[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 136 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 VA AND HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with consideration of the conference report.


         amendment is disagreement to senate amendment no. 123

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be 
temporarily laid aside so that I may offer an amendment to amendment 
No. 123.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report the amendment in disagreement.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 123 and concur therein 
     with an amendment:

            TITLE VI--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

              Department of Housing and Urban Development


                   community planning and development

                      community development grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Community development 
     grants'', as authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, for emergency expenses 
     resulting from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern 
     California, $225,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996, of which $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from funds provided under the head ``Department of Education, 
     Impact aid'' in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-211) Provided, That of the foregoing 
     amount, $200,000,000 and $25,000,000 shall be for the cities 
     of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, California, respectively: 
     Provided further, That in administering these funds, the 
     Secretary may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 
     any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary 
     administers in connection with the obligation by the 
     Secretary or any use by the recipient of these funds, except 
     for statutory requirements relating to fair housing and 
     nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor standards, upon 
     finding that such waiver is required to facilitate the 
     obligation and use of such funds, and would not be 
     inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute or 
     regulation: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For additional amount for ``Community development grants'', 
     for grants to States and units of general local government 
     and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary for carrying out a community development program as 
     authorized by title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974, to be used to assist States, local 
     communities, and businesses in recovering from the 
     flooding and damage caused by Tropical Storm Alberto and 
     other disasters, $180,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development may waive any provision of law (except 
     for provisions relating to fair housing, the environment, 
     or labor standards) if the Secretary determines such 
     waiver is necessary to facilitate the obligation of the 
     entire amount: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development may transfer up to 
     $50,000,000 to the HOME investment partnerships program, 
     as authorized under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act, to be used for purposes 
     related to flooding and damage caused by Tropical Storm 
     Alberto and other disasters: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount, including transfers, is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount, including transfers, shall be available 
     only to the extent of an official budget request, for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement, 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, is transmitted to the Congress.


                           independent agency

                  federal emergency management agency

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster assistance direct 
     loan program account'' for the cost of direct loans, 
     $12,500,000, as authorized by section 417 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to be 
     used to assist local governments in recovering from flooding 
     and damage caused by Tropical Storm Alberto and other 
     disasters: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidized gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $50,000,000 under section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: Provided 
     further, That any unused portion of the direct loan 
     limitation and subsidy shall be available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     shall be available only to the extent of an official budget 
     request, for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement, as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted to the 
     Congress.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          federal-aid highways

                        emergency relief program

                          (highway trust fund)

       The matter under the heading in the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-211) is amended by 
     deleting ``$950,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$775,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 2589

    (Purpose: To amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes)

  Mr. GORTON. I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be 
considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2589 to the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate numbered 123.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 518. FAIR HOUSING ACT ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Actions Against Printers and Publishers.--
       (1) Donations to private advocacy organizations.--Section 
     810(b) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3610(b)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Donations.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall not propose or approve any conciliation 
     agreement that requires any respondent to provide funding to 
     any private advocacy organization.''.
       (2) Limitation on monetary damages and civil penalties.--
     Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3604(c)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period the following: 
     ``, except that a printer or publisher of a 
     notice, statement, or advertisement described in this 
     subsection shall not be liable for monetary damages or civil 
     penalties for violation of this subsection if such violation 
     was unintentional''.
       (b) Actions Against Individuals.--
       (1) Complaints and investigations.--Section 810(a) of the 
     Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3610(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) No complaint involving speech or any other activity 
     that may be protected by the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution shall be accepted for filing without the prior 
     written approval of the Secretary.''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by inserting ``in accordance 
     with the requirements of paragraph (4)'' after ``housing 
     practice''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Protected activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out this subsection, other 
     than in cases involving a clear violation of the rights of an 
     individual or group under this Act, the Secretary shall not 
     file, accept for filing, or investigate any complaint 
     involving public activities that are directed toward 
     achieving or preventing action by a governmental entity or 
     official.
       ``(B) Activities included.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `public activities that are directed toward 
     achieving or preventing action by a governmental entity or 
     official' includes--
       ``(i) distributing fliers, pamphlets, brochures, posters, 
     or other written materials to the public;
       ``(ii) holding open community and neighborhood meetings;
       ``(iii) writing articles or letters to the editor or making 
     statements in a newspaper or other publication;
       ``(iv) conducting peaceful demonstrations;
       ``(v) testifying at public hearings; and
       ``(vi) communication directly with a governmental entity 
     concerning official governmental matters within the 
     jurisdiction of such entity.
       ``(4) Investigations.--
       ``(A) Investigative plan.--
       ``(i) In general.--Prior to the commencement of an 
     investigation under paragraph (1)(B)(iv), the Secretary shall 
     require the submission of an investigative plan for approval 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--Each investigative plan submitted 
     under clause (i) shall contain provisions to ensure that the 
     investigation will be--

