Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman of the Committee. This provision is a win-win situation for the Bay and farmers. It will reduce nutrient inputs to the Bay and it will enable farmers to lower their operating costs by avoiding the cost of unneeded fertilizer, without risking loss of a portion of their crops. Experience gained in this pilot program will allow better understanding of risks and benefits of this practice. technical assistance providers

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1731, the 2002 farm bill. This legislation makes much needed changes to the failed farm policies adopted under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act and charts a course that promises a better future for all of America's family farmers. The 2002 farm bill takes significant steps in ensuring that the family farmers throughout my State and across the Nation are able to carry on in the face of a rural economy that has continued to lag behind the general economy for two decades. Over the past several years, the Congress has repeatedly had to intervene with a series of ad hoc disaster relief measures in an attempt to remedy the failed farm policy instituted under the so-called ``Freedom to Farm Act.'' The 2002 farm bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that Federal support is provided to those farmers who are most in need. The legislation seeks to reform the farm system by reinstituting an income safety net to provide more support in difficult years and less during good years. It contains provisions to help ensure that commodity payments that individual farmers can receive reach those who need them most: our small and medium sized farmers. Agriculture plays a vital role in Maryland. It remains the State's largest commercial industry, providing over $17.5 billion in annual revenue. In all, agriculture and related industry employs about 350,000 residents, including those who own and operate Maryland's 12,400 farms. And 2.1 million acres, or 33 percent of the total area of my State, is used for farming. This represents the largest single land use in Maryland. The commodity title of the farm bill contains a number of provisions that are of particular importance to Maryland's agricultural economy. I would like to just touch upon two, those concerning our dairy producers and our specialty crop farmers. First, our Nation's dairy policy has been amended to reflect the unique needs of dairy farmers in the Northeast, including Maryland. The 1997 Census of Maryland Agriculture indicates that there are 1,091 dairy farms in the State, a number that is about 600 below 1987, and one which I fear will be significantly lower upon the completion of this year's census. If these small dairy farmers are to succeed, it is essential that they be able to compete on a level playing field. This legislation creates a new counter-cyclical payment system for northeastern states when minimum fluid prices fall below $16.94 per hundredweight. The farm bill also includes provisions that address the needs of specialty crop producers, crops such as fruits and vegetables that do not benefit from traditional commodity support programs, which are making up an increasingly important part of Maryland's agricultural economy. The legislation includes several provisions concerning specialty crops, including a provision authorizing funds from USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation to be used to purchase these specialty crops over the next 5 years. Further, using savings incurred as a part of the payment limitations amendment, USDA's Risk Management Agency has been directed to develop cost-of-production insurance for a variety of specialty crops to cover documented costs of production in the event of low prices. The farm bill also includes a significant increase in funding for vital conservation programs, devoting over $21 billion in new spending to conservation efforts over the next 10 years. This figure is double the current baseline spending and marks the largest increase in conservation spending ever in a farm bill. These additional funds mean increased funding for programs of great interest to the State of Maryland, including: wetland restoration, wildlife habitat incentive programs, and above all farmland and grassland protection, critical to helping farmers resist the pressures of sprawl. The legislation authorizes two new programs targeted specifically at restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay. First, it authorizes a $70 million nutrient reduction pilot program to encourage the development of innovative solutions to the nutrient pollution problem in the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient over-enrichment from agricultural operations and other non- point sources is one of the most serious problems facing the Chesapeake Bay. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program established a goal of a 40 percent reduction of controllable loads of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the bay by 2000--a goal that was unprecedented in this country. Over the past 15 years, farmers in the six-state Bay watershed, with assistance from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program or so-called CREP and other USDA conservation programs, have made substantial progress in reducing nutrient inputs. From 1985 to 2000, total nitrogen loads to the bay were reduced by 51 million pounds, with the largest percentage of this reduction coming from agriculture. Unfortunately, we continue to fall short of the nitrogen goal. If we are to remove nutrient impairments to the bay, additional reductions from agricultural sources must be made and that will only be accomplished with new and innovative programs. A recent summit of leading agricultural and marine scientists from across the Nation convened in Maryland concluded that the most effective means to reducing nitrogen losses from agricultural lands is to reduce the over-application of nitrogen that the crops