[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16754-S16756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1397. A bill to provide for State control over fair housing 
matters, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


   the kyl-faircloth state fair housing laws recognition act of 1995

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Kyl-Faircloth State 
Fair Housing Laws Recognition Act of 1995. I thank Senator Faircloth 
for his cosponsorship of this bill, and his leadership in States rights 
issues. I am pleased to introduce this amendment which will prohibit 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from enforcing a 
complaint of discrimination on the basis of a housing provider's 
occupancy standard, and thereby transferring from HUD to the States and 
localities the authority to set occupancy standards.
  Mr. President, an occupancy standard specifies the number of people 
who may live in a residential rental unit. In July of this year, HUD 
general counsel Nelson Diaz issued a memorandum which, in effect, 
supplants the traditional two-per-bedroom occupancy standard, and may 
force housing owners to accept six, seven, eight, or even nine people 
in a two-bedroom apartment. HUD should not be establishing national 
occupancy standards.
  HUD was created in 1965 with the best of intentions: To build and 
fund housing for the poor. But the agency's regulations have gone far 
beyond the scope of that intent. Housing is first and foremost a local 
issue. The Federal Government should play a limited role in it. State 
officials are closer to the situation and can tailor standards to meet 
the needs of their communities.
  HUD has accepted a two-per-bedroom standard as reasonable in 
enforcing fair housing discrimination laws under the Fair Housing Act. 
Most public housing units subscribe to that standard. That is, until 
Henry Cisneros became Secretary of HUD. Secretary Cisneros and his then 
Deputy, Roberta Achtenberg, disagreed with the traditional occupancy 
standard, arguing that it discriminates against larger families.
  The new HUD standard is without factual foundation. Mr. Diaz has used 
the Building Officials and Code Administrators [BOCA] Property 
Maintenance Code as a foundation for his occupancy standard. The BOCA 
code, however, is a health and safely code specifically drafted by 
engineers and architects to provide guidance to municipalities on the 
maximum number of individuals who may safety occupy any building. It 
was never intended to alter the minimum number of family members HUD 
could require owners to accept under fair housing law.
  The code was adopted without any consultation, public hearings, or 
analysis of its impact on the Nation's rental housing industries. That 
is wrong. Secretary Cisneros, through HUD's general counsel, has 
circumvented the Federal Government's rulemaking process by imposing 
this standard through an advisory without public hearings.
  Mr. President, the Manufactured Housing Institute, Arizona 
Association of Homes and Housing for the Aging, and the Arizona 
Multihousing Association endorse the bill. Arizona Gov. Fife Symington, 
speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Mark Killian, and 
president of the Arizona Senate John Greene have sent me a letter in 
support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that their letter be 
printed in the Record.
  States and localities should establish occupancy standards, not a 
Federal bureaucracy. Several States have an occupancy standard 
including my own home State, Arizona. And it has worked well. It is 
time we begin returning a certain amount of authority back to the 
States. Public housing laws are a good place to start. That is why I 
introduce this bill which blocks HUD's attempt to set a national 
occupancy standard, and transfers that authority to the States and 
cities. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. I ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1379

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

       (a) Amendment of Fair Housing Act.--Section 807(b)(1) of 
     the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)(1) Nothing'' and inserting 
     ``(b)(1)(A) Nothing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(B) A State law regarding the number of occupants 
     permitted to occupy a dwelling--
       ``(i) shall be presumptively reasonable for the purposes of 
     determining familial status discrimination in residential 
     rental housing; and
       ``(ii) shall not form the basis of any action by the 
     Secretary to withdraw equivalency status from any State, 
     locality, or agency.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall not establish a de jure or de 
     facto national occupancy code.
       ``(D) Each State, locality, or agency with HUD equivalency 
     status shall have complete and final control over fair 
     housing cases involving occupancy standards within its 
     jurisdiction without the intervention of the Secretary.''.
       (b) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, no funds shall be available to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development under this Act to carry out the 
     Fair Housing Act unless the Department complies with the 
     amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     cases filed on or after December 31, 1995.
                                                                    ____



