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    

I will not go through all of the other arguments Senator McCain has so eloquently cited as the basis for his amendment.

[Page: S8661]  GPO's PDF

   I appreciate very much what Senator Mikulski said. She has taken the amount recommended by the administration and put that in the bill. As I said, all of us recognize, as she noted, it is not nearly enough. The question is, do we exercise some independent judgment here, anticipate that there will be a recommendation for funding in the future, but that it will come too late in this appropriations process or do we put that money into projects Senator McCain has targeted for at least some treatment under his amendment?

   I agree with him. The choice is clear. I tell all of my veteran friends when they confront me and ask, why did you have to vote against that VA-HUD appropriations bill there is a process in Washington to put the sweet with the sour, to make sure that whatever you do that doesn't go down very easily, you put something sweet with it so it is hard to vote against it.

   Nobody wants to vote against veterans programs. We all want to support our veterans. That is why you take programs that can be subject to some criticism in the HUD portion of the bill, put them with the VA part of the bill and, voila, you have a recipe for success; Members will not dare vote against it.

   I have voted against it. I will probably vote against it again in the future. I hope my veteran friends, by observing what is occurring here today, appreciate the fact that when we try very hard to move some of that money from programs that we think are not as useful for people into the veterans part of the budget, you can see how hard that is going to be. That is why, at the end of the day, we fight as hard as we can to get as much support for the veterans in the bill. And if we can't get more than we have been getting, then in many cases we end up opposing the bill. While it is true and in some respects symbolic, I think the symbolism is very important.

   I urge my colleagues to support Senator McCain's amendment to begin to send two messages. The first message is to our veterans, that we understand your needs, we understand your requirements, and we support you. Secondly, to those who have the difficult job of putting together this bill, it is time to begin to exercise some discretion here, and with respect to these projects that each Member likes so much, all earmarked projects, put less money against those projects and transfer some of that money into the veterans part of the budget.

   As Senator McCain said with respect to these World War II veterans, they don't have much time left. I hope my colleagues will support his amendment.

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator MCCAIN's amendment to S. 1216, the appropriations bill for VA HUD.

   This amendment would remove badly needed resources for many communities throughout the country and specifically in Sevier County in my home State of Utah. It furthermore seeks to overturn the carefully crafted work performed by the Senate Appropriations Committee when putting together this bill. I understand that legislating oftentimes means making difficult decisions, but the cuts proposed by Senator MCCAIN go too far and would hurt too many.

   I urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. KYL. Might I inquire of the Senator from Missouri or Maryland if it would be all right if I take a couple minutes off the subject of the McCain amendment to simply talk about a part of what will be included in the managers' amendment?

   Mr. BOND. Madam President, I assume the Senator from Arizona is controlling the time of the other Senator from Arizona. He is free to utilize such time as he wishes. We will extend him our good wishes.

   ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND

   Mr. KYL. Let me thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland for agreeing to accept as part of the managers' amendment an amendment which I was going to offer. They have done this in good faith. I especially appreciate the fact that they have expressed support for what I am trying to achieve. I will explain it very briefly.

   It was an amendment that expressed the sense of the Senate essentially that since we were not able to modify the formula for the wastewater treatment programs under EPA by an amendment on the floor on this appropriations bill, largely because of the argument that it is more appropriately done on the authorization bill, the authorizing committee, in September, should take up the reauthorization of the legislation, including an attempt to deal with this particular formula.

   The operative paragraph says:

   It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate should be prepared to enact authorizing legislation (including an equitable needs-based formula) for the State water pollution control revolving fund as soon as practicable after the Senate returns from recess in September.

   That is the result of the fact that my earlier amendment was defeated but, frankly, defeated on a technicality, as most of the individuals noted.

   There is a good case to be made for evaluating the current formula for distribution of these funds , that it can be done in the authorizing committee, that it should be done shortly after we return here, and I hope it can be done in time for changes to be made to affect the fiscal year 2002 numbers. That is the only way the formula can be made more fair for this next year.

   I express to my colleagues, the managers of this legislation, my thanks for their willingness to include this sense-of-the-Senate resolution in the managers' amendment as a way of at least moving forward on the reform that most people agreed to earlier but were not willing to make on the appropriations bill itself.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

   Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim such time from the time of the opponents of this amendment as I may require.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.

   Mr. BOND. First, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for his amendment that is going to be in the managers' amendment. It is a pleasure to be working with the Senator from Arizona again. He formerly was on this committee. We regret he is no longer on our appropriations subcommittee. We still miss him, but I assure you, our aim is getting better.

