Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the regular order.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what is the regular order? I understand we are to move temporarily off VA-HUD for the Hutchinson nomination.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am indeed quite happy and proud to present the Senate with the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations for fiscal year 2002. I thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for working with the subcommittee in order to give us an allocation that made the bill workable. The funding level falls within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I also thank Senator Bond and his staff for their bipartisanship and cooperation in support of this bill. This subcommittee has had a history of bipartisanship. That tradition continues today. When we began the 107th Congress, Senator Bond chaired this subcommittee. It is one of the most important because it funds so many of the agencies that meet compelling human need as well as the long- range needs of the United States of America. When the transition came, it came in an orderly, seamless, and collegial way. I hope that will also be the general tenor of our debate, that we can move forward on this bill on a bipartisan basis. I believe this bill is balanced, fair and meets the needs of the American people. My guiding principles in drafting this bill were simple: keep the promises to our veterans; meet the compelling day-to-day needs of working poor; re-build our neighborhoods and communities; and, invest in science and technology to create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Based on the President's budget proposal and our subcommittee's allocation, we had to focus on restoring cuts in the President's budget and avoiding riders. Our overriding goal was to make sure that the core programs in veterans and housing were taken care of first, and we did that. We could not increase spending for any programs until our core programs for veterans and the poor were taken care of. While I wish the subcommittee had more resources for science, we did the best we could do given our allocation. I remain fully committed to doubling the budget for NSF over the next 5 years, but without the support of the administration, the authorizing committees, and the Budget Committees, the appropriators can not do it alone. Finally, we did not break new ground this year. We are staying the course because this is a year of transition both in the administration and in the Senate. For our Nation's veterans, we have increased VA healthcare by $1.1 billion over last year, for a total of $21.4 billion. This is $400 million more than the President's request. This will allow the VA healthcare system to serve 4 million patients in 2002 through 172 medical centers, 876 outpatients clinics, 135 nursing homes and 43 domiciliaries. VA continues to shift from an inpatient focus to outpatient care to serve more veterans in their communities. The funding in this bill will allow VA to open more community based outpatient clinics to better serve our Nation's veterans. This bill provides funding for VA to open 33 new outpatient clinics in fiscal year 2002. This marks the second year in a row that we have had billion-dollar- plus increase for veterans healthcare. We have also increased funding for VA medical research by $40 million over last year and $30 million above the President's request. This funding level will allow VA to continue progress in the treatment of chronic diseases; diagnoses and treatment of degenerative brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and; research involving special populations, especially those who suffer from spinal cord injury, stroke, nervous system diseases, and posttraumatic stress disorder. VA is also a training ground for doctors, nurses, and physician assistants. VA medical care and research is a national asset that benefits both veterans and non-veterans. We have also maintained our commitment to the VA State home construction program. As our veterans age in place, their needs and the needs of their families are changing. Outpatient clinics and State veterans homes bring the delivery of healthcare and healtcare services closer to our veterans and their families. This approach reduces costs for the VA and improves the quality of services for the veterans. We have also provided funding to speed the processing of veterans claims. From the time a veteran files a claim, to the time he or she receives a decision, takes an average of 205 days or nearly 7 months. This bill includes $46 million to hire additional claims processors to help reduce waiting times to 100 days by the summer of 2003. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we had two overall goals: expand housing opportunities for the poor, and rebuild our neighborhoods and communities; and help special needs populations. First, we have fully funded the renewal of all section 8 housing vouchers by funding the housing certificate fund at $15.6 billion. This is $1.7 billion more than last year. This amount includes an advance appropriation of $4.2 billion, for fiscal year 2003. This advance appropriation was included as part of the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2002 adopted earlier this year. We have carried this advance appropriation for the last several years and continue it this year. Within the section 8 account, we have provided funding for 17,000 new or ``incremental'' vouchers to provide more vouchers for people waiting for section 8 assistance. We have restored the cuts proposed by the President to critical the public housing capital account. The Public Housing Capital Program provides funds to public housing authorities to repair and renovate public housing units to update heating, ventilation, electrical, and plumbing systems. Funds can also be used to construct new public housing, as well as renovating existing units. We have provided $2.9 billion for public housing capital which is just below last year's level. We have restored funding for the Drug Elimination Grant Program to fight crime and drugs in public housing. We have provided $300 million for the Drug Elimination Program, just below last year's funding level. President Bush eliminated this program in his budget. We cannot stop or delay our fight against drugs and crime in public housing. HUD needs to be a force for stability in the neighborhoods that surround public housing. We increased funding for the CDBG program by $200 million over last year, to just over $5 billion in FY 2002. The CDBG program is one of the most effective tools for local economic development efforts. It gives our State and local officials flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local needs. For other HUD programs, we have continued funding at last year's levels for: empowerment zones; brownfields; homeless grants; and housing for the elderly and disabled. We would like to have increased funding for these programs this year, but our allocation was simply not high enough to provide across-the-board increases. We have included language to raise the FHA loan limits for multi- family housing by 25 percent this year--the first increase in many years. This proposal was included as part of the administration's budget request, and we included it as part of our bill. Raising the loan limits will help increase the supply of multi-family housing in