the Nation's public housing authorities. The 
amendment sets aside $15 million of the $300 million that we allocate 
to the public housing drug elimination program for BuyBack America, a 
gun buyback program to eradicate violence in our Nation's public 
housing authorities. BuyBack America was introduced by the Department 
of HUD in November, 1999. In the first year alone, it helped local 
police departments in 80 cities take 20,000 guns off our streets. Guns 
were bought back for around $50. The guns were taken in and then 
destroyed.
  Since the gun buyback policy was first introduced through New York 
City's Toys for Guns programs in 1993--someone I have come to know, Mr. 
Mateo, was the initiator--thousands of low-crime, underserved 
neighborhoods have seized the opportunity to eradicate gun violence. 
The program works. From Annapolis to Atlanta, from San Francisco to 
Schenectady, it has helped raise gun control awareness and lower rates 
of violence. However, HUD last week announced its plans to discontinue 
BuyBack America. The program has been targeted as part of a campaign, 
in my judgment at least, by the administration against any kind of gun 
control, no matter how moderate, how rational, and how protective of 
the rights of legitimate gun owners--which this program clearly is.
  In fact, the President's budget this year zeroed out funding for the 
entire Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which had been funded 
through Senator Mikulski's leadership, and I know my colleague has been 
involved as well, for which we thank him.
  If we do not set aside a certain amount for gun buyback programs, it 
will not be done by the administration, given its unfriendly position 
toward even modest measures dealing with taking guns away from kids and 
criminals.
  So I ask that this amendment be supported. I, temporarily at least, 
yield back my time with the right to come back later and speak further 
on the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I acknowledge the cooperation of the Senator working 
with us. Before I speak on the amendment, I am going to inform the 
Senator that we are scheduled to move his amendment aside at 12:30 when 
those tied up in Commerce are coming over. Then we are scheduled to 
come back to the amendment of the Senator, I believe, at quarter of 1.
  I want to advise the Senator of that. I think he was dealing with a 
very pressing New York need and did not hear the unanimous consent 
agreement, though we had the cooperation of his staff.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. I will be back 
at 12:45 to resume the debate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Before he leaves, the Senator from New York should know 
I am going to support his amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Once again, the Senator from Maryland hits a home run 
for New York, Maryland, and America. Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, one of the things that occurred in the 
VA-HUD budget as it came from the President was to eliminate $300 
million for drug elimination in public housing.
  The Presiding Officer's predecessor was one of the champions of that, 
the distinguished former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. We 
worked hands on, on many of the items. We think that $300 million in 
drug elimination is a very important program.
  At the same time as we have been saying to the Senator from Arizona 
and others we are not going to break new ground in this bill because of 
the transitions both of the executive branch as well as the legislative 
branch, the committee has restored the $300 million in drug elimination 
funds. We have restored that because we know we have to get drugs out 
of public housing. We know we have to make sure, in getting the drugs 
out of public housing, that public housing provides an opportunity to 
be not only a way of life, but to lead to a better life.
  We turned to the authorizers and we encouraged them to hold hearings 
on what has the most efficacy, making sure public housing is neither a 
slum landlord nor an incubator for drug dealing, and we encouraged them 
to do that. The Schumer amendment mandates that we keep the gun buyback 
program which Secretary Martinez would like to eliminate.
  We think, again, it is the executive branch acting and so on. We need 
conversation, again, on what is the most effective way to deal with 
crime in our communities, gun violence in our communities. I have had 
in the past several years the most gruesome statistics in Maryland. I 
like being from a State of Super Bowl champions, and I love the show 
``Homicide'' that was on, that was so terrific. But what I did not like 
was the homicide rate. Thanks to Mayor O'Malley and Commissioner 
Norris, we are bringing that down. But gun violence--we are like a war 
zone.
  The Schumer amendment would give our local police departments and our 
public housing authorities the opportunity to operate a gun buyback 
program using Federal dollars. But it is their choice. In other words, 
the Feds do not say you must do it, nor do the Feds say you cannot do 
it; it leaves it up to the local community whether they think it has 
efficacy in that area. It might not work in every community. We do not 
have that one-size-fits-all on how to deal with ending violence and 
getting drugs out of public housing. But each city or county should 
have the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program if it chooses.
  Many public housing complexes function almost as small cities unto 
themselves. They have their own police departments; they have their own 
governing authority. They really are, in some instances, small towns. 
We, of course, would like to make sure they have the sense of being a 
village. They have unique needs, require special help and attention.
  This program was started in 1999 during the Clinton administration. 
It provided up to $500,000 for police departments around the country to 
buy back and destroy weapons. During the first year of operation, 
20,000 guns were taken off the street in 80 different cities.
  The amendment gives our local police more resources in fighting 
crime. We should not second-guess those local decisions on how to do 
it. Whether it is the cops on the beat or gun buybacks, it will allow 
the local authorities to do that. We must do everything we can to 
protect our citizens who live in public housing and those who live 
around public housing because everything that goes bad with public 
housing goes bad with the neighborhood near public housing.
  I support this Schumer amendment. I look forward to its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 15801]]


  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the opponent's 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for explaining why this is an 
important but misdirected amendment.
  First, I express my sincere appreciation to the chair of the 
subcommittee for including in the bill the money that was zeroed out by 
the administration for the drug elimination program. I worked with the 
distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina several years ago to 
include money for eliminating drugs in public housing because it has 
been our heartfelt belief for a long time that we need to make assisted 
housing--whether it be public housing or whether it be section 8 
financed housing--the kind of housing where a mother, or mother and 
father, would want to raise their children in a proper atmosphere.
  Getting drugs out of public housing, making sure it is safe, is 
probably one of the very first steps in addition to keeping the rain 
out and keeping the cold out in winter. Making sure it is safe and drug 
free is vitally important. I was very disappointed that the 
administration zeroed it out.
  We now have it back in the bill, and there is the flexibility in the 
PHAs to use this money however they want. The amendment by the Senator, 
my good friend from New York, would establish a $15 million set-aside 
in the public housing drug elimination fund for the gun buyback 
program. It is unnecessary because right now, if they wish to do so, a 
PHA can use money for the buyback. It takes away the choice and the 
decision from the local levels.
  Local public housing authorities can conduct drug buy-back programs 
under the drug elimination grant. The bottom line is it is not 
mandatory. The PHA makes a choice, based upon its need to eliminate 
crime and illegal drug activity, what is the best thing we can do in 
this community to protect our friends and neighbors from drug crime.
  That is a legitimate choice. I support that local choice, despite the 
fact to my knowledge there is no evidence that gun buyback programs 
actually reduce crime or illegal drug activity. They make people feel 
good. It is a feel-good program.
  But let me ask you, my colleagues. Let's apply a commonsense test. 
Sometimes back home some of the things you hear on the street corner at 
the place where you have breakfast make a whole lot more sense than 
some of the very sophisticated things that we discuss up here. I was 
talking to some of the guys out at the livestock market breakfast place 
where I go out for breakfast every Saturday morning. They said: Tell 
me. If you were a criminal and they had a gun buyback program, would 
you go in and sell your gun to the gun buyback program?
  I said: What do you mean? Say the cops or the PHA have a gun buyback 
program. Rather than using my good gun to go out and make holdups, I am 
going to get $5 for the buyback.
  He said: No. You find an old gun that doesn't work, or you go out and 
steal a few more guns. Say I have 15 or 20 guns that are inoperable, 
outdated, and ineffective. I will trade them in. You know what I can do 
with that money. I can either get drugs or buy some ammunition for my 
good gun.
  Ask the gang back home. Go to the town square and ask them. How many 
criminals do you think are going to sell their guns to the buyback 
program? They are going to tell you none, or fewer.
  That is just common sense. I don't believe there is any evidence on 
the other side.
  Having that said, if PHA believes it will make everybody feel good, 
and if they think it will help to use money for a gun buyback program, 
go for it.
  But I tell you it is one program that I just think doesn't meet the 
commonsense test. It just does not make any sense to me.
  I urge my colleagues to leave the discretion with the public housing 
authorities and not seek to take money away from security needs, or 
from other things, or from programs that have some questions about it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First of all, I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy. I 
know they appreciate the fact that we had a markup of some important 
legislation this morning in the Commerce Committee. I apologize for any 
delay that may have caused in completing this very important 
appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator 
from Missouri for their courtesy in not only allowing me to speak on 
the amendment of my colleague from Arizona but also for allowing me to 
propose my amendment.
  I understand that it is the wish of the managers that it be laid 
aside after I propose it, and then I would speak on it after 2 o'clock. 
I ask the Senator from Maryland if that is the case.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona repeat his 
question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary 
procedure is that at this time I will speak on behalf of the Kyl 
amendment, propose my amendment, then ask that it be laid aside, and 
that I would be allowed to speak on my amendment after the two votes at 
2 o'clock.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, we have a very 
complicated unanimous consent here to accommodate Senators. I wish to 
bring to the Senator's attention that at about 5 until 2 we are going 
to have two votes: one on Kyl and one on Schumer. Then we will be happy 
for the Senator to send up his amendment. Maybe we will not be happy 
with the Senator's amendment, but we will be happy for the Senator to 
offer it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  Again, I express my appreciation for her accommodation. I know it is 
difficult to accommodate each Senator who has a very busy schedule. I 
thank the managers for their accommodation to mine.


                           amendment no. 1229

  I rise to support my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a cosponsor of his 
amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I believe this is a very 
good amendment, one that is entirely appropriate to this bill as it 
directly relates to a more fair distribution of Federal dollars for 
water and wastewater infrastructure needs among the 50 States and 
territories of our nation.
  This amendment is simple--it will address a funding inequity in EPA 
funding by applying the formula under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
revolving loan fund to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund for 
fiscal year 2002.
  Why is this important?
  For about 12 years, the EPA has managed a Clean Water State revolving 
loan fund for capitalization purposes to construct water infrastructure 
and related projects. The funds are distributed on a State-by-State 
basis and utilized as seed money for State-administered loans for water 
infrastructure needs. It operates as an important source of capital 
with State flexibility to set their own priorities.
  Back in 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to establish a 
similar State revolving loan fund to address safe drinking water 
infrastructure needs.
  While these two operating loan funds are similar in intent, the Clean 
Water revolving loan fund utilizes outdated information in its 
allocation distributions. As my colleague, Senator Kyl, has noted, it's 
very difficult to address the various States' growing needs when the 
allocation formula is based on information relevant to the 1970's.
  I would like to describe how my State has changed since the 1970s. We 
have grown from a very small State in the 1970s with two Members of 
Congress. As a result of the latest census, we are now a very medium to 
a large State that will now have eight members of our congressional 
delegation. Our State has grown, according to the

[[Page 15802]]

1990 to the 2000 census, in a 10-year period 40 percent--40-percent 
growth in a 10-year period.
  There has been similar growth in other States in the West. New 
Mexico, Colorado, California, and a number of other States have grown 
significantly--perhaps not percentage-wise as large as ours but 
certainly in the case of numbers; Nevada has also experienced dramatic 
growth.
  What Senator Kyl and I are arguing here is that there needs to be a 
reformulation to reflect demographic reality.
  I want to point out what everyone who lives west of the Mississippi 
knows. Water is more precious than gold. Water is the limiting factor 
in the growth of our States in the West. Water is what will be and has 
been the cause of major disputes throughout the West.
  I believe Mark Twain said that in the West whiskey is for drinking 
and water is for fighting. Mark Twain had it right because water is the 
key factor in the ability of our States to sustain the growth and 
maintain a lifestyle that allows people to choose to move to the West 
and have the kind of lifestyle that they deserve. The formula has not 
been updated to consider states with substantial growth or more recent 
documented needs established by the EPA in its own analyses.
  In contrast, the similar Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund has 
been operating by the designated allocation formula under the 1996 Act 
that required the EPA to allocate funding according to the agency's 
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. While these two revolving 
funds are substantially similar, only one uses updated and relevant 
data. This is an unfortunate discrepancy and it should be fixed.
  This amendment simply tries to fulfill the intended purpose of the 
original Clean Water Act by allocating important Federal dollars on a 
needs-based system that is current and valid to the States' identified 
priorities.
  Communities in my home State of Arizona have been frustrated by the 
formula distribution inequity as their water and wastewater needs 
continue to be underfunded and ignored. The Arizona State water 
authority estimates it may have lost out on $250-300 million due to the 
oversight in establishing a fair and updated formula. However, this is 
not just about Arizona. It is about a majority of the States funded 
through the current Clean Water revolving loan fund distribution 
formula whom are facing the same disparities.
  Unfortunately, the Clean Water Act has not been amended since 1987. 
While authorization for the act expired in 1990, the programs under act 
are continued by annual appropriations while the Congress continues to 
work toward a comprehensive reauthorization.
  In the meantime, Congress has circumvented the act by earmarking as 
much as 30 percent of the general funds available for water and 
wastewater needs for special interest projects through this 
appropriations bill. Many of these funded projects are not authorized 
in the Clean Water Act and do not abide by the funding distributions 
process identified in the act.
  This continuing earmarking process is not a practice favored by State 
water quality officials, State infrastructure financing officials, or 
by the EPA. Earmarking funds from the overall State revolving fund 
decreases the amount available to other communities that desperately 
need assistance. It undermines the intent of the State revolving loan 
fund; it does not allow States to determine their own priorities; and, 
it prolongs the wait for States to receive the necessary funds to 
address their water needs.
  In my review of the EPA section of this appropriations bill, I found 
that one-fourth of the earmarks of the 180 earmarks included in the EPA 
section are not targeted for States--but for consortiums, universities, 
or foundations. How is this abiding by the intent of the law?
  While I disagree with the earmarking process and I hope that it 
changes, I also understand that this amendment does not affect those 
projects identified for funding in this bill under the current water 
and wastewater accounts. We did that, with all due respect, because we 
knew that if we affected any earmarking, we would remove whatever 
chance we might have of adoption of this amendment. What it will impact 
is the undesignated amounts of funding for the clean water revolving 
loan fund to ensure a more fair and equitable distribution for this 
coming fiscal year. This is particularly important as this VA-HUD 
appropriations bill proposes to increase overall funding in this 
account by $500 million, for a total of $1.35 billion.
  With an estimated $300 billion needed over the next 20 years to fix 
our existing water systems and build new ones, we simply cannot allow 
this inequity to continue.
  EPA's guidelines stipulate that the intent of the revolving loan fund 
is:

       To provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible 
     water quality projects for state revolving fund funding.

  Let's remedy this problem and fulfill the intent of this important 
act.
  Mr. President, I would just like to mention my appreciation for 
Senator Kyl's efforts on this issue. As many of my colleagues may know, 
Senator Kyl's background in the legal profession was on issues of 
water. I would put his credentials against those of anyone in this body 
on this very important issue.
  I already described earlier how important water is in the whole 
future of the western part of the United States, particularly those of 
us in the Southwest. Barry Goldwater, my predecessor, used to say quite 
often, only half humorously: ``We have so little water in Arizona, the 
trees chase the dogs.'' We have not reached that point yet, but the 
fact is, what we do need, as in every situation where there have been 
demographic changes--and in the Southwest and in the West there have 
been profound demographic changes, as we all know, since the 1970s and 
the 1980s--we just need to upgrade and modernize this formula.
  We are not asking for a special deal for Arizona. We are not asking 
for a special deal for any State. We are simply asking--and we are not 
even affecting the present earmarking process, on which my views are 
well known in this body--that an update year 2001 formula be 
implemented so that everyone can receive funding according to the 
greatest need, again, according to the guidelines that are stipulated, 
``to provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water 
quality projects for state revolving fund funding.''
  I thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing forward what some view 
as an esoteric issue in some respects but a vital issue--a vital issue 
for all of those States that are now not being treated on an equal 
basis--of our water supplies and projects.
  So I thank my colleague from Arizona and urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill offered by Senator Kyl.
  The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am 
the new Chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Through the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund provisions of this act, Federal 
funding is provided to communities throughout the Nation to protect 
water quality. Senator Kyl's amendment would significantly alter the 
formula'' used in the ``SRF'' to allocate these federal funds among 
States.
  Last evening, in the debate related to arsenic, many Senators noted 
the tremendous financial challenge that communities face in continuing 
to provide clean, affordable drinking water. It is important to 
recognize that these communities face an equally tremendous challenge 
when it comes to keeping pace with the wastewater treatment, stormwater 
management, and other types of water infrastructure they need to 
protect water quality.
  The Clean Water SRF was specifically designed to help communities 
meet these water infrastructure needs. However, over the next 20 years, 
the water infrastructure needs of our Nation are estimated to be as 
much as $1 trillion--$1 trillion. The current annual level of funding 
provided through the SRF--averaging roughly $1 billion per year--comes 
nowhere near meeting needs of this magnitude.

[[Page 15803]]

  Because these funds are so desperately needed by so many communities, 
the Senate should proceed very cautiously when making changes to the 
Clean Water SRF.
  When I became the chair of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, I stated that one of my top priorities was to craft 
legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meets its 
responsibility to assist communities in meeting their drinking water 
and wastewater infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of the now 
ranking member, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has 
already begun this process.
  I am committed to continuing this effort, and I look forward to 
working closely with Senator Smith, the chair and ranking member of our 
Water Subcommittee, and other members of the committee and the Senate 
as we move forward.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee will carefully consider a 
number of issues critical to meeting our national water infrastructure 
needs as this legislation develops. Among these issues will be the 
subject addressed by Senator Kyl's amendment--the allocation of money 
to States through the Clean Water SRF.
  We will be thoroughly studying the current ``formula'' used for 
allocating Federal funds by this program and, if appropriate, we will 
modify it to ensure it is fair and adequately serves the Nation.
  As I mentioned previously, the tremendous water infrastructure needs 
faced by our Nation--coupled with inadequacy of Federal resources 
currently available to help communities meet them--demands that we 
proceed cautiously.
  I am concerned that changing the funding ``formula'' for the Clean 
Water SRF in an appropriations bill, as we rush to complete Senate 
business before August recess, is not such a cautious approach.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment, 
and allow the Environment and Public Works Committee the opportunity to 
craft legislation that reflects a carefully and thorough consideration 
of the solutions to our Nation's water tremendous infrastructure needs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the issue that my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought to the attention of 
the Senate with his amendment, and that is the need to re-evaluate how 
we distribute funding to the states under the Clean Water Revolving 
Fund. The Senator is right. It appears that it has been a long time 
since we took a hard look at where our most pressing infrastructure 
needs are. And don't get me wrong, Montana looks like it would do very 
well if Senator Kyl's amendment were to succeed.
  But addressing the serious problems that exist with our Nation's 
water and wastewater infrastructure is something that falls squarely 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works. This is an issue that needs the full time and attention of the 
authorizing Committee. What is the most appropriate floor, or minimum 
share for each state, because that's where Montana would fall. What is 
the most appropriate ceiling? Again, I think this just is too important 
an issue to address in a short debate over an amendment to an 
appropriations bill. I understand that this is one of the issues 
Chairman Jeffords plans to take up in the fall, and I will encourage 
him to do that, because frankly, I agree with Senator Kyl that it's 
high time we took a look at these formulas to make sure we are spending 
our limited resources in the most efficient and effective way possible.


         Amendment No. 1226, As Modified, To Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this time I rise to offer an amendment. 
I have a modification to my amendment. I believe it is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1226, as modified to amendment No. 1214.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, No. 1226, as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To reduce by $5,000,000 amounts available for certain 
projects funded by the Community Development Fund of the Department of 
    Housing and Urban Development and make the amount available for 
                     veterans claims adjudication)

       On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 428. (a) Reduction in Amounts Available for Projects 
     Funded by Community Development Fund.--The amount 
     appropriated by title II under the heading ``Empowerment 
     Zones/Enterprise Communities'' under the paragraph 
     ``community development fund'' is hereby reduced by 
     $5,000,000. The amount of the reduction shall be derived from 
     the termination of the availability of funds under that 
     paragraph for projects, and in amounts, as follows:
       (1) $375,000 for the Fells Point Creative Alliance of 
     Baltimore, Maryland, for development of the Patterson Center 
     for the Arts.
       (2) $150,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the 
     Heritage Trails project.
       (3) $375,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School 
     of the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina.
       (4) $50,000 for development assistance for Desert Space 
     Station in Nevada.
       (5) $125,000 for the Center Theatre Group, of Los Angeles, 
     California, for the Culver City Theater project.
       (6) $500,000 for the Louisiana Department of Culture, 
     Recreation, and Tourism for development activities related to 
     the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration.
       (7) $225,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for 
     the development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams Park 
     and Zoo.
       (8) $100,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode 
     Island, for historical renovation.
       (9) $125,000 for the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, for 
     revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District.
       (10) $150,000 for Studio for the Arts of Pocahontas, 
     Arkansas, for a new facility.
       (11) $500,000 for the Southern New Mexico Fair and Rodeo in 
     Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for infrastructure improvements 
     and to build a multi-purpose event center.
       (12) $500,000 for Dubuque, Iowa, for the development of an 
     American River Museum.
       (13) $500,000 for Sevier County, Utah, for a multi-events 
     center.
       (14) $50,000 to the OLYMPIA ship of Independence Seaport 
     Museum to provide ship repairs which will contribute to the 
     economic development of the Penn's Landing waterfront area in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       (15) $250,000 for the Lewis and Clark State College, Idaho, 
     for the Idaho Virtual Incubator.
       (16) $500,000 for Henderson, North Carolina, for the 
     construction of the Embassy Cultural Center.
       (17) $50,000 to the Alabama Wildlife Federation for the 
     development of the Alabama Quail Trail in rural Alabama.
       (18) $175,000 for the Urban Development authority of 
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Harbor Gardens Greenhouse 
     project.
       (b) Increase in Amount Available for Veterans Claims 
     Adjudication.--The amount appropriated by title I under the 
     heading ``Departmental Administration'' under the paragraph 
     ``general operating expenses'' is hereby increased by 
     $5,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available 
     for veterans claims adjudication.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 1226 be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl, 
Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. At this time I understand it is the wish of the managers 
that I lay aside this amendment and that we debate it following the 
votes that will take place beginning at 1:55.
  Mr. REID. I did not hear the request.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be laid aside until following the votes that will take place at 1:55.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains for 
both sides on the Schumer amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the 
opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.

