[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14346-S14366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is important that we move forward on this 
bill. We have reached an agreement I believe on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be 
recognized to introduce an amendment on the EPA funding, that there be 
1 hour divided in the usual manner and in the usual form, that at the 
conclusion of that 1 hour the amendment be set aside, and that the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, be recognized to introduce an 
amendment on insurance redlining, that there be 45 minutes divided in 
the usual form and under the usual procedures, and at the end of that 
debate that a vote occur on or in relation to the Lautenberg amendment 
and that no second-degree amendments be permitted, and that the 
following amendment, the vote on the Feingold amendment, be 10 minutes 
in length and no second-degree amendments be permitted, but that the 
vote occur on or in relation to the Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no reserving the right to object.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.
  I simply want to clarify a point with the manager.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was objection. Has the Senator objected?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I simply wanted to ask clarification with regard to the 
unanimous-consent request. I was only attempting to make sure that I 
can make that clarification before the unanimous-consent agreement is 
entered into.
  I ask unanimous consent to ask a question of the manager with regard 
to this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Under our time agreement, our time 
is 45 minutes. My understanding is we would have 30 minutes on our 
side. Is that inconsistent with the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. BOND. I ask there be an hour equally divided.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That will be fine. I thank the manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as so 
modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that a 
detailee in my office, Lisa Haage, be granted the privilege of the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2788

      (Purpose: To increase funding for Superfund, the Office of 
    Environmental Quality, and State revolving funds and offset the 
  increase in funds by ensuring that any tax cut benefits only those 
               families with incomes less than $100,000)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators 
Mikulski, Daschle, Baucus, Kerry, Biden, 

[[Page S 14347]]
Murray, Sarbanes, Pell, and Kennedy, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Biden, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2788.

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

       On page 141, line 4, strike beginning with 
     ``$1,003,400,000'' through page 152, line 9, and insert the 
     following: ``$1,435,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $1,185,000,000 as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $250,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund as authorized by section 
     517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public Law 101-508: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That $11,700,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the 
     Office of Inspector General appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $64,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available to the 
     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry out 
     activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 
     111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be available for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles 
     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to propose for listing or to list any additional 
     facilities on the National Priorities List established by 
     section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 9605), unless the Administrator receives a written 
     request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the 
     Governor of the State in which the facility is located, or 
     appropriate tribal leader, or unless legislation to 
     reauthorize CERCLA is enacted.


              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $45,827,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $8,000,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided further, That $600,000 
     shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General 
     appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1996.


                           oil spill response

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $8,000,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for administrative expenses.


                 program and infrastructure assistance

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for state revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $2,668,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,828,000,000 shall be 
     for making capitalization grants for State revolving funds to 
     support water infrastructure financing; $100,000,000 for 
     architectural, engineering, design, construction and related 
     activities in connection with the construction of high 
     priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the 
     United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the 
     appropriate border commission; $50,000,000 for grants to the 
     State of Texas, which shall be matched by an equal amount of 
     State funds from State resources, for the purpose of 
     improving wastewater treatment for colonias; and $15,000,000 
     for grants to the State of Alaska, subject to an appropriate 
     cost share as determined by the Administrator, to address 
     wastewater infrastructure needs of Alaska Native villages: 
     Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator is authorized to make grants annually 
     from funds appropriated under this heading, subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Administrator shall establish, to 
     any State or federally recognized Indian tribe for multimedia 
     or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement 
     and related environmental activities at the request of the 
     Governor or other appropriate State official or the tribe: 
     Provided further, That from funds appropriated under this 
     heading, the Administrator may make grants to federally 
     recognized Indian governments for the development of 
     multimedia environmental programs: Provided further, That of 
     the $1,828,000,000 for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     $500,000,000 shall be for drinking water State revolving 
     funds, but if no drinking water State revolving fund 
     legislation is enacted by December 31, 1995, these funds 
     shall immediately be available for making capitalization 
     grants under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, as amended: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading in Public Law 103-327 and in 
     Public Law 103-124 for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     $225,000,000 shall be made available for capitalization 
     grants for State revolving funds under title VI of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, if no 
     drinking water State revolving fund legislation is enacted by 
     December 31, 1995.


                       administrative provisions

     SEC. 301. MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN EMISSIONS TESTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Moratorium.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not require adoption or 
     implementation by a State of a test-only or I/M240 enhanced 
     vehicle inspection and maintenance program as a means of 
     compliance with section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), but the Administrator may approve such a program if a 
     State chooses to adopt the program as a means of compliance.
       (2) Repeal.--Paragraph (1) is repealed effective as of the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Plan Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not disapprove a State 
     implementation plan revision under section 182 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511a) on the basis of a regulation 
     providing for a 50-percent discount for alternative test-and-
     repair inspection and maintenance programs.
       (2) Credit.--If a State provides data for a proposed 
     inspection and maintenance system for which credits are 
     appropriate under section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), the Administrator shall allow the full amount of 
     credit for the system that is appropriate without regard to 
     any regulation that implements that section by requiring 
     centralized emissions testing.
       (3) Deadline.--The Administrator shall complete and present 
     a technical assessment of data for a proposed inspection and 
     maintenance system submitted by a State not later than 45 
     days after the date of submission.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose or 
     enforce any requirement that a State implement trip reduction 
     measures to reduce vehicular emissions. Section 304 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7604) shall not apply with respect 
     to any such requirement during the period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending September 30, 
     1996.
       Sec. 303. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used within the Environmental Protection Agency for any final 
     action by the Administrator or her delegate for signing and 
     publishing for promulgation a rule concerning any new 
     standard for arsenic, sulfates, radon, ground water 
     disinfection, or the contaminants in phase IV B in drinking 
     water, unless the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 has been 
     reauthorized.
       Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used during fiscal year 1996 to sign, promulgate, implement 
     or enforce the requirement proposed as ``Regulation of Fuels 
     and Fuel Additives: Individual Foreign Refinery Baseline 
     Requirements for Reformulated Gasoline'' at volume 59 of the 
     Federal Register at pages 22800 through 22814.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 1996 may be 
     used to implement section 404(c) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended. No pending action by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to implement section 404(c) 
     with respect to an individual permit shall remain in effect 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 306. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     this fiscal year and hereafter, an industrial discharger to 
     the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant, an advanced wastewater 
     treatment plant with activated carbon, may be exempted from 
     categorical pretreatment standards under section 307(b) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, if the 
     following conditions are met: (1) the Kalamazoo Water 
     Reclamation Plant applies to the State of Michigan for an 
     exemption for such industrial discharger and (2) the State or 
     the Administrator, as applicable, approves such exemption 
     request based upon a determination that the Kalamazoo Water 
     Reclamation Plant will provide treatment consistent with or 
     better than treatment requirements set forth by the EPA, and 
     there exists an operative financial contract between the City 
     of Kalamazoo and the industrial user and an approved local 

[[Page S 14348]]
     pretreatment program, including a joint monitoring program and local 
     controls to prevent against interference and pass through.
       Sec. 307. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     during fiscal year 1996 to enforce the requirements of 
     section 211(m)(2) of the Clean Air Act that require fuel 
     refiners, marketers, or persons who sell or dispense fuel to 
     ultimate consumers in any carbon monoxide nonattainment area 
     in Alaska to use methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to meet 
     the oxygen requirements of that section.

                   Executive Office of the President


                office of science and technology policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $4,981,000: Provided, That the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall reimburse other 
     agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel 
     compensation costs of individuals detailed to it.


  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Improvement Act of 1970 
     and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,188,000.


                       administrative provisions

       Sec. 401. Section 105(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67 
     (104th Congress, 1st Session) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Certification.--(A) In the Senate, upon the 
     certification pursuant to section 205(a) of this resolution, 
     the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit its 
     recommendations pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving the recommendations, 
     the Committee on the Budget shall add such recommendations to 
     the recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and 
     report a reconciliation bill carrying out all such 
     recommendations without any substantive revision.
       ``(B) The Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall file 
     with the Senate revised allocations, aggregates, and 
     discretionary spending limits under section 201(a)(1)(B) 
     increasing budget authority by $760,788,000 and outlays by 
     $760,788,000.
       ``(2) Committee on finance.--Funding for this section shall 
     be provided by limiting any tax cut provided in the 
     reconciliation bill to families with incomes less than 
     $150,000.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment will do three things. 
It will restore funding for hazardous waste cleanup and for sewage 
treatment plants at last year's levels and provide funds for the 
Council of Environmental Quality to enable it to continue its work to 
meet its important responsibilities.
  First, Mr. President, I commend our colleague, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Bond, for his work on this bill and for adding 
over $650 million to the EPA budget. I know that he has done his best 
under very difficult circumstances. He deserves credit for that. In no 
way should my request here be viewed as being critical of the effort. 
But nevertheless, Mr. President, I believe that we are going to have to 
do better and hope that we can find a way to do it.
  I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for her 
hard work on the subcommittee bill and hope also she will be with me as 
we work our way through this to try and adopt this amendment.
  Mr. President, even with the additions that were made by the 
subcommittee, the bill still would cut EPA by more than 22 percent from 
the President's request. That is far more than many other agencies.
  Unfortunately, these deep cuts in EPA's budget are indicative of a 
much broader attack on the environment in this Congress. This year, we 
have seen efforts to undercut the Clean Water Act, dismantle the 
community right-to-know law, weaken the laws protecting endangered 
species and making environmental regulations that are almost impossible 
to promulgate. It seems that there is no end to the new majority's 
assault on the environment.
  That is not what the American people voted for last November. They do 
not want environmental laws curtailed. They do not want to see the 
gutting of our attempt to improve the environment.
  A recent Harris poll showed that over 70 percent of the American 
public, of both parties, believe that EPA regulations are just right 
or, in fact, not tough enough. Clearly, most Americans care about our 
environment, feeling, in many cases, very strongly about it.
  Mr. President, $432 million of this amendment restores money for the 
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program. The bill reported by the 
Appropriations Committee calls for a cut of roughly a third in 
hazardous site cleanup funding. That will mean many hazardous waste 
sites will not get cleaned up, and many people who live near these 
sites will continue to be exposed to dangerous and often lethal 
chemicals.
  I recognize that some critics of the Superfund say we should not 
provide money to the program unless some of its problems are fixed, and 
I agree we have to fix the problems. But while the program has had its 
problems in the past, which we are presently working to correct, people 
still want the cleanups to continue. While the controversy surrounding 
the program has focused largely on the issue of liability, there is no 
dispute about the need to clean up these sites, nor about the need for 
Federal funds to help do so.
  Communities concerned about the health of their citizens need this 
money to move ahead with cleanups, while the responsible parties, those 
accused of doing the pollution, who created the pollution, litigate 
amongst themselves trying to avoid paying for their obligation. Federal 
money also is needed if those responsible cannot be found or refuse 
payment.
  In addition, while everyone agrees that responsible parties should 
lead cleanup efforts where possible, Government oversight is necessary 
to assure that agreements are met and the public health is protected.
  About 260 sites in 44 States will not be cleaned up because of the 
funding cuts in this bill. Just look at the map, and we see that 
cleanups will stop, the red indicating that 1 to 5 cleanups will be 
delayed; in the blue area, 6 to 10 cleanups will be delayed; and in the 
area where we see green, including New Jersey, California, Florida, 
more than 10 cleanup attempts will be delayed. We cover almost the 
whole map. The only places where there is no delay is where we see the 
States outlined in white. It is a pretty ominous review that we are 
looking at.
  Beyond the severe environmental and health consequences that are 
apparent by delays, this will mean also 3,500 jobs will be lost in the 
private sector, and that would cause enormous loss of time getting rid 
of the hazardous waste blight that exists across our country.
  Also, sites that communities plan to use for economic redevelopment 
will not be available for use in the communities. As land lays 
contaminated and unusable, local communities will suffer economic 
losses that cannot be recouped.
  In my own State of New Jersey, 16 sites will see their cleanup 
delayed or terminated. For example, efforts will be halted at the 
Roebling Steel site, a former steel manufacturer next to the Delaware 
River, a company that had an illustrious history. Material manufactured 
there was sent all over the world, but they fell on hard times, and now 
we are dealing with a contamination that was left from their operation. 
Runoff from the precipitation on the site may have already contaminated 
the Delaware River and surrounding wetlands.
  Approximately 12,000 people in this area depend on ground water for 
their drinking water. An adjacent playground is contaminated with PCB's 
and heavy metals, including lead.
  Mr. President, hazardous waste sites have significant negative 
consequences for human health, and these can range from cancer to 
respiratory problems to birth defects. The need to prevent these kinds 
of diseases more than anything else is what makes funding Superfund so 
important.
  The second part of my amendment, Mr. President, will restore money to 
the States' revolving loan funds. The Clean Water Act requires that 
cities and towns comply with minimum waste treatment standards. States 
report that they will need $126 billion to comply with these 
requirements.