   I would like to tell the Senator from Arizona that we strongly support his admonition/instruction to the Environment and Public Works Committee to move on the subject which he addresses. That subject, of course, is the equitable allocation and the badly needed funding for our water infrastructure . I cannot emphasize too much how important that is to the health and well-being of all of our people and to the progress of this country.

   He has done a great service, raising the question about allocation of the revolving funds , and we look forward to working with him. We are going to have to provide more resources than are now available. I assure him and my other colleagues that we want to do that in an equitable manner. I look forward, as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to working with our chairman and ranking member to see that that occurs.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1226, AS MODIFIED

   Mr. BOND. With respect to the amendment by the other Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, while I am very sympathetic to the point he has made about the need to improve VA's claim processing, I join with the manager of the bill, the distinguished chair, in opposing it.

   We have been concerned. We have worked all year long to assist VA in dealing with the unacceptable backlog in VA claims processing. Nobody has been a more forceful, consistent spokesperson about the need to bring up-to-date and up-to-speed VA claims processing than the Senator from Maryland. I have listened to her for hours on end in the Appropriations Committee as she has sought more money, as she has admonished officials of the VA to get with it and get on the ball and get these claims processed.

   This has really been a crusade she has led. I agree with her 100 percent. We are totally in agreement that VA claims processing is extremely important. It is a matter of justice and fairness to the people who have protected our country, and we have a long way to

[Page: S8662]  GPO's PDF

   I agree with her, and I thank her for her kind words about Secretary Principi. We are excited to have a man of his background, his commitment, and his dedication at the helm in VA.

   This is a difficult management problem. It is a resource problem. It is a personnel problem. We are totally committed to supporting Secretary Principi as far as we can. Secretary Principi has set a goal of processing regional disability claims within 100 days by the summer of 2003. That is an admirable and, unfortunately, ambitious goal considering that it now takes VBA more than 200 days to process a claim.

   Nevertheless, he has set forth a timetable. He has set forth a budget he needs. He has set forth his plan to develop an effective processing operation that will assure that our Nation's veterans receive the service and the compensation they deserve.

   To address this need, to fulfill our part of the bargain, the bill before us provides significant funding increases to the VA, as requested by Secretary Principi. He said: This is my goal; this is where I want to be, no more than a hundred days. We will get there by 2003. He told us what he needed.

   Our bill provides $1.1 billion for the administration of benefits. That is $132 million, or a 13-percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 level. And, at the request of the administration, we have already provided the additional $19 million in the recently enacted fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriation Act that gives the VA the ability to hire new claims processors immediately. So that is actually $151 million that we are putting into Veterans Affairs.

   This funding will increase the VA's budget and allow the VA to hire much needed additional staff, increase training, and modernize and upgrade information technology. Specifically, the VA will be able to hire and train 890 new employees to help resolve the backlog of cases and handle new cases due to legislation, such as the ``duty to assist'' enacted last year. This is a significant hiring increase. Bringing on all these people is a tremendous workload for the personnel section. Therefore, we have questions as to whether they could do more. They have outlined for us what they think is the optimum capacity for hiring new personnel, bringing them on board, giving them the training so they can accomplish the goal that Secretary Principi has sent down the pike for the 100-day limit for the processing of claims.

   Frankly, the money that the Senator from Arizona has proposed is not in his request. It has not been requested by the person who has to do the job, who has to administer and make sure the money is well spent. Frankly, I believe we need to stay with the responsible work plan that the Secretary has outlined.

   Finally, let me talk about some of the rhetoric we have heard on porkbarrel. I come from a background of working in State government. One of the most important things we can do for the people in our States is to assure that we have strong communities. That means education, health care, and housing. But it also means strong communities. I spent a great deal of time, when I was Governor, working on how we develop communities, how we bring together the facilities that are needed to make sure we have livable communities.

   Now, housing, obviously, in this budget is second only in priorities to taking care of our veterans. Veterans are our first priority. Housing is second. Below that, is assuring that the communities have what they need to be strong communities. We need good communities to support good housing so families can raise their children in the proper setting.

   I am very pleased that we have been able to put money into community development. This is a very important priority. This is something that is recognized across this country and is strongly supported.

   There is $5,012,993,000 going into the community development fund. These funds go back and are administered by locally elected officials and State -elected officials--except for roughly 2.8 percent of those funds that are allocated here.

   Now, if you don't think any of these buildings or any community development activities should be carried forward, you could save $5 billion by knocking out community development funds . Given the many, many different objects for spending, I can assure you, as one who lives in a small town and who travels to communities of all sizes in our State , the community

   development activities are vitally important from a governmental standpoint, from a quality-of-life standpoint, and from an economic development standpoint. They help draw and attract the kinds of economic activities and the kinds of community activities that are beneficial. I believe in them. I believe it works.