[[Page 15804]]


  Mr. CRAIG. Could you repeat that? The sponsor has how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the 
opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will now speak on the Schumer amendment, 
and I will use such time as I might consume on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator may proceed.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New York brings an 
amendment to this Chamber--certainly, I think, with the most sincere of 
intent--to set aside $15 million; in other words, to mandate the gun 
surrender program that just a few weeks ago the Bush administration 
announced it was terminating, largely because it does not work. So what 
I thought I would do, for the next few moments, is sketch for us the 
facts about gun surrender programs over the last several years and why 
they do not work.
  As we know, there is no mandate in the law. President Clinton and 
Secretary Cuomo changed the description of the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program to allow public housing authorities to make grants 
available for gun surrender initiatives. It is interesting that of the 
1,000 housing authorities this change affected, only about 100 took 
advantage of the program.
  There is a peculiar reason they took advantage of the program. Very 
early on, starting back in 1978, it became obvious gun surrender 
programs were a great photo opportunity for local law enforcement and, 
in some instances, certain housing agencies or groups. Never mind that 
they did nothing to deter crime. In fact, they were not taking off the 
streets guns being used in crimes. It was an opportunity to get rid of 
some old guns, some antiques, something that filled your closet that 
your granddad had given you that might not be worth anything and you 
wanted to get rid of any way; and you did not know how to get rid of 
it; and along came local law enforcement that said: ``We are going to 
have a gun surrender program.'' So you take a gun down to the police 
station and get $50 or $100 or $150 for it.
  The guns turned in belonged to people who least likely were involved 
in the commission of a crime. For example, senior citizens and spouses 
who had inherited guns that may have been their husbands' who had 
passed away were the ones most often who came to sell their guns.
  Some guns turned in were the cheap handguns purchased, as the Senator 
from Missouri mentioned, for the express purpose of selling them: You 
go out on the street and buy a gun for $15 or $20 and sell it for $100. 
Hey, let me tell you, folks are not stupid, they are going to play an 
advantage if they can find one, and in many instances they did.
  So let me give you a little history.
  In 1978, when we first saw gun buyback programs, overall crime was 
not significantly reduced in the 17-month period following the gun 
buyback program in Baltimore, MD. I believe that was the first one, in 
1978. Who reports that? The Comptroller General of the United States.
  Then we look at the 1992 Seattle gun surrender program. It too 
failed. It did not reduce gun injuries, deaths, or crimes. It didn't 
save anyone from being victimized by crime. But it made for a great 
photo opportunity.
  In 1996, the program that collected the greatest number of guns, as 
was mentioned, was the Baltimore program. Yet the rate of gun killings 
rose 50 percent and gun assaults more than doubled while the program 
was in effect. This was the largest gun surrender program ever 
implemented, in terms of the number of guns purchased. Gun deaths shot 
up 50 percent. And assaults more than doubled.
  If you want politics and you want publicity, then gun surrender 
programs are great. You can show tables covered with 15- or 20-year-old 
guns that would never have been used in the commission of a crime. It 
is a great photo op.
  In 1998, according to the National Institute of Justice looked at 
various crime fighting measures and asked, ``What doesn't work?'' Their 
answer? Gun surrender programs. They failed to reduce violent crime in 
even two more cities: St. Louis, and Seattle.
  Many of us who live part time in this city saw the publicity that 
went on and the very good-faith effort the Washington, DC, police made 
in 1999 with their gun surrender program. More than half of the 2,912 
weapons bought by the District of Columbia police for $100 were 15 
years of age or older, according to the District of Columbia police 
themselves.
  The Senator from New York knows as well as I do that guns used in 
crimes are typically 9-millimeter or .38 caliber semiautomatic pistols. 
Those are the ones most often cited in crime reports that are used in 
the commission of a crime. Such are not the guns collected by these 
programs.
  Gun surrender programs don't work. That is why the Bush 
administration--the President, HUD Secretary Martinez--came forward and 
said: This is a bad use of scarce resources. If we are interested in 
making public housing safer--and we are--if we are interested in 
getting drugs out of public housing--and we are--then the $15 million 
the Senator from New York would waste on photo opportunities would 
better be used in law enforcement efforts within public housing and 
elsewhere.
  What the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member of the 
appropriations subcommittee, has said is that within the current law, 
it is an option. In other words, if a housing agency wants to divert 
some of its funds for a gun buyback, they can do so. But the reason 
none of them do it is because they know it doesn't work. They know that 
funds are limited, and they know that they can use their money 
elsewhere to more effectively improve the safety of the citizens who 
live within those housing units and the community at large.
  That is why gun surrender programs are on the wane today, are no 
longer popular, unless you are interested in a photo op. The facts are 
out there. They don't work. In many instances, unless you have good law 
enforcement on the street and you have let the criminal know that if he 
uses a gun in the commission of a crime he is going to have to do time, 
then the use of guns in the commission of a crime goes up. It has been 
proven in Baltimore. It is clearly true in Seattle. I don't think it 
changed the statistics in Washington, DC.
  We did get a lot of old guns and some antiques out of the closets of 
law-abiding citizens because it was a way for them to market them, in 
some instances, for a great deal more than they might otherwise have 
gotten for them.
  With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of our time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Schumer's amendment would, if 
accepted, waste $15 million in taxpayer money on a program that has 
proved to be a failure. This amendment has more to do with partisan 
politics than sound public policy. In my view, we should not spend even 
one red cent of taxpayer money for such purposes.
  Housing, Urban and Development Secretary Mel Martinez was right to 
terminate the gun buyback program. And he did so for a single, sound 
reason: such programs do not reduce crime. I will cite just a few of 
the conclusions reached by those who have examined these programs.
  First, ``overall crime was not significantly reduced in the 17-month 
period following the [Baltimore] buyback program.'' Report to the 
Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, Handgun 
Control: Effectiveness and Costs, 2/6/78.
  In addition, gun buyback programs may encourage gun thefts, with the 
Government serving, in effect, as a reliable fence for the stolen guns. 
Such programs also give offenders a profitable way to dispose of 
weapons used in crimes. Dr. Philip J. Cook, criminologist at Duke 
University.
  Finally, another study found that ``[1992] Seattle buy-back program 
failed to reduce significantly the frequency of firearms injuries, 
deaths, or crimes.'' Callahan, et al., ``Money for Guns: Evaluation of 
the Seattle Gun Buy-

[[Page 15805]]

Back Program,'' Public Health Reports, July-August 1994.
  Thus, this debate should not be about gun politics. It should be 
about our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. If the 
supporters of this amendment truly care about public safety, we should 
spend the $15 million dollars on hiring additional police officers to 
patrol high-crime public housing areas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I think I have 21 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, it is always a pleasure to debate with my good 
friend from Idaho, Senator Craig. He makes very good but not persuasive 
arguments, at least in my opinion.
  Let me say a couple things about this issue. First, we all know about 
methods of proof. Senator Craig is citing statistics: Crime went up 
here, gun use went up here while there was a buyback program. I could 
find just as many localities where crime went down while there was a 
buyback program.
  The bottom line is, the buyback programs mainly occur in cities where 
there is lots of other factors going on, and no one can prove one way 
or the other whether this works or doesn't work. You can't prove it 
beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Let's use commonsense logic. Commonsense logic is, if a gun is not in 
the hands of a family, a person who doesn't want it, isn't our society 
likely to have less gun violence? It is very hard to prove that is 
wrong.
  Certainly, if you believe there is a moral imperative that everyone 
have a gun, you are against this program. If you believe the way to 
reduce law enforcement is to give every man and woman and child a gun--
there are some who believe that--oppose this amendment. But if you 
believe gun owners have rights and Americans are entitled to have guns, 
but there is also some danger to guns and that we should be careful, 
why not have a program that says: If you want--you are not being 
compelled--if you want to bring your gun back in and get $50 for it, 
you can. It is perfectly sensible and logical to think that works.
  I don't want to oversell this program. It is not a panacea. We have 
not put hundreds of millions of dollars in but merely 15. In the eyes 
of most people who should know, it has worked.
  Let me quote the mayor of Houston in the State of Texas, hardly a 
State and a city known for its strong advocacy of gun control. Mayor 
Lee Brown was the former police commissioner of New York City so he has 
a great deal of law enforcement background:

       Having spent my career in law enforcement, I recognize that 
     gun buybacks are a very effective way of reducing the number 
     of guns in circulation.

  This has worked all over the country. In Lexington, KY, 1,517 guns 
were purchased; Toledo, OH, 1,050; Atlanta, 838. We can talk about 
criminals and kids going out and using the guns. What about accidents? 
If a family doesn't want a gun in a home and doesn't know how to 
dispose of it, doesn't allowing them to go to their local police 
precinct and have the gun bought back help?
  Let's not debate theology here. I would be happy to debate theology, 
and I did with my good friend from Idaho in many different areas in 
terms of guns. But this is not a theological issue unless you are part 
of that small band who believe that the best thing that can happen to 
America is everyone should have a gun. I don't. I am sort of agnostic. 
I don't think we should take away everybody's gun, and I don't think we 
should give everybody a gun. I think we should let law-abiding people 
make their own decisions. But the very logic that my good friend from 
Idaho uses: let people make their own decisions, is gainsaid by this 
amendment.
  Let's say somebody has bought a gun and wants to get rid of it. Why 
not? I don't understand the logic of the opposition. I do understand 
the opposition.
  Let me say to my colleagues that the Bush administration, very 
quietly but really, has begun a campaign to roll back the moderate, 
sensible measures that we have had to keep guns out of the hands of 
children and criminals, not just in this issue. Attorney General 
Ashcroft sent a letter to the NRA, where he said there had to be a 
compelling State interest to have a gun control law. As a lawyer, we 
both know that ``compelling State interest'' is next to impossible to 
prove. Many lawyers argue that under that theory the Brady law could be 
thrown out as unconstitutional, despite the fact that not a single 
person has ever been shown to be legally deprived of a gun because of 
the Brady law. Yet it has kept hundreds of thousands of felons from 
buying them.
  Then, amazingly enough--you know, we keep records on everything; the 
IRS keeps records; every agency keeps records--well, the FBI has kept 
records on gun purchases, as the ATF has, by gun dealers. Jim Kessler, 
on my staff, a few years ago, found out something that changed the way 
we think about gun control. He found that 50 percent of the guns used 
in crimes came from 1 percent of the dealers. Let me repeat that 
because it is an astounding finding. Fifty percent of the guns used in 
crimes come from 1 percent of the dealers. When we found those numbers, 
I thought there was a real breakthrough because the NRA had always 
said, ``Don't pass new laws, enforce the existing laws.''
  I, again, want to do something to reduce gun violence. And here we 
had the opportunity to go after the 1 percent of the dealers who are 
putting guns, a hugely disproportionate amount of guns, into criminal 
hands. We could come down on them and not come down on all the others--
the very thing the NRA preaches, that most people who own and sell guns 
are law abiding was proven by this report and we could just come down 
on the 1 percent. All of a sudden, the administration wants to destroy 
the records so we can no longer come to 1 percent.
  I will tell you what happened here. The administration stealthily has 
been moving to an extreme position on gun control. President Bush, when 
he campaigned, did not take such positions, but that is where they are 
moving. On issue after issue after issue, that has happened. That is 
why this buyback proposal, modest as it was, was taken out of the HUD-
VA appropriation, not because they had done exhaustive studies about 
whether it works or not, not because we could not afford it; these are 
no new dollars; they come out of an existing program, but because that 
narrow band of ideologues, way out of the mainstream, the kind of 
people who think many of our brave law enforcement people are black-
booted thugs, it was said, put pressure on the administration to move 
way over. Hence, they removed this provision.
  Again, I say to my colleagues, anyone who tells you absolutely that 
this program doesn't work doesn't have the statistics. Conversely, 
anyone who tells you we can prove beyond any doubt that it does work is 
also overselling because they don't have the statistics either, and I 
don't want to claim that. But by simple logic, particularly in inner 
cities where we know there are too many guns, giving people an 
incentive to sell the gun back, an unwanted gun, it is very hard to 
disagree that it would reduce the amount of accidents caused in the 
home by guns and the amount of crime caused by kids and criminals with 
guns.
  So if you want to brandish your ideological sword, show the NRA that 
you are with them all the way, vote against this amendment. If you want 
to reduce crime or have a good chance of doing it, get some very 
dangerous things out of the hands of those who don't want them, vote 
for this amendment.
  This is hardly the most important issue on gun control we will 
debate. I am amazed it has brought such opposition, such attention, and 
such focus from the administration. But I do believe, with all due 
respect to my colleague from Idaho, that the motivation to remove this 
amendment is not people's safety, but an ideology that says everybody, 
everybody, everybody should have a gun, and that makes America a better 
place.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page 15806]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use such time as I might consume 
within our time limitation. I, too, enjoy engaging my colleague from 
New York on this issue. The Senator from New York, as I said while he 
was not on the floor, does, I think, bring this amendment with good 
intent. He has been an outspoken advocate of gun control and wants to 
eliminate crime in which guns are used. I certainly want to eliminate 
guns crime. We all do.
  Let me suggest to you today that while the Senator from New York 
might like to engage me in a theological debate, this isn't one. This 
debate is over $15 million and how it can best be used in housing 
authorities to combat crime and drug use.
  The committee has worked its will. They have said it is an option. If 
you want to do a gun surrender program, it is an option but it is not 
mandatory.
  Let me tell you one reason why.
  I think the Senator from New York would find this an interesting fact 
because it comes from New York City. If I may have the attention of the 
Senator from New York, I found this a fascinating problem because what 
is happening out there is that somebody is gaming a bad program.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. When the Senator said this was an option before the 
amendment, it was an option for the administration. As I understand it, 
it would not be an option in the New York City Housing Authority, or 
any housing authority that got $20 million out of this program; they 
would not be allowed to take $1 million and set that aside for a 
buyback program. The administration has the option of not allowing 
these funds for this purpose under the present statute. If the Senator 
will answer that.
  Mr. CRAIG. We have the chairman of the subcommittee on the floor. I 
have not read the specifics of the provision within the appropriation. 
But I was told by the ranking member that housing authorities, under 
this current legislation, have the option, if they choose, to do a gun 
buyback. Is that accurate or inaccurate? I don't want to misstate the 
reality of the legislation.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I may answer----
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on 
VA-HUD if that flexibility exists within the law. Does the chairman 
know that?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me advise the Senator what my staff told me. I 
might also need a moment for additional clarification.
  As I understand the legislation, there is currently an option. What 
the Schumer amendment does is do a setaside, am I correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that clarify it?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes. Therefore, the statement I made was accurate. I said 
that within the law there is an option to use the money, if an 
authority wishes to, for the purpose of a gun buyback. Is that an 
inaccurate statement?
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield, it is true, it is an option. 
As I understand it----
  Mr. CRAIG. That is all I need to have.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might finish.
  Mr. CRAIG. On your time only.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to answer on 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The option has been foreclosed by the administration. 
They said they would not spend any of this money and not allow the 
housing authorities to spend any of this money for a buyback program. 
That is what has happened. It would not be available to the housing 
authority, even though in the law it is an option. The administration 
sets out regulations, and the buyback program would not be part of the 
regulation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. I think that is appropriate. I am not going to disagree 
with the Senator from New York on that proviso, because what is in the 
law today was done by the Clinton administration and not a mandate of 
the Congress itself.
  President Clinton and Secretary Cuomo did that by regulatory change. 
So there is flexibility. What is true in the law, which we are dealing 
with in this Chamber, is the option. The Schumer amendment would 
mandate a specific amount of money to be used for that purpose.
  Let me quote an article I found most fascinating from the New York 
Daily News Online, July 28, 2000:

       A gun buyback program to get illegal weapons off the 
     streets had to be altered yesterday after a stampede of court 
     officers [that is, law enforcement officers] tried to cash 
     in. Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes ordered changes 
     in the initiative when he found out that court officers--some 
     of them in uniform--were handing in their old .38 caliber 
     service revolvers. Because the program had pulled in only 
     about 200 guns since the one-month window began on July 1, 
     Hynes upped the reward on Monday from $100 to $250 per gun.

  In other words, it was not working, a point that has been driven home 
numerous times. The Senator from New York says: It feels good. So let 
us dump $15 million because it feels good, while we all know it is a 
whale of a photo-op.
  Here is what happened, and this is a quote from the district 
attorney:

       We had a surge last night of about 100 guns and they all 
     seemed to be .38 [caliber] service revolvers.

  According to the article:

       One court officer collected $1,500 by turning in six guns.

  And even though people were gaming the system, officials had to pay 
for the guns because they had made the offer. The point is----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator yield on my time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish my thought, and then I will be happy to give 
the Senator his time to debate.
  The reality is, it confirms the point that the program gets gamed. In 
1978, in Baltimore, it did not work. Crime went up. In this city over 
2,000 guns were purchased, many of them 15 years of age and older. They 
are not the current weapon used on the street in street crime.
  If a family finds a gun on their hands which they inherited and they 
do not know what to do with it, they could take it down to the local 
police department and hand it in. They could do that. They do not have 
to be paid to get rid of a gun. They can hand it in or they can take it 
down to a pawn shop and get a little money.
  I find this a fascinating quote, and I think the Senator from New 
York will find it fascinating also. The Boston Globe, Tuesday October 
24, 2000:

       The threat was gun violence--

  And I must say the threat today is still gun violence.

     the stakes, the lives of urban youth.

  The stakes today, in many instances, the lives of urban youth. Both 
the Senator from New York and I are concerned about that.
  The image was a body face down in blood and the sound was the wail of 
sirens, funeral hymns, and more gunfire. Amid the violence that gripped 
urban centers nationwide in the 1990s, America's call to stop the 
violence was a cry of civic activism: Everybody turn in your guns.
  It caught on with the made-for-television popularity. Guns for money. 
Guns for food. Guns for concert tickets. Guns for therapy, for shopping 
trips, and in one town in Illinois, firearms for a free table dance at 
a strip club.
  In this case, the offer was and I quote

       Buns for Guns. Around the country and in Boston, gun 
     buybacks spurred intense publicity. Private sponsors poured 
     money into the programs. Led by groups Citizens for Safety, 
     Boston collected 2,800 guns in four years.
       With gun violence again on the rise this year--

  That is the year 2000--

     the cry to bring back the buyback is growing among some 
     Boston activists. But almost five years after the last goods-
     for-guns event, crime specialists and some police officials 
     are warning against them, saying gun buybacks were and are 
     among the least effective tools for public safety.
       Studies of gun buybacks, including a Harvard analysis --


[[Page 15807]]


  And I know the Senator from New York says statistics do not matter. 
This is just a feel good amendment, but we are talking about $15 
million in taxpayer money

     of Boston's program, say unanimously that the programs don't 
     work. In an interview yesterday, Boston Police Commissioner 
     Paul F. Evans said that in retrospect, buybacks failed to 
     produce the impact many had hoped for or expected.

  I could go on to quote more of the Boston Globe article. Whether it 
is food for guns, tickets for guns, or money for guns, it did not work. 
That is why the Bush administration has said it is a bad use of money. 
I do not care if one feels good or feels bad, or one does not want to 
believe in the statistics that come from Harvard University, the 
reality is we have to get at crime in our housing and it is not done by 
throwing $15 million at a program that flat out does not work.
  If someone has an old gun in their closet and they want to get it out 
of the hands of anybody in their family, take it to the police 
department and give it to them. They do not have to be paid, or they 
could take it to a pawn shop and get 5 or 10 bucks maybe.
  The problem is that much of what we were buying for $100 to $250 was 
not pawnable because it was old, it was antique, and it was 
nonfunctional. As the Senator from New York says, though, if it feels 
good, then maybe we ought to do it. We should not do it for $15 
million, not when our budgets are tight and not when we are scrambling 
over where to get money to do all other kinds of programs that are 
important to the American people.
  I do not always agree with Harvard, but Harvard has studied the 
program in Boston and they say it does not work. Law enforcement says 
it does not work and ought not be used. My guess is, that is why 
President Bush and Secretary Martinez said, let's don't do it anymore. 
It is not a philosophical or evangelical reason. The reality is: It 
does not work.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho is trying to 
oversell his point. He says it does not work. He cited one anecdote 
from a police commissioner in Boston. Then he talked about the Brooklyn 
program. And then he talked about food and theater tickets. That is 
like saying we ought to scrap all automobiles because the Edsel did not 
work.
  We are not talking about those programs. We are not talking about 
$100; we are not talking about $250; and we are not talking about 
theater tickets. We are not talking about any of those. We are not even 
talking about law enforcement unless they live in a public housing 
project, and I do not think many do. We are talking about a program 
that housing authorities have run with great success. Again, I am not 
going to cite statistics.
  My friend from Idaho has some police saying this is ``feel good.'' 
No, this is not feel good. It is life and death.
  I am trying to be honest in saying neither he nor I can prove whether 
these programs affect the statistics. It cannot be proven because there 
is no control. We do not have two identical cities or two identical 
housing projects, one that had the program and one that did not.
  I do not have to oversell my case because it is such a strong case. 
The strong case is a simple case, and that is when guns are off the 
streets and not in unwanted hands, our society is likely to be safer.
  I go back to the argument I made before. There are some--maybe my 
friend from Idaho--who do not believe that, but there are some who 
believe the more guns people have the better. Most people, most 
Americans, most gun owners do not believe that.
  As for his argument about old guns being turned in, the Senator is an 
expert on law enforcement. Old guns are more dangerous. They misfire 
more frequently; they fire inaccurately more frequently. And the 
program, as it is set up, is not supposed to give a reward for a gun 
that does not work but only those that do. Again, more strawman 
arguments, maybe about some programs somewhere that did not work, but 
this program has.
  We cannot cite the name and case, but someone is alive today because 
of this program. Probably more than one person is alive because of this 
program.
  I ask my colleagues not to get wrapped up in the whole ideological 
fervor here; rather, to commonsense arguments, not some program about 
movies for guns and not about some program about $250 for guns but 
about this program which has a track record. Ask housing authorities 
throughout the country and law enforcement people in those housing 
authorities throughout the country if they
  Because of this administration's assault on rational laws that keep 
guns out of the hands of criminals, they took it out. It would be a lot 
better for our society if we put it back.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
time will be charged equally against both sides.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 4 minutes 24 
seconds remaining; the Senator from New York has 6 minutes 43 seconds 
remaining. Time will be taken from both sides until someone yields 
time.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friends, if they do not wish to use all their 
time, they can yield it back. Senator Kyl can speak on his amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be happy--I just made eye contact 
with my friend from Idaho--to yield back my time. I believe he will 
yield back his, and we will vote at 1:55 p.m.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some articles 
and some of those terrible statistics from different gun buyback 
programs be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 2, 1994]

                Add Gun Buybacks to the Public Wish List

                           (By Erik Eckholm)

       It may have started as a holiday exercise in wishful 
     thinking. But last week, as a ``toys for guns'' exchange in 
     Manhattan's embattled Washington Heights continued to draw in 
     scores of weapons each day, grizzled police veterans were 
     becoming believers and even the National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People had joined in, laying plans to 
     sponsor similar programs in other cities.
       Before Christmas, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelley had 
     compared the new program to chicken soup: can't do any harm. 
     But his tone changed as the guns poured in in response to a 
     local businessman's offer of a $100 Toys-R-Us gift 
     certificate for each surrendered weapon, on top of $75 in 
     cash offered from an existing city gun-purchase program. 
     ``I'm converted,'' the Police Commissioner told reporters. 
     ``Sometimes chicken soup works.''
       The N.A.A.C.P. saw the buoyant response as a glimmer of 
     sanity in a culture of urban violence that is especially 
     devastating to blacks. Other private sponsors have gotten on 
     board, with makers and sellers of athletic shoes and even 
     Dial-A-Mattress pledging gift certificates for their 
     products. And there was talk in Congress of tax breaks for 
     corporations that contribute.
       Gun-purchase programs have been tried over the years in 
     many cities, with varied results. In New York City, the 
     standing cash-for-guns program had yielded modest numbers of 
     guns; somehow, this new combination of toys, Christmas, 
     private leadership, tabloid frenzy and a general desperation 
     about gunfire has worked magic, drawing in some 550 guns in 
     the first eight days of the program, which began Dec. 22.
       In Dallas, too, an offer of coveted goods--tickets to 
     Cowboys games--seemed to pull in more weapons than cash 
     alone. Still, probably the most spectacular response yet to 
     any gun buying program involved cash only. In St. Louis in 
     the fall of 1991, the police over a one-month period 
     collected 7,547 guns by offering $50 for handguns and $25 for 
     rifles. But the program was not continued, a St. Louis police 
     official said last week, for one reason: money. The cost had 
     been $351,000, and no police department can sustain that 
     level of spending for long.
       Corporate donations may help support the new programs, but 
     the question of costs and benefits remains. It is easy to be 
     skeptical. After all, what difference does it make to melt 
     down a few thousand guns in a country owning 200 million of 
     them? And nobody thinks criminals are selling off the tools 
     of their trade.
       Buyback proponents point instead to more modest possible 
     benefits. Fewer guns in dresser drawers, they say, may mean 
     fewer accidental shootings, fewer crimes of passion, fewer 
     guns stolen for later use in crime

[[Page 15808]]

     and reduced chances of teenagers grabbing household weapons 
     to settle scores. ``Taking guns out of circulation is a good 
     thing in itself,'' said Jeffery Y. Muchnick, legislative 
     director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
       But some criminologists are unenthusiastic about gun 
     purchase programs, arguing that resources could be better 
     spent and warning about possible unintended consequences.
       Lawrence W. Sherman, a professor at the University of 
     Maryland and president of the Crime Control Institute, said 
     gun buybacks would have to be coupled with a national ban on 
     new sales of handguns, or at least of the semiautomatic 
     pistols wreaking the most havoc, to do any good over the long 
     term. ``Otherwise,'' he said, ``taking guns out of 
     circulation in the face of constant market demand unwittingly 
     subsidizes the gun industry.''
       Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke 
     University, studies the economics of street guns and warns 
     that the entry of a major new gun buyer, albeit the police 
     department, can have unforeseen effects.
       ``You can't see this as exempt from normal market 
     processes,'' he said. Between vouchers and cash, a person 
     could get $175 for a gun last week in New York, well above 
     the retail price of many new handguns. Dr. Cook says buyback 
     programs may encourage gun thefts, with government serving, 
     in effect, as a reliable fence. Such programs also give 
     offenders a profitable way to dispose of weapons used in 
     crimes, he said.
       On the positive side, Dr. Cook said that if a sustained 
     gun-purchase program were to succeed in raising the floor 
     price for privately traded guns in a community, some teenager 
     seeking illegal guns could be priced out of the market. But 
     this would be achieved at enormous expense, he added, raising 
     questions about the best use of resources. In New York City, 
     at least, where restrictive laws have already prompted black 
     market prices of $250 to $300 for pistols retailing in the 
     South for $39, and prices of $500 or more for higher-quality 
     weapons, that floor would have to be quite high to seriously 
     alter the market.
       At best, a gun-purchase program nibbles at the edges of gun 
     violence. ``The central problem of criminal justice is not 
     just to get the guns off the street, but to get the gunmen 
     off the street,'' said Thomas Repetto, a former police 
     officer and head of the private Citizen's Crime Commission in 
     New York. He calls for more aggressive enforcement of the gun 
     laws, using specially trained gun squads to identify and 
     arrest gun carriers, drawing on knowledge gleaned by 
     community police officers.
       Still, whatever their weak points, buybacks are here and 
     happening. Even skeptics have to appreciate their symbolic 
     value in dispirited neighborhoods; responses like the one 
     elicited in Washington Heights suggest that people have had 
     it with senseless killings. ``You work on many fronts at 
     once,'' Mr. Repetto said, ``What's most impressive about 
     Washington Heights is the outpouring of community sentiment 
     against guns. That's even more impressive than the numbers of 
     guns turned in.''
                                  ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, Oct. 24, 2000]

            Specialists Cool on Calls to Revive Gun Buybacks

                          (By Francie Latour)

