[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


     Amendment Nos. 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, and 1451, En Bloc

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have five amendments that have been agreed 
to on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en 
bloc; that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with; that the 
amendments appear separately in the Record; that if any statements are 
appropriately put in the Record in explanation of the amendments that 
they appear as though read. I ask unanimous consent that the motions to 
reconsider, en bloc, be laid on the table.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not, I ask the Senator if he will amend his unanimous consent 
request to make it six? I have one cleared on both sides.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I so amend the request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. And statements accompanying.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1446

   (Purpose: To assure that funds made available under the emergency 
appropriation for CDBG to areas damaged by the Midwest floods of 1993, 
    for flood mitigation activities, will be utilized for permanent 
      measures that reduce the potential for further flood losses)

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1446 for Mr. Hatfield, for himself, 
and for Mr. Harkin and Mr. Danforth.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 70, line 24, after the colon, insert the following 
     new proviso:
       ``Provided further, That with respect to funds made 
     available by this head that are proposed to be used by 
     recipients affected by the Midwest floods of 1993 for the 
     purpose of hazard mitigation through flood plain real 
     property acquisition or relocation, the Secretary shall 
     secure assurances from grantees that such activities will be 
     subject to the requirements of sections 3 and 4 of the Hazard 
     Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 (Public Law 
     103-181, 107 STAT 2054-2056):''

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a 
memorandum that my staff has received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency regarding the issue of agricultural use of property 
acquired under the terms of the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation 
Assistance Act be included in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Federal Emergency


                                            Management Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1994.
     Memorandum for: Stephan Kohashi, Minority Staff Director, 
         Sub-Committee on HUD, VA and Independent Agencies.
     From: Martha Braddock, Director, Office of Congressional 
         Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
     Subject: Reuse of Property Acquired Under Section 404 of the 
         Stafford Act for Agricultural Purposes.

       The Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 
     1993, S. 1670, at Section 3(2)(B)(i) stipulates that ``any 
     property acquired, accepted or from which a structure will be 
     removed pursuant to the project will be dedicated and 
     maintained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with 
     open space, recreational or wetlands management practices.''
       FEMA interprets this stipulation to permit the reuse of 
     land acquired under this program for certain agricultural 
     purposes, such as pasture or cropland. Provided that no 
     agricultural structures are erected or allowed to remain on 
     such properties, agricultural uses are consistent with the 
     ``open space'' requirement.
       In its guidance, FEMA has indicated to the States that 
     property acquired under this program may be leased by the 
     State or local governmental owner to farmers for acceptable 
     agricultural uses, or for the local government to acquire 
     development rights or permit the retention of rights for uses 
     such as agriculture which are consistent with open space 
     uses.
       If you have any questions concerning this policy 
     interpretation, please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-
     4500.