  This amendment keeps funding for the State revolving loan fund at 
last year's level by restoring $328 million.
  Finally, my amendment would add just over $1 million to continue the 
work for the Council on Environmental Quality. For a small amount, CEQ 
can 

[[Page S 14349]]
coordinate the administration's environmental programs. This is 
important, especially with respect to the coordination of environmental 
impact statements.
  To fund these increases, Mr. President, my amendment would reduce the 
tax break that otherwise will be provided in the reconciliation bill 
this year. From all indications, this tax break will be targeted 
largely at the wealthiest individuals in America and a variety of 
special interests.
  Mr. President, the rich or poor in this country do not want to leave 
a contaminated environment for their children or their grandchildren, 
and I am sure that if this proposition that we have put forward is 
closely examined and we say, all right, if tax breaks are going to be 
given, we have to make sure that they are for the lower income, not 
just the top people or wage earners in our country.
  So, Mr. President, I am sure that if forced to choose between a tax 
break for the rich and strengthening environmental protections, I 
believe that Americans would strongly support the environment and 
thusly this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for the well-being and 
health of our citizens and our environment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for 
his kind words. I appreciate the comments he made about our efforts 
here. But I wish we could have his support for the measure as passed by 
the committee and sent to the floor.
  I must rise in strong opposition to the amendment on substantive 
grounds and also the fact that it busts the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation.
  I will address, as I have previously, the budgetary sleight of hand 
and the smoke and mirrors that have been suggested as an offset. But 
let me talk about some of the substantive provisions, because I agree 
with the Senator that they are very important.
  As he noted, we worked very hard to increase funding for the 
environment because we have made great progress in the environment in 
this country. We need to continue that progress. Everything that we are 
doing in this bill is designed to ensure that the progress we have made 
continues.
  We have urged the EPA to pay heed to and adopt the recommendations of 
the National Academy of Public Administration, who have told EPA how 
they can do a better job of utilizing their funds, be more effective, 
and make sure that we get the most for our dollars in the environmental 
programs.
  That study was requested when my colleague, the Senator from 
Maryland, was chairman of the committee. It is something I support 
because I believe we can make progress. But I do not believe that this 
amendment can be supported, and I will raise a budget act point of 
order to it.
  Let me talk, though, about the substance. First, Superfund. While 
there may be disagreement on how we reform the program, there is 
virtually no disagreement that I know of that the program must be 
reformed. We have studies by the dozens outlining the problems with the 
Superfund Program. There have been 90-day reviews and 30-day reviews to 
improve the program. There have been Rand studies, CBO studies, GAO 
reports, and the National Commission on Superfund Reform.
  We are all familiar with the morass of litigation, the excessive 
administrative burdens, the length of time to clean up the sites. Most 
of us have heard from our constituents, small businesses, mom and pop 
operations that were bankrupted because their trash was hauled legally 
to a dump which later became a Superfund site and they became liable.
  We have all heard the stories about EPA requiring cleanups so clean 
that kids can eat the dirt, even when there were no kids near the site, 
where it is an industrial site, where nobody has even proposed to bring 
in a day care center or to make it a playground for a school.
  When we devote our resources to overutilization of cleanup techniques 
in an area where they are less necessary, we take away from funds where 
they can be put to uses right away, where they can have a positive 
impact on human health and the environment and avoid dangers.
  But the list of grievances against the Superfund goes on and on and 
on. We have poured billions of dollars into this program with little to 
show for it. We have spent billions of dollars and we have only about 
70 sites which have actually been cleaned up and deleted from the 
national priorities list. We have hundreds of studies going on at sites 
and even more being litigated. This is a wonderful opportunity for full 
employment for lawyers, for administrative hassles, and that is not 
what we ought to be about. We ought to be about cleaning up Superfund 
sites.
  In his first speech to Congress, President Clinton declared, ``I 
would like to use the Superfund to clean up pollution for a change and 
not just pay lawyers.'' I believe I was one of a large group of 
Senators who stood and applauded that statement. I believe there is 
very strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that the President set 
the proper tone: clean up pollution, stop paying lawyers. There is 
little disagreement on either side that the program is not working, or 
not working as well as it should.
  The committee limited Superfund funding to $1 billion, as in the 
House, because the committee recognized that it was time to stop 
throwing away money at a wasteful, broken program. The committee's 
recommendations will fund sites which pose an immediate threat to human 
health and the environment and sites which are currently at some active 
stage in the Superfund cleanup pipeline.
  Our recommendations reflect the findings of a General Accounting 
Office report, which I requested. This General Accounting Office report 
says that two-thirds of the Superfund sites GAO looked at do not pose 
human health risks under current land uses.
  We are spending two-thirds of the money in the current Superfund 
Program on sites that do not pose a significant hazard to human health 
now or in the future under current land uses. I am not suggesting that 
these sites are not important and should not be cleaned up. I am saying 
that for these sites, we can delay cleanups until we reform the program 
so that we can concentrate our efforts on those sites which will 
provide a benefit in lessening dangers to human health and to ensure 
that commonsense solutions are implemented.
  The committee's recommendation reflected the fact that the 
reauthorization process is well underway. It will be a transition year, 
as it should be, for the Superfund Program. Therefore, we should only 
fund critical activities pending implementation of a reform program.
  Now, the Senator's amendment also would double funding for the 
Council on Environmental Quality. I point out that this committee has 
recommended continuing the Council on Environmental Quality at last 
year's funding. We would save CEQ, where the House wants to terminate 
that body.
  The question will be whether we terminate it or not. The ultimate 
conference committee will not come out with more than $1 million 
because we have put that amount in and the House has already passed.
  Despite some concerns that many may have that the CEQ is duplicating 
other agencies, this committee found, and I believe that CEQ does 
perform a valuable function; it performs a function of coordinating the 
activities of the administration and all the different bodies which may 
act on environmental matters.
  However, I think it should be limited to activities which are 
statutory in nature and which do not duplicate other agencies' 
activities. The funding provided is about the same level as the current 
level funding for CEQ.
  Now, the third point as to State revolving funds which the Senator's 
amendment would add $328 million. I fully support added funding for 
States to meet environmental mandates. That is why the bill before us 
carves out a special appropriation just for State funding.
  We increased funding for the State activities that comprises more 
than 40 percent of the EPA appropriations because that is money going 
to the places where it can actually clean up the environment. 

[[Page S 14350]]

  We believe that with reforms that can be implemented either by 
legislation or through the administrative procedures, we can ensure 
that the States will do a better job because they will not be limited 
just to cleaning up one particular kind of pollution but can direct 
their efforts to pollution which occurs in the air, the water, and the 
land, and not be limited just to one medium.
  Included in this funding that we have recommended is an increase of 
$300 million in funding for clean water State revolving funds over the 
current budget. Last year's bill contained some $800 million in sewer 
treatment earmarks. Those were nice for all of us to go home and take 
credit for, but they did not maximize the available funds for cleaning 
up the environment.
  We eliminated those earmarks so we can provide adequate funding for 
State revolving funds. I think the bill addresses the concern about the 
need for State revolving funds.
  I think that the bill is sound on environmental grounds, sound 
substantively, and I say that all of the talk about tax cuts, 
eliminating tax cuts, is so much political rhetoric. There are no tax 
cuts in this budget. There is no offset.
  We had to make tough choices in the subcommittee and the full 
committee. We chose to increase the allocation for EPA, but we are 
doing so within the constraints imposed upon us by Congress in the 
budget resolution.
  This amendment would bust the budget resolution. If the Senator was 
concerned, really concerned about getting more money in the 
environment, then he could have offered an amendment which would have 
proposed legitimate offsets. He did not do so.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the waiver of the Budget Act.
  I reserve the time. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
his advocacy in the issues of environmental protection, protecting 
public health, safety, and having the concern particularly for the 
environmental problems in an urban area. Senator Lautenberg has been a 
longstanding advocate and a longstanding expert in this issue as a 
member of the authorizing committee.
  I also want to acknowledge Senator Bond's efforts to really support a 
streamlining of a lot of the regulatory process.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Lautenberg's amendment to 
partially restore funding to some of EPA's most important programs.
  This amendment adds: $431.6 million to the Superfund Program, $328 
million to the Water Infrastructure State revolving funds, and $1.188 
million to the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ].
  I am particularly concerned about the $431.6 million cut below the 
current funding for the Superfund Program.
  Superfund was designed to address one of our Nation's worst public 
health and environmental problems--hazardous waste.
  There are 1,300 sites that have been placed on the national 
priorities list, which is the listing of the most serious hazardous 
waste sites in the country.
  The health risks posed to people who live near these sites are 
significant. I think we owe it to our communities to ensure that these 
toxic dumps are cleaned up.
  What happens if we do not restore funding to the Superfund Program?
  There will be no funding for about 120 new, long-term cleanup 
projects, cleanup of about 160 immediate public health threats could be 
significantly delayed, and we risk letting polluters get off the hook 
because we will not be able to reach and enforce settlements for 
cleanups.
  The Lautenberg amendment will restore funding to ensure that public 
health is protected, polluters continue to clean up their messes, and 
new research continues to develop cheaper, cleaner, and faster ways to 
clean up toxic wastes.
  I also have serious concerns about the reduction of $586 million 
below the President's request that this bill contains for water 
infrastructure State revolving funds.
  This cut means that about 107 wastewater treatment projects will not 
proceed.
  It also means that, because State revolving fund dollars are 
reinvested over time, a reduction in infrastructure investments will be 
felt in future years.
  The immediate loss of $587 million will result in a cumulative loss 
of $2.3 billion in funding over the next 20 years.
  In my home State of Maryland this funding is a big deal.
  Mr. President, Maryland's Eastern Shore relies heavily on two things, 
fishing and tourism. These represent a huge chunk of the local economy.
  EPA's most recent water quality inventory reports that 37 percent of 
the Nation's shellfish beds are restricted, limited, or closed.
  I'm afraid that this funding level could cause water quality to 
continue to decline, which is no small concern for States like mine 
which depend heavily on rivers and coastal waters.
  In addition, last year 85 beaches in Maryland were closed to protect 
the public from swimming in unsafe waters.
  I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but when I go to the 
beach I want to take a swim or wade in the surf. None of that can 
happen if we do not protect our waters.
  I am very concerned that this decrease in funding will have serious 
adverse effects on the Chesapeake Bay.
  The funding that Maryland gets from the State revolving fund program 
is critical to preventing the water pollution that runs off into the 
bay. All of our efforts to clean the bay, at both the State and Federal 
level, will be wasted if we cannot control this runoff.
  The bill also requires that the Safe Drinking Water Act be 
reauthorized by April 30, 1995.
  If the program is not reauthorized, all drinking water State 
revolving funds will be transferred to clean water State revolving 
funds.
  This means that nearly 270 projects to improve substandard drinking 
water systems which serve nearly 29 million Americans will not be 
funded if reauthorization does not occur.
  I hope the Senate does not forget the recent cryptosporidium outbreak 
in the Milwaukee, WI, water supply which caused about 400,000 people to 
get sick, resulting in the deaths of 100 people.
  Finally, I think it is important that this amendment funds the 
Council on Environmental Quality at the President's request.
  CEQ is the Federal office that is responsible for coordinating our 
national environmental policy. If we did not have the CEQ, the job of 
coordinating Federal environmental policy would be left to executive 
level staff inside the Office of the President. This would mean that 
congressional oversight would be limited.
  Make no mistake about it, the American people care about protecting 
public health and the environment.
  There are many issues that have been raised about the Superfund 
Program, many legitimate issues raised about the safe drinking water. I 
do not believe we should cut the budget. I believe we should streamline 
the regulations.
  Cutting the budget, in effect, deregulates or eliminates these 
regulations. We have come so far on cleaning up the environment. I am 
grateful in this bill that there is funding for the Chesapeake Bay 
Program, and we are seeing the bay come back to life.
  We have seen the work that we have done on air pollution and water 
pollution. In Maryland we see that good environment is good business 
because it does affect our seafood industry. It does affect the ability 
of business. Good environment means that there is a reward for 
businesses that do comply.
  There are many things I could say about this amendment but I think 
Senator Lautenberg said it best as he always does. He has my support 
for this amendment. He has my support for restoration of these cuts in 
the environmental programs in round two. I believe that President 
Clinton will veto this bill in round two.
  I hope with the new allocation we could overcome where we are 
essentially cutting America's future by cutting the environmental 
programs.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair how much time remains 
for our side on debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to take a few minutes to respond to the 
comments of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  I first will explain very briefly why it is that I complimented him 
even as I 

[[Page S 14351]]
voted against the subcommittee bill. It is fairly simple. I think 
yeoman work was done. I think that the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri gave it a good effort but I still feel that we are not 
adequately protecting our communities against environmental pollution.
  To me it is fairly simple, because I think that the legacy that each 
of us in America can best leave our children, the grandchildren, and 
those that follow, rich or poor, is to leave them a cleaner 
environment; to continue the progress that has been made in some areas.
  In 1973, only 40 percent of our streams were fishable and swimmable, 
which is really the test for the quality of the water. Now it is 60 
percent.
  If we do not fund the revolving fund and insist on cleaning up--
treating wastewater before it gets to the streams, I do not want to be 
crude, but it will go in some cases direct from the toilet into the 
rivers, into the lakes. That is an outrageous condition for a country 
as well off, despite our problems, as this country of ours is.
  Superfund sites--there is always a question raised by those that are 
skeptical about how dangerous these sites are.
  Mr. President, I have to respond by talking about a condition in, 
coincidentally, in Forest City and Glover, MO. A 1995 study among 
residents who lived near Superfund sites shows an increase in reports 
of respiratory problems and increased pulmonary function disorder.
  Investigators have reported elevated rates of birth defects in 
children of women living near 700 hazardous waste sites in California; 
children of women living near sites with high-exposure rates to 
solvents have greater than twice the rates of neural birth defects such 
as spina bifida. The study goes on. There is a real hazard there.

  I can tell you this, I do not want my kids drinking water from a 
water supply, a groundwater supply that may have been leached into by 
contaminants left by a polluter.
  I have to ask this question as well. Why is it that suddenly in the 
American diet or the American purchases in the food market--water? 
People walk around with bottles of water like they were a belt on their 
pants. It is quite remarkable that now, suddenly, that has become a 
major business.
  Why? I bet it is because people just like spending money. I bet it is 
because people love carrying these water bottles in their backpacks or 
back pockets. It is plain they are afraid to drink the water that comes 
out of the tap. Face up to it.
  What we are saying is we do not want a tax cut for the rich in this 
country, for the richest in this country--that is where the money comes 
from. It does not come from smoke and it does not come from mirrors; it 
comes from eliminating a tax break for the wealthiest in our society. I 
think that is a very good idea. I do not know anybody who could not use 
more money, even the most profligate spender, but the fact of the 
matter is this is a country in deep financial distress and the last 
thing we ought to be doing is giving a tax break for those who do not 
need it and who would be a lot better off if we invest our money in our 
society, presenting our kids with a cleaner environment, not having to 
worry about the air that our parents breathe or the ground our kids 
play on. I think that is a much better investment than a tax cut for 
the rich--be they idle or earned.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the Superfund--and I 
discussed this in my office with my very able staff yesterday--the 
title suggests something that escapes understanding that the American 
people have about what it all means. Superfund ought to have a 
different name. It ought to be getting rid of threats to the health of 
people in the community. Superfund has some connotation that it is a 
major spending program by Government and that we all enjoy throwing 
money down the drainpipe.
  That is hardly the case. Superfund is a program that works, and the 
money that we spend in litigation is not out of the Superfund trust 
fund. Rather, it is spent between companies trying to dislodge 
themselves from their liability; between insurance companies and their 
insured, the insurance company denying the claim, the insured saying, 
``You insured me for that and I want you to pay; that is why I paid 
those premiums.'' So that is where a lot of the money comes from for 
litigation. It is not out of the Superfund trust fund.
  Mr. President, I think we have to get the definitions very clear. 
Superfund was and is a very complicated program. It was begun in 1980, 
almost in innocence, just responding to the threat of environmental 
pollution and the health hazards that it represented for children. We 
have not discussed the environment that is affected as well, the 
pollution of lakes and ponds and streams, water supplies, all of those 
things.
  Mr. President, when we look at Superfund we say it is almost 15 years 
old now, what has happened? I will tell you what has happened. Mr. 
President, 289 sites have been cleaned up. That is not bad. We have 
1,300 sites to go, but we are better at it. We move faster on it. And 
if we fail to fund it at the proper level and lose a lot of the skills 
and expertise that is now resident in EPA and in the Superfund 
department, it will take a long time to rebuild those skills and 
reorganize the structure. That is not a way to do business, not when 
you have long-term projects that are inevitably more complicated than 
expected.
  But we are gaining knowledge all the time, and, again, every one of 
the sites on the Superfund list has begun to have some attention, 
whether it is in the drawing of specifications that would be applied to 
construction or just simply a track for beginning the appropriate 
engineering studies.
  I was fortunate a few weeks ago. I was able to go to a site in the 
southern part of my State, a site that was one of the worst industrial 
pollution sites in the country. There was a responsible party. They 
paid a significant share of it.
  By the way, I think it is very interesting to note that, of the money 
spent on Superfund cleanup, 70 percent came from responsible parties--
not just from the trust funds, the Superfund trust fund.
  I was able to go to this community. It is called the Lipari landfill 
site. It was a site that was contaminated over a number of years. Now 
it is clean enough to introduce fish back in the site. I stood there 
with a bunch of schoolchildren, fourth and fifth grade, and we put 
smallmouth bass in there and we put bigmouth bass in there. I think 
that was for Senators' benefit.
  We put fish back in the pond. The kids were so excited. I was 
excited. I even got my feet wet in there. But the fact of the matter 
is, that was a turning point for the community. They were celebrating 
revival. They were celebrating almost, if I may call it in religious 
terms, a redemption. The community center point, a halcyon lake, was 
now going to be able to be used for recreational purposes by the 
children of the community. So we saw a Superfund success.
  Once again, if I may ask, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I understand my 
colleague from Delaware is on his way and wants to speak. I hope I can 
reserve the remainder of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I 
believe the Senator from New Hampshire is on his way to the floor. As 
chairman of the subcommittee with responsibility over Superfund, I 
think it is very important he share with us his views. I do hope we can 
yield back some of the time so we can move on. This is a very important 
amendment, but I believe we have outlined it rather clearly.
  I would like to begin by agreeing with my colleague from New Jersey. 
He said many things that I agree with, particularly about largemouth 
bass. I love to go bass fishing, too. I want to see our waters cleaned 
up. We want to move together on that. He says we want to stop raw 
sewage going into lakes, rivers and streams. That is why, in this 
committee bill, we increase by $300 million the money going into the 
State revolving fund.
  The Senator from New Jersey made a very clear case for dealing with 
Superfund sites where there is human health at risk. I could not agree 
with him more. We need to be cleaning up these Superfund sites where 
there are 