       ``(I) prompt;
       ``(II) narrowly tailored to determine whether or not the 
     First Amendment is applicable; and
       ``(III) conducted in close consultation with legal counsel.

       ``(iii) Approval.--The Secretary shall not approve an 
     investigation plan if an investigation conducted pursuant to 
     such plan will, in the determination of the Secretary, 
     violate the First Amendment rights of any party.
       ``(B) Investigation.--In conducting investigations under 
     paragraph (1)(B)(iv), the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall not subpoena or otherwise seek membership 
     lists, fundraising information, or financial data from 
     organizations that are or may be engaging in protected 
     political activities under the First Amendment; and
       ``(ii) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, review 
     public records and interview public officials, rather than 
     reviewing private correspondence or interviewing 
     respondents.''.
       (2) Conciliation agreements.--Section 810(b) of the Fair 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3610(b)), as amended by subsection 
     (a), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) First amendment rights.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall not approve any conciliation 
     agreement that would limit the First Amendment rights of any 
     party.''.
       (3) Attorney's fees.--Section 812(p) of the Fair Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 3612(p)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this 
     subsection, if in any administrative proceeding brought under 
     this section, any court proceeding arising therefrom, or any 
     civil action under this section, the administrative law judge 
     or the court, as the case may be, makes a determination that 
     is or becomes final that any proposal, offer, order, or 
     demand made by the Secretary during the conciliation process 
     conducted pursuant to section 810(b) violated the 
     respondent's rights under the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution, the administrative law judge or the court shall 
     require the Secretary to pay all reasonable attorney's fees 
     and costs incurred by the respondent in connection with such 
     proceeding or action.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in recent months, many individuals who 
have chosen to speak out, to exercise their first amendment rights in 
connection with housing and zoning issues in their own communities and 
neighborhoods have been subjects of a campaign of fear and intimidation 
on the part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  I find it absolutely incomprehensible that certain officials of the 
Federal Government, whose duty it is to uphold the Constitution, have 
determined themselves to be above the supreme law of the land.
  There have been a series of recent attacks launched by the Office of 
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, under the direction of Assistant 
Secretary Roberta Achtenburg, against individuals who dare question the 
propriety of the Department's agenda.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I am not speaking in 
criticism of the Fair Housing Act but clearly against the Department's 
method of enforcing it. I believe the Fair Housing Act to be a good 
law, intended to protect individuals from housing discrimination based 
on race, religion, disability, or familial status. It is only over the 
past year or so, under the direction of Assistant Secretary Achtenburg, 
that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has used the law 
to harass those who did not agree with the Department's agenda and to 
make examples of those who unintentionally publish housing 
advertisements found to be discriminatory by radical advocacy 
organizations.
  As many Americans are now aware, in November 1993, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development launched an investigation into a group of 
Berkeley, CA, homeowners who spoke out against the Department's 
proposal to construct a homeless shelter for drug addicts and the 
mentally ill in their neighborhood. The subjects of the investigation 
were doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights to 
protest a Federal Government proposal with which they did not agree. 
HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, however, responded 
to a complaint that the protest amounted to discrimination against the 
disabled.
  Before any finding of discrimination, HUD threatened the Berkeley 
group with fines of $100,000 each and a year in jail for speaking out 
against the shelter. The Department demanded membership lists, copies 
of all written material related to the protest, and fundraising records 
from those individuals.
  Mr. President, not only did the Department's actions violate first 
amendment rights of the subjects of the investigation, but they were 
designed to silence would-be protesters around the Nation with this 
campaign of intimidation.
