[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29032-29041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND 
         INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2861) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and

[[Page 29033]]

     Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Bond/Mikulski amendment No. 2150, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Clinton amendment No. 2152 (to amendment No. 2150), to 
     permit the use of funds for the Capital Asset Realignment for 
     Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for purposes of enhanced services while 
     limiting the use of funds for the initiative for purposes of 
     the closure or reduction of services pending a modification 
     of the initiative to take into account long-term care, 
     domiciliary care, and mental health services and other 
     matters.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
amendments in order on this bill be the Dayton amendment on the 
Wellstone Center; Durbin amendment on senior discount; Jeffords 
amendment on new source review study; Bingaman sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment on DOD smallpox vaccine; Schumer, EPA clean air amendment; 
Feingold, VA health care fairs/outreach; Reid-Graham, Iraq prisoners; 
Daschle, Agent Orange; and the managers' amendments that are approved 
by Senators Mikulski and Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the actions taken by the 
distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, and also the 
agreement by the Senator from California to withdraw her amendment.
  All I can say about it is, No. 1, we had an agreement, we thought, 
with the floor staff when we debated this last week--requested by the 
minority floor staff--that there not be a vote because they did not 
want a vote. Our condition was we needed to move on to other things. We 
would have a brief time schedule. As you can see, there is no way that 
we can restart, in the 45 minutes we have left, this entire debate.
  I will state that I categorically disagree with the views reached by 
the Senator from California. If we are successful in including the 
measure in the final VA-HUD amendment, all these issues will be 
resolved by the EPA.
  Mr. President, we had an oversight. Senator McCain has an amendment 
that he was promised the other day. I ask the minority leader if he 
would agree to adding that since we told Senator McCain he could bring 
his amendment up.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I agree that he should be able to do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that the McCain amendment be added to the 
list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are open for business. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2194 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Graham of Florida, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Reid, for 
     himself, and Mr. Graham of Florida, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2194 to amendment No. 2150.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on damages caused by the 
          regime of Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War)

       On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 418. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) During Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert 
     Storm (in this section, collectively referred to as the 
     ``First Gulf War''), the regime of Saddam Hussein committed 
     grave human rights abuses and acts of terrorism against the 
     people of Iraq and citizens of the United States.
       (2) United States citizens who were taken prisoner by the 
     regime of Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War were 
     brutally tortured and forced to endure severe physical trauma 
     and emotional abuse.
       (3) The regime of Saddam Hussein used civilian citizens of 
     the United States who were working in the Persian Gulf region 
     before and during the First Gulf War as so-called human 
     shields, threatening the personal safety and emotional well-
     being of such civilians.
       (4) Congress has recognized and authorized the right of 
     United States citizens, including prisoners of war, to hold 
     terrorist states, such as Iraq during the regime of Saddam 
     Hussein, liable for injuries caused by such states.
       (5) The United States district courts are authorized to 
     adjudicate cases brought by individuals injured by terrorist 
     states.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) notwithstanding section 1503 of the Emergency Wartime 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 
     Stat. 579) and any other provision of law, a citizen of the 
     United States who was a prisoner of war or who was used by 
     the regime of Saddam Hussein and by Iraq as a so-called human 
     shield during the First Gulf War should have the opportunity 
     to have any claim for damages caused by the regime of Saddam 
     Hussein and by Iraq incurred by such citizen fully 
     adjudicated in the appropriate United States district court;
       (2) any judgment for such damages awarded to such citizen, 
     or the family of such citizen, should be fully enforced; and
       (3) the Attorney General should enter into negotiations 
     with each such citizen, or the family of each such citizen, 
     to develop a fair and reasonable method of providing 
     compensation for the damages each such citizen incurred, 
     including using assets of the regime of Saddam Hussein held 
     by the Government of the United States or any other 
     appropriate sources to provide such compensation.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Graham of Florida, and on behalf of 17 brave Americans who were taken 
hostage and tortured by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
  I have already spoken in this Chamber about the horrible treatment 
these Americans endured. Saddam's evil henchmen violated international 
law in the treatment of these war prisoners, and they violated every 
law of human decency.
  After the war, these prisoners sought justice against Saddam. They 
did it not only because he had tortured them in violation of the law, 
but also to send a message that would protect other Americans in the 
future. And Congress supported their effort. In 1996, Congress amended 
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so their case would be able to 
proceed.
  They won their case in court on its merits because they had the truth 
and the law on their side. But now they are in danger of losing the 
judgment they legally obtained because they do not have the United 
States Government on their side.
  The Justice Department intervened to prevent them from collecting 
their judgment from seized Iraqi assets. And when this Senate responded 
by passing this very same amendment a few weeks ago, the State 
Department intervened by seeking to strike the amendment from the 
special Iraq-Afghanistan appropriations bill.
  In a letter dated October 27, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage 
wrote these words:

       Under the President's May 7, 2003 Determination . . . any 
     provision of law that applies to countries that have 
     supported terrorism was made inapplicable to Iraq.

  This is the country we invaded as part of our war on terrorism . . . 
yet the President has said that Iraq will not be treated as a nation 
that supported terrorists.
  I think that is wrong, and my amendment, which is exactly the same as 
the one the Senate earlier approved, makes perfectly clear the 
longstanding intent of Congress that terrorists who torture U.S. 
citizens must be held accountable.
  Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who committee horrible atrocities against 
his own people and against Americans.

