THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

After extensive, hard work on the very important and difficult and complex issues in this bill, we agree on the

[Page: S8541]  GPO's PDF

   In addition, while no bill is perfect or addresses every Member's concerns--and certainly we had many hundreds and thousands of concerns--I think the bill strikes the right balance in funding both the Members' priorities and the administration's priorities.

   In particular, despite our tight allocation, we have done our best to satisfy the priorities of Senators who made special requests for economic development grants, water infrastructure improvements, as well as requests for other State and local priorities. Such requests numbered over 1,600 individual requests, totaling over $22 billion, which illustrates the level of interest and demand for assistance in the bill. That means, on the average, each Senator submitted 16 requests, costing a total of $220 million for our humble little bill. We obviously could not address all of these requests, but we have tried hard to address as many of the most pressing needs as we could.

   We have also met most of the administration's funding priorities. I compliment the administration for not looking to create a series of new programs, but instead focusing on--with some exceptions--maintaining existing program levels and reforming program implementation to ensure that the agency can deliver the needed assistance under existing program requirements.

   Again, I emphasize that we don't need a lot of new programs in this bill. We do need to ensure that existing programs are managed well and effectively and the people who are to be served receive the benefits that are intended in the bill.

   I will be relatively brief in my review of the bill because the VA and veterans' needs remain the highest priority, and funding decisions in the bill are designed to ensure the best quality of medical care for our veterans, to keep the best doctors in the VA system. To achieve this, we have funded VA medical care at $21.4 billion, an increase of some $400 million over the President's request, and over $1.1 billion over the 2001 level.

   I know some Members believe the funds are inadequate, but I emphasize we have increased this account every year and have worked hard to ensure there are adequate funds for the medical needs of our veterans. In fairness, we can spend only so many funds efficiently and effectively. I believe we have done the best we can.

   Moreover, Senator Mikulski and I are committed to meeting the medical needs of veterans, and we are working with VA to ensure successful implementation of the new CARES process that will result in better VA facilities, the better targeting of services and medical care throughout the country, assuring we do not waste money that is meant for veterans medical care on maintaining unneeded or excessive capacity buildings.

   The 2002 VA-HUD Senate appropriations bill provides $31 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is $443 million over the budget request and $2.5 billion over last year's level. This includes funding needed to renew all expiring section 8 contracts and also provides funds for 17,000 incremental vouchers.

   I personally remain deeply concerned that vouchers do not work well in many housing markets. We need to develop new production programs that assist extremely low-income families in particular.

   We have also included $650 million for the Public Housing Capital Fund over and above the President's budget request, and have added $300 million for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, a program the administration sought to eliminate in its budget. These are both important programs, and the VA-HUD bill essentially preserves last year's funding levels.

   In particular, I emphasize my support for the public housing capital funding, which is critically needed to address some $20 billion in outstanding public housing capital needs. We must ensure those people who live in assisted housing have decent housing in which to live and to raise their families. As a civilized and developed nation, we owe the least of our citizens, in terms of economic wealth, at least that much.

   In addition, we maintain funding for both the CDGB and HOME programs at the 2001 level, while rejecting an administration set-aside of $200 million in home funds for a new downpayment program. The set-aside is unnecessary, in our view, since this activity is already eligible under the HOME program. I stress my support for both HOME and CDBG because they rely on decisionmaking guided by local choice and need. We are asking the people who are there on the ground, in the community, to determine how best to use funds for community development and to meet the housing needs of the population in their communities.

   I hope and trust these funds are used by States and localities as an investment in housing production to meet the increasing housing needs of low-income and extremely low-income families.

   In addition, the bill funds section 202 elderly housing at $783 million; section 811 housing for disabled at $217.7

   million. These funding levels are the administration's requests and approximately the same as the 2001 level. The bill includes over $1 billion for homeless funding, with a separate account of almost $100 million for the renewal of the expiring shelter plus care contract. Again, these funding levels reflect the administration's request at last year's funding levels.

   As for the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill includes $7.75 billion, which is some $435 million over the 2002 budget request. It includes $25 million for State information systems as requested by the administration.

