Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all of their kind comments on this legislation and also how they were complimentary, both on the content and the bipartisan nature of it. We really only have one unresolved issue and that is the amendment raised by our colleague from New Hampshire. I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, we admire his stewardship over Federal funds and his insistence on accountability. However, we think his amendment, though very well intentioned, is really misguided. We are concerned, both on the basis of content and then also the consequences for this legislation. Number one, if the Gregg amendment should prevail, this could have the consequence of really killing this bill. This is a bill that has been arrived at through a very delicate bipartisan agreement, not only within our own institution but in the House. We are in the closing hours of the 106th Congress. If an amendment is agreed to, we are going to have to have a conference or this bill will go back to the House. Then the lid goes off and we will be involved in a variety of other discussions. I think my colleagues know that once you start talking you tend not to stop talking. So we really encourage that people be aware this could sink the Older Americans Act for the 106th Congress. I would so regret that because we have worked so hard among ourselves with constituency groups and others. Really, from the standpoint of process, I hope, one would really look at this. The second point is, in terms of the Gregg amendment itself, we are concerned that it does not provide due process. What it would do is allow a preliminary finding from an agency other than the Department of Labor to stop an organization from running its jobs program. There would be no opportunity to appeal or to be heard. There would be an audit by the IG or GAO, which would then serve as a final determinant. Audits are meant to raise questions, not to be a final determination. So we would raise that as, really, a very serious question. This amendment is not needed. Current law already prohibits using these funds for lobbying or litigation against the Government. These are in well-known, well-circulated OMB circulars. Also, our own legislation pending before the Senate already has pretty firm, strict, and clear accountability. It says if you don't meet the standards, you lose all or part of your grant. And then those funds not used, because you have lost them, will be able to be competed for by other national organizations. This is a process for recompeting funds of a State or nonprofit agency or organization that does not meet established performance standards. I believe the process will work, and we should not interfere with it. We believe we do have very firm accountability in this legislation. These performance measures in this bill are simply this: If an organization or a State fails to meet these standards or improve its performance, other entities will get the opportunity to competitively bid for a portion or all of the organization's grant. We establish a minimum amount that must be spent on enrollee wages and fringe benefits. We clarify the way the organization must define and report their costs, so there is no room for ambiguity. We codify our own clear responsibility tests and have very firm criteria for granting eligibility. We require a broad planning process so the area of greatest need within a State is served as efficiently and as specifically as possible. These provisions will ensure seniors get the high-quality services they deserve, and taxpayers will get value for their dollar. Also, know that in addition to what we have in this legislation, as I said, the Government already has Government-wide standards and procedures, applicable to the suspension and debarment of any Federal contractor and grant recipient. The NSCERC is currently engaged in an audit resolution process with DOL. All indications are that this process is working and we should not interfere with it. Also, during the debate words were used such as ``slush fund,'' et cetera. I think that was a little harsh and inaccurate. Did the National Senior Citizens Education Research Center have problems? You bet. The Department of Labor did an audit. They found that there was no malicious intent to defraud. There was no intent to be scum or scam. What they did was essentially have a certain program related to the HIP indemnity in the wrong category. Do they owe the Federal Government some money? Yes. Is there discussion ongoing now about the most effective way to recapture that? Yes. I ask unanimous consent that a document giving the status of the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center grant program be printed in the Record, along with a letter from the Department of Labor essentially saying how all of this is currently going through a process and is coming to a satisfactory conclusion. Some serious mistakes were made, but they were not malicious, they were not criminal, and they were not intentional.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the other point I want to make is we have the accountability. This is a good program, and it is hard to administer. The Senior Community Service Employment Program is under title V. Do you know what it does? It helps old people of modest income find work. This is not easy. This program itself serves the oldest and poorest in our society. Forty-one percent are minorities, the highest minority participation of any Older Americans Act program. This primarily helps women. Seventy percent of them are women. They are old. They are poor. They are trying to add extra money to hold body, soul, and prescription drugs together. At the same time, 83 percent are over 60; 36 percent do not have a high school education; 11 percent have disabilities. This is a very intensive hands-on program to operate. It takes a lot of help to get people ready for a job and a lot of professionalism to find the jobs for them. By all accounts, all of the grantees have met those criteria. I could go through example after example in my own State, but I will give two. An 85-year-old woman is now a senior aide working as a library assistant for $7.17 an hour. Another 71-year-old female was employed as a customer service rep of one of our Maryland agencies because she had good manners and a good work ethic, and therefore they taught her the skills to earn some extra money. These are the kinds of people this program helps. Many of the nonprofits that operate these programs operate with a very low margin. This is a very cost-intensive and labor-intensive program to operate. I hope we defeat the Gregg amendment because: First, it is not necessary. We have good, tight accountability requirements in the bill and responsibility. Second, it will kill the bill. And third, we do not need to add more bureaucracy, more shackles, more audits, more paperwork just because we are cranky with one organization. Let's give them the chance to meet the responsibilities established by the Department of Labor and pay the money back, and let's renew the Older Americans Act and leave this Senate with our heads held high that we defied the laws of inertia in this institution and reauthorized the Older Americans Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we concluded a short time ago with the argument by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, on his concerns about some aspects of the Older Americans Act. I thought we were going to resume a robust debate. That does not quite seem like it is going to happen, but I am going to have things to say. Right now I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally, and then I will take the floor and begin my rebuttal.