[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.
____________________