Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Members, let me point out that at the request of the leadership on both sides of the aisle, we are moving forward and hope to have a vote, certainly no later than 3:30 this afternoon, because we do need to get this measure passed, as well as several others. I will take just a few minutes of my time now. I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference report to H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. As I indicated previously, this has been a very unusual year. The conference report represents the compromise agreement reached with Senator Mikulski, Congressman Walsh, Congressman Mollohan, and myself, in consultation with the administration. Certainly it is not a perfect situation. It is not the way I would like to do the bill. I would prefer to proceed with passage of the VA-HUD appropriations bill in a more customary manner. Nevertheless, with the assistance of the leaders of the committee, and the leadership, we have brought the bill to the floor. I think it is a good and balanced compromise that I believe addresses the concerns of our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, while striking the right balance in funding programs under the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee. The conference report totals approximately $105.8 billion, including $24.6 billion in mandatory veterans benefits, some $1 billion over the Senate committee-reported bill and almost $1 billion less than the President's budget request. Outlays are funded at roughly $110.8 billion for the current fiscal year, $540 million over the Senate committee-reported bill. We did our best to satisfy priorities of Senators who made special requests for high-priority items, such as economic development grants, water infrastructure improvements, and the like. Such requests numbered several thousand, demonstrating the high level of interest and demand for assistance provided in this bill. We also attempted to address the administration's top concerns, including funding for 79,000 new housing vouchers, as well as record funding for EPA at roughly $7.8 billion. I am not going to summarize the bill today. We have done that before when the Senate passed the identical bill on October 12. The conference between the House and Senate has now confirmed that legislation. I think everyone has had an opportunity to review the bill. I offer my sincerest thanks to my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and her staff for their cooperation and support throughout the process. Particularly, I thank Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Alexa Mitrakos from Senator Mikulski's staff. I obviously could not have done it without the good leadership and hard work of my team: John Kamarch, Carrie Apostolou, Cheh Kim, and Joe Norrell. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to all those allocated time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. I am aware of this problem facing the city of Jacksonville.

Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to engage my colleague in such a colloquy.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his thoughtful remarks on the lead exposure issue and the Clear Corps program. I might point out that in my home state, St. Louis now has a Clear Corps affiliate. I might also point out that Senator Mikulski has a Clear Corps affiliate in Baltimore. I concur that the public-private approach as one avenue of a larger program should be encouraged. I would be happy to work with Senator Craig and other members to determine an appropriate level of higher funding for Clear Corps. definition of an ``urban county'' under federal housing law

Mr. BOND. Again, the Senator is correct. relicensing non-federal hydroelectric projects

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now wish to use time allotted to Senator Stevens under the agreement just reached. He has agreed to delegate that time to me.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another very important appropriations bill that has been addressed on this floor and is being considered. That is the debate on education in the Labor-HHS bill. We want to see that important bill moved forward, get passed and signed by the President. It is clear that the two sides of the aisle have very differing views on how we ought to go about improving education. Let us all agree that improving education should be our national priority. We on this side happen to think it is a local and State responsibility, but it is a national priority, the top national priority. Now, one side of the aisle trusts the Federal Government to make the decisions. The other side of the aisle, our side, trusts the parents and teachers, the school districts, the school board members, to make those decisions. This side of the aisle seems to base its decision on whether we are successful in education on the total dollars spent. Our side would judge success on academic achievement of students. This side of the aisle believes accountability comes in successfully filling out paperwork, jumping through the hoops that Washington lays out for school boards and teachers. Our side believes accountability is based on academic achievement. Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the Olympians on the Hill--Capitol Hill, that is--know what is best for the folks down in the valley. Our side believes that the great ideas, accomplishments, and actions occur on the local level and that the Olympians on the Hill should watch and learn. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Vice President talk a good game. Let me give you my view on what is going on. First, they have talked about the 100,000 teachers program, the school construction program. They have proposed to set aside billions of dollars for these programs alone and not allow flexibility that we strongly believe should be rested in the hands of the local schools, the parents who are served by them, and their children, and the people who run them. I support reduced class size. I campaigned for Governor on that basis. I know there are many school districts around the country that need new school buildings. However, as one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, I want to do the right thing. I agree with that. I know our children and parents and schools are counting on us, in my view, to get out of the way and let them do the job they are not only hired to do but they are dedicated to do. We saw in the first debate what happens when Washington tries to make decisions for what is best in local schools. Vice President Gore told a terrible tale about this young girl who had to stand up in class. After the debate, we found out that she had to stand up or she had to have a chair brought in for 1 day because they had $100,000 worth of new computers. The school superintendent said that getting a place for her to sit was not really the problem. I understand he mentioned something about school lunches in another school district, and very quickly some of the folks from that school district said that is not the problem at all. That is not to say--and I am not saying here--that the Vice President didn't hear real concerns, that he made them up. I am just saying: How are we here in Washington, how is the Federal bureaucracy, how is the Department of Education, and how are those of us who are sitting here in this room trying to make decisions for local schools all across the country supposed to know what the problems are in the Sarasota School or the Callaway County R-6 school in Missouri or a school district in California or a school district in Washington or a school district in Maine? There is a lot of talk about 100,000 new teachers. That proposal sounds good. It is a great slogan to use when you are trying to gain national headlines. But when you look at the formula, trying to find out whether it works, it doesn't work. I traveled around to school districts and talked to school boards and teachers and administrators. Let me tell you how that formula works in Missouri. The Gilliam C-4 School District would get $384; the Holliday C-2 School District would get $608; the Pleasant View R-VI School District would get $846. I first heard about this problem from a small school district when someone in that room said: We would get enough money for 11 percent of a teacher. One other person in the room said: We would get enough money for 17 percent of a teacher. They haven't quite figured out how to use 11 percent of a teacher or 17 percent of a teacher or how to spend $846 on a teacher. Over 175 school districts in the State of Missouri would receive less than $10,000 under this program. Surely you don't think they are going to be able to hire a teacher to reach that 100,000 new teacher goal for less than $10,000. Many of the schools have already addressed classroom size at the expense of other things. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose giving them the flexibility to utilize these resources in another manner which may suit their needs but which doesn't fall into the dictates of the one- size-fits-all solution that Washington is being pushed to propose by the administration and by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They are saying that we are not providing the school the resources to do what they need to do because Washington is trying to tell them what their priorities should be without knowing why that girl had to stand up or sit on a stool brought in for that one classroom. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and Vice President Gore advocate taking billions of dollars off the table for thousands of schools across the country. To me, the issue is simple. We must give our States and localities the flexibility to use the resources to improve our public education system and to make decisions at the local level. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues the sadness that all of us in Missouri feel this week. This has been a very, very sad week for us. Late Monday evening, we lost our Governor, Mel Carnahan, along with his son, Randy, and a top aide, Chris Sifford, who were killed tragically in a plane crash. Nearly having completed two terms as Governor, Mel Carnahan was in a heated race for the Senate with our colleague, John Ashcroft. Mel Carnahan was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather as well as a public servant who had devoted much of his career and much of his adult life to serving the people of our State. The news of Governor Carnahan's very untimely and tragic death serves as a reminder to all of us of the preciousness of life and its unpredictability. Our thoughts, our prayers, and our sympathy go out to his wife Jean, to his daughter Robin, to his sons, Russ and Tom, and his grandchildren during this difficult time. We also extend our deepest sympathies to all the people who worked closely with him and considered him their close friend. None of us can pretend to understand the pain they must feel at this time. But I hope they will find comfort in knowing that their husband, father, grandfather, and friend will have a lasting impact on many lives. The fruits of Mel Carnahan's efforts will be felt in our State for many years to come. He presided over a period of economic growth in our State. He worked hard to reform Missouri's welfare system, crime laws, and educational system. Mel Carnahan and I were friends for a long time--probably 30 years. It is no secret that we were often political opponents. We disagreed on a lot of things, and he was a tough