   Community development block grant funds are extremely important, and I will strongly oppose anybody who wants to cut the $5 billion we put into community development block grants.

   It is easy to pick out a project that has been recommended here and included by an elected Senator--anything you want--that goes to a different State than yours and call it ``pork.'' If it is in your own State , it is a ``strategic investment.'' How is that $5 billion allocated? It is allocated by elected officials. That is what this process of government is all about. It is a republican form of government. They elect people at the local level and State level to make decisions on how to spend the money that is raised in taxes. A small portion of it--$5 billion out of the total budget--goes to community development.

   Who is best to make these decisions? We say, by and large, the decisions should be made at the local and State level. This is money the Federal Government raises and sends back for community development. But do the people who are elected to serve their States in the Senate know what some of those priorities are? I happen to think they do. I travel around my State , and I know the need and the opportunities that economic development initiative grants and community development block grants can meet. I think those are very important.

   Do we make decisions on all these funds ? No, only about 2.8 percent. I think that anybody in this body who takes their job seriously is going to be seeing needs in their States. They are going to have the ability to identify improvements and projects or buildings that would benefit the communities--particularly the communities most in need, the communities needing a handout.

   I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Maryland and with most of my colleagues. The 1600 requests we had went to communities all over this Nation to try to provide some funds for the top priorities as identified by our colleagues from the 50 States in the Nation. I will be happy to discuss at any length the contention of those who think that community development funds from the Federal Government through the community development block grant are not necessary. They make a great difference, and I do not apologize for the fact that those elected by the voters of the 50 States ought to have a say in allocating 2.8 percent of that.

   Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

   Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the committee chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their commitment and adherence to the needs of our veterans. I appreciate it very much. I know that all veterans and all Americans do as well.

   I point out that there was a $132 million addition for the VA, and it was a $211 million addition over the President's budget for community development grants. I listened carefully to the comments by the Senator from Missouri about elected officials being wise enough to determine spending for projects in their own State . I wonder if that wisdom now resides in the Appropriations Committee, where 9 out of 10 of the earmarks came from. I am sorry the rest of us are not as well informed. In fact, I read this: Missouri, 15 projects, the largest number of projects, for $9.150 million. And, of course, we can go down the list of the Appropriations Committee: Maryland, 13 projects, $5.260 million; West Virginia, $8 million; Alaska, $7.490 million. Of course, there is a dramatic demarcation there between these funds and those who are not members of the Appropriations Committee.

   That may be some coincidence. I believe $5 million is a very modest

[Page: S8663]  GPO's PDF

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Pending VA Cases by State
Vermont, White River Junction--1,420
West Virginia, Huntington--5,926
Maryland, Baltimore--5,958
Ohio, Cleveland--13,715
Alabama, Montgomery--13,758
Wisconsin, Milwaukee--10,049
Missouri, St. Louis--11,561
New Mexico, Albuquerque--5,859
South Dakota, Sioux Falls--1,919
Montana, Fort Harrison--2,454
Alaska, Anchorage--2,674
Idaho, Boise--3,031
Iowa, Des Moines--5,183
New Hampshire, Manchester--2,224
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia/Pitts.--14,854
Kentucky, Louisville--10,724
South Carolina, Columbia--9,394
Mississippi, Jackson--7,442
Illinois, Chicago--10,832
North Dakota, Fargo--2,399
Louisiana, New Orleans--9,198
Texas, Houston/Waco--38,598
Colorado, Denver--9,001
Utah, Salt Lake City--1,574
Washington, Seattle--13,091
California, Oak./L.A./S.D.--47,448
Nevada, Reno--7,105
Massachusetts, Boston--5,147
Rhode Island, Providence--4,042
New York, NYC/Buffalo--22,745
Connecticut, Hartford--3,411
Maine, Togus--4,395
New Jersey, Newark--7,384
Indiana, Indianapolis--6,289
Michigan, Detroit--9,687
Delaware, Wilmington--1,984
Virginia, Roanoke--17,635
Georgia, Atlanta--16,714
North Carolina, Winston-Salem--20,784
Tennessee, Nashville--14,276
Florida, St. Petersburg--33,218
Nebraska, Lincoln--4,229
Minnesota, St. Paul--7,357
Kansas, Wichita--6,971
Arkansas, Little Rock--7,881
Oklahoma, Muskogee--10,767
Oregon, Portland--12,368
Arizona, Phoenix--8,687
Hawaii, Honolulu--4,481
District of Columbia--6,872
Puerto Rico, San Juan--11,581
Philippines, Manilla--7,890
Total cases pending: 524,186

--

<<<

>>>

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