Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey in the Chamber. I believe he has an amendment, and if the pricetag is reasonable, we may be able to accept it.

Mr. President, I believe we can accept this amendment. This is an increase, obviously. Our budget has been short in every area. We share the concern of the author of this amendment in ensuring EPA enforcement is strong enough.

There is no objection on this side.

Mr. President, a request has been made by the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that we have a voice vote and not just accept these amendments without objection. It would be in order to ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, Senator Ensign has a statement he wishes to make, but in the meantime we have a number of amendments that have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 2172 to Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Hollings and Senator Graham of South Carolina. This is an amendment permitting the Secretary of VA to enter into an enhanced-use lease for the Medical University Hospital Authority in Charleston.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Mikulski which provides for the Corporation National Service to refrain from disclosing any information. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank my colleague from Maryland for her very thoughtful and well-crafted amendment. She has been regarded as really one of the greatest defenders of the concept of AmeriCorps national service. Nobody has been a stronger champion of volunteer service. I have been pleased to be a junior partner to her in this effort. She has it just right. The volunteers are wonderful. The purpose is wonderful. We have had more than a few bumps in the road in terms of how the program has been administered, but we have high hopes that the new administration in that agency, with the new head, the financial officer, the chairman, will be on the right track.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I now see my distinguished colleague from Nevada is in the Chamber. I yield the floor to him for such comments as he wishes to make.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are working on some possible amendments from the Senator from Illinois. Also, Senator Mikulski has a major amendment. I would like to move very quickly to do some amendments that I believe will not require any extended discussion. First for myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration

At the request of the administration, this amendment would increase funding for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, OFHEO, for this year by $7.5 million. These funds are intended to strengthen OFHEO's examination, legal and human resources functions, and the fund's special investigation. The amendment includes an additional $10 million that is available only upon certification by the Secretary of the Treasury that there is an emergency need for additional funds.

There is, I believe, a compelling need to reform the regulatory structure governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At a minimum, the senior management

of OFHEO must be replaced, and replaced now.

Senior management, in my view, has repeatedly failed to meet the most basic requirements of OFHEO's missions. For example, it took over 10 years for OFHEO to issue its risk-based capital standards, despite the fact that this is OFHEO's primary mission and key to its regulatory oversight of the GSEs.

This failing became even more evident when OFHEO publicly praised Freddie Mac's management just days before Freddie Mac's management was removed for accounting irregularities.

I applaud the work of the Banking Committee in the Senate and in the House, Senator Shelby, Congressman Baker, and the ranking members for making regulatory reform of OFHEO a priority. I look forward to working with them next year to help develop the right regulatory system.

I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Stevens relating to the Native American Housing Assistance and Determination Act.

On behalf of the Senators from Illinois, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Fitzgerald, I send an amendment to the desk dealing with the North Chicago VA Medical Center, making it available to the maximum extent feasible. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield for any statement by the Senator from Illinois.

This is something we need to do throughout the system, and we need to have a better integration of the health care facilities of the active military and the Veterans Affairs. I commend the Senators from Illinois and hope this model can be adopted elsewhere.

Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Murkowski relating to rural teacher housing, amending the Denali Commission Act to provide the ability of the Commission to make grants and loans to public school districts serving remote incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in Alaska.

This is carrying on our efforts to provide the best possible services to people in underserved areas of Alaska. I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, we are on the amendment, the emergency designation by my friend and colleague from Maryland. She seeks to add $3 billion to the vitally important State revolving funds that are so important to cleaning up our environment. I could not agree with her from my heart more strongly because this is an area of need. We have fought very hard to get our funding up to where it is. That is not enough. We have not been able to fund the National Science Foundation as we should. We had a major effort by the leadership of the full committee to get us the money that we need to get an additional $1.3 billion for veterans health care.

Having said that, this, unfortunately, is far beyond the budget allocated to the committee. It is in conflict with the stated position of the OMB with respect to emergency designations. Therefore, it is with regret that out of necessity I note that section 502, House Concurrent Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, created a point of order against an emergency designation on nondefense spending.

The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency designation; therefore, pursuant to section 502

of H. Con. Res. 95, the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Parliamentary inquiry: Does the amendment fall without the emergency designation?

I make a point of order that this exceeds the budget allocation and, therefore, must fall.

Madam President, I have six amendments to offer.

Madam President, I have now heard from about five Members on the other side who have amendments on which we would have to have votes. If that is 20 minutes a vote, that would be 100 minutes at least.

Madam President, I am truly overwhelmed by the generosity of my good friend from Nevada, but regrettably I am not driving this bus. I believe there is a unanimous consent order that cannot be altered without talking to the leadership. I apologize to my friends. I would love to finish the bill, but now that I have the floor, I do have a number of amendments that have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 2180 to Amendment No. 2150

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct and negotiate a rulemaking for purposes of changes to the formula governing the public housing operating fund. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, there are no objections on the other side.

Madam President----

I was going to respond.

Madam President, we are coming up on a 6 p.m. deadline, I say to my friend from West Virginia, that has been long announced and been planned for. I say to the distinguished Senator that unless and until we are able to get concurrence from the leadership, the work on this bill tonight will stop. I further ask the Senator from West Virginia if he would permit us to continue with the cleared amendment that is at the desk. There are five more cleared amendments, four of them by Members from his side of the aisle, that we would like to be able to clear if he would allow me to do so.