  That same Department recently took action against protesters in the 
State of Washington, a group of residents from the Capitol Hill area of 
Seattle. The Capitol Hill Association for Parity, or CHAP, has also 
faced the wrath of Ms. Achtenburg's office. The members of the Capitol 
Hill Association for Parity did not agree with a plan to use five 
buildings in their neighborhood to house drug addicts and the mentally 
ill.
  Their peaceful campaign against the Department's plans made them 
subject to the same scare tactics and threats used in the Berkeley, CA, 
case. Again, before any finding of discrimination, the Department 
offered a so-called conciliation agreement to CHAP. This agreement 
would have required CHAP to host a fundraising block party for the new 
shelter and inform housing advocacy groups of any scheduled meetings or 
protests.
  Mr. President, this kind of action on the part of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development was clearly in violation of the first 
amendment. Not only were the tactics and demands of the Office of Fair 
Housing an outrageous violation of the first amendment, but they were 
clearly intended to prevent other groups from protesting or questioning 
the Department's plans. As such, the Department's actions were entirely 
unacceptable.
  Not until the press picked up on these stories and criticized the 
Department for its actions, did HUD decide to drop both investigations. 
The public outrage generated by editorials in the Wall Street Journal, 
the Washington Post, and other prominent publications was enormous. 
Even the ACLU, a strong supporter of equal housing opportunity, 
reprimanded the Department for what it deemed to be a clear violation 
of the first amendment.
  Unfortunately, HUD's harassment does not stop with protestors. The 
Department has also been on the attack against publishers and 
newspapers across the country. Newspaper publishers now live in fear of 
publishing housing advertisements that are deemed to be discriminatory 
by radical fair housing groups. Several newspapers have already been 
sued or subject to large fines for publishing housing advertisements 
which use words or phrases which may be offensive to certain minority 
groups.
  Over the past few years, HUD has taken extensive actions against 
several newspapers. A chain of weekly papers in suburban Los Angeles 
was forced into bankruptcy over legal fees related to a fair housing 
complaint. Three New York weeklies and a weekly paper in New Jersey 
have all been fined $50,000, and Pennsylvania newspapers have been sued 
for $1 million.
  The Department's actions have generated fear among newspaper 
publishers across the Nation. Many are afraid to print housing 
advertisements at all. Thus, it seems, HUD's actions are hurting rather 
than helping the cause of equal housing rights.
  In my home State, HUD recently filed a fair housing claim against 
David Pinkham, editor of the Stanwood-Camano News--a weekly publication 
with a circulation of 4,500. The newspaper unintentionally published an 
advertisement including the phrase ``no children'' which HUD found to 
be discriminatory. HUD pursued its case against the paper by offering a 
number of conciliation agreement which was not only unacceptable to 
Dave Pinkham, but bordered on being ridiculous. The paper admitted that 
the advertisement in question was in fact discriminatory, but 
inadvertently made it through the paper's screening process 
unchecked. HUD's first offer to the paper was a penalty of some $7,500 
to be turned over to advocacy groups, they very advocacy groups that 
make these complaints in the first place, together with an agreement to 
print articles in the paper espousing the importance of the Fair 
Housing Act and recordkeeping requirements that would be next to 
impossible for a small weekly newspaper to carry through.

  Only after this demand came to the attention of my office in the last 
2 or 3 months and only after the amendment which is now on the desk was 
threatened to this appropriations bill, did the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development suddenly determine that it could back off and 
levy a reasonable penalty against Mr. Pinkham and his newspaper.
  Today, as a result of my inquiries into this case and into HUD's 
actions against protestors, I received a personal letter from Secretary 
Cisneros urging me not to introduce the amendment which is at the desk. 
The Secretary's letter emphasizes the Department's commitment to the 
Constitution and the freedom of speech granted by the first amendment. 
He has assured me that the Department will conduct its investigations 
into violations of the Fair Housing Act ``with the utmost sensitivity 
to first amendment values.'' I sincerely hope the Secretary will stand 
by his word and that the Department will strictly enforce the new 
guidelines it established on September 2 when investigating fair 
housing claims.
  Mr. President, I think it important enough that I ask that a copy of 
the Secretary's letter be printed in the Record as if read in full at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Department of Housing