       The threat was gun violence. The stakes, the lives of urban 
     youth. The image was a body face-down in blood and the sound 
     was a wail of sirens, funeral hymns, and more gunfire.
       Amid the violence that gripped urban centers nationwide in 
     the 1990s, America's call to stop the violence was a cry of 
     civic activism: Everybody turn in your guns.
       It caught on with made-for-television popularity.
       Guns for money. Guns for food. Guns for concert tickets. 
     Guns for therapy, for shopping trips, and in one town in 
     Illinois, firearms for a free table dance at a strip club: 
     Buns for Guns.
       Around the country and in Boston, gun buybacks spurred 
     intense publicity. Police unveiled bins of guns. Private 
     sponsors poured money into the programs. Led by the group 
     Citizens for Safety, Boston collected 2,800 guns in four 
     years.
       With gun violence again on the rise this year, the cry to 
     bring back the buyback is growing among some Boston 
     activists. But almost five years after the last goods-for-
     guns event, crime specialists and some police officials are 
     warning against them, saying buybacks were--and are--among 
     the least effective tools for public safety.
       Studies of gun buybacks, including a Harvard analysis of 
     Boston's program, say unanimously that the programs don't 
     work. In an interview yesterday, Boston Police commissioner 
     Paul F. Evans said that in retrospect, buybacks failed to 
     produce the impact many had hoped for or expected.
       And despite Mayor Thomas M. Menino's appearance on the 
     White House lawn last year, where he and other mayors landed 
     President Clinton's $15 million federal program to fund 
     buybacks through local housing authorities, the city has yet 
     to take advantage of its share of that money and is unlikely 
     to do so.
       ``We'll never know the impact of taking even one gun off 
     the street in terms of how many lives that act could have 
     saved,'' Evans said yesterday. ``But you have to step back 
     and analyze the bottom-line results. We found the 
     neighborhoods where we needed the guns to come in were the 
     neighborhoods that brought in the fewest guns.''
       A series of studies published by the Washington D.C.-based 
     Police Executive Research Forum offers a bleak analysis.
       In cities such as St. Louis and Seattle, surveys of buyback 
     participants showed that a significant minority planned on 
     using the money to buy a new gun. In St. Louis, the surveys 
     showed that those who had been arrested at least twice were 
     three times as likely as law-abiding citizens to say they 
     would buy a new weapon; 18- to 34-year-olds were 10 times 
     more likely than older participants to say they would do so.
       According to a study of Boston's 1993 and 1994 gun buybacks 
     by Harvard criminologist David Kennedy, few buyback guns were 
     the semiautomatic pistols used in crimes. Nearly 75 percent 
     of the guns were made before 1968, with some qualifying as 
     museum pieces.
       That was the case as recently as April, when Springfield 
     conducted a gun buyback using the federal funds. Malden and 
     Worcester have also participated in the federally funded 
     buybacks, which started last fall.
       A spokesman for the Springfield Housing Authority, Raymond 
     Berry, said the city's Police Department took 287 guns off 
     the street. They included some handguns, but no assault 
     weapons, and some guns were donated to the Springfield Armory 
     National Historic Firearms Museum.
       The Boston Housing Authority said this week it could spend 
     up to $20,000 from its drug prevention funding to coordinate 
     its own buyback. According to HUD, the federal government 
     would provide $43 for every $100 the city uses toward the 
     program. In the past, the city has paid $50 per gun.
       Some Boston Activists, including the gang-intervention 
     group Gangpeace and former members of Citizens for Safety, 
     have said that with gun violence on the rise, it is time to 
     take advantage of the federal money for a program that, at 
     the very least , offers residents a safe way to get rid of 
     unwanted handguns.
       ``I think Boston is making a mistake by not reinstituting 
     the buybacks that relieved our streets of almost 3,000 
     firearms,'' said Lew Dabney, who participated in buybacks 
     from 1993 to 1996.
       The payoff from buybacks was not just in removing guns from 
     homes, Dabney argued, but in the way it empowered residents 
     to take action against gun violence. It allowed ordinary 
     volunteers to become civic heroes, broke down racial 
     barriers, and created memorable images such as that of 
     author/activist Michael Patrick McDonald coaxing teens to 
     turn over firearms.
       According to HUD, the national buyback program has 
     recovered 21,600 guns from 95 public housing developments.
       But a spokeswoman for the BHA said investments in youth 
     activities, community policing, and drug intervention were 
     more cost-effective ways to reduce violence.
       Even of BHA wanted to initiate a program, spokeswoman Lydia 
     Agro said, it could not do so without the Police Department.
       Yesterday, Commissioner Evans said he had discussed the 
     buybacks with BHA oficials, but none was planned so far.
       ``I wouldn't rule another buyback out, ``Evans said. But 
     with the limited resources we have, and the money and man 
     hours in setting up a buyback, you have to ask what is the 
     value?''
       Next to none, according to Kennedy, who authored the 
     Harvard study.
       ``I don't think anybody who's looked at buybacks in my 
     detail thinks they have very much impact,'' Kennedy said.
       On the one hand, he said, the buybacks offer a civic 
     function akin to garbage disposal, to help people remove 
     unwanted guns they are too afraid to handle.
       But the cost of police departments can be considerable, 
     from staffing checkpoints and overtime costs to ballistics 
     testing and disposing of the guns.
       The decision to pump $15 million into a national buyback 
     comes two years after a 1997 study commissioned by the 
     Justice Department called buybacks the lest effective use of 
     crime control dollars.
       ``I think the best conclusion to draw is that the federal 
     HUD buyback program will be a waste of money,'' said Lawrence 
     Sherman, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania 
     who authorized the Justice Department study. ``The problem 
     is, there is still this wonderful idea of one life at a time, 
     one gun at a time, that you can associate with these 
     programs. There's an emotional aspect to crime prevention 
     that has nothing to do with the evidence about whether they 
     work or don't work.''

               [From the National Review, June 15, 2000]

  The Madness of Gun Buybacks--Andrew Cuomo's Policy is Full of Holes

             (By Dave Kopel, of the Independent Institute)

       Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo held a press conference last 
     week to announce his success in paying Americans not to 
     exercise their constitutional rights. Although Congress never 
     appropriated money for the

[[Page 15809]]

     project, Cuomo has used federal tax dollars to conduct a 
     ``BuyBack America'' program, which Cuomo says has claimed 
     more than 10,000 guns in recent weeks.
       The program isn't really a ``buyback.'' Since Cuomo's 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development didn't sell the 
     guns in the first place, it can't buy them ``back.'' Nor will 
     the program contribute anything to public safety.
       A criminal, for whom a gun is a tool of the trade, is 
     unlikely to sell his tool for $50. Instead, the typical 
     sellers in a ``buyback'' are the widows of hunters, other 
     older people, or other non-dangerous types--rather than 
     teenage gangsters who have suddenly decided to abandon a life 
     of violence.
       Because most people who surrender their guns are very 
     unlikely to commit a violent gun crime, the public safety 
     benefit of a buyback, if any, must lie in reducing the supply 
     of guns which can be stolen, or in removing a potential 
     suicide instrument. But the buyback doesn't even provide much 
     in the way of disarmament: a study of a gun buybacks in 
     Seattle reported that sixty-six percent of sellers had 
     another gun that they did not surrender. Indeed, three 
     percent of gun sellers said they would use the money to buy 
     another gun, or would donate the proceeds to the National 
     Rifle Association. [Charles M. Callahan, et al., Money for 
     Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program 84 PUB. 
     HEALTH REP. 474 (1994).]
       Moreover, the guns sold at buybacks are often old or 
     defective. This shouldn't be surprising; a rational person 
     with a gun worth more than $50 would sell the gun at a gun 
     store for a fair price, rather than giving it to the 
     government for $50.
       Unsurprisingly, the social science evidence shows that 
     buybacks have absolutely no positive effect in reducing gun 
     crime, gun accidents, or any other form of gun misuse. The 
     research is detailed is Under Fire: gun Buybacks, Exchanges 
     and Amnesty Programs, a book published by the D.C.-based 
     Police Foundation (a think tank for big-city police chiefs).
       The money wasted on the Cuomo buyback came from a Drug 
     Elimination Grant Program. Although Congress gave HUD money 
     for the battle against drugs (which are illegal), Cuomo used 
     the money to get rid of guns, which are not only legal, but 
     are specifically protected by the Second Amendment and by 
     forty-four state constitutions.
       Why is so much energy invested in buybacks by the anti-gun 
     forces? One reason is that it's a path of relatively little 
     resistance. Gunowners may fight against efforts to take their 
     guns, but they are indifferent to the government buying guns 
     from other people.
       Second, buybacks can be initiated without legislative 
     approval, as long as there's an executive branch official, 
     like Cuomo, willing to spend tax money ``creatively'' or 
     unlawfully.
       More importantly, anti-gun activists really do believe that 
     guns are inherently evil. The people who want the government 
     to buy and destroy guns enjoy the same satisfaction that 
     others have enjoyed at book burnings, or at the 
     prohibitionists' rally where whiskey is poured into the 
     river. From the destroyers' viewpoint, there's no need to 
     wait for social science to find benefits from the 
     destruction. The destruction of the wicked object is good in 
     itself.
       In a free country, destructionists have every right to 
     their own opinions, including opinions that paying other 
     people to stop exercising constitutional rights is a good 
     idea. But it's hard to balance the motives of a politician 
     who claims not to be against law-abiding citizens owning 
     guns--and then takes satisfaction every time a citizen 
     surrenders her firearms to the government to be melted into a 
     slab of useless metal.
                                  ____


             [From the New York Daily News, July 28, 2000]

              Gun Buy-Back Backfires When Officers Cash In

                           (By Mike Claffey)

       A gun buy-back program to get illegal weapons off the 
     streets had to be altered yesterday after a stampede of court 
     officers tried to cash in.
       Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes ordered changes in 
     the initiative when he found out that court officers--some of 
     them in uniform--were handing in their old .38-caliber 
     service revolvers.
       Because the program had pulled in only about 200 guns since 
     the one-month window began July 1, Hynes upped the reward on 
     Monday from $100 to $250 per gun.
       ``We had a surge last night of about 100 guns and they all 
     seem to be .38 service revolvers,'' said a source in the 
     prosecutor's office.
       One court officer collected $1,500 by turning in six guns.
       ``This is a program with good intentions to get illegal 
     guns off the street and shouldn't be bastardized by people 
     looking for a quick buck,'' said Hynes' spokesman, Kevin 
     Davitt.
       ``We're going to be contacting those people who abused the 
     program and ask for our money back,'' Davitt said.
       But a spokesman for the court system, David Bookstaver, 
     said it is not clear that the officers can be forced to do 
     that.
       ``District Attorney Hynes has indicated that this is really 
     not in the spirit of what the program was designed for,'' 
     Bookstaver said.
       But he added that court officials `` have no authority'' to 
     tell the officers to give the money back.
       He said, however, that word was going out yesterday that 
     court officers can no longer participate.
       Some court officers in Brooklyn were upset that Hynes had 
     forbidden them from participating in the buy-back offer. The 
     officers were allowed to keep their revolvers after they were 
     issued 9-mm. semiautomatics last year.
       ``I have the flyer right here and it says, `Any working 
     handgun, sawed-off shotgun or assault rifle. No questions 
     asked.' '' said Bob Patelli a Senior Court Officers 
     Association delegate at Brooklyn Supreme Court.
       ``If the DA sees fit to discontinue the program, fine. But 
     he's bound legally to pay for the guns he's already taken.''
       Patelli added that the program was achieving its goal of 
     getting extra guns out of circulation.
       ``It gets the gun off the street instead of leaving it is a 
     closet where children or a burglar could find them,'' he 
     said.
       Last year, 659 firearms were turned in for $100 each. The 
     money comes from drug forfeiture funds, Davitt said.
       ``We thought that perhaps $100 was not meeting the value 
     that some people place on these weapons,'' he said.
       To be turned in, guns must be wrapped in brown paper and 
     can be taken to any Brooklyn precinct house. If the gun is 
     deemed operable, the desk officer is supposed to give the 
     person a pink voucher that can be redeemed at the district 
     attorney's office at 350 Jay St.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the status of the amendment in 
relation to when will it be voted on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55 p.m. there will be a sequence of 
votes, and this will be the second vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to table the amendment for the vote at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I understand that is within the unanimous consent time 
sequence that has already been established.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on the Schumer 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1229

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 1:55 p.m. is evenly 
divided among the two managers of the bill and the Senator from 
Arizona. Does the Senator from Arizona seek recognition?
  Mr. KYL. Yes. I thank the Chair. First, I have two unanimous consent 
requests. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin, and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as 
cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1229, As Modified

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment at the 
desk and I ask that the amendment be modified accordingly. A copy has 
been provided to Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds made available under the heading ``state and tribal 
     assistance grants'' in title III for capitalization grants 
     for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et 
     seq.) shall be expended by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency except in accordance with the 
     formula for allocation of funds among recipients developed 
     under subparagraph (D) of section 1452(a)(1) of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) (including 
     under a regulation promulgated under that section before the 
     date of enactment of this Act) and in accordance with the 
     wastewater infrastructure

[[Page 15810]]

     needs survey conducted under section 516 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1375), except that--
       (1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under 
     clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) shall be a minimum of 
     0.675 percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent;
       (2) any State the proportional share of which is greater 
     than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive 
     97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the 
     State; and
       (3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is only one other speaker 
besides myself. I am informed Senator Fitzgerald is on his way. When he 
arrives, he will address the amendment, and after that, other than 
myself, as I said, I do not think there are any other speakers, unless 
the distinguished assistant majority leader wishes to be recognized to 
comment at this point.
  Mr. President, I apologize for one bit of confusion, and I thank the 
Senator from Maryland, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
for catching an error. The wrong section was cited in one part of the 
amendment. She correctly noted we had referred to the wrong section, 
and the modification which has just been adopted refers to the right 
section. I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.
  I do think it has caused some confusion because I am in receipt of 
one document which I understand has been circulated to some Members of 
the majority that criticizes the amendment in two primary ways, the 
first of which is a suggestion that this amendment uses the same 
formula as used in the drinking water section of the bill. I suspect 
the citing of the section might have created some of that confusion.
  It has been clear from the outset, as I have described this over and 
over and I went through the description with the Senator from Virginia, 
that the whole point of this amendment is to use a formula which is 
based upon a needs survey established by the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to wastewater treatment. I pointed out that there are 
two such needs-based surveys: One relates to drinking water; one 
relates to wastewater.
  Obviously, the drinking water needs survey should relate to drinking 
water. That is exactly what the law provides. That is the survey that 
is used for the formula for drinking water. By the same token, the 
wastewater needs survey should apply to wastewater, but it does not. 
The law today has a different formula and it is very difficult to 
understand the origins. As near as anybody can figure out, it relates 
to a construction grants program that was in existence in the 1970s. It 
has nothing to do with this needs survey.
  We say, just as we should have a needs survey by EPA driving the 
decisions for drinking water, which we do, we should have a similar 
kind of formula for wastewater. The wastewater formula is not based on 
the drinking water needs survey, it is based on the wastewater needs 
survey.
  I note, in this document that has been circulated at least among some 
Members of the majority, that the criticism is we should not have the 
same formula apply to drinking water apply to wastewater. It does not. 
To the extent there was confusion because one of the sections was 
miscited in the amendment, I apologize for that, again. I thank the 
Senator from Maryland for allowing me to make that correction.
  We are talking about two different needs surveys, two different 
formulas. We simply want the type of needs survey EPA conducts to apply 
to the formula in this case.
  The second item I want to point out about the document is a complete 
error in one of its comments. I quote from this document:

       A number of other States, for example, Ohio, Illinois, 
     Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey, would receive reduced 
     allocations.

  I assure all my colleagues from those States that is not only true, 
but the reality is that the States cited are among the States that 
receive the highest benefits of the formula change--Ohio, Illinois, 
Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey. In fact, I think they are the 
highest. Let me go through the numbers precisely.
  For the State of Ohio, it would today receive $76,845,000. Under the 
formula, the pending amendment, it would receive $78,423,000. The net 
increase is $3,577,000, when you take the earmarks into account.
  For the State of Illinois, which I think receives the highest 
benefit--I confess to the Presiding Officer, I do not know why Illinois 
would have been so shortchanged in the past, but I appreciate his 
willingness to cosponsor the amendment because of the clear 
discrepancy--under the current allocation, the State of Illinois would 
receive $61,735,000. Under the pending amendment, Illinois would 
receive $108 million, which is a net gain of $48,764,000, again taking 
into account the $2.5 million earmarks. That is an increase from $61 to 
$108 million. The next State cited is Florida. Florida goes from $46 
million to $55 million; Indiana goes from $32 million to $50 million; 
New Jersey goes from $55 million to almost $75 million.
  This document floating around titled ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,'' 
is not only in error; it is almost 180 degrees off. I can't explain why 
anyone would make this conclusion. The miscitation of the section 
number has nothing to do with these numbers. Somebody has grossly 
misunderstood the amendment, misunderstood the charts or the formula, 
or in some other way deliberately misstated the facts.
  I say to my Democratic colleagues who might have received this 
document, ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,'' this page-and-a-half document 
is wrong. It is wrong in the first half because we are not using the 
same formula as the safe drinking water formula. And it is wrong in the 
second half, for what reason I don't know, but it is grossly wrong. It 
could not be more wrong with respect to the States it claims are 
receiving reductions. Those States happen to be the States receiving 
the largest increases.
  For the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for the earlier 
part of the debate, let me explain what we are talking about while I am 
waiting for Senator Fitzgerald, a cosponsor of the amendment. The bill 
we are debating deals with, among other things, EPA, and it has 
sections dealing with funding from different funds for projects that 
the U.S. Government has mandated: To protect drinking water and to 
protect communities from problems relating to improper wastewater 
treatment. We provide those mandates. Congress, therefore, provides 
funding to help local communities create the proper infrastructure to 
meet the requirements of the statute and EPA.
  As Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have eloquently pointed out, it 
is always a struggle to get the funding to fill these needs, but they 
have done a great job in getting additional funding this year for that 
purpose.
  The problem is, whereas the drinking water portion is allocated on 
the basis of EPA's recommendations and what they call the needs survey, 
there is no such reference to EPA recommendations with respect to 
wastewater treatment. Instead, we are reverting to a formula based on 
1970s data. It has never been updated since the action was put into 
place in 1987.
  There is a legitimate suggestion we ought to go to the authorizing 
committee to try to fix this. The authorizing committee has had 14 
years to try to correct this, and my staff has repeatedly tried to make 
contact with people to see if they would be interested in doing it.
  Thus far, we have not had any success. Despite the fact that the 
chairman of the committee has indicated his willingness to take up the 
reauthorization this fall, there is no commitment to take up a 
modification of the formula to meet the needs of the high gross States 
about which I have been talking. There is absolutely no reason to think 
we will succeed this year in modifying the formula through the 
authorizing committee. Even if we were to succeed in doing that, the 
States I named would receive tremendous shortfalls for the fiscal year 
2002. There is no way to fix it for the fiscal year 2002. I have a 
couple of communities in my State that are in dire need

[[Page 15811]]

of this funding. There is no way they can get it.
  We suggested this formula change, which is very simple. It says we 
should use the needs survey of the EPA and provide 97.5 percent of the 
funding available in accordance with that recommendation, and we have a 
minimum and a maximum so that no State gets more than 8 percent and no 
State gets less than the minimum we provide. That is similar to other 
formulas. It is very fair. It is very simple. It is easy to apply. The 
net result, based upon the charts I showed earlier, will go a 
significant degree toward not only providing funding for those States 
and localities that need it the most, but reducing the significant 
unfairness in the formula that exists today. That is what we are 
talking about. It is that simple.
  For those Senators from the following States, I hope since they will 
receive more money--again, let me note we are not affecting earmarks. 
We have included the earmarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Arizona has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First, an inquiry about the time. Did the Senator from 
Arizona consume the time to be allocated to the Senator from Illinois, 
Mr. Fitzgerald?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KYL. I inquire of the Senator from Maryland, maybe I 
misunderstood the unanimous consent request. I thought because the 
Schumer time had been yielded back that all the remaining time was 
divided.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. That is my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the time is parsed into 
three allocations, three 10-minute segments: One for the Senator from 
Arizona, one each for the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. KYL. I say to Senator Mikulski, if Senator Fitzgerald arrives, 
perhaps we can accommodate him in some way.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member has 
10 minutes. I am sure he will be happy to yield. We will not preclude 
Senator Fitzgerald from offering a comment.
  We have debated the contents on this bill for a good part of the 
morning. I think it has been a very constructive debate and a civil 
debate, which we hope the Senate would be.
  I will talk about process for a minute. The Kyl amendment is 
legislating on appropriations. Ordinarily, I would offer a point of 
order exactly on that, to knock it down on the point of order under the 
rules of the Senate.
  Because of something the House did--and remember, we work off the 
House bill, as I understand it, and I believe the Senator's analysis is 
accurate. We are not able to do that, so this will be a straight up or 
down--it will not be straight up or down. Either Senator Bond and I 
have declared our intent to offer a motion to table, which I am not yet 
offering, but we really are legislating on appropriations. This is so 
complicated.
  Even with the good will from the standpoint of the Senator from 
Arizona, myself, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, where we tried 
to explain this formula over that formula or that survey, it shows how 
complex this is. In fairness, to make sure we have a formula that works 
for constituents, works for the communities, works for the taxpayer, we 
cannot deal with this formula on the Senate floor. This truly must be 
done through the authorizing process.
  I acknowledge the problems the Senator from Arizona has had when he 
says it has been 14 years and it is time to take a new look and a fresh 
look. Acknowledging the need for a new and fresh look, I also encourage 
the Senator in the most collegial tone possible, to also be in 
discussions with the very able administrator of EPA. I have found 
Administrator Whitman to be able, accessible, interested in hearing 
about specific issues and specific problems. We did bring the Senator's 
amendment to the EPA staff. They furnished a very competent analysis. 
In fact, it was through them that we identified the error in the 
drafting.
  I do not really recommend that this amendment be agreed to. We really 
do not know the consequences of the amendment. There is no way to 
evaluate the consequences of the amendment. It could have very dire 
effects.
  There is no latitude to offer a point of order. We will be offering a 
motion to table the amendment, but we do not want to table the problem.
  The problem is a real problem. This is why, again, with the 
encouragement of the authorizers, I really share with my colleagues, 
working with Administrator Whitman has been a very positive experience 
from this Senator's viewpoint. I suggest perhaps the Senator and 
colleagues who are so passionate about this issue, as they have 
expressed themselves on the floor, meet with her and get EPA to start 
working on the analysis of exactly the consequences, which we would 
need should we come to an authorizing hearing. Then, if the authorizing 
hearings do not quite get to it, we would have the benefit of their 
analysis and their thinking.
  Let's not table the problem. One of us will move to table this 
amendment. But, again, I do not want to table the problem.
  I know the time is growing short. We are awaiting Senator Fitzgerald. 
We know Senator Bond is temporarily off the floor at a meeting with 
some of his Republican colleagues. I believe the moderates are meeting. 
He is available.
  I will reserve my time for the end. I ask the Presiding Officer, how 
much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3 minutes 10 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Missouri has 10 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he 
will need.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Only a couple of minutes; 5 minutes will be fine.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes from the time of the 
minority be allocated to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
generosity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise to support my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and compliment 
him on the amendment he has introduced. I think he has studied this 
issue very carefully. He has noticed that many States--in fact, about 
29 States--appear to get severely shortchanged in the current formula 
in the clean water development fund. His is a new formula that has a 
better rationale to it. We cannot really figure out what formula was 
used back in 1987 in the conference committee. They just picked an 
arbitrary formula that seemed to steer a lot of money to a select 
handful of States. But most States, the majority of States, come up 
short under the current formula.
  As I understand it, Senator Kyl's new formula is based on the same 
formula that is used in the safe drinking water revolving fund. It 
certainly will make for a better need-based distribution of these 
important allocations of funds for wastewater treatment around the 
country.
  I rise to support Senator Kyl's amendment. I understand the Presiding 
Officer has joined as a cosponsor. This seems to be good legislation 
for our State and a majority of States around the country. We all know 
from local communities around our States how important these funds are 
for these water treatment projects.
  I hope we will have a majority vote in favor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen from Virginia be 
also listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be deducted from 
the time remaining to both sides.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let's be clear. This amendment totally

[[Page 15812]]

changes the water formula--totally. New York loses $14 million, 
Maryland loses $2 million. There are winners and there are losers. 
Under what I am suggesting, we table this and end this debate but we 
encourage the authorizers to really face the problem of water 
infrastructure needs and to ask the Administrator of the EPA to 
evaluate these formulas, taking into consideration the needs of our 
communities, the new census data, and that we act in a prudent and 
measured way.
  This is not the place to do this legislation. It is absolutely not 
the place to do this legislation.
  I yield the floor and ask how much time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 1 minute 15 
seconds remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 7 minutes 45 
seconds.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me just check on the time status. We are 
to begin the votes at 1:50; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55.
  Mr. BOND. Is there to be a time period for the proponents and 
opponents prior to that 1:50, or are we to use the time that is now 
allotted to us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 1:55 there will be 2 minutes equally 
divided before the first vote and 2 minutes equally divided before the 
second vote.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time I 
have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 46 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BOND. I will use that.
  Mr. President, again, I commend Senator Kyl, the Senator from 
Arizona, for bringing to our attention the very important issue of how 
these vitally important funds are allocated. I have raised my concerns 
that the allocation he seeks to add in the appropriations bill should 
go through a thorough process in the authorizing committee because it 
is very complex.
  I have looked at the formula that has developed. I find that it has 
many, many different aspects. He has figured in earmarks that are not 
included in the allocation. There is a 1-year formula that is extremely 
confusing. The EPA has already advised us they would not know how to 
implement it. Certainly the more I see of it the more I believe it must 
have a thorough discussion, debate, hearings, and the work of the 
markup in the authorizing committee.
  I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I urge my 
colleagues to support our tabling motion.
  On behalf of the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works, I move to table the Kyl amendment. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield back her 
time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Bond
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Domenici
       