[[Page 29034]]

In fact, many believe that he is behind the continuing attacks on our 
American solders. It is beyond my comprehension why these Federal 
bureaucrats are now siding with Saddam Hussein and against these former 
prisoners of war who suffered at his hands.
  These brave heroes are merely seeking to hold Iraq accountable for 
its crimes, and deter the torture of any American citizen by a 
terrorist state in the future. A civilized world cannot let such crimes 
go unpunished. The perpetrators must be held to account.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I join Senator Reid today in 
offering an amendment that would allow a group of 17 prisoners of war 
from the first war in Iraq and their families, to collect the damages 
that have been awarded to them in a court of law, that are being 
blocked by the Bush administration.
  Historically, foreign nations and their diplomats have been protected 
from lawsuits in the United States, for their actions. However, that 
historical protection has been limited in certain instances. In 1996, 
Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow American 
citizens and families of American citizens to sue nations that have 
been found to be ``terrorist states,'' for acts of terrorism such as 
torture or taking of hostages. Congress went on to enact the Terrorism 
Risk Insurance Act of 2002, which included a provision to allow frozen 
assets of terrorist states in U.S. banks to be used to pay court-
awarded damages.
  Relying upon this legal framework, 17 of 21 prisoners of war of the 
1991 Persian Gulf War and 37 members of their immediate families filed 
suit against Iraq. I won't describe the horrific experiences of every 
one of these brave men or the unimaginable distress of their families. 
But I do want to tell you about the experience of three of these POWs: 
LTC Michael Robert; LTC Russell Sanborn; and LTC Craig Berryman, three 
service members from Florida. It is important for the Senate and the 
American people to understand what they suffered while they were held 
in captivity.
  These soldiers endured horrendous treatment and are fortunate just to 
have survived. LTC H. Michael Roberts was shot down while flying over 
Iraq on January 19, 1991, He was able to eject but was immediately 
captured when he landed. In captivity, he suffered repeated beatings--
his captors cut his head from repeated blows from their rifle butts and 
he was shocked with an electronic prod.
  LTC Russell Sanborn's plane was shot down on February 9, 1991, and he 
was taken prisoner by a group of Iraqi soldiers. He was brutally beaten 
and suffered severe malnutrition. He lost 14 pounds in 26 days. Upon 
his release, Russell was diagnosed with parasitic anomalies and hearing 
loss.
  LTC Craig Berryman's aircraft was shot down on January 28, 1991. In 
captivity he survived numerous beatings and torture. As a result of his 
abuse in Iraq, Craig has continued to experience health problems.
  After having to relive these horrors in court, on July 7, 2003, a 
judgment was rendered in their favor and they were awarded compensatory 
and punitive damages. The problem is that when they went to collect 
their damages against the frozen Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks, the 
money was no longer there. That is because on March 20, 2003, 
immediately after start of military action against Iraq, President Bush 
issued an executive order confiscating Iraq's frozen assets in the 
United States and placing them in the Iraq Development Fund for use in 
its reconstruction.
  The Bush administration has done every thing in its power to 
undermine the integrity of this judicial process and to protect the 
interests of Iraq over the interests of American former prisoners of 
war. On May 22, 2003, the President issued another executive order 
which prohibits any judicial action that would seek funds from the 
Development Fun for Iraq, or other Iraqi national assets. The Bush 
administration went on to interpret the language in the 2003 emergency 
war supplemental intended to remove restrictions to providing foreign 
assistance to Iraq as a bar attachment of Iraqi foreign asset.
  When repeatedly asked about why the administration is standing in the 
way of these veterans being paid their court-awarded damages, the White 
House spokesman, never answered the question, but reiterated, three 
times, that ``there is no amount of money that can truly compensate 
these brave men and women for the suffering they went through at the 
hands of Saddam Hussein.'' If the Bush White House has their way, there 
will, in fact be no amount of money to compensate these brave men and 
women despite having proven their case in a court of law.
  Earlier this month, Congress approved President Bush's $87 billion 
supplemental appropriation request for the occupation and rebuilding of 
Iraq. At that time, I raised some significant questions as to our 
national priorities. We are facing mounting national debt. While our 
roads, bridges, schools, water and sewer lines, and electric grids are 
deteriorating, we will be sending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq.
  This is another one of those questions. We are sending money to 
rebuild Iraq, but we are turning our back on a judicial decision that 
was achieved under laws this body created. We are turning our backs on 
the torture inflicted upon these 17 veterans who were taken as 
prisoners of war while serving our country.
  Mr. President, the costs of war do not end at the borders of Iraq; 
veterans will continue to pay them for years to come. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in this effort to see this injustice is 
rectified. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the amendment on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, again this is an amendment that was offered 
and adopted earlier. It deals with Americans who were held prisoner of 
war in the first gulf war. This is legislation that is directly in 
keeping with the sense of the last amendment that was adopted. Senator 
Graham feels strongly about this issue, as do I. I ask that the Senate 
approve the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2194.
  The amendment (No. 2194) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak 
as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, are we on the VA-HUD appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that at 4:30 we are going to move 
to the FAA reauthorization bill. Understanding that deadline faces us, 
with the approval of the chairman of the subcommittee--I hope to have 
his attention before I make this request--if I might ask the Senator 
from Missouri, would it be acceptable for me to divide the time between 
now and 4:30 so that

[[Page 29035]]

I would use 15 minutes and then yield to Senator Dayton for 15 minutes, 
who also has an amendment to offer? That way, we would reach the 4:30 
deadline by dividing the time equally. If that meets with the approval 
of the chairman of the subcommittee, I would like to make a unanimous 
consent request along those lines.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to respond to my good friend, No. 1, we are 
ready to accept his amendment. If we could have some more time to 
handle other business, I would like to. If, perhaps, the Senator--each 
Senator could take 5 minutes or 10 minutes?
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me thank the chairman for accepting my amendment. I 
will take 5 minutes and that is all. I would like to give 15 minutes, 
if it is acceptable, to Senator Dayton to offer his amendment, and then 
I think that leaves you a balance of 10 minutes before 4:30.
  Let me say I accept the offer of the Senator from Missouri. I will 
speak for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2195

