[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9730-S9735]
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, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I also wanted to follow 
up on the question the Senator from Maryland addressed. I think the 
information she provided is most helpful. I note many of the 
contractual arrangements, including the excessively large mortgages and 
excessive contract rents, are due to contractual agreements made by the 
Federal Government 20 or 30 years ago. Some excessive costs have 
resulted from some of the Federal regulations and standards, which 
could be characterized as onerous, that applied to these projects. 
Other costs are due to the very difficult areas where the projects were 
being built. They were trying to get people into areas where you would 
not normally build multifamily housing. This included going into rural 
areas where there is elderly population, or projects in depressed inner 
city areas where costs of construction were very high.
  Some of the multifamily housing in this portfolio represents the 
only--or certainly the best standard housing in many areas, or the only 
housing available to low-income families. Our purpose is to squeeze out 
the excessive subsidies. But we also have to be sensitive to the 
critical housing needs of the low-income families, and especially the 
elderly who were subsidized--assisted by the project. That is why this 
is a very difficult problem. That is why we are engaged in this 
discussion of how we get out of a bad situation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not my intention to be critical, and I hope I have 
not in any way been critical of what the Senator is trying to do.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Not at all.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am trying to understand what the problem is and what 
the potential solutions are. While there are undoubtedly some other 
elements of the cause of the problems in section 8, I think it is fair 
to say the 500-pound gorilla here started with an idea that must have 
seemed right to those who propounded it, but in retrospect it was a 
pretty dumb idea. It put us in the position, in small towns in this 
country, of having the Federal taxpayer pay $500 or $600 a month rent 
for one-bedrooms that everybody in town knows would not rent for that, 
would not rent for half that.
  The problem is not only that you are wasting a lot money--when I say, 
``you,'' I mean the Federal Government--not only are we wasting a lot 
of money, we are also undermining public confidence again in 
Government. Because instead of this being the right approach that 
thoughtfully provides housing for those who need it, it provides 
housing, over a period of some many years, at rents that are so 
substantially above the market. That is why I am asking the questions.
  It may be that the approach suggested is the right approach, I just 
do not know. I am trying to think through this myself. I do not know 
that there is the right idea to extract ourselves from this problem. 
But both the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland 
indicated this is kind of a time bomb because this problem does not get 
better, it gets worse unless it gets solved. The quicker it gets solved 
the better off are the taxpayers.
  The Senator from Missouri just made a point I fully agree with. You 
cannot solve this problem without being mindful of the housing needs of 
the people who rely on the housing stock. I understand that. If there 
are 132,000 units that are going to come up for renewal this year in 
section 8, and somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million that eventually 
will come up whose contracts expire, the question is: what happens to 
those who rely on or who have needs for public housing that are now 
satisfied by those units. I do not know the answer to that. But it is 
also clear to me we cannot sustain nor should the taxpayers expect us 
to make a decision ever to sustain what has been done. Because it has 
grown into a circumstance where it is a grotesque caricature of what it 
ought to be.
  When you ask someone in a small town, small county in North Dakota, 
how much should you have to pay for a one-bedroom unit to solve some 
low-income person's housing needs, no one would come up with the amount 
that is now being paid to that project owner. The project owner has not 
done anything wrong, he has simply taken advantage of a program that, 
in my judgment, was inappropriately constructed, that allows this 
mangled result to occur.
  Let me ask one additional question and, again, I do not mean to be 
putting you on the spot because this is not the area you would 
necessarily be involved in. You are involved in the appropriations 
necessary to pursue the goals of these housing programs that are 
authorized.
  In today's paper, Mr. Gugliotta has an article that talks about 
section 8 landlords. It says, ``Law Says Section 8 Landlords Can Keep 
It All in the Family.'' The article talks about a fellow in Allegheny 
County, the controller for that county, who is supposed to be 
collecting taxes who thought he would start dunning low-income 
landlords for failing to pay local property taxes. This is a quote now:

       During his investigation, however, he happened upon an 
     anomaly. Nearly 100 landlords in the greater Pittsburgh area 
     were receiving federal subsidies for renting apartments and 
     houses to their supposedly poor relatives.