                                        and Urban Development,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: I am told that you are very interested 
     in several issues concerning HUD's enforcement of the Fair 
     Housing Act, and that you may, in fact, consider introducing 
     legislation which would amend the Act. I believe, as I know 
     you do, that HUD must be ever vigilant to protect First 
     Amendment rights. That is why Assistant Secretary Achtenberg 
     and I developed guidelines to govern the conduct of HUD 
     employees in the field when issues arise that may have First 
     Amendment implications.
       HUD issued these guidelines to its fair housing enforcement 
     staff on September 2, 1994. The purpose of the guidelines is 
     to ensure that no HUD investigation interferes with or chills 
     speech protected by the First Amendment. They instruct staff 
     not to accept for filing or investigate any complaint 
     involving public activities that are directed toward 
     achieving action by a governmental entity or official, other 
     than cases involving force, physical harm, or a clear threat 
     of force or physical harm. They further instruct staff that 
     they may not accept for filing any complaint involving speech 
     that may be protected by the First Amendment without prior 
     written approval from Headquarters.
       The guidelines assure that HUD will fulfill its obligation 
     to enforce the Fair Housing Act in a manner that fully and 
     faithfully protects the rights of all Americans to speak 
     freely on issues of public concern. The guidelines, which 
     went into effect September 2, 1994, are binding on all HUD 
     personnel involved in the investigation of fair housing 
     complaints. By applying the new guidelines, HUD has 
     identified 23 cases nationwide that were based on protected 
     free speech. In each of those cases, HUD dismissed the 
     complaint as without cause, or the complaint was withdrawn.
       No further legislation is needed to assure that the 
     Department will conduct its investigations with utmost 
     sensitivity to First Amendment values. The HUD guidelines 
     soon will be issued in Notice form. Accordingly, any HUD 
     employee who fails to comply with the procedures set forth in 
     the guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action. It is 
     my belief that additional action by the Congress is 
     unnecessary, and may in fact prove harmful.
       By codifying the guidelines, the Congress takes the risk 
     that First Amendment jurisprudence might change. While the 
     guidelines accurately reflect the state of the law at this 
     point, they are relatively easy to change should the courts 
     expand the scope of the First Amendment in this area. A 
     statutory codification could place the Act in conflict with 
     developing First Amendment jurisprudence.
       In addition, the guidelines speak to the process to be 
     followed by HUD staff in the field and in the Office of Fair 
     Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington. While we at HUD 
     believe this process will be effective in the short term, we 
     cannot know if it will prove to be the best procedural 
     mechanism in the long term. For instance, a reorganization of 
     the staffing structure may make the procedural rules of the 
     guidelines obsolete.
       I also understand that you have taken a particular interest 
     in a Fair Housing Act case involving one of your 
     constituents, David Pinkham, the owner and publisher of the 
     Stanwood-Camano News. The case concerns the publication of 
     certain advertisements in the newspaper's real estate 
     listings. I am happy to report that HUD and the publisher 
     have successfully resolved the complaint. A conciliation 
     agreement was signed this morning.
       I hope you will agree with me that there is no need for 
     legislative action concerning these issues at this time. 
     Please contact me or my staff should you require further 
     consultation or assistance. I would be very happy to work 
     further with you on these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                Henry G. Cisneros,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, HUD's recent actions have made a mockery 
of our Nation's Constitution by placing the Department's own agenda 
above the protections granted by the Bill of Rights. No cause, no 
matter how worthy, is more important than the maintenance of the basic 
rights granted every American by the U.S. Constitution. I cannot stand 
idly by and allow a radical arm of this administration to trample on 
the Constitution in the name of fair housing. That is why, Mr. 
President, I stand today to urge the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to act on its commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution 