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHAMBLISS). Without objection, the pending 
amendment is set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. 
     Cantwell, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2195.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       None of the funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     apply, in a numerical estimate of the benefits of an agency 
     action prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 or section 
     812 of the Clean Air Act, monetary values for adult premature 
     mortality that differ based on the age of the adult.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the following Senators be added as 
cosponsors of this amendment: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Boxer, 
Lautenberg, Cantwell, and Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. In 5 minutes, I will try to describe very briefly what 
this amendment does.
  This amendment will stop the Environmental Protection Agency and 
other agencies funded in this bill from using the discriminatory method 
known as the senior death discount. Right now, heart disease, cancer, 
and strokes are the leading causes of death of people over 65. 
According to CDC, air pollution can be particularly devastating to the 
health of seniors.
  The EPA should be creating regulations to protect everybody. However, 
now we are in the cost-benefit era, and that means each regulation has 
to be costed out. In other words, we must determine the burden 
regulations have on the private sector of our economy, including what 
will it cost them. We must also determine the benefit regulations have 
for all Americans.
  In order to reach the proper evaluation of any regulation, you have 
to determine the cost of the harm that is being done. That is why this 
amendment is being offered.
  Right now, the EPA is discounting the lives of senior citizens. You 
may have seen this ad in magazines and newspapers showing this forlorn 
senior. This lady has been told that since she is over the age of 70, 
she is only worth 63 percent of any other person, say someone age 69. 
You can understand her sadness, and a sadness that might be shared, 
incidentally, by some 19 Senators who are 70 years old or older. Try to 
tell these Senators they are worth only two-thirds of those younger, 
and you are in for a fight--and rightly so. Their lives are as 
important to them and to our Nation as anyone else's life.
  We need to try to establish the cost to America in honest terms, to 
determine, for example, the real cost of the regulation relating to 
heavy diesel equipment, and not say senior citizens are worth less 
today than others.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of my amendment from 
the AARP be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         AARP,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2003.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Senate Dirksen Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: AARP commends you for your efforts to 
     amend H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for 
     Fiscal Year 2004, to prohibit the use of funds to ``apply 
     numerical values for adult premature mortality that differ 
     based on the age of the adult in a numerical estimate of the 
     costs and benefits of an agency action. . . .'' We urge that 
     you continue your efforts as the bill is folded into an 
     omnibus appropriations measure.
       AARP submitted comments in May to the Office of Management 
     and Budget in response to its Draft 2003 Report to Congress 
     on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. In them, we 
     expressed our deep concerns regarding the arbitrary 37 
     percent discount to the life value of adults aged 70 and over 
     incorporated by the Environmental Protection Agency in its 
     cost-benefit analysis of the Administration's Clear Skies 
     Initiative. We noted that the discount lacked a sound 
     scientific basis, and we voiced concerns regarding its 
     ultimate impact not only on older persons, but on the rest of 
     the population as well.
       OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     subsequently called upon EPA to discontinue use of the age 
     adjustment factor cited above, and advised other federal 
     agency analysts that they should not use it either. At the 
     same time, the agency appeared to encourage other 
     methodologies that might assign monetary values for adult 
     premature mortality that differ based on the age of the 
     adult. Application of age-related analytical methodologies or 
     others involving population subgroupings--particularly when 
     monetary assessments are assigned to life value--hold great 
     risks. We are concerned that there may be insufficient 
     science to justify such action.
       Again, AARP strongly supports your efforts as well as those 
     of Representative Thomas Allen, to ensure that the lives of 
     older people not be devalued, and that needed protections not 
     be shortchanged by the application of biased analytical 
     approaches. We urge your colleagues in conference to do the 
     same.
       Should you have any questions, please contact me or have 
     your staff contact Jo Reed or Tim Gearan in our Federal 
     Affairs office at 202-434-3800.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Naylor,
                                             Director of Advocacy.

  Mr. DURBIN. What we see, and I will summarize, is an effort by some 
to discount the lives of senior citizens in America when judging the 
impact of public health regulations. That has to come to an end. We 
have to make certain the policy we follow in this country, the policy 
that is being articulated by John Graham, the head of the OMB 
regulatory office, is one that counts senior citizens the same as any 
other citizen.
  Some of the statements made by Mr. Graham are troubling. But with 
this statement, and the amendment we have offered today, which is 
identical to the one offered by the House of Representatives, this bill 
will say once and for all that senior death discounting has to come to 
an end.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporting groups be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DURBIN. To reiterate, this amendment would stop the EPA and other 
agencies funded in this bill from using a discriminatory method of 
regulatory analysis known as the senior death discount.
  Heart disease, cancer, and strokes are the leading causes of death 
for people age 65 and older. According to the CDC, air pollution can be 
devastating to the healthiest Americans, but can be deadly for senior 
citizens and other vulnerable populations with these diseases. The EPA 
should be creating regulations that maximize health protections for 
everyone, especially older Americans.
  However, instead of maximizing the benefits for everyone, the 
regulatory analysis is being manipulated in a way that makes seniors' 
lives, and the lives of other vulnerable populations, worth less than 
the lives of other Americans.

