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
The Senator is also correct that there are some other localized factors, including waterways, the existence of waterways and other factors that bear on this. That is why I note that States that have been significantly underfunded include a big growth State such as California and the State of Illinois.
[Page: S8643] GPO's PDF
New Jersey is another State that has been woefully underfunded. Yet it is not as big a growth State as California or my own State of Arizona.
Indiana is another State that is underfunded. It could be that series of rivers in the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois area. I cannot explain why the EPA recommends exactly what it recommends and, in comparison to the existing formula, why some States are so much out of skew. One general reason is that of population growth. There are others, as the Senator has pointed out.
The main reason this formula makes sense is EPA looks at all of this, applies a needs-based test, makes the recommendations, and those are the recommendations that we plug into the formula.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senator from Arizona. I think it is the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.
It is a matter of fairness. It is addressing actual needs, and there is a reason population would be more of a concern, because as population increases, obviously there may be a corresponding increase in wastewater treatment needs.
I conclude by saying I urge my colleagues to use objective standards. Do not use politics but look at objective needs to clean up the wastewater in this country.
I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for spending this amount of time and effort to try to correct this inequity. It seems to have been around for several decades, and this is the time to act. Who knows when we will have another chance, the way the Senate moves.
Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It will be good for the water in their States and the water throughout the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reiterate before a fellow Bay Senator leaves the Chamber, EPA has informed me why this amendment has a fundamental flaw. The amendment references a wastewater infrastructure needs survey to be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No such survey exists, according to EPA. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act. I wanted to make that point.
I have a question for the Senator from Arizona. I know he has put a lot of work into trying to develop this formula, but I really wanted to bring to his attention what EPA has apprised me of, and I think we need to check that. I know the Senator likes to always operate off the basis of fact.
The EPA says the agency would be at a loss as to how to calculate a formula given this direction. So there is no needs survey on which to calculate it. We are getting ``section this of that act'' and ``section that of that act,'' et cetera, which is why we need this in an authorizing bill and not on an appropriations bill. I do not dispute the Senator believes this--I want to share this information with him.
I suggest the absence of a quorum to share this information with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORZINE). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment be temporarily set aside at the concurrence of the managers, Senator Kyl and Senator Reid, and that when Senator SCHUMER offers his amendment regarding the HUD gun buyback, there be 60 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to either the Kyl or Schumer amendments; that at 12:30 p.m. today, Senator MCCAIN be recognized to speak with reference to the Kyl amendment, with that time not charged against the time on the Schumer amendment; that any time remaining after the time for debate on the Schumer amendment be equally divided among Senators MIKULSKI, BOND, and KYL, with the understanding that Senator FITZGERALD will have some of Senator Kyl's time; that at 1:55 p.m. today, there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment, to be followed by 2 minutes prior to a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment, with the time equally controlled and divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that in case Senator Kyl, in his original offer of amendments, cited the wrong statutory section, he have the right to modify his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side. We believe this is an appropriate accommodation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 1231 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1214
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and we move to the Schumer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. SCHUMER] proposes an amendment numbered 1231.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25, line 23, before the period, insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount under this heading, $15,000,000 shall be available for the BuyBack America program, enabling gun buyback initiatives undertaken by public housing authorities and their local police departments''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Chair of the VA-HUD subcommittee for her help on this amendment and for her general help to this Senator, for which I am forever appreciative.
I rise to introduce an amendment to restore a valuable initiative to reduce gun violence in the Nation's public housing authorities. The amendment sets aside $15 million of the $300 million that we allocate to the public housing drug elimination program for BuyBack America, a gun buyback program to eradicate violence in our Nation's public housing authorities. BuyBack America was introduced by the Department of HUD in November, 1999. In the first year alone, it helped local police departments in 80 cities take 20,000 guns off our streets. Guns were bought back for around $50. The guns were taken in and then destroyed.
Since the gun buyback policy was first introduced through New York City's Toys for Guns programs in 1993--someone I have come to know, Mr. Mateo, was the initiator--thousands of low-crime, underserved neighborhoods have seized the opportunity to eradicate gun violence. The program works.
From Annapolis to Atlanta, from San Francisco to Schenectady, it has helped raise gun control awareness and lower rates of violence. However, HUD last week announced its plans to discontinue BuyBack America. The program has been targeted as part of a campaign, in my judgment at least, by the administration against any kind of gun control, no matter how moderate, how rational, and how protective of the rights of legitimate gun owners--which this program clearly is.
In fact, the President's budget this year zeroed out funding for the entire Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which had been funded through Senator Mikulski's leadership, and I know my colleague has been involved as well, for which we thank him.
If we do not set aside a certain amount for gun buyback programs, it will not be done by the administration,
[Page: S8644] GPO's PDF
So I ask that this amendment be supported. I, temporarily at least, yield back my time with the right to come back later and speak further on the amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I acknowledge the cooperation of the Senator working with us. Before I speak on the amendment, I am going to inform the Senator that we are scheduled to move his amendment aside at 12:30 when those tied up in Commerce are coming over. Then we are scheduled to come back to the amendment of the Senator, I believe, at quarter of 1.
I want to advise the Senator of that. I think he was dealing with a very pressing New York need and did not hear the unanimous consent agreement, though we had the cooperation of his staff.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. I will be back at 12:45 to resume the debate.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Before he leaves, the Senator from New York should know I am going to support his amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Once again, the Senator from Maryland hits a home run for New York, Maryland, and America. Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, one of the things that occurred in the VA-HUD budget as it came from the President was to eliminate $300 million for drug elimination in public housing.