[[Page S 14352]]
human health risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the money being spent 
right now is going to sites which do not involve immediate human health 
risks or risks under current land uses. So we put in $1 billion and 
said ``prioritize those sites where human health risks exist now or 
might exist in the future.'' And then let us reform the program.
  The Senator from New Jersey talked about the tremendous hassles, the 
litigation, the administrative time and hassle that is going into the 
Superfund debates. We need to get out of debates on who is responsible 
and move forward with cleaning up. I look forward to working with the 
Senator from New Jersey to do that.
  He also talks about people who are afraid to drink the water. We need 
to authorize the safe drinking water fund. Again, we are working on 
that together in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it 
is very important that we cut through the chaff and get down to the 
serious job of making sure that our drinking water supply is safe. I 
look forward to working with him there.
  Let me just put a couple of things into perspective. The Senator from 
New Jersey says that our budget for EPA is 22 percent below the 
request.
  Let me put that in perspective. It should come as no secret to this 
body that we are making cuts. The subcommittee's allocation was 12 
percent below last year's. There have been virtually no cuts in the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest portion of the budget of 
this subcommittee.
  Second, most of the reductions in the Environmental Protection Agency 
have come from earmarked sewage grants and unauthorized State revolving 
funds and Superfund, where we proposed to target the resources in 
Superfund to those instances where human health is at risk or may be at 
risk under current land uses.
  We agree that protecting human health from Superfund sites is vitally 
important. We have not cut money for standard setting, for technical 
assistance, for enforcement. Those are held close to the current levels 
despite the subcommittee's constrained allocation. And, as I stated 
before, the committee's recommendation increases State grants. It 
recognizes the importance of fully funding the States so they can meet 
the environmental mandates. But, frankly, where we come down to 
disagreement is when the Senator contends--I believe without any 
justification at all--that the money for busting the budget in the 
environment is going to come from tax cuts from the wealthy.
  Unlike President Clinton's budget, this budget does not include in 
its budget tax cuts for anybody, even the tax credit for working 
families that we would like to see involved. That is not in this 
budget. There is no money to be used in this budget from these cuts for 
tax increases. If this Senator's amendment is agreed to, and the Budget 
Act point of order is waived, we will break the budget. There will be 
no tax cuts, and we will not be on a path to balance the budget by the 
year 2002.
  This is simply a budget busting amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
not to support it.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has 
arrived.
  The Senator from Delaware came in earlier. I ask the Senator from New 
Jersey if he wishes to proceed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes and ten seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen and one-half minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from Delaware 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, in support of our 
environmental protection laws.
  Mr. President, I think our Republican friends should be straight up. 
Why do they not just eliminate the Clean Air Act, eliminate the Clean 
Water Act, and drastically reduce the requirements? Why do you not just 
do that? Otherwise, the local municipalities, the cities, and the 
States are not going to be able to meet the requirements of these acts.
  I heard all of this talk last year about unfunded mandates. My Lord, 
did my Republican colleagues bleed over what we were doing to the poor 
States. They bled and they wept and they talked about the unholy 
Federal Government, and about what it was hoisting upon States. Folks, 
you cannot have it both ways.
  I say to my friends from New Hampshire and Missouri: Either do it or 
do not do it. Step up to the plate with a little truth in legislating. 
OK? This bill is the ultimate unfunded mandate. They know darned well 
the voters will kill them if they denigrate the Clean Water Act; and 
they will kill them politically if they denigrate the Clean Air Act. 
They know what will happen if they attempt to gut these environmental 
laws. I have not had a single mother or father, or anyone, come up to 
me and say, ``You know, you folks in the Federal Government are 
spending too much time determining whether my water is clean.'' Not one 
has complained about a Federal bureaucrat trying to clean their water.
  So what do you do here? You do what you are getting real good at. You 
say, ``OK, we are not going to denigrate the Clean Air Act nor the 
Clean Water Act. We are just not going to give the EPA the money, and 
we are not going to give the States money.'' So all the little 
communities now, like one in my State which has a toxic waste dump with 
7,000 drums of toxic waste sitting there contaminating the water 
supply, have to fend for themselves. That site is contaminating the 
area with 2,000 people living within 1 mile of it. And what do we say 
with this one? We say, ``We think they should still clean that up, and 
we do not want to give you an unfunded mandate. But you find the money, 
State. Clean it up.''
  Look. This bill is an unfunded mandate, or a backdoor way of trying 
to lower the water quality and lower the air quality. It is one of the 
two. If it is done in the name of balancing the budget, I understand 
that mantra. I voted for a constitutional amendment on balancing the 
budget. I am for balancing the budget. Let us balance people's 
checkbooks in terms of how much money they pay the Federal Government 
in taxes. Do you want to balance something? Balance it that way. 
Balance it that way. But do not say to the States, ``We want you to 
keep the water clean and the air clean. We are not changing the Federal 
standard on that. But, by the way, we are not going to send you the 
money. We are not going to step in there.''
  What do you think you are all going to do to local taxes, folks? What 
do you think is going to happen here? These folks are going to save you 
money. Oh, they are going to save you money all right. One of two 
things will happen. Your water is dirty, or your local taxes are going 
up--one of the two. But in the meantime, people making over $100,000 
bucks will get a tax cut. That is not right.
  Mr. President, though not as severe as the House version, the bill 
before us today does much to protect businesses from liability but 
little to protect American families from pollution.
  The addition of nearly one dozen legislative riders--or loopholes for 
polluters--is, in my view, just plain wrong.
  An appropriations bill is not the place to hastily form policies 
which will affect the drinking water of every American family, the air 
every American child breathes.
  We hear so much about unfunded mandates, in fact, one of the first 
pieces of legislation passed by this Congress was an unfunded mandates 
bill which makes it harder for the Federal Government to impose costs 
upon States.
  As a former county councilman I support this effort. Yet, the bill 
before us cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by a 
whopping $1 billion.
  Who is going to pick up the cost for these necessary protection 
efforts? State and local governments--an unfunded mandate. That is why 
this amendment is so necessary.
  By cutting hazardous waste cleanup efforts by 36 percent, this bill 
will prevent additional progress from being made at our most dangerous 
toxic sites.

[[Page S 14353]]

  One such site in my home State of Delaware--an industrial waste 
landfill in New Castle County--contains over 7,000 drums of toxic 
liquids and chemicals.
  The soil is contaminated with heavy metals. The ground water is 
contaminated. About 2,000 people live within 1 mile of the site.
  I want that site cleaned up. I want those families to live and raise 
their children in a clean, safe environment.
  The level of funding in the bill would jeopardize future progress at 
this site--and I am not going to put Delaware's communities at risk.
  The bill as currently written also cuts by over $328 million 
assistance to local governments in meeting their Clean Water Act 
responsibilities.
  These funds are desperately needed by local communities to modernize 
facilities which treat wastewater pollution.
  The cut means that raw sewage will pollute local waters, potentially 
reaching America's coastline, places such as Rehobeth and Dewey Beaches 
in Delaware.
  Years ago, I literally dredged raw sewage from the floor of the 
Delaware Bay to demonstrate just how polluted that waterway once was.
  Today it is much cleaner, and raw sewage is no longer as severe a 
problem.
  I am not going to turn back the clock on that progress--America's 
beaches should be littered with vacationers, not sewage.
  Lastly, Mr. President, the amendment provides an extremely modest 
amount of funding for the Council on Environmental Quality.
  The former Republican Governor of Delaware, Mr. Russ Peterson, a man 
whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for, formerly chaired 
this Council.
  It's mission is simple: To eliminate duplication and waste by 
coordinating the Government's use of environmental impact statements, 
in the process saving the taxpayers' money.
  It is a wise use of resources, the return is far greater than the 
investment and we ought to support it.
  Mr. President, this amendment will not add one penny to the Federal 
deficit or debt.
  It is funded by simple fairness--any future tax cut provided in the 
budget bill both Chambers are now working on should go to the middle 
class only.
  It is as simple as that.
  The middle class has been taking a beating over the past two decades. 
They have played by the rules, paid their taxes, done right by their 
children, and yet their standard of living has fallen.
  Violence has encroached upon their lives unlike any other time in our 
history. Women, and even men, no longer feel safe walking to their cars 
at night across dimly lighted parking lots. Armed robberies at 
automatic teller machines are now commonplace in safe suburban areas.
  The middle class have earned a tax break, they deserve help sending 
their children to college, or buying their first home.
  Mr. President, this amendment puts environmental protection for 
America's families, ahead of liability protection for polluting special 
interests and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I always enjoy hearing my colleague from Delaware talk. It is very 
entertaining. But it has nothing to do with this bill. If he is talking 
about unfunded mandates, the Superfund is not an unfunded mandate. 
Ninety percent comes from the Superfund trust fund. We are saying we 
must reform the program so that we spend less money on the cleanups and 
that the States' share of 10 percent will go down.
  He is talking about not giving enough money to the States. We put 
$300 million more in the State revolving fund because we are concerned. 
It is a wonderful rhetoric, an enjoyable argument; just not this bill. 
And this bill is what we are talking about. The amendment has nothing 
to do with the comments, the very delightful comments, of my friend 
from Delaware.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding.
  Mr. President, I would like to address a few brief comments regarding 
the amendment that has been offered by my colleague, the Senator from 
New Jersey. As the Senate knows, Senator Lautenberg is the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, which I chair. I have worked 
closely with the Senator on the reauthorization of this program. I am 
very familiar with his concerns and understand the concerns that he has 
regarding this program.
  But I think we must point out, Mr. President, that this program, to 
put it mildly, has had its share of problems over the past 15 years. It 
has had some successes. But its cleanup rate, success ratio, has been 
very, very low without getting into a lot of detail here.
  This has been a failed program. It is very premature at this point in 
the process--given the reconciliation before us that Senator Bond has 
already addressed--to simply say we are going to dump $400 million into 
the Superfund Program without knowing at this point what the reforms 
are or what the reforms should be.
  During the last 9 months of our subcommittee, the Senate Superfund 
Subcommittee has held seven hearings on Superfund. Senator Lautenberg 
attended all of those hearings. They were very extensive. I know there 
was a lot of information provided on how this program should be 
changed. There were many divergent ideas, and no one with all of the 
answers. There was a series of exchanges between people. Many had ideas 
that were in conflict with each other.
  One issue, as I indicated in my opening sentence, was made very clear 
in all of those hearings. The bottom line as we walked out of those 
hearings was that Superfund was a well-intentioned program but a deeply 
troubled program. It makes no sense to simply out of the blue take $400 
million from somewhere else, anywhere else--I do not care where it 
comes from, the rich or from wherever you want to take it. From 
wherever you take it, to put $400 million into a troubled program 
before we have addressed the reforms that need to be made is a mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment at the urging of the 
Senator who chairs that committee, who is prepared within the next few 
days to present to the full Senate, certainly to the committee, 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and ultimately to the full 
Senate a comprehensive reform which I believe is fair and that I 
believe will address many of the concerns we feel about the Superfund 
Program.
  Given the pendency of this reauthorization effort, I just cannot see 
how providing these additional moneys now to the Superfund Program is a 
good use of very limited financial resources. It is premature.
  I am not saying, I wish to emphasize to the Senator from New Jersey, 
that at some point I would not like to have additional funds for that 
program. Maybe they would be needed. But at this point it is premature, 
and I must for that reason urge the rejection of the Lautenberg 
amendment.
  If we are successful--and I believe we will be--in reauthorizing a 
streamlined and improved Superfund Program within the next few weeks, 
it is certainly possible that next year I might be here saying that 
when we look at the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD-independent agencies 
program, money should be shifted within that program to the Superfund 
Program, perhaps at the expense of something else. I very well might 
make that case.
  In view of the problems that we now face, in view of the fact that we 
are on the verge now of presenting these reforms, this amendment is 
simply premature. I think the Senate and all of my colleagues deserve 
the opportunity to address these concerns to see what the real problems 
of the Superfund Program are, to see how we are addressing those 
problems one by one, from the liability issue, to the State involvement 
issue, to the remedy issue. All of these issues are going to be fully 
addressed, including the funding issue, in the reform bill, and I hope 
my colleagues would await that bill, pass judgment on that bill, before 
simply dumping additional resources into the Superfund Program.
  I yield back any time I might have to my colleague from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I express my sincere thanks to the chairman of the 
subcommittee. I realize what a difficult 

[[Page S 14354]]
job this is. We look forward to working with him. It is vitally 
important for the environmental health and well being of this country 
to reauthorize this measure. He has taken the lead in that very 
difficult effort. We look forward to seeing that measure in committee 
and coming to the floor so we can perform some badly needed surgery to 
make sure the Superfund does what everybody expects it would do, and 
that is clean up dangerous sites and to do it on a priority basis.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe there are no further speakers on my 
side, so I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. As I 
said before, there is no offset. It is totally smoke and mirrors. But 
in the technical language, Mr. President, the adoption of the pending 
amendment would cause the Appropriations Committee to breach its 
discretionary allocation as well as breach revenue amounts established 
in the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 302(f) and 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point 
of order against the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to waive the application of the Budget Act as 
it pertains to the pending amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
waive? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent--since 
the amendment last night was prepared, there have been some amendments 
that were proposed here, and I simply ask unanimous consent to modify 
the amendment to not inadvertently strike any language that was 
previously adopted by the Senate. These changes make no substantial 
change in my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 141, line 4, strike beginning with 
     ``$1,003,400,000'' through page 152, line 9, and insert the 
     following: ``$1,435,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $1,185,000,000 as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $250,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund as authorized by section 
     517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public Law 101-508: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That $11,700,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the 
     Office of Inspector General appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $64,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available to the 
     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry out 
     activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 
     111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be available for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles 
     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to propose for listing or to list any additional 
     facilities on the National Priorities List established by 
     section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 9605), unless the Administrator receives a written 
     request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the 
     Governor of the State in which the facility is located, or 
     appropriate tribal leader, or unless legislation to 
     reauthorize CERCLA is enacted.


