[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9938-S9953]
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.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I gather now we are able to wrap up the
other matters which do not require a vote. We will attempt to do those
very quickly. These are matters that have been cleared on both sides.
Amendment No. 5198
(Purpose: To revise the name of the Japan-United States Friendship
Commission)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Rockefeller, to revise the name of the
United States-Japan Friendship Commission, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Bingaman, for
himself, Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Rockefeller proposes an
amendment numbered 5198.
Mr. BOND. 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 104, below line 24, add the following:
Sec. 421 (a) Revision of Name of Japan-United States
Friendship Commission.--
[[Page S9939]]
(1)(A) The first sentence of section 4(a) of the Japan-United
States Friendship Act (22 U.S.C. 2903(a)) is amended by
striking out ``Japan-United States Friendship Commission''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``United States-Japan
Commisison''.
(B) The section heading of such section is amended to read
as follows:
``united states-japan commission''.
(2) Subsection (c) of section 3 of that Act (22 U.S.C.
2902) is amended by striking out ``Japan-United States
Friendship Commission'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``United States-Japan Commission''.
(3) Any reference to the Japan-United States Friendship
Commission in any Federal law, Executive order, regulation,
delegation of authority, or other document shall be deemed to
refer to the United States-Japan Commission.
Mr. BOND. It is agreed to on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5198) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.
Amendment No. 5199
(Purpose: To require the conveyance to the City of Downey, California,
of certain real property under the jurisdiction of NASA)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, by Mrs.
Feinstein, relating to transfer of property to the city of Downey, CA.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mrs. Feinstein,
proposes an amendment numbered 5199.
Mr. BOND. 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 104, below line 24, add the following:
Sec. 421. (a) Subject to the concurrence of the
Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA)
and notwithstanding Sec. 707 of Public Law 103-433, the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration may convey to the City of Downey, California,
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
a parcel of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 60 acres and known as Parcels
III, IV, and VI of the NASA Industrial Plant, Downey,
California.
(b)(1) Delay in payment of consideration.--After the end of
the 20-year period beginning on the date on which the
conveyance under subsection (a) is completed, the City of
Downey shall pay to the United States an amount equal to fair
market value of the conveyed property as of the date of the
conveyance from NASA.
(2) Effect of reconveyance by the city.--If the City of
Downy reconveys all or any part of the conveyed property
during such 20-year period, the City shall pay to the United
States an amount equal to the fair market value of the
reconveyed property as of the time of the reconveyance,
excluding the value of any improvements made to the property
by the City.
(3) Determination of fair market value.--The Administrator
of NASA shall determine fair market value in accordance with
Federal appraisal standards and procedures.
(4) Treatment of leases.--The Administrator of NASA may
treat a lease of the property within such 20-year period as a
reconveyance if the Administrator determines that the lease
is being used to avoid application of paragraph (b)(2).
(5) Deposit of proceeds.--The Administrator of NASA shall
deposit any proceeds received under this subsection in the
special account established pursuant to section 204(h)(2) of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)).
(c) The exact acreage and legal description of the real
property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Administrator. The
cost of the survey shall be borne by the City of Downey,
California.
(d) The Administrator may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the conveyance under subsection
(a) as the Administrator considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
(e) If the City at any time after the conveyance of the
property under subsection (a) notifies the Administrator that
the City no longer wishes to retain the property, it may
convey the property under the terms of subsection (b), or, it
may revert all right, title, and interest in and to the
property (including any facilities, equipment, or fixtures
conveyed, but excluding the value of any improvements made to
the property by the City) to the United States, and the
United States shall have the right of immediate entry onto
the property.
Mr. BOND. We have no objection.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5199) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.
Amendment No. 5188, As Modified
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Bennett
amendment, No. 5188, previously adopted by the Senate, be modified by
striking out the sum $755,573 and inserting therein $464,442, as shown
in the revised amendment now sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5188), as modified, is as follows:
On page 27, line 19, strike ``$969,000,000'' and insert
``$969,464,442''.
On page 29, line 5, strike the period, and insert a colon
and the following: ``Provided further, That of the total
amount provided under this head, the Secretary shall provide
$464,442 to the Utah Housing Finance Agency, in lieu of
amounts lost to such agency in bond refinancings during 1994,
for its use in accordance with the immediately preceding
proviso.''
Amendment No. 5200
(Purpose: To make an amendment relating to mortgage insurance)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator
McCain, an amendment relating to FHA insurance for large FHA projects.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 5200.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert
the following new section:
SEC. 2 . MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
(a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be
used to give final approval to any proposal to provide
mortgage insurance having a value in excess of $50 million
for any project financing for which may be guaranteed under
section 220 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715K),
unless the Secretary has transmitted to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House the
Secretary's justification for such guarantee and no final
approval shall be given until the justification has laid
before the Congress for a period of not less than 30 days.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment which
would have stopped the Federal Housing Authority from using taxpayer
dollars to guarantee mortgages for luxury housing developments,
targeted to families earning over $100,000 per year.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is processing an
application from a team of developers, headed by the venerable Donald
Trump, to obtain Federal Housing Authority mortgage guarantees for
their luxury apartment development in Manhattan known as Riverside
South.
The HUD program to which Mr. Trump and his associates are applying
for assistance is intended to promote development within urban renewal
areas. To help qualify for the aid, Mr. Trump's group has pledged to
reserve 20 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income residents.
The issuance of the Federal mortgage guarantee and the 20 percent
low-income reserve will entitle Mr. Trump and his partners to a vast
array of municipal tax benefits, which one group calculates to be in
the range of nearly $4.5 million per ``needy'' individual assisted--not
exactly what most Americans would consider cost-effective use of
Government assistance.
I certainly have nothing against luxury apartments nor do I have
anything against very successful project developers, including Mr.