  The motion was agred to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes evenly divided before 
a vote on the Schumer amendment.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very contentious amendment. 
The Senator from Idaho is entitled to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is this a motion to table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. A motion to table has been made.
  Mr. BOND. Is the first time to be taken by the proponents of the 
measure or by the proponents of the tabling?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Craig sought recognition in support of 
the motion to table.
  Mr. BOND. I suggest that Senator Hutchison would wish 30 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Not at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order before we proceed.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 2 minutes 
equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Or per side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute in support of the amendment and 1 
minute in opposition.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am speaking on the motion to table the 
Schumer amendment. Mr. Schumer wishes to allocate $15 million of this 
appropriation to what we call gun buybacks. He is taking $15 million 
away from AIDS and the homeless and Native American housing and the 
revitalization of the public housing.
  I am telling you what the record says. Since 1978, law enforcement in 
America has clearly said gun buybacks don't work. They buy back old and 
obsolete and unused guns off the street, yes; out of homes, yes. Do 
they take away the semi-automatics or the .38s used in the commission 
of crimes? Absolutely not. That is why law enforcement in America today 
is backing away from gun buybacks. The commissioner of law enforcement 
in Boston said, ``We won't use our money there anymore because it is 
ineffective.'' Crime goes up. Yes, they are great photo opportunities, 
but it does not work.
  That is why, 2 weeks ago, the Bush administration said we will 
allocate money in HUD for those things that work, where we can get at 
crime through interdiction and law enforcement and not through a photo 
opportunity.
  I ask you to vote to table the Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. It says 
we ought to continue, at a very modest sum of $15 million, a gun 
buyback program. Contrary to what my friend said, it is supported by 
law enforcement. It has worked in public housing authorities, where it 
is most needed. We are not putting any restrictions on anyone who wants 
to keep their gun or use their gun, but if people wish to turn in their 
guns for a modest sum, get it out of the home to avoid accidents, avoid 
a criminal getting their hands on the

[[Page 15813]]

gun, avoid a kid going out with the gun on the street, creating havoc, 
why not?
  We should not make this any kind of ideological test. It is simple, 
common sense that buyback programs have worked. It is funded very 
modestly. The administration wants to rescind it. We should keep it 
going. It is that plain and simple.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Gregg
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1226, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe my amendment, which I offered 
earlier, is the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support and 
cosponsorship of this amendment of Senators Kyl, Smith, and Graham of 
Florida. I am also especially grateful for the key support of 
organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American 
Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Council for a Livable 
World, and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  This amendment provides funding for the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs--top priority--by adding $5 million that is desperately needed 
for veterans claims adjudication and eliminating more than $5 million 
in nonveteran-related earmarked funds contained in the VA-HUD 
legislation.
  I want to get right to it. Currently, it takes an average of 215 
days--215 days--at any of the 58 VA regional offices to make a decision 
on the hundreds of thousands of claims filed annually. There is 
presently a backlog of over 600,000 claims by our veterans.
  That is an unacceptable situation. What we are talking about in this 
amendment is a matter of priorities.
  The amendment will not exceed the budget resolution caps because it 
is fully offset by cutting funding for 18 separate earmarks by 50 
percent, not totally. I am not eliminating the funding for any program 
or earmark this year. I am eliminating half of the money. Frankly, $5 
million is a small amount as compared with the more than $40 million or 
$50 million that is needed as stated by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs.
  I repeat, I am only cutting half from these specific earmarks in the 
community development fund account of title II.
  For the record, of the 255 total number of earmarked projects in this 
fund, nearly 9 out of 10 are for States well represented on the 
Appropriations Committee. The earmarks I propose to cut in half are 
just a few examples of the pages of earmarks totaling more than $140 
million that are funded from the community development fund.
  Unfortunately, the appropriators have substituted their judgment on 
how best to spend the funds and have earmarked moneys for programs such 
as bicentennial celebrations, botanical gardens, art museums, art 
centers, and heritage trails.
  I point out the bill language as to what a community development 
program is all about:

       The wide range of fiscal, economic, and social development 
     activities are eligible with spending priorities determined 
     at the local level--

  Spending priorities determined at the local level--

       but the law enumerates general objectives which the block 
     grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate housing, a 
     suitable living environment, and expanded economic 
     opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate 
     income.

  ``Principally for persons of low and moderate income.'' I am going to 
point out some things such as the deprived area of Newport, RI, that is 
supposed to get some of this money, and other deprived areas of the 
country, as I say 9 out of 10 of which are in the States represented on 
the Appropriations Committee.
  I cannot stand here and tell my colleagues that some earmarked 
projects are not valid and important, but decisions as to whether a 
project should get taxpayers' funds should not be made by 
appropriators, bypassing the legitimate funding process. If we earmark 
funds in this way, I would just as soon transfer some of the funds to 
help our veterans, unless we are willing to strike all the earmarks so 
the community development fund can operate as intended. I doubt there 
will be any takers.
  Secretary Principi testified before the VA-HUD subcommittee of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee on May 2, 2001, that his No. 1 priority 
is to drastically decrease the backlog in claims against the VA. 
President Bush also recently emphasized this priority and has promised 
a top-to-bottom review of VA benefits claims process.
  Currently, it takes an average of 215 days--215 days--at any of the 
58 regional VA offices to make a decision on the hundreds of thousands 
of claims filed annually. Furthermore, the Veterans of Foreign Wars 
wrote me on July 30, 2001, that an investigation of claims processing 
delays of their members found ``a lengthy list of hundreds of claims 
pending over 720 days.''
  Balance 720 days for a VA claim with a World War II veteran, one of 
our greatest generations. We know how old they are. Isn't our 
obligation to the living as well as to the deceased?
  Today there are nearly 600,000 outstanding claims awaiting 
adjudication by the VA, and that number is expected to continue to 
rise.
  I imagine the managers of the bill are going to say this $5 million 
is unnecessary. Let me tell you what the veterans say. Let me tell you 
what the Veterans of Foreign Wars say:

       On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States, and its Ladies Auxiliary, 
     I would like to take this opportunity to express our support 
     for your amendment to S. 1216 that would increase the amount 
     available for veterans claims adjudication by $10 million.

  That has been reduced to $5 million.

       As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not 
     completing quality work on benefits claims in an efficient 
     manner. In fact, an original claims for service connected 
     disability that does not require substantial development is 
     averaging 215 days. . . . Additionally, a recent request by 
     the VA Claims Processing Task Force for a list of original 
     claims pending over 720 days resulted in a lengthy list of 
     hundreds of claims.

[[Page 15814]]

       Your amendment would provide additional dollars crucial to 
     VA's attempt to improve the quality and timeliness of 
     veterans' claims processing.
       Thank you for all you do for American veterans.

  From the DAV:

       On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the 
     Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I am writing to express our 
     support for your proposed amendment to add $10 million for 
     adjudication of veterans' claims to S. 1216, the Fiscal Year 
     2002 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill.
       As you are aware, the claims backlog at the Board of 
     Veterans' Appeals is at an unacceptable level of 
     approximately 600,000 cases. These long delays that veterans 
     or claimants must endure for claims benefits decisions are 
     unconscionable.

  That is what the disabled veterans say.

       More needs to be done to ensure quality, timely decisions. 
     Employees need to be added to deal with this backlog. This 
     amendment will provide needed funds to assist in this effort.



  Paralyzed Veterans of America:

       On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I am 
     writing to offer our support for your proposed amendment to 
     S. 216 . . . to provide additional funding for veterans' 
     claims adjudication, would bring this important account 
     closer to the level recommended by the Independent Budget, 
     which is co-authored by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
     AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars.
       The chronic backlog faced by veterans seeking the benefits 
     they have earned is simply unconscionable. We must take 
     action. This additional funding will not solve the problem 
     overnight, but will be an important step forward to ensure 
     that veterans receive timely and accurate claims decisions.
       We appreciate your commitment to addressing this problem.

  In another letter:

       Dear Senator McCain: AMVETS fully supports your amendment. 
     . . .
       Disabled veterans must now wait months and sometimes years 
     for their benefit claims to be decided. Your amendment will 
     help VA fulfill its mission and improve the overall quality 
     and timeliness of the service provided to veterans and their 
     families.
       We urge the Senate to approve your amendment. Veterans have 
     earned our respect and gratitude, and we thank you for your 
     good work on behalf of American veterans.

  Now, the analysis for the Associated Press last year found that the 
benefits administration takes longer to process claims than it did a 
decade ago. It took 164 days in 1991 to complete an original claim, 
compared with currently 215 days, and up to 3 years if appealed. There 
are more than a few veterans, such as 72-year-old Wayne Young of 
Cuyahoga Falls, OH, who for more than 44 years has been waiting for 
final adjudication of his veterans claim benefits by the VA.
  Secretary Principi directed a 10-person blue ribbon claims processing 
task force that will review the Department's handling of applications 
for veterans benefits. This task force will officially report to him 
this fall. However, preliminary results indicate that the Secretary 
will need an additional $40 million on top of the additional $132 
million provided in the bill to hire additional claims adjudicators to 
assist already overworked VA employees in reducing the time it takes to 
process claims.
  I am sure the managers of the bill will say they put in a sufficient 
amount of money. I respect that view. I respect more the views of the 
veterans organizations who are the ones who are the advocates for and 
defenders of the veterans of this Nation. I appreciate the dedication 
and efforts on behalf of veterans that the Senator from Maryland and 
the Senator from Missouri have displayed year after year, time after 
time. I just believe we need additional money.
  The additional $5 million in funding that I am proposing in this 
amendment for claims adjudication matters would allow the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to hire approximately 100 additional claims 
adjudication personnel to begin chipping away at this backlog or, at 
the very least, slowing its growth a bit.
  The current staff members handling these claims are considerably 
overworked. For every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits, 4 
are actually decided incorrectly, thereby increasing the number of 
outstanding claims for veterans awaiting to have their healthcare needs 
met. This already unacceptable number will continue to increase, unless 
the Congress appropriately funds the VA for personnel adjudication.
  In an effort to try and accelerate the claims process and drive down 
the backlog, claims personnel often ignore the Department's own rules 
in deciding claims. When the regional offices have rejected a claim, a 
veteran can appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Last year that 
panel overturned the regional offices 26 percent of the time, and sent 
back another 30 percent of cases. The VA special appeals court returned 
64 percent of its cases, mostly because of procedural problems. All the 
while, our veterans continue to wait for us to fulfill our promise to 
them.
  Secretary Principi has stated that his ``top priority is to the 
living veterans, not the decreased. Many veterans die before their 
claims are handled, we need to do a much better job of processing these 
claims before these veterans die. Only 5 million of the 16 million 
World War II vets who saved the world are alive today. Every day, World 
War II veterans are passing on before their claims are decided, and 
that's a real tragedy.''
  I stand alongside Secretary Principi on this most worthy endeavor to 
reform this badly broken system.
  Mr. President, our veterans risked their lives in defense of our 
nation, whether charging the beaches of Normandy and Inchon, fighting 
in Vietnam, or putting themselves into harms way in Iraq and Kosovo. 
Yet these great Americans must now wait and wait and wait just to get 
an answer from the Veterans Administration.
  Instead of fulfilling a promise that America would take care of their 
mental and physical injuries incurred while honorably serving our 
country, we ``reward'' them with an overworked, inefficient process 
that results in thousands of veterans everyday being turned away from 
benefit that were earned, deserved, and promised.
  This amendment will go a long way to help our veterans. It also 
recognizes our government's solemn obligation to take care of these 
veterans' mental and physical health needs that resulted while 
defending our great nation. In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, 
given during his second inaugural address on Mary 4, 1865, ``To care 
for him who shall have borne the battle and his widow and his orphan.''
  Secretary Principi is dedicated to carrying out this sacred 
responsibility, and I have every confidence that properly funded, he 
and the others in his Department will ensure that we here in Congress 
fulfill our promise to the Veterans of the United States of America.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
  Now I will talk about the projects for which the money has been 
reduced, actually cut in half. One is the desert space station in 
Nevada, of $100,000. Please remember in the context of what the 
community development programs are supposed to be for, and that is, of 
course, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and 
an expanded opportunities prescription appeal for persons of low and 
moderate income, requiring grant recipients to use 70 percent of the 
block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income 
persons.
  I repeat: Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 percent of 
their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-
income persons.
  The title is out of this world. Tourists can look for 
extraterrestrials in the Nevada desert. Visitors to Las Vegas might 
find an extraterrestrial or two if they knew where to look. Las Vegas 
is no stranger to the weird. Many would say the city is a weirdness 
magnet unless proliferating Elvises, drive-through wedding chapels, and 
elaborate faux cities make sense. A bird's eye look at the town, 
however, shows that Las Vegas is simply a small, beautiful cluster of 
lights sitting within a vast and very dark desert expanse.
  Some people come to this city looking for something out of the 
darkness, something extraterrestrial. When it comes to alien mania, Las 
Vegas is as

[[Page 15815]]

popular as Roswell, NM. On the lonely roads that cross Nevada, one of 
the least densely populated States, reports of swirling lights, 
government coverups, and UFO crashes are not considered odd but 
commonplace occurrences.
  When your client is ready for a break from the gaming tables and the 
glitz of the strip, you can suggest alien hunting as an alternative to 
Las Vegas' many wonders. Despite the secrecy, this craze won't go away 
anytime soon.
  An hour away from the strip, in Pahrump, NV, a museum is being built 
in the shape of a spaceship, to be completed by 2005. It will be the 
official Area 51 artifact and information center. It will offer a 3-D 
IMAX center theater, a digistar planetarium, and an Area 51 theme 
restaurant in the expectation of attracting 374,000 visitors annually.
  The 95,000-square-foot facility will call itself the Desert Space 
Station Science Museum. What it is all about is the Area 51.
  Adventure Las Vegas offers commissionable day tours that take 
visitors to the perimeter of this top secret installation. Clients stop 
in Slot Canyon along the way to view ancient Indian petroglyphs that 
some believe to be drawings of aliens. Then they travel through some 
remote and very mysterious areas, such as a dry lake bed where UFOs are 
rumored to have been observed. After observing these strange sightings, 
they will drop into the Little Ale Inn Cafe. There they will have the 
chance to view top secret documents taken from Area 51 and possibly 
have a conversation with Capt. Chuck Clark, and ex-Air Force captain 
and the author of The Area 51 Manual. The Area 51 Research Center, 
located at this quirky location, has a large amount of information 
about this mysterious region on display, as well as for sale.
  We are asking to take half a million dollars for the Desert Space 
Station Science Museum and give it to help our veterans have their 
claims processed.
  I mentioned earlier about the community development grant programs 
being for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons: 
$200,000 is for the Newport Air Museum.

       Welcome to Newport: Rich in history, Newport prides itself 
     on being a vibrant community offering a wide variety of 
     events and activies year-round. Whether you were drawn here 
     to enjoy the music festivals, yachting regattas, mansion 
     tours, professional tennis at the Newport Casino or a day at 
     the beach, Newport offers you a picturesque location to relax 
     and enjoy.
       This unique island community instantly blends the old and 
     the new--colonial homes stand feet away from modern 
     condominiums and offices. The bustling harbor glistens as 
     elegant yachts, luxury liners and lobster boats compete for 
     space. All of these combined are the charm that is Newport . 
     . .

                           *   *   *   *   *

       However, Newport was rediscovered in the 1800's by the 
     country's wealthy citizens as the ideal location to spend 
     their summers. Suddenly, elaborate mansions and villas sprung 
     up along Bellevue Avenue and Ocean Drive--each more ornate 
     and luxurious than the one next door. These ``summer 
     cottages'' provided the perfect backdrop for ``The 400,'' an 
     elite group of the very rich. This extravagant era officially 
     opened the door to America's first resort.

  They are going to spend $200,000 on an art museum in Newport, RI.
  Harbor Gardens Greenhouse Project:

       When some people think of Pittsburgh, they still envision 
     steel mills and smoky skies. Others identify the city by its 
     sports teams or its three rivers or its colleges and 
     hospitals or Heinz ketchup.
       But who'd ever think Pittsburgh could become known for 
     producing orchids?
       Well, Bill Strickland would.
       The president of the Bidwell Training Center on the North 
     Side is trying to come up with $3 million to create something 
     called Harbor Gardens Greenhouse.
       It would be a 46,000-square-foot glass facility located at 
     Bidwell offices on Metropolitan Street in Manchester and 
     ``dedicated to producing orchids,'' according to a recent 
     funding request submitted to the city's Urban Redevelopment 
     Authority.
       Strickland readily admits that growing the delicate, 
     beautiful flowers would be ``untraditional'' for Pittsburgh 
     but insists that untraditional thinking is what may be needed 
     now.

  I really believe it would be a good idea to grow orchids in 
Pittsburgh. I also happen to believe our veterans need their claims 
processed as a greater priority.
  Here is $1 million for a multi-purpose events center in Utah. I have 
a copy of the minutes of the Richfield City Council meeting held on 
Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the 
Richfield City office building located at 75 East Center, Richfield, 
Utah.

       Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor David Kay Kimball.
       Roll Call was answered . . .
       Ruth Jackson, representing the committee promoting the 
     multi events center gave a presentation to the Council. She 
     explained that they are going throughout the County giving 
     this presentation to educate the voters about the multi 
     events center and the upcoming bond election. They showed a 
     model representing what the building will look like when 
     constructed. It was also explained that there would be an 
     advisory board over the maintenance and operation manager of 
     the building and that some one from the City could sit on 
     this board giving the city some voice in how the building is 
     utilized. One point made is that the community may not need 
     this facility now, but it will within the next five to ten 
     years.

  There is a beach resort shore trail in Hawaii. There is a 
bicentennial party, Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Commission party 
for $1 million; a river museum in Iowa, a couple of million dollars; 
Culver City Council Theater.
  Idaho Virtual Incubator--that is kind of an interesting one. I don't 
quite understand it--$500,000, the Idaho Virtual Incubator:

       The Idaho Virtual Incubator prepares businesses for e-
     commerce, offers students ``hands-on'' experience through 
     virtual internships and fosters partnerships for job 
     creation, expansion and retention.

  Madam President, I think I have made my point. We have over 60,000 
unprocessed claims. The committee very wisely--and I appreciate it--has 
added funding to help address this issue. We are trying to add more 
funding. Not just in my view but the view of every veterans 
organization in America, this money is needed. Because of the rules, 
obviously, that I would be subject to a budget point of order, I have 
found projects that I think are of lower priority than that of 
processing the claims of our veterans. Some of them are interesting, 
some of them entertaining; some of them are outrageous.
  But the point is, none of these projects that I have identified could 
possibly, in the view of any objective observer, have priority over the 
processing of our veterans' claims.
  I mentioned earlier, only 5 million of our 16 million World War II 
veterans survive today. They are leaving us at a rate of 30,000 every 
single month. It seems to me our first obligation would be to provide, 
as rapidly as possible, a process where the claims they may have for 
injuries or disabilities incurred in the service of this country would 
take priority over desert space stations, or greenhouses, Wildwood 
vacation resorts, botanical gardens, multi-event systems, multipurpose 
radio, multipurpose events centers, et cetera, et cetera.
  I think the choice is clear. I am not saying the earmarks themselves 
are something that I approve of; I do not. I am not attacking the 
earmarks. I am not trying to have them removed. I am trying to cut them 
in half so we can have an extra $5 million, which is not a lot of money 
when you consider the entire budget of this VA-HUD appropriations bill, 
so we can begin, at least, working with Secretary Principi, to provide 
for veterans.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, on occasion I have an opportunity to travel 
with my colleague from Arizona and go through an airport somewhere in 
the country. I remember not too long ago going to Dallas, TX, on our 
way to Phoenix. Veterans coming up to my colleague--he is a lot more 
recognizable than I am--and saying, ``Thank you, Senator McCain, for 
fighting for us.''
  Madam President, does the Senator from Maryland wish to speak at this

[[Page 15816]]

moment? If I took her time, I apologize for doing that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to speak in behalf of the McCain 
amendment?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, that is what I am doing, yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It was my understanding we would follow the tradition 
of alternating.
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Maryland. 
I did not realize she wished to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, thank you very much. I thank the 
junior Senator from Arizona.
  Madam President, first of all, know that in talking about veterans 
and about the claims processing, not only wouldn't I argue with John 
McCain, but I wouldn't argue with all the history that we have had on 
this almost intractable problem. Cutting the time that a veteran must 
wait for a decision on claims processing has been one of my highest 
priorities since I originally chaired the committee in 1990. It seems 
as if we never get a handle on this issue.
  The items of concern that were listed by the Senator from Arizona are 
accurate. Those are exactly the same problems my distinguished 
colleague and ranking member, Senator Bond, and I had in an extensive 
discussion with Administrator Principi during our VA hearing.
  They are absolutely right. It takes too long for claims. It is 
absolutely wrong that our veterans who were willing to risk their lives 
and put their lives in the line of fire to defend the United States of 
America have to wait in line to find out about adjudication, 
particularly for a disability benefit. There is absolute agreement that 
it is wrong for veterans to have to wait 205 days or 7 months to get a 
decision on the claim.
  Having agreed on the problem, what my colleagues in the Senate need 
to know is, on a bipartisan basis, working with the executive branch we 
have attempted to solve this problem.
  First of all, for the VA-HUD bill, we put $1.1 billion in for the 
administration of benefits. That is $1 billion-plus for the 
administration of the benefits. We have also increased it by $132 
million. Where did we get that number? We got that number from George 
Bush. We got that number from President Bush. This isn't Barbara 
Mikulski's number. This isn't Kit Bond's number. This isn't something 
that we pulled off a Ouija board. This came from President Bush.
  My colleague from Arizona says: I don't want to argue with you about 
what the veterans have to say. I don't want to dispute our veterans. 
But I have to believe that President Bush and Tony Principi, the 
Administrator of Veterans Affairs, knew what it would take to begin to 
really solve this problem this year, which has been a disaster for more 
than a decade. The money recommendation came from President George 
Bush. That is from where the $132 million come.
  Let's talk about our very able new Administrator of Veterans Affairs. 
I think the world of our new Administrator. I want to say this as a 
Democrat. I think President Bush has given us an outstanding Veterans 
Affairs Administrator. I am so excited about the possibility of working 
with Administrator Principi, a Vietnam vet himself, a former Under 
Secretary of VA during the Bush-Quayle administration, and with a 
substantial stint in the private sector picking up even more management 
skills.
  Secretary Principi brings to us the heart and soul of a veteran--and 
committed to it because he was a foxhole guy himself; all the way up 
now to the considerable experience he has had not only with VA but also 
with the private sector.
  I am telling you that Tony Principi and the President say we need 
$132 million. I am willing not only to take it to the bank, but I am 
willing to take it to the Federal checkbook. That is where we got the 
money. I believe that it will really make a substantial dent.
  We haven't been laggards, nor have we been deleterious, nor have we 
invented numbers out of the thin air.
  Let me tell you what we are going to buy with this new money. We are 
going to buy close to 900 new employees to handle the backlog, and also 
to handle the new cases triggered by legislation enacted last year. 
Forty-six million dollars of that will be to hire these processors to 
implement what they call ``duty to assist''--to actually help the 
veterans prepare their claims.
  One of the problems in doing claims is that our veterans often don't 
prepare them properly. It is through no fault of the veterans. Many of 
them have visual problems. They are old. They are not well. If you have 
a disability, you stand to be pretty sick. And also you are pretty sick 
of the bureaucracy and you are pretty sick of the paperwork. But some 
of these new people will actually help the veterans do it right so we 
can get it done in the right time.
  There is a new law to require the VA to review 98,000 cases--we have 
to go over the backlog--and another 244,000 that were pending when the 
legislation was enacted.
  By the way, the VA will be able to also carry out a new policy of 
adding type 2 diabetes to the list of presumptive disability 
conditions. Over 100,000 new claims are expected to be in this 
category, particularly from our Vietnam vets.
  Additionally, the fiscal year 2001 supplemental spending also gave 
the Veterans Affairs $19 million in this category. We have $132 
million, and in the supplemental that we just passed there is another 
$19 million. I think that takes us to $151 million. That is not potato 
chips, but it will buy us a lot of microchips to try to move this 
backlog.
  I think we are keeping our promises to our veterans. We have not been 
laggards. We don't want to dump money on the problem, but we want to 
engage in solving the problem. That is why we ask the administration to 
give us the right amounts needed, and we will see that we step up and 
do that. That is where we come in on the money. That is why I am going 
to oppose the Senator's amendment. We are honoring President Bush's 
request, and we think if President Bush thinks it is adequate, the 
Senate ought to think it is adequate.
  The other issue I am going to take up is this question of earmarks. 
People use the term ``earmarks'' as if it is a Darth Vader stain on the 
bill. Let me tell you, we can look at these projects; we can analyze 
them; we can joke about them, and so on. But when you talk to 
colleagues the way I have, we often end up meeting very compelling 
community needs. I know the Presiding Officer has spoken to me about 
the desperate need in her community to help the Meals on Wheels 
community. As I understand, the ability to really meet that 
overwhelming caseload is tremendous. We are going to try to work with 
her. I do not know if you are on this hit list or not. But I do know 
that when we follow the earmark, it is not something that a Senator 
makes up out of thin air.
  My distinguished colleague and I wanted to weed out the pork. We 
established criteria that is within the framework of the community 
development block grant. We don't even consider a project unless a list 
is filled out for a project. You filled one out. In fact, you filled 
out more than one because of the needs of the State of Michigan.
  What is it that we ask? Question No. 1, can you demonstrate that it 
will create jobs or a compelling human need? Does it create jobs or 
meet a compelling human need? Does it benefit a low- or moderate-income 
neighborhood? Does it eliminate physical or economic stress? Is there 
matching funds from a non-Federal source to show that there is 
grassroots support behind this? And is it essentially limited to a 1-
year endeavor? That is what we ask our colleagues.
  Does it create jobs? Does it help poor or moderate neighborhoods? 
Does it eliminate that distress? Can you show there is money from other 
sources? And also, this is not meant to be a year to year to year to 
year entitlement.