              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $45,827,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $8,000,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided further, That $600,000 
     shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General 
     appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1996.


                           oil spill response

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $8,000,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for administrative expenses.


                 program and infrastructure assistance

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for state revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $2,668,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,828,000,000 shall be 
     for making capitalization grants for State revolving funds to 
     support water infrastructure financing; $100,000,000 for 
     architectural, engineering, design, construction and related 
     activities in connection with the construction of high 
     priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the 
     United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the 
     appropriate border commission; $50,000,000 for grants to the 
     State of Texas, which shall be matched by an equal amount of 
     State funds from State resources, for the purpose of 
     improving wastewater treatment for colonias; and $15,000,000 
     for grants to the State of Alaska, subject to an appropriate 
     cost share as determined by the Administrator, to address 
     wastewater infrastructure needs of Alaska Native villages: 
     Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator is authorized to make grants annually 
     from funds appropriated under this heading, subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Administrator shall establish, to 
     any State or federally recognized Indian tribe for multimedia 
     or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement 
     and related environmental activities at the request of the 
     Governor or other appropriate State official or the tribe: 
     Provided further, That from funds appropriated under this 
     heading, the Administrator may make grants to federally 
     recognized Indian governments for the development of 
     multimedia environmental programs: Provided further, That of 
     the $1,828,000,000 for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     $500,000,000 shall be for drinking water State revolving 
     funds, but if no drinking water State revolving fund 
     legislation is enacted by December 31, 1995, these funds 
     shall immediately be available for making capitalization 
     grants under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, as amended: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading in Public Law 103-327 and in 
     Public Law 103-124 for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     $225,000,000 shall be made available for capitalization 
     grants for State revolving funds under title VI of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, if no 
     drinking water State revolving fund legislation is enacted by 
     December 31, 1995.


                       administrative provisions

     SEC. 301. MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN EMISSIONS TESTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Moratorium.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not require adoption or 
     implementation by a State of a test-only or I/M240 enhanced 
     vehicle inspection and maintenance program as a means of 
     compliance with section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), but the Administrator may approve such a program if a 
     State chooses to adopt the program as a means of compliance.
       (2) Repeal.--Paragraph (1) is repealed effective as of the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Plan Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall not disapprove a State 
     implementation plan revision under section 182 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511a) on the basis of a regulation 
     providing for a 50-percent discount for alternative test-and-
     repair inspection and maintenance programs.
       (2) Credit.--If a State provides data for a proposed 
     inspection and maintenance system for which credits are 
     appropriate under section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7511a), the Administrator shall allow the full amount of 
     credit for the system that is appropriate without regard to 
     any regulation that implements that section by requiring 
     centralized emissions testing.
       (3) Deadline.--The Administrator shall complete and present 
     a technical assessment of data for a proposed inspection and 
     maintenance system submitted by a State not later than 45 
     days after the date of submission.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose or 
     enforce any requirement that a State implement trip reduction 
     measures to reduce vehicular emissions. Section 304 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7604) shall not apply with respect 
     to any such requirement during the period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending September 30, 
     1996.
       Sec. 303. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used within the Environmental 

[[Page S 14355]]
     Protection Agency for any final action by the Administrator or her 
     delegate for signing and publishing for promulgation a rule 
     concerning any new standard for arsenic (for its carcinogenic 
     effects), sulfates, radon, ground water disinfection, or the 
     contaminants in phase IV B in drinking water, unless the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act of 1986 has been reauthorized.
       Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used during fiscal year 1996 to sign, promulgate, implement 
     or enforce the requirement proposed as ``Regulation of Fuels 
     and Fuel Additives: Individual Foreign Refinery Baseline 
     Requirements for Reformulated Gasoline'' at volume 59 of the 
     Federal Register at pages 22800 through 22814.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 1996 may be 
     used to implement section 404(c) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended. No pending action by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to implement section 404(c) 
     with respect to an individual permit shall remain in effect 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 306. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     this fiscal year and hereafter, an industrial discharger to 
     the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant, an advanced wastewater 
     treatment plant with activated carbon, may be exempted from 
     categorical pretreatment standards under section 307(b) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, if the 
     following conditions are met: (1) the Kalamazoo Water 
     Reclamation Plant applies to the State of Michigan for an 
     exemption for such industrial discharger and (2) the State or 
     the Administrator, as applicable, approves such exemption 
     request based upon a determination that the Kalamazoo Water 
     Reclamation Plant will provide treatment consistent with or 
     better than treatment requirements set forth by the EPA, and 
     there exists an operative financial contract between the City 
     of Kalamazoo and the industrial user and an approved local 
     pretreatment program, including a joint monitoring program 
     and local controls to prevent against interference and pass 
     through.
       Sec. 307. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used 
     during fiscal year 1996 to enforce the requirements of 
     section 211(m)(2) of the Clean Air Act that require fuel 
     refiners, marketers, or persons who sell or dispense fuel to 
     ultimate consumers in any carbon monoxide nonattainment area 
     in Alaska to use methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to meet 
     the oxygen requirements of that section.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement the requirements of section 186(b)(2), 
     section 187(b) or section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7512(b)(2), 7512a(b), or 7545(m)) with respect to any 
     moderate nonattainment area in which the average daily winter 
     temperature is below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The preceding 
     sentence shall not be interpreted to preclude assistance from 
     the Environmental Protection Agency to the State of Alaska to 
     make progress toward meeting the carbon monoxide standard in 
     such areas and to resolve remaining issues regarding the use 
     of oxygenated fuels in such areas.

     ``SEC.   . ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY SUPPLY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Priority for Small Businesses.--During fiscal year 1996 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall give priority in providing assistance in its Energy 
     Efficiency and Energy Supply programs to organizations that 
     are recognized as small business concerns under section 3(a) 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (b) Study.--The Administrator shall perform a study to 
     determine the feasibility of establishing fees to recover all 
     reasonable costs incurred by EPA for assistance rendered 
     businesses in its Energy Efficiency and Energy Supply 
     program. The study shall include, among other things, an 
     evaluation of making the Energy Efficiency and Energy Supply 
     Program self-sustaining, the value of the assistance rendered 
     to businesses, providing exemptions for small businesses, and 
     making the fees payable directly to a fund that would be 
     available for use by EPA as needed for this program. The 
     Administrator shall report to Congress by March 15, 1996 on 
     the results of this study and EPA's plan for implementation.
       (c) Funding.--For fiscal year 1996, up to $100 million of 
     the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency 
     may be used by the Administrator to support global 
     participation in the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund and 
     for the climate change action plan programs including the 
     green programs.''

                   Executive Office of the President


                office of science and technology policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $4,981,000: Provided, That the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall reimburse other 
     agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel 
     compensation costs of individuals detailed to it.


  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Improvement Act of 1970 
     and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,188,000.


                       administrative provisions

       Sec. 401. Section 105(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67 
     (104th Congress, 1st Session) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Certification.--(A) In the Senate, upon the 
     certification pursuant to section 205(a) of this resolution, 
     the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit its 
     recommendations pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving the recommendations, 
     the Committee on the Budget shall add such recommendations to 
     the recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and 
     report a reconciliation bill carrying out all such 
     recommendations without any substantive revision.
       ``(B) The Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall file 
     with the Senate revised allocations, aggregates, and 
     discretionary spending limits under section 201(a)(1)(B) 
     increasing budget authority by $760,788,000 and outlays by 
     $760,788,000.
       ``(2) Committee on finance.--Funding for this section shall 
     be provided by limiting any tax cut provided in the 
     reconciliation bill to families with incomes less than 
     $150,000.''.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of my time.


Amendment No. 2789 to the excepted committee amendment on page 51, line 
                      3, through page 128, line 20

 (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to spending limitations on 
         Fair Housing Act enforcement, and for other purposes)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee 
amendment be temporarily set aside and it be in order to take up the 
committee amendment beginning on page 51, line 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Moseley-Braun, Mikulski, Simon, Kennedy, 
Bradley, and Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Simon, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Bradley, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2789 to the excepted committee amendment on page 51, line 3, 
     through page 128, line 20.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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:

       On page 125, strike lines 12 through 17.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand there is a 30-minute time 
allotment on our side; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself such time as necessary.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today will strike the 
provision buried in the VA-HUD appropriations bill that I believe would 
likely have serious consequences for the protection and enforcement of 
the civil rights laws in our country.
  The committee bill, unfortunately, includes a provision that would 
prevent HUD from spending any of its appropriated funds to ``sign, 
implement, or enforce any requirement or regulation relating to the 
application of the Fair Housing Act to the business of property 
insurance.''
  Believe it or not, this provision would banish HUD from investigating 
any complaints of property insurance discrimination, or ``insurance 
redlining'' as it is more commonly known. The term ``redlining'' 
actually evolved from the practice of particular individuals in the 
banking industry using maps with red lines drawn around certain 
neighborhoods. These individuals would then instruct their loan 
officers to avoid offering their financial services to residents of 
these redlined neighborhoods. These redlined neighborhoods typically 
were low income 

[[Page S 14356]]
and minority communities, and it resulted in the unavailability of the 
financial services that were necessary to purchase a home or a business 
or an automobile.
  But even as Congress identified and moved to curb these 
discriminatory practices in the banking industry, a disturbing and 
growing level of discrimination was emerging from the insurance 
industry that would continue to deny certain individuals the basic 
opportunity to own their own home or to start a small business.
  Property insurance, as we all know, is almost an absolute requirement 
to obtaining a home loan. And this was best illustrated by Judge Frank 
Easterbrook of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in that 
court's ruling that redlining practices are illegal and a violation of 
the Fair Housing Act.
  The judge was speaking for a unanimous court when he observed:

       Lenders require their borrowers to secure property 
     insurance. No insurance, no loan; no loan, no house; lack of 
     insurance thus makes housing unavailable.

  Mr. President, the key question, of course, is does redlining 
actually exist as a practice? Countless new reports and studies 
indicate that there is a prevalent and growing level of discriminatory 
underwriting in the insurance industry. Studies such as the 1979 report 
of the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin 
advisory committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the 
recent study on home insurance in 14 cities released by the community 
advocacy group ACORN have pointed out that insurance redlining 
practices are, in fact, widespread in America. These reports highlight 
the fallacies of the contention that lack of adequate insurance in many 
of these communities is due to economics, or that it is simply due to 
statistically based risk assessment.
  In addition, there is, unfortunately, some substantial anecdotal 
evidence that suggests individuals residing in minority and low-income 
communities are systematically denied affordable or adequate homeowners 
insurance.
  The ramifications of reducing access to affordable and adequate 
homeowners insurance have proven severe for urban areas with large 
minority communities. Without property insurance, an individual cannot 
obtain a home loan. Without a home loan, an individual cannot obtain a 
home. Thus, refusing to provide property insurance to an individual 
because he or she lives in a predominantly minority community has to be 
a clear violation of the civil rights protections of the Fair Housing 
Act.
  My own interest in this matter is longstanding, but it especially 
grew out of a widely reported redlining abuse in the city of Milwaukee, 
WI, where it was well documented that insurance redlining was occurring 
on a widespread basis. I was outraged that this sordid, documented 
discrimination was occurring, not only in my own home State, but 
apparently in many other States as well, including Illinois, Missouri, 
and Ohio.
  Mr. President, it is important not to forget who these redlining 
victims really are. They are hard-working Americans. They have played 
by the rules. And they are just trying to buy a home. They are trying 
to bring a sense of stability and vitality to their families and to 
their communities, many times communities that desperately need that 
kind of stability and vitality.
  Unfortunately, as happened in Milwaukee, they often run into a brick 
wall of ignorance and injustice. The pattern of discrimination in 
Milwaukee led seven of our Milwaukee residents to join with the NAACP 
to file suit against the American Family Insurance Co. An unprecedented 
and historic out-of-court settlement was reached in this case between 
the parties where the insurance company actually agreed, rather than go 
forward with the litigation, to spend $14.5 million compensating these 
and other Milwaukee homeowners who had been discriminated against, as 
well as some of the funds for special housing programs in the city of 
Milwaukee.
  Mr. President, for those of my colleagues who might think such 
discrimination in the insurance market is limited to Milwaukee, WI, I 
assure you this is not the case. There is ample reason to believe that 
insurance redlining does occur. It occurs all across this country. And 
we should be taking steps to enhance the Government's ability to combat 
this form of discrimination.
  Mr. President, that is just the opposite of what is happening here. 
We are not taking the steps forward that need to be made. The language 
in this bill would actually take us about five steps backward. The 
provisions of this bill are a direct attempt to stop the Federal 
Government from investigating complaints of discrimination under the 
Fair Housing Act. That is what it is.
  Mr. President, I have to say that I am very disturbed by this behind-
closed-doors attempt to undermine the civil rights laws of this 
country. There have been no hearings on this proposal by either the 
Banking Committee or the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, I would like to know where the mandate for this change 
to our fair housing laws came from. I would like to know where the 
supporters of this radical language feel that the American people are 
somehow overprotected from racial and ethnic discrimination. Was this 
part of the Contract With America, to roll back the civil rights 
protections of this Nation? I did not see it in there.
  I am very troubled that this would even be attempted. The supporters 
of this new language claim that the Fair Housing Act does not say one 
word about property insurance. It is true that the original act does 
not say that. But as a result of the Fair Housing Act amendments of 
1988, Mr. President, which were signed by President Reagan, HUD 
promulgated regulations that specifically placed property insurance 
under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act. These regulations were then 
promulgated by the Bush administration.
  Let me repeat that. For those who might think HUD's involvement in 
combating property insurance discrimination is simply an initiative of 
the Clinton administration, that is categorically wrong. The 
regulations were as a result of a law that passed Congress with strong 
bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. 
And then the regulations were promulgated under the administration of 
President George Bush. So let us set aside the faulty assertion that 
HUD's role in enforcing the Fair Housing Act as it applies to property 
insurance is somehow just a new effort to expand the Federal 
Government's regulatory powers over a particular industry.
  Mr. President, the supporters of this new language also say that 
regulating the insurance industry should be the sole domain of the 
States as mandated under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
  Mr. President, this, also, is a diversionary tactic. This is not an 
issue of regulating the insurance industry. The States are the 
regulators of the insurance industry. What this is, Mr. President, is 
an argument about whether the Federal Government has the ability to 
enforce the civil rights of those who have been discriminated against 
when they are attempting to purchase a home. That is what this is 
about--not taking away the powers of the States to regulate insurance. 
And this argument also fails to recognize that virtually every Federal 
court that has ruled on this issue, including the sixth circuit and the 
seventh circuit, have held that the Fair Housing Act applies to 
property insurance and that HUD was legally authorized to enforce the 
FHA as it relates to homeowners insurance.
  Mr. President, I would like to begin to conclude these remarks by 
reading from an editorial in opposition to this ill-advised language, 
and that led to the attempt to strike the language.
  Mr. President, this is not an article from The Washington Post or the 
New York Times. It is from the National Underwriter, which is the trade 
publication of the insurance industry. Let us see what they say about 
this attempt to gut the enforcement by HUD.
  The editorial said:

       However receptive the Republican-controlled Congress is to 
     business rewrites of legislation, and however large public 
     antipathy to poverty and affirmative action programs seems, 
     we feel the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the 
     fundamental principle that all U.S. citizens deserve equal 
     access to the same goods and services, including those 
     offered by insurers.
       . . ..while the industry may not be looking to avoid 
     redlining or civil-rights oversight, insurers certainly 
     appear to be using a legislative end-run to keep HUD from 
     trying to 

[[Page S 14357]]
     rectify legitimate insurance redlining and civil-rights wrongs.

  That is what the insurance industry has even said about some of their 
counterparts' effort to block this.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that 
editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I find it remarkable that the trade 
publication of the very industry in question has observed this is 
nothing more than a backdoor attempt to stop HUD from combating 
legitimate and real redlining abuses and discriminatory practices. I am 
not out here on the floor today to throw a blanket indictment on the 
insurance industry. I know many individuals in my home State who work 
in the industry, and it is my firm belief the vast majority of those 
people are decent, hard-working Americans who would join with me and 
the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Illinois and others in 
condemning this sort of bigotry and discrimination. Unfortunately, it 
is evidence that these sort of abuses do occur. And the Federal 
Government has to do all it can do to enforce the Fair Housing Act as 
is required under current law.
  I hope my colleagues will set aside their partisan and political 
differences and adhere to a set of principles that I think we really 
could all agree on. That not only includes the principle that every 
American should be free from discrimination wherever it may occur, but 
also a commitment and dedication to protecting and enforcing the civil 
rights in this country and continuing to battle the various forms of 
bigotry and discrimination that continue to pervade this Nation.
  So, I urge my colleagues to reject the committee language which would 
quite simply block HUD's effort to fight insurance redlining, and I ask 
support for the amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the National Underwriter, Aug. 21, 1995]

                  Insurer Attack on HUD Could Backfire

       As bald expressions of lobbying muscle go, the insurance 
     industry's recent success in cutting off the U.S. Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development's insurance purse strings in 
     the House was certainly impressive.
       But in the real world--that is, the world outside the D.C. 
     Beltway--the industry's legislative coup may not play as 
     well.
       A broad coalition of insurers and their associations--led 
     by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, 
     the National Association of Independent Insurers, State Farm 
     and Allstate--pushed for language in this year's House 
     version of the HUD appropriations bill which precludes the 
     agency from using its funding for any insurance-related 
     matter. That would effectively end HUD's much-feared 
     initiative to set and enforce anti-redlining standards for 
     property insurers.
       Whatever their antipathies to having HUD stick its nose in 
     their business, we think this coalition made a major 
     miscalculation.
       With recent court decisions running against them and a high 
     level of public concern over insurers writing off rather than 
     underwriting inner cities, insurers have simply tried to 
     legislate away the heat without addressing the underlying 
     problems which prompted HUD to act in the first place.
       But the heat will not dissipate so easily, as National Fair 
     Housing Alliance Executive Director Shanna Smith made clear. 
     There are still the courts to consider--and in case the 
     insurance industry has forgotten, if there is one thing 
     consumer groups are good at, it is grassroots organizing of a 
     particularly loud and visible sort that attracts the press 
     and gives CEOs and public relations officials ulcers, not to 
     mention shareholders.
       The insurance industry--which isn't exactly held up by the 
     public as an example of enlightened corporate interest to 
     begin with--can almost certainly count on organized, deep and 
     sustained consumer outrage if it pushes through the ban on 
     funding for HUD insurance oversight.
       All this for what? A one-year reprieve? (As part of an 
     annual budget bill, the insurance funding ban is only for 
     fiscal year 1996, and would need to be renewed annually.)
       However receptive the Republican-controlled Congress is to 
     business rewrites of legislation, and however large public 
     antipathy to poverty and affirmative-action programs seems, 
     we feel the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the 
     fundamental principle that all U.S. citizens deserve equal 
     access to the same goods and services, including those 
     offered by insurers.
       HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros called the insurance funding 
     ban ``an affront to civil rights.'' And the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners has unequivocally 
     stated that urban poor and minority consumers do not have the 
     same access to insurance products as their wealthier, 
     suburban and white counterparts.
       NAMIC's vice president of federal affairs, Pamela Allen, 
     says insurers don't seek to avoid redlining issues or civil 
     rights laws, but simply want to avoid dual regulation.
       Perhaps this argument has some merit, but while the 
     industry may not be looking to avoid redlining or civil-
     rights oversight, insurers certainly appear to be using a 
     legislative end-run to keep HUD from trying to rectify 
     legitimate insurance redlining and civil-rights wrongs.
       Fiscally constrained state insurance regulators, with less 
     restrictive unfair trade practices laws, do not have HUD's 
     ability to conduct major probes and extract national 
     settlements from large multi-state carriers.
       NFHA's Ms. Smith told the National Underwriter: ``I wish 
     the presidents of the [insurance] companies would meet with 
     us. They are sending subordinates in and they are not getting 
     a clear picture of the seriousness of the charges against 
     them.''
       If this is true, then we think insurers are jeopardizing 
     their reputations by trying to make HUD go away. Instead of 
     stiff-arming consumer and community-housing groups working 
     with HUD in the process, insurers should act in good faith to 
     seek out and repair any problems which might exist.
       We know it is unlikely the industry will back off on this 
     issue as it goes to the Senate. But suffice it to say when 
     the next in the never-ending series of industry op-ed pieces 
     on improving insurers' poor public image appear on these 
     pages, we think we will be able to point out one example of 
     what not to do.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 13 seconds left for the 
proponents of the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. First, let me agree with my friend from Wisconsin that we 
do not support nor do I think the insurance industry would support 
redlining. We believe that everyone should have access to all services, 
whether they be insurance or housing or credit, not in any way limited 
by race, gender or other impermissible classifications.
  What this language in the bill does--published, reviewed by the 
committee and the subcommittee, and brought here on the floor, not 
behind some closed doors, as he implied--is to say very simply that HUD 
should follow the law, a novel concept, perhaps one that may be a 
little foreign when one has perfect, pure motives. But even pure 
motives do not warrant disregard of the law.

  Section 218 of the VA-HUD appropriations bill prohibits the use of 
any funds provided by the bill for the application of the Fair Housing 
Act to property insurance. This provision was also included in the 
House version of the bill. In theirs, however, it went farther, and I 
think that may have been what the Senator was addressing. He said you 
could not even look into the existence of it. We did not say that in 
our bill.
  This provision, however, is an important means of eliminating 
duplication and wasteful expenditures of taxpayers' money. HUD's Office 
of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has devoted substantial resources 
to regulatory and other activities aimed at addressing alleged property 
insurance discrimination, purportedly pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. 
HUD not only has devoted its own personnel to these activities, it has 
paid millions of taxpayers' dollars to fund studies by outside 
consultants, to hire large law firms to do investigations and to fund 
enforcement efforts by private groups. HUD's property insurance 
activities and efforts to regulate insurance are unwarranted and beyond 
the scope of the law, beyond the scope of the Fair Housing Act and in 
contravention of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
  Every State and the District of Columbia have laws and regulations 
addressing unfair discrimination in property insurance, and they should 
be enforced. The States are actively enforcing these antidiscrimination 
provisions. Certainly, we can urge them to do better, but the law gives 
that responsibility to the States, and that is where the argument 
should be made.
  The States are employing a wide variety of measures to ensure neither 
race nor any other factor enters into a decision whether to provide a 
citizen property insurance. In light of these comprehensive State-level 
protections, 

[[Page S 14358]]
HUD's insurance-related activities do more than add another unnecessary 
layer of Federal bureaucracy. The application of the Fair Housing Act 
to property insurance not only unnecessarily duplicates State action, 
but it also contravenes Congress' intent regarding the scope of the 
law.
  Congress never intended the Fair Housing Act to warrant HUD to 
regulate property insurance practices. The act expressly governs home 
sales and rentals and the services that home sellers, landlords, 
mortgage lenders, real estate providers and brokers provide, but it 
makes no mention whatsoever of the separate service of providing 
property insurance.
  Indeed, a review of the legislative history shows that Congress 
specifically chose not to include the sale or underwriting of insurance 
within the purview of the act.
  Further, application of the Fair Housing Act to insurance defies 
Congress' specific decision 50 years ago that in the area of insurance 
regulation, in particular, the States should remain unencumbered by 
Federal interference. In the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, Congress 
determined that unless a Federal law ``specifically relates to the 
business of insurance,'' that law shall not be deemed applicable to 
insurance practices. By applying the Fair Housing Act to insurance, HUD 
simply disregards the fact that the law does not ``specifically relate 
to the business of insurance.''
  Some argue that HUD's actions are justified by court decisions, 
citing two appellate court rulings, one in the seventh circuit and one 
in the sixth circuit. But these decisions do not, in fact, confirm that 
the Fair Housing Act applies to insurance. Indeed, they are expressly 
contradictory in connection with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Mackay.
  A favored position is that HUD included in the 1989 Fair Housing Act 
regulations a reference to nondiscrimination in the provision of 
property or hazard insurance or dwellings. But HUD took this action 
without expressed legislative authority from Congress. Unless the 
Supreme Court should interpret the HUD regulation as giving itself 
legislative authority, then there is no national authority for applying 
the Fair Housing Act to property insurance.
  I believe that the American people want Congress to have the Federal 
Government perform those functions it should perform, and it is 
required by constitutional law or other practice to do that 
effectively, to do our job well and to return to State and local 
governments those activities which are expressly left to the States and 
local governments. Regulation of insurance is one of those.
  As for the Federal Government, I think we have to streamline 
regulatory activities, and that means hard choices. However, there is 
one area where Federal spending should be cut back, where it should not 
be a problem to determine whether cutbacks are appropriate, and that is 
when HUD's activities go beyond the scope of the law. If HUD is not 
authorized to do it, in fact, is expressly prohibited from doing it, we 
have said in this bill, ``Don't spend any more money to do it.''
  This would not be in question if HUD had not been going beyond the 
scope of the law in spending millions of dollars already. There is 
simply no justification, in a time of scarce resources, when HUD needs 
to be providing assistance in housing for those in grave need, to take 
away from that vital function funds that could go for housing and apply 
them to insurance-related activities that duplicate existing 
comprehensive State regulations, at the expense of the American 
taxpayer and at the expense of those people who depend upon federally 
assisted housing for their shelter.
  This should be an easy choice for this body: Provide housing 
assistance to those who need it, deal with the problems of the 
homeless, but get HUD out of an area where it has no authority, no 
responsibility and, in fact, has spent millions of dollars beyond its 
authority.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a very strong cosponsor of the 
Feingold/Moseley-Braun amendment. As has been stated by the author of 
the amendment, this amendment would strike the provisions in this bill 
that prohibit HUD from enforcing fair housing laws as they pertain to 
property insurance. What does that mean? It means that the amendment 
that we are cosponsoring would eliminate the prohibition that now in 
the law says that HUD will not be able to prevent redlining in property 
insurance.
  The language that is currently in the bill would bar HUD from 
preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of 
race, sex, nationality, religion, or disability. This has primarily 
manifested on the issue of race.
  Property insurance, as we know, is necessary to qualify for a home 
mortgage loan. Allowing property insurance companies to disregard the 
housing act could end up denying not only insurance to homeowners but 
actually would be an impediment to owning homes themselves. As a 
Senator who has always worked for social justice, I cannot support the 
provision currently in this bill.
  I am directly affected by this. I live in Baltimore City. I now pay 
more for insurance. I pay more for my property insurance. I pay more 
for my car insurance. I pay more not because of who I am, what I am, 
but because of my zip code, and there is a prejudice against that zip 
code simply because it is in Baltimore City.
  Yes, I live 8 blocks from a public housing project. I live around the 
corner from a shelter for battered women. I live in a Polish community 
that is also now historic in gentry.
  We have one of the lowest crime rates in Baltimore City. We have one 
of the lowest auto theft rates in the city. We have one of the lowest 
rates of problems related to fires, theft, robbery, assault, mayhem, 
but we pay more. And why? Not because we are good citizens, but because 
we live in a certain zip code.
  Now, hey, at least, though, I can get the insurance. I pay more, 
perhaps unjustly, but I pay more, and so do my neighbors. So do those 
young students at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. So do the 
Polish ladies who belong to the Society of Sodality. So do the priests 
at St. Stanislaus Church, and so do the people of color who live around 
us in the neighborhood. Now, I do not think that happens to be right.