Trump. I do object, however, to asking the taxpayer to bear the risk of
a development for one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the country,
to help finance a project that will predominantly benefit upper income
Americans.
I do not know how many similar projects are in the pipeline but they
should not be approved.
If this particular mortgage guarantee is approved, taxpayers will be
on the
[[Page S9940]]
hook for over $350 million. They will take this enormous risk--the
largest ever in the history of the program--to help provide housing, in
some instances, for people who earn an annual income of over $200,000
per year. the average apartment in the Riverside South project will be
targeted to families who earn in excess of $100,000.
I want to stress, the FHA program tapped to guarantee the success of
Riverside South and its financiers is designed to promote vital urban
renewal.
I am not sure that downtown Manhattan is among our highest urban
renewal priorities. Harlem, South Chicago, South Central Los Angeles,
and South Phoenix come to mind as needier priorities. Congressman
Nadler who represents the area in the House, and who is a member on the
other side of the aisle, does not consider the area around the
development site to be blighted and he opposes the project. I am just
not sure that Manhattan is particularly lacking the means to undertake
urban renewal activities at its own expense.
The very simple premise is that we can and should focus our scarce
Federal housing dollars, including loan guarantees, on projects that
are primarily targeted to the needy in the most seriously depressed
areas.
Moreover, the Donald Trumps of the world can more than afford to bear
the risk of their endeavors, and should not be indemnified with
taxpayer dollars. Quite to the contrary, scarce Federal housing
resources should be used to maximize help to those who truly need
assistance. I understand this amendment would be objected to.
In order to accomodate the leader's desire to finish the bill in a
timely manner, I've offered an alternative that will ensure that should
HUD decide to approve the Riverside South project or any other project
over $250 million, Congress will at least have the opportunity to act
to stop it if we decide that the risk is too much or otherwise not in
the public interest. Under the amendment Congress will have 30 days to
stop the approval before it can become effective.
Mr. BOND. There is no objection to the amendment on this side.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5200) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.
Amendment No. 5201
(Purpose: To provide supplemental appropriations for veterans
compensation and pensions for fiscal year 1996)
Mr. BOND. I send an amendment to the desk relating to an increase in
the amounts for compensation and pensions of $100 million for the
Veterans Administration and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Ms.
Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 5201.
Mr. BOND. 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 105, after line 2, insert:
Department of Veterans Affairs
veterans benefits administration
compensation and pensions
For an additional amount for ``Compensation and Pensions'',
$100,000,000, to be made available upon enactment of this
Act, to remain available until expended.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment provides supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for VA compensation and pensions.
The department has just, today, notified our staffs that they
anticipate being short $100 million in this current fiscal year for
compensation. Without this supplemental, checks for about 2 million
veterans would be delayed for a week until the start of the new fiscal
year. It is supported on this side.
Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5201) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that once again the Senate
has chosen to continue our Nation's commitment to the future through
the exploration and study of the exciting frontier of space. No one can
predict the outcome of our investment in NASA, the space program, and
the international space station; but we must continue to push forward
in our pursuit of knowledge. Generations to come will benefit from the
knowledge and experience gained from the investment we have made, and
continued exploration of space will present many more opportunities to
learn.
First, the space program will provide significant contributions not
only to Americans, but people all around the world. We have already
seen results of space-related research in life sciences, and the
potential for expansion and development is virtually limitless. The
discovery of possible life on Mars is a very exciting development for
all mankind, and highlights the possibilities that exist if we continue
to encourage and support our curiosities about the universe.
Second, our Nation's leadership role in high technology research and
development must be maintained and enhanced. The aerospace industry is
a significant area of America's international competitiveness. Support
of our space program is essential to our future position as the world
leader in high technology aerospace sciences.
Third, projects such as the international space station help to
continue and expand the cooperation among the nation's of the world.
Our collaborative efforts with the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians
only serve to increase stability and strengthen our relations. Our
space program enables us to exchange exciting ideas with the world
community, and accelerate the pace of our own technology and space
exploration.
Mr. President, I believe that these are very compelling reasons for
continued support of our space program. NASA deserves our support.
Congress and the administration should provide the appropriate
resources needed for NASA to effectively and efficiently manage the
space program. We must invest in our future, and invest in ourselves.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the efforts of the subcommittee
chairman, Senator Bond, and the ranking minority member, Senator
Mikulski, in bringing H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill to the Senate expeditiously.
They have done their best to craft a balanced bill within the
discretionary funding allocation they were given. While the VA/HUD
Subcommittee received an allocation that is $100 million in budget
authority above the House allocation, the discretionary allocation for
this subcommittee is nevertheless $3 billion below the President's
request. Having to work within that very constrained level of funding,
Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski have done a remarkable job in
funding the many important departments and agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction; from the Department of Veterans Affairs to
NASA to HUD, to NSF, to FEMA, to EPA, and a number of other Federal
agencies.
I also commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee
for their attempts to keep this bill free of the controversial riders
and significant new legislative language that made this such a
difficult bill during the fiscal year 1996 process.
In addition, Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the chairman of
the subcommittee, Senator Bond, for his support of a very important
amendment, which I co-sponsored. This initiative provides for a one-
year extension of the authorization of the Federal Flood Insurance
Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Administration. It will prevent disruption in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program--which provides affordable insurance to residents of
high-risk areas--ensuring that FEMA can enter into new flood insurance
contracts and can renew existing contracts throughout the next year.
For states
[[Page S9941]]
like West Virginia, where the topography makes a great many communities
vulnerable to flooding, but the high price of private flood insurance
often places it out of reach of families, residents rely on the Federal
Flood Insurance Program. Again, I thank the chairman for his attention
to this important program.
Finally, the staff of the subcommittee--Sally Chadbourne and Liz
Blevins for the minority, and Stephen Kohashi, Carrie Apostolou, and
LaShawnda Leftwich for the majority--are to be commended for their
excellent work over the past weeks and months on this very important
bill.