Also, I announce to my colleagues there are visiting dignitaries from the European Parliament. My colleagues may wish to greet them.

Madam President, there is one measure pending at the desk, and there are five more amendments that have been cleared on both sides. Excuse me. Coming in over the transom, there are now two more. So that makes a grand total of seven amendments, five of them from Members on the other side of the aisle.

Madam President, these are not at the desk, only submitted.

Madam President, as I said, there are seven amendments that are to be offered. There is one at the desk and there are seven more now that have been cleared on both sides.

I object on behalf of the leadership, Mr. President, and I seek recognition.

On behalf of the leadership, I object.

Mr. President, we do have these six measures--seven--eight measures, now, at the desk, that I propounded? We have one from Senator Murkowski on pioneer homes in the State of Alaska; we have one from Senators Dorgan, Rockefeller, and Landrieu on access to primary health care for veterans in rural areas; we have one from Senator Snowe-- Senator Sarbanes, Senators Collins, Byrd, Santorum, and others, a sense of the Senate with respect to section 8 vouchers; an amendment by Senator Clinton and others relating to the Corporation for National Service volunteers; another from Senator Landrieu with respect to the States' deduction for administrative expenses in the Housing and Community Development Act; an amendment by Senator Levin and others relating to Federal water pollution control; a sense-of-the-Senate amendment by Senator Boxer about human dosing studies of pesticides.

I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned amendments be sent to the desk, the titles read, that they be approved, and that a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I, too, have heard about the importance of the research infrastructure program and I want to assure the Senator that we have sought to provide sufficient funding to cover existing commitments and states that are currently under review.

I understand the Senator's interest.

cares initiative

That understanding is correct and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

The Senator is correct. The bill includes more than $461 million for the HUD Secretary to support a range of activities related to the Section 8 program including contract amendments and other measures to ensure that housing authorities are able to lease up to their authorized unit levels. In addition, the bill allows HUD to allocate up to $36 million for new vouchers tied to the designation and occupancy restrictions imposed in public and assisted housing developments for the elderly. This continues a policy established by Congress in 1996 to ensure alternative resources for non-elderly people with disabilities who are being excluded from certain public and assisted housing properties.

It is important to note that the bill requires the HUD Secretary to ensure that there are adequate funds to renew all existing rental vouchers before allocating additional funds for disability vouchers for Fiscal Year 2004. It is the expectation of both Senator Mikulski and myself that HUD will be able to make a mid-year assessment in Fiscal Year 2004 to determine if the amounts appropriated for voucher renewals and contract amendments exceed the expected requests from housing authorities for authorized voucher renewals. In our view, such an assessment can be made as part of the periodic measurements HUD routinely makes regarding the pace of voucher renewals. It should also be part of the requirement set forth in S. Rpt. 108-143 by the Appropriations Committee for development of a real-time data model to identify the actual use of vouchers.

Further, it is our view that every effort should be made to ensure that public housing designation plans for elderly-only housing are linked to the vouchers, should they become available in Fiscal Year 2004. I do not believe that HUD should be prevented from including these disability vouchers in its annual consolidated Notice of Funding Availability or SuperNOFA. This would

allow the agency to allocate expeditiously these vouchers before the end of Fiscal Year 2004 to housing authorities that are able to target them effectively to non-elderly people with disabilities who have been adversely affected by the designation of public and assisted housing as elderly only.

I would be happy to engage in such a discussion with the Senator from Hawaii, a member of the Committee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Defense.

We face a very tough conference with the House with our tight allocation and other competing funding priority areas such as veterans' health care, affordable housing, and other science and space programs. Nevertheless, I will look at this issue in conference.

Speaking for Senator Mikulski and myself, we would be happy to look at this issue in conference.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks, and I will be working to ensure that this important study will be included in the conference report.

I thank the Senator for his kind comments.

I share and strongly support the Senator's view that NASA should continue to work with universities and industry on NASA-related scientific research.

I appreciate the Senator bringing his concerns to my attention. He has my assurance that the Committee's proposed reduction in the Earth

Sciences account is not intended to reduce the funding for the three university partnership programs he has described. I also share your concerns that this reduction could curtail some of the valuable research which we expect and which needs to be accomplished, and therefore intend to work in conference to increase the funding for Earth Science Applications to prevent any unintended shortfalls to existing programs as well as to needed new investments. As NASA continues to implement full cost accounting, we will confront a number of funding issues which will need additional scrutiny as we seek to understand NASA's new requirements with regard to what costs apply to programs under full cost accounting.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for agreeing to withdraw his amendment to further increase funds for the AmeriCorps program. I look forward to working with the Senator from Pennsylvania in the effort in conference to fully fund the President's request for AmeriCorps.

As we observed Veterans Day yesterday, and remembered the sacrifices each and every veteran has made to grant us our current freedoms, Congress should be doing all it can to help modernize and improve the VA

healthcare system at the earliest possible time. This amendment would derail this effort.