  Also in Baltimore County and Prince Georges County we have a rising 
number of African-American middle-class people who have access to home 
ownership, often primarily because of what is in this bill.
  Through the VA and through the FHA, this subcommittee--and I know 
this chairman has promoted home ownership. Now, though we are promoting 
home ownership on one side of the Federal ledger, we are going to deny 
the Federal Government's ability to enforce antiredlining in property 
insurance. I do not think that works.
  At a time in our Nation's history when civil rights violations are 
universally rejected by people of conscience, and I know 99 other 
people in this body who also agree with that, I cannot understand why 
the Senate wants this type of provision. I hope that all Senators will 
find this provision as unsettling as I do. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Now, we can talk about States rights. I will not start the debate 
here on States rights. But the phrase ``States rights'' has been a code 
word word and buzzword for so long under the guise of States rights 
that often there has stood prejudice in our society. I am not going to 
bring that up.
  But what I will bring up is when we talk about duplication, about the 
fact that States and local governments have one set of laws and the 
Federal Government should not duplicate--when I was in the Baltimore 
City Council, I passed the first legislation in the city government to 
prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. Then some 12 years 
later, we passed a Federal law. Nobody in the Baltimore City Council 
said, ``Oh, no, Barb, we do not need that because you did this 12 years 
ago.'' Well, we needed it there, and we need it now. When we look at 
the fact that it is the Federal Government that is promoting home 
ownership, the Federal Government has a role in making sure the people 
who benefit from VA 

[[Page S 14359]]
and FHA can get the property insurance to protect their property.
  I have a letter from the Fair Housing Coalition, and I ask unanimous 
consent to have it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 11, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: We are a group of national civil 
     rights and community organizations writing to express our 
     united opposition to anti-civil rights provisions passed as 
     part of the FY 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill by the U.S. 
     House of Representatives. The first provision exempts an 
     entire industry from complying with basic, civil rights 
     protections under the Fair Housing Act. The second defunds 
     the community-based infrastructure which undertakes 
     enforcement as well as preventive efforts to eliminate all 
     forms of housing discrimination. Together, these two 
     provisions go beyond curtailing HUD's enforcement activities 
     related to homeowners insurance discrimination.
       The House language would bar the U.S. Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development from preventing insurance companies 
     from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, national 
     origin, color, religion, familial status or disability in 
     determining which homes or homeowners qualify for homeowners 
     insurance. Without homeowners insurance, potential homeowners 
     cannot qualify for a home mortgage loan and consequently 
     cannot purchase or own their own home.
       Discrimination in the provision of homeowners insurance 
     continues to plague middle-class, working-class and 
     integrated and minority neighborhoods. Complaints from 
     homeowners, as well as studies and investigations demonstrate 
     the current pervasiveness of this problem. For example, a 
     study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 
     found that it is more difficult for residents of minority and 
     integrated neighborhoods to obtain insurance coverage and 
     that these homeowners often pay more for inferior coverage. 
     Equally damaging are the extra efforts African-American and 
     Latino homeowners must undertake in order to obtain any type 
     of coverage.
       The insurance industry responds that monitoring of 
     homeowners insurance is the purview of the states and outside 
     the jurisdiction of the Fair Housing Act. However, the Sixth 
     and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal have determined that HUD 
     has authority to investigate insurance discrimination 
     complaints and that the Fair Housing Act prohibits insurance 
     redlining.
       If this anti-civil rights rider remains, HUD would be 
     required to suspend all activities pertaining to property 
     insurance. Ordinary citizens will be denied the HUD 
     administrative process for resolution of their complaints. In 
     fact, HUD would be prohibited from continuing the 
     investigation and settlement efforts of the 28 insurance 
     discrimination complaints now pending. The benefits of an 
     effective conciliation process will be lost, leaving only the 
     option of costlier, private litigation--an option few 
     ordinary citizens can afford. The ability of society as a 
     whole to redress the consequences of discrimination in 
     homeowners insurance will also be seriously curtailed because 
     no state insurance law provides protection to insurance 
     consumers equivalent to the protections of the Federal Fair 
     Housing Act.
       The House language also removes the Fair Housing 
     Initiatives Program (FHIP) which provides funding to 
     nonprofits, municipalities and universities across the 
     country to enable them to provide education, outreach, 
     enforcement and counseling to both citizens and industry 
     associations on all forms of housing discrimination. FHIP-
     funded organizations provide training and information to 
     landlords, real estate agents, mortgage lenders and other 
     members of the real estate industry about their 
     responsibilities and protections under the Fair Housing Act. 
     FHIP-funded organizations are also the first resource 
     available to victims of all forms of housing discrimination. 
     Such agency intervention often results in informal resolution 
     of complaints so that they never reach HUD or the courts.
       The House language goes far beyond exempting the insurance 
     industry from HUD enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. It 
     eliminates all HUD efforts to ensure that homeowners 
     insurance is provided to every American on an equal basis. By 
     defunding FHIP, the U.S. Congress also would be abandoning 
     support for the nonprofits, municipalities and universities 
     which undertake enforcement as well as preventive measures to 
     reduce all forms of housing discrimination.
       This coalition is united in its belief that guaranteeing 
     equal access to the opportunity of homeownership is a 
     quintessential federal activity. The availability of 
     homeowners insurance is no different than the availability of 
     a home mortgage loan on equal terms.
       We urge you to continue the bipartisan tradition of 
     supporting the Fair Housing Act by opposing efforts to exempt 
     the insurance industry from complying with this crucial civil 
     rights protection and by supporting continued funding for 
     FHIP.
           Sincerely,
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Center for Community Change.
       Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
       NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
       National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Fair Housing Alliance.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
       National Urban League.
       NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
       People for the American Way.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what they point out is that the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners found it is more difficult for 
residents of minority and integrated neighborhoods to obtain insurance 
coverage and that these homeowners often pay more for inferior 
coverage. Equally damaging are the efforts of African-American and 
Latino owners, what they must undertake in order to obtain any type of 
coverage. And if this civil rights rider would continue, HUD would be 
required to suspend most activities pertaining to property insurance 
and, in fact, it would even mitigate solving some of the problems we 
face.
  I know about the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I tried to end discrimination 
in insurance when I was in the House of Representatives. I heard enough 
about that to qualify for law school. But one thing I do know is that 
when the insurance industry complains that it is exempt from coverage 
under the Fair Housing Act because of this, that is not so.
  The position of the Federal Government and the courts is that the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act does not supersede or impair Federal authority to 
enforce the Fair Housing Act. While every State has property insurance 
laws that prohibit unfair discrimination, no State law provides the 
protection to insurance consumers equivalent to the protection of the 
Federal Fair Housing Act.
  Also, the insurance industry claims that all minority or ethnic 
homeowners who are eligible for insurance are able to purchase it. Yet 
investigations by the National Fair Housing Alliance have found that 
while some minorities have been able to attain insurance, this coverage 
is often inferior. In many instances, they found out that African-
Americans or Latinos, when they called an agent, did not receive a 
return call or a followup phone call.
  Also, insurance companies claim that the disclosure of underwriting 
and pricing mechanisms would violate trade secrets, damaging their 
profits. But Connecticut requires the filing of the underwriting 
guidelines and makes them publicly available, and there is no evidence 
that it has a detrimental effect on any of the company's profits.
  Also, the insurance industry claims that it costs more to provide 
insurance in urban neighborhoods, which is why they say it must be so 
high. While the industry makes that claim, they have never presented 
any evidence to document that. The evidence, for example, from the 
Missouri Insurance Commission shows that is not true.
  Because, again, of the activities of the Federal Government to make 
home ownership available, we now have many of our African-American 
constituents living in the suburbs. It is a wonderful happening in 
Maryland. It is exciting to see that. I would hate to see that after 
working so hard to have access to the American dream, the ability to 
get insurance turns into an American nightmare because of an action 
taken by the Federal Government that says it is wrong to redline on the 
basis of race, gender, national origin, or disability, to be able to 
get the property that you worked so hard to get, and to not be able to 
have it insured.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Feingold that will strike section 218, a 
provision in the bill that would bar HUD from using funds to pursue 
claims of property insurance redlining. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  I want to make it very clear that I believe the U.S. Senate should 
not set the precedent of exempting property insurance from fair housing 
laws. The Senate report accompanying H.R. 2099 states that section 218 
``prohibits the use of any funds by HUD for any activity pertaining to 
property insurance.'' What this means is that HUD could not 

[[Page S 14360]]
investigate any Fair Housing claims of property insurance redlining. If 
the provision is not stricken, Americans might be kept from buying 
houses because they might not be able to get homeowners insurance. I 
believe that all Americans have the right to homeowners' insurance 
regardless of race or ethnicity or the neighborhood where they live.
  The insurance industry claims that this type of denial of coverage is 
not taking place, but HUD reports that it continues to process and 
settle thousands of claims of property insurance redlining. 
Unfortunately, the practice of denying coverage to Americans because of 
the neighborhood they live in or the color of their skin is still 
happening. The Wall Street Journal on September 12, 1995, reported in 
an article titled, ``Study Finds Redlining Is Widespread in Sales of 
Home-Insurance Policies,'' that a ``study by the Fair Housing Alliance 
and other civil rights groups found that minority callers to insurance 
agents were often denied service or quoted higher rates than white 
callers seeking insurance for similar homes in predominately white 
neighborhoods.''
  If HUD is barred from investigating claims of property insurance 
redlining, Americans will be denied the protection of a basic civil 
rights law. I do not think that insurance companies should be exempt 
from property insurance provisions in the Fair Housing Act.
  This is a simple amendment that will protect all Americans from 
discrimination by insurance companies when they are trying to purchase 
homeowners insurance. I want to thank my colleague for offering this 
important amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The pending appropriations bill would prevent 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act against the insurance industry. I 
rise in support of the Feingold amendment to strike this ill-considered 
proposal.
  Equal access to housing is a right guaranteed to all Americans, and 
the Fair Housing Act is one of the pillars of our civil rights laws. 
Discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities seeking to rent or 
purchase housing is just as repugnant as employment discrimination or 
discrimination in public accommodations.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's Adarand decision, the country is 
currently engaged in an important debate about affirmative efforts to 
promote the integration of minorities into American society. But 
whatever the outcome of that debate, I had thought that the basic 
pillars of our civil rights laws--the laws that prohibit discrimination 
against minorities--were not up for grabs in the current Congress. Yet 
the attack on the Fair Housing Act embodied in the pending bill raises 
doubts about this Congress' commitment to eradicating discrimination.
  The bill before us contains two unacceptable provisions relating to 
the Fair Housing Act. First, it shifts the authority to enforce 
violations of the Fair Housing Act from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to the Department of Justice. Second, the bill bars 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act in the area of housing insurance 
redlining.
  We have reached an agreement with the Senator from Missouri to 
postpone the transfer of enforcement authority while the committees of 
jurisdiction consider this complex question. But the insurance proposal 
is still in the bill, and the pending Feingold amendment would strike 
it.
  I was one of the authors of the 1988 fair housing amendments, a 
comprehensive effort to improve and expand enforcement of the laws 
designed to protect the civil rights of those seeking to buy or rent 
property. One of the clear purposes of the 1988 act was to end 
discrimination in the provision of property insurance. Since that time, 
every court which has addressed the issue has agreed that the Fair 
Housing Act covers property insurance discrimination.
  The reasoning behind the 1988 amendments is simple. The ability to 
obtain property insurance is a precondition to buying a home. Without 
property insurance, a lender will not provide a mortgage. Without a 
mortgage, most Americans would not be able to afford a home. The 1988 
fair housing amendments were intended to insure that all Americans can 
apply equally for property insurance--without discrimination.
  Even today, it is more difficult for residents of predominately 
minority communities to obtain property insurance. And when they can 
secure insurance, it is often at an inflated price. The Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, using the 1988 fair housing amendments, 
is successfully working to end this fundamental violation of civil 
rights. We cannot now take a step backward and deny millions of 
Americans the chance to own their own home by making it more difficult 
for them to obtain property insurance.
  One effect of this provision would be to take enforcement of the laws 
against ``redlining'' out of Federal hands and effectively leave such 
enforcement to the vagaries of State law. While some States have 
statutes prohibiting some aspects of discrimination in the provision of 
property insurance, these laws do not go as far as the Fair Housing Act 
in preventing discrimination. For example, as of 1993, only 26 States 
had specific prohibitions on the offensive practice of insurance 
redlining.
  In addition, no State law provides redress equivalent to the Federal 
Fair Housing Act. State laws simply do not provide the breadth of 
coverage or range of remedies which are currently available under 
Federal law. Why then, should we limit the remedies due to victims of 
housing discrimination?
  This Congress has consistently rejected efforts to give States 
exclusive control over civil rights, and there are sound historical 
reasons for that. We should not make an exception to that simple 
principle. We must not move backward in the fight to end housing 
discrimination. We must ensure, through the pending amendment, that all 
Americans have equal access to the housing market--without 
discrimination.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold 
amendment to strike the language in this bill barring the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development from enforcing the Fair Housing Act 
against insurance redlining. The language in this bill will deny the 
protection of a basic civil rights law to people subject to 
discrimination by a particular industry. Because insurance redlining is 
a reality in America, efforts to eliminate such discrimination should 
be aggressively undertaken. Sadly, by stripping HUD of its enforcement 
authority, this bill will allow such discrimination to flourish.
  Mr. President, insurance redlining is a serious problem in this 
country. Recently, American Family Mutual Insurance Co. settled a 
redlining case by paying $16.5 million. The lawsuit was filed by seven 
African-American homeowners in Milwaukee who were either turned down, 
offered inferior policies, or charged more money for less coverage on 
home insurance policies. The insurance company settled the lawsuit 
after it was discovered that a manager at the company wrote to an agent 
who was willing to write insurance for African-Americans: ``Quit 
writing all those Blacks.''
  In addition, Mr. President, the National Fair Housing Alliance 
conducted a 3-year investigation--partially funded with $800,000 from a 
HUD grant awarded when Jack Kemp was HUD Secretary--using white and 
minority testers posing as middle-class homeowners seeking property 
insurance coverage. The test covered nine major cities and targeted 
Allstate, State Farm, and Nationwide Insurance. The homes selected were 
of comparable value, size, age, style, construction, and were located 
in middle-class neighborhoods.
  The investigation uncovered the fact that discrimination against 
African-American and Latino neighborhoods occurred more than 50 percent 
of the time. Astoundingly, in Chicago, Latino testers ran into problems 
in more than 95 percent of their attempts to obtain insurance, while in 
Toledo, African-Americans experienced discrimination by  State  Farm  
85  percent  of  the time.  While white testers encountered no problems 
obtaining insurance quotations and favorable rates, African-American 
and Latino testers encountered the following problems:
  Failure by insurance agents to return repeated phone calls;
  Failure to provide quote information;
  Giving preconditions for providing quotes--inspection of property, 
credit rating checks; 

[[Page S 14361]]

  Failure to provide replacement-cost coverage to homes of blacks and 
Latinos; and
  Charging more money to blacks and Latinos, while providing less 
coverage.
  Mr. President, property insurance discrimination is illegal under the 
Fair Housing Act. Under Secretary Cisneros, HUD has been an active 
participant in enforcing the Fair Housing Act and ensuring that 
property insurance discrimination ceases. The insurance industry has 
been fighting in court to restrict HUD's authority to enforce insurance 
redlining. The industry has not been successful in the judicial arena 
in its efforts to stop HUD's enforcement activities. Thus, the industry 
has now turned to Congress to restrain stepped-up Federal fair lending 
enforcement efforts.
  Insurance redlining directly affects the ability of African-
Americans, Asians, and Hispanics to purchase a home, because the denial 
of insurance results in the denial of a mortgage loan, which in turn 
results in the inability to purchase a home. Mr. President, opponents 
of affirmative action in Congress have argued that strong enforcement 
of civil rights laws is the appropriate mechanism to stop 
discrimination. However, efforts are now underway to strip the one 
agency that has been aggressively battling housing discrimination of 
its enforcement authority and remove a whole category of 
discrimination--insurance redlining--from the reach of the law. This 
effort needs to be stopped in its tracks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the words 
of the chairman of this committee and make a couple of points.
  Whenever we start talking about Government and Government rules and 
regulations, first of all I do not think anybody deplores 
discrimination at any stage more than I do. Because we would allow this 
into this bill will not take care of the problems that we seem to be 
facing in insurance redlining.
  Of course, I still believe in the jurisdiction of McCarran-Ferguson. 
Every State and the District of Columbia have laws and regulations 
addressing unfair discrimination in property insurance. Do we become 
redundant and put one law on top of another, thinking that the Federal 
enforcement will be any better than the State enforcement? I think that 
is a question.
  Congressman Kennedy over on the House side offered an amendment to 
strike the language prohibiting HUD from promulgating Federal 
regulations and it was soundly defeated, bipartisan, by a 266-to-157 
margin.
  What we are seeing with this amendment is exactly what this Senator 
and the American people do not want to see--the Federal Government 
getting involved in something where the States clearly have 
jurisdiction. It might surprise you that even Congressman Dingell, 
former chairman over on the House side, in a letter dated November 3, 
1994 to Secretary Cisneros of HUD, and Alice Rivlin, said this:

       It is important to note that the Fair Housing Act does not 
     explicitly address discrimination in property insurance. Nor 
     does the legislative history that accompanies the act 
     indicate any intention to apply these provisions to business 
     insurance.