Environmental Protection
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to reflect on the provisions
of this bill that fund the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and
the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] for fiscal year 1997.
With regard to the EPA, this bill is a vast improvement over the 1996
bill reported by the Appropriations Committee last year. It is welcome,
indeed, that this bill reached the Senate floor without the
antienvironmental legislative riders which plagued the 1996 Senate
bill. These riders--which the Washington Post dubbed the ``riders from
hell'' included legislative provisions which would have prohibited the
EPA from implementing provisions in key environmental statutes such as
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act and would have
eliminated EPA's role in issuing permits to fill wetlands.
In addition, compared to the severe budget cuts made to the EPA's
budget request for fiscal year 1996, this appropriations bill certainly
is preferable; it is just 6 percent below the President's requested
level. Nonetheless, 6 percent of the EPA budget is over $425 million--
with a disproportionate percentage coming from the EPA operating budget
which includes management and oversight for standards-setting and
enforcement. We must realize that such a reduction does not come
without a significant loss of capability for the environmental
protection efforts of this vital agency.
I fully support the President's funding request for the EPA--which
includes his request to provide $100 million for the Boston Harbor
cleanup project. In addition, I am disappointed that the committee cut
by 86 percent from the President's request and 76 percent from last
year's level funding for the Environmental Technology Initiative and
made deep cuts in EPA's climate change program. I greatly regret this
bill does not contain the President's levels of support and that there
are sufficient Republican votes to prevent passage of amendments that
would raise the bill's appropriations levels for these items.
As the House and Senate begin meeting in conference to work out their
differences on the VA-HUD bill, I will continue working with the
President, the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, and other
conferees to secure funding for the Boston Harbor project.
While I wish to convey my concerns about the extremely serious
situation facing the residents of Boston in undertaking the
multibillion dollar Boston Harbor project, I want to emphasize that
this project merits national attention as do other projects in cities
that face requirements for similar water infrastructure improvements to
comply with federal mandates.
Mr. President, the Boston Harbor project is a massive
undertaking which will provide water and sewer services to over 2.5
million people in 61 communities with a total cost, including the
combined sewer overflow (CSO) and capital cost improvements, of over $5
billion. The sewage treatment plant is being built under a Federal
court-ordered schedule that requires completion by 1999.
When the Clean Water Act was originally enacted, Congress
acknowledged the great importance of the Federal role in cleaning the
water we drink and use for so many other purposes. It did so by
providing Federal support of 50 to 90 percent of the funding for
projects on the scale of the Boston Harbor project. The goals of the
Federal Clean Water Act are laudable and the environmental benefits to
Boston Harbor from the initial water infrastructure improvements are
already being felt in the surrounding Bay area. However, while the
goals and standards of the Clean Water Act have remained and should
continue to remain intact, over the past 15 years we have seen the
Federal assistance for large water infrastructure projects decline.
Only approximately 20 percent of the Boston secondary sewerage
treatment project costs have been paid by the Federal Government, and
that is not even counting the costs of the combined sewer overflow and
other improvements that will be required in the future.
Let me also say that the Harbor cleanup is not a partisan issue. The
Clinton administration each year has included $100 million in its
budget request, as did the Bush administration before it. I hope the
Congress will take this same bipartisan approach and will appropriate
$100 million for the project.
I also would like to comment on the importance of funding the Council
on Environmental Quality. There are those in the Senate who do not
realize the great value of CEQ to the American people.
Since its inception in 1971, CEQ has played the key role of arbiter
of environmental policy conflicts among Federal agencies. Most
recently, CEQ coordinated the administration's support for and
contributed to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act
reauthorization legislation and the Food Safety bill.
The President and his administration advocate sustainable
environmental policies that enhance economic growth. The Vice
President, as charged by the President, has led an effort under the
National Performance Review to streamline regulations, remove redtape,
and reward efficiency, compliance, and innovation by industry. With a
very limited budget, CEQ has been and remains a cost-effective and
resourceful contributor in these endeavors.
The Henry M. Jackson Foundation's 1995 report states that the ``* * *
CEQ has never been more needed. The easy environmental problems are
resolved. Now the more difficult business begins of seeing to it that
governmental efforts produce results in an economically efficient
manner and not just greater bureaucracy, waste and frustration.''
CEQ provides an invaluable public service and the limited Federal
resources dedicated to its functions are well spent. I compliment the
committee on providing adequate funding for these activities.
After the dark nights of 1995 and early 1996, we have emerged to find
greater reasonableness in the environmental funding and policy actions
of the Republican congressional majority. Despite the significant
differences that still exist between our views of the level of
environmental protection activities the Federal Government should
undertake, we are close enough to compromise.
I compliment and thank the chairman and ranking member and their
staffs for their diligent efforts to bring this bill before the Senate,
and urge that they push as hard as possible for the highest achievable
level of funding for environmental programs during the conference
committee with the House.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with
language that appears in the committee report on the fiscal year 1997
VA-HUD appropriations bill.
Last year, when we debated the fiscal year 1996 version of this
legislation, I and the junior Senator from Illinois Senator Moseley-
Braun, offered an amendment to strike a provision in that bill that
would have effectively barred HUD from investigating complaints of
discrimination in the sale of property insurance.
Mr. President, this issue, commonly known as insurance redlining, is
nothing new. Redlining derives its name from the practice of literally
drawing red lines around certain minority and low-income neighborhoods
and treating the residents of those neighborhoods differently. In the
case of insurance redlining, agents refuse to sell homeowners policies
in these neighborhoods, or if they do sell policies, they are policies
that provide significantly less coverage than a policy that might be
sold for a similar house in a more upscale neighborhood.