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senate passage of the bipartisan Older Americans Act--OAA Amendments of 2000-- H.R. 782. This bill passed the House yesterday with the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 405-2. The Senate companion bill S. 1536 has 72 cosponsors. H.R. 782 is a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reauthorize the OAA. It is built on the strong foundation of S. 1536 and the bipartisan compromises reached by the HELP Committee in that bill. It also has the overwhelming support of the aging community. H.R. 782 is well worthy of your support. This bill long overdue. It keeps our promise to older Americans to retain and strengthen current OAA programs, but is also provides new innovations and accountability to further improve the Act. It will ensure that the Older Americans Act continues to meet the day-to-day needs of our country's older Americans and the long range needs of our aging population. The highlight of this bill is the creation of the national Family Caregiver Support Program. This program will provide respite care, training, counseling, support services, information and assistance to some of the millions of Americans who care for older individuals and adult children with disabilities. it also will help grandparents who care for grandchildren. This program has strong bipartisan support, will get behind our nation's families, and give help to those who practice self-helped. Today our families are the backbone of the long term care system in this country. Currently about 12.8 million adults need assistance from others to carry out activities of daily living, such as bathing and feeding. By 2030 there will be about 21 million people over the age of 70 needing care. More than half of the elderly that do not currently receive help do not expect to have help in the future. One in four adults currently provides care for an adult with a chronic health condition. The economic impact of caregiving is staggering. A recent study found that on average, workers who take care of older relatives lose $659,139 in wages, pension benefits, and Social Security over a lifetime. Further, it is estimated that the national economic value of informal caregiving was $196 billion in 1997. Many of us have personally cared for sick or aging parents or other relatives and understand firsthand the strains and stresses facing caregivers. We know that adult children are most often the providers of care for seniors. This is the sandwich generation with moms and dads caring for their own children and their own parents. They have full- time jobs at the office and then they come home to full time jobs of caring for other family members. My sisters and I cared for my mother when she was ill. We were fortunate. We all lived relatively close to my mother and could share caregiving responsibilities. But may families may be scattered across the country and find it more difficult to ensure that older members of their family are cared for properly. In addition, as our population ages, many people are living longer. We now see 80-year-old spouses caring for each other. We can see 70-year-old daughter caring for her 90-year-old mother. The National Family Caregiver Support Program will help caregivers across the country care for their older relatives, grandparents care for grandchildren, and older individuals care for adult children with disabilities. It is a vital new innovation in this bill. It will meet the day-to-day needs of countless families across the country. We must pass this bill to create this program to help families. When many Americans think of how the Federal Government helps our country's older Americans, they think of Social Security and Medicare. But what many Americans do not realize is the vital role that the Older Americans Act plays in meeting the day-to-day needs of seniors in this country. In this bill we maintain core programs in this Act that help our seniors. Some of the most well known OAA programs are congregate and home- delivered meals. OAA provides about 240 million meals to over 3 million older persons. About half of these meals are provided in congregate settings and the other half are provided to frail older persons in their homes. These meal programs are vital to seniors. A national evaluation of the nutrition program shows that, compared to the total elderly population, nutrition program participants are older and more likely to be poor, to live alone, and to be members of minority groups. The report found that the program plays an important role in the participants' overall nutrition and that these meals are the primary source of daily nutrients for these seniors. For every Federal dollar spent, the program leverages on average $1.70 for congregate meals, and $3.35 for home-delivered meals. A hot lunch at a senior center could be the only hot meal some seniors get each day. Congregate meals also provide an opportunity for seniors to get out of their homes and socialize with other older persons in their community. After a meal, seniors may stay on for other activities. A meal can lead to a spirited game of bingo, ping-pong, pool, a dance class, or an exercise class. These kinds of activities keep older Americans more active and engaged which can help them live longer and live better. Home-delivered meals allow the frail elderly to enjoy a nutritious hot meal in the comfort of their own home. It can help keep seniors in their own home rather than having to live in an institution. We also maintain important protective services for seniors such as legal assistance, the long-term care ombudsman, and elder abuse prevention activities. Legal assistance helps seniors with everything from writing a will to guardianship issues to assistance with housing to accessing Social Security benefits. The long-term care ombudsman is the only OAA program that focuses solely on the needs of institutionalized persons. A senior in a nursing home or that senior's family can contact a local long-term care ombudsman if they are concerned about the quality of care their family member is receiving in a nursing home. The ombudsman is a neutral third party that investigates and helps resolve complaints about quality of care. This is an invaluable resource for seniors to help ensure that they get the best care possible. The Act also provides for elder abuse prevention programs. OAA helps coordinate elder abuse prevention programs and combat crimes against seniors. It helps train professionals who serve seniors to help them better recognize signs of abuse and help seniors who are victims of abuse. OAA helps increase public awareness about elder abuse both among seniors and in the community at large. We keep innovation and new ideas flowing by maintaining a separate and distinct Title IV for Research and Demonstration Projects, which is where innovative programs like the eldercare locator got started. We recognize the importance of the White House Conference on Aging to the aging community, and require the President to call such a conference before the end of 2005. Past White House conferences have brought forth innovative new ideas and created new programs to better serve seniors. We maintain strong support for transportation services, which are critically important to seniors in our rural areas. I know this can be especially important in areas like Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore where seniors may have to travel further to the grocery store or a doctor's appointment or to their nearest senior center. And we retain core provisions of the law, like minority targeting language. That language ensures that OAA services are directed to those who need them the most. However, we acknowledge that unmet need can exist in rural areas, so we have included provisions to help improve the delivery of services to older individuals in rural areas. At the same time, we recognize the need to strengthen certain programs in the Act and increase accountability. We have focused efforts on strengthening accountability and improving the Senior Community Service Employment Program or title V. This program provides part-time community service jobs to low-income seniors. It gives them a steady source of income that they need for rent, groceries, medical care, and utilities. Most of the seniors participating in the program are older women whose work histories include working in the home, domestic work, caring for their children and grandchildren, or part-time unskilled employment. Many have not finished high school. Few have pensions, and Social Security or supplemental security income may be the only source of income for the majority of participants. They count on their check from this program to pay their bills. Seniors also receive valuable training and skills that enable them to get unsubsidized jobs in the public and private sectors. This is especially important in today's right labor market. Increasingly, employers are looking to older workers to fill jobs traditionally not held by older Americans. Title V also gives something back to communities. Seniors in this program serve meals in senior centers and drive the vans to help seniors get to their local senior center for a hot lunch. They work in schools and hospitals and day care centers. They make a difference in their communities and their work does not go unnoticed. We have taken a number of steps to increase accountability. We establish performance measures. If an organization or a state fails to meet these standards and improve its performance, other entities will get the opportunity to competitively bid for a portion or all of the original organization or entity's grant. We establish a minimum amount that must be spent on enrollee wages and fringe benefits. We clarify the way organizations must define and report their costs so that there is no room for ambiguity. We codify responsibility tests and new criteria for grantee eligibility. We