[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2247. A bill to amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption 
from certain familial status discrimination prohibitions granted to 
housing for older persons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                  fair housing act amendments of 1994

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it has been brought to my 
attention, by thousands of letters from my constituents in Washington 
State, that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is in the 
process of developing a proposed rule regarding homes for older 
persons. Although this proposed rule has not yet been published, it has 
already caused a great deal of anger and distress among senior citizens 
in my State and across the Nation. This proposed rule is an attempt to 
place arduous, expensive, and unfair regulations on communities created 
especially for persons aged 55 and older.
  I introduce legislation which would counteract HUD's proposed rule. 
The Fair Housing Act currently in effect, rightly exempts ``55 and 
over'' communities from certain familial status discrimination 
provisions. The law allows senior citizens to develop communities which 
restrict residence to persons aged 55 and older. These communities give 
seniors a choice to live in a comfortable, quiet home of their own--a 
choice they rightly deserve. But, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development wants to take that choice away.
  Officials at HUD are proposing a rule which would eliminate this 
exemption unless 55 and older communities provide a set of extravagant 
and very expensive services and facilities for their residents. The 
Department argues that the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 already 
includes a provision requiring certain services and facilities in order 
for these communities to qualify for the exemption, and that the 
proposed rule is merely an attempt to better define this provision of 
the law.

  Mr. President, I argue that it was never the intent of Congress to 
make the requirements for exemption so onerous that only a few, very 
wealthy 55 and over communities would have the means to qualify. Yet 
that is precisely what HUD's proposed rule will do. The Department of 
Housing and Urban Development plans to mandate 24-hour on-site 
emergency medical facilities, nursing care, on-site community dining 
facilities and many more exorbitant facilities and services.
  What HUD doesn't seem to understand is that the majority of 55 and 
over communities cater to low- and moderate-income seniors. Many are 
mobile home parks or apartment complexes. These communities simply do 
not have the resources necessary to comply with HUD's proposed 
regulations. My constituents who operate and live in these senior 
communities have told me if HUD's proposed rule is enacted, they will 
be forced to either drastically increase rents--forcing many residents 
to move out--or give up their exemption, creating for many of them loud 
and chaotic living situations which they want desperately to avoid. Mr. 
President, neither of these options is acceptable to my constituents 
and neither is acceptable to me.
  Senior citizens deserve the right to live as they choose. Retired 
Americans have spent a lifetime raising children, paying taxes, and 
working hard. They have earned their retirement and the right to live 
in the community of their choice, without the Federal Government 
saddling them with burdensome, complicated, and expensive Federal 
regulations. Clearly, retired Americans have the intelligence to decide 
whether they need to live in a community with 24-hour medical care 
without the assistance of the Federal Government.
  Mr. and Mrs. Roderick Mason of Bellingham, WA wrote to me a few weeks 
ago to express their deep concern about the Department's proposal. They 
write,

       When we moved to our mobile home park we knew what services 
     were offered and chose to live here with people in our age 
     group. We do not desire the added services needed for those 
     who can no longer care for themselves. We have no desire to 
     operate as a nursing home. In our view, that is not the true 
     intent of 55 and over housing.

  And Mr. and Mrs. Bob Larsen of Seattle write,

       Many of us already have to contend with the rising cost of 
     living since our original retirement and to further disrupt 
     our lifestyle with unnecessary rules and regulations would be 
     disgusting. Our plan when we moved into this community, was 
     to live here as long as we could function on our own.

  Like my constituents, I am outraged by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's proposal. That is why I am introducing this 
legislation today. My bill would simply exempt communities, in which at 
least 80 percent of the residents are aged 55 and over, from the 
services and facilities provision of the Fair Housing Act. In effect, 
this legislation will give retired Americans the right to live in the 
community of their choice without undue interference by the Federal 
Government.
  I am introducing this legislation today, because I believe 
individuals are better suited to make decisions about how to live their 
own lives than is the Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in this fight to protect the rights of retired Americans, before the 
Federal Government is able to eliminate their choice to live in a 
community designed specifically for persons aged 55 and over.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
       S. 2248. A bill to permit the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     exchange certain lands in the Wenatachee National Forest, 
     Washington, for certain lands owned by Public Utility 
     District No. 1 of Chelan County, WA, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   u.s. forest service/Chelan county public utilities district land 
                          exchange act of 1994

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to 
authorize a land exchange between the Wenatchee National Forest and 
Chelan County Public Utilities District. This bill was passed by the 
Senate in the 102d Congress, but no action was taken in the House of 
Representatives.
  In recent years in Chelan county, the septic tank and associated 
drainfield systems of several local businesses and private residences 
have begun to fail. This failure may cause potential pollution to the 
pristine waters of Lake Wenatchee. A solution was found when a local 
business owner inquired into the possibility of using a sewage 
treatment plant owned and operated by the Wenatchee National Forest to 
treat the area's wastewater. Chelan County PUD was also approached and 
agreed to provide wastewater treatment services in the Lake Wenatchee 
area.
  Both the Forest Service and Chelan County PUD have agreed to a land 
exchange which would transfer ownership of the existing sewage 
treatment plant in the Wenatchee National Forest and the surrounding 85 
acres of National Forest land to Chelan County PUD. The Forest Service 
would receive 109 acres of Chelan County PUD land in exchange. The PUD 
land is surrounded on three sides by national forest land and lies on 
the Wenatchee River, a proposed wild and scenic river.
  This land exchange is supported by both the Forest Service and Chelan 
County PUD, as well as local residents and business owners in the Lake 
Wenatchee area. It would serve to prevent the potential pollution of 
Lake Wenatchee and exchange national forest land currently encumbered 
by a sewage treatment plant with more desirable land located on the 
Wenatchee River.
  Mr. President, this exchange is a win-win solution to Lake 
Wenatchee's sewage treatment problem. I urge the Energy Committee to 
hold hearings on the bill as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues 
for their consideration.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2249. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    ancsa stock buyback act of 1994