[[Page 15817]]

  I want to talk about one in my own neighborhood. It is money for 
something called the Fells Point Creative Alliance to develop the 
Patterson Center for the Arts. I think when you read it, I can 
understand where someone might think this is for some yuppie, artsy, 
Gucci, woo woo kind of thing. I am not into ``woo woo,'' but I am into 
empowerment.
  Let me tell you about the neighborhood. This neighborhood is called 
Highlandtown. In the city of Baltimore, neighborhoods have names 
because Baltimore, the very nature of it, is a city of neighborhoods. 
And, God, I love it. And I am so proud of it. I love those 
neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are really what make Baltimore.
  It is not the Inner Harbor and not Camden Yards and not PSI Net 
Stadium. The Inner Harbor is great in terms of an entertainment area, 
but it is the neighborhoods that are the heart and soul of Baltimore. 
This Highlandtown neighborhood was made up of people who represented 
the Polish, the Italian, the German, and the Greek community. They 
built this country. They sat on their white steps. They went to war. 
And while the men were at war on the battled front, the women were at 
home being ``Rosy the Riveters'' on the home front. We are both men and 
women, the veterans of World War II.
  That neighborhood is aging in place, as are the people in it. I have 
a substantial number of aging World War II, GI, red-blooded Americans 
in that neighborhood, and their wives, who worked in factories called 
Bethlehem Steel, Martin Marietta, building the radar at Western 
Electric, who live in that neighborhood.
  They are old. And we are fighting off the predators, the predatory 
lending crowd, the flipping crowd. We are fighting off the drug 
dealers. What was once a proud neighborhood is now teeter-tottering on 
disaster.
  Now we have a new mayor and a new spirit. And guess what we are 
doing. We are transforming that teeter-tottering neighborhood into 
revitalization and creating a new village, with this theater being one 
anchor and the regional library being another. We are creating a new 
village, not only to keep out the bad but to build up the good.
  With these young artists, we are creating a new sense of a new kind 
of village. So this isn't some gooshy little Playdough project. This is 
not a gooshy little Playdough project.
  Now, if the mayor of the city of Baltimore is ready to work to anchor 
it, we have the right people ready to anchor it. The police 
commissioner is working to keep out the drug dealers. Our housing 
commissioner is keeping out the predatory lenders. I do not think we 
should eliminate this to keep out the empowerment money.
  I will tell you, our people fought for their country. I think they 
now are trying to fight for their neighborhood. That is what this 
project is all about.
  So I wanted to talk about mine. But behind every one of these 
congressionally designated projects is a story such as this. So if you 
really want to help the veterans of Highlandtown, you let me bring this 
help to them.
  So, Madam President, I feel very strongly about this. I feel so 
strongly about those veterans who are waiting in line. I do not want 
them in line any more than my colleague does. He and I would be 
partners in this, including my wonderful colleague from Missouri. We 
are ready to go hand in hand. But do not punish neighborhoods to be 
able to help the neighborhoods.
  Remember, our veterans fought for the neighborhoods. Now we have to 
fight for the neighborhoods and fight for our veterans, and not pit 
them against each other.
  Madam President, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 4 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form 
with respect to the pending McCain amendment No. 1226; that no 
amendments be in order to the McCain amendment; that the only other 
amendment in order during this period be a managers' amendment; and 
that at 4 p.m., if the managers' amendment has not been agreed to, the 
amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, if the amendment has been agreed upon by the two managers 
and the two leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott; that the Senate 
then vote in relation to the McCain amendment; that upon disposition of 
the above amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
vote on passage of the bill, with the above occurring with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have a difference of opinion, 
obviously. Do we want these projects that I described, or do we want to 
go along with the strong recommendations of our veterans organizations? 
It really isn't too much more complicated than that. Some of these 
projects are absolutely ridiculous, but we have seen many other 
ridiculous projects in this porkbarrel spending which has lurched 
totally out of control.
  But the fact is, do we want to have these projects funded--9 out of 
10 of them are the Appropriations Committee; things such as desert 
space stations and orchid greenhouses--or do we want to add $5 
million--which we are not destroying; we are only cutting in half--or 
do we want to take the strong advice and recommendation of every 
veterans organization in America? It is that simple.
  I would be willing to vote. I will be glad to be on record siding 
with the veterans of America, with whom I have had some experience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I started to comment earlier about the 
degree to which veterans organizations and individual veterans around 
the country have relied upon my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, 
to carry their flag in battles here in the Congress.
  It always personally impresses me when I see people come up to him, 
as I frequently do, and thank him for the work that he has done or 
their behalf.
  It always pains me when either of us--and sometimes both of us--have 
had to vote against the VA-HUD appropriations bill, which has money for 
many veterans programs, because of our concern that not enough of the 
money is allocated to veterans programs vis-a-vis the HUD programs.
  I have explained to my very good friend and colleague, Senator Bond 
from Missouri, on many occasions why I have cast that vote, wishing 
very much that I could support the good work that he and others have 
done in support of our veterans.
  I recognize that, as a result, this particular amendment is, in many 
respects, a symbolic amendment. It only takes half of the funding away 
from these projects that Senator McCain described. And it is a 
relatively small amount of the money that we believe will be necessary 
to supplement the funds that have been made available for the 
resolution of these veterans' claims.
  It is true that the committee has set forth an amount that was 
recommended for the resolution of those claims, but it is also true 
that this fall--when the blue ribbon task force established to make 
recommendations comes out with its recommendations--we anticipate that 
they will be for a lot more money that is needed to adjudicate the 
claims of the veterans. It will be too late by then to get that money 
in this appropriations bill.

[[Page 15818]]

  Senator McCain's effort was a modest attempt to put a very small 
amount of money, but symbolically important to our veterans, as he 
noted, back into the veterans part of this bill. It is for that reason 
I strongly support it.
  I will not go through all of the other arguments Senator McCain has 
so eloquently cited as the basis for his amendment.
  I appreciate very much what Senator Mikulski said. She has taken the 
amount recommended by the administration and put that in the bill. As I 
said, all of us recognize, as she noted, it is not nearly enough. The 
question is, do we exercise some independent judgment here, anticipate 
that there will be a recommendation for funding in the future, but that 
it will come too late in this appropriations process or do we put that 
money into projects Senator McCain has targeted for at least some 
treatment under his amendment?
  I agree with him. The choice is clear. I tell all of my veteran 
friends when they confront me and ask, why did you have to vote against 
that VA-HUD appropriations bill there is a process in Washington to put 
the sweet with the sour, to make sure that whatever you do that doesn't 
go down very easily, you put something sweet with it so it is hard to 
vote against it.
  Nobody wants to vote against veterans programs. We all want to 
support our veterans. That is why you take programs that can be subject 
to some criticism in the HUD portion of the bill, put them with the VA 
part of the bill and, voila, you have a recipe for success; Members 
will not dare vote against it.
  I have voted against it. I will probably vote against it again in the 
future. I hope my veteran friends, by observing what is occurring here 
today, appreciate the fact that when we try very hard to move some of 
that money from programs that we think are not as useful for people 
into the veterans part of the budget, you can see how hard that is 
going to be. That is why, at the end of the day, we fight as hard as we 
can to get as much support for the veterans in the bill. And if we 
can't get more than we have been getting, then in many cases we end up 
opposing the bill. While it is true and in some respects symbolic, I 
think the symbolism is very important.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator McCain's amendment to begin 
to send two messages. The first message is to our veterans, that we 
understand your needs, we understand your requirements, and we support 
you. Secondly, to those who have the difficult job of putting together 
this bill, it is time to begin to exercise some discretion here, and 
with respect to these projects that each Member likes so much, all 
earmarked projects, put less money against those projects and transfer 
some of that money into the veterans part of the budget.
  As Senator McCain said with respect to these World War II veterans, 
they don't have much time left. I hope my colleagues will support his 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator 
McCain's amendment to S. 1216, the appropriations bill for VA HUD.
  This amendment would remove badly needed resources for many 
communities throughout the country and specifically in Sevier County in 
my home State of Utah. It furthermore seeks to overturn the carefully 
crafted work performed by the Senate Appropriations Committee when 
putting together this bill. I understand that legislating oftentimes 
means making difficult decisions, but the cuts proposed by Senator 
McCain go too far and would hurt too many.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Might I inquire of the Senator from Missouri or Maryland if 
it would be all right if I take a couple minutes off the subject of the 
McCain amendment to simply talk about a part of what will be included 
in the managers' amendment?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I assume the Senator from Arizona is 
controlling the time of the other Senator from Arizona. He is free to 
utilize such time as he wishes. We will extend him our good wishes.


  ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND

  Mr. KYL. Let me thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from 
Maryland for agreeing to accept as part of the managers' amendment an 
amendment which I was going to offer. They have done this in good 
faith. I especially appreciate the fact that they have expressed 
support for what I am trying to achieve. I will explain it very 
briefly.
  It was an amendment that expressed the sense of the Senate 
essentially that since we were not able to modify the formula for the 
wastewater treatment programs under EPA by an amendment on the floor on 
this appropriations bill, largely because of the argument that it is 
more appropriately done on the authorization bill, the authorizing 
committee, in September, should take up the reauthorization of the 
legislation, including an attempt to deal with this particular formula.
  The operative paragraph says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate should be prepared 
     to enact authorizing legislation (including an equitable 
     needs-based formula) for the State water pollution control 
     revolving fund as soon as practicable after the Senate 
     returns from recess in September.

  That is the result of the fact that my earlier amendment was defeated 
but, frankly, defeated on a technicality, as most of the individuals 
noted.
  There is a good case to be made for evaluating the current formula 
for distribution of these funds, that it can be done in the authorizing 
committee, that it should be done shortly after we return here, and I 
hope it can be done in time for changes to be made to affect the fiscal 
year 2002 numbers. That is the only way the formula can be made more 
fair for this next year.
  I express to my colleagues, the managers of this legislation, my 
thanks for their willingness to include this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution in the managers' amendment as a way of at least moving 
forward on the reform that most people agreed to earlier but were not 
willing to make on the appropriations bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim such time from the time of the 
opponents of this amendment as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. First, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for his 
amendment that is going to be in the managers' amendment. It is a 
pleasure to be working with the Senator from Arizona again. He formerly 
was on this committee. We regret he is no longer on our appropriations 
subcommittee. We still miss him, but I assure you, our aim is getting 
better.
  I would like to tell the Senator from Arizona that we strongly 
support his admonition/instruction to the Environment and Public Works 
Committee to move on the subject which he addresses. That subject, of 
course, is the equitable allocation and the badly needed funding for 
our water infrastructure. I cannot emphasize too much how important 
that is to the health and well-being of all of our people and to the 
progress of this country.
  He has done a great service, raising the question about allocation of 
the revolving funds, and we look forward to working with him. We are 
going to have to provide more resources than are now available. I 
assure him and my other colleagues that we want to do that in an 
equitable manner. I look forward, as a member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, to working with our chairman and ranking member 
to see that that occurs.


                    Amendment No. 1226, As Modified

  Mr. BOND. With respect to the amendment by the other Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, while I am very sympathetic to the point he has 
made about the need to improve VA's claim processing, I join with the 
manager of the bill, the distinguished chair, in opposing it.
  We have been concerned. We have worked all year long to assist VA in 
dealing with the unacceptable backlog

[[Page 15819]]

in VA claims processing. Nobody has been a more forceful, consistent 
spokesperson about the need to bring up-to-date and up-to-speed VA 
claims processing than the Senator from Maryland. I have listened to 
her for hours on end in the Appropriations Committee as she has sought 
more money, as she has admonished officials of the VA to get with it 
and get on the ball and get these claims processed.
  This has really been a crusade she has led. I agree with her 100 
percent. We are totally in agreement that VA claims processing is 
extremely important. It is a matter of justice and fairness to the 
people who have protected our country, and we have a long way to go. We 
believe this should be the highest priority.
  I agree with her, and I thank her for her kind words about Secretary 
Principi. We are excited to have a man of his background, his 
commitment, and his dedication at the helm in VA.
  This is a difficult management problem. It is a resource problem. It 
is a personnel problem. We are totally committed to supporting 
Secretary Principi as far as we can. Secretary Principi has set a goal 
of processing regional disability claims within 100 days by the summer 
of 2003. That is an admirable and, unfortunately, ambitious goal 
considering that it now takes VBA more than 200 days to process a 
claim.
  Nevertheless, he has set forth a timetable. He has set forth a budget 
he needs. He has set forth his plan to develop an effective processing 
operation that will assure that our Nation's veterans receive the 
service and the compensation they deserve. To address this need, to 
fulfill our part of the bargain, the bill before us provides 
significant funding increases to the VA, as requested by Secretary 
Principi. He said: This is my goal; this is where I want to be, no more 
than a hundred days. We will get there by 2003. He told us what he 
needed.
  Our bill provides $1.1 billion for the administration of benefits. 
That is $132 million, or a 13-percent increase over the fiscal year 
2001 level. And, at the request of the administration, we have already 
provided the additional $19 million in the recently enacted fiscal year 
2001 Supplemental Appropriation Act that gives the VA the ability to 
hire new claims processors immediately. So that is actually $151 
million that we are putting into Veterans Affairs.
  This funding will increase the VA's budget and allow the VA to hire 
much needed additional staff, increase training, and modernize and 
upgrade information technology. Specifically, the VA will be able to 
hire and train 890 new employees to help resolve the backlog of cases 
and handle new cases due to legislation, such as the ``duty to assist'' 
enacted last year. This is a significant hiring increase. Bringing on 
all these people is a tremendous workload for the personnel section. 
Therefore, we have questions as to whether they could do more. They 
have outlined for us what they think is the optimum capacity for hiring 
new personnel, bringing them on board, giving them the training so they 
can accomplish the goal that Secretary Principi has sent down the pike 
for the 100-day limit for the processing of claims.
  Frankly, the money that the Senator from Arizona has proposed is not 
in his request. It has not been requested by the person who has to do 
the job, who has to administer and make sure the money is well spent. 
Frankly, I believe we need to stay with the responsible work plan that 
the Secretary has outlined.
  Finally, let me talk about some of the rhetoric we have heard on 
porkbarrel. I come from a background of working in State government. 
One of the most important things we can do for the people in our States 
is to assure that we have strong communities. That means education, 
health care, and housing. But it also means strong communities. I spent 
a great deal of time, when I was Governor, working on how we develop 
communities, how we bring together the facilities that are needed to 
make sure we have livable communities.
  Now, housing, obviously, in this budget is second only in priorities 
to taking care of our veterans. Veterans are our first priority. 
Housing is second. Below that, is assuring that the communities have 
what they need to be strong communities. We need good communities to 
support good housing so families can raise their children in the proper 
setting.
  I am very pleased that we have been able to put money into community 
development. This is a very important priority. This is something that 
is recognized across this country and is strongly supported.
  There is $5,012,993,000 going into the community development fund. 
These funds go back and are administered by locally elected officials 
and State-elected officials--except for roughly 2.8 percent of those 
funds that are allocated here.
  Now, if you don't think any of these buildings or any community 
development activities should be carried forward, you could save $5 
billion by knocking out community development funds. Given the many, 
many different objects for spending, I can assure you, as one who lives 
in a small town and who travels to communities of all sizes in our 
State, the community development activities are vitally important from 
a governmental standpoint, from a quality-of-life standpoint, and from 
an economic development standpoint. They help draw and attract the 
kinds of economic activities and the kinds of community activities that 
are beneficial. I believe in them. I believe it works.
  Community development block grant funds are extremely important, and 
I will strongly oppose anybody who wants to cut the $5 billion we put 
into community development block grants.
  It is easy to pick out a project that has been recommended here and 
included by an elected Senator--anything you want--that goes to a 
different State than yours and call it ``pork.'' If it is in your own 
State, it is a ``strategic investment.'' How is that $5 billion 
allocated? It is allocated by elected officials. That is what this 
process of government is all about. It is a republican form of 
government. They elect people at the local level and State level to 
make decisions on how to spend the money that is raised in taxes. A 
small portion of it--$5 billion out of the total budget--goes to 
community development.
  Who is best to make these decisions? We say, by and large, the 
decisions should be made at the local and State level. This is money 
the Federal Government raises and sends back for community development. 
But do the people who are elected to serve their States in the Senate 
know what some of those priorities are? I happen to think they do. I 
travel around my State, and I know the need and the opportunities that 
economic development initiative grants and community development block 
grants can meet. I think those are very important.
  Do we make decisions on all these funds? No, only about 2.8 percent. 
I think that anybody in this body who takes their job seriously is 
going to be seeing needs in their States. They are going to have the 
ability to identify improvements and projects or buildings that would 
benefit the communities--particularly the communities most in need, the 
communities needing a handout.
  I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Maryland 
and with most of my colleagues. The 1600 requests we had went to 
communities all over this Nation to try to provide some funds for the 
top priorities as identified by our colleagues from the 50 States in 
the Nation. I will be happy to discuss at any length the contention of 
those who think that community development funds from the Federal 
Government through the community development block grant are not 
necessary. They make a great difference, and I do not apologize for the 
fact that those elected by the voters of the 50 States ought to have a 
say in allocating 2.8 percent of that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the committee chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee

[[Page 15820]]

for their commitment and adherence to the needs of our veterans. I 
appreciate it very much. I know that all veterans and all Americans do 
as well.
  I point out that there was a $132 million addition for the VA, and it 
was a $211 million addition over the President's budget for community 
development grants. I listened carefully to the comments by the Senator 
from Missouri about elected officials being wise enough to determine 
spending for projects in their own State. I wonder if that wisdom now 
resides in the Appropriations Committee, where 9 out of 10 of the 
earmarks came from. I am sorry the rest of us are not as well informed. 
In fact, I read this: Missouri, 15 projects, the largest number of 
projects, for $9.150 million. And, of course, we can go down the list 
of the Appropriations Committee: Maryland, 13 projects, $5.260 million; 
West Virginia, $8 million; Alaska, $7.490 million. Of course, there is 
a dramatic demarcation there between these funds and those who are not 
members of the Appropriations Committee.
  That may be some coincidence. I believe $5 million is a very modest 
amount of money. I described the projects that half the money is taken 
from, and I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Pending VA Cases by State

     Vermont, White River Junction--1,420
     West Virginia, Huntington--5,926
     Maryland, Baltimore--5,958
     Ohio, Cleveland--13,715
     Alabama, Montgomery--13,758
     Wisconsin, Milwaukee--10,049
     Missouri, St. Louis--11,561
     New Mexico, Albuquerque--5,859
     South Dakota, Sioux Falls--1,919
     Montana, Fort Harrison--2,454
     Alaska, Anchorage--2,674
     Idaho, Boise--3,031
     Iowa, Des Moines--5,183
     New Hampshire, Manchester--2,224
     Pennsylvania, Philadelphia/Pitts.--14,854
     Kentucky, Louisville--10,724
     South Carolina, Columbia--9,394
     Mississippi, Jackson--7,442
     Illinois, Chicago--10,832
     North Dakota, Fargo--2,399
     Louisiana, New Orleans--9,198
     Texas, Houston/Waco--38,598
     Colorado, Denver--9,001
     Utah, Salt Lake City--1,574
     Washington, Seattle--13,091
     California, Oak./L.A./S.D.--47,448
     Nevada, Reno--7,105
     Massachusetts, Boston--5,147
     Rhode Island, Providence--4,042
     New York, NYC/Buffalo--22,745
     Connecticut, Hartford--3,411
     Maine, Togus--4,395
     New Jersey, Newark--7,384
     Indiana, Indianapolis--6,289
     Michigan, Detroit--9,687
     Delaware, Wilmington--1,984
     Virginia, Roanoke--17,635
     Georgia, Atlanta--16,714
     North Carolina, Winston-Salem--20,784
     Tennessee, Nashville--14,276
     Florida, St. Petersburg--33,218
     Nebraska, Lincoln--4,229
     Minnesota, St. Paul--7,357
     Kansas, Wichita--6,971
     Arkansas, Little Rock--7,881
     Oklahoma, Muskogee--10,767
     Oregon, Portland--12,368
     Arizona, Phoenix--8,687
     Hawaii, Honolulu--4,481
     District of Columbia--6,872
     Puerto Rico, San Juan--11,581
     Philippines, Manilla--7,890
     Total cases pending: 524,186
                                  ____


                         STATE COSTS BY PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     No. of    Total (in
                      State                         projects  thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri.........................................         15      $9,150
Rhode Island.....................................         14       3,900
Pennsylvania.....................................         13       3,700
Maryland.........................................         13       5,260
Alabama..........................................         12       4,400
Illinois.........................................         12       3,000
South Dakota.....................................         11       3,750
Wisconsin........................................         10       3,000
California.......................................          9       3,700
Nevada...........................................          9       4,000
Louisiana........................................          8       2,900
Vermont..........................................          8       5,000
Iowa.............................................          7       4,000
New York.........................................          7       2,000
Hawaii...........................................          6       3,000
Mississippi......................................          6       5,250
New Mexico.......................................          6       4,400
Alaska...........................................          5       7,490
West Virginia....................................          5       8,050
South Carolina...................................          5       3,000
North Dakota.....................................          4       3,300
New Hampshire....................................          4       2,500
Washington.......................................          4       3,300
Massachusetts....................................          4       1,050
New Jersey.......................................          4       1,050
Colorado.........................................          3       2,800
Ohio.............................................          3       2,500
Texas............................................          3       2,000
Florida..........................................          3       2,050
Delaware.........................................          3       1,100
Georgia..........................................          3       1,050
Indiana..........................................          3       1,800
Nebraska.........................................          3       1,800
Oregon...........................................          3       1,750
Maine............................................          3       2,750
Tennessee........................................          3       1,850
Idaho............................................          2       1,500
Montana..........................................          2       1,750
Utah.............................................          2       1,800
Michigan.........................................          2       1,050
Minnesota........................................          2       1,050
Arkansas.........................................          2       1,300
Connecticut......................................          2         600
North Carolina...................................          2       1,300
Kansas...........................................          2       1,500
Oklahoma.........................................          1       1,000
Kentucky.........................................          1       3,500
Virginia.........................................          1       1,000
Arizona..........................................  .........  ..........
Wyoming..........................................  .........  ..........
                                                  ----------------------
    50 states....................................        255     140,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 2001.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the one million members 
     and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government 
     Waste (CCAGW), I would like to express our support for your 
     efforts to reduce wasteful spending in the fiscal 02 
     appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
     and Housing and Urban Development (VA/HUD). Your leadership 
     on these issues is greatly appreciated.
       Last year, CCAGW chronicled a record of 6,333 pork-barrel 
     items in spending for fiscal 01 that totaled $18.5 billion. 
     Congress seems to be on track to beat that dubious 
     achievement. Ignoring the absence of earmarks in this year's 
     House VA/HUD spending bill, the Senate exceeded the record 
     levels of last year and added 256 earmarks in Community 
     Development Block Grants (CDBGs), totaling $138 million.
       Some examples of this self-indulgence include: $1,000,000 
     for a multi-purpose center for the Southern New Mexico Fair 
     and Rodeo in Dona Ana County, New Mexico; $750,000 for 
     development of an arts center in Baltimore, Maryland; 
     $500,000 for the Idaho Virtual Incubator at Lewis and Clark 
     State College in Idaho; $350,000 for the Harbor Gardens 
     Greenhouse project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for 
     a heritage trails project in Kauai, Hawaii; $300,000 for a 
     new facility for Studio for the Arts in Pocahontas, Arkansas; 
     $250,000 for the Culver City Theater Project in Culver City, 
     California; $100,000 for development assistance for the 
     Desert Space Station in Nevada; and $100,000 for the 
     development of the Alabama Quail Trail.
       Your amendment will eliminate much of this egregious 
     spending and spare the taxpayers from being forced to pay for 
     the appropriators' largess. CCAGW applauds your efforts and 
     urges your colleagues to support your amendment. The vote on 
     your amendment will be among those considered for CCAGW's 
     annual Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Schatz,
     President.
                                  ____