this country. I wish we could do more for housing production. We cannot voucher our way out of our housing crisis. We need a new production program. I look forward to the recommendations of the Millennial Housing Commission and the Commission on Senior Housing. These two congressionally chartered commissions will give the Congress a blueprint for addressing the crisis in affordable housing. Once we receive those recommendations, I hope the Congress can take a step forward in solving this crisis. In the area of predatory lending and flipping, we are providing HUD with expanded legal authority to deny FHA insurance to lenders who have high default rates to help fight flipping and predatory lending. Earlier this year, I held a field hearing in Baltimore on the subject of flipping. Unfortunately, despite some progress, this despicable practice continues. To give HUD more resources to fight this problem, we have provided the Inspector General's office with $10 million specifically targeted to anti-predatory lending activities. In the area of community development, one of my highest priorities has been to help this country cross the digital divide. In this bill, we provide $80 million to help create computer learning centers in low- income neighborhoods through competitive grants to local governments and non-profits. For EPA, we provide $7.75 billion, an increase of $435 million above the President's request. We ensure that Federal enforcement of environmental laws remains strong by restoring the 270 enforcement jobs cut by the President's request. The President proposed a major shift in policy this year. He proposed to cut 270 environmental ``cops on the beat'' and shift enforcement to the States through a new $25 million State enforcement grant program. But major concerns have been raised about this approach. The EPA inspector general has found numerous examples of weaknesses in State enforcement programs. This is a very important issue, and we need to hear from our authorizers about how we should allocate our resources before we make a major policy shift. So we did not break new ground in this area, and we maintained the status quo for Federal enforcement. This bill also keeps our commitment to clean and safe water by fully funding the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund at $1.35 billion. The Nation is facing an enormous backlog of funding for water infrastructure projects--some estimates say as high as $23 billion per year. The committee acknowledges the validity of the problems faced by large cities and small communities alike in upgrading sewer and drinking water systems. Unfortunately, the administration chose to fund the new Combined Sewer Grant Program at the expense of the Clean Water State Loan Fund. This approach was opposed by our authorizers, and GAO told us it was a bad idea because it would weaken the Clean Water Fund. We regret that the administration took this approach and that we cannot provide the $450 million requested for the sewer grant program. We hope that in the future, the President's request will be more adequate to meet the needs of our communities. For the Federal Emergency Management Agency, our bill provides a total of $3.3 billion. Of this total, $2.3 billion is designated for the disaster relief account to be available in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. I should note for my colleagues that of the $2.3 billion designated for disaster relief, $2.0 billion is designated as an emergency under the terms of the Budget Act. Tropical Storm Allison had a devastating impact on Texas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. We need to replenish the disaster account so the funds continue to be available for the victims of Allison and future disasters we may face. We restore $25 million for Project Impact, an important effort that helps to raise visibility and public awareness for the need for pre- disaster mitigation. We also increase the FEMA fire grant program to $150 million. In the first year of this program, FEMA received over 30,000 applications requesting nearly $3 billion for fire fighting equipment, vehicles, and protective clothing. After seeing what our firefighters in Baltimore went through to deal with the Howard Street tunnel fire, the least we can do for these brave men and women is help give them the equipment and support they need to deal with the hazardous, life threatening situations they constantly confront on our behalf. We have also provided the FEMA Director with support to establish and run the new office of national preparedness as requested by the President. This new office will coordinate all the various Federal programs dealing with consequence management resulting from weapons of mass destruction. This is a very important initiative; so much so that the Appropriations Committee held 3 days of hearings earlier this year on the President's action plan. And we provide nearly $140 million for the emergency food and shelter and over $20 million to help FEMA modernize their flood mapping operation. We provide $14.6 billion for NASA programs, $50 million over the President's request and $300 million over last year. This was one of the more difficult parts of the appropriations bill to put together. We found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion plus overrun on the international space station. Let me say that while I am disappointed and appalled at the mismanagement of the space station, I am still committed to seeing the space station completed. NASA is currently having an outside review team conduct a thorough independent evaluation of the space station. That will give us a new road map for the station. Although we do make a slight reduction to the overall space station budget, we did not make any major decisions regarding the future of the station. We want to wait and see what the administration will do later this year and in their 2003 budget. Unfortunately, this is not the first cost overrun we have had with the space station. Since 1993 we have seen at least six different revised cost estimates that have taken the station's cost from $17.4 billion up to a staggering $28.3 billion--a stunning 61 percent increase. The committee is adamant that this has to stop. We are committed to completing the space station and that it be the world class research facility it was also supposed to be. But the culture at NASA has got to change so that NASA management gets these costs under control. The committee is not going to let NASA raid other important space programs to pay for these space station management failures. So here's what we do. First, we provide $1.7 billion for continued construction of the international space station. We redirect $50 million to the shuttle for safety upgrades. Protecting our astronauts is one of the most important priorities within the committee. Second, we cap total space station costs over the next 4 years at a total of $6.7 billion. Any proposal to exceed this cap must come with a presidential certification that it is needed and the additional costs are well known. Third, to ensure the station is in fact a world-class research facility, we add $50 million to the life and microgravity research program, which takes the program up to $333.6 million for fiscal year 2002. Then we transfer space station research out of the human space flight account into the science account where we protect it from being used any further to