The ramifications of reducing access to affordable and adequate
homeowners' insurance have proven severe
[[Page S9942]]
for urban areas with large minority communities. As we all know,
without property insurance an individual cannot obtain a home loan. And
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 is a clear violation of the civil
rights protections of the Fair Housing Act.
My interest in this issue grew out of widely-reported redlining
abuses in the city of Milwaukee, WI, where it was well documented that
insurance redlining was occurring on a widespread basis. I was deeply
concerned that this sort of documented discrimination was occurring not
only in my home State, but apparently in many others as well, including
Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio.
Early in 1995, as well as in the 103d Congress, I introduced
legislation that would have required insurance companies in our
Nation's largest urban areas to collect and report certain information
about their underwriting practices to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. This information, including the number and type of
policies written, where such policies are written, and certain loss
claims data, would have then been made available to State regulators,
civil rights organizations, and other groups interested in combating
property insurance discrimination.
Mr. President, it is important not to forget who these redlining
victims are--they are hard-working Americans, who have played by the
rules and are trying to simply buy a home. They are trying to bring a
sense of stability and vitality to their families and their
communities.
Unfortunately, as happened in Milwaukee, they often run into a brick
wall of ignorance and injustice. The pattern of discrimination in
Milwaukee led seven Milwaukee residents to join with the NAACP and 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 agreed to spend $14.5 million
compensating these and other Milwaukee homeowners who had been
discriminated against, as well as for special housing programs in the
city of Milwaukee.
But for those of my colleagues who might think such discrimination in
the insurance market is limited to Milwaukee, WI, I assure you that is
not the case. Extensive studies conducted by consumer and civil rights
organizations, as well as a recent study conducted by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, have found insurance redlining
to be a widespread phenomenon, national in scope. Strong evidence of
property insurance discrimination has been reported in cities across
the country, including St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, Kansas City,
Detroit, Dallas, and many others.
Mr. President, 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.
Unfortunately, we're not taking those steps forward. And last year,
the Appropriations Committee, which to my knowledge had not held a
single hearing on this issue, sought to prohibit HUD from expending
funds on the adjudication of property insurance discrimination
complaints.
The provisions in that bill were a direct attempt to stop HUD from
investigating complaints of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
HUD would have been barred from spending any money investigating any
complaints of insurance redlining. They would not have been allowed to
investigate the over 10,000 property insurance complaints that are
filed with HUD each year.
Thankfully, when it became clear that there was a bipartisan majority
in favor of protecting our civil rights laws, our amendment was agreed
to and the language was stricken from the bill.
Although this year's VA-HUD bill does not include this language
restricting HUD's enforcement of our fair housing laws, the committee
report does include some language that I believe is rife with
inaccuracies and mischaracterizations.
The report language claims that the Fair Housing Act does not say one
word about property insurance. The language states that ``neither it
[the FHA] nor its legislative history suggests that Congress intended
it to apply to the provision of property insurance''. It is true the
original Fair Housing Act does not address property insurance. But as a
result of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988--signed into law by
President Reagan--HUD promulgated regulations that specifically placed
property insurance under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act. These
regulations were promulgated by the Bush administration.
Let me repeat that: If anyone is under the impression that HUD's
involvement in combating property insurance discrimination is a Clinton
administration initiative, that is categorically wrong. The regulations
were the result of a law that passed Congress with strong bipartisan
support and was signed into law by President Reagan. The regulations
were promulgated by the Bush administration.
So let's set aside the faulty assertion that HUD's role in enforcing
the Fair Housing Act as it applies to property insurance is some new
effort to expand the Federal Government regulatory powers over a
particular industry.
The supporters of this new language also say that regulating the
insurance industry is the sole domain of the States as mandated under
the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This, Mr. President, is a diversionary
tactic. This is not an issue of regulating the insurance industry. The
States are the regulators of the insurance industry. This 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.
This argument also fails to recognize that virtually every Federal
court that has ruled on this issue, including the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals in Nationwide Insurance Co. versus Cisneros, and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in NAACP versus American Family Insurance,
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. Moreover, the Supreme Court has specifically
refused to review these cases.
There is clearly another attempt to undermine HUD's efforts to do its
job. Over the last several years, time and time again, HUD has
uncovered incidents and patterns of discrimination in the sale and
availability of homeowners insurance. And that is precisely why we are
debating this issue today. It is because HUD has been too effective in
enforcing our civil rights laws.
Look at last year's settlement between American Family Insurance Co.
and the people of Milwaukee. And just weeks ago, it was announced that
State Farm Insurance Co., long under investigation by HUD for property
insurance discrimination, had agreed to completely restructure their
underwriting procedures, add new sales and service centers in urban
communities, and invest over $1 million in first-mortgage financing in
urban Toledo, OH.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, I do not mean in any way to
throw a blanket indictment at the insurance industry. I know many
individuals in my home State who work in the insurance industry, and it
is my firm belief that the vast majority of those individuals are
decent, hard-working Americans who would join with myself and others in
condemning this sort of bigotry and discrimination. Unfortunately, it
is evident that these sort of abuses do occur, and the Federal
Government must do all it can to aggressively enforce the Fair Housing
Act.
As was demonstrated last year and in years past, this is not an
inherently partisan issue. This Congress has in fact, demonstrated time
and time again that it will stand up to mindless bigotry and
discrimination in whatever form it might take. The language contained
in the committee report represents a threat to a longstanding
bipartisan commitment to protecting and enforcing civil rights in this
country and battling the various forms of bigotry and discrimination
that continue to pervade this Nation. The committee report language,
obviously, does not have the force of law and it should be disregarded.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the VA-HUD bill currently under
[[Page S9943]]
consideration contains report language stating that HUD's property
insurance practices duplicate State regulation of insurance and that
HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted and unnecessary
layer of Federal bureaucracy. Mr. President, now is not the time to
retreat from our commitment to fair housing opportunities for all.