opponent; no question about that. A couple of years ago when I was getting ready to run for reelection, there was some thought that we might have to run against each other. But at that time, he chose to stay in Jefferson City and serve the people of Missouri for the remainder of his term as Governor. When asked why he entered public service, Governor Carnahan said he was inspired by the words of Adlai Stevenson, who said public service was a ``high calling,'' and he urged young people to get involved. Mel Carnahan lived his belief that public service was a ``high calling.'' He brought the best of himself to the job. He loved Missouri and Missourians. He loved rural Missouri and his adopted hometown of Rolla, MO. He always wanted the best for our State. While the two of us may only have agreed on a handful of issues in 30 years, when it came time to defend the interests of Missouri, we fought arm in arm together. Some of you may recall a few battles we had on behalf of Missouri and the neighbors of the Missouri River in a battle against the Fish and Wildlife Service. But in the end, a man's position on the issues of the day is only a small measure of his life. In this age of multimillion-dollar campaign advertising budgets and media consultants, Gov. Mel Carnahan still believed in keeping in touch with individual Missourians. He died while attempting to get to a campaign event in a small town in Missouri that maybe few outside our State ever heard of. As Governor, he crisscrossed our State endlessly, visiting schools and farms, veterans, and highway dedications. He worked hard and Missourians loved him for it. Twice they elected him by large margins to the highest office in our State. I particularly admired and appreciated the friendship we had as political opponents, as people committed to public service in our State. I was with him on Saturday at the homecoming for the University of Missouri. We shared a common interest on that day; our football team didn't do well. But Mel Carnahan, with a ready smile and a lovely wife, was there. We enjoyed our time together as we appreciated and looked back on the tremendous accomplishments he had and the contributions he made to the State of Missouri. At a commencement speech in his town of Rolla last year, Governor Carnahan told graduates, ``Each of you was put on this Earth for a reason . . . life is precious and fragile . . . and each of us has such a short time to make our mark on the world that we must not waste it.'' Surely Mel Carnahan wasted no time. He made the most of every minute, and our lives are richer for it, and for his friendship. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his friends in Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to table and ask for yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I take 1 minute to say the ranking member and I have been advised by EPA the California sites that would be affected by the language--and it is the clear understanding of the managers of the bill in the Senate--are either pilot sites already underway and would not be included or they are sites in which the final action would not be ready by the timeframe in which this action is delayed. We have been advised, and it is our understanding, there is no application of this provision. It was intended to be included in the statement of managers on any California site. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am sorry we have to get into this little battle over who said what and who said what, when where, and why. Let it be clear that we on both sides made our best efforts to assure that everyone was advised. Twice, Mr. Tom Sliter, a staffer on EPW, was notified and discussed this with my assistant, Ms. Apostolou. He also, I understand, participated in a briefing conducted by Mr. Carliner of the minority staff. Not everybody agreed with all of those things, and we never said that we had 100-percent agreement. We don't get 100-percent agreement, but we do extend the courtesy to all of the Members who are interested to let them know what we are doing and give them an opportunity. I am sorry to get into this, but when it was said that we did this without notification in an attempt to hide this, that is absolutely wrong. That is an unfortunate and unfair slam at our staff. I do not intend to let it stand. The next point I will make, just to call it to the attention of my colleague from California, is we have been advised that no California sites would be affected. EPA has indicated they will be sending a letter to assure the Senator that no California sites would be affected by the proposed managers' amendment, or the language in the statement of managers. Let me say that while, technically, this issue is not before us at this time, we do intend to include a statement which has been carefully worked out at painstaking meetings that Senator Mikulski and I had, along with our House counterparts, with OMB Director Jack Lew and George Frampton, CEQ Director. This language will be included to address the concerns raised by EPA about House report language on this issue. The report language simply requires EPA to take into consideration a National Academy of Sciences study on contaminated sediments, which has been worked on for the past several years and is expected within the next 3 months, before dredging or invasive remediation actions at sites where a plan has not been adopted by October 1, 2000, or where dredging has not already occurred. Exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements and urgent cases where there is significant threat to public health. Furthermore, EPA is not prohibited from proposing draft remediation plans involving dredging or invasive remediation technologies. In view of the time, effort, and resources that have gone into examining