pay for space station overruns. Finally, we want NASA to create an independent review committee to develop options that will increase the amount of time crew members will have to conduct research on board the station. If this is going to a world-class research facility, we have to be sure the personnel on board have the time and support to carry out a viable research program. Over in the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account, we provide $7.7 billion. This is $478 million more than the President's request and is driven primarily by the transfer of the biological and physical sciences research program out of the space station account and into the science account to improve aviation safety and commercial competitiveness. For the National Science Foundation, we provide a total of $4.7 billion for research and education. This is an increase of $256 million or 6 percent over last year. We had hoped to provide more. Senator Bond and I--and a large number of our Senate colleagues--believe it is in the national interest to double the NSF budget over the next 5 years. This recommendation represents a downpayment on that policy objective. We reject the administration's proposal to cut the NSF research programs and instead, we increase them by $187.5 million over the request. We provide nearly $500 million for nanotechnology and information technology--two critically important research activities related to the Nation's economic competitiveness; $150 million to help meet the needs of developing institutions and States with $110 million for EPSCoR, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, $25 million specifically for instrumentation at smaller institutions, and $15 million for innovation partnerships between smaller schools and local industry. We provide $55 million for supercomputing hardware: $45 million for an earthquake research network, and $12.5 million to continue constructing a new radio telescope, called ALMA. We link hi-tech economic development with out academic centers of excellence through a new $10 million regional innovation clusters initiative designed to bring universities, industries and local government together to map out and carry out strategic R&D and economic development plans. Math and science education programs increase by nearly $90 million or 11%--to over $870 million, $872.4 million. We provide $190 million for the President's Math and Science Partnership program, $130 million in this bill; additional $60 million through hi-tech visa fees. We increase the stipends for graduate students in science and engineering by nearly 20 percent (or $3,500) to $21,500 per year. We provide $20 million for a new undergraduate workforce initiative. We increase support for programs related to historically black colleges and universities and other under-represented groups to $100 million. This is a Science Foundation budget that emphasizes three critical goals: (1) support for people--from the scientist to the grad student to our elementary and secondary school teachers of science and math; (2) support for the basic research enterprise of this country in strategic areas as well as to core disciplines in science and engineering; and (3) support for tools--the cutting edge equipment and instrumentation that is so crucial to move science forward. We have funded National Service at $420 million, which is $4 million more than the President's request, to keep National Service strong. Volunteerism is our national trademark. It highlights what is best about America. Volunteer programs are the backbone of our communities. They help preserve the safety net for seniors, keep our communities safe and clean, and get our kids ready to learn. The 2002 VA-HUD bill maintains our commitment to AmeriCorps by providing funding to support 50,000 members to continue our spirit of providing community service, reducing student debt, and to creating ``habits of the heart.'' We also continue our promise to bridging the digital divide. We provide $25 million to teach-the-teachers, to bring technology skills to those who have been left out or left behind in our digital economy. The bill meets compelling human needs and invests for our future. I would like to have been able to do more for science, technology and housing production, but this is the best we can do under our allocation and satisfy the priorities of our Members. To reiterate, this committee reported the bill and it compromises $84 billion in discretionary budget authority and $88 billion in outlays. The bill is balanced and fair and meets the needs of the American people. Our job was to meet certain compelling issues. My guiding principles were, No. 1, to keep our promises to the veterans for them to have the health care they need and not stand in line when they have to apply for their pensions; to work in the area of housing and urban development, that we would develop the programs and policies that would empower the poor to be able to move to a better life as well as rebuilding our neighborhoods and our community; also to stand up and protect the environment and invest in science and technology to create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Based on the President's budget proposal and the subcommittee allocation, we had to focus on restoring cuts in the President's budget and, of course, we worked very hard to avoid riders. Our overriding goal was to make sure that core programs in veterans and housing and the environment were taken care of. We did that. We could not increase the funding for every program that was meritorious, but we could meet the basic needs of our responsibilities. One of the areas that we were sorry we could not increase funding to the level we wanted was in doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation over the next 5 years. I want to talk about what we have done for veterans. We increased VA health care by over $1 billion. This is $400 million more than the President's request. It will allow the VA health care system to serve 4 million patients through 2002, 172 medical centers, 876 outpatient clinics, and over 135 nursing homes. VA continues to shift from inpatient focus to outpatient care. The funding in this bill will allow VA to open more community-based clinics. This marks also the second year in a row that we have increased funding for veterans health care. We have also increased funding for VA medical research by $40 million over last year. This funding level will allow VA to continue its progress in the treatment of chronic diseases, also the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and special populations, often those who bear the permanent wounds of war, that of spinal cord injury and post-traumatic stress. VA is a training ground for health care providers, and we have been able to keep our programs that encourage scholarships and other grant programs to do this. The other area we worked on was to increase the speed of processing for veteran claims. Right now, when a veteran files for a claim, it takes 205 days or nearly 7 months. We don't think veterans should have to stand in line to get this consideration. This bill includes $46 million to improve technology and hire additional processors. In the area of HUD, for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we had two overall goals: expand housing opportunities for the poor, but in an empowerment way, rebuild our neighborhoods and communities; and also