       [Citizens Against Government Waste release, July 26, 2001]

 Pork Alert: CAGW's Pork Patrol Takes a Closer Look at Fiscal 2002 VA/
                                HUD Pork

       Next week, the Senate is expected to consider the FY 2002 
     appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
     and Housing and Urban Development (VA/HUD). The Senate 
     ignored the House request of zero earmarks and picked up 
     beyond where they left off last year, adding 256 earmarks 
     totaling $138 million for the Community Development Block 
     Grant (CDBG) program in the bill. The 13 VA/HUD 
     Appropriations subcommittee members gobbled up 101 of those 
     earmarks (39 percent), totaling $54.7 million. The other 16 
     Senate appropriators received another 104 earmarks (41 
     percent), totaling $55.7 million. That means 29 percent of 
     the Senate would get 80 percent of the projects and dollars, 
     proving, once again, that appropriators abuse their 
     privileges. A few examples:
       Taxpayers Left Out in the Cold, Alaska. Senate 
     Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Ted Stevens (R-
     Alaska) earmarked $2.25 million for the city of Fairbanks to 
     provide winter recreation alternatives to military and 
     civilian residents. Sen. Stevens might just have asked 
     federal taxpayers to send their old sleds and ice skates up 
     north.
       Leadership Has Its Privileges, Missouri. Senate VA/HUD 
     Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Christopher 
     ``Kit'' Bond (R-Mo.) earmarked $7.1 million in CDBGs for his 
     home state, including: $1 million for the City Market 
     renovation project in Kansas City; $1 million for the 
     University of Missouri-Kansas City Life Sciences Initiative; 
     and, $250,000 to the city of St. Joseph for redevelopment of 
     its downtown area.
       We Have Enough Bull, New Mexico. Cowboys, cotton candy, and 
     kicking bulls must be on the mind of VA/HUD Approriations 
     subcommittee member Pete Dominici (R-N.M.). The senator 
     earmarked $1 million for infrastructure improvements and for 
     a new multi-purpose and event center for the Dana County 
     Rodeo and Fair. YEE-HAW!
       Out of This World, Nevada. As if the International Space 
     Station didn't cost enough, a new tribute to man's heavenly 
     aspirations is being built in the desert. Senate 
     Appropriations Committee member Harry Reid (D-Nev.) must be 
     seeing stars over the $100,000

[[Page 15821]]

     that was earmarked for a futuristic space museum in his home 
     state. It won't fly with taxpayers.
       Not-so Bravo, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 
     Appropriators are taking taxpayers to the cleaners and the 
     theater. Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont are slated to 
     receive a total of $1.1 million for the refurbishment of 
     theaters and performance centers. Although some theaters may 
     be historic, preserving the past probably took a back seat to 
     preserving their starring role on Capitol Hill for VA/HUD 
     Appropriations subcommittee member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and 
     Appropriations Committee members Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and 
     Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
       Taxpayer Always Comes Last, Nevada. Known for tourists, 
     gambling, and friendly service, Las Vegas has made a name for 
     itself with its billion-dollar hospitality industry. From 
     showgirls to costumed Romans, the customer always comes 
     first. The taxpayer, though, obviously comes last. Senate 
     Appropriations Committee member Harry Reid D-Nev.) gamble 
     away $700,000 for a hospitality training facility in Las 
     Vegas.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are coming now to the closing 
moments of this bill. I know we are waiting for a clearance to take up 
the manager's amendment, and we should be coming to that shortly. As 
soon as we have cleared the manager's amendment, I will be offering it.
  As we go into the final minutes, I am going to make some final 
comments on the bill. We have really done a good job, and we have done 
a good job working on a bipartisan basis, working with President Bush 
and his Cabinet.
  There are 13 appropriations subcommittees. The big three are Defense, 
Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. VA-HUD spends $84 billion of the taxpayers' 
money. Of that, $51 billion goes to veterans, and it is worth every 
nickel of it. Housing and Urban Development receives $31 billion. A 
substantial amount of that goes to community development block grant 
money, which is decided by the local community: housing for the 
elderly, the special needs population, and housing for the poor. We 
have tried to use the best ideas and the best practices to make sure 
subsidies are not a way of life but a way to a better life. That is 
what we have concentrated on again in this bill.
  We have the Environmental Protection Agency. We have worked to clean 
up the environment. We have the National Space Agency and the National 
Science Foundation, very important for public investments in new ideas, 
in new knowledge, which always leads to America being on the 
competitive edge and the cutting edge.
  We try to inspire young people through a national service program 
where they get value by working in the community and taxpayers get 
value by the work they do, and we create the habits of the heart that 
hopefully will inspire the next generation to have the spirit of 
voluntarism.
  We think we have done a very good job in this bill. The reason we 
have done a good job is cooperation, collegiality, courtesy, and 
civility. I thank my ranking member, Senator Bond of Missouri, for the 
way we have worked together on this bill.
  This has been a very difficult year. First, there was the delayed 
transition of the executive branch. President Bush took office in a 
timely manner, but because of the delayed transition we were late 
getting started. The President was late getting started. We have worked 
to catch up, and he has given us some terrific Cabinet people to work 
with in VA-HUD, our Secretary of Housing, and our Administrator of the 
Environment. I extolled the virtues of our Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs.
  So many people think we are pretty prickly in politics, but we think 
we have worked well with the Bush administration. I have been delighted 
at their courtesy.
  It was the Senator from Missouri, when there was the transition of 
power with the Democrats taking control, who, with enormous 
graciousness, provided practical help in transitioning the gavel to me. 
He was so courteous and the transition so effective and so seamless, 
that we did not miss a beat in terms of holding our hearings, trying to 
be responsible to the needs of our communities, and trying to be 
responsible to the needs of the taxpayer.
  In the most sincere and genuine way, I want to thank my colleague for 
his graciousness because I believe we have truly been able to serve the 
people and serve the Nation.
  He has an outstanding staff, and I want to thank them now:--Jon 
Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and John Stoody--for their wonderful work with my 
staff. I thank my staff--Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin and Joel 
Widder, a detailee from the National Science Foundation--for the 
outstanding job they have done.
  This committee has also had a tradition of bipartisanship. We have 
kept that tradition, and I think America benefits from it. As we now 
come to these closing minutes, we will really be able to complete our 
bill with pride.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time to yield. The time has 
expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 3 
minutes in order to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Madam President, I congratulate the two Senators who have been 
managing this bill. I thank them for their vision with regard to 
America's space program, and indeed I have entered into a written 
colloquy with the Chair of the committee that will be inserted in the 
Record. I want to take this opportunity to express my concern and share 
that concern with the Chair and the ranking member of the committee. I 
have been afraid there may be some attempt, because NASA has had almost 
$5 billion of overruns in the space station, that there may be some 
attempt to punish NASA by the administration.
  I want to express my concern that if we starve NASA of the funds it 
needs, particularly with regard to the space shuttle upgrades, that 
could endanger the safety of the space shuttle program. I do not have 
to even conjecture further for the chairman and the ranking member that 
should there be another catastrophe in the manned space flight program, 
that could severely not only cripple but end the manned space flight 
program.
  I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for recognizing space 
shuttle upgrades need to be addressed, not only in the bill but when we 
go to conference. I want to state clearly and unequivocally we cannot 
starve this space shuttle upgrade program, because if we do, we are 
getting to the point of risking the safety of the crews we fly.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I assure the Senator from Florida that we are safety-
obsessed when it comes to the safety of our astronauts. In this bill, 
we have actually provided $3.2 billion for the shuttle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would suspend, the Senator has 
used 3 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We agree. The Senator can count on it, and everyone 
should know he is a Senator-astronaut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to make one additional comment to 
the Senator from Florida for whom I have the highest respect, 
admiration, and appreciation of his advocacy for the space program. I 
say in all candor to the Senator from Florida, he knows these cost 
overruns go on and on. There is no one more qualified than the Senator 
from Florida to start exercising some fiscal discipline because we do 
not have an unlimited amount of taxpayers' dollars.
  Unfortunately, before the authorizing committee, the Director of NASA 
keeps coming back and back saying: We have it under control; we keep 
imposing caps, and every year they tend to increase.
  Madam President, I say to the Senator from Florida, whom I admire 
enormously, he is beginning to lose support when the costs just 
continue without any end in sight, and that should be of concern most 
of all to the Senator from Florida who is the advocate and

[[Page 15822]]

spokesperson for this very important part of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If I may respond----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 4 minutes. The 
time of the Senator from Maryland has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland and 2 
minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will claim 1 minute. I say to my colleagues from 
Arizona and Florida, first, on the cost overruns, Senator Bond and I 
absolutely agree. The space station is running a $4 billion overrun. We 
want to shake, rattle, and roll this culture of permissiveness with 
these overruns. We are trying to work with the administration to deal 
with it.
  While we are dealing with that, though, we want to ensure for each 
and every mission that we can send our astronauts into space and return 
them home safely and maintain our shuttle upgrades.
  I yield back whatever time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding 
2 minutes. I agree with him. It is inexcusable that there is the lack 
of discipline so that the overruns to the tune of $5 billion have 
occurred on the space station. I agree with Senator McCain on that.
  The fact is, however, that the space shuttle account has been starved 
40 percent less over the last 10 years, and we cannot continue to rob 
from Peter to pay Paul in other parts of the program without 
endangering the safety of the program.
  The Senator and I share the vision of this country. We share the 
character of the American people, which is, by nature, we are 
explorers; we are adventurers. We never want to give that up because if 
we do, we are dead as a country; we are a second-rate country. We want 
to continue to explore into the unknown, but we have to do that with 
the utmost of safety. We all suffered through the tragic explosion of 
the 25th flight of the space shuttle, and from that we learned that we 
simply have to have the two-way communication and we have to have 
adequate resources.
  There is a plan over the next 10 years of upgrading the shuttle so 
that it provides reliable and safe access to space, and that is what I 
am advocating.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Arizona has 1 minute 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. It is 
appropriate to say, though, when he says the budget was starved, that 
budget was recommended by NASA. We agreed to administration budget 
requests, and we were told time after time they could live within those 
budgets. I do not disagree with the Senator's depiction that the budget 
was ``starved'' or reduced, but those were the budget requests to which 
we agreed. Therefore, we have to get much more realistic estimates of 
the costs so that we can plan on them and also impose fiscal 
discipline, which I think the Senator from Florida will agree with me 
is somewhat lacking, at least in comparison to the pledges they make to 
the Congress of the United States.
  I thank the Senator from Florida. I look forward to discussing this 
with him in the committee and also on the floor. It is a very important 
issue and one to which we have not paid enough attention. Now that the 
Senator from Florida is here, I think we will be paying a lot more 
attention.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. Nickles, I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announed--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dayton
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Rockefeller
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Domenici
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment our two managers. We have 
come a long way, and, I understand we are not far off from the point 
where we can have final passage. The managers have done an outstanding 
job. My hope is that we could go back on Agriculture.
  I announce to my colleagues that we have two remaining pieces of 
business. We have, of course, the Agriculture bill, and we have 
nominations that I would like to be able to take up and complete.
  If there is any way we could finish it tonight, there would be no 
session tomorrow. I hope, perhaps, we can all work together to see if 
there might be a way to accomplish the rest of our work tonight. There 
is still plenty of time. Then we can go all make our plane reservations 
for tomorrow. I announce that if there is a way to do it, we sure would 
like to find a way.
  Again, let me compliment our colleagues for getting us to this point.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the leader very much for those 
kind words.
  I have a unanimous consent request, and then we will go to final 
passage.
  Once again, I thank Senator Bond and his staff and my staff for their 
cooperation. I also thank Senator Harry Reid who helped us move the 
amendment process.
  As you noticed, this bill had a minimum, and we are proud of our 
content and proud of our process.


                           Amendment No. 1338

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send the VA-HUD managers' amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski), for herself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1338.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')

[[Page 15823]]


  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the amendment includes the Harkin 
amendment for a 1-year public housing agency, an Iowa issue;
  A Hollings amendment on earmark corrections;
  An Inouye amendment on the eligibility standards for mortgages for 
Hawaii homeland;
  A Lincoln-Hutchison amendment certifying the eligibility of HOME 
program funds project;
  A Torricelli amendment to conduct a study at VA on particular 
diseases;
  A Mikulski amendment clarifying a plan on HOPE VI;
  A Wellstone amendment preventing discrimination in the rental or sale 
of housing--a nondiscrimination provision;
  A Lott amendment to ensure that NASA-funded rocket propulsion testing 
is assigned according to existing procedures;
  A Dorgan amendment on funding for EPSCoR programs;
  A Conrad amendment on technical and other assistance for Turtle 
Mountain;
  A Dorgan amendment on the eligibility of North Dakota cemeteries;
  A Durbin amendment extending the comment period on this network 12 
cares process by 60 days;
  A Kerry amendment on increasing funds for Youthbuild;
  And a Kyl amendment on the sense of the Senate that the Environment 
and Public Works Committee should report equitable clean water funding 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland still has the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alabama why he 
surprised us.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have to clarify one of the amendments 
that we thought was cleared. We ask our colleagues to please stay 
because we think we will be able to clear it.
  While we are doing this clarification with our colleague from 
Alabama, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
managers' amendment, as previously offered, with the deletion of the 
Lott amendment, be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1338) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my sincere appreciation for 
the work of the chair of the committee. She has done an excellent job 
by making sure everybody knows what is going on. We have taken care of 
many of the problems and challenges that arise in this bill. I thank 
her for the tremendous cooperation she has provided us throughout.
  She said some kind words about collegiality, but on this side, what 
we know about collegiality we have learned from the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland, which she has shown us in the past, on how to 
work effectively, both as chair and ranking member. It is my great 
pleasure to work with her. And I share her enthusiasm for cleaning up 
the Chesapeake Bay. I assure you, Mr. President, it is one of my 
highest priorities.
  I express my appreciation to Senator Mikulski's staff: Paul Carliner, 
Gabrielle Batkin, Joel Widder; and, obviously, to my staff: Jon 
Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and John Stoody. They have made a very difficult 
bill work well.
  I hope now that we can accept this bill and send it on to conference. 
I appreciate the work and accommodation of all of our colleagues who 
were kind and understanding to know why we could not take all 1,600 
proposed amendments worth $22 billion to add on to the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1214

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1214, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1214), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed 
to.


                     epa's regulation of pesticides

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important 
issues facing agriculture and EPA's regulation of the use of 
pesticides.
  First, as my colleagues know, 1996 capped a major shift in pesticide 
policy in this country with the unanimous passage by this House of the 
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This act, which was later signed 
into law, provided new protections for infants, children, and other 
subpopulations potentially vulnerable to the effects of pesticide 
residues.
  That act accelerated a trend in our country to move toward safer, 
reduced risk pesticides. It is important that all pesticides on the 
market meet FQPA's safety standards, and safer products allow farmers 
and others to better protect public health and safeguard our 
environment. It is a winning situation for everyone. Ensuring that 
effective, reduced risk pesticides continue to come to market is 
essential to ensuring that farmers and others continue to have a 
complete, effective, and affordable toolbox to address pest issues 
facing agriculture, industry, and our urban areas.
  An additional $5 million is needed to adequately support the 
registration of additional safer, reduced risk compounds. I would ask 
that this need be considered when this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Iowa yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I wanted to commend the Senator for bringing this matter 
to the attention of the Senate. It is my understanding that, in the 
last few years, over half of the applications received by EPA for new 
pesticides are for reduced risk, safer products.
  In addition, there is a commitment by everyone, environmental groups, 
industry, farmers, and others, that it is important to review the older 
pesticides to ensure they meet today's higher health and safety 
standards.
  Given that some of the older pesticides have had their uses adjusted 
as a result of FQPA, this additional money will help ensure that our 
farmers have a complete tool box to control the pests that threaten our 
agriculture. It will help bring new, cost-effective products to market 
and will help provide adequate alternatives for farmers.
  It also helps ensure that farmers have the tools they need to 
continue to provide a safe and abundant supply of food. I want to 
express my support for these additional funds as well.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his support and his 
help on this issue. He and I have worked together closely on several 
pesticide issues over the years on the VA/HUD subcommittee, and I 
always value his insights into agricultural issues facing this body.
  The second issue I wanted to discuss involves EPA's pesticide 
evaluation process. Making evaluations of a particular pesticide's 
safety requires complex scientific analyses that ultimately

[[Page 15824]]

depend on having complete and reliable data to base the analyses upon. 
Data that you need include pesticide residues in food and water and 
exposures to applicators and farm workers, among others.
  While EPA's ability to conduct through scientific analyses on 
possible pesticide exposures from drinking water and to farm workers 
has improved, additional work remains to be done.
  I am urging that the conference committee consider including an 
additional $1 million for this purpose.
  Mr. CRAIG. Again, I commend my colleague for bringing this matter to 
our attention.
  It is my understanding that this additional money could be used by 
EPA in a collaborative way between industry and the environmental 
community to strengthen EPA's information and assessment techniques.
  Better data, with enhanced methods to evaluate potential pesticide 
exposures, will result in more accurate and scientifically sound risk 
assessments, thereby contributing to better quality decisions by EPA.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Iowa to include 
these funds in the final conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the gentlemen will yield, I thank the Senators for 
their discussion. Reduced-risk pesticides can provide farmers and 
others with alternative pesticides that may present lower risks to 
public health and the environment, and can help ensure that farmers 
continue to have the tools they need. Also, given the difficult task 
that EPA faces in making timely, scientific decision about pesticides, 
providing the tools that EPA needs to improve its decision making 
should be a high priority.
  I will work to ensure that these items receive every appropriate 
consideration as the VA/HUD bill moves forward.
  Mr. BOND. I rise in support of the statements by my colleagues Mr. 
Craig and Mr. Harkin, I have a longstanding interest in ensuring that 
pesticides meet FQPA's safety standards based on factual, reliable 
scientific data. The additional funding discussed by Mr. Craig and Mr. 
Harkin for strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on worker exposure 
and drinking water would also help enhance sound scientific decisions 
by EPA. Moreover, the additional funding for faster review and approval 
of reduced risk pesticides will enable these products to be on the 
market sooner, and help ensure that farmers and others have a complete 
tool box to control pests that attack their crops and threaten public 
health.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Craig, Mr. Harkin, and Ms. 
Mikulski to consider these additional funds in the conference report.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the distinguished chair and ranking 
member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee for their consideration. I am also 
hopeful that we will be able to agree upon a legislative package that 
will address several issues with pesticide fees currently facing the 
EPA and chemical industry. The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and I 
have been working together in the Agriculture Committee to come up with 
long-term fix for several pesticide fee provisions that expire this 
year.
  I am very hopeful that this work could lead to an agreement that 
could help resolve issues that are likely to arise in conference on the 
VA/HUD bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would like to commend Senators Harkin and Lugar for 
their work in the Agriculture Committee on pesticide fees.
  As they and my colleagues know, the legal authorization for the 
collection of fees from pesticide manufacturers soon expires. The 
expiration of the so-called maintenance fee authorization will mean 
that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it attempts to 
implement FQPA.
  There has been a widespread consensus in Congress to prevent the 
tolerance fee rule from taking effect. We have postponed the rule for 2 
consecutive years, and another year postponement is included in this 
bill, as well as the House's version. I would urge the Senate to follow 
the House's action and reauthorize maintenance fees at $20 million for 
fiscal year 2002. I would hope this is the first year of a multi-year 
fix. This would help maintain the critical base funding necessary to 
ensure that FQPA protections for public health are realized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague from Idaho for putting his finger on 
exactly why it is so important to come to a resolution on these 
pesticide fee issues.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would like to thank the Senators Harkin and Lugar for 
their efforts and leadership on this issue. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to find an agreement that is acceptable to all 
parties on pesticide fees.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senators from Iowa and Idaho for 
their remarks. You've laid out the issues regarding pesticide fees and 
EPA funding very well, and I look forward to working with them and the 
Senator from Missouri to resolve them.
  Mr. REID. As we have discussed, the legal authorization for the 
collection of fees from pesticide manufacturers soon expires. The 
expiration of the so-called maintenance fee authorization will mean 
that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it attempts to 
meet important FQPA pesticide protections for children. EPA is far 
behind the schedule we set for them in that unanimously adopted law. 
This means that the important FQPA provisions we wrote 5 years ago to 
protect children from the dangers posed by toxic pesticides are still 
not being fully implemented.
  At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on EPA's 
proposed budget, EPA Administrator Whitman testified that she supported 
these important protections. She has taken additional steps during her 
tenure which demonstrate her support in concrete ways. At the hearing, 
the Administrator recognized that the shortfall I've mentioned above 
would cause a reduction of 200 EPA employees dedicated to making sure 
our pesticide standards protect kids. She promised that those 
reductions would absolutely not occur.
  To her credit, Administrator Whitman testified that this shortfall 
would not be realized because she pledged to complete the so-called 
tolerance fee rule proposed during the Clinton administration. The 
administration to its credit also took this position in its budget. The 
tolerance rule would provide roughly $51 million in fees to support and 
accelerate FQPA work. That was an important statement. It was an 
affirmation of FQPA's provisions that the costs of pesticide programs 
should be paid for by the pesticide industry rather than by the 
taxpayer. I look forward to working with the Administration to follow 
through on its pledge.
  Recognizing, however, that it may be difficult to complete that 
rulemaking on schedule, it is extremely important that we extend the 
maintenance fee authorization in conference to ensure that EPA has the 
funds to at least continue their current level of work. I would 
underscore the remarks of my colleague from Idaho that this 
authorization needs to include an increase so that funding meets at 
least the $20 million level.
  Will my colleague from Maryland work in conference to ensure that EPA 
is provided with the critical base funding for FQPA children's health 
protections by supporting the extension of such fees?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for raising 
this issue. I look forward to working with him as well to resolve this 
issue in conference.


                                NESCAUM

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding funding for the 
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). As she 
knows, for many years now, NESCAUM has received support in the VA-HUD 
conference reports. The $300,000 in funds provided in previous 
Subcommittee bills has enabled the organization to do outstanding work 
that is helping to protect the health and welfare of citizens in 
Vermont and the Northeast from air pollution.

[[Page 15825]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to echo the words of my 
colleague from Vermont. As Senators Bond and Mikulski know, I have 
supported funding for NESCAUM before and would hope that we can 
continue that at current levels in the fiscal year 2002 bill. The 
organization is very important to developing workable and cost-
effective air pollution control strategies in the Northeast. I 
encourage the Chair to continue that past support.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the views of the chairman and ranking 
Member of the authorizing committee. As they have indicated, NESCAUM 
has received support from the subcommittee from the past and I will 
ensure that it receives every appropriate consideration as we move 
forward.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair for her consideration.


          National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland and chairman of the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. As the Senator knows, 
several years ago, NASA established the National Space Biomedical 
Research Institute (NSBRI) to enlist the broad scientific community in 
the effort to develop solutions to the health-related problems and 
physical and psychological challenges men and women will face on long-
duration space flights. These 2 to 3 year missions will one day allow 
astronauts to travel to other planets and explore our solar system. The 
Institute also investigates ways to deliver medical care on these 
missions through new technologies and remote treatment advances. While 
addressing these space issues, the NSBRI plans to rapidly transfer 
discoveries that will also benefit human health on Earth.
  As the distinguished Senator knows, the NSBRI is headquartered in 
Houston, TX at the Baylor College of Medicine. Eleven other prestigious 
research organizations make up the 12-member consortium of NSBRI 
Institutions, including the renowned Johns Hopkins University in 
Maryland. If we are to meet our established goals for human space 
flight and the continued exploration of the final frontier, we must 
better understand the physiological and psychological effects of space 
travel on the brave men and women who we launch into space. The NSBRI 
is the primary institution charged with this task.
  I know that the Senator from Maryland shares my concern that NSBRI 
receive adequate funding. I have been informed that in order to fully 
fund current NSBRI research projects, an increase above the president's 
Fiscal Year 2002 budget is required.
  I ask the Senator from Maryland to work with me in ensuring that 
NSBRI is provided with an increase in funding for NSBRI within the 
available amounts appropriated in the bill.
  Mr. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I 
share her concern for the brave men and women who risk their lives to 
achieve the national goals that we have established for space travel. I 
agree that the health effects of these travels must be better 
understood, and that we should not endanger our astronauts who engage 
in long-term space travel without fully understanding the effects such 
travel has on the human body.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for raising this important issue, and 
I offer my commitment to work with her to provide the NSBRI with the 
resources to achieve the goals we both share.


         philadelphia's neighborhood transformation initiative

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator Bond to discuss efforts to assist the city of 
Philadelphia in its Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. On Monday, 
July 30, 2001, I met with Mayor John Street for an hour and a half 
regarding this initiative, which seeks to eliminate ``blight'' in the 
city of Philadelphia as well as focus on the elements that are 
essential for a neighborhood to thrive. These elements include the 
development of recreational facilities, retail opportunities, 
transportation, secure streets, cultural outlets and quality schools. I 
was very impressed with Mayor Street's plan to transform the city. I 
believe that the city is on the right track and could provide the 
prototype for addressing overall blight that plagues so many American 
neighborhoods.
  In order to assist Philadelphia in reducing inner city blight, I aim 
to provide even greater flexibility in the use of CDBG funds. I believe 
this increased flexibility is imperative in order for the city to 
develop a long-term plan with a predictable funding stream.
  Additionally, I understand that there may be additional funds 
available in the HUD Neighborhood Initiative program when the VA/HUD 
appropriations bill goes to conference. I would appreciate any funds 
that may be available for implementation of the city of Philadelphia's 
blight removal plan.
  Mr. BOND. I understand that like so many neighborhoods in large urban 
cities, the neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia have been 
devastated by depopulation and that other Philadelphia neighborhoods 
are experiencing the initial signs of decline with stagnant or 
declining property values, rising crime, and a breakdown in public 
infrastructure. Still, other neighborhoods are largely stable, but are 
hardly flourishing.
  I respect what the Senator from Pennsylvania seeks to accomplish with 
these provisions. The CDBG is a flexible block grant program used by 
States and communities for critical projects such as affordable 
housing, economic development, and human service projects. Last year 
the committee provided approximately $5 billion for the program. While 
this program is already a very flexible program, I am happy to work 
with the Senator from Pennsylvania to assist the city of Philadelphia 
to use CDBG funding to develop a long-term blight removal plan.
  I understand that the city of Philadelphia is in dire need of 
neighborhood development and blight removal, and I would be glad to 
work with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference to try to secure 
funding under the Neighborhood Initiative effort for this meritorious 
program.