  All of this, according to this story, was under section 8. That, it 
seems to me, is a dilemma. He sent this to Secretary Cisneros, who 
indicated he had not heard of such practices.
  It is just another small example of something in that system that 
just smells to high heaven.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If I might respond to the Senator from North Dakota, I 
read that article this morning, too. It was the first I have ever heard 
of this in my 10 years of being on this subcommittee, where someone 
owns a property, rents it to a relative, and then gets a section 8 to 
pay for the relative's rent. The gentleman referred to is Mr. Frank 
Lucchino, a very well-regarded public official in, I believe, the 
Pittsburgh area of the State of Pennsylvania. That is Allegheny County.
  I was quite concerned and had intended to talk with Senator Bond 
about that this afternoon. No. 1, I think Cisneros owes us an 
explanation. No. 2, this says exactly the point that I made: HUD is not 
standing sentry on its section 8, nor is local government. It has met 
often compelling needs. There are many good landlords. But there have 
also been bums and scams and schemes along the way. We need to clear 
those out.
  I was going to suggest to Senator Bond that we have an inspector 
general look into this, rather than GAO, because I think we will get a 
quicker response. And as you know, the inspector general is intimately 
familiar with all the details of both the financing and management of 
HUD.
  So I assure the Senator from North Dakota and anyone who has read 
that article and wonders what is up that we are going to get a response 
from Mr. Cisneros. I would like to recommend that we get an IG report 
on it. But I am like you. There are the tenants, the

[[Page S9731]]