Congress made its decision on this issue last year when I offered an
amendment which was adopted to ensure that the Government would remain
able to combat discrimination in the issuance of property insurance.
In 1988, Congress gave HUD the authority to promulgate regulations to
enforce the Fair Housing Act. At that time, HUD, under then-President
George Bush and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, issued a regulation which
defined conduct prohibited under the Fair Housing Act to include:
``refusing to provide property or hazard insurance for dwellings, or
providing such insurance differently, because of race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.''
The reason for this prohibition is simple. Without property
insurance, no lender will provide a mortgage. Without a mortgage, few
individuals can buy a house. Denial of property or hazard insurance
impairs the ability of an individual to buy their own home, in a very
real and concrete way.
Mr. President, discrimination in the issuance of property insurance
is not a minor problem. Recent investigations conducted in 9 different
cities found that discrimination against African-Americans and Latino
neighborhoods occurred more than 50 percent of the time. In my hometown
of Chicago, discrimination occurred 83 percent of the time.
Investigators found that minority homeowners were routinely charged
more money for less coverage, were not offered the best insurance
policies, and were even denied any coverage at all.
Consider a case that the Department of Justice settled last year
against a major insurance company for its conduct in Milwaukee, WI. The
Department alleged that the company routinely sold more costly, less
comprehensive policies to minorities, failed to return phone calls or
keep appointments with black customers, avoided entire neighborhoods
with high minority populations, and subjected applications from black
neighborhoods to greater scrutiny. One potential black customer was
told that ``you people make phony claims,'' and a white manager was
instructed in writing to quit writing all those blacks.
Despite opponents arguments to the contrary, HUD's enforcement of the
Fair Housing Act does not involve regulation. Regulation of rates, or
other aspects of the insurance business, is a State responsibility.
What HUD is obligated to do, and what it has done, is enforce civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination. No one has offered any valid
explanation to show why this one particular industry should be exempted
from antidiscrimination laws.
This fact is, Congress has consistently rejected the argument that
the Federal Government should leave the enforcement of civil rights to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. The Federal Government has a
very real interest in ensuring that effective remedies for acts of
discrimination are available to all people. While States do have laws
prohibiting discrimination in insurance, the Fair Housing Act provides
a wider array of remedies, including a private right of action, than
those provided by most States.
There is more uniting America, than dividing us. We share a common
dream--the American dream. We all want to raise our children in safe
communities, and provide a home for our families. It's because of the
American dream that we have to keep raising these issues.
Housing discrimination and segregation undermine the health and
vitality of American communities--our cities, suburbs and rural towns.
It denies families full and free choice about where to live, send their
kids to school, and where to work.
As a Chicago Tribune editorial said,
We all pay a price for racial discrimination. Those who are
discriminated against pay the most. But those who do the
discriminating, or condone it, eventually reap what they sow
in higher taxes and lowered economic horizons. Experience
teaches that the cost of racial segregation reaches beyond
the inner city. We all pay the price for the poverty,
joblessness, and crime that fester there. In one respect,
wealthier taxpayers pay the most.
The American people believe in fairness. They certainly don't believe
in a special-interest exemption to the civil rights laws. Yet that is
exactly what we are approaching if Congress condones report language
indicating a concern about HUD's use of funds for other fair housing
activities aimed at property insurance practices.
Federal efforts to combat discrimination are vital. Congress would be
setting a bad example if it retreats from its commitment to fairness
and non-discrimination in fair housing laws. Continued enforcement of
the Fair Housing Act is key.
mission to planet earth
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to ask if the distinguished
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies, Senator Bond, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator
Mikulski, would yield to a question regarding funding for NASA's
Mission to Planet Earth Program.
Mr. BOND. We would be happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I first want to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for their work to restore cuts in the House bill to the
Mission to Planet Earth, the civilian scientific mission to study the
environment of this third planet from the Sun. The Senate bill provides
$100 million more for NASA than provided in the House bill and restores
this critical program for studying global climate change. As the Senate
committee report points out, this program also encompasses disaster
prediction and mitigation. This element is very important to my State
of California.
Technological growth and the experience of repeated earthquakes in
California have helped expand our ability to provide important data for
detailed mapping of earthquake faults. The California Seismic Safety
Commission has recommended a research and technology initiative whereby
space technology may be used to reduce the risk from major California
earthquakes. NASA has the unique ability to provide orbital
photography, remote sensing data such as radar, and advanced optics and
radio wave technology under the Mission to Planet Earth to assist
California's earthquake risk reduction efforts. I understand that
Missouri's Office of Emergency Services is interested in this effort,
as well.
Accelerating California's seismic hazards identification programs
would go a long way toward providing earth sciences information in a
form that is useful to builders and local government planners so that
we can genuinely manage seismic risk and reduce economic damage and
human casualties from these natural disasters.
I ask the chairman and ranking member if it is their understanding
that a portion of the funds provided to the Mission to Planet Earth
could be made available for a cooperative program between the Johnson
Space Center and the California Seismic Safety Commission and other
seismically active States, and if such a program would be consistent
with the goals of the Mission to Planet Earth?
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from California. The committee
encourages NASA to collaborate with other Federal agencies and private
industry to pursue opportunities for public-private partnerships to
apply Mission to Planet Earth data for environmental, agricultural,
transportation, fisheries and forestry management, as well as disaster
prediction and management. I believe a cooperative program between
NASA's Johnson Space Center and the State of California and other
seismically active States, such as my own State of Missouri, would be
an excellent example of this committee's intent.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The cooperative venture that the Senator from
California has described is clearly the kind of information that we
intend the Mission to Planet Earth to provide for our local officials
to make real use of this invaluable data from space. We should support
hazard reduction programs whenever we can in order to hold down cost of
disaster in lives and property in the future.