  He went on and added:

       It is also particularly significant because the legislative 
     history of the act reveals that in 1980, in 1983, 1986, and 
     1988, Congress specifically rejected attempts to amend the 
     act to cover property insurance.

  So we are going into an area that clearly is the jurisdiction of the 
States. I think we are also going into an area where we become very, 
very redundant on the laws, and putting one on top of the other 
probably does not take care of the problem that all of us want to see 
taken care of.
  I ask my colleagues, if redundancy is part of what we are trying to 
fight out in this Government, then maybe we should take a look and see 
what we are doing here where the States clearly have jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Illinois 4 minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not agree with the 
Senator's use of the term ``redundancy.'' If anything, this debate is 
kind of deja vu all over again. This is precisely the battle lines that 
were drawn in the civil rights debates that happened in this very 
Chamber 30, 40 years ago, and that I had hoped our Nation had moved 
beyond.
  This is an issue of civil rights. This is an issue of civil rights 
for all Americans--not just African Americans, not just minority 
Americans, but all Americans.
  Mr. President, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
all other legislation intended to provide equality of opportunity to 
all Americans, since that time the Congress has consistently rejected 
the argument that the Federal Government should leave the enforcement 
of civil rights to the exclusive jurisdiction of the States.
  Members may recall--before my time, certainly--but people may recall 
the arguments made in the 1960's about States rights and how the States 
should have exclusive province for enforcement of civil rights. The 
Congress stepped in and said, ``No, that is not correct. We have a very 
real national interest in ensuring that all Americans have effective 
remedies for acts of discrimination.''
  Mr. President, that is precisely what this debate is about. As a 
recent editorial stated:

       If State laws are effective and States are actively 
     investigating opposing penalties . . . why has every 
     significant legal action been taken by private attorneys or 
     the Federal Government? Why have such actions been taken 
     almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of Federal fair 
     housing law and not State insurance codes? Where, for 
     example, was the Wisconsin insurance commissioner throughout 
     the 8 years during which the case against American Family was 
     being investigated and litigated?

  In short, Mr. President, the antiredlining protections of the Federal 
Fair Housing Act have provided us with the ability to have enforcement 
of fair housing laws, have provided us with the ability to enforce 
antidiscrimination laws and antiredlining laws. Because of that 
protection, Americans are better off; our country is better off.
  I plead with my colleagues not to allow this issue to become one of 
division among us, but rather to bring us together and allow for the 
protections of the law against redlining, against discrimination, to 
continue.
  I encourage support for the amendment of Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 3 minutes to the senior Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Feingold 
amendment.
  It is very interesting that the Senator from Missouri, the senior 
Senator from Missouri, mentioned the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The 
Association of Attorneys General of the States unanimously wants that 
repealed.
  I can remember when Attorney General Ed Meese, not a flaming radical, 
testified before the Judiciary Committee that McCarran-Ferguson ought 
to be repealed.
  When Senator Bond says, ``We do not support redlining,'' that is like 
saying we do not support going through this red light, but we are not 
going to arrest you if you do go through this red light. That just does 
not make any sense.
  I am old enough, Mr. President, to remember the 1954 school 
desegregation decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and we thought we 
were going to move into an integrated society.
  But our housing pattern has prevented the kind of progress that we 
should have. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners 
recognizes that this is a serious problem. The pattern of housing 
discrimination is clear. It is probably one of the most blatant areas 
of discrimination that remains in our society.
  When I was a young, green State legislator, I was a sponsor of fair 
housing legislation to prohibit discrimination, and I remember it was a 
very emotional issue at that point. I can remember talking to groups 
and sometimes someone would ask the question: Will this not lead to 
mixed marriages? And I said that I thought all marriages were mixed 
marriages.
  The questioner would respond: Well, that is not exactly what I meant. 
And of course they would spell out their worry about interracial 
marriages, and I would say: How many of you in here married the boy or 
girl next door? I 

[[Page S 14362]]
never, ever had anyone raise their hand. Then I said: If you really are 
concerned about racially mixed marriages, then have people move next 
door; then you will solve what you see as a problem.
  The fact is, Mr. President, if we pass this without the Feingold 
amendment, we are going to make it easier to discriminate. That is the 
reality. Part of the American dream ought to be to have a home that you 
like and to be able to pay for that home. We should not be denying that 
dream. That is what this bill does without this amendment.
  I hope that we can appeal to some of our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle to stand up for civil rights on this issue. We should not 
take a step backward.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to finish with one point here and 
then I think I will yield some time to the other side because I think 
we have pretty much made our point.
  When we look at the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it says:

       No act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, 
     impair, or intercede any law enacted by any State for the 
     purpose of regulating the business of insurance unless such 
     act specifically relates to the business of insurance.

  In other words, what they are saying, if we want to change the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act, it has to be done in freestanding legislation.
  Basically, I will go right back to say that we are just adding 
redundancy. We are adding another layer of bureaucracy to try to deal 
with something the States are having success in enforcing. I think we 
are laying one law on top of another law.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of extra time to the manager on the 
other side and I yield back the balance of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin now has 13 minutes and 5 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself a moment to say that I certainly thank 
the Senator from Montana for his great courtesy in yielding some of his 
time.
  I will now yield 7 minutes to the junior Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank Senator Feingold.
  Mr. President, I want to also thank the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Wisconsin for yielding me additional time. I tried to talk 
fast because I thought we were under greater time constraints than we 
are. I do want to address the whole question of regulation.
  Mr. President, this issue has nothing to do with regulation. It is 
about civil rights. Enforcement of antiredlining provisions does not 
regulate insurance; rather, it prohibits discrimination. It works to 
ensure that insurance, like all other goods and services, is available 
to all citizens regardless of race.
  We cannot allow, we should not allow, civil rights protections to be 
rolled back in the name of insurance reform. There is no reason, Mr. 
President, why discrimination in insurance should be treated any 
differently than any other form of housing discrimination.
  Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act does not involve regulation. 
Regulation of rates or other aspects of the insurance business is 
indeed a State responsibility, and no one has argued that point.
  What HUD is obligated to do, and what it has done under this section 
of the law, is to enforce civil rights laws that prohibit 
discrimination. No one has offered any valid explanation to show why 
this particular industry should be exempted from civil rights 
antidiscrimination laws.
  In the absence of the Feingold amendment, that is what this Congress 
will be doing.
  Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues that the smokescreen of 
State rights to regulate insurance is just that in this instance. This 
is very clearly an issue going to the heart of enforcement of our laws 
prohibiting discrimination of all types.
  I hope that my colleagues will support the attempt by Senator 
Feingold to add back into the law the protections against insurance 
redlining that his amendment provides. I call on my colleagues to take 
a good, close look at what is at stake in this debate. We talked. There 
are a lot of words around all of these issues. But the reality of it is 
that when anyone has to pay more for any good or service just because 
of the color of his or her skin, that is a situation that these United 
States, I hope, has moved away from and will continue to move away from 
and will never go back to. To suggest we go back to that under the 
guise of the sloganizing about States rights is shortsighted, 
counterproductive, antediluvian, and I frankly would be stunned if that 
would be the kind of signal this Congress wants to send to the American 
people.

  I therefore express strong support for the Feingold amendment and 
hope my colleagues will do so as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require.
  I thank the junior Senator from Illinois not only for her statement, 
but for her great leadership on this issue. I share her view. I will be 
stunned if this body, that has risen to the occasion on many instances, 
actually goes forward and takes this extremely serious and harsh act 
with regard to the civil rights laws of our country.
  There was a suggestion at the beginning by the Senator from Missouri 
that somehow there would still be an ability for HUD to do something 
about this problem if we do not reverse this. But what the language 
says in the current committee amendment is:

       None of the funds provided in this act will be used during 
     fiscal year 1996 to sign, promulgate, implement, or enforce 
     any requirement or regulation relating to the application of 
     the Fair Housing Act to the business of property insurance.

  That is pretty clear. Maybe they can think about the issue during 
their coffee break, but they are not going to be able to do a darned 
thing about it. Do not let anyone kid you, this completely guts HUD's 
ability to do something about property insurance discrimination.
  Then there was an attempt, I know in good faith, to suggest that 
somehow the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents the Federal Government from 
taking this step. Let us look at the plain language of the Fair Housing 
Act. The Fair Housing Act, which is also a law of our country just as 
much as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, says it is unlawful ``* * * to make 
unavailable or deny housing because of race, and prohibits 
discrimination in the provision of services [in the provision of 
services] in connection with the sale of a dwelling.''
  Any American will tell you that homeowners insurance is the provision 
of services in connection with the sale of a dwelling. It is clearly 
within the ambit of that statute and it has been litigated. It has been 
litigated in the legal circuit that both the Senator from Illinois and 
I live in, the seventh circuit. They took up the question of whether 
the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevented the application of the Fair Housing 
Act to property insurance and they ruled that in fact it was perfectly 
consistent with and within the provisions of that law. So this, too, is 
a red herring. It is a red herring that attempts to obfuscate the fact 
that this is a direct assault on years and years of trying to do 
something at the national level about a widespread national effort by 
some elements in the insurance industry to prevent honest, hard-working 
Americans from owning a home.
  I have come out to the floor since the November 8 election and I have 
voted to send some powers back to the States. I agree with that 
sentiment in many areas. I voted for the unfunded mandate bill. With 
some concern, I voted for the Senate version of the welfare bill. I 
voted to let the States decide what the speed limit should be. I voted 
to let the States decide whether we should have helmet laws. I voted to 
let the States decide what the drinking age should be. I even voted to 
let them decide whether or not to have seatbelt laws. But this goes too 
far. This is ridiculous, to suggest you simply leave a consistent 
national pattern of discrimination up to the States.
  I recently received a letter from James Hall of Milwaukee. Mr. Hall 
was one of the lead attorneys in the Milwaukee redlining case that went 
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In this letter, Mr. Hall laid 
out the reasons why the plaintiffs in this case chose the Federal route 
rather than relying on the Wisconsin State laws and courts. 

[[Page S 14363]]

  I ask unanimous request that the text of the letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Hall, Patterson & Charne, S.C.,
                                Milwaukee, WI, September 26, 1995.
     Re: Insurance Redlining.
     Hon. Russell Feingold,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: The purpose of this letter is to 
     discuss aspects of my involvement in the lawsuit NAACP, et 
     al. vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, which was 
     filed in United States District Court for the East District 
     of Wisconsin in July 1990 and resulted in a settlement in the 
     spring of 1995. I understand that you are familiar with the 
     terms of the Settlement Agreement and the involvement of the 
     United States Justice Department in arriving at the 
     settlement with the defendant American Family Insurance Co.
       The attorneys for the plaintiffs (the NAACP and seven 
     individuals), decided to commence the action in the United 
     States District Court, as opposed to Wisconsin state courts. 
     There were several reasons for our decision and why similarly 
     situated plaintiffs may decide to utilize the federal courts:
       1. We believed that the scope and range of remedies and 
     relief obtainable under Title VIII in federal court were 
     superior to those which we could expect to obtain in state 
     court. There was more precedent in terms of Title VIII 
     litigation and remedies (although not necessarily in the area 
     of insurance redlining). This included the possibility of 
     advancing a disparate impact theory of proof as opposed to 
     relying totally on having to prove ``intent.''
       2. It is very difficult to proceed with complex litigation 
     while advancing on theories that may or may not hold water. 
     For instance, the District Court dismissed one of the 
     plaintiffs' causes of action based on state insurance law, 
     finding that it was not clear that the state law intended a 
     private cause of action. It is likely that litigants pursuing 
     theories under state law will find themselves in uncharted 
     waters advancing causes of action without precedent when 
     proceeding under various state statutes. Fortunately, in our 
     case, we had other causes of action, including the Fair 
     Housing Act claim, which survived.
       3. While the McCarran-Ferguson Act could have potentially 
     created a problem, we advanced the theory (and the Seventh 
     Circuit Court of Appeals agreed), that the Fair Housing Act 
     provisions are consistent with the provisions of the 
     Wisconsin statutes outlawing insurance discrimination. 
     Accordingly, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was not found to have 
     been violated. However, there may be serious questions 
     concerning the ability to proceed in states which enact 
     legislation providing, for instance, that state statutes are 
     the exclusive remedy for discrimination. (It is doubtful that 
     any state would pass legislation which is outright 
     inconsistent with the federal Fair Housing Act, for instance, 
     providing that insurance discrimination is lawful.)
       4. Another consideration involves the situation a national 
     or regional insurer conducts business in several states. In 
     order to meaningfully address that insurer's practices, it 
     may be necessary to commence litigation in each of the 
     various states. It is much more convenient and cost-effective 
     to be able to utilize the federal system.
       All of the above reasons, but in particular, uncertainties 
     about the burdens of proof and the scope of remedies, 
     resulted in our decision to bring the action in the United 
     States District Court. We appreciate the efforts of yourself, 
     Senator Mosley Braun, and others aimed at continuing to allow 
     HUD to have the ability to have meaningful involvement in 
     this very important area of the law which affects the lives 
     of millions of Americans.
       If I may be of assistance in any way, please advise.
           Sincerely,
                                                James H. Hall, Jr.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this should not be done, even in the 
name of the Contract With America, which I do not support, but I have 
supported some provisions of this. This really defaces the notion of 
devolution to the States. Some things still have to be done by the 
Federal Government and one thing for sure is combating discrimination 
in this country.
  Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes and 28 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to table the Feingold amendment. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2788