                                    Arizona State Legislature,

                                    Phoenix, AZ, October 16, 1995.
     Hon. John Kyl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for your prompt and decisive 
     action regarding the issue of federal intervention in the 
     area of occupancy standards as outlined in our joint letter 
     of August 15, 1995. As you know, the issue has been a very 
     divisive one in Arizona, and has now spread to other states 
     nationwide.
       We believe that your proposed legislation will resolve the 
     issue by reaffirming the right of each state to set standards 
     that it deems most appropriate. We especially applaud your 
     requirement that HUD shall not establish a national occupancy 
     standard, but defer to authorized state agencies in the 
     administration of cases involving occupancy standards.
       We fully support your legislation and by this letter have 
     notified other Members of the Arizona delegation of our 
     support. We appreciate your leadership on this issue and 
     compliment your excellent staff for their work on the bill. 
     If we may assist you in any way to promote the passage of 
     this legislation, please let us know.
           Sincerely,
     Fife Symington,
       Governor, State of Arizona.
     John Greene,
       President, Arizona Senate.
     Mark W. Killian,
       Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1398. A bill to increase the penalty for trafficking in powdered 
cocaine to the same level as the penalty for trafficking in crack 
cocaine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  federal crime penalties legislation

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was honestly shocked to learn of 
the huge difference that exists between the Federal penalties for 
trafficking powder cocaine and for trafficking the exact same amount of 
crack cocaine.
  Right now, selling 5 grams of crack cocaine results in the same 5-
year mandatory minimum prison term as selling 500 grams of powder 
cocaine. Selling 50 grams of crack cocaine gets you a 10-year minimum 
sentence, while you'd have to sell 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get 
the same 10 years in prison.
  While these penalties are vastly different--100 times greater if you 
sell crack cocaine--the damage caused by these criminal acts are the 
same. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, careers are ruined, and 
our Nation itself is seriously threatened.

[[Page S 16755]]

  Tough penalties are necessary to send a clear signal that the United 
States will not tolerate selling illegal drugs. The answer to the 
problem presented by this wide difference in penalties is not to lower 
penalties for selling crack cocaine but to increase the penalties for 
selling powder cocaine.
  Therefore, my legislation is very simple and very clear. 
Trafficking--that is the manufacture, distribution or sale--of 50 grams 
of powder cocaine will result in a 10-year minimum sentence--the same 
as dealing in crack cocaine.
  Manufacture, distribution or sale of 5 grams of powder cocaine will 
result in a 5-year minimum sentence--the same as dealing in crack 
cocaine.
  I'm pleased that Senator Hank Brown of Colorado has joined me as a 
principle cosponsor of this important legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Exon, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Kerrey, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1399. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure 
funding for essential air service program and rural air safety 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   the rural air service survival act