help special needs populations. First, we fully fund the renewal of all section 8 housing vouchers by funding the housing certificate fund at $15.6 billion. This is $1.7 billion more than last year. This amount also includes an advance appropriation of $4.2 billion. This advanced appropriation was included in the concurrent budget resolution. Within the section 8 account, we provided funding for 17,000 new or incremental vouchers. We also restored the cuts proposed by the President to the public housing capital account. The public housing capital program provides funds to public housing authorities to repair and renovate public housing units, to update heating, ventilation, and plumbing. These are absolutely essential. We should not be a slum landlord. We have to raise those standards. Also, we have provided $300 million in the drug elimination program. President Bush eliminated this program, and we have very serious question about what is the best way to proceed. This year we didn't want to break new ground in terms of our general policies, so we have kept in the $300 million for drug elimination. We asked the authorizers to hold hearings on what is the best way we can keep drugs out of public housing and make sure that drug dealers don't use public housing as small business incubators for their deals. We also increased funding for CDBG by $200 million, taking it to just over $5 billion. We continued funding empowerment zones, brownfields, homeless grants, and housing for the elderly and disabled. We would surely like to have increased funding for these programs, but our allocation was not enough to do this. We hope that in next year's budget, we could take a look at it because these certainly are very meritorious. We have also included language to raise the FHA loan limit for multiple family housing by 25 percent. This is the first increase in many years. This proposal was included in the administration's budget request. Raising the loan limit will increase the supply of multiple family housing in this country. We need more affordable apartments. Rents are going sky high. We cannot voucher our way out of a housing crisis. We also need it for the middle class. Also, again, on a bipartisan basis, we know we need a new production program. We are looking forward to the recommendations of the housing commission and the Commission on Senior Housing so that we could then get a framework for proceeding. Also, my senior colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, chairing the Housing and Banking Committee, has been leading the fight against predatory lending. We started that fight in this committee under Senator Bond, and we are going to continue that. We have added funds in the inspector general's office to target the antipredatory lending activities. Also, we have provided in this bill $80 million to create computer learning centers in low-income neighborhoods. These will be competitive grants to nonprofits and to local governments. I prefer to keep it to nonprofits. This will help cross the digital divide and, we believe, can be used for job training during the day, structured afterschool activities in the afternoon, and essentially be one of the important empowerment tools. Let's move on to the environment. For EPA, we provide $7.5 billion, an increase of $435 million above the President's request. We ensure that the Federal enforcement of environmental programs remains strong. We restore 270 enforcement jobs cut by the President. The President proposed a major shift in policy this year. These 270 jobs are like our environmental cops on the beat. The President wanted to shift this to a grants program of $25 million. We again felt we were breaking new ground without the authorizers taking a look at what is the best way to enforce the environmental laws. We know it needs to be a Federal-State partnership. But we didn't want to eliminate our current framework until we had really a very clear, well-thought-through process. The EPA inspector general found numerous examples of weaknesses in State enforcement programs. That is why we had so many yellow flashing lights. This bill keeps our commitment to clean and safe water by fully funding the clean water State revolving loan fund at $1.35 billion. This Nation is facing an enormous backlog of funding for water infrastructure projects--some estimate as high as $23 billion per year. Out of all the requests we got for congressionally designated projects, probably the largest number and those that just cried out for a response were in water and sewer, from very small rural communities that are on the brink of disaster to large metropolitan water supplies where the water and sewer was built over 100 years ago and are on the verge of collapse. Mr. President, we really hope that it will be a major initiative of the authorizing committee to look at our infrastructure needs. I think this is very important in terms of a public investment for our communities. Let's go to FEMA. Our bill provides, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $3.3 billion. Of this total, $2.3 billion is designated for the disaster relief account to be available in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. I should note for my colleagues that of the $2.3 billion designated for disaster relief, $2 billion is designated as an emergency under the terms of the Budget Act. Tropical Storm Allison had a devastating impact on Texas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. We have to replenish this disaster account and at the same time have a cushion for these impending disasters. We restore $25 million for Project Impact and increase the FEMA fire grant program to $150 million. I will be saying more about that in the course of the bill. Mr. President, I want to move on to NASA. We provided $1.46 billion for NASA programs--$50 million over the President's request--and $300 million over last year. This was one of the more difficult parts of our appropriations. We found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion-plus overrun on the international space station. I will say that again. We found ourselves dealing with a $4 billion overrun on the international space station. I am very disappointed and dismayed at the way the space station is being managed. I am going to be very clear on the record. I am absolutely committed to the space station, and I am going to do all I can to see that it is completed. But NASA needs to get its act together on the space station and deal with these cost overruns. We really want to ensure that we do complete the space station but not at the expense of cannibalizing other programs or reducing the space station to only three astronauts. You cannot do the space station science for which this whole project was completed with three astronauts. We also need to be sure that our astronauts can return safely. We need to focus on the safety of our astronauts, and this is one of the other reasons we are working on shuttle upgrades. On the National Science Foundation, know that Senator Bond and I wanted to double it, but we could not. We did increase it by $256 million. We hope to provide more. Senator Bond and I, and a large number of colleagues, think it is in our national interest to do so. This recommendation represents a downpayment on that policy objective. We provide nearly $500 million for nonotechnology and information technology, and $150 million to meet the needs