require a broad and open planning process so that areas of greatest need within a State are served as efficiently as possible. While I believe that overall the current grantees are performing very well, these provisions will help ensure that seniors get the high quality services they deserve. They also strengthen the entire SCSEP program and do not target one particular grantee. This bill strikes a good balance between recognizing the need for additional resources to support OAA programs and protecting the most vulnerable seniors and their access to services. It specifically authorizes seniors to make voluntary contributions--donations--for all OAA services. The bill also allows states to require cost-sharing for a limited number of services such as transportation, respite care, and personal care. A long list of services is exempt from cost sharing, such as the meals program, information and assistance, and ombudsman. It also provides guidance to states and protections to help ensure that seniors are not discouraged from seeking services because of cost- sharing. I also want to note the strong need for increased funding for Older Americans Act programs. Very few OAA programs have seen increased funding in recent years, yet there is a growing need for services. I strongly support full funding of the new National Family Caregiver Support Program, but other OAA programs must also receive needed increases in funding. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and in the Senate leadership to do as much as possible to increase funding for these valuable programs in the final days of this Congress and in the future. I look forward to working with you to do that. I want to thank Senator DeWine, Chairman of the Aging Subcommittee, for his sincere dedication to reauthorizing the OAA and willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish this. Thank you to Senator Jeffords for his strong leadership in moving this bill through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and all the way through until enactment. Senator Kennedy also deserves credit for this bill--he continues to be a tireless advocate for the OAA and the people it serves. I want to thank the Senate staff that have worked so hard on this legislation: Sean Donohue, Hollis Turnham, Karla Carpenter, Jeff Teitz, Abby Brandel, and Rhonda Richards. I can not think of any better way to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the OAA in 2000 than by enacting this long-awaited bipartisan reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the bill and defeat of the Gregg amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise with great enthusiasm to support passage of the bipartisan Older Americans Act and its amendments for the year 2000. This bill enjoys very strong bipartisan support in this institution and in the House and, I believe, among the American people. Yesterday the House passed this legislation overwhelmingly, 405-2. The Senate companion bill that we are bringing to the attention of our colleagues today already has 72 cosponsors. There is strong bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. It is built on the strong foundation of S. 1536 and the bipartisan compromises reached by the HELP Committee in that bill. This legislation also has the strong support of the executive branch. President Bill Clinton's team from HHS was enormously helpful in enabling us to shape not only the reauthorization of the bill as we knew it but help create a framework for the future. The gifted Administrator on Aging, Jeanette Takamura, was tremendously helpful. This bill is long overdue in its reauthorization. The reauthorization expired in 1995. It became bogged down for almost 5 years in prickly politics, most of which had nothing to do with how we could make sure we were effectively serving the senior population. This year, as we moved into the 106th Congress, Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio and I pledged that we would do everything we could to come up with an excellent framework to meet the needs of the seniors, to not only reauthorize and rubberstamp but to look at it, to be both fiscally prudent but also to be effective with taxpayers' money. He worked very hard in doing that and worked very hard with my staff. I thank him and his staff for their collegial, cordial work on this legislation. Of course, Senator Jeffords has been tremendously helpful. He enabled us to hold our hearings, to move the process forward. I personally thank him. Of course, my champ, the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, with his very able staff, enabled us to work with the constituency groups, and so on. So we did all the right process things. Now it is time to move the process to closure. We have had debate. We have had hearings. We have had consultations. We have consensus. Now it is time we have reauthorization. I hope today we can move expeditiously, entertain any amendments that Members would like to offer, and dispose of them in a timely way. The seniors are looking for it. When I visit the senior centers in my own community, they say: How are you doing on the Older Americans Act? I say: We are doing fine, but the Older Americans Act is being stalled in a variety of procedural matters. Let's remove the procedural barriers. Let's also deal with the amendments. What I like about this legislation is that it keeps our promises to older Americans to retain and strengthen the current Older Americans Act programs, but it also provides new innovations and accountability to improve it. It will ensure that the Older Americans Act continues to meet the day-to-day needs of our country's older Americans and yet the long-range needs of an ever increasing aging population. One of the highlights of this bill is the creation of a program called the National Family Caregiver Support Program. This recognizes the tremendous aging population, many who are left at home, many of whom rely on the primary caregiver as the American family. The American family is stepping forward to take care of older parents and at the same time being able to raise their own children. This places tremendous stress on the family in terms of time, energy, and even finances, but, as always, the American family is up to it. The American family is ready to step forward. Often the caregiving is primarily done by women, some who have taken temp jobs, some who have taken flextime jobs, some who are juggling so many others, often to the tune of at least 20 or 40 hours a week either in their own home or going to the home of a parent. The American family is up to it, but we have to be up to supporting the American family. Government should never be a substitute for the family, but the family should be able to rely on the Government for certain support services to enable them to be the best at caregiving and not wear out. The National Family Caregiver Support Program will provide very important support services. It will also provide information assistance to millions of Americans who are searching for what are the best resources to help their older parent. Also, it provides for them training, counseling, and even some respite care. Even the best family can't keep at it 24-7, 52 weeks of the year. It will also help grandparents who care for grandchildren, and, as I said, this program has strong bipartisan support. Later I will go into the need for caregiving, why it is so important, why we need to support the families. At the same time, though, while we look for innovation, we also maintain the core programs of the Older Americans Act. I remember when this legislation was passed in 1972, I was so excited about it, working in Baltimore's neighborhoods, that we were actually going to have programs that would come right to the community and right at the neighborhood level. We knew the seniors needed support services. We knew they were facing loneliness. We knew they were facing poor nutrition. We knew they were often the subject of scams and fraud and a variety of kinds of abuse. As a result of what was done in 1972, we stayed the course. But now, what are the best practices, the highest use of new technologies, and so on, to accomplish this goal? The program called Meals on Wheels changed the face of America. Fifty volunteers, often working with nonprofits, were able to get meals into a home in order to keep people independent and at the same time keep a unique partnership between the Federal Government and nonprofits, helping people remain independent. There were people who were lonely--often widows or men who lost wives who were kind of walking around, hanging out at diners or cafes in certain areas. They needed companionship and maybe a hot meal, and they also needed a sense of purpose where they themselves would volunteer. We use the term congregate meals. What an