Congress should be finding new and innovative ways to get healthcare services delivered in a more timely and convenient way to our former servicemen and women. This amendment would postpone this effort.

Finally, Congress needs to ensure that the foundation and future of the VA healthcare system is stable and secure, giving our veterans the peace of mind that they will receive high quality and accessible healthcare whenever it is required. This amendment would hinder this effort.

The VA will soon finalize its 20-year Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services initiative, better known as the CARES plan, for updating medical facilities. Starting in the last administration and continuing in the present one, VA evaluated its future need for healthcare facilities, matched projected needs against current facilities, and developed a plan to match resources to needs.

The amendment being proposed would impose unnecessary conditions before VA could go forward with this vital plan.

Through CARES, VA is examining where its facilities are located, where veterans are projected to be living in the next 20 years, and what their health needs will be. Nationwide, VA provides medical care to almost 5 million veterans.

VA's legacy facilities are old, with the average age over 50 years, many dating back all the way to World War I or even earlier. These initial facilities were designed to provide medicine as it was practiced a half century ago, and in most cases, are poorly located to serve veterans where they live today or are expected to live in the future.

CARES will enable VA to leverage scarce resources by directing funding from the maintenance of obsolete facilities and applying that funding to the direct provision of healthcare services and staffing. It calls for construction of new facilities where the veteran population is growing, such as the southeastern and western United States. Additionally, it provides for the realignment of facilities that are redundant, out of date, or poorly located.

The Draft National CARES Plan contains over $4.6 billion in capital investments, including 11 million square feet of renovation, 9 million square feet of new construction, 2 new hospitals, 48 new high priority community based outpatient clinics, 2 new blind rehabilitation centers, and 4 new spinal cord injury units.

The Draft National CARES Plan, completed in August in this year, is a comprehensive integrated national proposal. The CARES process has been thorough and inclusive, combining a set of national assessment standards with planning at the local and regional levels.

This plan is now under review by the independent CARES commission, established by Secretary Principi to objectively examine the plan, to obtain comments and conduct public hearings to ensure stakeholder views are considered. The CARES commission conducted 38 hearings, heard from over 700 witnesses; including employees, local government officials and veterans; and took over 180,000 comments.

The bottom line is that the Draft National CARES Plan has been exposed to lengthy and close public analysis, and those observations will be included within the final plan. Next month, the CARES commission will submit their independent and comprehensive plan recommendations to the Secretary, which he will accept or reject as a whole.

Placing further conditions on an already well-detailed plan, which this amendment would do, would hold up, and even disrupt, VA's long delayed modernization process.

For example, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have declined to provide more than minimal funding for VA medical constructions until VA provides a nationwide plan for managing its medical facilities. CARES is that plan.

Further, this amendment would inherently prevent VA from implementing many critical components of the CARES plan. Anything less than full implementation of the CARES plan recommendations will lead to inequitable access to care. It cannot go forward with only parts of the plan. CARES is a comprehensive national plan, and it must be accepted in its totality to be effective.

Knowing this to be true, four of the major national veterans' service organizations: the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS, have come out in either strong opposition or have raised serious concerns about the Clinton-Enzi amendment.

I believe it is critically important that we consider the red flags raised by these organizations that represent almost 4 million veterans nationwide.

Let us consider the actions taken by the committee of jurisdiction over the CARES initiative, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a member of this committee, I have been intimately involved in the step- by-step process of analyzing this initiative, and I believe the VA committee has dedicated more than ample time and resources to the study of this plan.

The committee held an extensive hearing on the CARES initiative just this past September, receiving updates from top VA officials and the Secretary himself, on the progress of the plan.

Ultimately more important, the VA committee in September voted unanimously to give the Secretary the authority to implement the Draft National CARES plan once it is completed. In doing so, the committee outlined very specific priorities for the implementation of this plan.

First, and what is paramount for the CARES process to be viable, any medical facility that is closed must be replaced with a facility that adequately serves the healthcare needs of the region. Second, any locality that is in need of a full-service hospital must receive one. And third, any region that is in need of an outpatient clinic to provide basic care services must receive one.

These priorities, as agreed to by every member of the VA committee, emphasize, in my belief, that we support the CARES initiative and want it to move forward as quickly as possible. This amendment, without question, would not allow this to happen

In my opposition to this amendment, I do understand the concerns of the sponsors. However, I believe that they have been more than adequately addressed.

The sponsors believe that the CARES process has neglected to address the areas of long-term care, domiciliary care and mental health, mainly in rural areas. I strongly disagree with these assertions.

By design, the VA seeks to provide long-term care services in the least restrictive setting that is compatible with a veteran's medical condition and personal circumstances. This allows VA to reserve nursing home care for veterans who can no longer be safely cared for in home- and community-based settings.

VA expects to meet most of the future growth for long-term care services through non-institutional settings that keep veterans close to spouse, home and friends.

Since there are critical renovation and replacement nursing home needs that have been recognized, the plan includes several needed nursing home renovations and replacements that are believed to be within the projected outcomes of the new model.

In planning for CARES, the networks were to develop options taking care to preserve current bed levels for nursing home and inpatient long-term mental health programs.