the efficacy of dredging contaminated sediments, it would truly be a shame not to consider the best science available before going forward. This is not going to result in undue delays, but it will result in an informed process. Dredging is very controversial and it is very costly. What do you do with the dredge material if you dig up material that is contaminated? Where do you put it? I can tell you that the answer will be NIMBY--not in my backyard. That is the first thing everybody will say. ``Can't you find a better or safer place to put it?" Also, does dredging cause more harm, potentially, to the health and environment than leaving the contaminated sediments in place? When you stir it up and dig into the contaminated sediments, do you spread more out and do you get more in the water supply or in the air? These are things that scientists ought to tell us. The National Academy of Sciences is working on it. What would you do with thousands of truckloads of dredge material if you dredged it up and the National Academy of Sciences says you should have left it in place? Well, it is important that we act on science around this place. I know there are some groups that love to write letters and have their own agenda and say that we need to move forward. I believe most people in this body would agree that getting a peer-reviewed study by the National Academy of Sciences before we engage upon a massive and potential danger-causing activity--dredging up sediments, or other invasive remedies--makes sense. For that reason, I believe that carefully crafted language, which was agreed on by the OMB Director and the CEQ Director, is a far preferable resolution of this very serious question. Let's take the radical step of waiting to rely on the science. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Maryland such time as she may require.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, just to correct the record, the staff of the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee was consulted, was informed of this. This was not done without advice to them. That was just incorrect. I now yield the remaining time on this side to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from New Hampshire if he is ready to speak?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we reserve the remainder of our time on these amendments. I believe the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is on his way over. What time do we have remaining?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for her very eloquent statement. I know she and others and all of us extend our deepest sympathies to the families, the loved ones of those sailors who were killed in the cowardly act in the Gulf of Aden today. The cause of peace and international security is one that is worth a major effort, and it is not without sacrifices, as we saw today. I share the concerns and I share the strong commitment that we shall do everything in our power to identify the people behind this cowardly deed and take appropriate responsive action. We do not intend as a democracy committed to freedom and human rights to be deterred from our continuing efforts by these acts of terrorism. These do nothing but bring sorrow and heartache to the families and loved ones left behind, and they strengthen the will of the rest of us to say that we will not bow to the terrorists acts. They will not deter us. They only strengthen us not only in our prayers for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice but in our commitment to ensure it does not deter our activities. A Tragic Act of Terrorism on the U.s.s. Cole

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Very briefly, this bill includes the provision that provides up to an additional 6 months for EPA to finalize the arsenic in drinking water rule. They can finalize it before June 2001 but will not be held to the statutory deadline. And EPA does not anticipate finalizing the rule until April or May, despite the act's requirements. The practical effect of knocking this out would be to force EPA to spend its resources fighting in court to do what it cannot otherwise do, and that is take the time necessary to do the job right. The Safe Drinking Water Act called for a full year of comment. The full year would be up June 2001. The most conservative estimates of compliance, including EPA's, for the smallest communities show water rates increasing by hundreds of dollars per family. The State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality says the rate increase to remove arsenic from the Heartland Mobile Home Park would be $230 per month per customer. Even the EPA said it would be $70 per month per customer. Do you know what is going to happen? No system. They are going to be off the system. There will be no water. They will get it from sources that are not protected at all. This is a very important rule that needs to be worked out scientifically. EPA has not identified the specific level in drinking water below which there is not a significant risk to public health. On the ozone nonattainment designation, it seems to me completely unreasonable that EPA should be making designations when that standard is before the U.S. Supreme Court. Why do the EPA and the State expend resources giving communities a black eye by designating them nonattainment areas when the entire ability to designate may be repealed by the Supreme Court? The EPA would be allowed, under this legislation, to move forward when the Supreme Court acts but no later than June 2001. Do not blacklist communities before there is a statutory authorization. The National Association of Counties has said this process will brand hundreds of new counties across the country clean air violators resulting in lost jobs and lost economic opportunity.