and the first amendment.
  Mr. President, I wish to give notice that I intend to offer this 
amendment or an amendment similar to it to the next substantive bill on 
housing which comes before the Senate of the United States. The reason 
I wish this amendment to be printed here today is that I hope that 
people who are concerned on both sides of this issue, fair housing and 
protection of first amendment rights and the rights of newspaper 
publishers, will have an opportunity to review and critique this 
proposal.
  I am delighted that the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development has finally responded and has responded in the 
forthright manner expressed in his letter. But I am not at all certain, 
given the history of this Department, that we are going to be able to 
depend on that without explicitly and by law limiting the kind of 
activities which have been so disruptive in the past.
  Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment at this point. I want to 
thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who is managing 
this bill for her tolerance while I have done the speech and held the 
bill up to this extent. She has done a very good job in this respect. I 
want her appropriations bill to get to the President and be signed. But 
I could not forsake this opportunity to speak out on behalf of the 
first amendment rights of Americans and to give notice that this is not 
the end of this debate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this 
issue to the attention of the U.S. Senate. I thank him also for 
withdrawing his amendment to the amendment because it could have 
derailed us again in meeting our debt to try to get to the October 1 
deadline. However, the Senator does raise excellent points. I urge him 
to continue to stand sentry on these issues that he has raised that, 
under the guise of enforcing the fair housing legislation, there is a 
small group of people who have their own ideological agenda.
  To the Senator from the State of Washington, who has administered a 
State, has been an attorney general, I believe he knows the 
Constitution. I believe he has worked to enforce the Constitution. 
Knowing also the Senator's background, he has also been a supporter of 
fair housing legislation.
  I also note that the Senator believes that dissent is allowed under 
the Constitution whether one agrees with any particular administrative 
philosophy or not. I agree with that. I believe that the fair housing 
law should be enforced as law and that the Assistant Secretary should 
focus on the mission of enforcing the legislation rather than 
ideological groupings looking to push their own agenda on what is right 
or what is wrong.
  It has been my observation that the ideologs do not acknowledge the 
validity of the concerns of the neighborhoods. As someone who marched 
for fair housing, supported fair housing, whether it was on the 
Baltimore City Council, the House of Representatives, or the Senate of 
the United States, I acknowledge that there is value to protest. When 
one wants to open some of the facilities, neighborhoods have concern. 
What they have concern about is that the whole HUD preference rules and 
others create problems. They actually create problems in neighborhoods 
and we do not look at what the problems are. We blame the people who 
are raising the problems. I do not know if the Senator is aware that 
among some of the HUD preference rules, like for disabilities, there 
are people who are both drug addicts and alcoholics who qualify as 
handicapped. Well, that is not the inhibition of the activities of 
daily living. For a chronic illness like manic depressiveness, which is 
under the supervision of an appropriate clinical team, that is what 
handicapped is.
  I hope that if and when we get to an authorizing bill on HUD, we can 
begin to deal with those issues that raise citizens' concerns and 
enable us to meet the compelling human needs that HUD is designed to 
meet, advocate a fair housing agenda, and advocate free and fair 
speech. And if people raise an issue, let us deal with the issue and 
not blame the dissenter, like we do not want the right wing ideologues 
to blame the victim.
  I think the Senator has done a great deed in bringing this to our 
attention. We have a letter from Secretary Cisneros. I presume we will 
live by the intent offered by that. We look forward to the research of 
the Senator from Washington on these issues.
  Mr. President, I believe we have now, for today, completed our 
discussion on the VA-HUD bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment 
to Senate amendment No. 123.
  I ask further unanimous consent that no further amendments be in 
order to the Smith amendment to the amendment No. 28, or the McCain 
amendment to Senate amendment No. 84.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Portland, OR, Veterans Medical Center