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
that will help preserve air service in rural areas and save the 
Essential Air Service [EAS] Program for the future. I am pleased that 
my colleagues Senator Exon and Senator Rockefeller are joining me as 
original cosponsors of the Rural Air Service Survival Act.
  Last week, the Senate passed the conference report for the 
Transportation appropriations bill which cut the EAS Program by one-
third, reducing appropriations from $33 million in fiscal year 1995 to 
$22 million in fiscal year 1996. Under these reductions, dozens of 
communities will experience reductions in air service. As my colleagues 
understand, the EAS Program provides support to maintain air service in 
remote rural communities that would have no air service at all. EAS is 
a critical program that plays an essential role in the economic 
viability for many rural communities. It is also an indispensable 
component to our national transportation system, connecting remote 
rural areas with hub airports. If the EAS Program is terminated--as 
some in the Congress and in the administration have proposed--then 
dozens of rural communities will lose the only air service available to 
them. In the grand scheme of things, the EAS Program does not amount to 
a lot of money, but to the over 60 rural communities dependent upon 
EAS, it determines the very survival of air service.
  When the airline industry was deregulated, the EAS Program was 
established as a means to ensure rural areas continue to have air 
service. In several rural communities in North Dakota, EAS support is 
the only means to maintaining some kind of air service. These 
communities are at least 100 miles from the nearest airport which 
offers jet service.
  Over the past few years, the only constant in the EAS Program has 
been funding cuts. Each year, the administration proposes to eliminate 
EAS and those of us who understand the critical importance of this 
program are forced to fight for funding. The dramatic cuts for fiscal 
year 1996 should be a sign that the current budget process is not 
working for EAS and without the establishment of a permanent financing 
mechanism, the future is too uncertain for the rural communities that 
rely upon EAS support.
  This legislation that would provide a permanent financing mechanism 
for the EAS Program. It seems to me that the EAS Program ought to be 
removed from annual appropriations battles and be given more secure 
financing. Looking at the trend over the past few year, it is 
unrealistic for anyone to expect the EAS Program to last very long 
unless we develop a new financing mechanism to sustain the program.
  Under this legislation, a 10-cent fee would be imposed on every 
enplanement. The revenue raised would fund the EAS Program. The 
legislation would ensure that any administrative cost to carriers in 
collecting this small fee would be reimbursed. Any unobligated funds 
would be used to enhance the airport improvement program, directing 
that any excess funds be made available for small community airports 
for maintenance projects.
  This legislation would assure passengers and the industry that this 
financing mechanism will only be used for its intended purpose. The 
price of a dime will ensure that all areas of our country are 
accessible by air travel. It seems to me that we need to work to 
restructure the EAS Program and save air service in rural areas and 
this approach would provide a solution protected from annual Washington 
budget battles.
  I realize that given the present budget situation, those of us who 
really care about programs like EAS have to think of new solutions. We 
cannot continue to put new wine into old wineskins. We need to develop 
new financing mechanisms and make the most of limited Federal funding.
  Our transportation system in this country is vital to our economic 
health and national security. It is of critical importance that, 
despite tight budgets, we finds ways to maintain a truly national 
transportation system that links every region and State in the union. 
That is why we need to save the EAS Program and establish its own 
financing mechanism.
  It seems to me that we need to make some changes in aviation policy 
in this country and stop ignoring the fact that rural regions are 
suffering a serious decline in air service. The airline industry has 
undergone many changes since deregulation in the early 1980's. The 
invisible hand of competition replaced the assuring hand of Government 
in the aviation market place. As a result, some areas of the country 
have seen lower prices and more choices in service. In other parts of 
the country, namely in rural areas, we have seen dramatic losses in air 
service and higher prices.
  It is my view that our Nation's small communities, especially in 
rural areas, have not fared well under deregulation: One hundred sixty-
seven nonhub communities have lost all air service since 1978 while 
only 26 have gained new services. Several hundred more have had jet 
service replaced by high-cost turboprop or piston aircraft. The result 
for small communities has been a deterioration of the quality of 
service an increase in prices.
  The legislation will secure a reliable source of financing for the 
EAS Program. The EAS Program is essential to our Nation's national 
transportation system and this legislation will ensure that this 
program continues. The legislation has been endorsed by Communicating 
for Agriculture.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1399

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Air Service Survival 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) air service in rural areas is essential to a national 
     transportation network;
       (2) the rural air service infrastructure supports the safe 
     operation of all air travel;
       (3) rural air service creates economic benefits for all air 
     carriers by making the national aviation system available to 
     passengers from rural areas;
       (4) rural air service has suffered since deregulation;
       (5) the essential air service program under the Department 
     of Transportation--
       (A) provides essential airline access to rural and isolated 
     rural communities throughout the Nation;
       (B) is necessary for the economic growth and development of 
     rural communities;
       (C) is a critical component of the national transportation 
     system of the United States; and
       (E) has endured serious funding cuts in recent years; and
       (6) a reliable source of funding must be established to 
     maintain air service in rural areas and the essential air 
     service program.

     SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE.