good-guy landlords, the well-intentioned taxpayers. And then under 
every rock we seem to find another rock on section 8.
  What disturbs me is that in some instances, because of poorly 
maintained buildings, it has been a hollow opportunity for the poor. 
All we have is unaccountable private-sector housing imitating the worst 
of the public housing. Second, we have many good landlords, but we have 
also in some instances--like Riverdale in Maryland had a new slum 
landlord, and then to add insult, the taxpayers were left holding the 
mortgage for $5 million.
  So we have a lot to do here. And to Mr. Cisneros' credit, and really 
to Senator Bond, and working on our committee, Senator Sarbanes, 
Senator D'Amato with the authorizing, we're trying to dig out. But the 
Senator from North Dakota, he knows when he walks into a stable, 
sometimes doing it one shovel at a time is difficult; but we will get 
to it.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will follow up the comments by my 
colleague from Maryland. If there was ever an Augean stable that had to 
be cleaned out, it is probably HUD. What was referred to in the article 
today by our colleague and what our colleague from North Dakota 
mentioned is a real problem of management by HUD of its facilities and 
all of the housing that it provides.
  It is my belief and understanding that HUD has the authority to deal 
with these problems. And there are a lot more problems. Let me assure 
you just renting to relatives and getting section 8 contracts is not 
the whole game. There is equity skimming. There are many other abuses.
  One of the things we have attempted to do in recent years is to get 
HUD to focus on its job which is assuring that we provide good, clean, 
affordable housing to people who are entitled to it and do not pay one 
cent more out of the taxpayers' hard-earned money than we should pay. 
Many of us have been on the floor ranting and raving that we have put 
too many programs into HUD. Congress has been at fault. We have some 
240 programs that HUD is supposed to administer. And we have chastised 
the Secretary and predecessors of HUD for coming up with new ideas and 
new programs. And almost every week there has been a new program coming 
out of HUD. Some of us in frustration have said: Stop. Time out. Stop 
creating new programs. Focus the resources on the programs that you 
have because there are problems.
  I think this problem that has been identified in the article demands 
an IG investigation. What was it that allowed this kind of an abuse of 
the system to go forward? Any program that is this large will attract 
some abuses. Are we doing enough? Do we have a system set up within the 
Department to identify these abuses? And if there are violations of the 
law, are we referring those to the appropriate authorities either for 
civil or criminal penalties?
  I think there is a lot to the administration side of it that needs to 
be addressed. Fortunately, the Senator from Maryland and I have the 
very simple task of appropriating the dollars. When you look at the 
task of authorizing the programs in the Banking Committee, that is 
another headache. When you look at administering the programs and the 
executive side, that is a very large headache. And that is one which I 
think rightly deserves scrutiny.
  We will join with, if the inspector general happens not to be 
listening to this debate today, in requesting of the inspector general 
that they do give us a report on that particular situation and how well 
HUD is equipped to deal with abuses such as these, and others. I thank 
my friend from North Dakota for bringing this out into the discussion 
on the floor today because it is just this kind of abuse of the system 
that rightfully drives taxpayers nuts.
  I do not think anybody or certainly a very small number of people in 
the country would say that they did not want to provide housing 
assistance for those in great need. But there is an overwhelming 
majority that say we should not be paying one cent to provide a section 
8 payment to somebody who is using a Federal program as a scam to get 
money off of housing a relative. I think that administration of the 
program is a very, very difficult challenge, one, frankly, I would not 
want under any circumstances.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will finish at this point. If the 
Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland are going to ask 
the inspector general to look into this, I would be delighted to join 
them in that request. I think that we should do that. I would be happy 
to join them. Let me just make an additional comment. The job that the 
appropriators have here is a difficult enough job, and the dimensions 
of this are very complicated. This is a very difficult issue. And I 
want to understand this evening a little bit--reading through what your 
proposal is--what soft second mortgages are and what some of the 
terminology is because I must confess I do not understand all of it.
  I had intended, not only to come and ask questions about section 8 
today, friendly questions I hope, but also to bring some pictures to 
the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so. I hope 
to do so when the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor, to 
say this: I stood on a street in a very small community recently on an 
Indian reservation and looked around 360 degrees, and I saw HUD-owned 
housing--owned by HUD, I believe managed by the tribal housing 
authority--that was in such desperate condition it was absolutely 
shocking.
  I have seen bad housing. I have seen housing that is unfit to live in 
all over the world, and in this country, but I have not ever seen 
housing in such disrepair owned by the Federal Government--holes in the 
walls, holes in the roof, windows missing, front steps gone, never 
painted, never maintained. I have seen better looking housing in 
Nicaragua. And Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries in this 
hemisphere. I was shocked to see the condition of some of the housing 
stock owned by the Federal Government. Shame on the Federal Government 
for having its name on housing, for which there is a 3-year wait to get 
in, that is almost unfit for habitation.
  I say to the Senator from Missouri, he is correct, this deals with 
management. It does not deal with politics. HUD has been guilty, in my 
judgment, for mismanagement for some long while. We need to get at 
these problem areas, and get at them now. There are little children 
playing out there in the dirt in front of those places who live in 
those places. I am telling you, what I saw there was absolutely 
shocking. I am going to bring pictures to the floor of the Senate to 
show my colleagues what I have seen.
  Let me mention one additional point. The day after I visited those 
areas on one Indian reservation, I went to a second Indian reservation. 
And they had some of the same kind of housing, but they had something 
else that made me leave that reservation feeling a little bit good at 
what was going on. On that reservation they had taken some kids, some 
kids who had troubled backgrounds, and as part of AmeriCorps, they put 
them in something called the Youthbuild project. And those kids were 
learning to become associate carpenters, helping to restore a little 
house. And they did a wonderful job restoring this house for a near-
invalid elderly couple. The couple came to the house the day that I was 
there, and it was the first time they saw what had been done to restore 
their house to make it livable. And you should have seen the tears in 
the eyes of the woman who was seeing that house and the kitchen for the 
first time.
  You should have seen these young kids, as part of AmeriCorps and 
Youthbuild, who now had learned to plumb a door, who now had learned to 
hang a door, who now had learned the basic carpentry skills of how to 
hang closets. It was a wonderful thing. A lot of things you see are 
shocking but there are some things you see that give you a little hope, 
as well. There is some good work going on.