Mr. BOND. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask if we can have a copy of the amendment?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as comanager, I am pleased to present to the Senate, H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, as reported from the Committee on Appropriations. This is an unusual year. We have offered, and it has been accepted, a managers' amendment that I have offered with my distinguished colleague, Senator Mikulski, which will replace the Senate committee- reported text of H.R. 4635. This compromise amendment was worked out in agreement with Senator Mikulski, Congressman Walsh, Congressman Mollohan, and me in consultation with the administration. This is an unusual and far from perfect situation. It is not the way I would normally prefer to proceed with the passage of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Nevertheless, we have worked hard to develop a comprehensive package that considers the concerns of all colleagues in both the House and Senate. It also met the test for approval by the administration. I strongly believe that the proposed compromise language strikes the right balance in funding the programs under the jurisdiction of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. The managers amendment/compromise agreement totals some $105.8 billion, including some $24.6 billion in mandatory veterans benefits. This represents some $1.1 billion over the Senate committee-reported bill and almost $1 billion less than the budget request. Outlays are funded at some $110.7 billion for fiscal year 2001, $540 million over the Senate committee-reported bill of $110.2 billion. The bill meets our current funding allocation, per the Budget Committee. We also did our best to satisfy priorities of Senators who made special requests for such items as economic development grants, water infrastructure improvements and the like. Such requests numbered several thousand, illustrating the level of interest and demand for assistance provided in this bill. We also attempted to address the administration's top concerns, including funding for 79,000 new housing vouchers, as well as record funding for EPA at $7.8 billion. Before going into the details of the compromise agreement, I would like to commend my ranking members, Senator Mikulski, and her staff for their cooperation and support throughout this process. We would not have reached agreement as quickly, nor attained as good a result, without her active help. She is a vitally important part of this operation. I am deeply grateful for her help, guidance, and counsel. To turn to the elements of the bill: For Veterans Affairs, the proposed compromise language to VA/HUD FY 2001 appropriations bill includes funding for VA that totals $47 billion, including $22.4 billion in discretionary spending. Veterans needs remain the highest priority for this bill, and compared to the President's request, this bill has an additional $54.7 million. The compromise includes $20.28 billion for VA medical care, $1.4 billion more than the current level, and $351 million for research, an increase of $30 million above the budget request level for this key program which helps ensure the best quality of care to our veterans and keeps the best doctors in the VA system. The VA/HUD fiscal year 2001 appropriations compromise also includes about $180 million more than the President's request for VA medical care by including a provision that will ensure VA will not be penalized from collecting less in new receipts authorized under the 1999 Millennium Act. In addition, the compromise includes a new Title V, Filipino Veterans Benefits Improvements, which provides benefits to Filipino veterans who fought alongside American soldiers in World War II and who live in the United States, equal to those benefits provided to U.S. veterans of World War II. This is a long overdue remedy of inequitable treatment of Filipino veterans. We thank our colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their agreement and assistance in including this provision. For HUD, the VA/HUD fiscal year 2001 appropriations compromise appropriates some $30.6 billion, approximately the same as the budget request. This includes a section 8 rescission of some $1.8 billion in excess section 8 funds. This funding includes all the funding needed to renew all expiring section 8 contracts and also provides funds for 79,000 incremental vouchers, an administration priority. The public housing capital funding is increased by $45 million above the budget request in fiscal year 2001 to $3 billion. Similarly, the public housing operating funding has been increased by $50 million above the budget request in fiscal year 2001 to $3.242 billion. In addition, CDBG and HOME funds have been increased by $150 million each in fiscal year 2001 with CDBG at $5.057 billion and HOME at $1.8 billion, respectively. These are important block grant programs which rely on decisionmaking guided by local choice and need. I also hope these funds are used as an investment in housing production to meet the increasing affordable housing needs of low-income families. Staff work in this subcommittee has shown one of the serious problems facing us is lack of affordable housing. In addition, the VA/HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 funds section 202 elderly housing at $779 million, the budget request, and section 811 housing for disabled persons at $217 million, $7 million over the budget request. A separate account has been created at $100 million for the renewal of expiring shelter plus care contracts. This bill includes a number of noncontroversial HUD administrative provisions, whereas we have dropped, at the request of the Senate Banking Committee, a new housing production program for extremely low- income families and a provision that would have provided favorable treatment under FHA for municipal workers such as teachers, firemen, and police. We also have maintained a provision that would increase the amount of section 8 assistance available to PHAs for project-based assistance from 15 percent to 20 percent with a limitation that no more than 25 percent of the units in a building can be project-based, except in the case of seniors, disabled persons and scattered site housing as well as a provision that would require HUD to maintain section 8 projected- based assistance on a HUD-held or HUD-owned multifamily housing projects where the project is elderly or disabled housing unless that housing is not viable. These are important provisions that focus on local decisionmaking and local housing needs. For EPA, the VA/HUD fiscal year 2001 appropriations compromise includes a record $7.8 billion for EPA, plus an additional $138 million for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences which traditionally have been funded under EPA's