insipid term because what we really wanted them to do is congregate with other people, to have fun and good meals and even learn some new skills which we are going to bring in with crossing the digital divide. Those nutritional programs kept people alive. My own dear mother, when she came home from an acute care facility, temporarily used that as we pitched in with the rest of the family. We also maintain a separate and distinct title IV program for research and demonstration because we think we have to try new ideas before we create them and institutionalize them into the legislation. Innovation has always been a unique characteristic. We also talk about a White House conference in 2005. We maintain another poor program-- support for transportation services. It is absolutely crucial in our own community and into rural areas. This language also requires older American services to be directed to those who need them the most. However, we acknowledged the unmet need that can exist in rural areas, so we included provisions to improve the delivery of services to older individuals in rural areas. I congratulate Senator DeWine, who really ensured a sensitivity to that. I represent rural counties myself. At the same time, we recognize the need to strengthen certain programs and increase accountability. The bill gives greater flexibility to transfer of funds between those congregate and home-delivered meals to the areas of greatest need. It also includes performance measures for States and private sector grantees in the Senior Community Service Employment Program. If these standards are not met and performance is not improved, other entities will get the opportunity to competitively bid for a portion or all of the original entity's grant--whatever the word ``entity'' means. While I believe that overall the current grantees are performing very well, these provisions will ensure that seniors get the high-quality services they deserve. We ensure accountability for not only the taxpayers' funds but the services being delivered. So this bill strikes a good balance between recognizing the need for additional resources to support OAA programs and protecting the most vulnerable citizens and their access to services. It also authorizes the seniors to make voluntary contributions for all OAA services. It also allows States to require cost sharing for a limited number of services, such as transportation, respite care, and personal care. A long list of services is exempt from cost sharing, such as Meals on Wheels, information and assistance, and that very important ombudsman program. It also provides guidance to States and protections to help ensure that seniors are not discouraged from seeking services because of cost sharing. I note the strong need for increased funding for the Older Americans Act programs. Very few OAA programs have seen increased funding in recent years. Yet there is a growing need for services. I support full funding for OAA and also for the new National Family Caregiver Support Program. Also, the core programs need increases in funding. So I think this is good legislation. I think it is good authorization. I think it will provide immeasurable guidance to the appropriators for the next 3 years. This morning I say we have good legislation. We can be so proud of the bipartisan, bicameral support. This is what America wants us to do, really--focus on the day-to-day needs of our constituents, look ahead to an aging population, and come up with a fiscally prudent, service-effective framework, and get the job done. All too often in this institution, when all is said and done, more gets said than done. Today, let's stay late and get the job done. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Senator Leahy would engage in a brief colloquy about funding for USAID programs in micronutrients?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Are we now done with VA-HUD?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Are we going to vote on VA-HUD now or have stacked votes?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD conference report and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I want my colleagues to know that this conference report is the exact same bill that was passed in the Senate last week. It has come back to the Senate in the form of a conference report, which includes report language in the statement of the managers. I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure to give our veterans the health care and benefits they deserve, to provide housing for families of modest income, and to protect our environment. First, I am especially pleased that we were able to provide a significant increase in funding for veterans health care. We met the President's request of $20.2 billion and are $1.4 billion above last year's level. We were also able to provide $351 million for medical and prosthetic research. This is $30 million above the budget request and last year's level. The VA plays a major role in medical research for the special needs of our veterans, such as geriatrics, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and orthopedic research. We are also providing $100 million in funding for State veterans homes. This is $40 million above the budget request and $10 million above last year's level. I am also very pleased that we were able to include a new title in our bill that will provide medical care and veterans benefits to Filipino veterans who fought alongside Americans in World War II and who live in the United States. Finally, our Filipino-American veterans will receive equal benefits for equal valor. Our bill provides almost $13 billion to renew all expiring section 8 housing vouchers. We have included $453 million in funding to issue 79,000 new vouchers to help working families find affordable housing. Unfortunately, we were forced to drop Senator Bond's housing production bill due to objections from the authorizing committee, but I hope we will revisit the issue next year. We were also able to maintain level funding for other critical core HUD programs. We provided $779 million for housing for the elderly, which meets the President's request and is $69 million more than last year. This includes funds for assisted living and service coordinators. We also provided $217 million in funding for housing for disabled Americans, which is $7 million above the President's request and $23 million over last year's level. We were able to provide both the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME Program with $150 million increases over the President's request. CDBG is funded at more than $5 billion, and HOME is funded at $1.8 billion. The CDBG program is one of the most important programs for rebuilding our cities and neighborhoods. We also provided increased funding to help our neighborhoods and communities through the Hope VI Program. This year, we provided $575 million for Hope VI, the same as last year's level. I am pleased that we were able to provide funding for other programs that help America's communities. We increased funding for empowerment zones by providing $90 million in this bill for urban and rural empowerment. We also help homeowners by extending the FHA downpayment simplification program for 25 months. I am extremely pleased that our bill fully funds NASA at $14.3 billion, an increase of $250 million above the President's request. All of NASA's core programs are fully funded and all NASA centers are fully funded, including the Goddard Space Flight Center in my home State of Maryland. The VA-HUD bill includes $1.5 billion for Earth science and more than $2.5 billion for space science. It includes $20 million to start an exciting new program called ``living with a star,'' which will study the relationship between the Sun and the Earth and its impact on our environment and our climate. I am especially proud that this program will be headquartered at the Goddard Space Flight Center. And, of course, we fully fund the space shuttle upgrades, space station construction, and the new ``space launch initiative'' to find new, low- cost launch vehicles that will reduce the cost of getting to space. The VA-HUD manager's amendment also increases funding for the Corporation for National Service. The corporation is funded at $458 million, a $25 million increase over last year's level. The Corporation for National Service has enrolled over 100,000 members and participants across the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have been very concerned about the digital divide in this country. I introduced legislation called the Digital Empowerment Act to provide a one-stop shop and increased funds to local communities trying to cross the digital divide. I am pleased that this bill contains $25 million within the national service budget to create an ``e-corps'' of volunteers