The Presiding Officer's predecessor was one of the champions of that, the distinguished former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. We worked hands on, on many of the items. We think that $300 million in drug elimination is a very important program.
At the same time as we have been saying to the Senator from Arizona and others we are not going to break new ground in this bill because of the transitions both of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, the committee has restored the $300 million in drug elimination funds . We have restored that because we know we have to get drugs out of public housing. We know we have to make sure, in getting the drugs out of public housing, that public housing provides an opportunity to be not only a way of life, but to lead to a better life.
We turned to the authorizers and we encouraged them to hold hearings on what has the most efficacy, making sure public housing is neither a slum landlord nor an incubator for drug dealing, and we encouraged them to do that. The Schumer amendment mandates that we keep the gun buyback program which Secretary Martinez would like to eliminate.
We think, again, it is the executive branch acting and so on. We need conversation, again, on what is the most effective way to deal with crime in our communities, gun violence in our communities. I have had in the past several years the most gruesome statistics in Maryland. I like being from a State of Super Bowl champions, and I love the show ``Homicide'' that was on, that was so terrific. But what I did not like was the homicide rate. Thanks to Mayor O'Malley and Commissioner Norris, we are bringing that down. But gun violence--we are like a war zone.
The Schumer amendment would give our local police departments and our public housing authorities the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program using Federal dollars. But it is their choice. In other words, the Feds do not say you must do it, nor do the Feds say you cannot do it; it leaves it up to the local community whether they think it has efficacy in that area. It might not work in every community. We do not have that one-size-fits-all on how to deal with ending violence and getting drugs out of public housing. But each city or county should have the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program if it chooses.
Many public housing complexes function almost as small cities unto themselves. They have their own police departments; they have their own governing authority. They really are, in some instances, small towns. We, of course, would like to make sure they have the sense of being a village. They have unique needs, require special help and attention.
This program was started in 1999 during the Clinton administration. It provided up to $500,000 for police departments around the country to buy back and destroy weapons. During the first year of operation, 20,000 guns were taken off the street in 80 different cities.
The amendment gives our local police more resources in fighting crime. We should not second-guess those local decisions on how to do it. Whether it is the cops on the beat or gun buybacks, it will allow the local authorities to do that. We must do everything we can to protect our citizens who live in public housing and those who live around public housing because everything that goes bad with public housing goes bad with the neighborhood near public housing.
I support this Schumer amendment. I look forward to its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the opponent's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for explaining why this is an important but misdirected amendment.
First, I express my sincere appreciation to the chair of the subcommittee for including in the bill the money that was zeroed out by the administration for the drug elimination program. I worked with the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina several years ago to include money for eliminating drugs in public housing because it has been our heartfelt belief for a long time that we need to make assisted housing--whether it be public housing or whether it be section 8 financed housing--the kind of housing where a mother, or mother and father, would want to raise their children in a proper atmosphere.
Getting drugs out of public housing, making sure it is safe, is probably one of the very first steps in addition to keeping the rain out and keeping the cold out in winter. Making sure it is safe and drug free is vitally important. I was very disappointed that the administration zeroed it out.
We now have it back in the bill, and there is the flexibility in the PHAs to use this money however they want. The amendment by the Senator, my good friend from New York, would establish a $15 million set-aside in the public housing drug elimination fund for the gun buyback program. It is unnecessary because right now, if they wish to do so, a PHA can use money for the buyback. It takes away the choice and the decision from the local levels.
Local public housing authorities can conduct drug buy-back programs under the drug elimination grant. The bottom line is it is not mandatory. The PHA makes a choice, based upon its need to eliminate crime and illegal drug activity, what is the best thing we can do in this community to protect our friends and neighbors from drug crime.
That is a legitimate choice. I support that local choice, despite the fact to my knowledge there is no evidence that gun buyback programs actually reduce crime or illegal drug activity. They make people feel good. It is a feel-good program.
But let me ask you, my colleagues. Let's apply a commonsense test. Sometimes back home some of the things you hear on the street corner at the place where you have breakfast make a whole lot more sense than some of the very sophisticated things that we discuss up here. I was talking to some of the guys out at the livestock market breakfast place where I go out for breakfast every Saturday morning. They said: Tell me. If you were a criminal and they had a gun buyback program, would you go in and sell your gun to the gun buyback program?
I said: What do you mean? Say the cops or the PHA have a gun buyback program. Rather than using my good gun to go out and make holdups, I am going to get $5 for the buyback.
He said: No. You find an old gun that doesn't work, or you go out and steal a few more guns. Say I have 15 or 20 guns that are inoperable, outdated, and ineffective. I will trade them in. You know what I can do with that money. I can either get drugs or buy some ammunition for my good gun.
Ask the gang back home. Go to the town square and ask them. How many
[Page: S8645] GPO's PDF
That is just common sense. I don't believe there is any evidence on the other side.
Having that said, if PHA believes it will make everybody feel good, and if they think it will help to use money for a gun buyback program, go for it.
But I tell you it is one program that I just think doesn't meet the commonsense test. It just does not make any sense to me.
I urge my colleagues to leave the discretion with the public housing authorities and not seek to take money away from security needs, or from other things, or from programs that have some questions about it.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
First of all, I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy. I know they appreciate the fact that we had a markup of some important legislation this morning in the Commerce Committee. I apologize for any delay that may have caused in completing this very important appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their courtesy in not only allowing me to speak on the amendment of my colleague from Arizona but also for allowing me to propose my amendment.
| <<< | >>> |
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