More recent data is now available and suggest that both disability among the elderly and nursing home utilization rates have diminished. The discrepancy between projected needs from the current planning model and actual current demand prompted VA, earlier this year to commence in an intensive review and refinement of the long-term care planning model.

However, because the new data could not be incorporated into a new planning model for the current cycle of the CARES process, VA chose to treat the long-term care issues neutrally; that is, there will be no major changes or negative impact on care or capacity in long-term care. Once the data from the new model is available and analyzed, it will be used for future strategic planning activities.

On the issue of rural coverage, VA is, in fact, very sensitive to the healthcare

needs of rural and frontier veterans. It was a principal factor for several of the CARES commission hearings to be located in rural locales. Additionally, the Draft National CARES plan calls for the designation of critical access hospitals, recognizing the vital role that many of VA's small facilities fulfill in providing access to acute hospital care in rural or less densely populated areas. Moreover, it recommends 48 new sites for community-based outpatient clinics, many of those in rural areas.

The amendment before us is really nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. The VA has gone to great lengths to incorporate every stakeholder, especially our veterans, in the CARES process throughout.

I believe they have done an excellent job in creating a realistic and practical vision for the future of VA healthcare services, and we in the United States Senate should help them make that vision a reality.

What this all boils down to is how do we best serve the immediate and growing needs of our Nation's veterans. No one here is saying that the draft plan is perfect. However, we need to possess the wisdom and foresight to say we have all the necessary components in place to make a positive change and we should move forward.

Many injured or ill Vietnam veterans were disillusioned and critical when treated at VA medical facilities designed and built to treat their World War II fathers or even World War I grandfathers. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are now returning to many of those same facilities.

It is time to take the first step toward bringing the level of care for all our veterans into the 21st century. They have waited long enough, and we need to act now to improve the lives of each and every veteran in America.

In summary, we all have made commitments to our veterans that we should take care of them. These are the men and women who have donned the uniform of the United States and have made incredible sacrifices so that we can live in freedom. We live in the greatest country, I believe, in the history of the world, with the most freedoms of any people in the history of the world. This country of ours has only remained free because people have been willing to lay their lives down to ensure those freedoms for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

The amendment that has been proposed today would violate the commitment to our U.S. veterans. I say that because the veterans are moving away from the old rust belt. We should be taking the health care, which is their primary issue, to our veterans. Services, need to follow where the veterans are moving. We should not be trying to prop up institutions, instead, we should be moving the healthcare services where those veterans are relocating.

Secretary Principi is doing a wonderful job of trying to put the priorities of the veterans over process, over other constituencies, and maybe over a congressional district. He is trying to reform the system, recognizing that veterans are moving and that the money should follow so that the services are provided to those veterans.

I live in the fastest growing State and the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. It must have the kind of quality of lifestyle that veterans like because they are moving there in droves. Per capita, our State now has the most veterans in the United States. Yet, for instance, the Las Vegas metropolitan area that has 1.6 million people does not have a VA hospital. There are a couple hundred thousand veterans living in the area and we have no VA hospital. We have VA clinics but no VA hospital. So when our veterans need surgery or have complicated procedures, they have to travel away from their families down to southern California to get those services.

We can understand it in smaller population areas, maybe, but in a major metropolitan area, where veterans are choosing to live, that is not keeping the commitment we have made to our veterans.

So I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and will fight against its passage. If there is a vote on it, we will fight against the votes to pass it, or if it is tried to be snuck in the omnibus bill, if this bill does not actually get passed today, we will fight against putting it in the omnibus bill. The reason why is because it is so important that we look the men and women in the face who are serving in our military today and say we are going to keep the commitment we are making to them today.

They already made the sacrifices, and now we need to keep our commitment to them. In the future, we will keep our commitment to them and they can count on that.

Secretary Principi and the administration, I believe, are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to say that as the veterans are moving, we recognize that. For a long time the VA has needed updating and changing, and they finally have the courage to start doing that. As a legislative body, let us not stop that process.

My colleague Senator Reid and I have worked very hard on improving the services for veterans in our State, both in northern and southern Nevada, as all Senators try to do for their State. The bottom line is we should not hurt the services in the fastest growing areas of our country where the waits are so long, where people have to travel out of State to get the proper medical services. Let us look at our veterans and say no matter where they move in the United States, they are going to get the kind of services they have earned. And make no mistake about it, they have earned those services.

Anybody who has taken a look at what I believe is this ill-conceived amendment will say this would, in effect, do harm to many veterans in this country and they deserve better than that.

I thank the manager of the bill and the ranking member for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there has been a review of the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Lautenberg amendment. He is absolutely right. This money is needed because it essentially restores funding for the environmental cops on the beat. We wanted to do this in our bill, but circumstances shackled us from doing so.

This is a good amendment. We are happy to accept it. I thank the Senator for his longstanding advocacy in this area.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2173 to Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It does two things. It says the Corporation for National Community Service must change the rules. It protects the integrity of the grant process by preventing corporation officials from disclosing sensitive grant information and insists that any changes for rules for volunteer programs must have public comment.

One of my guiding principles is that people have a right to know, to be heard and to be represented. The Mikulski-Bond amendment upholds this principle. It ensures that the public gets a meaningful chance to comment on decisions that affect their communities and the volunteers who serve them.