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President with the assistance of the Senator from 
Maryland, the Senate approved funding requested by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for the construction of an addition to the Portland, 
OR, veterans medical center. While the conference report does not 
specifically mention the Portland addition in the statement of 
managers, by approving the budget request, Portland is funded.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. As a conferee, he knows that 
the conference committee endorsed the VA major construction budget 
request and thereby approved funding for the Portland project. Let 
there be no mistake, the conferees' intent is clear. Portland funding 
is approved.
  The research program at the Portland VAMC now consists of over 80 
investigators with a yearly peer reviewed budget of over $11 million. 
The service continues to grow and remains the single most valuable 
inducement for the recruitment and retention of physicians involved in 
patient care. During the spring of 1994 round of merit review grant 
submissions, 57 percent of the grants from this medical center were 
funded compared to a national average of 25 percent. Given this track 
record, I agree with Secretary Brown that ``this addition will enhance 
a program that contributes directly to improving the quality of care of 
patients.''


                   taos county community development

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, within the VA, HUD, and independent 
agencies conference report, there is $900,000 earmarked for Taos 
County, NM, to provide basic community services. Taos County contains 
municipalities that are having difficulty with infrastructure 
development. If I may pose a question to the Senator from Maryland. Was 
the conference committee's intent for the $900,000 to alleviate the 
most pressing infrastructure needs within Taos County, including 
municipalities?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you.


                   new york city wastewater treatment

  Mr. D'AMATO. Would the chairwoman yield in order that I might seek 
some clarification with regard to one of the conference report's 
provisions?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Certainly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, included within this 
bill is grant funding for some much needed improvements to New York 
City's wastewater treatment capabilities. The conference report 
describes these funds as being available ``for a grant to the city of 
New York for the construction of a wastewater reclamation facility.''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. That is the 
language in the conference report.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would appreciate the chairwoman's clarification that 
the words ``construction of a wastewater reclamation facility'' are 
intended to convey the availability of these grant funds for the 
construction and improvement of any of the City's various wastewater 
treatment facilities, including combined sewer overflow facilities.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator from New York's inquiry. What 
the Senator is seeking, if I am not mistaken, is to provide some more 
explicit direction to the Environmental Protection Agency, which will 
disseminate these grant funds, regarding the types of activities that 
would be eligible for this grant funding.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the chairwoman is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. In that case, I concur with the clarification being 
offered by the Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairwoman, and I appreciate her 
consideration of this matter.


        regarding the national center for appropriate technology

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished manager 
would engage me in a short colloquy regarding Department of Housing and 
Urban Development appropriations?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am very pleased that the conferees have included 
funding under the special purpose grant account for the National Center 
for Appropriate Technology [NCAT] in Butte, MT, to assist HUD in the 
application of low cost conservation technologies in publicly assisted 
housing. Is it the understanding of the distinguished Senator that 
these funds are to be used by NCAT at selected demonstration sites 
around the country?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Montana is correct. The committee 
intended those funds to be used by NCAT in projects throughout the 
country.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for that clarification and for her 
assistance in providing this important funding.


                       buffalo's central terminal

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might enter into a 
colloquy with my friend from Maryland, the distinguished chair of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, concerning a small 
item in her bill?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to do so with the distinguished 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Last spring the mayor of Buffalo came to my office and 
told me of his plans to renovate Buffalo's central terminal, an art 
deco train station and formerly one of Buffalo's architectural 
landmarks. Sadly this one was not maintained or preserved and it now 
sits in great disrepair, even though it is listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places. Mayor Massiello asked me for help in 
making it a useable, useful building once again. I then asked for help 
from the Senator from Maryland, and she was good enough to include $1.5 
million in her bill to do so.
  Regrettably, it now seems that the time has not yet come to restore 
the terminal. I wonder if the distinguished Senator would entertain the 
idea of reallocating these funds at the next opportunity to another 
Buffalo landmark that is on the road to restoration, the Darwin Martin 
House. It is a Frank Lloyd Wright masterpiece, the rejuvenation of 
which is under the guidance of the Martin House Restoration Corp., a 
private, nonprofit group that has already raised $1.5 million toward 
the $9 million cost.
  The Martin House is also on the National Register, and an 
internationally recognized example of Wright's Prairie School. When the 
Darwin Martin House reopens people will come from across the country 
just to see it, as they do other Wright masterpieces. The Martin House 
is but one of Buffalo's architectural jewels that comprise an untapped 
source of tourist revenue for this city in great need of revenue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. To my friend from New York I say that I will do my best 
to reassign this money to the Darwin Martin House at the next 
opportunity, which will likely be a supplemental appropriations bill 
early next year.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and I 
invite her to tour the Martin House at her next opportunity.