[[Page 29036]]

This practice, commonly known as the senior death discount, devalues 
the lives of almost 30 million Americans who are over the age of 70.
  To give you a sense of how this works, when the EPA develops 
environmental regulations, it must evaluate the costs and benefits of 
multiple regulatory alternatives. As part of the calculation of 
benefits, the EPA places a dollar amount on each life that can be saved 
by implementing each alternative. The EPA often makes a determination 
about which regulatory alternative to adopt based on the comparison of 
the benefits and costs.
  Historically, the EPA valued all lives equally by using the same 
dollar amount for every potential life saved. But now the OMB is 
encouraging agencies to base the value of a life on the age of a 
person. In many cases, when discounting was applied, the life of each 
person over the age of 70 was valued at 37 percent less than the life 
of a younger person. In other cases, each year people aged, their lives 
were considered to be worth less--leading to some lives being worth a 
de minimus amount. In still other cases, the lives of people with 
illnesses or other health conditions were further devalued.
  The use of the senior death discount has played a significant role in 
some very important environmental policies. In a rule to cut emissions 
from heavy diesel equipment, the EPA not only lowered the value of 
saving the lives of seniors, but also for children and the disabled. In 
the end, discounting calculations shrank the benefits from over $81 
billion to just over $12 billion.
  In a regulatory proposal to control air pollution from snowmobiles, 
the benefits were originally calculated to be approximately $77 billion 
by 2030. However, the health benefits dropped to only $8.8 billion--
half of this decrease was due to the senior death discount and half was 
due to selective use of scientific studies limiting the amount of 
people who were affected. Applying the senior death discount in this 
instance made certain regulatory alternatives less appealing, and the 
rule was ultimately weakened as a result.
  Some of my colleagues may wonder whether this amendment is still 
necessary, given that former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman 
said the agency would no longer discount the lives of seniors by 37 
percent when calculating the benefits of regulatory policies. However, 
there is no guarantee that the new administrator or other agencies will 
follow this policy.
  In addition, Whitman's remarks did not apply to other forms of 
discounting, which continue to be used. These other forms of 
discounting also reduce the benefits of important regulatory policies. 
Besides seniors, vulnerable populations, such as children and those 
with chronic illnesses and disabilities, are affected when these forms 
of discounting are used.
  John Graham, the head of the OMB regulatory office, has backed away 
from his support of the 37 percent discount rate for seniors. However, 
as recently as June 16, he is still insisting that the value of saving 
lives should depend on a person's age, and he is still pushing agencies 
to use forms of discounting.
  It seems that the end goal is to whittle down the benefits, until 
they are so close to the costs that regulations will be difficult to 
justify. So unless we take action today, it appears that the lives of 
vulnerable Americans will continue to be devalued.
  The House already passed Congressman Allen's amendment to the House 
VA-HUD bill, which is similar to my amendment. Members from both sides 
of the aisle spoke in favor of the amendment and it was accepted 
unanimously. It's now time for the Senate to act.
  Twenty-two national organizations, including AARP and a host of 
environmental and faith-based organizations, support this amendment.
  Our Nation's regulatory system must use methods of analysis that 
produce regulations that will fairly protect all Americans from the 
effects of air pollution, toxic waste and other dangerous substances in 
our environment. We cannot afford to back away from decades of 
environmental laws that have improved the quality of life for all of 
us.

                               Exhibit 1

       The following organizations support stopping the Senior 
     Death Discount: 20/20 Vision; American Association of Retired 
     Persons; American Baptist Churches USA; American Lung 
     Association; Breakthrough Technologies Institute; Christian 
     Church Disciples of Christ; Church Women United; Clean Air 
     Task Force; Clear The Air; Coalition on the Environment and 
     Jewish Life (COEJL); League of Conservation Voters; Natural 
     Resources Defense Council; National Environmental Trust; OMB 
     Watch; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Presbyterian 
     Church (USA), Washington Office; Sierra Club; Sisters of 
     Mercy of the Americas, Institute Leadership Team; United 
     Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United 
     Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; United 
     States Public Interest Research Group; Unitarian Universalist 
     Association of Congregations.

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. I ask 
the chairman if at this point we could move the adoption, but I defer 
to him first.
  Mr. BOND. As I indicated, we are ready to accept the amendment by the 
Senator from Illinois by voice vote.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support this important 
amendment, to put a halt to the Bush administration's disrespectful and 
disturbing treatment of the lives of America's seniors in setting 
environmental policy. It is unconscionable that the administration 
continues to push agencies to evaluate pollution-control proposals on 
the basis of the age of the individuals who are protected. Judging 
people as less worth protecting based on their age--and to do so for 
the benefit of polluters--is preposterous and wrong.
  Despite statements by administration officials aimed to quiet protest 
over the ``senior death discount'' factor --a factor used by the 
Environmental Protection Agency in recent regulatory cost-benefit 
analyses that literally devalues the lives of Americans 70 and older--
the administration continues to push agencies to apply economic 
techniques for evaluating pollution-control proposals on the basis of 
the life expectancies of the individuals protected, slanting the 
analysis against the elderly who, of course, have fewer years left.
  This effort by the administration reinforces the broader bias against 
the environment inherent in economic cost-benefit analysis, which can 
give short shrift to unquantifiable values of human health and a strong 
ecology, while overestimating the economic costs to polluters. By 
lowering the calculated economic benefit of protecting the elderly, 
these techniques will understate the apparent benefits of environmental 
protection, because the old are among the most vulnerable to 
respiratory and other diseases caused by pollution. The intended result 
is to block tougher environmental protections.
  Selling out America's grandparents at a discount for the benefit of 
polluters is discriminatory and wrong. I am pleased to support this 
amendment to put a halt to this repugnant practice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2195) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. What is the pending business, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Clinton amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2193

  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside and 
that I be allowed to offer amendment No. 2193.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 29037]]

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2193.