THE TRANSFER OF SPACE STATION RELATED BIOTECHNICAL ACTIVITIES
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned about a number of
highly qualified persons who work at NASA's
[[Page S9944]]
Ames Research Center in California. It is my understanding that NASA is
considering a layoff of these highly trained individuals and sending
the technologies for the space station program on which they are
working--the Centrifuge Facility--to the Japanese space agency NASDA.
The Centrifuge Facility, and its related programs, have always been a
part of the United States' contribution to the International Space
Station. I simply do not understand why NASA would consider giving this
work to the Japanese when they have significantly less experience in
the life sciences area.
I say to the Chairman that we are both strong supporters of the
International Space Station Program and want to see it become the
premier microgravity research center of the world. This can only be
accomplished if the best talent is focused on every sector of the
program. To assign these biotechnology activities to anyone other than
the individuals at the Ames Research Center--many of whom invented
these technologies in the first place--makes little sense. Can he
assure me that Ames Research Center will remain the center for these
critical space station related biotechnical activities?
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the senior Senator from California raising the
very important issue of the development of research capabilities and
instruments for use on the space station. As the Senator indicates, the
space station program will draw upon a wide variety of disciplines and
technical capabilities of NASA, as well as other research institutions
here in the United States and those of our international partners. With
such a widely distributed effort, involving so many different parties,
it is critical that we demand of NASA a rigorous system of utilizing
the most capable entities available to as to yield the highest quality
research for our significant investment in this program.
The Senator is justifiably proud of the biotechnology capabilities of
Ames Research Center, and I certainly agree that shifts in
responsibility for important research tasks be very sensitive to issues
of technical merit and capacity. I am aware that NASA has under
consideration a shift in responsibility for the centrifuge facility
which is a matter of significant concern to me. The Congress has long
supported retention of the centrifuge in the face of repeated past
proposals to eliminate this important facility. The centrifuge is
crucial to life science studies since it provides a control for
experiments in the microgravity environment of the space station.
Unfortunately, as the Senator from California knows, NASA has
requested authority to shift funding for the current fiscal year, and
for the next 2 years, within the $2.1 billion annual cap. The cost of
fabricating components of the overall spacecraft such as the nodes are
requiring greater investment at this point in the development program
to maintain deployment schedule goals. These funding shifts from space
station research hardware development, to spacecraft development,
require rescheduling and optimization of space station research program
plans in order to avoid cost overruns and minimize adverse program
impacts.
We are evaluating these requirements and will be proposing changes in
conference to the NASA appropriations accounts to enable the agency to
make the most effective use of available funding. We extensively will
examine the agency proposals to make sure that such authorities will
retain critical research capabilities within a workable overall
development schedule. I want to assure her that we will all participate
in evaluating the merits of the agency's proposals, and I certainly
expect NASA to consult fully with all affected parties prior to making
significant program changes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator from California that this
biotechnology capability should remain within the United States. We
have the experience that Japan cannot match in this arena and should
not relinquish that capability.
FUNDING FOR OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING RELIEF
Mr. NICKLES. It has now been more than a year since the tragic and
senseless bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Last year,
this Congress, with the support of the administration, approved $39
million in disaster relief specifically for the recovery of Oklahoma
City. This funding was for community development assistance to repair
public and private facilities damaged by the blast. For that I, along
with the people of Oklahoma, am grateful.
In the aftermath of this disaster, a full evaluation of its impact on
downtown Oklahoma City indicates that if the area is to adequately
recover, additional Federal assistance is needed. To this end, I asked
the Appropriations Committee in May to consider supplementing last
year's funding to cover additional damage claims plus loan and grant
funds to assist businesses as they re-enter the damaged area. The
administration, while not officially requesting these funds, has
indicated its support for the additional funding during recent
discussions with Oklahoma City officials.
The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has worked with me in
trying to accommodate this request. Can he assure me that he will
continue this cooperative effort to meet these ongoing needs arising
from the bombing?
Mr. BOND. I can assure my friend and colleague from Oklahoma that the
committee will continue to work with him and the people of Oklahoma in
recovering from this terrible tragedy. As the Senator has noted, the
committee was pleased to provide $39 million in community development
funds last year to aid in the restoration of downtown Oklahoma City. In
addition, the emergency supplemental appropriation last year provided
$40.4 million for the replacement of the Murrah Federal Building.
Additional funds have also been made available administratively through
several government agencies, particularly the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Also, as can certainly be understood, only a portion of the $39
million appropriation from last year has been obligated by the city. It
takes time to assess the vast damage that occurred and award the
contracts for repair. Further, compliance with Federal regulations,
such as prevailing wage statutes, adds to the complexity of awarding
contracts. Therefore, it takes time to fully obligate these funds.
Once these funds are fully expended, I assure the Senator from
Oklahoma that I will reassess the remaining assistance needs for the
city. I also understand that commitments have been made by the
administration to Oklahoma City officials to furnish currently
appropriated funds for the relief effort. FEMA has indicated that $2
million will be made available from its public assistance program for
infrastructure repair. Further, the administration has agreed to make
available $2.1 million for the purchase of land for a Federal campus
for housing several Federal agencies. Both of these items were to be
paid for by the emergency appropriation. This will enable the city to
repay additional damage claims from this emergency supplemental.
Let me state to the Senator, however, that no budget request from the
administration has been received for additional funds. Such a request
would show what offsets, if any, the administration intended to utilize
to pay for these added funds. It would also indicate whether or not
this was an emergency designation, or if it intended to use
reprogrammed funds from existing appropriations.