of institutions and States. We also are increasing math and science education, as well as supercomputing hardware. The Science Foundation budget will emphasize three goals: Support for people--from the scientist to the graduate student; to develop support for the basic research enterprise of this country; and also support for the tools we need for future science and technology. Let me go into national service. We funded national service at $420 million. This keeps national service strong. Voluntarism is our trademark and it highlights the best of America. What we did here was provide $25 million to teach-the-teachers in technology. We have included that in the bill to encourage veterans to volunteer with our young people. Again, we could have done more, but we just didn't have the money. I think what we did do meets these needs. This speech is kind of boring because it is about numbers and data-- $500 million over here, $300 million this, and the President's that, and our requests, et cetera. But when you get down to it, what this money represents is really a commitment to honoring our veterans, building our communities, housing and urban development, protecting our environment, and investing in space in the National Science Foundation so that we have the new ideas to come up with the new products, encouraging voluntarism. We also provide that in the event any community is hit by a national disaster, while they have to go through the records, they would not have to forage for funds to pay for it. I thank Senator Bond and his very capable staff for their most collegial and cooperative efforts in moving this bill forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1214.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we know of no one who wishes to speak against this amendment. This is not a money amendment; it is a timing amendment. We have the support of our colleagues. Knowing there is no one else who wishes to speak on it, I urge its adoption.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the bill, of course, is open to amendment by any Member. We know our colleague, Senator Wellstone, has an amendment, and after that, we know our colleague, Senator Boxer, will also be offering amendments. Then hopefully after that, Senator Kyl will have an amendment. If everybody comes to the Chamber and cooperates the way Senator Wellstone immediately came to the floor, it is conceivable we can finish this bill this evening, a record time. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1218 to Amendment No. 1214

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to comment on Senator Wellstone's amendment. First of all, I have a great deal of admiration for my colleague from Minnesota. His advocacy for veterans has been longstanding from the day he walked into the Senate. He has been, first of all, a champion for health care for all Americans. He has also been particularly vigorous in the issues related to veterans health care. He has been one of the few to speak up for the so-called ``atomic veterans''--those exposed to nuclear testing and nuclear radiation. He has spoken for the veterans who are homeless and mentally ill. I know he is very closely identified with the veterans service organizations, especially those that produce something called the independent budget where the veterans organizations themselves look at what the President is proposing. They gave commentary. Senator Bond and I met with leaders of those veterans service organizations. They made compelling cases. They told us stories from the waiting room about what our veterans were facing. Senator Bond and I really would love to have increased veterans funding even more. But we had an allocation. The allocation enforced budget caps. This subcommittee intends to live within its budget caps. This is why it is with great reluctance that I oppose Senator Wellstone's amendment, because it is an addition of $650 million without an appropriate offset. This essentially breaks the caps. What does breaking the caps mean? It puts us into deficit spending. And it could also result, because of other budget and tax break decisions, in putting us even up against the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. I don't dispute many of the compelling arguments that my colleague made, but at the same time this subcommittee had the difficult task of balancing many needs--veterans health care, the need of housing, the need of low-income Americans to really try to deal with the terrible problems that children face with lead paint poisoning--I know that is something the Senator from Minnesota has championed--protecting the environment, and other issues that we have enumerated in the bill. We have a very tight allocation. I think we did a good job. First of all, we did not abandon the veterans. We did not break any promises to the veterans. In fact, we added $1 billion more in veterans health care than we had last year--$1 billion more than last year. This is actually even $400 million over what President Bush requested. It is over $100 million more than what is in the House bill that they sent over to us. We think we have put our promises into the Federal checkbook. What does this bill do? This level of funding will allow VA to open at least 33 more community-based outpatient clinics. It also makes sure that we cut down on the waiting time for veterans to receive health care. We have also increased funding in veterans medical research. There is $390 million for VA medical and prosthetic research. What do we do there? The Senator has spoken about the chronic problems of aging veterans. He is absolutely right. That is why we want to increase research for their treatment, and also to pay particular attention to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Also, our research program encourages even more breakthroughs in prostate cancer. At the same time, we provide funds to recruit and retain high-quality medical professionals. We are in a war for talent. There is a shortage of nurses. We are in bidding wars to be able to get those nurses. While we keep the nurses, we have to try to recruit new ones. We are trying to create opportunities for nursing education so they can get their education through VA so they will be there to maximize the care that veterans need. I want to talk about claims processing, this whole issue of standing in line in order to get your claims processed. What are we talking about? We are talking about pensions. And we are talking about disability benefits that are service related, taking 205 days--7 months--to get the first decision. We think that is too long. We also think it is wrong. Therefore, working with our very able administrator, Mr. Principi, we have come up with funds to be able to hire and train more claims processors and improve technology and cut down that waiting time. We also want to talk about long-term care. There is money in this bill for what we call GREC, G-R-E-C. What does that mean? It means that these are geriatric evaluation centers. What does a geriatric evaluation center do? It makes sure that veterans get appropriate care; that we do not abandon them; and that we do not warehouse them. But a geriatric evaluation gives a complete physical, a complete neurological and mental health evaluation, to determine why someone might be suffering a loss of memory or undergoing behavioral changes. It could be Alzheimer's or it could be a brain tumor; we