Recently, National Service tried to change the rules for AmeriCorps. I was very troubled by the corporation's actions for two reasons: the process and the policy. My first concern was the process or actually the lack of a process. The corporation acted behind closed doors without input from Congress, volunteer advocates, or the communities they serve. States, communities, and advocates were told they had just 1 business day to review sweeping new rules, to ask questions about them, and to offer suggested changes. The corporation ``jackpotted'' advocates, volunteers, States, and local communities.

My second concern is policy. The AmeriCorps rules changes would hurt communities who depend on volunteers by eliminating support for long- standing, successful volunteer programs and by increasing financial and administrative burdens on communities and volunteer organizations.

I commend the board of directors for stepping in to stop the corporation. But it is clear that the corporation needs specific direction to ensure that the public has a right to be heard. The corporation doesn't have a Senate-confirmed CEO. We are working on a bipartisan basis to get David Eisner confirmed as the new CEO, but the staff must not make rule changes without leadership and public comment.

This amendment is good process, and good policy. It makes sure that the public has an opportunity to comment on any changes to National Service programs. And the amendment protects the integrity of the National Service grant process.

I thank Senator Bond for working with me on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his strong efforts to reform the fiscal and sloppy practices that are at the corporation. The volunteers are terrific, and now with the new CEO, I think we will be able to move ahead.

I concur with my colleague.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2175 To Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I have no objection. This has been a longstanding issue raised by our colleague from Alaska. It is a very compelling situation.

This is an excellent amendment. We concur.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2177 To Amendment No. 2150

I concur with the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2178 To Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase funding for our communities for our Nation's waste system. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It adds $3 billion to the VA-HUD bill for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure. My amendment increases funding in the EPA clean water State revolving loan fund to $3 billion, over $1.3 billion. My amendment also increases funding in the EPA drinking water revolving fund from $850 million to $2 billion.

When I offer this amendment, I want to be very clear. I am in no way critical of the effort the committee has made. I have been part of the effort. I congratulate Senator Bond for his robust funding for water and sewer systems. I thank him for his hard work on this issue. But we simply did not have enough money in our allocation. The budget cut $500 million from the President's budget from the clean water State revolving loan fund. Senator Bond and I worked together to restore that $500 million, and we are very grateful for that. But the Nation calls out for more.

Our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their effort to provide clean water and safe water and to comply with Federal environmental mandates. The need for better water and sewer systems is much greater than the amount that we now have in the Federal checkbook.

There have been studies, and studies after that, and the needs have been real and valid and have been validated by independent research.

The Federal Government must do more to help meet these needs. Failure to do so places a great burden on the local taxpayers because it shifts the responsibility to them. We have created an unfunded Federal mandate. At the same time, the lack of proper water and sewer threatens public health and environmental safety. Our State and local governments are also revenue-starved to meet these mandates.

Let me tell you about some of the studies.

In fiscal year 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network said our water and sewer systems will face a funding gap of $12 billion over the next 20 years. GAO said the cost to really do our water and sewer systems the way they need to meet not only environmental but public health concerns will be $300 billion over 20 years. There is study after study after study that validates this.

In my own State of Maryland, there is $4 billion in unmet needs. This isn't Senator Barbara Mikulski talking; this is the State of Maryland speaking. Our Eastern Shore and rural communities are trying hard to reduce harmful nutrients that pollute the Chesapeake Bay. Every time they increase their bonding authority to pay for unfunded mandates, it means one less school or one less highway. But the needs of Maryland are a cameo of the needs of the Nation. We are simply not putting enough money in the Federal checkbook for water and sewer systems.

In my own hometown of Baltimore, our sewer system was built over 100 years ago. We are under a court order instituted by the EPA to rebuild it. It will cost $1 billion to do this. In order to be able to do this, ratepayers will pay the bill.

This is an issue where growing green also generates jobs.

The second reason this amendment is necessary is that it creates jobs. It is estimated for every $1 billion we spend on water infrastructure, 40,000 jobs are created, from the civil engineers and architect who design on it, to construction contractors, to heavy equipment manufacturers, and even those who run the lunch wagons at the job site. This creates jobs, but it has value for the taxpayer. It will give the State a much needed breather as they themselves are trying to meet this need.

My amendment is temporary and it is targeted. It is a one-time $3 billion increase. This isn't $3 billion every year; it is $3 billion this year. The State loan funds have widespread support and would go a long way in helping this.

The President requested $3.7 billion for water and sewer projects in Iraq. The President requested this funding as an emergency.

I respect what the President said, but we have an emergency here. We have crumbling water systems that threaten

public health. We need billions of dollars. We have rising rates for our citizens, and at the same time the local ratepayer is going to shoulder the responsibility. If there is an emergency in Iraq, there is surely a water and sewer emergency in this country.

My amendment has widespread support--from the Water Infrastructure Network, a coalition of 47 nationally organized recognized organizations, to local officials, water and sewer service providers, engineers, construction contractors, labor unions, and environmentalists. This is the place where it all comes together-- mayors, Governors, workers, private sector.