do not use. Because some agricultural crops are relatively inefficient nitrogen users at high yields, the last pound of nitrogen applied to a crop is the least helpful to a farmer's yield, but the most likely to run off into our nation's waters. By providing incentives and financial protections for farmers to accept slightly reduced yields in some years, the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program will reduce farmers' risks, lower their operational costs, and at the same time substantially decrease nitrogen losses to the environment. The principal focus of the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, as conceived by bay-area scientists and organizations, is to create new incentives for farmers to reduce the application of nitrogen by at least 15 percent below what is normally considered best practice and to provide financial protection in the event of reduced yields. The way the program is envisioned, farmers in an area would bid in and say how much money they would demand for each pound of nitrogen reduced so long as the 15 percent threshold is met. Farmers do not have to agree to farm in any particular way; the only question is have they reduced their nitrogen applications at least 15 percent below recommended levels. The program allows for flexibility in achieving nutrient retention targets through such methods as cover crops, constructed wetlands, stream buffers, and switch grass. The program would be monitored based on actual performance by comparing how much nitrogen is applied to how much is removed in crops. It would also provide rewards based on each increment of superior performance. The program goal is to increase enrollment annually and have one million acres of cropland enrolled in year four. Five to 10 percent of the funding will be used to support promotion and education as well as monitoring and evaluation of program impacts. I anticipate that in implementing this program, the Department of Agriculture will work with States and the private sector to create the mechanisms to carry out this provision. Specifically, I would anticipate that the Department would work to achieve the following in implementing the program: Target investments in nutrient reductions where they are most cost effective through competitive selection processes and through a bidding process to establish incentive rates; reward producers for each incremental level of nutrient reduction and possibly increasing incentive rates for each incremental level; test a variety of reduction techniques including both decreasing nitrogen inputs by at least 15 percent below land grant university recommended rates and increasing nitrogen removal from agricultural runoff; encourage alternative land use practices that reduce nutrient runoff while still producing income; and develop a complementary nutrient insurance program to provide financial protection to farmers who experience reduced yields due to reductions in nutrient applications. This is a very important provision that will use market incentives to reduce nitrogen discharge into our Nation's largest estuary. This pilot program is a cutting-edge approach that allows watershed scale testing of a new practice that could provide major reductions in nutrient pollution throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed while maintaining or enhancing farm viability. Second, the managers' amendment authorizes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution--all critical to the bay clean-up effort. Since 1990, the U.S. Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-State Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the bay restoration goals. Over the past 11 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; assess the bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the U.S. Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what this provision seeks to provide. Specifically, the provision codifies the roles and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied urban forestry research and training program to enhance urban forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006--a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed. The 2002 farm bill, also authorizes a number of critical programs which will be of great benefit to the people of my State and all Americans. The legislation includes provisions to address the development needs of America's rural communities, including infrastructure funds for businesses and communities to promote genuine revitalization. It doubles the amount proposed by the administration for nutrition programs, in an effort to ensure that no Americans go to bed hungry. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation strikes an ill-conceived provision proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to dispose of land at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. As you know, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is the Nation's premier agricultural research facility. The research undertaken at Beltsville has helped ensure the irradication of certain plant and animal diseases and the production of high-quality agricultural products so that our farmers and agribusinesses can compete in the global marketplace. And the work at Beltsville has led to products and production methods that are safer for both consumers and the environment. Parceling out this property would most certainly be a step in the wrong direction. Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is a national asset which has served as a much needed buffer in the midst of an otherwise highly developed area. In my view, the Federal Government would not realize proceeds from the sale of this property sufficient to compensate for Beltsville Agricultural Research Center's great value to the Department of Agriculture and to the American public. This sale would be extremely short sighted and ultimately regretted. In closing, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, who has done a terrific job in ensuring that this legislation reflects the needs of America's family farmers and our nation's rural communities. And I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting its passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2839