  I cited the Indian reservation and the Youthbuild project, a small 
little project, helping some kids help others by restoring housing 
units, because if we can replicate that thousands of times across this 
country, we will help a lot of people and we will address the right 
issues.
  I regret I was not able to bring the pictures today of the housing I 
described initially. I intend to do that in

[[Page S9732]]

the next day or two so that Members of the Senate can see what I saw 
and see the shame of the Federal Government having the title in its 
name of housing, for which there is a 3-year waiting period to get in, 
and housing which, in my judgment, is nearly unlivable.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. To respond to the Senator from North Dakota about 
AmeriCorps Youthbuild, it is this subcommittee and with the concurrence 
and cooperation of Senator Bond and Senator Hatfield that we have 
restored the House cuts. Again, it is not some Government giveaway. It 
is almost like a conservation corps, but instead of outdoor work it is 
focused on rehabilitating housing.
  In their own way, youths learn those skills and go into the private 
sector. Some of the kids that are now working in Youthbuild, not only 
did we stop them from being dead-end kids, but you will go back to 
North Dakota and see that they will be members of the North Dakota Home 
Builders Association, and I mark-to-market my words on that.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was not aware that was something originated by your 
subcommittee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We saved it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me thank you for doing that and tell you I have seen 
young kids whose lives are turning around because of it. I have seen 
elderly people who had tears in their eyes when they saw the work the 
kids have done to improve housing.
  If ever there is an investment that makes sense, this is the kind of 
investment that improves kids' lives and improves housing in this 
country. That is a good place to end, so I say thank you for saving 
that program because I think it is a wonderful promise that represents 
the best of what we can do in Government.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join in thanking our colleague from North 
Dakota for his kind comments about Youthbuild. We did put in the $40 
million requested for that program.
  I, too, have seen the benefits in St. Louis of the Youthbuild 
Program. I regret to inform my colleague that if he wants to deal with 
the problems of Indian housing, we do that, too. That is not Interior. 
That is in this committee. We will have, in the public housing reform 
bill that is working its way through the authorizing committees, there 
is a chapter that is in conference between the Senate and House Banking 
Committees that would reform Indian housing. Indian housing is unique. 
It has unique solutions. Instead of HUD micromanaging responsibilities, 
under the authorizing bill that is now in conference, the 
responsibility would be returned to the tribes to address their own 
needs.
  I suggest our colleague may want to take some time to acquaint 
himself with the provisions in that public housing bill that deal with 
Indian housing, because I share the concerns about Indian housing and 
how the U.S. Government has not done a good job in addressing those 
needs. We do Youthbuild, we do Indian housing, we do AmeriCorps, 
National Science Foundation, lots of things you never heard of. We are 
sort of a general complaint window and always glad to have comments and 
participation by our Members in these programs.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand.
  My only point was I was not able to get the photographs, but when we 
talk about Indian issues in the next appropriations bill I will show 
the photographs to the Senate at that point.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5175

    (Purpose: To provide HUD authority to provide special incentive 
  payments to encourage voluntary retirements to extent necessary to 
   avoid a reduction in force (RIF), subject to a $25,000 limitation)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment relating to 
reductions in force in HUD.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5175.