                          nsf arctic research

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague, the 
Senator from Maryland, what action will be taken in fiscal year 1995 by 
the National Science Foundation to balance the funding between its 
Arctic and Antarctic research programs? As the Senator will recall, I 
offered an amendment on this subject during the Senate floor debate on 
this appropriations bill.
  I have been frustrated for many years at the clear bias the 
Foundation has demonstrated toward the Antarctic at the expense of the 
Arctic, even though our national economic interests, our strategic 
interests, and our environmental concerns are much greater in the 
Arctic. Without further delay, the Foundation should put into place a 
logistics support program for Arctic research, and it should increase 
the fraction of its funding that goes for Arctic research.
  During floor debate, I received the Senator's assurance that my 
concerns would be taken into account, and so I withdrew my amendment. 
Now I ask the Senator what plans the Foundation has made to improve its 
performance for funding research in the Arctic?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
question. I agree with him that we need more emphasis on research in 
the Arctic. This fall, after the enactment of this appropriations, 
legislation, the National Science Foundation will submit its operating 
plan for fiscal year 1995 to the Congress. This document will include a 
new structure for a more balanced set of polar programs, including a 
logistics support program for the Arctic, that recognizes the 
importance of the Arctic to our national interests. I expect real 
improvements in the NSF Arctic program with a greater allocation of 
resources to Arctic research. We do not simply want to see the same 
level of activity within a revamped organizational structure. And we 
will communicate with the Senator to be sure that the Foundation's plan 
properly addresses the concerns expressed by the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.


         the twin cities opportunities industrialization center

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of one 
of the special purpose grants contained in title II of H.R. 4624. Two 
million dollars has been allocated under provisions of the bill for the 
Twin Cities Opportunities Industrialization Center [TCOIC] in 
Minneapolis, MN.
  The Twin Cities Opportunities Industrialization Center is a private, 
non-profit organization that came into existence back in 1966 to 
provide employment and training services to at-risk and disadvantaged 
populations in the Twin Cities. Its services include providing literacy 
and basic training skills, technical and vocational education, job 
counseling, and placement services.
  Since its inception the TCOIC has served some 20,000 individuals with 
effective programs that have resulted in long-term economic self-
sufficiency for program graduates. TCOIC places a special emphasis on 
serving populations that cannot be served by other training 
institutions. Its 650 per year student population consists of large 
numbers of welfare recipients, ex-offenders, single parents, non-
English speakers, the desperately poor, and the chronically unemployed. 
Additionally, TCOIC believes in a holistic approach to serving its 
clients which includes addressing personal, family, and social problems 
to ensure that clients find meaningful and sustainable employment.
  TCOIC also maintains a program called STRIDE--success through 
reaching individual development and employment. This is a Minnesota 
State initiative to assist eligible AFDC recipients to become self-
sufficient.
  TCOIC takes pride in the fact that it has never turned any client 
away because of a lack of financial resources, but it is also proud of 
its cautious spending of taxpayer dollars in providing services. In 
1993, TCOIC conducted a return on investment analysis with respect to a 
group of 70 program graduates to determine how cost effective their 
programs were. This analysis revealed that during the first year after 
graduation these individuals, through Federal and State taxes, and 
through salaries spent into the economy, yielded an average return of 
308 percent on the investment of services from the TCOIC Program.

  The Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America [OIC], the 
parent organization of the TCOIC, has served over 1\1/2\ million 
disadvantaged Americans. In 1989 a study commissioned by the OIC 
estimated that the first million clients produced more than $150 
billion in earnings for the U.S. economy, generating some $22 billion 
in taxes and $35 billion in savings of welfare payments.
  TCOIC has been and is working in partnership with a number of 
corporations to facilitate program development, including IBM, 3M, 
General Mills, and Honeywell. Additionally, TCOIC has developed a 
network of links to other community groups, including the United Way, 
the Minneapolis Public Schools, the Hennepin County Department of 
Economic Assistance, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, and the 
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. The TCOIC facility also houses such 
organizations as the Red Cross, the Urban League, an adult basic 
education program, a GED program, and a literacy training program--for 
over 10 year--and has a collaborative partnership with the JTPA--(Job 
Training Partnership Act)--program.
  In short, the Twin Cities Opportunities Industrialization Center has 
contributed significantly to the Minneapolis-St. Paul community and to 
the lives of individuals by delivering market-driven job training, job 
placement and employer recruitment programs, human and social services 
and educational support services.
  The current TCOIC facility was constructed some 35 years ago and 
though the building has been renovated, it is rapidly deteriorating. 
Cost for repairs are estimated at $5 million, and therefore 
construction of a new facility is a much more cost effective option.
  Providing a $2 million special purpose grant for the construction of 
a multi-purpose training, commercial and community center for this 
organization is a long-term investment in the human capital of some of 
the most disadvantaged of the American people. This investment yields a 
phenomenal return by reducing the welfare rolls as well as crime and 
drug abuse among this population. It gives them hope and a real 
opportunity to achieve the American dream. I hope we will take the time 
to reflect upon how well the money we appropriate is spent. TCOIC's 
commitment to employment and its devotion to improving the human 
economic and social condition of individuals warrants the respect, 
encouragement and assistance of policymakers in this body.


