To provide that 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.

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 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

[[Page S14933]]

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. 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

[[Page S14934]]

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 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.

[[Page S14935]]

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. 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.)
<bullet> 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

[[Page S14936]]

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.<bullet>
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:

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

[[Page S14937]]

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 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.

[[Page S14938]]

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 ``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

[[Page S14939]]

(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 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

[[Page S14940]]

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.
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.

____________________