[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16086-16087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 VA-HUD AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I regret that, once again, I was compelled to 
oppose this appropriations bill. At the outset, I should make it clear 
that there are many worthwhile items contained within it. Above all, I 
am pleased that the committee has provided significant increases in 
funding for veterans' health care, veterans' medical research, State 
veterans home construction and other vital programs that serve those 
who have sacrificed for our Nation.
  Nevertheless, I cannot endorse the order of priority accorded to the 
various programs funded within this bill. I object to leaving veterans' 
needs unmet while funding hundreds of earmarked projects. And I regret 
that our appropriations process compels Members to, in effect, choose 
between voting for rightly popular veterans' programs and voting 
against wasteful social spending.
  For a number of years, I have questioned the desirability of grouping 
agencies with unrelated missions into omnibus appropriations bills, and 
I have cited the VA-HUD bill as the best illustration of the problem. 
Despite my strong support for veterans benefits I have, more often than 
not, voted against the VA-HUD bill since I came to the Senate, because 
I believed that the spending levels and earmarks in the HUD portion 
could not be defended.
  We all know that HUD is a Department fraught with serious problems, 
as detailed repeatedly by the General Accounting Office, which to this 
day, classifies HUD as the only ``high risk'' executive branch agency 
at the Cabinet level. Yet the bill before us provides HUD with a robust 
nine percent increase, bigger than the increase provided for veterans.
  The HUD title also includes eleven pages of earmarked projects, the 
vast

[[Page 16087]]

bulk of them in States represented by appropriators. If past history is 
any guide, the final list of earmarks will grow beyond what is in this 
bill, or the House bill.
  Last night, I reluctantly voted against the amendment offered by the 
senior Senator from Minnesota, because I believed that the additional 
funding for veterans' health it provided needed to be, and could have 
been, fully offset. The first $140 million could be found in those 
eleven pages of earmarks!
  Another $420 million could be found in the allocation for AmeriCorps, 
former President Clinton's program to pay salaries and benefits to 
``volunteers.''
  Nearly all of the remaining $90 million could be found by reclaiming 
for veterans money this bill allocates for federally-funded community 
computer centers, an unauthorized expenditure.
  It is all about priorities, you see, and the priorities in this bill 
are out of whack.
  Finally, I must reiterate my disappointment with the failure of the 
Senate to adopt needed reforms to restore equity in the formula used to 
distribute funding for wastewater needs to the various States. Although 
the managers graciously adopted my amendment urging the authorizing 
committee to act this year to address the need for reform, the Senate 
has lost a real opportunity to bring this outmoded formula into the 
21st century.

                          ____________________