I commend the Senator for his ongoing commitment to ensure that
Oklahoma City, and indeed the entire State of Oklahoma, recovers from
this terrible tragedy. I fully intend to work with the Senator, the
administration, and the city of Oklahoma City to meet any need for
further assistance.
hud's authority regarding property insurance
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when the Senate considered the fiscal
year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill last year, I was a proud cosponsor
of the Feingold/Moseley-Braun amendment, which deleted language which
would have restricted the use of HUD funds in the investigation of
discrimination in homeowner's insurance. This year, in the Senate
committee report of the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill,
there is once again language recommending that HUD be prohibited from
enforcing protections against property insurance redlining. In fact the
committee report calls
[[Page S9945]]
HUD's activities related to property insurance ``duplicative of state
regulation of insurance . . . creat(ing) an unwarranted and unnecessary
layer of federal bureaucracy.''
I want to make it very clear, as I did last year, that I believe the
U.S. Senate should not set the precedent of exempting property
insurance from fair housing laws. If HUD is not able to investigate
claims of property insurance redlining, Americans might be kept from
buying houses because they might not be able to get homeowner's
insurance. I believe that all Americans have the right to homeowner's
insurance, regardless of race or ethnicity or the neighborhood in which
they live.
Mr. President, once again, I will remind you that we have been
through this before. 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 shameful practice of denying
coverage to Americans because of the neighborhood they live in or the
color of their skin is still practiced today.
If HUD is barred from funding private fair housing groups
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 provisions in the
Fair Housing Act. HUD's enforcement of civil rights protections does
not undermine State insurance regulation, rather, Federal fair housing
protections ensure that homeowners or potential homeowners do not
encounter discriminatory practices in their effort to obtain
homeowner's insurance. In this campaign season, many have voiced their
desire to help all Americans get their piece of the American dream. Mr.
President, this is a perfect place for us to protect Americans who are
trying to purchase a home from discrimination.
travis va hospital
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
disappointment that funding for the Travis VA Hospital was not included
in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1997. There are currently 450,000 veterans in northern California
who have no local veterans hospital.
Let me briefly describe the continuing situation for these veterans
seeking inpatient health services. A veteran in northern California
must drive an average of 4 to 5 hours, sometimes as many as 8 hours, to
get to a VA inpatient facility. Once the veteran is released from the
hospital, he and his family must drive back and forth from home to the
VA facility again for checkups.
These hardships are having a detrimental effect on the care these
veterans receive. The Department of Veterans Affairs own numbers show
that the use of inpatient care in northern California has declined from
7,000 cases in fiscal year 1991 to 2,538 in fiscal year 1995. That is a
decrease of 64 percent. With the aging population of these veterans, it
is hard to believe that they do not need the health care that the
Travis VA Hospital would provide.
The Clinton administration has seen the needs of these veterans and
responded. The President's fiscal year 1997 budget request included
$32.1 million for phase II construction at the hospital. Phase II
allocation funds utility relocation, site development, and foundation
and structural construction. The House of Representatives also acted to
meet the needs of these veterans by funding President Clinton's request
for phase II funds and by reprogramming the $25 million appropriated
last year for an outpatient care facility so that they could also be
used to build the hospital.
As bad as the situation has been, these veterans have been
exceedingly patient. At the groundbreaking ceremony on June 2, 1994,
attended by Vice President Gore, we all were optimistic that northern
California's veterans would not have much longer to wait for quality
health care. More than 2 years later, the plans are complete and the
land is ready to begin construction of the replacement hospital.
Instead, that land will remain empty, and nearly a half a million
veterans will continue to be unserved.
The area that the Travis VA Hospital would serve is one of the
largest, most geographically dispersed, and highly populated veterans'
areas in the country. In fact, more veterans live in northern
California than in 27 individual States and the District of Columbia.
I am very disappointed that the members of the Senate Appropriations
Committee deleted the funding the House included for the Travis VA
Hospital and turned their backs on nearly a half a million veterans by
not continuing to fund the replacement VA hospital at Travis Air Force
Base.
It is a sad day when the men and women who have served our country
without question--and who have the right to expect their Government to
fulfill its promises--are now being told ``tough luck.''
I appeal to my colleagues to honor the commitment we as a nation have
made to our veterans when this bill is considered in conference. I
pledge to continue my fight for northern California's veterans and for
full funding for the Travis VA Hospital.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing concern
about language in the Appropriations Committee report on H.R. 3666, the
VA, HUD, and independent agencies bill, which raises concerns about
``HUD's use of funds for * * * fair housing activities aimed at
property insurance practices.'' The report concludes that HUD's
activities duplicate State regulation of insurance and violate the
McCarran-Ferguson Act by ``interfer[ing] with State regulation of
insurance.'' I disagree with this view of the nature and effect of
HUD's antidiscrimination activities regarding property insurance.
Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that
without non-discriminatory access to property insurance, many hard-
working Americans will be denied the opportunity to own a home. The
Bush administration's regulations implementing the 1988 Fair Housing
Act Amendments explicitly applied the act to discrimination in access
to property insurance. This interpretation has been upheld by U.S.
district and circuit courts which have ruled that HUD's enforcement
activities in this area do not constitute a regulation of insurance and
do not conflict with the McCarran-Ferguson Act because they do not
``invalidate, impair or supersede'' any state laws regulating the
business of insurance.
It is my expectation that nothing in H.R. 3666 or the accompanying
report will be interpreted to diminish HUD's enforcement authority
under the Fair Housing Act with regard to discriminatory property
insurance practice.
insurance redlining language
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am heartened that, in the context of
the VA-HUD appropriations bill, certain Republicans have not attempted
to repeat the mistake of last year, when there was an ill-advised
effort to insert a provision that would have prohibited the Department
of Housing and Urban Development from enforcing the Fair Housing Act as
it relates to property insurance. This provision, if enacted, would
have prevented millions of Americans from pursuing the American dream
of home ownership by prohibiting HUD from enforcing the Fair Housing
Act as it relates to property insurance.
This effort to roll back civil rights protections in the name of
regulatory and insurance reform was defeated by a voice vote, under the
leadership of Senators Feingold, Simon, Moseley-Braun, and Mikulski.