These will not be government jobs. These will be jobs in the private sector, in the local community, meeting local needs. Groups such as the League of Cities and the Association of Counties and others do that.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for my amendment be printed in the Record. They are from the Water Infrastructure Network, the Coalition of the American Rivers and Ocean Conservatory, and others.

Mr. President, in conclusion, my amendment helps our communities by providing more funding to meet immediate water and sewer

needs so our communities can have clean and safe water. Water and sewer funding provides dual value for the taxpayers. It helps public health, it helps the environment. We will have clean water and safe water, and it creates jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide $3 billion more for our communities because I know every single State could use at least $1 billion more and I wish we could do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 502(c)(6) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive the 502(c) of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I say to the distinguished Democratic whip, I think we can do this in 2 hours. I think there are amendments that require more conversation and modification, that might not require votes.

No, I do not have an objection.

Mr. President, I have no objection except I am sorry we can't finish this bill.

Mr. President, what time----

I move to reconsider and lay the motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

nsf epscor program

I share that understanding as well and thank my colleagues.

The Senator is correct. We were unable to provide additional funds for the NOAO due to our tight 302(b) allocation.

I would be happy to support the Senator.

I also thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, and I, too, will support his request for such a study during the conference negotiations. This is an important matter for the State of West Virginia and other coal-producing States.

nasa

Mr. President, what time is it?

Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that are left I just want to thank my colleague for the spirited way he has tried to move this bill. We worked with energy. We had momentum. We had bipartisan support. With the 2 minutes left on this bill, I really must express my very keen disappointment that we were not allowed at least another hour or two to finish. I know the other side has the issues they want to raise on Federal judgeships, but this bill stands up for what America stands for--veterans, empowerment of communities, and housing. And for 2 hours, in a show of respect to them, we could finish this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the underlying bill as well as to make some general comments about the Defense authorization bill we just passed and a few comments about the veterans provisions generally.

I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their good work on the underlying bill. I understand we hope to pass this very important appropriations bill before 6 o'clock this evening.

I was unable to be here earlier today. I want to make a couple of comments regarding veterans generally.

There are 400,000 veterans in Louisiana, and 12,000 of them are directly affected in a very positive way by the underlying bill.

Before I speak about that, I wish to say that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia, and our ranking member, Senator Levin, should be commended for crafting a very good Defense authorization bill at a very difficult time.

I was formerly a member of the Armed Services Committee and worked for many years to fashion a bill, and I know how difficult it is even in times that are not stressful, much less in a time when we are in a war against terror in Iraq, here at home and other places around the world. It seems to me, as a former member of the committee, that the conference could have imploded many different times. But to Senator Warner's and Senator Levin's credit and very good bipartisan working relationship, that bill was passed earlier today.

While I don't agree with all the provisions of it, there are a couple which are very important to our troops in Louisiana: No. 1, the 4.1 percent pay raise for all of our troops. And, No. 2, we moved closer to completely eliminating the disability tax on veterans in Louisiana with 20 years of service; that is, 12,000 men and women who now, when they retire, do not get their full retirement and disability benefits but basically have to give up 50 percent of that benefit. This bill we passed earlier today corrects that. For those families and their loved ones, that will mean immediate help.

In addition, the TRICARE eligibility expansion for guardsmen and reservists, if they are unemployed or cannot acquire health insurance from their employers, is a tremendous gesture to the Guard and Reserve who we are counting on and depending on to help defend us at this time. We literally could not win this war or even begin this endeavor without their commitment.

We must remain committed to the quality of life of our veterans and to letting our Guard and Reserve men and women know how much we appreciate them. We must keep ever vigilant, particularly when it comes to the Guard and Reserve. We are getting ready to send another 43,000.

I wish to make a couple of comments about the tax treatment of our Guard and Reserve and speak about some disappointment in that area.

Yesterday, with some fanfare, the Military Family Tax Relief Act was passed. It is a help, but in my mind it is an insufficient gesture. It is too modest for what our men and women in uniform deserve. The bill provided $1.1 billion in tax relief, which was asked for and which is most certainly deserved. It doubles the amount of payments to survivors of soldiers killed in action from $6,000 to $12,000--not a lot of money, but it helps the families better than the $6,000 that was in the previous law. It allows guards and reservists to deduct travel expenses, it allows troops to deduct the cost of equipment they buy themselves, and it reduces the residency requirement so our troops can take full benefit of the capital gains provision in the law as do other Americans who are not in the service.

But this bill did not go far enough. I wish to speak for a minute about this and my strong objection to moving forward with it without additional help and support.

The bill that was signed, Tax Relief for Families in the Military, represented .006 percent of the $1.75 trillion in tax relief that has been passed by this Congress at the urging of this administration. Let me repeat. The bill that was signed on Tuesday for the military only represented .006 percent of the tax cuts that have been provided by this administration to Americans generally. Yet the military, the men and women in uniform today, the over 1 million men and women in uniform, are providing 100 percent of our security, one could argue. That is not to diminish the role of our men and women in uniform, police and fire on the home front, but protecting our borders, fighting the battles overseas, they are providing 100 percent of the protection. Yet they only receive in this bill .006 percent of the tax cut.