by training and mentoring children, teachers, and non-profit and community center staff on how to use computers and information technology. With regard to the EPA, our bill provides $7.8 billion in funding. All together, this is an increase of $400 million over last year's level and $686 million more than the President's request. We increased funding by $246 million for EPA's core environmental programs. We also provided an additional $550 million for the clean water state revolving fund. Taking care of the infrastructure needs of local communities has always been a priority for the VA-HUD Subcommittee. A number of my colleagues have raised concerns about some environmental provisions in the bill. I will address these topics in more detail later. But let me say that the administration helped negotiate these provisions and the administration supports them. They do not threaten the environment and they maintain EPA's authority and flexibility. A am a strong supporter of FEMA and am proud that we have provided $937 million in funding for FEMA, plus an additional $1.3 billion in emergency disaster relief funding. The National Science Foundation is funded at $4.43 billion, a $529 million increase over last year's enacted level and one of the largest increases in NSF's history. This is a downpayment toward our goal of doubling the NSF budget over the next five years. I am especially pleased that we were able to provide $150 million for the new nanotechnology initiative. Mr. President, I once again appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues throughout this process. While I regret that this year's process was highly irregular, I am pleased that we worked together to bring a conference agreement to the Senate floor. I believe this year's VA-HUD bill is good for our country, our veterans, and our communities. To reiterate, Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same. As I said, this conference report is the exact same bill we passed last week. It has come back to the Senate in the form of a conference report and includes the report language contained in the Statement of Managers. That is kind of inside baseball, but what I want people to know is, this is the same bill we voted on, so there does not need to be extensive debate. What is not inside baseball, and it is how we played the game, is that we played it very fairly. We tried to both exercise a great deal of fiscal prudence while looking out for the day-to-day needs of our constituents and the long-range needs of our country. Our appropriation--the VA-HUD, EPA, National Federal Emergency Management, space program, National Science Foundation, and 22 other agencies--had the least increase, the least gross increase, of any other subcommittee to come before the Senate. I tell my colleagues who believe in fiscal discipline, have worked for fiscal discipline, and have voted for fiscal discipline, that they need not fear voting for the VA-HUD-other agencies appropriations. Throughout our entire deliberation on moving this bill, we wanted to have legislation that could both meet the responsibilities of fiscal stewardship as well as meet the needs. I believe we did do it. Sure, there are increases, but it costs more to do what we do. One of the major areas where it costs us more to do what we do is in veterans health care. Health care is on the rise everywhere. It costs money to have the best nurses in America working for our veterans. It costs money to be able to have primary care facilities. It costs money to provide a prescription drug benefit. The cost our veterans gave in their service to America is far greater than any monetary spending we can do to ensure they get the health care they need. That is why we do have increases. We have increased veterans health care. We have ensured the benefits that they deserve. At the same time, we have worked very hard to provide housing for people of modest income. We have an increase in section 8 vouchers. What does that mean? It means there are Federal funds to enable the working poor to be able to have a subsidy for housing. If you have gotten off welfare, we make work worth it by making sure that if you are working and you can't afford to live and pay for the housing that you need, there will be this modest subsidy. We are also doing housing for the elderly. Like it or not, America is getting older. Like it or not, we need housing for the elderly, and we also bring some innovations to it. Those need to be project based. My esteemed Republican colleague and I don't believe vouchers work for the elderly. We don't believe if you have a wheelchair or a walker, we should give you a little voucher while you forage for housing in your neighborhood. We met those needs. We have also protected the environment. We have encouraged voluntarism, and we have also made major public investments in science and technology. Why did we do that? Because we want to be sure America is working in this century. These major investments in science and technology are to generate the new ideas that are going to give us the new jobs for the new economy. We believe we bring to the Senate a bill that really does represent what America wants--yes, fiscal stewardship, but promises made, promises kept to those who served the country in the U.S. military through its benefits, to make work worth it, and make sure we have a helping hand for those who are out there working every day and have moved from welfare to work, to protect our environment, encourage voluntarism, and come up with the science and technology for the new ideas, for the new jobs. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill. I again thank my colleague. There has been much made about bipartisan cooperation. We saw it in the debates. We see it in the ads, and so on. I can tell my colleagues, I saw it in the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for his cordial and collegial support. I thank the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle. It really worked for us. Quite frankly, I believe if the rest of the Senate is working in the cooperative way we work, when all is said and done, more will get done. I yield the floor. sediment remediation technologies

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. October 19, 1999: Jerry G. Bowens, 25, Memphis, TN; Nathaniel Bryan, 20, Washington, DC; Wayne Butts, 43, Atlanta, GA; Arnold Handy, 19, Baltimore, MD; Paul Johnson, 31, New Orleans, LA; Russell Manning, 52, Dallas, TX; Rebecca Rando, 25, Houston, TX; Mark Smith, 31, Dallas, TX; Kirk Tucker, 32, Chicago, IL; Jermaine Wallace, 22, Baltimore, MD; and George Williams, 19, Pittsburgh, PA. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains for the opponents to the Boxer amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I know the Senator has time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Does Senator Byrd intend to speak?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the Boxer amendment on arsenic in drinking water, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. This amendment is not needed, and its adoption will effectively kill this bill. Let me be clear about what we did. In our negotiations with the House, bill language was added that allows EPA to take until June 22, 2001 to issue a final rule setting the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. EPA remains free to issue the final rule anytime up to June 22, 2001. This provision was carefully negotiated with the administration. It does not prevent, prohibit or restrict EPA's ability to issue a final rule for arsenic in drinking water. Since EPA missed the deadline for proposal of this rule, this extension from the current January 1, 2001 statutory deadline would allow EPA the same length of time--12 months--to consider public comments as contemplated in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This provision is fully consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our provision maintains all of the protections for public health and safety. If it didn't, I would not support it. This is not a debate about arsenic in drinking water. We all agree that arsenic in drinking water should be reduced or eliminated consistent with science based public health standards. This is a disagreement over process, not substance. Let me be very clear, the language contained in the VA/HUD bill is permissive and does not prevent EPA from issuing the regulation earlier than June 2001 if EPA is prepared to promulgate the final rule. Also, public interest groups would still be allowed to file suit next June if EPA misses the revised deadline--just as they can now. No one's rights or privileges have been taken away. Our provision on arsenic simply moves a date. It poses no threat to public health or the environment. It is fully consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and