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act for the 
consideration of amendment number 2788 offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 469 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Faircloth
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no other Senators wishing to vote 
or change their vote, on the vote the ayes are 45 and the nays are 54. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call for 
the quorum be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2789

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the vote ordered for amendment 
No. 2789 be vitiated and that the motion to table be withdrawn.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2789) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  
[[Page S 14364]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


Amendment No. 2790 To Committee Amendment On Page 143, Line 17 through 
                           Page 151, Line 10

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been agreed 
to by the managers.
  I ask consent that the pending committee amendments be set aside in 
order to consider the committee amendment on page 143, line 17.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2790 to the committee amendment on page 
     143, line 17 through page 151, line 10.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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:

       On page 150, strike lines 12 through 24, and insert the 
     following: ``for this fiscal year and hereafter, an 
     industrial discharger that is a pharmaceutical manufacturing 
     facility and discharged to the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation 
     Plant (an advanced wastewater treatment plant with activated 
     carbon) prior to the date of enactment of this Act may be 
     exempted from categorical pretreatment standards under 
     section 307(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended, if the following conditions are met: (1) the owner 
     or operator of the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant applies 
     to the State of Michigan for an exemption for such industrial 
     discharger, (2) the State or Administrator, as applicable, 
     approves such exemption request based upon a determination 
     that the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant will provide 
     treatment and pollution removal consistent with or better 
     than treatment and pollution removal requirements set forth 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency, the State determines 
     that the total removal of each pollutant released into the 
     environment will not be lesser than the total removal of such 
     pollutants that would occur in the absence of the exemption, 
     and (3) compliance with paragraph (2) is addressed by the 
     provisions and conditions of a permit issued to the Kalamazoo 
     Water Reclamation Plant under section 402 of such Act, and 
     there exists an operative.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this deals with a pharmaceutical plant in 
Kalamazoo, MI, and the pretreatment requirements for that plant. We are 
amending the underlying language that is in the bill.
  This amendment has been agreed to by those involved, such as the 
distinguished junior Senator from Michigan and the senior Senator from 
Michigan, as well as the managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, let me set the stage for this amendment by saying a 
few words about the pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act, our 
most successful environmental law.
  The subject we are discussing is sewage treatment. Prior to enactment 
of the Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's most serious water 
pollution problems was the discharge of untreated sewage--domestic 
waste collected from homes, workplaces and other institutions--
collected by sewers and quite often discharged without treatment to 
lakes, rivers and streams.
  Untreated sewage creates a host of problems. It presents health 
hazards to those who would use the water for recreation or fishing. The 
nutrients in the sewage promote the growth of algae that robs the water 
of oxygen needed by the fish and other organisms living in the water. 
And the loading of sediments and toxic chemicals can kill birds and 
other wildlife depending on the aquatic environment for food and 
habitat.
  So, in 1972 we committed the Nation to solving this problem by 
building a series of municipal sewage treatment plants. We have 
invested more than $120 billion--more than $65 billion of that in 
Federal dollars--to build, 16,000 sewage treatment plants across the 
country. They remove the sludge from the water. They clarify the water 
before it is discharged. They kill the pathogenic organisms in the 
sewage that would otherwise spread disease. And they dramatically 
reduce the nutrient loadings.
  It has been a big success. For instance, you hear that Lake Erie was 
brought back from the dead or that the Potomac River is once again a 
place for recreation. That is the result of the Clean Water Act and 
these sewage treatment plants.
  One essential part of this effort under the Clean Water Act is called 
the pretreatment program. Sewage treatment plants receive more than 
domestic waste for our homes and workplaces. They also receive billions 
of gallons of industrial wastewater.
  Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants and commercial businesses 
dump the waste from their processes into the sewer. These industrial 
discharges contain hundreds of different kinds of pollutants--
industrial solvents, toxic metals, acids, caustic agents, oil and 
grease, and so on.
  Sewage treatment plants are not generally designed to handle all of 
these industrial chemicals. In fact, the industrial discharges can 
cause severe damage to sewage treatment plants. And even where the 
plant is not damaged by the industrial chemicals, the plant does not 
treat the toxics--it does not destroy them--it merely passes them 
through to the water or to the land where the sludge from the plant is 
disposed.
  Because of these problems with industrial waste, Congress established 
the pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act. It requires that 
industries treat their wastes before putting them into the sewer. That 
is why the program is called pretreatment. Pollution control equipment 
is installed at the industrial plant and it is operated to remove 
pollutants such as metals and sediment or to neutralize pollutants 
including acids and caustics before the wastewater is put into the 
sewer.
  This is the background for this amendment. The Clean Water Act has 
fostered a very successful program to treat domestic sewage. An 
essential part of this program is a requirement for pretreatment of 
industrial wastewater before it is put into the sewer and sent to the 
sewage treatment plant. Substantial reductions in the toxic pollution 
of our rivers and lakes have been achieved by the cities that operate 
pretreatment programs.
  Let me break down the argument for the pretreatment program into four 
points.
  First, the pretreatment program protects sewage treatment plants from 
damage by these industrial chemicals. The toxics in industrial waste 
can interfere with the chemical and biological processes used by the 
centralized sewage treatment plant.
  Second, because sewage treatment plants are not designed to treat 
many of these industrial wastes--the plant merely passes the waste 
along to the environment--pretreatment is required before the 
discharge. Treatment before the discharge is much more efficient 
because it occurs before the industrial waste from one plant is mixed 
with all the other material that goes into the sewer.
  At the industrial plant you have a very concentrated waste stream. 
Applying control equipment to that stream can remove substantially all 
of the toxic agents. But put that waste into the sewer untreated and 
mix it with millions of gallons of wastewater from homes and workplaces 
and it is much more difficult to remove the toxic constituents.
  It stands to reason that a treatment method applied to a small 
concentrated waste stream will be more effective and less costly than 
attempting to remove the same amount of material diluted in a large 
quantity of wastewater.
  Third, the pretreatment program simplifies the task we face under the 
Clean Water Program. It would be virtually impossible to set 
pollution standards for every single chemical that is discharged to the 
environment. To know what impact a particular chemical has on a 
particular waterbody is a question that may take years of study to 
answer--for that one chemical and one lake or stream. To know how 
hundreds of different industrial chemicals affect the aquatic 
environments receiving pollution from the 16,000 different sewage 
treatment plants is a challenge way beyond the best science we have 
today.

  We get around this impossible task by asking that those who discharge 


[[Page S 14365]]
their industrial wastes to our rivers and lakes--and to the sewage 
treatment plants that discharge to our rivers and lakes--use the best 
available pollution control technology before the waste leaves their 
plant.
  And fourth, the pretreatment program establishes a uniform level of 
controls across the whole Nation. It is no secret that the States and 
cities of our country are in daily competition to attract and hold 
jobs. One factor in locating a new business is the regulatory climate 
that applies in a State or city. It is cheaper to do business where the 
regulations are not so strict.
  Prior to the Clean Water Act, many States had difficulty establishing 
effective pollution control programs because of their fear that 
business would move elsewhere. A State putting on tight controls to 
cleanup a lake or river faced the prospect that its employers would 
flee across the State line to keep production costs down. That fear was 
in part removed when the Clean Water Act established a uniform level of 
treatment required of all plants in each industry all across the 
Nation. Standards issued by EPA under the pretreatment program that 
apply to all the plants in an industry all across the country relieve 
some of the pressure on States that want to have good programs of their 
own.
  So, that is the background for this amendment. The pretreatment 
program is a very sensible part of a very successful national effort to 
reduce the adverse effects of sewage discharged to our lakes, rivers 
and estuaries. I think the Clean Water Act has been our most successful 
environmental law and it has succeeded because of the technology-based 
controls that have been put on industrial discharges through programs 
like the pretreatment program.
  Mr. President, there is a rider in this bill that would exempt some 
industrial dischargers in the city of Kalamazoo from the requirements 
of the pretreatment program in the Clean Water Act. The Kalamazoo 
sewage treatment plant is designed to achieve advanced treatment and to 
handle some of the wastes that are sent to it by industrial facilities. 
Because of this advanced capacity, it may be that some industry waste 
streams in Kalamazoo can be handled at the sewage treatment plant and 
without the need for pretreatment at the industrial facility. The 
purpose of the rider is to reduce compliance costs by waiving redundant 
treatment requirements.
  I am concerned, however, on two points which I have addressed in the 
amendment that is now the pending business. My amendment would not 
eliminate the exemption. But it would tighten it up in these two ways.
  First, it would only allow exemptions in Kalamazoo for pharmaceutical 
plants already located there. If the Senate adopted my amendment we 
would not be providing an exemption for all of the industrial 
facilities in Kalamazoo.
  Second, the amendment would require EPA to determine that treatment 
by the Kalamazoo sewage plant is truly effective as the national 
standard. The exemption would be conditioned on a finding that the 
total loading of all pollutants to the environment through the air, 
surface water, ground water and to agricultural and residential lands 
would not be greater under the exemption than it would be if the 
pharmaceutical plant complied with the national standard.
  With respect to determining compliance, the State of Michigan should 
assume that the Kalamazoo plant is operating at discharge levels 
consistent with the technology requirements and other requirements of 
the law including water quality based limitations incorporated into the 
permit. Any removals achieved beyond this level are available to offset 
the reductions that would otherwise have been achieved by the 
pharmaceutical plant.
  If the argument made for this rider is correct--that the Kalamazoo 
treatment plant protects the environment with respect to the wastes 
from industrial sources as well as any national regulation could--well 
then, the pharmaceutical plant could get its exemption. If that showing 
cannot be made, then the pretreatment program that will apply to all of 
the rest of the pharmaceutical industry, would apply in this case, too.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the two Senators from 
Michigan for working to make sure that this amendment does precisely 
what it was intended to.
  I believe the refinements in the amendment have been worked out to 
the satisfaction of all parties. We think the objective is a good 
objective. We are prepared to accept the measure on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I add my thanks to the chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, who has worked very hard with 
us to try to find language that will allow this project to go forward, 
to try to save the taxpayers of Kalamazoo, MI, from having to build an 
almost identical water treatment facility to the one that already 
exists to deal with problems at the existing facility. We appreciate 
that.
  We will continue to move forward and continue to work with the 
Senator from Rhode Island to make sure this project successfully stays 
on track.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2790) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2791

   (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to housing assistance to 
                         residents of colonias)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
committee amendments are set aside, and the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2791.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:

       On page 40, line 17, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That section 916 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act shall apply 
     with respect to fiscal year 1996, notwithstanding section 
     916(f) of that Act''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment 
with my colleagues Senator Hutchison and Senator Domenici. This 
amendment would extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary to 
require a set aside of up to 10 percent of a United States-Mexico 
border State's community development block grant allocation, as under 
section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 
1990, for colonias. The colonias provision has been in effect in every 
year following the passage of the Cranston-Gonzalez Act in the 101st 
Congress, allow the original authorization lapsed in 1994. It is not a 
change in the status quo, and has no budget impact. Although section 
916 of Cranston-Gonzalez requires States to make 10 percent of CDBG 
funds available for colonias, in cases like New Mexico and California, 
where the full 10 percent has not been utilized each year, HUD has 
allowed States to reallocate the funds within the State. The point is 
that the funding is there.
  For my colleagues not familiar with colonias, these are distressed, 
rural, and predominantly unincorporated communities located within 150 
miles of the United States-Mexico border. Texas has documented well 
over 1,100 colonias, while my State of New Mexico has over 30. They are 
often created 

[[Page S 14366]]
when developers sell unimproved lots, and using sales contracts, retain 
title until the debt on the property is fully paid. They often do not 
have adequate water and sewage access.
  These conditions create a serious public health, safety, and 
environmental risk to the border regions. Perhaps more importantly, 
they represent third-world conditions in the United States. I believe, 
and the Secretary of HUD agrees, that we must make the eradication of 
such conditions within the United States a national priority.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will accept this amendment, 
addressing the problems of the colonias has been a national priority, 
and I believe that it should remain one.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know that this amendment is supported by 
Senators on this side, the Senator from New Mexico and the junior 
Senator from Texas. We are making inquiry to determine whether they 
wish to speak on this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to add my statement in support 
of Senator Bingaman's amendment of which I am a cosponsor. I do 
appreciate this 10 percent set-aside for the colonias. Colonias are 
places that we did not know existed in America. You would not believe 
it. I have walked in a colonia. They are places that people live that 
do not have good water, and they do not have sanitary systems or sewage 
treatment. They are terrible.
  What we are we doing with this amendment is to say that it is a 
priority for our country to clear those places up so that every 
American has the ability to live in sanitary, basically clean 
conditions. I support the amendment. I appreciate Senator Bond taking 
this amendment for us to make sure that we serve the people in need.
  The issue of designating a portion of border States' CDBG money for 
housing is one of giving proper recognition and emphasis to the 
development needs of severely distressed, rural and mostly 
unincorporated settlements located along the United States-Mexico 
border. Colonias are located within 150 miles of the Mexican border, in 
the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
  Texas has the longest border with Mexico of any state.
  In 1993, Texas reported the existence of 1,193 colonias with an 
estimated population of 279,963 people. In 1994, New Mexico reported 34 
colonias, with a population of 28,000 residents.
  Senator Bingaman and I believe it important to formally recognize the 
scale of this challenge.
  For fiscal year 1995, VA, HUD appropriations report language 
specified 10 percent of the State's share of CDBG money for housing in 
colonias. The conference report did not specify, ``colonias,'' but 
instead, folded that commitment into $400 million for a number of new 
initiatives.
  That money came under a sunset provision. It requires new action to 
continue the formal commitment from us at the Federal level.
  This does not involve any new or additional funds.
  It is merely a statement of urgent priority that these funds be 
available for housing in the colonias upon application.
  This money only comes from the border States' shares. It does not 
impinge on any other States or their resources.
  Mr. President, I urge we reaffirm that commitment to the people of 
the colonias that they are truly a part of American society and 
America's priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman-Hutchison amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest we proceed to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2791) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________