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

   (Purpose: To fully fund the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for 
                          Community Building)

       On page 58, line 21, strike ``$1,112,130,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,111,030,000''.
       On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 418. There shall be made available $1,100,000 to the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for the purposes 
     of making the grant authorized under section 3 of the Paul 
     and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building Act.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $1.1 million 
in funding for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community 
Building at the Neighborhood House in St. Paul, MN. It is funding for 
the completion of a commitment which Congress made last year as a 
memorial for the late Senator Paul Wellstone, my colleague and my 
friend, who lost his life in an airplane crash last October along with 
his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, and three staff members and two 
pilots.
  This is a very emotional subject for me at an emotional time, so I 
ask my colleagues for their forbearance. We just passed the first 
anniversary of that terrible day Paul and Sheila and the others were 
lost forever. One of Minnesota's greatest Senators and most 
passionately loved and admired political leaders--not unanimous, but 
the most widely shared and deeply felt connection that I have ever seen 
in my lifetime between a political figure and the people of Minnesota.
  He lost his life while flying to northern Minnesota for the funeral 
of the father of a State legislator, up on the Iron Range of Minnesota 
where a funeral is community. He knew, even though he had other 
commitments elsewhere, and even though Senator Ted Kennedy had 
graciously come to Minnesota to the metropolitan area on his behalf 
before the elections, which were just a few days away--those events 
were important, but Paul knew the family of the deceased would be 
helped in their grief by his presence. The community up there would be 
honored by his presence as a United States Senator, so he left his 
campaign schedule and the media market to go worship and pray and mourn 
with those others, friends and family and relatives, fellow citizens, 
as their U.S. Senator and as their friend.
  That is what all of us do all the time in our jobs--Republicans, 
Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Senators here, Congressmen and 
Congresswomen, across the country--we drive, and if there is not time 
we charter small planes into small airports in our States. That day 
Paul's plane didn't land on the runway. It crashed perpendicular to it 
2 miles away into a Minnesota forest and peat bog and caught on fire 
and burned eight people.
  Tomorrow--another reason this is an emotional topic for all of 
Minnesota--we are told in the news reports today, the National 
Transportation Safety Board will hold a hearing to pass final judgment 
on the causes of that crash. Whatever they were, they will not bring 
Paul and Sheila and Marcia and the others back. The circumstances, as 
they are reported, are unofficial, so I will not comment on them here, 
but as they report them in the press, it will make it, if anything, 
more difficult, more painful, more awful an accident that didn't have 
to happen.
  Paul Wellstone lost his life as a U.S. Senator in service of his 
country.
  As the late Senator John Heinz, Republican from Pennsylvania, lost 
his life several years ago in a small plane crash in the service of his 
country; as other Senators, Members of the House, Governors, Cabinet 
Secretaries, and public officials have lost their lives in airplane 
crashes or other accidents in the performance of their official duties 
in the service of their country; and when brave men and women lose 
their lives in the service of their country, I call that man or woman a 
true American hero. If they are wearing the service uniform of our 
Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere around the world, they 
are true American heroes. If they are wounded or maimed when serving in 
those awful conditions, they are American heroes.
  I have been to funerals for Minnesotans who lost their lives in 
training exercises in this country and overseas. They gave their lives 
and paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. They are 
true American heroes.
  Paul Wellstone is a true American hero. He would have been under any 
circumstances losing his life, but he is even more so, and forever, in 
my judgment. That is why it is so fitting and appropriate--and I was 
glad that I thought it only appropriate--that the Senate last year did 
what I would want to do for any colleague of this body or of the House 
who lost his or her life under similar--or any--circumstances in the 
performance of his or her official duties--to find a suitable memorial, 
a fitting tribute to that American hero.
  The surviving members of the Wellstone family--two sons, David and 
Mark Wellstone--through their own deliberations, identified this 
project and St. Paul, MN, where especially people from other 
countries--recent immigrants to the United States--in need of all sorts 
of assistance but who want to become part of this country, who want to 
have a chance to participate and raise their kids as American citizens 
and become the next Paul and Sheila Wellstone, so they can get the help 
they need and give a helping hand as Paul and Sheila would have given 
themselves.
  We authorized $10 million. The House didn't have anything in there on 
that matter. But we went to the President of the United States. He was 
gracious enough to assist, and we got the funding provided in that 
bill--the authorization of $10 million. President Bush invited the 
Minnesota congressional delegation and members of the Wellstone family 
to the Oval Office last December for the signing ceremony. He just 
couldn't have been more extraordinary in his graciousness to the 
surviving members of Paul and Sheila's families. He took the time and 
extended his schedule to be with us, to share his condolences and make 
it a truly memorable occasion for the members of that family. I know 
they were enormously grateful, as I was to the President for his 
compassion and for his humanity.
  When we got to the appropriations for this fiscal year, it was 
delayed. The bill that finally came forward provided $8.9 million for 
the $10 million project that was authorized. I am hopeful the balance 
of that commitment as a memorial to our former colleague will be part 
of the committee bill that is coming before us today.
  I was disappointed there was nothing provided in it, and there is 
nothing provided in the House bill. I pursued this matter and indicated 
my intention to offer this amendment for $1.1 million--that is an ``m'' 
for million, not ``b'' for billion--$1.1 million to complete the 
commitment that was made--the authorization to commit the money the 
President authorized by his own signature into law. I was told via my 
staff and in talking with committee staff that if this amendment were 
agreed to by the Senate, then it would be taken out of some other 
project for the people of Minnesota--from the people in Roseville, MN, 
in the northwestern part of the State who were victims of flooding last 
spring, who need help in relocating, who are still rebuilding and 
trying to reconfigure the locks and dams in that river so they don't 
flood again--and from all sorts of other projects around the State in 
counties that need sewer systems so people can have safe drinking 
water, so the kids don't get sick.
  I have to share with the people of Minnesota a confession. They think 
when they send us out here, we each have a vote; since we are all 
taxpayers, and since Minnesotans' taxes as a relatively high income 
State are proportionate to others that send tax money to this great 
Federal Government, we get back at least our fair proportionate share. 
But it doesn't work that way in this legislation. It doesn't work that 
way. We get the appropriations and those who have more seniority, who 
have been here longer, have more influence, connections, whatever--it 
doesn't