appropriation and are funded separately in this bill. Thus, compared to the budget request, the compromise will provide an additional $686 million more than the President and about $400 million more than fiscal year 2000. Additional funds of $550 million above the budget request have been provided for clean water state revolving funds as well as additional funds of $12 million for section 106 water quality grants--$57 million above the fiscal year 2000 level to help states meet future total maximum daily load requirements. Compared to last year, the compromise increases operating programs by $246 million including an additional $20 million for the climate change technology initiative voluntary programs and protection of all core programs. The compromise does not fund new, unauthorized programs such as clean air partnerships or Great Lakes grants which would detract from EPA core responsibilities. With respect to legislative issues, the compromise bill includes the fiscal year 1999 bill with report language relative to the Kyoto Protocol. The proposed report would provide up to an additional 6 months for finalizing the arsenic-in-drinking water rule, and the bill modifies the so-called Collins-Linder provision on ozone nonattainment designations which would allow EPA to make designations once the Supreme Court decides this case but not later than June 2001. These so-called EPA riders are primarily report language which we believe are fair and reasonable compromises on issues where there are broad questions and we need to bring some resolution. While everyone may not agree with these decisions, we have worked hard to balance the decisions associated with this account to the overall benefit of EPA policy and funding needs in consultation with and agreement with the administration. For FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2001 appropriates a total of $936.8 million for FEMA and includes an additional $1.3 billion in disaster relief contingency funds. With the disaster relief funds provided here, coupled with contingency funds already on hand, funding will be sufficient to meet fiscal year 2001 disaster relief operations. Most notable in FEMA funding is the addition of $30 million above the Senate- or House-appropriated levels for emergency food and shelter, for a total of $140 million. This popular program results in temporary housing and food assistance to thousands of needy individuals with very little overhead costs. For the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the VA-HUD appropriations compromise funds NASA at $14.285 billion instead of $14.035 billion, for an increase of $250 million. This account includes $5.46 billion for human space flight, which is $37 million below the administration request for fiscal year 2001. This reduction reflects a NASA request for a reduction in this account in order to provide full funding for the Mars 2003 lander program. The funding includes $6.19 billion in fiscal year 2001 for science, aeronautics, and technology, instead of $5.93 billion as requested by the administration, an increase of $261 million above the budget request. Included in this is $20 million for Living with a Star and $290 million for the space launch initiative, including $40 million for alternative access to the space station initiative. In addition, mission support is funded for fiscal year 2001 at $2.6 billion, instead of $2.58 billion, an increase of $24.7 million over the budget request. For the National Science Foundation--and this is a very important area for the ranking member and me--the VA-HUD compromise funds NSF at $4.43 billion, a $529 million increase over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $146 million below the President's request. Funding highlights include $215 million for information technology research, $150 million for nanotechnology, and $65 million for plant genome research. Lastly, to assist smaller research institutions, $75 million was included for EPSCoR, a $20 million increase over last year's level, and $10 million for the Office of Innovation Partnerships. We believe very strongly the scientific exploration in space needs to be spread broadly throughout the land to ensure we achieve inclusion of knowledgeable and dedicated scientists at institutions which may not traditionally have received funding in the past. I consider NSF a priority account that needs additional funding in order to pace U.S. leadership in science and technology. Senator Mikulski and I have heard from leading scientists in this country who say that we are falling behind because we are not providing enough funding for the National Science Foundation. Medical doctors who depend directly upon the research work done at the National Institutes of Health have come to us and said that we must bring NSF funding up to NIH funding because so many of the health breakthroughs on which NIH is working depend upon the support the National Science Foundation provides. Senator Mikulski and I have launched an effort to double the NSF budget. We have circulated a letter and have a significant number of colleagues who have joined with us. We will be back. We will be asking the full Senate to recognize a priority in the National Science Foundation and help get us on that path for the next year. Finally, for the National Service Corporation, the VA-HUD fiscal year 2001 appropriations compromise appropriates $458 million, a $25 million increase over last year's level and $75 million below the budget request. Further, $30 million will be rescinded from excess funds in the National Service Trust. The compromise also funds the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund at $118 million, a $23 million increase over last year's level and $7 million below the request. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland. I yield 3 minutes to the junior Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I reserve the time that has been allocated to various Members. I now allocate 3 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. On behalf of the leader, permit me to explain that today the Senate will begin debate on the HUD-VA appropriations bill. Senators Byrd and Boxer have amendments in order. Those amendments will be offered and debated prior to 12:30 p.m. today. At 12:30, there will be up to four stacked rollcall votes on amendments to the VA-HUD bill, final passage of the bill, and final passage of the conference report to accompany the legislative branch/Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. Following the votes, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense authorization bill. There are approximately 6 hours of debate requested on the conference report. Therefore, Senators should expect votes into the evening regarding the DOD authorization conference report. I thank my colleagues for their attention.