                              health care

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before I leave the podium, I would like 
to also, as a Senator who has worked very hard on health insurance 
reform, tell you the rather melancholy feeling that I have about today. 
There are many of us in the Senate on both sides of the aisle who try 
to work very hard to make health insurance available so that there 
would be no discrimination on previous conditions, that it would be 
portable, and that we wanted to make insurance affordable by reforming 
the way people could buy insurance, through purchasing co-ops, and by 
moving toward universal coverage.
  Obviously, that is not going to happen this year, and I believe this 
is a sad day for the United States of America. I know, as I travel 
through my own State, the misinformation and disinformation that 
prevailed has made my constituents say that no bill was better than a 
bad bill. But what they really did not know, because we could not get 
through the clutter of the naysayers, was that we had a good bill. The 
Mitchell bill was a good bill, and we were making very steady progress, 
reaching out to other Members of the Senate on either side of the aisle 
who also had other ideas. We have our colleague, Senator Harkin, and 
others, who were advocating an approach and at least a core benefit 
package for children and elderly.
  I am so sorry that as of today, we have lost the opportunity to 
provide a prescription drug benefit for the senior citizens of the 
United States of America, whose pharmaceutical bills are now higher 
than their utilities. For them, the pharmaceuticals they take every day 
are as important as their utilities. They may be able to live without 
their telephone, but they cannot live without insulin. They need gas 
and electric, and they need their heart patch, their angina medicine, 
and they need the kind of pharmaceuticals that are a lifeline.
  But, no, the naysayers have derailed the ability for us to have a 
prescription drug benefit. The naysayers have derailed the fact that we 
were ready to make a downpayment on long-term care, and everyone in 
America knows that the cost of long-term care bankrupts many families. 
This Senator believes in family responsibility, yes, but family 
bankruptcy, no. And that is why in the Clinton bill and in the Mitchell 
bill, we were moving toward a downpayment on long-term care.
  As someone who has advocated the cause of women's health care, we 
were going to have a series of preventive benefits in here that would 
have screened for those cancers unique to women. But it would also have 
screened for those cancers unique to the men we love. We have lost an 
opportunity for preventive services for both men and women in this 
country, and it is indeed a great tragedy. So for the kids who might 
not have immunization, for the men and women who will not have 
screening for cancers and other illnesses, where we could do preventive 
care, and for those senior citizens who are going to wonder how they 
are going to pay for their gas and electric bill as well as their 
insulin, this is a sad day.
  So I hope the naysayers go out with their Gucci lobbyists, drink a 
couple of things that Gucci lobbyists like to. I think maybe we will 
stop the ad campaigns that cluttered the airwaves and confused the 
American people.
  Mr. President, though the legislative debate comes to an end on 
health care for this year, it will not come to an end. We will be here 
next year, day after day, month after month, and we will reform health 
insurance in this country.
  I salute both the President and First Lady. Had they not been such a 
vigorous voice for change, the private sector would not have taken the 
modest steps that they have to reform themselves. Change is here, and 
we either need to embrace it or be rolled over by it. I believe we need 
to embrace it, and we will next year, again, come forth for a way to 
reform health insurance in an orderly, rational, cost-conscious way 
that meets the compelling needs of our American people. I believe that 
will be the way to do it.

                          ____________________