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Maryland constituents and millions of Americans in celebrating African-American History Month this February. Since 1926, February has been designated as a time to recognize a crucial part of our diversity: the vast history and legacy that African-Americans have contributed to the founding and building of our Nation. While we have much to celebrate in the achievements of many African-Americans, and the great strides this country has made towards true equality, there is also much work to be done. This year's theme, designated by The Association for the Study of African-American Life and History, ASALH, is ``The Color Line Revisited: Is Racism Dead?'' The fact that this question can even be posed indicates the progress that our society has made in race relations over the past 50 years. We must attribute this progress to the sacrifice, vision and commitment of thousands of African-Americans and others who proved that the true strength of our Union lies in the diversity of our population. One such visionary is Marion Wright Edelman, the founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund. Recently I had the opportunity to hear Ms. Edelman speak at the Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Breakfast at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. Marion Wright Edelman shares Dr. King's vision of a unified and equal Nation, and acknowledges the great strides that have been made in working towards this vision. Through her work at the Children's Defense Fund, Marion Wright Edelman is helping to ensure that all children in America get a healthy, fair and safe start in life. Yet despite the great strides that have been made toward eliminating racism and inequality, Ms. Edelman stressed that many disparities still exist. The Children's Defense Fund reports that nearly one in three African-American children are poor in America, compared with 13 percent of white children. Many children are educated in substandard schools. A disproportionate number of African-American children are without health insurance. And African-American juveniles are over-represented on every level of the criminal justice system. But there is hope, Marion Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund are working hard to correct these inequalities. The Children's Defense Fund acts as a voice for children in America who cannot speak for themselves, and Marion Wright Edelman has been a tireless advocate for children who are suffering and need a helping hand. There is much that we in Congress can do to continue to improve the quality of life for African-Americans and for all Americans. We can help the parents of working families by raising the minimum wage. We have already passed the ``Leave No Child Behind'' education reform bill that will provide new standards for schools and teachers, and will help make quality education available to all Americans. We can work on election reform to ensure that all voters are properly registered, and every vote is counted. And we need to make health care available and affordable for African-Americans and all Americans. With these and other reforms we will move further down the path to equality dreamed of by Dr. King. The terrorist attacks of September 11 left us shocked and wounded, yet we found once again that the strength of this Nation lies within its people and its diversity. In the months that have passed since that day, we have shown the world how people of all races, colors, religions and nationalities create the fabric of our Nation, a fabric that is richer because of our differences. This month we honor the special contribution African-Americans have made to that fabric. Through African-American History Month, we celebrate how far this country has come, and remind ourselves of how far we have to go.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an outstanding public servant, John ``Jack'' Rice for his thirty-six years of exemplary Federal service. As a Marine Machinist General Foreman at the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, Jack consistently provided high quality work to the Coast Guard and deserves recognition for his service. Throughout his long career with the Federal Government, Jack Rice distinguished himself as a highly skilled tradesman who was committed to the Coast Guard and his trade. His vast knowledge and extensive experience as a Marine Machinist made him a valuable source of information for the Coast Guard Yard as it sought to achieve high quality production of Coast Guard ships. Among the many important projects that he made significant contributions to was the design, construction, and procurement of the Yard's 4000HP water brake, a computer-controlled dynamometer. His insight also proved essential to the architects and facility managers that built and outfitted the building that currently houses this equipment. Jack Rice's innovative approach to his position will be missed. When the Yard's new Machine Shop was in need of additional equipment and tools, Jack diligently reviewed excess equipment lists from other agencies. Through his efforts, the Yard was able to maintain state-of- the-art techniques while simultaneously achieving significant savings for the Coast Guard and the Federal Government. Jack Rice also played a key role in advocating that the Coast Guard Yard receives the necessary resources from the Federal Government to accomplish its important missions. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work with Jack on these efforts. The Coast Guard and our country owe him a debt of gratitude for helping to ensure that the Coast Guard is adequately prepared to defend our coastlines, particularly during these difficult times. In addition to his service to the Coast Guard, Jack has contributed endless hours to promoting the development of skilled tradesmen. In particular, as Chairman of the Baltimore City Public Schools Manufacturing Advisory Committee, he advised the school system about the latest trade technology and provided valuable suggestions to the Board as it developed a curriculum that would effectively prepare students for a career involving a trade. He also played a key role in the organization of the job and information fairs that have been extremely successful at informing students and their parents about the need for skilled labor and the benefits of selecting a career in the trades. For 36 years, Jack Rice exemplified the Coast Guard Yard's motto, ``Service to the Fleet''. Without a doubt, he played a large part in helping the Yard earn its reputation as a top quality workforce which produces top quality products. It is my firm conviction that public service is one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best, most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career, Jack Rice has exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of hard work and dedication and wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. This is far overdue already. There are people now out of work who are hurting. The unemployment insurance for many of them has already run out. For others, it will soon run out. This is not an effort, as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated, to broaden the program in terms of its beneficiaries or its benefits. It is simply to extend it in order to take care of people who are in real and desperate need. So I very much hope the request of the majority leader will be honored and we will at least be able to move on that aspect of this problem. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think the proposal the Senator from Illinois offered should be commended. It has been objected to. I certainly hope, the amendment having been objected to, that the proposal being put forward by the majority leader would not be objected to, which is a simple extension for an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance under the current arrangement, as I understand it. I ask the majority leader, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. And 30 seconds for the other side.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Isn't it, in fact, correct that this proposal, the 3- year bonus depreciation, is contradictory within its own terms? What you want to do with a stimulus--and I am for a 1-year bonus depreciation because I think that may serve as an incentive for additional investment in order to realize the benefit of the bonus depreciation in the first year--if you make it a 3-year bonus depreciation, the latter part of the bonus depreciation is countering the front part of the bonus depreciation, which is exactly what we do not want. We want to do the 1 year. We will see what the 1 year gives us, where the economy is at the end of the 1 year and whether an additional effort is needed. But to do 3 years so someone can say, I will not do it this year, I will not do it next year, I will do it in the third year of the bonus depreciation, is exactly contrary to what we are trying to accomplish. Isn't that, in fact, the case?

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Iowa. Mr. President, I want to add one dimension of this--the loss of cost in Federal revenue. There is also an impact of this on State revenue. One of the problems we are confronting by this economic downturn is what it has done to State budgets. Bonus depreciation over a 3-year period will cost significantly more to the State governments, whose revenue structures are tied to the Federal revenue structure, than the 1-year plan. It is estimated, in fact, that it will probably cost the States in the billions just in the second year of a bonus depreciation. This is a further complication that arises out of this proposal.

Mr. SARBANES. In fact, as I understand it, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report evaluating the various stimulus options: Extending the period during which such expensing could be used would reduce the bang for the buck because it would decrease businesses' incentive to invest in the first year and increase the total revenue cost. We would lose on the stimulus front, and we would add to the deficit problem, which the Senator has so ably outlined, that we confront as we look out into the future.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, today I would like to bring to your attention title VI of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill (H.R. 3061), which is the ``Mark to Market Extension Act of 2001''. This legislation was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on August 1, 2001. We worked closely with both the House and the Administration to craft the final product that is now part of this conference report. The legislation will ensure that HUD continues to have the authority to restructure the rents and the mortgages of its FHA-insured section 8 project- based portfolio. These properties have been operating for the past 20 years on long term rental subsidy contracts, many of which are currently paying above-market rents. The program we seek to reauthorize provides HUD with the tools to reduce those rents to market levels and to restructure the underlying mortgages so that the new, lower rents will be sufficient to cover the debt. At the same time, the program provides for the rehabilitation of these projects, and requires another long term commitment to keep the properties affordable. The appropriators asked that this reauthorization be incorporated into this appropriations bill in order to make use of the $300 million in savings that this legislation will generate. We were happy to accommodate this request. I would like to thank Senator Reed, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senator Gramm and Senator Allard for their hard work, support and cooperation