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

       On page 59, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . In order to avoid or minimize the need for 
     involuntary separations due to a reduction in force, 
     departmental restructuring, reorganization, transfer of 
     function, or similar action affecting the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary shall establish 
     a program under which separation pay, subject to the 
     availability of appropriated funds, may be offered to 
     encourage employees to separate from service voluntarily, 
     whether by retirement or resignation: Provided, That payments 
     to individual employees shall not exceed $25,000: Provided 
     further, That in addition to any other payments which it is 
     required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, HUD shall remit to 
     the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the 
     Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 
     percent of the final basic pay of each employee who is 
     covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5 to whom a voluntary separation incentive has been 
     paid under this paragraph''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is cleared on both 
sides. This amendment is being submitted pursuant to a request from the 
Secretary of HUD which inserts language similar to that provided in 
this bill for NASA which proposes a buyout provision to address the 
substantial personnel reductions confronting the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development at headquarters and in several other locations.
  The buyout authority would enable the agency to meet its personnel 
targets without resorting to very disruptive and potentially costly RIF 
procedures.
  In addition, to make this subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds, the language requires HUD to reimburse the civil service fund 
for expected loss revenue and increase beneficiary payments from 
appropriated funds. These limitations assure that no net increase in 
the expenditures would occur during fiscal year 1997.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I absolutely support Senator Bond's 
amendment. We worked very closely on this. We think it is what we need 
to downsize Government without downgrading HUD. It gives, essentially, 
many of the employees the opportunity to be able to take an early 
retirement. We think that is a good idea. We support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5175) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       board of veterans' appeals

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, Senator 
Christopher Bond, in a colloquy regarding processing veterans' claims 
and the reduction of the claims backlog due to the efforts of the Board 
of Veterans' Appeals [BVA].
  The Board of Veterans' Appeals [BVA] is responsible for the final 
decision in each of the many thousands of claims for entitlement to 
veterans benefits that are presented annually for appellate review. The 
Board's mission is to issue quality decisions in a timely manner. The 
timeliness of BVA's decision-making has come under intense scrutiny as 
unprecedented appellate backlogs have developed in recent years, 
primarily as a result of the process of adapting to a judicial review 
environment. However, beginning in 1995, BVA has done much to reverse 
this trend and is making progress in reducing the time veterans must 
wait for decisions on appeals.
  Mr. President, in 1994 our veterans had to wait 781 days, over 2 
years, for an appelant decision on their benefits and medical claims. 
This response time was reduced to 763 days in 1995. This reduction was 
still possible even with an increase of approximately 4,500 cases. Thus 
far in 1996 the response time has been reduced even further to 623 
days. The anticipated appeals response time will be reduced to 545 days 
upon implementation of the BVA's staff increase by 50 attorneys in 
1997. While this time is still too long for America's veterans

[[Page S9733]]