   We did reject the administration's request to transfer some $25 million for State EPA and enforcement efforts, keeping these funds at EPA. I support that premise. As one who was a Governor, I ran environmental protection programs in my State . I have a great regard and a great respect for the work done at the State level, but the proposed transfer of enforcement responsibilities from EPA to the States may be premature. It appears to us a number of States may need to upgrade their enforcement capacity before a transfer of EPA enforcement responsibilities to States is warranted.

   In addition, the bill maintains funding of the clean water State revolving fund at $1.35 billion instead of reducing this amount by $500 million for the funding of a new sewer overflow grants program.

   Funding of this new sewer overflow program is premature without additional funding. Both the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds are key to building and rebuilding our Nation's water infrastructure systems and should not be compromised with new programs without significant new funding.

   I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of continuing to maintain funding for these State revolving funds . For clean water infrastructure financing alone, there is a need for some $200 billion over the next 20 years, excluding replacement costs and operations and maintenance.

   For FEMA, the bill appropriates an additional $2 billion in disaster relief. The chairman and I intend to offer an amendment to make these funds available upon enactment. We feel strongly these additional funds should be available as soon as possible in the event we face disasters beyond the normal expectations during the remainder of this fiscal year. If we do not have that money, then this body is going to be put in a real bind to try to respond to a disaster which might occur in any of our States. I believe every Member should support this program because almost everyone represents a State which has benefited recently from the availability of these important disaster assistance funds in the face of some unexpected and unfortunate disaster in their States.

   We need to ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to meet all possible emergency contingencies during this fiscal year and the next fiscal year. The VA-HUD appropriations bill also funds NASA at $14.56 billion. This is an increase of $307.5 million over last year. It is $50 million above the budget request. This includes $6.87 billion for human space flight, while capping the

[Page: S8542]  GPO's PDF

   Senator Mikulski and I share huge concerns over the current status of the space station, as she has so forcefully and eloquently noted, especially when cost overruns currently exceed $4 billion this year alone. There also appears to be a total loss of management control by NASA with regard to the space station.

   In the current configuration, the space station must depend upon the Russian Soyuz for any emergency escape capacity from the station, and there continues to be inadequate habitation space that is needed for science research, the primary justification for the construction of this station.

   Right now, they can only hold three astronauts in the space station. The time of two and a half of them is required to operate the station. That means we go through all the work and trouble of sending up a space shuttle, sending up astronauts, and we get one-half of one FTE working on science. That is a disaster, and it is and should be an embarrassment for NASA.

   Not to be too bleak, however, NASA is making great strides in other areas of research, including space and Earth science. Remote sensing is becoming a viable and important technology and many of our space science missions are unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

   In addition, the bill continues our commitment to the space launch initiative, the SLI. This is a critical program that should provide for the development of alternative technologies for access to space. Nevertheless, I have heard some reports that NASA may be losing control of the SLI program. Again, NASA needs to keep a tight focus on technologies being proposed and the funding which is approved.

   In addition, the bill reaffirms our commitment to aeronautics, and NASA's leadership role is part of the Government-industry partnership to develop breakthrough technologies for the aviation community.

   Finally, I restate emphatically my support for the National Science Foundation, again in total agreement with my friend and chair of the subcommittee. Because of our budget allocation limitations, we were only able to provide $4.67 billion for the National Science Foundation for the coming year, a $256 million increase to the budget. This is still a $200 million increase over the President's budget, but it is not nearly as much as we want.

   I believe this funding level is the best we can do under the circumstances without jeopardizing the needs of our Nation's veterans, our commitment to EPA, and our investment in affordable housing for low-income families.

   Let me be clear. I am committed to working with Senator MIKULSKI and our House counterparts to find more funds for NSF in conference. I am committed to doubling the Foundation's budget over 5 years and will do everything I can to keep us on that important path.

   I call on my colleagues who believe the future of the United States depends upon our continuing to make great strides in the field of science and engineering to join with us to make solid the commitment of this body to doubling the funding.

   We have seen in the past great strides made in the National Institutes of Health. They are developing wonderful new cures, but they tell us that the work of NIH depends upon continuing work and development by the National Science Foundation. If you talk with people in the field of scientific endeavor, they will tell you that we are way out of balance because we have not done enough to keep up with basic science and making sure we continue to be the leader in the world in all forms of technology and science, not limited to space and health, but to biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the many other exciting issues on which the National Science Foundation is working.