throughout this process. Below is a detailed description of title VI, which I would like to submit for the record on behalf of myself and Senators Reed, Gramm and Allard. I ask unanimous consent that the two statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue which I believe may merit the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission following enactment of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. That bill has two main impacts. It authorizes the commission to raise the salaries of its staff to levels that are on a par with the compensation paid by other Federal financial regulators. Our securities markets are the envy of the world. It is important that the regulator of those markets be in a favorable position to attract and retain qualified employees. Enacting pay parity contributes towards this goal and will result in enhanced supervision of the securities markets. In addition, the bill reduces certain fees charged to investors and issuers. Section 11 of the bill provides an effective date for reduction of transaction fees on the later of, one, the first day of fiscal year 2002; or two, 30 days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for such fiscal year is enacted. Because the regular appropriation to the Commission (H.R. 2500) was signed into law on November 28, 2001, Public Law 107-77, the effect of Section 11 is to provide an effective date for transaction fee reduction of December 28, 2001, regardless of when the bill is enacted. The legislation was passed by the Senate on December 20, 2001, and still must be signed by the President. Thus, the industry will have at most only a few days to comply with the law. I have been informed by some market participants that this may not allow them adequate time to re-program and test their computers to make certain that the transition to the new fee structure goes smoothly and without flaws. I believe it would be appropriate, and consistent with the intent of this legislation, for the commission to review this situation and determine whether it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to use the commission's general exemptive authority to extend the effective date for the reduction of transaction fees for a brief period as may be reasonably necessary in order for market participants to comply with the new law fully and without disruption.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on October 30, the State of Maryland, our Nation, their families and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory lost James Cloeren and Jerry Norton in a tragic accident. They died while flying their experimental aircraft near Westminster, MD. James Cloeren and Jerry Norton were engineers and world renowned experts on ultra-stable oscillators used in satellites for navigation. They spent their careers advancing the technical development of our national space program, both defense and civilian. They built custom oscillators for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the European Space Agency. Oscillators are precision instruments, similar to a clock that would lose no more than a second in a million years. Clocks on data-collecting satellites must be precise and endure radical changes in temperatures and shifts in magnetic pull. The Jet Propulsion Lab described their instruments as ``the finest in the solar system in terms of the cleanliness and stability of their output''. At the time of their deaths they were working to complete four oscillators that are the heart and soul of a pair of NASA satellites. Using ultra stable oscillators, the satellite will measure small gravitational perturbations that reflect climate changes. The satellite program is called GRACE. Their colleagues at APL are working hard to finish Mr. Cloeren's and Mr. Norton's work. NASA has directed APL to affix the names of Jim and Jerry upon the oscillators in recognition of their pioneering work in space. What a fitting monument that these two satellites will carry the names of these two colleagues who were united in work, friendship and death. Mr. Cloeren had worked at APL for 20 years and Mr. Norton for 40 years. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Jim's wife Sally of Westminster, MD and daughter Cathy Racow of Boca Raton, FL and Jerry's wife Ann and daughters Maria Lawall, Jane, Tina and 4 grandchildren of Marriottsville, MD.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I add the observation, we cannot afford to wait, either. Every one of the items--and I commend the Senator for his extraordinary leadership and initiative in this regard--every one of the items covered by his homeland defense program are matters we should address now, today, this week, this month. They cry out for a commitment of resources to address airport security, port security, border security, the postal system, the assistance to State and local antiterrorism law enforcement, the firefighters, bioterrorism prevention, and protecting the nuclear powerplants. And in every one of these items, there is not a one of them we can look at and say, let's leave that; we will do that later; there is not a pressing need. There is a pressing need now for every one of these items. I commend the Senator for moving forward with this initiative. Governor Ridge himself has said he will come in next year and ask for significant resources. But he needs them now. My perception is that Governor Ridge is being undercut in his effort to deal with homeland security by the fact that he is not picking up the additional resources he needs in order to go out into these communities--State and local governments, the health community, the security community--and say, we are in a position now to help move your program, and move it ahead. Much of this requires a response from others. If we don't provide the resources here with which to do it, when is it going to happen? We are going to delay it, 60, 90, 120 days? Who knows how long. This is an opportunity, as the Senator has seen, to move now to address these pressing concerns. If we want to move the economy back up, a way to do it is to provide to the American people a sense of security and functioning within their own homeland, which the Senator has done, and about which he has spoken quite eloquently. I register my very strong support for this initiative and thank the Senator for, once again, moving forward to provide very important leadership in this critical matter facing our Nation.