want to know. It is really in veterans health care where we are providing pioneering work in doing those evaluations. I must say, it is the only place in the Federal budget where anyone pays real attention to developing a cadre of geriatricians focusing primarily on veterans. So we meet those funds. Could we open more GRECs? You bet. Could we train more geriatricians? I wish we could. But I will promise you that each year we move further along, and we will continue to do that. At the same time, our veterans often do face the need for long-term care. We like the partnerships between the Federal Government and the State governments. This is why we provide $100 million for something called State Home Construction for the Care of Aging Veterans. This doubles the President's request and addresses the $285 million backlog in high-priority needs. We do have a backlog, and the backlog is not a wish list, it is a priority list. So we believe we have really met veterans' needs. Have we met them completely? No. Have we met them robustly? I believe yes. The total funding for the Veterans' Administration part of the VA-HUD bill is $51 billion. I would really commend to those on my side of the aisle to read the Democratic Policy Committee analysis of what the bill is. We hear numbers and statistics, and we can get lost in this. I hope they will take the time to see what we really did do for veterans in this bill, as well as improve construction projects--major and minor--and the processing of claims, et cetera, that we said. So again, I acknowledge the outstanding advocacy of my colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota. I acknowledge the validity of many of the points he has made. I thank the veterans service organizations for their very keen analysis of the independent budget. I say to them, I wish we could do more; but without breaking the caps, without coming right up against the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, we could not do more. So it is with great sadness but, nevertheless, fiscal responsibility to honor the budget caps that I will be opposing the Wellstone amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. And the Senator from New Mexico?

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Boxer amendment is an excellent amendment. I acknowledge the validity of the concerns raised by the Senator from New Mexico. When we arrive at this standard, and in southern Maryland on our Eastern Shore we face many of the same problems that the Senator from New Mexico faces, and the need to modernize infrastructure and to come up with environmental regulations is almost teetering to a national crisis. Each region of the country will have difficulty in complying, but we believe it will be a public investment with an incredible public health dividend. I support Senator Boxer's amendment for three reasons. First, I was a member of the conference on the VA-HUD bill last year when we required the administration to develop a new standard by June 22 of this year to protect our children and the elderly who are most at risk for high levels of arsenic, and the administration did miss the deadline. It was a congressionally mandated deadline, and the American people deserve a protective standard. The current standard for arsenic was developed in 1942. We know much more today about the negative health effects of arsenic. We have the benefit of five studies by the National Academy of Sciences that say the current standard is not protective enough. Right now our current standard is the same as Bangladesh and China. Nothing against those countries, but I think we can do better than Bangladesh. Third, many American communities are very concerned about how much it will cost. Again, I acknowledge the cost of compliance is a factor to be considered. I believe the Domenici bill we have all cosponsored will address this. This is a national crisis. It deserves a national response. It deserves national responsibility sharing. This is why we will need an authorizing bill. The VA-HUD bill includes $850 million for the drinking water State revolving loan fund. This should help, but it certainly is not enough to meet the enormous needs of our community to keep drinking water safe from arsenic and other issues. We could not address all of the issues in VA-HUD this year, but I believe the Boxer amendment is very important to establish a standard and the Domenici authorization will be a very important way to move forward. I note the Senator from Nevada is on the floor. I know he and the junior Senator from Nevada have introduced legislation to deal with our incredible shrinking water infrastructure, which is deteriorating by the minute. We hope in the second session of the 107th Congress to make a major initiative to hold hearings on the infrastructure needs facing our communities. We will be able to protect public health, generate jobs, and modernize our country's water infrastructure the way we did at the turn of the century. We need a new turn of the wheel. I am happy to support the Boxer amendment, and I look forward to working with the Senator from New Mexico. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise in support of Senator Boxer's amendment. I ask also to be an original cosponsor of the Domenici amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Widder, a detailee to the majority staff of Appropriations, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the VA-HUD bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this issue and look forward to working with you on this important issue. transportation research

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Appropriations Committee has recommended an increase of $10M above the FAA's $12.8M budget request to expedite the ASR-9 service life extension program. Unfortunately, the House Transportation bill failed to provide an increase in funding for this critical program. I have been advised that major portions of the ASR-9 radar processor will be unsupportable within 2 years. The supply of various critical spare parts--which are no longer manufactured by various commercial suppliers--is nearing a critical stage. When the supply of these parts run out, we run the risk of dangerous radar outages at 125 of our countries busiest airports. I am particularly concerned that if this $10 million of additional funding is not preserved in conference, delays in program startup will prevent the insertion of new technology in time to avoid potential radar outages.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge was completed in 1961 and carries more than 200,000 vehicles per day--far exceeding the 75,000 vehicle per day design. It is the Nation's only federally owned bridge. Newspaper accounts from 1994 cited the fact that the deteriorating condition of the bridge and its inadequate number of lanes has contributed to accident rates twice those of other segments of the Capital Beltway.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I personally associate myself with the leader's remarks and that of my two colleagues. I also knew Officer Chestnut. He was a Prince George's County guy. In fact, he was days from retirement. He would probably be fishing on the Chesapeake Bay now with his grandchildren. As we remark and express our gratitude for the men and women who protect us every day, we also have to think about their spouses, and we need to think about their children. They would not be here without their love and support. This is why, as we honor those who protect us, we also remember the families who support them so they can do so. I thank the leader for pausing, and God bless the souls of those men, and God bless the men and women who protect us and their families.