We asked, Republicans and Democrats alike, to please include a provision that would have allowed the Guard and Reserve who are leaving their jobs and leaving their businesses to go fight in Iraq, to please have the Federal Government recognize that many of these families are losing income, sometimes as much as 60, 70, or 80 percent. We are asking them not just to go and put their life on the line, but we are asking them to put their livelihood on the line.

When some Members petitioned this administration, and particularly the House Republican leadership, to give some relief, to provide some tax relief to these businesses to encourage them to maintain those salaries for our Guard and Reserve, we were told: We do not have enough money.

We had 1.75 trillion to give tax cuts generally to people not in the military, but we could not find a few pennies to help our businesses in this country, to help their employees meet their salaries for the benefit of their families. I know the Senator wants to get back to the HUD bill, and I will in a minute, but I want to make this point and then get to the underlying bill, VA-HUD.

What we have to do in every way we can, whether it is this veterans bill we are debating now, whether it is in Defense authorization, or whether it is in our tax bills, to recognize our first priority should be to our men and women in uniform, overseas and here on our home front. When we design tax packages and tax benefits, they should be the first, not the last, to receive the help. They should be getting the lion's share or the essence or the core, not the crumbs that fall from the table.

Unfortunately, still, despite the lives that are being given, despite the effort that is being made, they still are receiving crumbs when they deserve the whole loaf of bread.

I will submit for the Record an article about a reservist reward for MSG Rodriguez: His reward was bankruptcy. When MSG Rodriquez and his company were activated for 1 year, they were given an 8-hour notice. He had to leave behind his wife to run the couple's construction company. He comes home and his daughter, of course, is crying and in tears, his wife is upset because they lost their business. Their income was cut by 80 percent. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

The efforts some Members made to get this issue dealt with were rejected because we did not have enough money to help this reservist or the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are fighting for us, taking the cut in pay and losing their companies in the process.

Also I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article printed regarding 120,000 Federal employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. Nearly 14,000 have been called to active duty to help fight the war in Iraq. Senator Durbin and I wanted to get in the tax bill that was passed a provision that would allow them to maintain their salaries, their Federal salaries, so as not to fall down, basically, to receive the lower salary they receive in the Guard and Reserve. The sad thing is it would not have cost the Government anything because we had already budgeted to pay them their full salaries. This was rejected.

I say for the benefit of the people in Louisiana, we do not understand how we can give our tax credits to everybody but the Guard and Reserve. We can give out help to everybody except those Federal employees who take off one uniform and put on another, leave their homes for 6 months to a year, sometimes longer, and we expect them to take a cut in pay when we are giving tax credits to people who are not fighting.

If I could conclude on this one issue which really pours salt into the wound, when people say, Senator, we could not afford it, we actually found a way to pay for it. We said we should pay for it by making people who are right now evading U.S. taxes because they have made so much money in America because our troops have put their life on the line to protect the way of life which allows business people to make a lot of money in America, these business people who have made a lot of money because of what these men and women are doing in the Armed Forces, these business people are now deciding they are paying too much in tax, so they go to another country. They do not want to pay their taxes.

So we said let's make those folks pay their taxes and use those proceeds to pay for tax relief for the men and women in the military. We were told we cannot do that. We cannot possibly make people who owe taxes to America pay their taxes so that we can pay the men and women in uniform and give them a tax cut. I hope we will change our policy because it is wrong. We have missed an opportunity to help these families.

I conclude by thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their hard work on behalf of veterans. They have restored a lot of the cuts that were proposed by this administration. I am proud to be part of helping to pass a veterans bill. But let's not forget it is not just about appropriations bills where we can help our men and women in uniform. Tax bills can help them. Other direct spending bills can help them. No one deserves our help more than people who put on a uniform every day and actually put their life on the line.

This Senator does not think we are doing enough and can afford to do more when we found an offset to make regular people pay the taxes they owe. If they do not want to put on a uniform and fight, that is fine, but at least give the benefits to the people who are protecting their ability to make a living.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, may I be recognized? May I be recognized for debate?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I have sought the floor at this moment to urge the leadership to extend the time on this bill for 2 hours. I have heard the distinguished Democratic whip say it, I believe I have heard the Senator from Maryland, the manager of the bill, and the ranking member on this side, Senator Mikulski, say it, and I believe I have heard the manager indicate we might be able to finish this bill with an additional 2 hours.

We have completed 10 appropriations bills for floor action. There are only 13. That means there are three more. If we could finish this bill in 2 hours, that would leave only two appropriations bills that have not had floor action: CJS and District of Columbia.

So I urge, Madam President, that the leadership extend the time on this measure that is before the Senate just 2 hours.

Let us finish this bill before going to other matters.

Yes, I yield.

Yes, I do.

Yes, I yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

It certainly would be in order.

It certainly would.

Well, I will not only consider it, I will make the request. I would like for the leadership to be here and let the leadership consider making the request. I am talking about the majority leader. I do not want to try to impose myself in his stead in a matter of this nature, but I do think the Senate ought to go for a couple more hours, if that would do it, and let us finish this bill.