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take a moment while the transportation appropriations conference report is pending before us to express my concern, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Federal transit laws, about a provision in that report that attempts by report language to rewrite established law by reducing the Federal match for New Start transit projects from 80 percent to 60 percent. I am referring to language in the conference report that would ``direct [the Federal Transit Administration] not to sign any new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 that have a maximum federal share of higher than 60 percent.'' The Senate Banking Committee will begin to consider transit reauthorization issues next year. In the meantime, we have not had the benefit of any hearings or other public debate on this issue that would justify such report language. Over 200 communities around the country, in urban, suburban, and rural areas, are considering light rail or other fixed guideway transit investments to meet their growing transportation needs. Recognizing this increasing demand, Congress in 1998 passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized almost $8.2 billion over 6 years to fund these New Starts projects. The process for evaluating and awarding a Federal grant under the New Starts program is laid out in the Federal transit laws, found in section 5309 of Title 49, United States Code. Section 5309(h) specifies that ``[a Federal] grant for [a New Starts] project is for 80 percent of the net project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.'' By including language in the conference report--not in the statute--directing the FTA not to sign new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 with a Federal share greater than 60 percent, the conferees are seeking to direct the FTA to act contrary to existing law. Efforts to alter the Federal share would disrupt the level playing field established when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--ISTEA--set forth the 80 percent Federal cap for both highway and transit projects. ISTEA created a funding system by which communities could choose between transportation modes based on local needs, not based on the amount of Federal money available for the project. Seeking to lower the Federal match for transit projects while keeping the available highway match at 80 percent has the potential to skew the dynamics of choice for local communities. It is true that there is very strong demand for New Starts funding. This is an issue which will be thoroughly considered as the transit laws are reauthorized in less than two years' time. Given the importance of the New Starts program to communities around the country, any proposal for dealing with this issue should be thoroughly considered. Report language directions to the FTA to act contrary to existing law are not a constructive contribution to this thorough consideration. bus replacement

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my support for the fiscal year 2002 HUD-VA conference report. I congratulate Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator Bond for the outstanding job they have done to provide HUD with the resources it needs, while working within a very tight allocation for all of the agencies within their jurisdiction. The conference report before us today is a great improvement over the administration's budget request. The budget request for HUD, the agency that provides housing assistance to this Nation's poorest families, was sorely inadequate. Their proposal would not even have provided the funding necessary to maintain HUD programs at current levels. The appropriators recognized the great need for housing assistance in this country by providing more funding than the administration requested in almost every program area. The increases included in this bill are clearly needed. We have a severe housing crisis in this country, and the need for housing assistance continues to grow. In addition to the 5 million very low- income households in this country who have worst case housing needs, which means they are either paying more than half of their income towards rent or living in severely substandard housing, another 2 million people will experience homelessness this year. These families face greater challenges today, as the Nation's low-income housing stock continues to shrink. In the past decade, the number of units available to extremely low-income renters has dropped by 14 percent, a loss of almost a million units. These statistics make clear that programs to aid low-income families must not be cut, but must be expanded to meet the growing need. Unfortunately, the overall funding level requested by the administration put Congress in the untenable position of choosing between maintaining the current affordable housing stock or funding additional needed housing units. The appropriators were forced to forego expanding housing opportunities so that scarce Federal resources could be used to maintain existing housing, a choice that is both cost- effective and necessary. While we need to expand Federal housing programs, we have an obligation to ensure that the affordable housing that exists is habitable and safe. For this reason, I am pleased that the conference report increases funding for public housing, a program that houses over 1.3 million of this Nation's poorest families. This bill provides $2.84 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, the fund used to repair and modernize public housing--$550 