                         cdbg flood mitigation

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Hatfield 
amendment. In the aftermath of the great midwestern flood, communities 
across Missouri are looking to a permanent solution to the repeated 
experience of devastating flood damage. They are seeking to help people 
who reside in flood plains and who experience repetitive flooding to 
relocate to safer territory. To me, providing Federal assistance to 
help with such relocations is a very wise investment. While it entails 
up-front costs, I am convinced it will lead to significant reductions 
in future Federal disaster assistance. It will also bring to an end for 
many the horrible cycle of confronting flood after flood.
  I am grateful that the administration requested $250 million in 
Community Development Block Grant funds to help in this effort. I wish 
to commend Senators Byrd, Hatfield, and Harkin for their work in 
including the administration's request in this legislation.
  The Hatfield amendment ensures that properties acquired with the CDBG 
funds appropriated in this bill will be restricted to uses which avoid 
the potential for future losses. I believe this to be an essential 
component to a successful buyout program and support the adoption of 
the amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, during the Appropriations markup, the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] raised the issue of whether the 
Federal Government might have to pay for future disaster payments on 
flood plain land that is purchased with the CDBG funds being provided 
in this measure. He does not want the Federal Government to buy land 
and buildings unless there are assurances that the Federal Government 
would not have to pay flood claims on that land in the future. He makes 
an excellent point. And, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment that 
he has developed to make sure that will not happen. I have heard from a 
number of Senators in the affected States. And, they agree.
  Clearly, the expectation is that a considerable portion of the $250 
million in CDBG funds being provided for the midwest flood States will 
be used for whole town and home ``buyouts.'' When I requested 
additional CDBG funds in a meeting with Leon Panetta, the Director of 
OMB, that was one of the three principal purposes of the requested 
funds. And, in the language which OMB proposed and which I offered in 
the committee, that was OMB's and my intent. So, a considerable sum is 
involved.
  The Hatfield amendment is based on the provisions in the Hazard 
Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act that I sponsored last year. 
And, the amendment coordinates the limitations of these funds with the 
restrictions in that act.
  I do want to point out, as the Senator from Oregon did, that it is 
our understanding that agricultural uses such as grazing and row crop 
agriculture will be allowed on that land.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering 
addresses the issue of flood disaster damage mitigation activities. 
This is a concern that must be more effectively addressed by our Nation 
in a comprehensive and concerted effort. Unfortunately, this issue 
arises all too often only after a disaster has struck, and frequently 
our commitment to invest the resources to actually prevent future 
losses ebbs almost as quickly as the receding flood waters.
  Because of this past pattern of behavior, I was somewhat surprised 
that the States and localities devastated by last year's flood in the 
Midwest were actually engaged in a major effort to buy out homes and 
other properties in flood prone areas and relocate these residents and 
activities. In response, the supplemental appropriations bill before us 
contains an additional $250 million for the HUD Community Development 
Block Grant for these jurisdictions and anticipates such mitigation 
work as a significant use of these funds. These States and communities 
are to be commended for their perseverance and foresight in finally 
coming to grips with this long troubling issue.
  I would add that these localities also have been assisted in their 
efforts by a recently enacted change in Federal disaster relief statute 
which authorizes an increase in the availability of funds through the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency for such disaster mitigation 
activities. That measure, the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Act of 
1993, became law only 2 months ago, but has become the focus of a 
significant and coordinated mitigation program. It is noteworthy that 
the principal sponsor of that legislation was the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin] who also sponsored the amendment in the Appropriations 
Committee markup yesterday which provides the additional CDBG funding.
  During that markup, I raised the issue of whether the funding made 
available under the CDBG Program would be applied in a manner that 
assured that properties acquired would be permanently restricted to 
uses that avoid the potential for future flood losses. While I was 
assured that this was the intent of these States and localities, the 
underlying authorization of the CDBG Program is silent on this matter. 
It is for this reason, I am offering this amendment, along with Senator 
from Iowa and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth], to include in 
this act guidelines on how these funds should be applied.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Iowa for his 
help and cooperation in the preparation of this amendment. In fact, the 
amendment utilizes the requirements and provisions of the Hazard 
Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 that he authored last 
year as the applicable standard for such mitigation activities under 
this HUD appropriation. Central to this is the requirement that ``any 
property acquired, accepted, or from which a structure will be removed 
pursuant to the project will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity 
for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands 
management practices.''

  I would also like to thank the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth] 
for his assistance and support in the formulation of this amendment. I 
should note that the Senator's State has taken the lead to organize a 
comprehensive flood hazard mitigation program with State and local 
participation in close coordination with the federal Emergency 
Management Agency. This effort is directed to the purpose of 
identifying the highest priority acquisitions and maximizing the 
mitigation benefits with these limited resources. I hope this program 
in Missouri will serve as a model for other States affected by the 
Midwest flood, and that the additional HUD assistance made available by 
this act will be used in close coordination with the existing FEMA 
sponsored program. To the extent possible, I would urge the Secretary 
of HUD to encourage and assist eligible states and localities to pool 
these funds with those available through the FEMA mitigation program.
  I understand that a concern has been raised with respect to the 
requirements of the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act, 
that I quote previously, as it may apply to permissible agricultural 
uses. I have been assured by FEMA that the act does permit agricultural 
uses on lands acquired for flood mitigation purposes. These uses 
include grazing as well as row and field crops. Of course, erecting a 
barn on such land would be inconsistent with the intent of the act, but 
minor structures associated with agricultural use would be permissible. 
In addition, it should be emphasized that the act clearly specifies 
that any subsequent disaster damage would be ineligible for any future 
disaster assistance from any Federal source. So if such land was put to 
an agricultural use, as permitted by the act, it would be at the sole 
risk of that operator or such private insurance that the operator could 
secure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that sections 3 and 4 of the 
Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 that are 
referenced in my amendment be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I again would like to express my 
appreciation to the Senators from Iowa and Missouri for their help to 
crafting this amendment and their cosponsorship. We are in agreement 
that the critical task of disaster hazard mitigation is long overdue 
and critical if we are ever to reduce the mounting cost of responding 
to these natural disasters. We are in agreement that property acquired 
for flood mitigation should be permanently reserved from disaster 
damage prone development. I urge adoption of the amendment.

                              [Exhibit 1]

 Excerpts From the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 
                                  1993

     SEC. 3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.