to wait, it represents a substantial reduction from 1994 in the waiting 
time for appeals.
  I believe two factors are responsible for the improvements in the BVA 
decision output and timeliness: First, productivity has increased at 
all levels, primarily as a result of the Board's successful 
implementation of its organizational realignment at the outset of 1996 
and second, additional staffing resources made available in fiscal year 
1996 have enabled the Board to add additional attorneys to the mission 
critical tasks of reviewing and drafting decisions on appeals. The 
Board's principal indicator of productivity is the number of appeals 
decided per full time employee [FTE]. As of may 31, 1996, BVA appeals 
decided per FTE had risen over 20 percent to a level of 80.1 from the 
fiscal year 1995 level of 65.1 appeals per FTE. This compares with 
fiscal year 1994's productivity of 49.9 appeals per FTE.
  As the distinguished chairman is aware the other body approved the $4 
million to fund the additional 50 positions on the Board. The bill 
before us specifically removes that funding. While the funding adding 
the 50 positions will decrease the processing time and lead to long 
term reduction, what is just as important is the impact of not adding 
those 50 positions. The processing time will not only increase in the 
near future, but will continue to increase and that is why I'm so 
concerned over the $4 million reduction.
  I ask the chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations to 
support the $4 million request to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for an 
additional 50 staff so that we may continue to reduce the veterans' 
appeals response time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with 
the remarks of the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. I think it's 
worth remembering that this $4 million increase at the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals [BVA] is supported by the American Legion, the 
Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The administration asked for this 
money and the House of Representatives has included the increase in its 
bill. Thus, the support for this increase is substantial.
  I understand that there are various studies looking at the 
adjudication process at the VA, including the appellate process. The 
committee's report points that out. However, we will not receive these 
results until December, and although this and future studies are 
ongoing, we cannot delay addressing the horrendous backlog at the BVA. 
Studies are fine, Mr. President, but we have veterans that could 
benefit now with an increase of 50 BVA personnel for only $4 million 
within a $84.71 billion bill. According to the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs, failure to increase funding levels for the BVA would mean that 
veterans will have to wait an additional five months to have their 
appeals decided. To many, that may not seem like a long time. I believe 
that most surviving World War II veterans would disagree.
  So I will conclude by asking the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Bond, to support an additional $4 million for the 
BVA in the VA/HUD appropriations bill when it goes to conference with 
the House.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would also like to associate myself with 
the remarks of the senior Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and the 
Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords].
  As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have a 
special interest in the Board of Veterans' Appeals. In 1994, our 
committee sought to address the unacceptable backlog of pending claims 
and passed legislation that streamlined the Board's process and helped 
retain experienced and qualified judges.
  This year, the President, veterans organizations, and the House of 
Representatives agreed to increase the Board's appropriations by $4 
million to further reduce its response time. The Department of Veterans 
Affairs has indicated that the additional funds will reduce the 
processing time by 132 days in fiscal year 1997 and 272 days in fiscal 
year 2002.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee did not fund the administration's 
request. I understand the committee is awaiting the results of studies 
being undertaken on the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
adjudication and appeals system and decided against providing the 
additional funds. I, however, believe that the money will provide much 
needed relief to veterans currently waiting for a response from the 
Board. A veteran should not have to wait over a year and a half for a 
decision. We need to reduce the average response time and address the 
results of the studies when they are completed and made available to 
the appropriate committees for action.
  Therefore, I respectfully request that the chairman and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and independent agencies support the restoration of the $4 million 
in conference.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of Senators Cohen, 
Jeffords, and Akaka. I can assure them that I will consider their 
request for $4 million for the Board of Veterans' Appeals, in 
conference with the House. Reducing the response time to process 
veterans claims is extremely important. I believe the BVA should 
continue to look at improving the process, in addition to looking at 
acquiring more staff to process the claims.


           federal emergency management activities in arizona

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I take the 
time of the Senate today to discuss an issue involving my State that 
should have been resolved years ago. The Federal Emergency Management 
Agency--the funding of which we are now discussing--has not given 
Arizona the same prompt response other States have enjoyed.
  We have seen FEMA respond to the needs of communities across the 
country, helping the American people put their lives and property back 
together after major catastrophes. In Arizona, however, several 
communities have been living with the damage caused by a flood in early 
1993, for which they have yet to receive FEMA's help in restoring 
significant damage.
  The areas damaged, and as yet unrepaired, include the Wellton-Mohawk 
Irrigation and Drainage District, the town of Kearny, and Romero and 
Aravaipa Roads in Pinal County, AZ.
  The Arizona congressional delegation first contacted FEMA Director 
James Lee Witt in September 1995 to express our concern and dismay 
about unresolved repair projects from the 1993 Presidential declared 
disaster. In a meeting last October with Director Witt, he pledged that 
he would immediately get his staff to work on resolving the outstanding 
issues that had prevented the completion of the disaster repairs in 
Arizona. Shortly thereafter, a member of his staff visited Arizona and 
promised action. There was no discernible progress toward resolution of 
the problems until March 1996.
  In March, during another meeting with FEMA's Washington staff, our 
constituents were dismayed to learn that FEMA had failed to follow 
through on the commitments made by agency staff during the fall visit 
to Arizona. It is incomprehensible that FEMA has failed to fulfill its 
obligation in any of the projects which have been its responsibility 
since the disaster was declared in early 1993.
  As a result, the town of Kearny has not yet seen restoration of its 
airport, a recreational park, or a campground destroyed by the 
flooding. Delays in constructing a flood control levee have left the 
town's sewer treatment ponds susceptible to further flood damage and 
have left the Gila River exposed to the threat of contamination from 
the ponds.
  River crossings for Romero and Aravaipa Roads remain unrestored. 
School children have been forced to cross the Gila River at the Romero 
Road crossing by walking across a 1,300 foot railroad bridge with 
frequent train activity and not enough clearance for both the trains 
and the children. At the Aravaipa crossing, families are required to 
leave vehicles on both sides of Aravaipa Creek and traverse the 
crossing by rope in order to commute to their jobs and bring food 
supplies and other basic staples to their homes when the creek is 
impassable. Emergency service to both communities are severely hampered 
by the lack of adequate crossings.