[[Page 29038]]

come out the same. If you were to rank Minnesota with other States, you 
would find that we give more than our share in contributions to this 
great center of our Nation and we get in return relatively less than 
most other States.
  I find it deeply offending that I am essentially being told, 
forewarned, threatened, that if I bring this amendment forward and it 
passes the Senate, it is going to come out of some other Minnesota 
project. I appreciate at least being told that so I know what I am 
getting into here.
  So much happens in these conference committees. It is just a sneak 
attack behind closed doors. In Minnesota, we have an open meeting law 
where you can't go behind closed doors with three or four members of 
the elected body and conduct public business in private somewhere. That 
law is a foreign concept here on Capitol Hill; it happens all the time. 
People go behind closed doors and members of conference committees 
can't even get into the conference room to find out what is going on.
  They have a bill coming up next for reauthorizing the FAA. Somebody 
in that conference committee stuck something in the bill that hurts the 
people of Minnesota--thousands of people in and around airports in my 
State--no hearings, no deliberation, no vote in the Senate, no vote in 
the House, just put in by Senators who don't represent the people of 
Minnesota.
  The conference committees are great places where you can put 
something in there and you can vote on it. I had an amendment to the 
Medicare bill which is coming up, and it is going to come out of 
committee, I am told and I am quite sure. I have an amendment that 
would require Members of Congress to receive prescription drug coverage 
that is the same and is no better than seniors of America and other 
Medicare beneficiaries receive. Boy, it passed the Senate by a vote of 
93 to 3. That is pretty overwhelming support.
  I thought: My goodness gracious, the Senate is going to back this one 
because the people of America would back that one. I know from my 
experience in Minnesota that we sure agree with that concept and 
principle--that Members of Congress should receive a prescription drug 
benefit no better than we vote for senior citizens. But then I read an 
article the next week stating that many of those who voted for it had 
been told they could do so because it was guaranteed to die in the 
conference committee and it would not become part of the law.
  I respect those three who voted against my amendment because they 
weren't going to take that escape route and say, Oh, I voted for that 
amendment, and to my great dismay it is not going to get conference 
support.
  So Members of Congress can continue to get drug coverage twice as 
good or more or better than those senior citizens of America.
  In this case, before this bill goes into the conference committee, I 
urge my colleagues--and I will ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment--if they don't particularly think enough of the situation, 
and circumstances, and the memory of Paul Wellstone, then vote against 
it. I will ask the conferees, if it passes and goes to conference and 
is going to come out of some other Minnesota project, to drop the 
amendment because I know what Paul would say. I know what he would want 
us to do. That would be to do what is best for all the people of 
Minnesota. This project is true to the people of Minnesota. But the 
last thing Paul Wellstone would want to do is take $1.1 million away 
from people who are suffering and need help and give it to other people 
in Minnesota in his memory. That would be the antithesis of what is 
good, for what he believed in, and what he spoke for on this floor. It 
would be far preferable if the Senate said forthrightly, that is the 
view of the Members or the powers that be, that $1.1 million of the $10 
million authorized last year is too much to bear, too much money, and 
it is just not available in the budget for the people of Minnesota, for 
the State of Minnesota. Unlike other States, we would not have this 
discussion on the Senate floor--it would be $1.1 million for anything 
any Member wanted.
  If they cannot find it, won't find it, do not want to find it, forget 
it. But tell the American people that. Tell the people of Minnesota 
that. Don't take it out of somewhere else in Minnesota for a project 
that is underfunded to begin with, that is needed to save people's 
lives, that makes their communities stronger. They elected the two 
Senators to do just as much as any other State in this Nation. Tell 
them that straight, and then Paul will wait. He should not have to, but 
he will.
  The Senate should do the right thing, pass this amendment, put it in 
the bill, and instruct the conferees to come out of the conference 
report with the money for the Wellstone Community Center and every 
project in Minnesota, and not sell anybody out behind closed doors, 
behind our backs, and I will once again respect this body, the Senate 
of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota feels 
strongly about this; both Senators do.
  I ask that Senator Coleman be added as a cosponsor.
  We are willing to accept the amendment. I ask that it be accepted by 
voice vote.
  Mr. DAYTON. I object. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object to the adding of a 
cosponsor?
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator does not object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is added as a 
cosponsor.
  Mr. DAYTON. I repeat my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. DAYTON. I will restate my request when there is a sufficient 
second. What number of Members constitute a sufficient number?
  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. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the pending Dayton-Coleman 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2152 Withdrawn

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the Clinton-Enzi amendment on 
which there is a colloquy be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2152) was withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2196 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Daschle relating to an agreement with the Institute of Medicine 
and the National Academy of Sciences to develop epidemiological studies 
on Vietnam veterans with respect to Agent Orange, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2196 to amendment No. 2150.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for epidemiological studies on Vietnam veterans 
     exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 116. Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Institute of Medicine 
     of the National Academy of Sciences under which agreement the 
     Institute of Medicine shall develop and evaluate 
     epidemiological studies on Vietnam veterans in accordance 
     with the recommendations of the 2003 National Academy of 
     Sciences report entitled

[[Page 29039]]

     ``Characterizing Exposure of Veterans to Agent Orange and 
     Other Herbicides Used in Vietnam: Interim Findings and 
     Recommendations''.