it maintains EPA's full authority. I point out to my colleagues that this bill contains $825 million for the safe drinking water revolving loan program. This is EPA's main program to upgrade and improve our Nation's public drinking water systems. Overall, our bill provides $3.6 billion for all clean water programs--a $200 million increase over last year and, over $700 million more than the President's request. If the Boxer amendment is adopted, it will kill this bill and jeopardize the funding increases for our clean water programs. If this bill dies, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain our current level of funding. The administration supports our provision, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment. Mr. President, I oppose the Boxer amendment on ozone nonattainment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. This amendment is not needed and should it pass, it will effectively kill this bill. The administration supports the provision in our bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it and vote against this amendment. Let me be clear about what the ozone nonattainment provision in the VA/HUD bill does. The provision prohibits EPA from issuing new ozone nonattainment designations until June 15, 2001, or until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in this matter, whichever comes first. The administration was involved in the negotiations over this provision and they support it. I believe this provision is a matter of common sense. It makes no sense to issue new nonattainment designations, just to have the Supreme Court invalidate them. That will do nothing more than confuse State and local governments and undercut EPA's authority and credibility. I want to point out to my colleagues, that during our negotiations with the House, the language was modified to allow final designations to occur as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the ozone standard case, rather than waiting until June 15, 2001. Depending on the Supreme Court's decision, this would potentially allow EPA to proceed with final designations several months earlier than under the original language. This provision does not weaken the Clean Air Act, it does not threaten the Clean Air Act and, it does not undercut EPA's authority. Our bill language does not preclude EPA from taking preparatory steps leading up to the final designations. After the final designations are made, States have 3 years before they have to begin implementing their plans for achieving the new standard. The additional time provided by this bill language, being tied to the Supreme Court process, minimizes any delay in moving forward with any clean air plans and acknowledges the uncertainty created by the ongoing litigation. Our bill provides $209 million for State air assistance grants to help states meet Clean Air Act requirements. If the Boxer amendment passes, the VA/HUD bill will be killed and funding levels that it contains will be in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment and support the administration. Mr. President, in summary, I oppose the Boxer amendments both on the issue of substance and procedure. No. 1, everybody complains about the process. Nobody complained about it more than Bond and Mikulski. We wanted to bring our bill to the floor, have a vote by the Senate, and go into a conference that was open and public. We were denied that. Because we were worried about the homeless, because we were worried about veterans, because we were worried about the environment, we pressed on in a quasi-conference. Bond and Mikulski were united to delete the riders, but we lost. The House would not yield. We then went to a fallback position because, again, we are worried about the homeless; we are worried about the veterans; we are worried about the environment and the National Service Corps, and all that is in this bill. When we negotiated, I invited into the room OMB--with the concurrence of my Republican colleagues--who brought in the Council on Environmental Quality. The President's chief adviser on the environment was on the phone with the legal counsel at EPA. We did not make this up. I thought I was proceeding on safe grounds because of the advice I received from the Council on Environmental Quality. I say to my Democratic colleagues: Do you believe in a letter from 21 groups or do you believe in President Clinton's Council on Environmental Quality? The choice is there. Do you believe the advocacy analysis or President Clinton's analysis? I go with President Clinton because I believe there is a track record on protecting the environment. What about arsenic? It does not shackle anybody. It delays it by 6 months. Under the current law, EPA must give the regs by January 2001. They can issue them at any time up to 2001. EPA retains its authority and its flexibility to issue the regs any time, but it removes the old deadline. Why do we do this? So small rural communities can have time to get EPA information, cost, and other things they are going to need to comply. Let's go to the ozone. That court case is before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not going through some small court. It is in the Supreme Court. They are going to decide it in June. The Court term ends in June. This language will no longer apply once the Court issues its ruling. Also, the language becomes moot in 2001. Why was this language added? To prevent EPA from making new attainment designations and then have the Supreme Court invalidate them. We are saying, let the Court act and move on. At the same time, EPA is allowed to go on with its own planning process. Once the Supreme Court acts, EPA is good to go. We are not shackling anybody. We are not stymying anybody. I believe in each of these instances there is flexibility to meet the compelling needs of public health. If they did not have that, I would not have supported it. If President Clinton's own team did not tell me it was OK to do this, I would not have done it. I stand on the advice we were given, and I believe the advice is accurate, responsible, and reliable. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Boxer amendments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, I call up amendment No. 4307 and ask for its consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Bond, as well as our colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, for enabling us to move our bill forward. I particularly express my appreciation to Senator Bond for his collegial and civil way of including me in all discussions related to both the funding and policy that we developed in this bill. His courtesy and collegiality are very much appreciated. I believe today the bill we present takes care of national needs and national interests. I am also confident that it will be signed by President Bill Clinton because it takes care of the day-to-day needs of the American people and at the same time looks forward to helping with the long-range needs of our country to remain competitive and on the cutting edge of science. This bill has always been to me about five things: meeting our obligations to our veterans--promises made, promises kept; investing in our neighborhoods and our communities promoting self-help; creating real opportunities for people to move from welfare to work, to make sure that public housing is not a way of life but a way to a better life; and, of course, advancing science and technology, the new ideas that lead to the new jobs and the new products. It is also about protecting consumers from fraud and scams and communities from floods and disasters. I believe we meet the goals in this bill, and we have done it in a fiscally prudent way. While I support the bill, the process has left much to be desired; again no fault of Chairman Bond but really the Senate has placed us in a very awkward situation. The bill before the Senate today is a managers' substitute for the Senate bill. This is effectively our conference report. We did not have a conference report, though we met. We had kind of a chatroom where we would meet and try to iron out our differences. We did. It also involved OMB and the White House for consultation. We wanted to be sure both sides of the aisle would support the bill. We also wanted to be sure that the President would sign the bill. I believe we achieved this. I say to my colleagues, it will be absolutely crucial, in order to move this bill with this unique parliamentary situation, to have no amendments to this legislation. My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will offer two amendments. I am going to oppose them. I am going to oppose them both on procedural and substantive grounds. On procedure, if the Boxer amendments prevail, we will have enormous difficulty reconvening and working with the House