[[Page S9734]]

  Again, this flood damage occurred some 3\1/2\ years ago. Despite a 
Presidential disaster declaration, these important public facilities 
remain closed.
  We understand that there are regulations and requirements governing 
the restoration of facilities following a disaster. Especially in light 
of FEMA's recent history, it is imperative that taxpayer funds not be 
spent unwisely and without justification. However, this is not the 
issue in these cases.
  FEMA has simply not given these Arizona projects the attention 
necessary to get them completed. And when agency personnel have worked 
on Arizona's projects, they have proven to be more adept at throwing up 
bureaucratic obstacles than at helping these small communities--as they 
have helped hundreds of other towns and cities around the country in 
the 3\1/2\ years since areas of Arizona were flooded.
  In one instance, FEMA notified the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District 
in May that its project would be funded, conditioned on the completion 
of all environmental requirements. Apparently unknown to the FEMA 
official writing the letter, however, the District had already 
completed the necessary environmental documentation--to the 
satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers and with the instrumental 
participation of FEMA staff.
  Nonetheless, FEMA officials have spent the months from early May 
until now trying to decide whether additional environmental work must 
be done. I was informed this week that FEMA has agreed to complete the 
environmental work by early November. But given our past experience 
with FEMA, there is no certainty that the commitment will be kept. This 
sort of delay and indecision are simply unconscionable, and I would 
suggest that the distinguished committee chairman would grow very 
impatient if disaster-stricken areas in his State were treated so 
irresponsibly by Federal officials charged with their recovery.
  I would ask that the chairman take note of FEMA's failure to provide 
even an adequate level of attention to Arizona's disaster-affected 
communities.
  Mr. BOND. I will make note of the circumstances in Arizona. As you 
have mentioned, if a disaster had occurred in my State, I would expect 
FEMA to respond quickly. We recognize that FEMA has worked to help many 
areas around the country, but it appears that they need to complete 
their commitments in Arizona. Could the Senator from Arizona tell me 
how long the communities have waited for a resolution?
  Mr. KYL. In 1993, a flood caused severe damage to four areas of 
Arizona. They were considered Federal disaster areas. The Arizona 
congressional delegation met with Director Witt in October of last 
year. He assured us that FEMA would move promptly to conclude the 
unresolved issues in Arizona. So to answer the chairman's question, the 
communities have been living in damaged areas since 1993 and roughly 10 
months have elapsed since FEMA recommitted itself to solving the 
problems quickly.
  Mr. BOND. Have they completed any of the projects?
  Mr. KYL. No.
  Mr. BOND. I understand the Senator's concern especially given that 3 
years have passed without relief. I appreciate the Senator's bringing 
this to my attention, and I will do what I can to work with the Arizona 
delegation to rectify the situation.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the chairman for recognizing the problems in Arizona 
and for his leadership on this bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have been open for business for 3\1/2\ 
hours today. We have handled some routine matters and had a very good 
discussion on mark to market.
  We would like to know if there are any other Members who have 
anything they wish to act on this afternoon. We have major amendments 
that will have to be debated tomorrow. We certainly hope that we can 
conclude this bill sometime between the resolutions or actions on the 
situation in Iraq and the Defense of Marriage Act. I hope that the very 
important programs that are covered by VA, HUD, and independent 
agencies bill will be given full consideration. If there are any other 
amendments or actions today, I ask that they be brought forward.
  I yield the floor and ask my colleague if she has any further 
comments.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think we have gotten a lot 
accomplished. We look forward to tomorrow moving our bill in a crisp 
way. We ask all Democratic Senators who have amendments to please 
notify my staff, and on all of the major ones we hope to be working on 
time agreements, particularly those related to the space station. We 
know Senator Daschle has an amendment, which is very important, on 
veterans health care. We know one will involve experimental research 