                                  NASA

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, one of the agencies funded in 
this bill is particularly important to me and to my constituents in 
Florida: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA 
supports programs that invest in our Nation's future. At present, 
NASA's most significant and visible investment is the International 
Space Station. But, we have a problem on our hands: The Space Station 
is now expected to cost almost $5 billion dollars more than projected 
just a few months ago. If we are going to complete this project, we 
have to find the money somewhere. Does the Senator agree?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wholeheartedly agree. We must complete this project. 
It is an investment in our children's future. This laboratory of the 
heavens will allow us to conduct research in tissue growth, looking at 
the causes of cancer and potential medical treatments. We are going to 
investigate new drugs, and develop a whole new understanding of the 
building blocks of life. Using the microgravity environment of space, 
our industries will develop new advanced materials that may lead to 
stronger, lighter metals and more powerful computer chips. The station 
will also house experiments in combustion science, that could lead to 
reduced emissions from power plants and automobiles, saving consumers 
billions of dollars. And these are just a few of the possibilities. At 
the same time, I am deeply disturbed about the recent cost overruns in 
the Space Station program. We have to find funds to complete the 
station, and as Chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, I attempted to 
balance this need with those of other programs within the agency.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator, and agree with her that 
recently announced ISS cost increases are disturbing. Funding these 
cost overruns without adding more money to NASA's budget--as the Bush 
Administration has proposed--necessitates cutting many of NASA's 
programs, and

[[Page 15826]]

possibly endangering the future viability of the station itself. At the 
same time, there are many other worthwhile projects being conducted at 
NASA--that have nothing to do with the space station--such as research 
in extra-galactic astronomy using the Hubble Space Telescope, global 
climate change research by remotely sensing the Earth, and launch 
technology development that could decrease the cost of getting to space 
by a factor of 10 or more. Not to mention the other human space flight 
programs impacted by station cost overruns. Cuts to the Space Shuttle 
Program may have catastrophic consequences. We have to continue 
supporting these and other projects, but where will all the money come 
from? I recognize that this situation has tied the hands of 
appropriators in both chambers, and applaud the efforts of Senators 
Mikulski and Bond, as well as Representatives Walsh and Mollohan in the 
House, in attempting to solve this problem. While the Chambers are far 
apart in their approaches, I understand that Senator Mikulski plans to 
work with conferees to support a combination of the priorities in each 
bill. Is this correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. The committee has endorsed the 
projects included in the bill's report. At the same time, I also 
recognize the need to support some of the priorities that were endorsed 
by the House. I plan to press for a marriage of the two bills during 
conference, combining the priorities of each Chamber. In fact, during 
this year's appropriations process, I have especially appreciated the 
input of Senator Nelson, as I believe that the combined interests of 
his constituents in Florida, and my own constituents in Maryland best 
represent the diversity of programs supported by NASA. Although 
programs in Florida largely focus on human space flight and supporting 
a robust commercial space industry, and programs in Maryland center 
around the remote sensing of Earth and exploring our own solar system, 
we both believe in doing everything we can to support a robust civilian 
space program for our Nation and the world. For this reason, I look 
forward to continuing to work with Senator Nelson and his staff in best 
representing the interests of both of our constituencies, as well as 
those of the rest of my colleagues.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the distinguished Senator. I appreciate her 
support and that of her staff on this issue, and look forward to 
continuing to work with her.


                      International Space Station

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
the Senator from Maryland and chairwoman of the VA-HUD-Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee concerning the International Space 
Station and NASA's funding.
  We are both concerned about the recently projected cost growth for 
the International Space Station. I support a space station that is 
fully functioning, and in order to achieve that goal, NASA must work 
within the budget that Congress has given it. At the same time, I 
understand the difficulty in estimating the costs of such an amazing 
engineering feat. We are now within a year of the station being ``core 
complete,'' and I believe Congress must adequately fund the station so 
that we can begin to see the benefits of its unique scientific 
research.
  NASA's projected 5-year cost growth of over $4 billion includes many 
program liens that reflect 2 years of actual operational experience for 
the station. That on-orbit experience has eliminated many unknowns and 
has significantly enhanced NASA's awareness of what it takes to operate 
the space station. Unfortunately, the greater awareness has come a 
price tag that threatens reaching the full capability of the space 
station as originally planned in terms of research, a permanent crew of 
six, and a crew rescue vehicle.
  I understand NASA is dealing with the budgetary challenges and has 
proposed a ``core complete'' plan for the station to stay within budget 
constraints. Importantly, NASA and OMB have put into place an 
independent external review board to assess the space station's budget 
and to assure the station will provide maximum benefit to the U.S. 
taxpayer. This external review board will evaluate the costs and 
benefits for enhancing research, a habitation module for a crew of six 
and a crew rescue vehicle.
  Does the Senator agree it is important in conference that we not 
preclude the full review of these potential enhancements by the 
independent external review board, and not preclude the ability of NASA 
to undertake these enhancements, in order to ensure the originally 
planned capability for the space station?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am concerned about the continued cost overruns on the 
space station and the lack of real urgency at NASA to really get the 
station budget under control. We have to send NASA a message that it 
cannot keep spending more and more money that is meant for other 
programs. The committee supports administration's objectives of reining 
in station cost growth, reforming program management to avoid cost 
overruns in the future, and creating an independent panel to validate 
the budget estimates and management reforms. The external review 
committee will present its recommendations this fall to address the 
space station funding problem. We are, necessarily, in a ``wait and 
see'' mode until NASA and OMB give us a new plan that will be the 
result of the independent external review.
  I agree that we should not take any action that would prevent the 
achievement of the original scientific mission of the station. Despite 
the space station funding challenge, the committee is committed to 
completing the station: one that is capable of supporting world-class 
research.
  But let me say, I will ensure that the space station problems do not 
threaten NASA's science programs. We can never shortchange safety or 
the science, and I'm afraid with the overruns we are going to be 
shortchanging science.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator and would like to reassert that I 
do not disagree with what you said about the real concerns with cost 
overruns that, it unchecked, will limit the space station's ability to 
perform as intended. I want to work with you to make sure that we do 
not cut off capabilities of the space station, and thereby never see 
the scientific contributions for which we have already made a 
significant investment.


                         VETERANS' HEALTH CARE

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Maryland, the 
chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, to enter into a colloquy.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to the bill before us to 
increase the spending for veterans' health care.
  I think the need is there, as the President's budget plainly shows 
that next year VA will need nearly $1 billion to cover the cost of 
payroll and inflation. But the President's budget only provided an 
additional $800 million.
  VA needs additional funding to pay for the long-term care needs of an 
aging population, emergency care coverage in non-VA hospitals, 
hepatitis C treatment, and new outpatient clinics.
  I do understand the very restrictive allocation that Senator 
Mikulski's subcommittee faces--due to a budget resolution not of her 
own making. Because of that, I have decided against offering my 
amendment, but I would like to ask the Senator a question.
  Toward the end of the year, I feel certain that Congress will need to 
revisit various spending bills. I feel strongly that one of the areas 
which should receive more attention at that time is VA health care. I 
ask, therefore, for the Senator's assurance that we can go back and add 
additional funding for VA health care.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The subcommittee recognizes that increased funding for 
VA healthcare is very important to keeping our promises to our nation's 
veterans.
  Within our allocation, which was very tight, we were able to provide 
$21.4 billion for VA medical care. This is $1.1 billion above the 
fiscal year 2001 level, $400 million above the President's request, and 
$100 million above the House.

[[Page 15827]]

  The VA also retains copayments from veterans and third-party health 
insurance. CBO estimates that these will provide an additional $900 
million for VA medical care in fiscal year 2002.
  VA will also carry over $882 million in unobligated medical care 
funding from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002.
  This level of funding will allow VA to open at least 33 more 
community based outpatient clinics, and improve waiting times for 
veterans to receive care.
  We also provide $390 million for VA medical and prosthetic research. 
This is $40 million above the fiscal year 2001 level, and $30 million 
above the President's request. This funding is critical to making more 
progress in: One, recruiting and retaining high quality medical 
professionals; two, the treatment of chronic diseases; three, diagnosis 
and treatment of degenerative brain diseases like Alzheimers and 
Parkinsons; and four, research involving special populations, 
especially those who suffer from spinal cord injury, stroke, nervous 
system diseases, and post traumatic stress disorder.
  So within our tight allocation, the subcommittee was able to keep our 
promises to our nation's veterans.
  But we recognize that there is always more we can do.
  So I assure Senator Rockefeller that within our available resources 
we will continue to do all we can to meet the needs of our Nation's 
veterans, and keep the promises we made to them.


      Establishment of an Outpatient Clinic in Passaic County, NJ

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. president, I request unanimous consent to engage 
the distinguished chairwoman of the VA/HUD appropriations Subcommittee 
in a colloquy about a critical health care matter facing the veterans 
in my State of New Jersey.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to accommodate my colleague from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. In 
my State of New Jersey, the veterans population is facing an epidemic 
in receiving the health care services they need. They have earned these 
health care benefits by virtue of their service to our country in the 
Armed Forces, and I believe, as many other Members of this body 
believe, that we should make every effort to ensure that the men and 
women who have served their country in times of war should have access 
to quality and dependable health care when they need it.
  The problems that the veterans of New Jersey come across in receiving 
the care that they need are many. Each year, under the Veterans Service 
Integrated Network, our region has been seeing its veterans health care 
funding dwindle as it is reallocated to other parts of the country. 
This means that there are fewer hospital beds, fewer doctors, fewer 
nurses, and fewer support staff members to respond to the needs of the 
750,000 veterans who still live in New Jersey.
  This also means that there are fewer facilities where veterans can go 
to get checkups, prescriptions for much needed drugs or therapy and 
rehabilitation for ailments incurred during their service.
  Indeed, a veteran in New Jersey who puts in a request to have a 
routine checkup may have to wait several months before they receive an 
appointment. I cannot overstate the critical situation that thousands 
of New Jersey veterans face each day. There is a severe backlog of 
appointments at all of the New Jersey's veterans hospitals and 
outpatient clinics and unless this matter is addressed in the near 
future, the problem will only become more acute.
  Earlier this year, I met with members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars 
from New Jersey. In our conversation, they stated that one of the ways 
we can alleviate the current problem being faced by the veterans in our 
state is to establish a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, NJ. 
This new clinic could provide services to veterans throughout the 
northern part of my state where a large concentration of veterans live. 
Currently, many veterans in this region of New Jersey have to travel 
long distances to get health care, some even as far as New York City.
  The House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the merits 
of establishing a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, and 
encouraged the VA to establish one there. It is my hope that the 
members of the Senate will recognize this need as well and encourage 
the VA to locate a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County. It will 
provide a great measure of relief to a veterans population that has 
been underserved for many years.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his thoughts on 
this matter.


                    mooresville, nc library project

  Mr. EDWARDS. Senator Mikulski, you have made available $140,000,000 
for the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of 
economic development efforts. I want to make you and your committee 
aware of a project I think is worthy of an EDI grant.
  The town of Mooresville, NC is in dire need of assistance in 
rebuilding its library. The current library has more than 60,000 books, 
despite the fact that it was built to hold only 26,000. The Town plans 
to add 20,000 square feet to house library materials as well as 
community room as well as a large research and reference area. The 
library is on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. I am certain 
this project will contribute to the overall revitalization of the 
neighborhood.
  I am certain the Senator would agree that the Mooresville project is 
a worthwhile investment. I respectfully ask you to urge members of the 
conference committee to provide $1 million in EDI funds for the 
Mooresville library project.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for bringing 
this project to the committee's attention. The subcommittee will give 
it every appropriate consideration as we move forward.


                   state and tribal assistance grants

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with Senator Mikulski, the chair of the VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee.
  As the Senator is aware, I have always been a supporter of the State 
and Tribal Assistance Grants program administered by the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Over the years, the STAG program has provided 
millions of dollars to many of the rural communities throughout the 
State for wastewater treatment, waters systems, and programs designed 
to improve air quality.
  For good reason, this program is tremendously popular with Members 
and I know that the chairwoman receives far more requests for funding 
that she can possibly accommodate.
  However, I would like to ask my friend to consider two STAG grant 
requests for the State of Nevada should additional funds become 
available to the subcommittee in conference.
  The first involves funding for restoration of the Las Vegas Wash. As 
my friend knows, the Las Vegas is the primary wetland area in southern 
Nevada that filters the drinking water that supplies Las Vegas and the 
rapidly growing areas around it. For several years, the local, State, 
and Federal governments have been working cooperatively--a remarkable 
success story--to restore and protect these wetlands. This STAG grant 
will allow this important work to continue.
  The second request is for Lake Tahoe. As the Senator from Maryland 
knows, I have always marveled at her commitment and dedication to 
saving the Chesapeake Bay. I have similar passion for protecting and 
restoring the Jewel of the High Sierra's, Lake Tahoe. The relatively 
modest STAG grant I am seeking for Lake Tahoe will provide funding for 
a series of air and water quality projects that will contribute to 
fulfilling the requirements of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement 
Program, a 10 year Federal, State, local, and private sector blueprint 
for saving Lake Tahoe.
  All I ask is that my friend and colleague give these two requests her 
consideration during the House-Senate conference committee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished assistant majority leader for

[[Page 15828]]

his thoughtful words. I agree that the two matters you have brought to 
my attention are important and worthy. Senator Bond, our ranking 
member, and I will certainly work with the House conferees and consider 
these grant requests for funding.


               sewer infrastructure funding for michigan

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
2002 Appropriations Act for VA/HUD and Independent Agencies, which 
includes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, I wonder if 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland would be willing to consider in 
conference funding for sewer projects in Michigan.
  In Michigan, we are facing an urgent need to maintain and improve our 
aging sewer systems. In southeast Michigan alone this will cost between 
$14 and $26 billion over the next 30 years. I would greatly appreciate 
the committee's assistance in protecting water quality in Michigan by 
funding these much-needed sewer projects.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. So many of our communities are facing enormous funding 
needs to upgrade aging wastewater infrastructure, including Michigan 
communities, and we regret that we could not fund the new combined 
sewer overflow program within existing funding constraints. The Senator 
from Michigan's request will receive every appropriate consideration as 
we move forward.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Maryland and the committee for 
their hard work in putting together this important legislation.


               georgia community redevelopment initiative

  Mr. MILLER. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
subcommittee chairwoman about a very important community development 
initiative taking place within the great State of Georgia.
  First, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman for her 
continued support of community redevelopment and empowering 
neighborhoods. Additionally Senator Mikulski, through her tenure as 
ranking member and now chair, has always made education one of her top 
priorities.
  In my State of Georgia, three institutions of higher education, which 
are also Historically Black Colleges and Universities, are 
participating in a group community redevelopment initiative. Morehouse 
College, the Morehouse School of Medicine and Spelman College have 
formed a nonprofit corporation--College Partners, Inc.--and are working 
with the city of Atlanta in a land acquisition deal. The deal will 
result in the expansion of the Atlanta University Center, AUC, space, 
as well as surrounding community development and revitalization.
  The West End community, which sits at the boundary of these AUC 
campuses, has been unable to significantly capitalize on the renewed 
interest in residential and commercial development within the Atlanta 
area. This community has high unemployment, low educational attainment, 
deteriorating and/or vacant housing, and a preponderance of families 
that live at or below the Federal poverty level. All of this exists 
less than three miles from downtown Atlanta, where there sits prime 
commercial developments.
  Acquisition of the land in question will allow the campuses to expand 
and enable the surrounding community development process to continue 
and remain on target with the objectives of the city's empowerment 
zone, which already has improved the neighborhoods east and north of 
the campuses.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate very much the comments from the Senator 
from Georgia. How will the surrounding neighborhood benefit from the 
result of the land acquisition?
  Mr. MILLER. Each participating school, which are all currently land-
locked, will be able to expand their capabilities and establish and/or 
expand programs in their particular areas of expertise. But what makes 
the initiative so worthwhile is that the program expansion will move 
beyond the confines of the institutions and out into the community. For 
instance, Morehouse College will continue its partnership with Fannie 
Mae Foundation and HUD to provide leadership training to community 
organizers, local nonprofit organizations, and members of the 
Neighborhood Planning Units. Morehouse also plans to establish a 
charter school. Morehouse School of Medicine will be expanding its 
Community Health and Preventive Medicine Programs, as well as expand an 
initiative to stimulate the interest of and introduce minority 
elementary and middle school students to medical and science careers 
early in their education. Finally, Spelman College plans to provide 
local residents with training in early childhood development and 
childcare while simultaneously providing a hands-on laboratory for 
student education majors. In addition to the request for the CPI 
project, as we have discussed, Spelman College is seeking additional 
funds to renovate one of their primary buildings, Packard Hall, and 
include its use in the larger community revitalization efforts. 
Specifically, $1 million is sought from the Economic Development 
Initiatives account in your bill for each of these projects, for a 
total of $2 million. This funding is urgently needed to ensure the 
completion of this vital community development initiative.
  I hope that language for both College Partners, Inc., and Spelman 
College can be included in the conference report for these initiatives 
that work to further community revitalization and educational 
attainment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the inquiry from the Senator from Georgia 
and the subcommittee will work with him and Mr. Cleland to ensure that 
these initiatives receive every appropriate consideration as we move 
forward.


          Acquisition and Revitalization of Atlanta's West End

  Mr. Cleland. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, the chairman of the Subcommittee, 
Ms. Mikulski, regarding a joint collaboration between three of 
Georgia's finest academic institutions, Morehouse School of Medicine, 
Morehouse College and Spelman College. As the Senator is aware, these 
neighboring institutions have come together for the purpose of 
acquiring and revitalizing an 11 acre parcel of land in Atlanta's West 
End community that is contiguous to all three schools. The acquisition 
of this land is critical to the future success of each institution, due 
to the fact that all three schools are essentially landlocked.
  The acquisition of this property will enable each school to 
significantly expand their education and community based programs, as 
well as contribute to the revitalization of Atlanta's West-End 
Community. All three institutions are working very hard to secure 
private resources for this project. However, given the scope of this 
initiative, the schools are also seeking federal support from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic Development 
Initiative program.
  I applaud the Chairman for her leadership in promoting community 
revitalization programs in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I would ask 
the Chairman if she would give every consideration to supporting the 
important initiative I have just described in the upcoming conference 
with the House on the VA-HUD bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the joint collaboration between these 
three Historically Black institutions in Atlanta, and I applaud their 
effort to contribute to the revitalization of Atlanta's West-End 
Community. I would tell the Senator that during the development of this 
year's bill, we received a large number of meritorious requests for 
projects within HUD's Economic Development Initiative account--
including the project he just described. With respect to the 
conference, I can assure my friend from Georgia that this project will 
receive every appropriate consideration.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and look 
forward to working with her as the process moves forward.


                              Spina Bifida

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention 
of my colleagues the No. 1 permanently

[[Page 15829]]

disabling birth defect in the United States. Spina Bifida is a neural 
tube defect and occurs when the central nervous system does not for 
properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. The most severe 
form of Spina Bifida occurs in 96 percent of the children born with 
this disease. People with Spina Bifida often have paralysis of muscle 
groups, difficulties with bowel and bladder control, and learning and 
developmental challenges. There are approximately 70,000 individuals 
living with the challenges of Spina Bifida in our Nation.
  This is also a very preventable birth defect. Sixty million women are 
at risk of having a child born with Spina Bifida, and each year 
approximately 4,000 pregnancies in this country are affected by Spina 
Bifida. Unfortunately, only 2,500 of these children are born. This 
translates into approximately 11 Spina Bifida and neural tube defect 
affected pregnancies in this country each and every day. Yet, if all 
women of childbearing age were to consume 0.4 milligrams of folic acid 
before becoming pregnant, the incidence of folic acid-preventable Spina 
Bifida would be reduced between 50-75 percent. Let me repeat this. If 
all women of childbearing age had a multivitamin with 0.4 milligrams of 
folic acid everyday with breakfast, we could reduce the incidence of 
this birth defect by 50-75 percent.
  Fortunately, we are working to get the word out regarding the 
importance of folic acid consumption. Created by the Children's Health 
Act of 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National 
Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities' mission is to 
improve the health of children by preventing birth defects and 
developmental disabilities. I have just heard that the center's folic 
acid prevention campaign has reduced neural tube defect births by 20 
percent. This public health success should be celebrated, but it is 
only half of the equation--2,500 babies are born each year with Spina 
Bifida.
  Much more must be done to improve the quality of life for those 
70,000 individuals and their families that live with this disease day 
in and out. Major medical advances have permitted babies born with 
Spina Bifida to have a normal life expectancy and live independent and 
fulfilling lives. However, living with this disease can be expensive--
emotionally, physically, and financially. The lifetime costs associated 
with a typical case of Spina Bifida--including medical care, special 
education, therapy services, and loss of earnings--exceed $500,000. The 
total societal cost of Spina Bifida exceeds $750 million per year. The 
Social Security Administration payments to individuals with Spina 
Bifida exceed $82 million per year. Tens of millions of dollars are 
spent on medical care covered by Medicaid and Medicare. Clearly we need 
to do more to improve the quality of life for people suffering from 
Spina Bifida. With improved quality-of-life for individuals and 
families affected for Spina Bifida, the stigma and fear associated with 
a Spina Bifida birth will decrease significantly.
  I support efforts to examine the current state of and opportunities 
in the practice of secondary prevention--including in utero surgery--
and efforts to reduce and prevent secondary health effects of Spina 
Bifida. One step of many we must take to improve the quality of life 
for those suffering from this disease is in the creation of a national 
registry of persons affected by Spina Bifida and its secondary 
conditions so we can know who is affected and how we can help them.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, share my distinguished colleague's concern 
about this permanent and disabling birth defect. The exact causes of 
Spina Bifida are unknown. While we know that consumption of the 
recommended daily dosage of folic acid plays a tremendous part in the 
prevention of this disease, we still have much to learn. We also need 
to help those that suffer from this disease and their loved ones deal 
with the day-to-day challenges of living with this birth defect. As 
more and more individuals with Spina Bifida live longer, it is 
increasingly important to ensure that their quality-of-life is 
maximized--this includes educational and vocational attainment, 
amelioration of secondary health effects, and ongoing support for them 
and their families. In 1996, this Senate passed the Agent Orange 
Benefits Act which provides benefits for persons affected by Spina 
Bifida whose biological father or mother is or was a Vietnam veteran. I 
was proud to support this important Act, but I am troubled that not all 
of the 3,000 eligible families have been identified by the Veterans 
Administration.
  Mr. BOND. How many families have been identified under the Agent 
Orange Benefits Act?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Only 900 families out of the 3,000 eligible have been 
identified for these benefits.
  Mr. BOND. Is there a reason why less than half of the eligible 
families have been identified since passage of the Agent Orange 
Benefits Act.?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The Veterans Administration's funding capacity to 
conduct outreach, educational, and programmatic initiatives has been 
limited to this number so far.
  Mr. BOND. I, too, am concerned about the effects of this devastating 
disease and am pleased to stand with two of my colleagues on this 
important public health issue. I supported the passage of the 
Children's Health Act last year that created the new birth defects 
center at CDC and I am pleased that their prevention education efforts 
have already led to a downturn in Spina Bifida cases. I am also pleased 
that the identified families to date are utilizing the benefits under 
the Agent Orange Benefits Act. I, in addition to the distinguished 
Senators from Kansas and Maryland, support efforts that would improve 
the quality of life for those suffering from this condition and further 
support the development of a national registry. Both the CDC and the 
Veterans Administration are making strides in the study of this disease 
and I support a collaborative initiative for the two agencies to 
improve upon existing registries of persons affected by Spina Bifida, 
and other birth defects, especially for those whose father or mother 
served our nation during the Vietnam war.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleague from Missouri. The key to 
developing and maintaining a national registry will be the 
collaboration between the various federal agencies. I also support 
collaboration between the CDC and the Veterans Administration to 
further conduct outreach education initiatives to ensure that all of 
the 3,000 eligible families receive benefits as designated under the 
Agent Orange Benefits Act.
  I thank the Senators from Kansas and Missouri for their support of 
this bipartisan effort to begin to establish the groundwork for 
improving the quality of life for individuals affected by Spina Bifida.