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I join with my colleagues, Senator Reid and Senator Sarbanes, as an enthusiastic cosponsor of their respective amendments that I believe, should they be agreed to, will make America safer. Last week in Baltimore we had a terrible train wreck in something called the Baltimore tunnel. A train overturned. It was a freight train. Immediately, we were not sure what was in it; what were the consequences of a fire; were we going to have an explosion; and whether the smoke billowing out of the tunnel was going to be a toxic plume over Baltimore. The civil defense alarm sounded for the first time in Baltimore in 50 years. The mayor jumped into action immediately, as did our brave firefighters and emergency management people because we had to both contain the fire and we had to contain panic. I salute the mayor and the Governor for the support he gave the mayor, and the brave men and women of our public safety organizations, our firefighters, emergency management, public works, and also the citizens of Baltimore. The railroad worked in a hands-on fashion with our mayor. I am happy to report that, as of now, we have pulled the railroad cars out, the smoke is clearing, but now the next phase needs to begin. During this saga that was unfolding, both in Baltimore and in the national media, our first fear was for the firefighters, the first responders, the ones who had to go in there and who initially were not sure what they were going into. The temperatures were reading 1,500 degrees. You could not get in through the smoke. They went down through manholes--let me tell you, through a manhole to a 8-foot platform, then down another ladder to see what the deal was. Our firefighters had to be tethered so we did not lose them in the smoke. You know what. They did it. They did it without flinching. They did it without hesitation. They did it with skill. They did it with integrity and unparalleled courage. We salute them. And also a salute to their spouses who were there to support people doing such daring deeds. Yes, the railroad worked, chem-hazmat worked, but now we have to get back to our work so we can protect the first responders, protect property, and also protect the nearby neighborhoods. This accident, which shut down much of Baltimore and the freight movement in the Northeast Corridor, really was a wake-up call to take a close look at the practice of transporting hazardous materials through roads and tunnels. Because we do use railroads, we do use trucks, we do need to be sure that we know what is going through our communities. What made our quick response possible was that we had a manifest and we knew what was happening. We do not know the consequences of these new kinds of materials going through together, the synergistic effects. One car had paper, the other car had hydrochloric acid, and the other car had other hazardous waste. One needs to be fought with water. One could have caused other problems if you fought the fire with water. I am not evaluating the best way to transport these items, but we have to do our homework so we can protect our people. This is why I join with my esteemed colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada. He has an amendment that calls upon the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Comptroller General, to conduct a study evaluating the hazards and risks to public health, safety, the environment, and the economy associated with the transportation of hazardous chemical and radioactive materials; and to take a look at our transportation infrastructure and the improvements necessary to prevent accidents involving such chemicals and other materials, and to examine the preparedness of Federal, State, and local emergency and medical personnel to respond to these accidents. Well done, Senator Reid. This is exactly the kind of amendment we need. This is exactly the kind of amendment we need so we show we are standing sentry over our communities and making sure we have the infrastructure necessary to protect our communities. That Baltimore tunnel is over 100 years old. It was built when railroads were built. The Garret family created the B&O Railroad and it went west. It was one of the first railroads to go west. We want those railroads to continue to run. The Port of Baltimore will not exist without our railroads, so we are not saying don't do it. But when we are going to do our transportation, let's do it right. The whole idea of examining the preparedness of Federal, State, and local emergency and medical personnel is also appropriate. As the chairperson of the subcommittee on VA/HUD that funds FEMA, this is also how we need to make sure our first responders and our emergency management people are ready. We have to have them ready as ``all hazards'' personnel. We could have something that was an accident, which was a chemical accident, where there are other things where there are attacks on the United States. This is where we need to be prepared. This is where we need to be prepared. We salute this amendment. I hope my colleagues will endorse it. Also, my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has taken the leadership role of directing the Secretary of Transportation to study existing rail infrastructure in the Baltimore metropolitan area. It directs the Secretary to make those recommendations because we are worried about our rail infrastructure, including improvements in tunnels, bridges, and other rail facilities. We want them to do it in conjunction with the FRA, the chair of the Surface Transportation Board, the State of Maryland, our railroad folks, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Amtrak. The amendment calls for a study to be used, and it provides that the railroads in the State of Maryland also join in this joint partnership. I believe they will. These studies need to be done with a sense of timeliness and a sense of urgency. Thank God we escaped without the loss of life. We thank God that there was no major loss of property. Thank God we didn't have to evacuate communities. But an incredible economic toll resulted. It was not only the Orioles game being canceled, but it was the delay of freight which slowed down the corridor with enormous consequences. But the consequences would have been even more severe had we not had the current infrastructure in place. I believe the best way we say thank you to the emergency management people, our firefighters, and for the excellent job our people did in responding is to have a parade, which I hope Baltimore has--I hope not only with banners, which we ought to display with pride, but I also think we should say it with deeds. And these two studies are a good way to do it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak today to pay tribute to the life and legend of Katharine Graham. It is as if the Washington Monument has fallen. It is as if the lights have gone out at the Smithsonian Institution or the lights have gone out at the Lincoln Memorial. I truly cannot imagine Washington without Kay Graham. She was a Washington institution, a very real person with a remarkable mix of