with animals in the space program. We hope to deal with those.
  We say to our colleagues, please notify us. If you don't need to 
offer an amendment, and we can resolve it, please discuss it with us. 
As we have seen in colloquies, people of good will and good manners can 
get a lot done pretty quickly.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been advised by floor staff that 
there will be a briefing on the situation in Iraq tomorrow afternoon. I 
believe leadership is working to get a very short time agreement on a 
resolution. We have had indications that the Senators involved in the 
Bion amendment for NASA would be willing to accept a 2-hour time 
agreement. Is it possible to get a time agreement from, say, 9:30 to 
11:30 tomorrow morning, with a vote at 11:30 on or in relation to the 
NASA Bion amendment? I pose that question to my colleague for further 
discussion with the leadership on the minority side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Several things. We cannot agree to a time agreement on 
the Daschle amendment. I don't know whether he would like his amendment 
to go first. We hope to have that clarified.
  Second, for many of our Members, there is a request from the 
Democratic leader that votes be postponed until after the caucus, and I 
think that is not only for our side, but your Members who are also 
flying back. So we are trying to find out whether in the morning there 
will be, first, a resolution on Iraq or whether we can go to Bion. I am 
ready to go to Bion.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It was the intent, I 
believe, of the majority leader to move--or it was hoped that we could 
move forward on the Bion amendment and have a vote at 11:30. It appears 
that this has been raised to a higher pay grade than ours. So it cannot 
be resolved at this time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Missouri that I believe when 
we convene tomorrow morning, and the two leaders will have conferred 
about how they want to pace the day, both in terms of a resolution 
relating to Iraq, and then from there proceed back to our bill. I 
believe the Democratic leader wishes to speak to the Republican leader, 
the majority leader, Senator Lott, about what they want to go first. So 
I am not quite sure how that will all be worked out.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I don't think anybody is particularly 
concerned about what time we have votes, so long as we can reach an 
agreement. On behalf of the majority leader, and really on behalf of 
those of us who worked on this bill, I hope we will be able to come up 
with an orderly procedure, get agreements on the order in which we will 
bring up these very important amendments, when we can get a resolution, 
get a time agreement, and get final passage. For my part, we are ready. 
We have been ready since early August to go forward with this. We have 
very difficult and constructive disagreements to work out with the 
House over this measure so we can get it passed. We really want to move 
forward on it as quickly as possible. So all things are negotiable. I 
hope we can get an orderly procedure and handle these amendments, which 
will require some good debate, and get them done tomorrow as quickly as 
possible.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Missouri, I believe we will 
have an orderly procedure. I believe we are in a situation because of 
two factors. One is because of the Iraq situation. There is a question 
of when we will do a resolution on that, which was not anticipated.
  No. 2, many Members are not yet back for the two leaders to be able 
to confer and do this. I think we are clear for where we are going. It 
is just a matter for the two leaders to talk and for us to work on a 
time agreement.
  I tried to get an agreement on the space station. I have tried for 
three

[[Page S9735]]

Congresses to get a time agreement from the Senator from Arkansas. So 
we are all working on this. I think by the time we get to tomorrow we 
will be a little clearer on the order and our pacing. It is just a 
matter of getting everybody focused. People are just flying in now from 
the break.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Maryland. We can have debate on 
the space station all night tonight, as far as I am concerned. For 
those who wish to debate a new entitlement program, that could go on as 
long as we want tonight. This facility is not being used otherwise. I 
hope that when we get ready to begin voting tomorrow, we will be able 
to have votes in a timely fashion.
  At this point, the floor staff is checking with the leadership. 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 order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________