to pass this bill. I just put that out. Though we had an unofficial conference, I do believe we were able to move forward. Senator Bond has outlined in detail what we were able to do financially. I am so glad we worked together on a bipartisan basis, particularly in the area of veterans health care, joining hands, scrutinizing the budget and then the appropriations to make sure that veterans health care will be funded $1.4 billion over last year's level. We also want to look ahead to be sure, while we are taking care of the men and women who bear the permanent wounds of war, we do the medical research, to find the cures for those things affecting our veterans population. This legislation provides $350 million for medical and prosthetic research, $30 million over last year. I have seen the work at my own University of Maryland and know that people will live longer, live better, and recover more quickly because of the funding for veterans health care research which also goes into the civilian population. Also, we have added more money, $100 million, for State veterans homes. This is to provide long-term care and rehabilitation, which is very crucial. It means the Federal Government does not bear the sole burden, the State governments do not bear the sole burden, and, most of all, our veterans do not bear the sole burden. This unique Federal-State partnership will meet the long term and rehab needs of our veterans. In addition, we have paid attention to the day-to-day needs of our constituents in Housing and Urban Development. We want to make sure the people of the United States of America, who are out there working every day but who are also part of the working poor, have help with housing. We have been able to create 79,000 new vouchers to help working families find affordable housing. Unfortunately, we do not have enough housing to meet their needs. Senator Bond led a very vigorous effort, which I supported, as did the authorizers on my side, to start a production program. We were derailed from that, but we did not want to be detoured from the bill, so we put that aside for another year. But we really call out to our authorizers, please, pass a production bill that will generate jobs in construction and meet the needs of our citizens. Where I think we also worked very closely together is in helping the elderly and disabled. We have provided $780 million for housing for the elderly. It is more than last year. It also helps with assisted living and service coordinators to be able to help people keep as independent as long as they can, and to even develop new models of care. At the same time, we looked out for those who are disabled and the special AIDS population. But we wanted to also remember not only the ``H,'' which is housing, we wanted the part called urban development. But we also know so many of our constituents live in rural areas. So we looked to see how we could increase the ability for local decisionmaking. That is why we funded community development block grant money and a program called HOME at much more than last year, because it goes right to cities, communities, and neighborhoods. Whether you are in a small rural town in Missouri or a big city such as Baltimore, community development block grant money and HOME will be of great help to you. But we are about promoting self-help. That is why we continued to stay the course in providing funds for empowerment zones, again recognizing rural needs and also promoting home ownership. That is why we help the homeowners by extending the FHA downpayment simplification program for another 25 months. So we looked at how we could create opportunities at the local level. Another area where we have strong bipartisan support within the committee and by its chairman and ranking member is to make sure that America continues to lead the way in science and technology. Therefore, I am so pleased that we are funding the National Space Agency at $14.3 billion, $250 million above the President's request. Quite frankly, I think NASA needs a lot more because they have been severely cut over the years, but fiscal prudence won. At the same time, we wanted to make sure that we were fiscally prudent, that our shuttle will be safe, our space station will be ready, and that we will move ahead on a vigorous space science program, such as the Living With A Star Program that will be done at Goddard Space Flight Center in my own community. The National Science Foundation is also a very important, crucial program. The national science program, as Senator Bond has said, really does promote the basic research that goes into our country. It has been a star. It has been almost flat-lined for several years while we tried to balance the budget. This is why this year they will receive a $520 million increase over last year's enacted level. One of the areas which we will be also advocating is a field called nanotechnology. You have heard of a nanosecond. It is because it is small. But let me tell you, the nanotechnology is the next generation past this infotechnology. You have seen the biotech revolution and the infotech revolution, but wait until the nanotech research gets underway. We are going to have new products, new materials. We are going to be able to have a supercomputer the size of my ring. We will be able to take little pills, that will literally have diagnostic equipment, that will be able to go through our bodies, giving immediate responses to our physicians. This is going to be extraordinary. I am so pleased to be part of what we are doing. At the same time, we want to call forth young people to continue the call for service. That is why I am so pleased we continued to stay the course on national service, with a modest increase. One of the things we have done in national service is add something called E-Corps. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong proponent to make sure we do not have a digital divide in this country, meaning that young people have access to technology and access to know how to use technology. What we are creating in this legislation is having E-Corps volunteers to train and mentor not only the children but community leaders and librarians and others who will be teaching our children. Last, but not at all least, we joined hands to protect the environment. We have increased funds for the environment, whether it is the clean water revolving fund, small watershed programs to restore rivers and streams, or having full funding of the Chesapeake Bay program. I believe the environment will be stronger and better protected by the resources that we have put in this bill. Now, yes, there are riders. I don't go for riders. None of us go for riders. But we were in a very difficult situation with the bill. We took the language that was being proposed by the House, working with the office of OMB--the President's own--and the Council on Environmental Quality that advises the President on the environment. They were in the room to help us really identify the appropriate language that could meet the policy objectives of those who advocated it without shackling EPA or hurting communities. I will say more about that during the debate. But I will tell you, regardless of how you feel about the riders, they were acceptable to the President's Council on Environmental Quality. To be more specific, Mr. President, I am especially pleased that we were able to provide a significant increase in funding for veterans health care. We met the President's request of $20.2 billion and are $1.4 billion above last year's level. This will help us ensure that promises made to our veterans are promises kept, and that our veterans get the health care to which they are entitled. We were also able to provide $351 million for medical and prosthetic research. This is $30 million above the budget request and last year's level. The VA plays a major role in medical research for the special needs of our veterans, such as: geriatrics, Alzheimers, Parkinson's, and orthopedic research. Our veterans are not the only ones who benefit from this research--our entire nation does, especially as America's population continues to age. We are also providing $100 million in funding for state veterans homes. This is $40 million above the budget request and $10 million above last year's level. The state homes serve as long-term care and rehabilitation facilities for our veterans. We were also able to provide over $1.6 billion for the Veterans Benefits Administration, which will help them administer benefits to our veterans more quickly. I am also very pleased that we were able to include a new title in our bill that will provide benefits to Filipino veterans who fought alongside Americans in World War II and who live in the United States. Finally, our Filipino-American veterans will receive equal benefits for equal valor. We