       Section 404 of The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
     ``(b) Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance.--
       ``(1) General authority.--In providing hazard mitigation 
     assistance under this section in connection with flooding, 
     the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may 
     provide property acquisition and relocation assistance for 
     projects that meet the requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--An acquisition or relocation 
     project shall be eligible to receive assistance pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) only if--
       ``(A) the applicant for the assistance is otherwise 
     eligible to receive assistance under the hazard mitigation 
     grant program established under subsection (a); and
       ``(B) on or after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     the applicant for the assistance enters into an agreement 
     with the Director that provides assurances that--
       ``(i) any property acquired, accepted, or from which a 
     structure will be removed pursuant to the project will be 
     dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use that is 
     compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands 
     management practices;
       ``(ii) no new structure will be erected on property 
     acquired, accepted or from which a structure was removed 
     under the acquisition or relocation program other than--
       ``(I) a public facility that is open on all sides and 
     functionally related to a designated open space;
       ``(II) a rest room; or
       ``(III) a structure that the Director approves in writing 
     before the commencement of the construction of the structure; 
     and
       ``(iii) after receipt of the assistance, with respect to 
     any property acquired, accepted or from which a structure was 
     removed under the acquisition or relocation program--
       ``(I) no subsequent application for additional disaster 
     assistance for any purpose will be made by the recipient to 
     any Federal entity; and
       ``(II) no assistance referred to in subclause (I) will be 
     provided to the applicant by any Federal source.
       ``(3) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     is intended to alter or otherwise affect an agreement for an 
     acquisition or relocation project carried out pursuant to 
     this section that was in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF REAL PROPERTY BUYOUT PROGRAMS

       (a) Inapplicability of URA.--The purchase of any real 
     property under a qualified buyout program shall not 
     constitute the making of Federal financial assistance 
     available to pay all or part of the cost of a program or 
     project resulting in the acquisition of real property or in 
     any owner of real property being a displaced person (within 
     the meaning of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970).
       (b) Definition of ``Qualified Buyout Program''.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term ``qualified buyout 
     program'' means any program that--
       (1) provides for the purchase of only property damaged by 
     the major, widespread flooding in the Midwest during 1993;
       (2) provides for such purchase solely as a result of such 
     flooding;
       (3) provides for such acquisition without the use of the 
     power of eminent domain and notification to the seller that 
     acquisition is without the use of such power;
       (4) is carried out by or through a State or unit of general 
     local government; and
       (5) is being assisted with amounts made available for--
       (A) disaster relief by the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency; or
       (B) other Federal financial assistance programs.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1447

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1447 for Mr. Bond, for himself, and 
Mr. Harkin.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 50, line 15, strike: ``Provided, that not . . .'' 
     and all that follows through ``size'' in line 18, and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (including any regulation), the eligibility 
     to receive assistance from the Soil Conservation Service of a 
     public sponsor of a primary levee located in the area that 
     was affected by major, widespread flooding in the Midwest 
     during 1993 shall not be affected by the status of 
     participation (or the lack of participation) of the public 
     sponsor in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee 
     Rehabilitation Program. And provided further, that not more 
     than $50,000,000 shall be made available for the repair of 
     such levees regardless of drainage size''.


                           amendment no. 1448

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1448 for Mr. Harkin.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place under ``Commodity Credit 
     Corporation'' in Title I, insert:
       Funds made available in Public Law 103-75 for the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation shall be made available to fund crop loss 
     disaster assistance as under the provisions of Public Law 
     101-624 for 1993 losses of nursery stock and inventory being 
     grown for commercial sale, if such stock or inventory would 
     normally have been sold in 1993, 1994 or 1995: Provided, That 
     the use of these funds for these purposes is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that 
     such use shall be available only to the extent the President 
     designates such use an emergency requirement pursuant to such 
     Act.


                           amendment No. 1449

                (Purpose: To add a section to the bill)

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1449 for Mr. Conrad.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . REPEALS.

       Except for subsection (b) of section 3508, sections 3508 
     and 3509 of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock 
     Sioux Tripe Equitable Compensation Act are repealed effective 
     October 30, 1992.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
3759, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations legislation. My 
amendment would repeal certain provisions of the Three Affiliated 
Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act--title 
35, Public Law 102-575.
  The Equitable Compensation Act was enacted into law on October 30, 
1992, after many years of hard work and careful negotiation. The 
primary purpose of this legislation was to correct a historic injustice 
by compensating two Indian tribes for land they lost to the Garrison 
and Oahe dam projects in the 1940's. To accomplish this, the act 
establishes two economic recovery trust funds, worth a total of $240 
million, from which the tribes will be able to draw future interest 
payments for such purposes as economic development, education, health 
care improvement, or environmental management.
  Secondary provisions in the act provide that excess Government lands 
purchased for construction of the reservoirs be sold back to former 
owners or their heirs. While this remains a worthwhile goal, the 
Federal agencies responsible for administering the sale of lands 
estimate the procedure will cost nearly $21 million, over five times 
the estimated value of the land involved. As I am sure you will agree, 
it would be impossible to justify spending that amount of money to 
return land worth so much less. Pursuing this land return would be 
particularly irresponsible in light of our current Federal budget 
crisis.
  For the past year, I have worked diligently with the tribes, State 
officials, representatives from the Department of the Interior and Army 
Corps of Engineers, and other affected parties to develop technical 
amendments to reduce the cost of the land transfer. Several different 
approaches have been considered but, unfortunately, even under our most 
ambitious effort the land return was estimated to cost around $10 
million, still more than double what the land is worth.
  It is for this reason I am offering an amendment to repeal the land 
return provisions of the Equitable Compensation Act. I should emphasize 
that this amendment will not affect the economic recovery trust funds 
which we worked so hard to establish and which will help secure the 
economic viability of these tribes well into the future.