qualities. Much has been said about her grace, her grit, her steel, her great intelligence. Kay Graham put those qualities into action. She lived an extraordinary life and left an indelible mark on our Nation. I know the Presiding Officer liked Kay Graham because she took chances. Perhaps one of the greatest chances she took was when she actually took the helm of the Washington Post. Think about it. It was 1963. It was not a time when women did bold things, power things, and they certainly were not on the rung of leadership to be CEOs. She was a woman who had faced an enormous personal tragedy. But as she reflected on where she was, where her family was, and where this newspaper was, she decided to take the helm. She was initially a reluctant leader, thrown into a leadership position because of the death of her husband. In embracing a leadership position, she set about hiring the very best people and giving them the independence to create one of the greatest newspapers in the world. She built a Fortune 500 company. And guess what. She became the first woman to head a Fortune 500 company. There were other firsts for Katharine Graham as well. She was the first director of the Associated Press, the first woman to lead the American Newspaper Publishers Association. I could go through a whole list. Now we take for granted that women will lead, that women will be in positions of leadership in the private sector and in the public sector. We now enjoy the fact that there are 13 women in the Senate. We have women as university presidents, Governors, and CEOs from dot coms to leaders of the old economy. Yet we cannot forget how hard it was to be the first because for the first and the only, it is also being the first and the lonely. What Katharine Graham did was involve other people in her life and in her family and in creating that institution. She was known for probably two great milestones in the history of journalism. She made the courageous decision to print the Pentagon Papers, which gave us this view on the Vietnam war, and then she rigorously pursued the Watergate story. It is said that men in the highest of power just cringed at the name of Katharine Graham, the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee and the team that he assembled. The highest levels of Government tried to suppress these stories. They used threats. They used intimidations. Katharine Graham did not flinch nor did she falter. The Washington Post and Kay Graham stood firm. Katharine Graham knew her role was to print the truth, no matter what the impact would be. She truly changed the course of history. Mrs. Graham's actions reinforced the fact that the freedom of speech cannot be abridged--especially by our own Government. While she hired gifted and talented reporters and editors, she herself did not take up the pen until 1997 when she wrote a book called her ``Personal History.'' Her autobiography struck a chord even with people who cared nothing about the ways of Washington. In it she had wonderful stories about historic figures. She also showed that she herself was a gifted and talented writer, going on to win the Pulitzer Prize. So much for being a shy, awkward debutante of 40 years before. What really resonated was the story about a woman who faced crises and confronted them with courage and dignity. I know the Presiding Officer has experienced some of the same. We all cheered when Kay won that Pulitzer Prize because we knew she deserved it and we were proud of her. I was deeply grateful for a chance she took on me. In 1986 I was running for the U.S. Senate. I was viewed by some as a long shot. The Washington insiders said I did not look the part, and they were not sure that I could act the part. But as history has shown, I got the part. One of the reasons I got the part was because of the endorsement of the Washington Post. I will be forever grateful to have gotten the Washington Post endorsement in both my primary and the general. Meg Greenfield--the wonderful and special friend, Meg Greenfield--felt that I had the qualities to become the first Democratic woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right. I just want to say that Kay Graham, this wonderful blue-blooded lady, welcomed a blue-collar spitfire. And for that I will always be grateful. When I came to the U.S. Senate, I came with her endorsement and her welcome. It is something I treasured in those years as she introduced me to people. She had me in her home. I had a chance to be at those great parties she had to essentially get started in my own life in Washington. But the story that I want to recall is one that is very special to me in which I participated with her. It was 1987. The late Pamela Harriman was asked to host a lunch at her home for Raisa Gorbachev to introduce her to ``women of distinction.'' Dobrynin had called Mrs. Harriman to host this luncheon. Mrs. Harriman called me. And guess who else was on the list? My colleague, Senator Nancy Kassebaum--there were only two of us in the Senate then--Kay Graham of the Washington Post, Sandra Day O'Connor, at that time the only woman on the Supreme Court, and Dr. Hanna Grey, the president of the University of Chicago. What an incredible lunch. First of all, we were the talk of Washington, and we were the talk of the world. Raisa was trying to woo America to show that Soviet women were smart and fashionable. And she chose as her venue the Pamela Harriman lunch. I tried to engage her, in her dissertation on what life was like on the collective farm, as two sociologists. We talked about life and times. But the hit of the lunch was Kay Graham and the way she engaged Raisa Gorbachev. Under Kay Graham's incredible graciousness, courtesy, manners, and charm was one ace investigative reporter. While the rest of us were talking and engaging in intellectual conversation, Mrs. Graham began to engage Mrs. Gorbachev in these kinds of questions: What is it like to be the functional equivalent of the First Lady in the Soviet Union? What was your surprise when you came to power? What do you find it like as in the life of a woman? I wish you could have heard the late Mrs. Gorbachev's answers. We saw a side of Raisa Gorbachev we didn't know: a woman who saw herself as a scholar, coming to power with a man who had been the head of the Department of Agriculture, that they were changing world history. She was shocked by the number of letters she received, the way the Soviet women had reached out to her, one on one. We heard that Raisa story because of the way Kay Graham talked to her. It was a very special afternoon. I got to know Mrs. Gorbachev a lot better. Do you know who else I got to know a lot better? Kay Graham. She had world leaders at her feet and at her side. But most of all, she had the gratitude of leaders who knew that at the Washington Post there was a great leader who was willing to meet with other leaders but, no matter what, she said to print the truth and call them the way she saw them. I am sorry that Kay Graham has been called to glory. God bless her, and may she rest in peace. She has left a legacy that should be a benchmark, a hallmark, and a torch for every other newspaper in America, for all of us who hold leadership, and for we women who are in power. May we be as gracious and as unflinching in our duties as Kay Graham. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Good morning, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.