were able to take care of America's working families in this bill as well, by funding housing programs that millions of Americans depend upon. Our bill provides almost $13 billion to review all expiring section 8 housing vouchers. And we have included $453 million in funding to issue 79,000 new vouchers, to help working families find affordable housing. This is 19,000 more than we were able to fund last year. We included provisions to make it easier for public housing authorities to provide more project-based assistance to increase the stock of affordable housing, instead of just vouchers. As many of my colleagues were aware, a production bill was under serious consideration during the conference. It was a modified version of Senator Bond's housing production bill that was included in the original Senate bill. Unfortunately, we were forced to drop this provision due to objections from the authorizing committee, but I hope we will re-visit the issue next year. We were also able to maintain level funding for other critical core HUD programs. We provided $779 million for housing for the elderly, which meets the President's request and is $69 million more than last year. This includes funds for assisted living and service coordinators. We also provided $217 million in funding for housing for disabled Americans, which is $7 million above the President's request and $23 million over last year's level. Homeless assistance grants received a $5 million increase and are funded at $1.025 billion. We were able to provide both the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME Program with $150 million increases. CDBG is funded at more than $5 billion, and HOME is funded at $1.8 billion. The CDBG Program is one of the most important programs for rebuilding our cities and neighborhoods. We also provided increased funding to help our neighborhoods and communities through the HOPE VI Program, which helps demolish and then revitalize distressed public housing sites. This year, we provided $575 million for HOPE VI, the same as last year's level. I am pleased that we were able to provide funding for other programs that help America's communities. We increased funding for empowerment zones by providing $90 million in this bill and increased funding for CDFI--Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Funding for empowerment zones will help designated areas with economic development and social services. Community involvement in the empowerment zone initiative will prove especially beneficial. We also help homeowners by extending the FHA downpayment simplification program for 25 months. As I said, I am extremely pleased that our bill fully funds NASA at $14.3 billion, an increase of $250 million. This funding exceeds the President's request for NASA. All of NASA's core programs are fully funded and all of our centers are fully funded, including the Goddard Space Flight Center in my home State of Maryland. The VA-HUD bill includes $1.5 billion for Earth science, more than $2.5 billion for space science, including funding for the Mars polar lander, and $20 million to start an exciting new program called ``Living With A Star,'' which will study the relationship between the sun and the Earth and its impact on our environment and our climate. It will help us predict and protect against solar storms that can disrupt our energy and communications systems. I am especially proud that this program will be headquartered at the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA science programs are critical not just for science, but for technology. With NASA technology, we can create new jobs and literally save lives, while developing a greater understanding of how our universe works. I fought hard to make sure that this funding was included in this manager's amendment. And, of course, in the area of human space flight, we fully fund the space shuttle upgrades, space station construction, and fully fund the new ``Space Launch Initiative'' to find new, low-cost launch vehicles that will reduce the cost of getting to space. The VA-HUD manager's amendment also increases funding for the Corporation for National Service. The House bill cut funding for the Corporation for National Service, but I made it a priority to restore it in the Senate bill and in conference. The corporation is funded at $458 million, a $25 million increase over last year's level. The Corporation for National Service has enrolled over 100,000 members and participants across the country, in a wide array of community service programs, including: AmeriCorps, a national service program that helps communities, learn and serve America, which supports service-learning programs across the country by providing funding and training, and the National Senior Service Corps, which helps seniors get involved in their communities. As many of my colleagues know, I have been very concerned about the digital divide in this country. I introduced legislation called the Digital Empowerment Act to provide a one-stop shop and increased funds to local communities trying to cross the digital divide. I am pleased that this bill contains $25 million within the national service budget to create an ``E-Corps'' of volunteers who will bring technology skills to people who have been left out or left behind in the digital economy, by training and mentoring children, teachers, and non-profit and community center staff on how to use computers and information technology. With regard to the EPA, our bill provides $7.8 billion in funding, plus an additional $138 million for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS. All together, this is an increase of $400 million over last year's level, and $686 million more than the President's request. We increased funding by $246 million for EPA's core environmental programs, including a $38 million increase for nonpoint source pollution control grants, and a $20 million increase for the climate change technology initiative. We also provided an additional $550 million for the clean water state revolving fund. Taking care of the infrastructure needs of local communities has always been a priority for the VA-HUD Subcommittee. We have fully funded the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound Programs, and provided $1.25 million for the Chesapeake by small watershed grants program, a $500,000 increase over last year's level, that will help our small communities around the Bay watershed prevent runoff and pollution. Legislatively, the bill includes the FY 1999 bill and report language regarding the Kyoto Protocol, provides up to an additional 6 months for finalizing the arsenic-in-drinking-water rule, and includes a weaker version of the Collins-Linder provision on ozone. There is no language on the diesel sulfur rule. However modified report language has been included regarding dredging and invasive remediation. I am a strong supporter of FEMA, and am proud that we have provided $937 million in funding for FEMA, plus an additional $1.3 billion in emergency disaster relief funding. The National Science Foundation is funded at $4.43 billion, a $529 million increase over last year's enacted level, and one of the largest increases in NSF's history. This funding level will keep America at the forefront of science and technology into the next century in info-tech and bio-tech, and is an important step towards holding onto America's science and technology base. This is a downpayment toward our goal of doubling the NSF budget over the next five years. I am especially pleased that we were able to provide $150 million for the new nanotechnology initiative. We were also able to provide $215 million for information technology, and well-deserved increases for several of NSF's education and human resources accounts. These include a $10 million increase over the budget request for informal science education, nearly $20 million for graduate fellowships in K-12 education, and over $55 million for graduate research fellowships. Mr. President, I once again appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues throughout this process. While I regret that this year's process was highly irregular, I am pleased that we worked together to bring a conference agreement to the Senate floor. I believe this year's VA/HUD bill is good for our country, our veterans, and our communities. Mr. President, before I conclude my statement, I really want to thank Senator Bond and his staff, Jon Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and Carolyn Apostolou, for all the work they did, and also my own staff, Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Alexa Mitrakos, for helping us really move this bill, and, most of all, to move America forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield back all time on the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.