  NSF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (EPSCoR)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Mikulski and Ranking 
Member Bond for their foresight and leadership in providing a $256 
million, or 6 percent, increase for the National Science Foundation. I 
also appreciate their willingness to provide $85 million for the NSF 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, 
program. EPSCoR is a proven program that is helping researchers in 
historically underfunded States to improve their competitiveness for 
federal R&D.
  The managers of this bill have been gracious enough to accept an 
amendment from me that increases the EPSCoR funding in the Senate bill 
to $90 million in fiscal year 2002. This modest $5 million increase 
does not need to be offset because it comes out of the amount already 
appropriated through the NSF Education and Human Resources line-item.
  EPSCoR helps these States to build infrastructure and expertise in 
areas of scientific importance to the States and the Nation by 
providing seed money that allows smaller research universities to hire 
faculty, obtain equipment, support the development of young faculty 
members, and other vital tasks that the Stanfords and MITs of the world 
take for granted.
  While I am glad that the EPSCoR level in the Senate bill is $10 
million

[[Page 15830]]

above the current level and the President's budget request, we are 
still falling woefully short of the level needed to help under-funded 
States. The top 5 States--California, New York, Massachusetts, 
Colorado, and DC--received 48 percent of total NSF funding in 2000. One 
State alone receives twice as much NSF funding as the 21 EPSCoR States 
combined. California received $452 million in NSF funding in fiscal 
year 2000, which is 15 percent of the total NSF funding. The 21 EPSCoR 
States, plus Puerto Rico, share only 7 percent of total NSF funding, 
$207 million.
  In 1990, the NSF EPSCoR budget was only $8 million. While it is true 
that this funding has grown steadily in the years since then, these 
increases have been extremely modest in comparison to total Federal R&D 
expenditures. In fact, even with the additional co-funding that NSF 
provides to EPSCoR grantees, the $90 million, plus the $25 million in 
co-funding, in total EPSCoR funding provided under my amendment would 
still represent only 2.5 percent of the total NSF budget in fiscal year 
2002.
  I have already heard from a number of my colleagues who support my 
amendment and 17 Members of the Senate joined Senator Nickles and me in 
sending a letter to the subcommittee requesting this funding level.
  EPSCoR is good Federal policy. At its most basic, scientific research 
is about ideas. When you have research institutions in 5 States 
receiving half of the basic science research funding, a whole universe 
of ideas are left unexplored. EPSCoR has been invaluable to States like 
North Dakota becoming more competitive for Federal research dollars. 
North Dakota's total NSF funding increased by 307 percent from 1990-
1999. The number of competitive NSF awards that North Dakota 
researchers received increased by 71 percent between 1993-1998. More 
than 30 topnotch young faculty were brought to North Dakota, through 
the support of EPSCoR, that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. Those 
EPSCoR-supported researchers have successfully competed for more than 
$12 million in Federal and private R&D funding.
  EPSCoR is also a key to economic development in EPSCoR States like 
North Dakota. A single, typical $100,000 research grant generates 
$230,000 back into the local economy, according to an analysis by NDSU. 
EPSCoR-supported researchers were awarded 12 patents between 1986-1999. 
Michael Chambers, whose early research was supported by an EPSCoR 
award, has now founded Aldevron, a biotech company in Fargo. The Small 
Business Administration named Michael its Region 8 Young Entrepreneur 
of the Year in 2000.
  The NSF EPSCoR program has also funded an innovative program in North 
Dakota that supports university faculty and students in providing 
technical expertise to North Dakota companies with scientific questions 
and problems. More than 180 students, a dozen faculty members, and 75 
companies have benefitted from the program so far. For instance, Dr. 
Joel Jorgenson of Fargo designed an on-board recorder, monitoring and 
read-out system to solve a problem for Global Electric MotorCars (GEM) 
of Fargo, which is now the nation's largest manufacturer of 
Neighborhood Electrical Vehicles. GEM has since been acquired by 
Daimler-Chrysler and will be doubling its 130-employee workforce by the 
end of 2001. Dr. Robert Nelson with North Dakota State University 
devised a means for Ottertail Power Company to detect when and where a 
fault has occurred on its power line, increasing the efficiency of the 
transmission lines.
  Despite the progress being made to help EPSCoR States improve their 
competitiveness, they still tend to lag behind--especially in winning 
large-scale center and multidisciplinary awards. Addressing this 
challenge is the next step needed to improve competitiveness, and full 
funding for EPSCoR at the $90 million level called for by the amendment 
I have offered is key.
  I think $90 million for the NSF's Education and Human Resources for 
the EPSCoR program is important to ensure full implementation of the 
NSF EPSCoR's new infrastructure program. The additional $25 million in 
cofunding will ensure a robust NSF EPSCoR program next year. I thank 
the Chair and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for agreeing to 
include my amendment.


      low-income housing assistance in new york and massachusetts

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that we need to provide additional 
clarification regarding section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, that provides a prohibition of 
public housing funding for certain State-developed housing in New York 
and Massachusetts, covering some 12,000 units. This transfer has been 
described as the ``federalization'' of this housing, but it should be 
called a sham, with the analogy of a husband walking out on his wife 
and children and leaving them with nothing. This housing was developed 
by State government with no nexus to public housing.
  To be clear, the Senator Banking Committee in the Quality Housing and 
Work Responsibility Act of 1998 had sought to fund the long-term 
housing needs of low-income housing developed with New York and 
Massachusetts funding with new Federal public housing funding, despite 
the fact, as I have noted, that these are not public housing units and 
have absolutely no nexus to public housing or any Federal housing 
program.
  As a result, the Congress passed section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal 
Year 1999 Appropriations Act to ensure for fiscal year 1999 and every 
following fiscal year, including all appropriation acts in every 
succeeding fiscal year, that these state-developed low-income housing 
units remain the responsibility of New York and Massachusetts, and not 
create the unusual, unfair and unique precedent of requiring the 
Federal Government to fund this housing as public housing. The costs of 
this ``federalization'' will exceed $100 million annually for New York 
alone, totaling well over $1 billion in the next 10-year period. This 
likely is an underestimate of costs. I warn all Members that this 
scheme will result in a reduction of funds to all PHAs throughout the 
Nation, each will see a loss of needed funds whether the public housing 
is in Baltimore, MD; Kansas City, MO; Anchorage, AK; San Francisco; 
West Virginia and every other State.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The legislation is clear on its face that it is a 
permanent law and a permanent prohibition on funding these State-
developed low-income housing units as public housing. In addition, to 
fund State-developed units as public housing, there must be an 
affirmative change in law, a change I cannot support.
  Frankly, it is not fair to other States to have their funding cut to 
pay for State-developed and supported housing in New York and 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. BOND. I agree with everything you have said and I am embarrassed 
for these States and their attempt to transfer the responsibility for 
their own low-income housing responsibilities to the Federal Government 
through public housing funding. Even more important, unlike the current 
chairman and ranking member of the House VA/HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we were responsible as Senate chair and ranking member 
for the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act which included this 
provision that rejected the federalization of these State-developed 
units as public housing. The law was drafted as a permanent prohibition 
on the use of Federal funding for these units and I urge both New York 
and Massachusetts to acknowledge their responsibility to maintain this 
low-income housing for low-income families. We have been in a period of 
economic growth and these States should accept their responsibilities 
to their State residents consistent with their promise to provide 
affordable low-income housing.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and 
Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation 
which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. 
Unfortunately, I must again speak about the unacceptably high funding 
levels of parochial

[[Page 15831]]

projects in this appropriations bill. Although the level of add-ons in 
some sections of this bill has decreased, this bill still contains 
approximately $523 million in porkbarrel spending.
  Overall, this bill spends 7.6 percent higher than the level enacted 
in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in 
discretionary spending that the President wanted to adhere to. In real 
dollars, this is $2.69 billion in additional spending above the amount 
requested by the President, and $8.015 billion higher than last year. 
So far this year, with the appropriations bills considered, spending 
levels have exceeded the President's budget request by nearly $7 
billion. A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial 
spending for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified 492 
separate earmarks totaling $523 million, which is greater than the 400 
earmarks totaling $472 million, in the legislation passed last year.
  The committee provides $23.8 billion in discretionary funding for the 
VA. That amount is $452.7 million more than the President's budget 
request and $1.5 billion above the amount in fiscal year 2001. Some 
progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks for the 
VA in this spending bill. Chairman Byrd of the Appropriations 
Committee, and Chairman Mikulski of the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee, have held the amount in earmarks to approximately $24 
million this year. Nonetheless, it is $24 million that will not be 
available for higher priorities.
  Among other Senators who have stood on the Senate floor to fight for 
additional funding for veterans healthcare, I am concerned that the 
Committee has directed critical dollars from veterans healthcare to 
fund spending projects that have not been properly reviewed. Certain 
provisions funded under the VA in this legislation illustrate that 
Congress still does not have its priorities in order.
  One especially troubling expense, neither budgeted for nor requested 
by the Administration over the past ten years, is a provision that 
directs the VA to continue the ten year old demonstration project 
involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia, Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center (VAMC) and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia 
University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained 
a plus-up of $2 million for the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the 
Administration's line-item veto list and since then the millions keep 
flowing.
  Last year, the Committee ``recommended'' $1 million for the design of 
a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, West Virginia, VAMC. This year 
they strengthened their report language urging ``the VA to accelerate 
the design of the nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC.''
  This year, for Martinsburg, West Virginia, the Committee provides $1 
million for a feasibility study to establish a Center for Healthcare 
Information at the Office of Medical Information Security Service at 
the Martinsburg VAMC to identify solutions to protect the privacy, 
confidentiality, and integrity of the sensitive medical records of the 
VA patient population.
  Alaska also has a number of items that will include funding above the 
budget request of the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 
The Committee report directs the VA to start up and operate by 2002 a 
community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) on the Matanuska-Susitna 
Valley, Alaska, costing $1 million. The Committee initially directs the 
VA only to report by March 30, 2002, on its progress to establish a 
Matanuska-Susitna Valley CBOC, but then expects the VA to ensure it is 
operational by 2002. It further recommends that all veterans living 
farther than a 50-mile radius from Anchorage be authorized to use 
contract care from local private physicians.
  For St. Louis, MO, the committee ``encouraged'' the VA to pursue an 
innovative approach at a cost of $7 million for leasing parking spaces 
at the John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis as a 
means to address a parking shortfall at the VA hospital. The committee 
also suggests that funds be transferred from the minor construction VA 
account in order to secure additional private sector investment for 
this VA Medical Center.
  The Committee also directs the VA to explore new uses for the Miles 
City, Montana VA facility and to continue to support the Hawaii VA 
Pacific Tele- medicine Project. In addition, the Committee directs the 
VA to conduct a feasibility study on the need for a VA Research Center 
for the Clarksburg VAMC on the campus of West Virginia University.
  Additionally, the committee ``expects'' the continuation at the 
current spending level of the Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at 
the White River Junction, VT VAMC. The current level is an astounding 
$7 million.
  On a more positive note, one provision directs the VA to submit a 
report on the number of homeless veterans and the type of homeless 
veterans services that the VA provides. I am pleased that the Senate 
Veterans Affairs Committee has focused on the critical plight of our 
Nation's homeless veterans. I had hoped, however, that they would have 
prevailed in conference in recent years on a relevant amendment that I 
had first offered to the VA-HUD appropriations bill in 1999, which was 
adopted, but later dropped in conference. I hope that the proposed VA 
report provides the catalyst for legislation next year. I am 
disappointed that it has already taken this long to address this 
matter. We owe it to these less fortunate veterans who served their 
country so well only to find nowhere to call home.
  Although the Committee report calls for yet another study on the 
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system, I continue to be 
pleased by the General Accounting Office and the VA reports, which 
recommend that veterans health care funding should be shifted from 
northeastern states to southern and southwestern states. This helps 
ensure that critical health care funding for veterans follows them to 
the actual locations where their medical care takes place.
  While I am encouraged by the increase specifically in veterans health 
care funding over last year's enacted levels, we must do much more. We 
made a promise to our veterans that we would take care of their mental 
and physical health needs incurred for their many sacrifices for our 
Nation. The VA currently has a backlog of 600,000 claims. Currently, 
four our of every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits are 
decided incorrectly further contributing to the backlog. The millions 
in dollars wasted in porkbarrel spending would go a long way to 
decreasing the backlog in veterans claims by funding additional claims 
adjudicators and training.
  This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our Nation's 
families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain 
affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, 
assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our Nation's most 
vulnerable the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have access to safe 
and affordable housing.
  Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing 
and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process 
and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that 
received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair 
to the many communities and families who do not have the good fortune 
of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Some of the earmarks for special projects in this bill include: 
$300,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the Heritage Trails 
project; $750,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School of the 
Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina; $100,000 for development 
assistance for the Desert Space Station in Nevada; $1 million for the 
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for 
development activities related to the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial 
Celebration; $450,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for the 
development of a Botanical Center at Roger

[[Page 15832]]

Williams Park and Zoo; $200,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, 
Rhode Island for historical renovation; and $500,000 for the Lewis and 
Clark State College for the Idaho Virtual Incubator.
  This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency which 
provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance 
capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental 
needs. I support directing more resources to communities that are most 
in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from 
environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a review of this year's 
bill for EPA programs, I find it difficult to believe that we are fully 
responding to the most urgent environmental issues. Nearly one-fourth 
of the 180 earmarks provided for the EPA are targeted for consortiums, 
universities, or foundations.
  There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home 
state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long 
as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-
review process.
  For example, some of the earmarks include: $250,000 for the Envision 
Utah Project; $250,000 for the Central California ozone study; $750,000 
for the painting and coating assistance initiative through the 
University of Northern Iowa; $2.5 million for the National Alternative 
Fuels Training Consortium in Morgantown, West Virginia; and $3.9 
million for the Mine Waster Technology Program at the National 
Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center in 
Butte, Montana.
  While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than 
other environmental priorities? It is also important to note that none 
of the 180 earmarks for the EPA were even requested by the President's 
budget.
  For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality-
specific projects such as: $5 million for the planetarium for the Clay 
Center of the Arts and Sciences in Charleston, West Virginia; and $2 
million for the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center.
  I also want to comment on the many cost overruns and management 
problems at NASA. Last year, as part of the authorization bill for 
NASA, Congress established a cost cap on the International Space 
Station. Before establishing this cost cap, we worked with NASA to 
ensure that the funding levels of the cap were accurate. NASA indicated 
that the funding levels were sufficient to complete the Station. 
Earlier this year, NASA notified the Commerce Committee of $4 billion 
in cost overruns for the International Space Station.
  I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to envision NASA 
having cost overruns for one year that amount to twice its annual 
budget. I can only conclude that either NASA did not know about the 
cost overruns or they knew and did not notify Congress about these 
problems. In either case, it is a major shortfall in the program's 
management.
  However, NASA has attempted to pay for these cost overruns from 
within existing budgetary limits. NASA has proposed drastic reductions 
in the station design. Included in these reductions is the crew return 
vehicle. This cut has reduced the maximum crew for the station to three 
astronauts. Given the fact that two and a half astronauts are required 
to operate the facility, only half of an astronaut's time can be 
devoted to research.
  A recent NASA and OMB agreement reveals that research time by the 
permanent crew will be limited to 20 hours per weeks. This amount of 
time may be further reduced if NASA makes its goal of providing 30 
percent of the research time available to the commercial sector. NASA 
is currently exploring several options of how to increase crew research 
time. With this limitation on research time, the question for us is 
whether the Government wants to continue spending on this project which 
may add up to $100 billion, for only 20 hours of research per week in 
return.
  To further add to the cost concerns, NASA announced earlier this year 
that the X-33 program, a joint program with Lockheed Martin, would be 
canceled. This cancellation represented another $1 billion investment 
with no final product. It is our understanding that the Defense 
Department is reviewing the program to see if they can utilize any of 
the project.
  I continue to be concerned about NASA fundamental management 
approaches. An example of NASA's mismanagement is the ill-fated 
Propulsion Module that was supposed to provide a U.S. capability for 
long-term propulsion of the space station. This program was canceled, 
due to cost growth and poor management. According to the General 
Accounting Office, NASA began to build the Propulsion Module for the 
Space Station before it had completed a project plan, a risk management 
plan, or developed realistic cost and schedule estimates.
  Further review revealed that the propulsion model design proposed a 
tunnel diameter that was too small to accommodate crew operations and 
did not have detailed analyses to even quantify the amount of 
propulsion capability that would be required. This lack of planning led 
to a $265 million increase--from $479 to $744 million--and schedule 
slippage of 2 years.
  I am greatly concerned that NASA has significant infrastructure 
problems for the Space Shuttle program looming in the near future. Many 
of the vital facilities to support the Shuttle program are literally 
falling apart. The Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space 
Flight Center, built in the early 1960s for assembly of Apollo/Saturn 
vehicles and currently used to prepare the Space Shuttle launch 
assembly, has nets inside the building to prevent concrete from falling 
from the roof onto the workers and equipment below. The sidings on the 
outside of the building are becoming loose due to time and weather. 
Addressing the risks associated with a crumpling infrastructure is in 
of itself a Shuttle upgrade project that has potential to increase the 
overall safety and reliability of the Shuttle program. These 
renovations along with many others will be costly. NASA must start 
making plans today to address these infrastructure problems on an 
agency-wide basis in order to prevent a crisis. We must get these 
management problems under control.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Mikulski and 
Senator Bond for all of the hard work they have put into the Fiscal 
Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Given the serious fiscal 
restraints facing the Congress this year as a result of the budget 
resolution and the unsound tax cut, they have masterfully negotiated 
the many and often competing demands of the programs under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  In particular, I would like to thank Senators Mikulski and Bond for 
restoring much needed funds to a number of important Department of 
Housing and Urban Development programs that were slated for drastic 
cuts under the President's budget.
  Despite the economic prosperity that our country has experienced, 
many Americans are still lack safe and affordable housing. In my own 
state of Rhode Island, 46 percent of Rhode Islanders are unable to 
afford this rent without spending over 30 percent of their income on 
housing. In terms of homeownership, the average sales price of a home 
in Rhode Island went up by $24,000 between 1999 and 2000. In the same 
period, the number of houses on the market decreased by over 50 
percent, and only 25 percent of these homes were affordable to low-
income families.
  This housing affordability crisis has been affecting families around 
the country. The latest HUD worst case housing needs study indicates 
that there are over 4.9 million low-income Americans who pay more than 
50 percent of their income for rent. In addition, a broader study done 
by the National Housing Conference, the mortgage bankers and others 
shows that 14 percent or 13.7 million American families have worst case 
housing needs. Ten million of these people are elderly or work full or 
part-time.
  This is why I was so concerned about the President's budget proposal 
to cut

[[Page 15833]]

HUD programs by $1.7 billion. Once you factor in inflation, the 
Administration was proposing to cut housing programs by $2.2 billion, 
an 8 percent real spending decrease compared to Fiscal Year 2001.
  One of the President's cuts that most concerned me was the $859 
million net cut in public housing, the program that supports some of 
our nation's most vulnerable families. In my own state of Rhode Island, 
approximately two-thirds of our public housing units are used by the 
elderly and disabled.
  I also was disappointed by the Administration's decision to eliminate 
the public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP). This flexible, 
community-based program has made public housing much safer by helping 
local housing agencies create comprehensive anti-crime and anti-drug 
strategies.
  I applaud both Senators Mikulski and Bond for restoring funding to 
both of these programs. The VA-HUD bill before us today contains almost 
$3 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, $650 million more than 
the President's request, and $300 million for the drug elimination 
grant program.
  I also approve of the bill's requirement that 30 percent of the 
funding for HUD homeless programs be set aside for permanent housing 
for the disabled homeless. This shows the Senate's commitment towards 
helping end homelessness, not just funding programs for those who are 
homeless. Likewise, the committee's allocation of $500,000 for the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless will help Federal Government 
agencies better coordinate their programs for preventing and ending 
homelessness. I also want to commend the committee for putting Shelter 
Plus Care renewals for the homeless in a separate account. As chairman 
of the Housing Subcommittee, I personally believe that the long-term 
solution to the renewal problem should be solved by transferring 
renewals to the Section 8 program, and I hope the committee considers 
doing this in the future.
  I am also pleased about the language in the bill supporting the 
reauthorization of the Mark-to Market program. I held a subcommittee 
hearing on this issue on June 19, 2001, and the Banking Committee 
successfully marked up a reauthorization bill yesterday morning on 
August 1, 2001. It is my hope that this important legislation will be 
enacted into law well before the expiration of the original program on 
September 30, 2001.
  I also would like to commend both the administration and the 
committee on increasing funding for HUD's office of Lead Hazard Control 
by $10 million. Nonetheless, much more needs to be done. I, and a 
number of my colleagues, believe that this number should be much higher 
and will continue to work to increase funding for this extremely 
important program. No family in this country should be forced to live 
in housing that can cause permanent brain damage to their children.
  Finally, I was pleased to see language in the bill asking HUD to 
institute a computer program to adequately calculate the amount of 
credit subsidy necessary to support the FHA multifamily mortgage 
insurance programs and to establish a task force to determine the costs 
of multifamily defaults. I am disappointed that the administration has 
chosen to allow this program to stay shut down. Clearly, the FHA 
multifamily program has some problems that need to be solved; however, 
the administration's solution of raising the insurance premiums misses 
the larger point of ensuring that these programs continue to construct 
affordable housing. Thus, I also support the bill's language regarding 
the need for FHA premium changes to be made through notice and comment 
rule making. I hope to work with my colleagues over the next several 
months to see if we can't come up with a longer term solution to the 
repeated shutdown of this important FHA insurance premium program.
  There are two issues with this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill that 
I hope we can address as the bill moves forward. The first is the 
Committee's decision to cut Section 8 reserves from two months to one 
month, without protecting public housing authorities from budget 
shortfalls. The second is the implications of the decision to expand 
the traditional rescission language to include all funds recaptured 
from the Section 8 program.
  I know that the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee care 
very much about supporting hard-pressed parents who are struggling to 
provide a decent home for their children. The Section 8 program is the 
principle source of housing assistance for these extremely low-income 
parents who face the most acute housing needs of any segment of our 
population. It is an especially critical support for parents who have 
just left welfare and who may be earning too little to afford decent 
housing. It also helps parents move their kids out of areas of 
concentrated poverty and into neighborhoods with educational and 
employment opportunities.
  For all these reasons, we must maintain our commitment to the Section 
8 program and make sure it works efficiently. Keeping the Section 8 
reserves at adequate levels is an important part of making this housing 
program work. Basically, the Section 8 reserves provide additional 
funds to Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) whose voucher program costs 
exceed their budget allocation in a given year. Thus, if a PHA 
approaches the final months of its fiscal year and needs more funds to 
pay landlords or pay for utility costs, it can request up to 2 months 
of additional funding from HUD. The reserves are critical to the 
program's financing because HUD bases each PHA's annual budget not on 
its expected costs in the coming fiscal year, but rather on its actual 
costs in the prior year. Since the factors that cause such increases 
can be unpredictable from year to year, sufficient reserves are 
necessary so that PHAs won't be forced to reduce the number of families 
they serve.
  I am also concerned about the current rescission language in the 
bill. It is not unusual for Congress to reclaim Section 8 monies that 
HUD does use. However, this year's bill goes one step further by 
rescinding all future recaptures from Fiscal Year 2002 and prior years, 
and diverting them into other accounts, some of which are not even 
related to the housing needs of low-income families.
  As I mentioned previously, PHAs' budgets are based on the prior 
year's actual costs and not on their expected costs if they adopt 
changes to serve more families. They may need additional resources 
beyond their budget allocations if they succeed in making their 
programs work better. But this bill cuts the Section 8 reserves that 
could provide these additional resources. And, by rescinding all 
recaptures that HUD could make this year and next, it deprives HUD of 
funds to ensure that PHAs that are increasing voucher utilization do 
not get caught in a budget squeeze. HUD may also use recaptures to 
adjust contracts with owners under the project-based Section 8 program 
if unforseen costs arise, such as rising utility prices. If HUD does 
not have the resources to make these adjustments, these owners may opt-
out of the Section 8 program. Finally, HUD can currently redirect at 
least some recaptures to offset Section 8 costs in the upcoming fiscal 
year, reducing the appropriated dollars needed to maintain the size of 
the program. This in turn, frees up funds to provide more new vouchers.
  If we are serious about helping extremely low-income families benefit 
from voucher assistance, then we need to ensure that the needed 
resources are available to make this program work well and efficiently. 
But this bill contains two provisions that run the risk of doing just 
the opposite. Both the reduction in reserves and the rescission could 
run the risk of undermining the financing of the Section 8 program, and 
undermining efforts to serve more families with vouchers. Let's not run 
this risk. Let's ensure that the Section 8 program is our first 
priority for use of recapture funds.
  Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for all of their hard work 
on this bill and I hope that we will be able to discuss these matters 
in more detail, and that we work together to find ways to address these 
issues.

[[Page 15834]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Feingold
     Gramm
     Kyl
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Domenici
       
  The bill (H.R. 2620), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments and request a conference with the House, and that the Chair 
be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________