  Mr. BOND. There are no objections on either side. I ask that it be 
agreed to by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2196) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2197 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond, for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2197 to amendment No. 2150.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs to implement policies that prohibit the Veterans Integrated 
 Service Networks from conducting outreach or marketing to enroll new 
                       veterans in such Networks)

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. 116. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     for the Department of Veterans Affairs by this Act or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended to implement the 
     policy contained in the memorandum of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs dated July 18, 2002, from the Deputy Under 
     Secretary for Health for Operations and Management with the 
     subject ``Status of VHA Enrollment and Associated Issues'' or 
     any other policy prohibiting the Directors of the Veterans 
     Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) from conducting outreach 
     or marketing to enroll new veterans within their Networks.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee for agreeing to accept my amendment 
pertaining to veterans outreach programs. My amendment would restore a 
valuable--and statutorily mandated--service to our nation's veterans 
and their families.
  In July 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under 
Secretary for Health for Operations and Management sent a memo to 
Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure 
that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within 
[their] networks.''
  This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as 
the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more 
funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs and I 
strongly support doing so it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a 
policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for 
which they may be eligible.
  I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a 
letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately 
reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect.
  My amendment would prohibit the VA from using Federal funds to 
enforce this policy, or any other policy prohibiting regional health 
care directors from conducting outreach to enroll new veterans into the 
VA health care system. A similar amendment offered earlier this year by 
Congressmen Sanders and Kanjorski was accepted to the House version of 
the underlying VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are 
unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be 
eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their 
families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to 
ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits 
are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the 
answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal 
department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits 
to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health 
care outreach activities.
  This is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of 
veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. 
Today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are tomorrow's veterans. 
These men and women selflessly put their lives on the line to protect 
our freedoms, as have countless military personnel before them. We must 
ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during 
times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our 
troops have come home.
  Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices 
to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making 
sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is 
an important first step in starting to repay this debt.
  Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for working with me on this important issue.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an amendment with respect to VA 
marketing. It is acceptable on both sides. I ask that be it be agreed 
to on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2197) 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. 2198 to Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, because we had done a list of amendments and 
we neglected to include an amendment by Senators Cantwell, Carper, 
Brownback, Hagel, and others with respect to section 8 public housing, 
moving to work demonstration agreements, I ask unanimous consent that 
this be acceptable and I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Cantwell, for 
     herself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, 
     Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. DeWine, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2198 to amendment No. 2150.

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

   (Purpose: To require a study of the Moving to Work demonstration 
                    program, and for other purposes)

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

     SEC. 418. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HOUSING/SECTION 8 
                   MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Extension.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall extend the term of the Moving to Work 
     Demonstration Agreement entered into between a public housing 
     agency and the Secretary under section 204, title V, of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 
     1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, April 26, 1996) if--
       (1) the public housing agency requests such extension in 
     writing;
       (2) the public housing agency is not at the time of such 
     request for extension in default under its Moving to Work 
     Demonstration Agreement; and
       (3) the Moving to Work Demonstration Agreement to be 
     extended would otherwise expire on or before December 31, 
     2004.
       (b) Terms.--Unless the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development and the public housing agency otherwise agree, 
     the extension under subsection (a) shall be upon the 
     identical terms and conditions set forth in the extending 
     agency's existing Moving to Work Demonstration Agreement, 
     except that for each public housing agency that has been or 
     will be granted an extension to its original Moving to Work 
     agreement, the Secretary shall require that data be collected 
     so that the effect of Moving to Work policy changes on 
     residents can be measured.
       (c) Extension Period.--The extension under subsection (a) 
     shall be for such period

[[Page 29040]]

     as is requested by the public housing agency, not to exceed 3 
     years from the date of expiration of the extending agency's 
     existing Moving to Work Demonstration Agreement.
       (d) Breach of Agreement.--Nothing contained in this section 
     shall limit the authority of the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development to terminate any Moving to Work 
     Demonstration Agreement of a public housing agency if the 
     public housing agency is in breach of the provisions of such 
     agreement.

     SEC. 419. STUDY OF MOVING TO WORK PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct a study of the Moving to Work demonstration program 
     to evaluate--
       (1) whether the statutory goals of the Moving to Work 
     demonstration program are being met;
       (2) the effects policy changes related to the Moving to 
     Work demonstration program have had on residents; and
       (3) whether public housing agencies participating in the 
     Moving to Work program are meeting the requirements of the 
     Moving to Work demonstration program under law and any 
     agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is acceptable on our side.
  Mr. REID. There is no objection on this side.
  Mr. BOND. I suggest we agree to it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2198) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we delay the 
FAA bill for 5 minutes and the debate would be from 4:35 to 5:35 and a 
vote occur at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      congressional award program