million above the administration's request. There is a significant need for Public Housing Capital Funds as HUD estimates that there is currently a $22 billion backlog in needed capital repairs in public housing. A cut of the magnitude proposed by the administration would have led to further deterioration of this Nation's public housing stock. Fortunately, the bill before us today provides additional funding, helping us to maintain a much needed resource and to ensure that the Federal investment in public housing is protected. Recognizing the importance of public housing, the conference report funds the Public Housing Operating Fund at $3.5 billion, $110 million above the administration's request. I am disappointed that this bill does not separately fund the Public Housing Drug Elimination Fund. The administration requested no funding for this critical program which helps to fight drugs and crime in our public housing communities. The conference report provides $250 million more for the Operating Fund than provided in fiscal year 2001 to ensure that PHAs will not have to cut all of their anticrime activities. While this increase will assist PHAs in continuing after-school programs, mentoring activities, and safety patrols, I am concerned that PHAs may be forced to use the increased funding to pay for rising utility costs, leading to a reduction in activities normally funded by the Drug Elimination Fund. In addition to ensuring that public housing is maintained, this bill fully funds the Homeless Assistance Programs. I am pleased that the bill provides $100 million to fund Shelter Plus Care renewals. Shelter Plus Care provides permanent housing to formerly homeless people, and this $100 million will maintain all of these housing units, while allowing communities to continue to meet the demand for additional homeless services. The conference report continues to expand the section 8 voucher program. I am concerned that we are only providing an additional 17,000 incremental vouchers, as compared to 79,000 vouchers provided last year. While I had hoped we would be able to provide as many vouchers as last year, I appreciate the effort of the appropriators to continue expanding the voucher program even with such a tight budget allocation. One area of concern in this bill is the cut in section 8 reserves from 2 months to 1 month. These reserves are used in the event of higher program costs so that the section 8 program can continue to serve the same number of families. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this cut could result in a decrease of almost 25,000 vouchers being used this year. This would be an unfortunate, and devastating consequence. Fortunately, the appropriators included report language directing HUD to ensure that PHAs can fund all of their vouchers, and I expect HUD to implement these changes so that the number of families receiving vouchers is not decreased. Housing assistance for elderly people and those with disabilities is also increased in this bill. Housing for the elderly is funded at $783 million, an increase of $4 million over the fiscal year 2001 level, and housing for people with disabilities is funded at $240 million, an increase of $23 million. In addition, I am pleased that the conference report provides $277 million for Housing for Persons with AIDS, an increase of $20 million over last year's funding level. This $20 million will ensure that additional communities in need of housing assistance for people with HIV and AIDs will receive Federal funding. These increases will go a long way in providing needed housing to this nation's most vulnerable citizens. At this time of economic uncertainly, it is imperative that we not turn our backs on low-income families in need of housing assistance. Though it is unfortunate that the administration's budget request forced us to forgo expanding affordable housing opportunities further, the bill fully funds the HOME program, which is a primary vehicle for building affordable rental housing. The need for new affordable rental housing is growing, and I hope that we can work over the next year to secure additional funding for housing construction. Hard choices had to be made in hammering out a final version of this bill, and I understand that all of our priorities could not be funded at the desired levels. As a whole, I support this bill, and commend Chairwoman Mikulski and the other members of the Appropriations Committee for negotiating a bill that greatly improves on the inadequate budget request, and affirms our commitment to housing this Nation's poor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the distinguished floor manager yield for the purpose of a colloquy with Senator Mikulski and myself regarding Food and Friends, a nonprofit organization that provides meals to adults and children battling AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses in the Washington metropolitan region?

Mr. SARBANES. For the past 12 years, Food and Friends has been providing an invaluable and unique service to people in Washington, DC, eight counties of Maryland and seven counties in Virginia, living with HIV/AIDS and other life-challenging illnesses. The group's network of over 700 volunteers and some 45 chefs, registered dieticians and other staff provide home-delivered meals and groceries, nutrition counseling, as well as friendship and care to more than 1,300 clients daily and the number of people seeking these services continues to grow dramatically. In order to accommodate the service demands, Food and Friends has embarked on a $6 million capital campaign to construct a new facility to serve its clients. We recognize that the committee was faced with many significant funding demands in this bill and limited allocations and could not accommodate the $2 million in funding provided by the House. We hold out hope that, as the Chairwoman and the other conferees negotiate with our colleagues in the House, you could find some way to provide funding needed by Food and Friends.