   I am not always sure everyone understands our investment in science and technology greatly influences the future of our Nation's economy and our quality of life. How goes the funding goes the future.

   I thank Senator Mikulski's staff and my staff for the many long and hard hours they spent advising us and working on legislation.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for the fiscal year 2002 HUD/VA appropriations bill. Chairwoman MIKULSKI and Senator BOND have done an exemplary job of providing HUD with the resources it needs, even while working within a very tight allocation for all of the agencies within their jurisdiction.

   The administration's budget request for HUD, the agency that provides housing assistance to this Nation's poorest families and funding for community development and revitalization, was sorely inadequate. The administration's proposal would not even have provided the funding necessary to maintain HUD programs at current levels. Instead of fighting to expand housing opportunities to meet growing needs, the Administration's budget request has put us in the unfortunate position of fighting just to retain current program levels.

   We have a severe housing crisis in this country, and the need for housing assistance continues to grow. There are almost 5 million very low-income households in this country who have worst case housing needs, 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. At a time when so many families are in need of housing assistance, housing programs need additional funding.

   One area of great concern are the proposed cuts in public housing, a program that provides housing to over 1.3 million of this Nation's poorest households.

   Senators MIKULSKI and BOND realized that a significant number of families would be affected if they went along with the proposal to cut over $1 billion in funding for public housing programs. The administration proposed cutting $700 million, or 25 percent, from the Capital Fund, the fund used to repair and modernize public housing. There is a significant need for these funds . HUD estimates that there is currently a $22 billion backlog in needed capital repairs in public housing. A cut of this magnitude would have led to further deterioration of this Nation's public housing stock. The administration's budget says that this program can withstand such a cut because there are unexpended balances in the Capital Fund that can be used to fill in the gaps left by the budget cut. However, this is not the case. HUD's own data show that Capital Funds are being spent well within the legal time-frames established in a bipartisan manner just a few short years ago. Fortunately, the bill before us today provides almost $3 billion for the Capital Fund, helping us to maintain a much needed resource and to ensure that the federal investment in this housing is protected. This is an important accomplishment of the Appropriations Committee.

   In addition, this bill restores funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which supports anti-crime and anti-drug activities in public housing. The administration's proposed elimination of this program would have resulted in housing authority police officers being laid off, after-school centers being shut down, and safety improvements not being made. The bill before us today provides $300 million for this important program that helps to improve the lives of public housing residents.

   Unfortunately, the administration's budget did away with other important programs as well, including the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program, which provides funding for housing and economic development in rural areas. This program helps to greatly enhance the capacity of rural non-profits to fund innovative efforts to supply housing and develop rural areas. HUD's own budget justifications state that ``The previous rounds of funding recognize that rural communities face different socio-economic challenges than do cities ..... Many rural areas have been by-passed by employment, and low, stagnating wages. It is imperative that rural regions have greater access to community and economic development funds that would foster investment in economic opportunities.'' I am pleased that the bill before us today provides $25 million in funding for this program which allows rural America to access essential resources.

   While most of this bill helps to further the goals of ensuring that all

[Page: S8543]  GPO's PDF

   This bill only provides funding for an additional 17,000 section 8 vouchers. This is only half the vouchers requested by the administration, and less than a quarter of the 79,000 new vouchers Congress funded last year. I recognize that the committee is concerned with voucher utilization and the effectiveness of the program, as am I. However, section 8 vouchers work in most areas of the country, allowing families to choose where to reside while lowering their rent burdens. I agree that there are improvements that must be made to strengthen this program and to ensure that all families who receive vouchers are able to find adequate housing. However, I strongly believe that we must continue to expand the voucher program so that we can meet the needs of the many poor families waiting to receive housing assistance.

   In addition to the decrease in section 8 vouchers, the administration has proposed cutting section 8 reserves by $640 million, from two months to one 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. The administration is correct that some of these funds may not be necessary; however, HUD must have the flexibility to meet the needs of PHAs that must access more than one month of reserves in order to continue serving the families who currently receive vouchers. The House appropriations bill, which does not give HUD this flexibility, will lead to a reduction in the number of poor families who receive housing assistance. I am pleased that the Senate did not adopt the flawed approach taken by the House, and I hope that the conference report will give HUD the flexibility to provide more than one month of reserves to housing authorities that will otherwise be forced to cut their section 8 programs.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display