We have finished 10 appropriations bills. I am the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. It certainly is in order for me to attempt to try to get this bill acted on. We are so close. This is a veterans bill, the VA-HUD bill, that is so important. We have soldiers, men and women, dying in Iraq. Why not pass this bill within 2 hours? We are within 2 hours, and if we work hard we might complete it before that 2 hours. Maybe some of the amendments could be peeled off so we could cut the time.

I ask, Is there anyone who would get the majority leader to come to the floor and let us consider this?

I have the floor.

Yes. Let me protect myself, though. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri so that he can propound a question to the Chair and that I retain my right to the floor.

Madam President, I am going to propound a request. That request will include--did the Senator from Missouri say there were four amendments that were cleared?

Madam President, before I make a request, let me congratulate the Senator from Missouri. He is a good member of the Appropriations Committee. He works hard. He is a productive member. I have a great deal of admiration for him and for the work he does. I say the same about my friend, the Senator from Maryland. She has done tremendous work on this bill. It is the VA-HUD bill. She always applies her total energies and talents to working on this measure. With her good work and cooperation, the manager of the bill, Mr. Bond, has been able to bring the bill to the floor. He has done great work. I do not want to take away from his work. I want to add to it, and so I compliment him.

As I understand it, there are seven amendments at the desk that have been cleared on both sides?

I yield only if I may retain my right to the floor.

I yield to the Senator that he may make that statement, and ask that I may retain my right to the floor.

May I say again, we have finished 10 of the 13 appropriations bills on this floor. We lack three: CJS, District of Columbia, and VA-HUD. VA-HUD is before the Senate. We are within reach of completing floor action on that bill. We ought to do that. If we fail, having come this close, what is the Senate going to look like? We have to complete action on appropriations bills one way or another before we can adjourn sine die. I hope we could finish floor action on this bill.

Think of all the time that has gone into the consideration of this bill in the committee. The chairman and ranking member have held hearings. They have had a markup of this bill. They have worked hard over a period of many months. They have heard witnesses. All of this ought not to be for naught.

I hope Senators will agree. I had hoped the distinguished majority leader would be on the Senate floor so that I could urge him to propound this request. We are only 11 minutes away from 6. Now, a unanimous consent request entered into at this point will prevail over any previous unanimous consent request dealing with that same matter. So I have the floor. I know what my rights are, and I know what my duties are, also, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

May I ask the Chair, am I wrong in anything I have said? Am I correct?

Yes. And am I correct that a unanimous consent request agreed to at this moment to extend the hour of 6, which was in a previous request, would be the prevailing motion?

Madam President, I yield for a question without giving up the floor.

That would be part.

Yes, indeed.

So, Madam President, I really hesitate to make this request. I had hoped the majority leader would be in the Chamber because he is the person to be

recognized at 6 o'clock, under the previous order. I don't want to appear to be discourteous. That is not my intention.

Why do you think I am doing this? I am the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In the 7 years, I believe it was, that I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we never had--I don't think we ever had--I think we finished all 13 appropriations bills every year. We could finish another one. I know Senator Stevens has worked hard. I asked Senator Stevens during the last rollcall if he was agreeable to extending this time, since we are so close. He indicated he would work to do that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that----

I didn't understand the Chair.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

I am trying to avoid appearing to intrude on the majority leader's previous request and his time. I don't want to appear to be discourteous. I want to make the request when the majority leader is here.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to make a unanimous consent request and that, if it is agreed to--or whether or not it is agreed to, that I be recognized for another unanimous consent request, with the understanding that in any event I will be recognized 1 minute before 6 p.m. today to make such request.

Mr. President, I don't lose the floor by virtue of having made a unanimous consent request, even though it is objected to. I don't lose the floor.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland with the understanding I do not lose my right to the floor, and I yield for a question only.

Mr. President, I don't yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments at the desk, to which the distinguished Senator from Missouri alluded, be considered agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that the Senate immediately proceed to the further consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the understanding that time on that bill would end no later than 8 o'clock--or would end at 8 o'clock this evening, and that there would be a vote on the VA-HUD bill.

Senators will understand I used to propound these requests without their being in writing. I am carefully trying to approach this, so I will start over.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments that have been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, and are at the desk, that have been cleared, be considered agreed to and adopted to the bill. I further ask that the time originally set for recognition of the majority leader, at 1 minute until 6, be delayed 2 hours, that in the meantime the Senate consider action and complete action on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I am very interested in the need to provide funding through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the National Research Council to study whether the use of coal combustion wastes, otherwise known as coal fly ash, poses health and/or safety threats to the public or to the environment when used for reclamation purposes in both active and abandoned coal mines.

For more than twenty years, the EPA has been grappling with the issue of whether and how the use of these power plant combustion wastes should be regulated and the manner in which they should be regulated, if at all, under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. With this amendment, the National Research Council will be able to provide much-needed research assistance to the EPA as the agency continues to consider the development of national regulations in this area.

This study serves an important purpose and will help answer important questions about the impact of disposing coal combustion wastes in coal mines. Further, this study would offer timely information to EPA policy makers as these experts continue to assess the need for regulations governing this practice.

In summary, there is a great need for this study. It could be funded within existing resources and under existing authorizations. I hope that my colleagues will be able to consider this important request during the VA/HUD conference. I thank them for their consideration of this issue.