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Stock Buyback Act of 1994.
  In 1971 Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
[ANCSA] to settle Alaska Natives land claims.
  Under ANCSA, the Federal Government granted Alaska's Natives 44 
million acres of land and approximately $1 billion in monetary 
compensation for the loss of title to their ancestral lands. In 
addition, ANCSA formed Native corporations. Alaska Natives enrolled in 
these corporations were issued shares of stock in the various regional 
and village corporations.
  ANCSA specifically stated that Native corporation stock--unlike most 
corporate stock--could not be sold, transferred, or pledged by the 
owners of the shares. Rather, stock could only be transferred through 
inheritance or in limited cases by court decree.
  The drafters of ANCSA initially believed that a period of 20 years 
would be a sufficient amount of time for the restrictions on the sale 
of stock to remain in place. But, as 1991 approached, bringing with it 
the impending change in the alienability of Native stock, the Alaska 
Native community grew concerned about the effect of the potential sale 
of Native stock.
  In 1987, 3 years prior to the 1991 restriction-lifting date, Congress 
enacted legislation which reformed the mechanism governing stock sale 
restrictions in a fundamental way.
  Under the 1987 amendments, instead of expiring automatically in 1991, 
the stock restrictions on alienability continue automatically unless 
and until the shareholders of a Native corporation vote to remove them.
  The legislation I am introducing today amends ANCSA by allowing the 
Cook Inlet Regional Corporations [CIRI], upon the approval of its 6,300 
shareholders, to offer to its shareholders, a repurchase plan of CIRI 
stock from those shareholders who desire to tender their stock to the 
company.
  The stock would then be canceled. The plan allows shareholders to 
access the capital value of CIRI stock in a way that preserves Native 
control and ownership of CIRI. The proposed legislation contains 
safeguards designed to ensure that the repurchase would be conducted 
fairly.
  Mr. President, this legislation is supported by Alaska's Native 
community.
  I have discussed this issue with Senator Stevens and Congressman 
Young and we have decided to support CIRI's efforts to repurchase stock 
which will enable CIRI and other ANCSA Regional Corporations to remain 
in Native control.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WOFFORD:
  S.J. Res. 206. A joint resolution designating September 17, 1994, as 
``Constitution Day''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   constitution day joint resolution

 Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, on June 29, 1787, 207 years ago 
today, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 
spent hours debating representation in a bicameral legislature. 
Delegates from Maryland insisted that the small States be equally 
represented in the House and Senate, arguing that without such 
representation, the small States would be squashed.
  This argument was not universally accepted. Small State delegates 
Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut continued working 
behind the scenes to effect a compromise with the delegates of the 
large States, so that the proposed Senate would contain equal 
representation of two Senators from each State, while the House of 
Representatives would be based on population--the compromise that was 
eventually adopted and served as a key ingredient in making the 
Convention a success.
  On behalf of the National Constitution Center, chartered by Congress 
in 1988 in the Constitutional Heritage Act and located in Philadelphia, 
I am introducing today a resolution that would designate September 17, 
1994 as Constitution Day.
  Constitution Day would honor the Constitution and publicize the 
importance of observing and understanding how this document affects our 
daily lives. The Constitution is the greatest instrument of self-
government yet devised. It has lasted more than 200 years and has given 
us stability, continuity, growth, and flexibility.
  The National Constitution Center last year expanded its celebration 
of Constitution Day from one park, Independence National Historic Park 
in Philadelphia to 139 parks, archives, and Presidential libraries 
around the country. Citizens numbering 200,000 signed replicas of the 
Constitution. This year, the Center will further expand its effort to 
teach people the values of the Constitution. I hope this resolution 
will allow Constitution Day to be conducted in large cities and small 
towns across the Nation. The Center hopes to eventually extend the 
program into a Constitution Week--a full week of activities and events 
designed to furthering the understanding of this magnificent document.
  I was a member of the original Planning Committee that launched the 
National Constitution Center in 1985-86, and I have long held an 
interest in our country's earliest history. That is why I support the 
National Constitution Center and their efforts to expand the program 
and ultimately build a Constitution Center in Philadelphia--a place 
where millions of Americans could come to learn more about the great 
ideas behind our Constitution, its bill of Rights, and the Declaration 
of Independence.
  I am pleased to introduce this resolution designating September 17, 
1994 as Constitution Day. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
sponsoring this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 206

       Whereas the Constitution of the United States is the 
     cornerstone of the Nation's system of government under law;
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States signifies the 
     importance of the rule of law and affirms the Nation's 
     dedication to the principles of freedom and justice;
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States is recognized 
     by many to be the most significant and important document in 
     history for establishing freedom and justice through 
     democracy;
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides the 
     framework of the Nation's law, spirit, and beliefs;
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States deserves the 
     recognition, respect, and reverence of all Americans;
       Whereas every American should celebrate the freedom and 
     responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States; 
     and
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States was signed on 
     September 17, 1787; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     September 17, 1994, is designated as ``Constitution Day'', 
     and the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
     proclamation calling on the people of the United States to 
     observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.

                          ____________________