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, several Senators were prepared to offer an 
amendment today to provide for support for the Congressional Award 
Program, through a collaboration with the Corporation for National and 
Community Service. I understand from the Subcommittee the difficulties 
that this would present and will not press forward with such an 
amendment at this time. I did want to engage the Chairman of the VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee in a colloquy about this valuable 
program.
  Congress established the highly successful Congressional Award in 
1979 to recognize initiative, achievement, and service in young people. 
The Congressional Award is the U.S. Congress' award for young 
Americans. It is nonpartisan, voluntary, and noncompetitive. The award 
enjoys broad bipartisan support. This excellent program has grown by 
more than 3,000 participants during fiscal year 2003, and currently, 
there are some 14,750 active participants from across the nation.
  In the past, the Congressional Award Program has been able to sustain 
itself. Because of the tremendous growth of this program, its resources 
have been stretched to the breaking point. After the events of 9/11 and 
the recent recession, patterns of charitable giving have changed and 
this program, like many worthy causes, has had an extremely difficult 
time maintaining earlier levels of contributions, much less 
accommodating its rapid growth. The congressional award needs a modest 
amount in a funding base to regain its footing and momentum and 
continue its growth for the future. Congressional support is needed to 
leverage renewed and increased private donations.
  Supporters of this program had looked to this bill because the 
Congressional Award Program already is being cited by the Corporation 
for National and Community service as the kind of program it supports 
and encourages and already is listed as an official partner of 
America's Promise, another related program. Congress already has 
explicitly provided in the Congressional Award Act that, while this 
program may not receive a direct appropriation, it may receive 
financial support through collaborations with other programs receiving 
appropriated funds.
  I note that the Appropriations Committee, in the report accompanying 
this bill, has expressed its concern with current costs per participant 
in volunteer service programs. In particular, the report mentioned the 
$16,000 cost per AmeriCorps members for program and education award 
costs and called upon the Corporation to reduce costs. In contrast, the 
Congressional Award Program costs only about $68 per participant. It is 
more than just a great program, it is a bargain.
  The Congressional Award is one of only two standing awards given by 
Congress. The other is the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is time 
that Congress became a partner of the congressional award in more than 
just name.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I add my comments in support of the Congressional Award 
Program. This excellent program is open to all 14- to 23-year-olds. 
Participants earn bronze, silver, and gold congressional award 
certificates and bronze, silver, and gold congressional award medals. 
Each level involves setting goals in four program areas: volunteer/
public service, personal development, physical fitness, and expedition/
exploration. Earning the award is a fun and interesting way to get more 
involved in something young men and women already enjoy or something 
they might like to try for the first time.
  Regardless of an individual's situation, he or she can earn this 
award. The congressional award has no minimum grade point average 
requirements. It accommodates young people with special needs or 
disabilities who are willing to take the challenge. The award is open 
to all. We consider this to be a valuable priority within a fiscally 
responsible appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, this is a program that all of us want to see grow and 
flourish. It is not just another program. It is not just another 
foundation pursuing a worthy cause. It is our award--a unique program 
created by the Congress to recognize and encourage leadership and 
voluntary service to the community by our young people. It requires and 
deserves our support.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter.
  It is certainly our intent, in continuing congressional support for 
the corporation, that it look for additional ways for actively 
partnering and collaborating with organizations such as the 
Congressional Award Program. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on appropriate ways to carry that goal forward.


   capital asset realignment for enhanced services (cares) initiative

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the managers for working with 
Senator Enzi, Senator Schumer and myself on a compromise to ensure that 
our concerns are addressed. We understand that they have committed to 
pursue language in the conference report that expresses the committee's 
concerns about the Draft National CARES Plan recommendations of closure 
and reduction of services in long-term care, domiciliary care, and 
mental health services at VA facilities. The language urges that no 
closures or reduction in long-term care, domiciliary care, and mental 
health care services take place until the full analysis is completed. 
The language would also require the VA to submit updates on their 
progress in this analysis to the appropriate committees. Finally, the 
managers have agreed to send a letter to VA Secretary Principi 
outlining these concerns on our behalf.
  Mr. ENZI. I would like to add to my colleague's discussion. I got 
involved in this process to bring attention to the concerns of veterans 
in rural and frontier areas. Based on these concerns, I hope in any 
further analysis on the future needs of veterans health care the VA 
will consider all access issues related to travel, such as road 
conditions, the number of lanes on roads, and seasonal changes and 
other factors relating to the weather. I know many of my colleagues 
share these concerns and I appreciate their taking this opportunity to 
address them.

[[Page 29041]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friends from Missouri and Maryland for 
engaging us in this colloquy, and appreciate their efforts to work with 
us on addressing our concerns with the CARES process. Among these 
concerns, I am particularly pleased that the managers of this bill have 
agreed to work with us in addressing the participation of veterans at 
hearings held by the CARES Commission. The participation of veterans is 
critical to a process that so directly impacts the quality of 
healthcare they receive from the VA. It is my understanding that the 
managers have committed to addressing this specific issue by presenting 
language to the conference that would recognize the benefits of and the 
need to have CARES related hearings within 30 miles of all facilities 
facing closure or a reduction in services, as well as the importance of 
veteran participation at these hearings. I also understand that the 
managers have committed to presenting language to the conference that 
encourages the VA to hold additional hearings in all affected 
communities following the Secretary's final recommendation.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President I thank the Senators from New York and the 
Senator from Wyoming for their thoughtful comments. Their understanding 
is correct, and we will pursue such language in the conference report. 
Senator Mikulski and I will also be sending a letter on their behalf to 
Secretary Principi with these concerns.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I acknowledge the validity of my colleagues' concerns 
and look forward to working with them to try to address these concerns 
in conference and with Secretary Principi.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have reached the point where we 
are ready to get a final list and a means of proceeding. So if it is 
agreeable on both sides, I ask unanimous consent that the only other 
amendments in order to the VA-HUD bill, other than the substitute, be 
the following: Dayton No. 2193 with 5 minutes equally divided; Senator 
McCain, amendment on NASA; Senator Inhofe, amendment on air quality; 
Senator Jeffords, National Academy of Sciences study; further that 
following the scheduled cloture votes on Tuesday, the Senate resume 
consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill for the consideration 
of the remaining amendments.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on cloture dealing with FAA be for a full 1 hour, with the time 
equally divided pursuant to the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to any of the foregoing 
requests?
  Mr. REID. I express my appreciation to Senator Lautenberg and Senator 
Lott for allowing us to go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________