       Section 40117 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(j) Additional Fee.--
       ``(1) Imposition of fee.--Each eligible agency that may 
     impose a passenger facility fee under this section shall 
     impose a 10-cent fee under this subsection for each 
     enplanement to provide funds to support a 

[[Page S 16756]]
     national aviation system, rural airspace safety, and rural air service.
       ``(2) Fee to be separately accounted for.--The proceeds of 
     fees imposed under this subsection shall be accounted for 
     separately from the proceeds of any fee imposed under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(3) Fees to be used for small community air service.--
       ``(A) In general.--Fees collected under this subsection 
     shall be immediately made available to the Secretary for use 
     in carrying out the essential air service program under 
     subchapter II of chapter 417 of this title.
       ``(B) Disposition of excess funds.--Any funds that are not 
     obligated or expended at the end of the fund's fiscal year 
     for the purpose of funding the essential air service program 
     under such subchapter shall be made available to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration for use in improving rural air safety 
     under subchapter I of chapter 471 of this title and shall be 
     used exclusively for projects at rural airports under 
     subchapter II of chapter 417 of this title.
       ``(C) Compensation of air carriers for acting as collection 
     agents.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations under 
     which any air carrier or its agent required to collect fees 
     imposed under this section is permitted to retain, out of the 
     amounts collected, an amount equal to the necessary and 
     reasonable expenses (reduced by any interest earned on the 
     deposit of such amounts during the period between collection 
     and remittance) incurred in collecting and handling the 
     fees.''.

     SEC. 4. SECRETARY MAY REQUIRE MATCHING LOCAL FUNDS.

       Section 41737 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(f) Matching funds.--No earlier than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of the Rural Air Service Survival Act, the 
     Secretary may require an eligible agency, as defined in 
     section 40117(a)(2) of this title, to provide matching funds 
     of up to 10 percent for any payments it receives under this 
     subchapter.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this section shall take effect on 
     the first day of October next occurring after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1400. A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance 
as to the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 to insurance company general accounts; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


                  THE ERISA CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1995

 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator 
Dodd and Senator Jeffords, to introduce the ERISA Clarification Act of 
1995.
  This legislation is designed to protect pension plan participants and 
beneficiaries by removing the threat of retroactive liability based on 
the way life insurance companies have historically organized and 
managed pension assets. Importantly, the legislation would not affect 
any ongoing civil action.
  For nearly 20 years, the insurance industry relied on an interpretive 
bulletin issued by the Department of Labor, as well as an Internal 
Revenue Service ruling, which stated that assets held in an insurance 
company's general account were not considered plan assets under the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. In December 1993, 
however, the Supreme Court ruled in John Hancock versus Harris Trust 
that this long-standing practice of including pension assets as part of 
a general account could violate certain provisions of ERISA. The Court 
recognized that its decision created the possibility of serious 
disruptions in the way pension assets were managed. As such, it 
commented that problems arising from the decision should be addressed 
legislatively or administratively.
  The Department of Labor is working closely with all parties to 
develop rules, consistent with Harris Trust, for dealing with 
prospective insurance company activities. However, without additional 
legislative authority, the Department of Labor may be unable to grant 
protection for retroactive activities which might expose insurance 
companies to significant liability and threaten the security of pension 
assets.
  Mr. President, in the nearly 20 years before the Supreme Court's 
decision in Harris Trust--and in the 2 years since that decision--there 
has been little evidence that plan participants have been harmed by the 
insurance industry's long-standing practice of managing benefits, or 
that the insurance industry is especially prone to the problems of 
asset mismanagement that gave rise to ERISA. In fact, there were no 
enforcement proceedings initiated by the Department of Labor against 
insurers resulting from the mismanagement of pension assets prior to 
the Harris Trust decision.
  I believe, however, that our failure to address this issue could 
threaten the safety and security of pension assets by exposing the 
insurance industry to millions of dollars of retroactive liability. 
Therefore, I believe we should consider, and enact, this important 
legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with my 
cosponsors, and with other Members of this body, to do so.

                          ____________________