                           amendment no. 1450

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1450 for Mr. Sarbanes, for himself, 
and Ms. Mikulski.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill add: ``It is the sense 
     of the Congress that the Department of Defense should proceed 
     with construction of a new facility for the Walter Reed Army 
     Institute of Research at Forest Glen, Maryland, not later 
     than 45 days after enactment of this Act.''

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment to 
require obligation of funding for a much-needed replacement facility 
for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
  I want to emphasize that this amendment will not have any budgetary 
impact on the legislation that we are considering today. It does not 
authorize or appropriate any additional funding for this important 
project. It simply directs the Department of Defense to proceed with 
construction using funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal 1993 and 
fiscal 1994.
  Mr. President, in fiscal 1993 the Congress authorized and 
appropriated $13.3 million for the first increment of construction. For 
the current fiscal year, fiscal 1994, we authorized and appropriated an 
additional $15.0 million.
  I want to quote from the conference report on military construction 
appropriations that we adopted last fall:

       The Committees on Appropriations have had a long standing 
     interest in replacing the deplorable and inadequate 
     facilities housing the Walter Reed Institute of Research. * * 
     * The conferees wish to point out that ground breaking and 
     award has already been delayed twice from an original date of 
     November 1992 and subsequently June 1993 while the OSD 
     studied and restudied the issue. The conferees are firm in 
     their belief that this issue has been studied enough and want 
     to reiterate that no more delays in award will be tolerated. 
     The conferees therefore direct that an award be made for a 
     new WRAIR not later than December 25, 1993.

  Mr. President, 6 weeks have passed since that deadline that was 
wisely specified by the conferees. I understand that the Corps of 
Engineers has estimated that each month of delay in starting this 
project adds about $400,000 to the total cost. Based on that figure, 
the delay past the December deadline adopted by both Houses of Congress 
has already cost the American taxpayers roughly $600,000.
  Enough is enough. There is strong support in the Congress for this 
project. We need to direct the Department of Defense to move forward at 
once and I urge adoption of my amendment.


                           amendment no. 1451

   (Purpose: To provide a supplemental appropriation of $300,000 to 
    continued necessary functions assigned by law to the Council on 
 Environmental Quality as requested by the administration, offset by a 
  rescission of funds previously provided for the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board. The amendment also repeals a limitation on 
 OSTP staffing as requested by the administration and has no budgetary 
                                impact)

  Mr. BYRD offered amendment No. 1451 for Ms. Mikulski.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 84, after line 7, insert the following:

                   Executive Office of the President

                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       The proviso under this heading in Public Law 103-124 is 
     repealed.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

       For an additional amount for ``Council on Environmental 
     Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'', $300,000.
       On page 113, after line 19, insert the following:

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $770,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if any Senators have amendments they want to 
call up tonight and discuss, I have no problem with their doing that. 
May I inquire as to the Senators who wish to proceed with their 
amendments tonight?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished President pro 
tempore, I am prepared to proceed forward tonight. I do not need a 
great deal of time, nor do I think the amendment needs to take a great 
deal of time. I will be happy to lay it down tonight and temporarily 
set it aside.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. Is there another Senator?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to take 
up tonight with only 15 minutes for myself and possibly one other 
speaker for 5 minutes dealing with the $1.2 billion amount for 
peacekeeping.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I, too, have an amendment creating a 
trust fund that I would like to lay down tonight. I understand there 
will be further debate on the amendment on the morrow, but I would like 
the opportunity to lay it down.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, are there other amendments to be laid down 
tonight? The Senator from Colorado?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have two amendments. One may be 
acceptable to both sides. The other one, I suspect, will take 
discussion. For the convenience of the Members, I thought it would be 
expeditious to lay them down tonight.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, are there other amendments?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kerry, Feingold, 
the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Brown]--those four Senators be permitted to lay down their 
amendments tonight and those amendments, I believe, are on the list. 
All these amendments are on the list; that they be permitted to lay the 
amendments down tonight and discuss them, if they wish; that no action 
be taken on them today, and tomorrow then the Senate will proceed to 
consider and act on the amendments. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kerry], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], 
has two amendments. Very well, if we might do that. Is that agreeable 
with my friend and colleague, Mr. Hatfield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________