Fortunately Republicans did not attempt to include this provision in
the 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill. However, there is language in the
committee report pertaining to insurance redlining which incorrectly
asserts that: First, HUD lacks the authority under the Fair Housing Act
to investigate insurance redlining cases; and second, insurance
redlining is not covered by the Fair Housing Act.
These claims are simply wrong, Since passage of the Fair Housing Act
amendments in 1988, courts have consistently held that the Fair Housing
Act prohibits racial discrimination in the provision of property
insurance. Nationwide Mut. Insurance Co. v. Cisneros, 52 F.3d 1351 (6th
Cir. 1995); United Farm Bureau Mut. v. Human Relation Comm'n, 24 F.3d
1008 (7th Cir. 1994); NAACP v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d
287 (7th Cir. 1992); Strange v. National Mutual Insurance Co., 867 F.
Supp. 1209 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
[[Page S9946]]
These consistent court interpretations of the Fair Housing Act make
perfect sense. If a person does not have access to homeowners
insurance, buying a home would be impossible. As Judge Easterbrook, a
conservative Seventh Circuit judge, observed in NAACP v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Co., ``lenders require their borrowers to
secure property insurance. No insurance, no loan; no loan, no house;
lack of insurance thus makes housing unavailable [within the meaning of
the Fair Housing Act].'' 978 F.2d at 297. Overall, the case law is
clear that the Fair Housing Act covers property insurance
discrimination. Any assertion to the contrary is simply incorrect.
In the Committee Report, there is a claim that the McCarran-Ferguson
Act prevents the enforcement of property insurance discrimination under
the Fair Housing Act. This claim also ignores the case law, in which
courts have consistently stated that the Fair Housing Act is not
preempted by McCarran-Ferguson. See American Family, 978 F.2d at 293-
97; Cisneros, 52 F.3d at 1363; United Farm Bureau, 24 F.3d at 1016.
Thus, it is incorrect to suggest that HUD's assertion of authority in
insurance redlining cases ``contradicts'' the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
The Fair Housing Act was intended to break down barriers of
discrimination that unfairly prevented scores of Americans from
securing decent and affordable housing. This discrimination comes in
many forms. Insurance redlining is one such manifestation, and is a
persistent problem throughout America. For example, in a recent case in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a $14.5 million settlement was reached on behalf
of a class of hundreds of African-American homeowners. A manager at the
insurance company wrote to an agent who expressed a willingness to give
insurance to African-Americans: ``Quit writing to all those Blacks''
(emphasis in original). Eliminating such discrimination is an
appropriate and vital function of HUD and the Department of Justice.
America cannot be America unless we eliminate all vestiges of
discrimination, and I applaud Secretary Cisneros for his willingness to
enforce laws banning insurance redlining.
Opposition to Restrictions on HUD funding to investigate insurance
redlining
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to inclusion of
language in the VA-HUD fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Committee Report
barring the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] from
using Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP] funds to enforce the Fair
Housing Act against insurance redlining. The language in this report is
intended to 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 attempting
to strip HUD of its enforcement authority, this funding restriction
will allow such discrimination to flourish.
In September 1995, language prohibiting HUD from investigating
insurance-related discrimination complaints was placed in the 1996 VA-
HUD Appropriations bill. This language was removed before a vote on the
Senate floor due to opposition from a number of Senators. Now, the
committee seeks to accomplish through the back door what the Senate
refused to sanction last year.
Mr. President, insurance redlining is a serious problem in this
country. Recently, 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 the attempts to obtain insurance; 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 pre-conditions for providing quotes (inspection of property,
credit rating checks); 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, the results of this investigation are profoundly
disturbing. 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. Property insurance
discrimination is illegal under the Fair Housing Act. As this country
moves toward its stated ideal of a colorblind society, the effort of
the committee to strip HUD of its enforcement authority and remove a
whole category of discrimination--insurance redlining--from the reach
of the law is not supported by judicial decisions or the language of
the Fair Housing Act.
Mr. President, the report claims that HUD's assertion of authority
regarding property insurance contradicts the McCarran-Ferguson Act of
1945. However, Federal fair housing laws enforce civil rights
protections which do not threaten or regulate the business of providing
insurance. Thus, the report's argument that enforcement of civil rights
protections undermines State insurance regulation is inaccurate, and
more importantly, elevates a business practice over the enforcement of
fundamental civil rights.
The report further claims that the Fair Housing Act does not directly
mention homeowners insurance, and therefore does not apply to the
provision of homeowners insurance. However, section 3604 of the Fair
Housing Act makes it illegal to ``discriminate against any person in
the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or
in the provision of services * * * in connection therewith. * * *''
Based on the language of section 3604, Federal courts have held that
homeowners insurance discrimination is within the purview of the Fair
Housing Act. Indeed, in February of this year, the Supreme Court
refused to entertain an appeal from a decision holding that the Fair
Housing Act covers insurance.
Mr. President, 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. This effort failed last year, and there exists no
legal justification for the committee to now restrict FHIP funds in the
investigation of homeowners insurance redlining.
It is this Senator's view, and I believe that of many others, that
this report language does not and should not reflect the view of the
Senate, and that HUD should not treat this language as having the force
of law.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me begin by commending both the
chairman, Senator Bond, and the ranking minority member, Senator
Mikulski, and their staffs, for their hard work on this legislation.
With the inadequate allocation given this subcommittee, they have had
to make very hard choices between the competing needs for environmental
protection, housing, veterans, science, and NASA, not to mention the
many other agencies covered by this bill. It's a very, very difficult
job.
Mr. President, as one with a strong interest in the environment, I am
very pleased that the bill funds Superfund cleanup at the President's
level, and exceeds the President's level for the State revolving loan
funds, which are used to ensure that our water supply is clean. I also
appreciate the chairman's support of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, which studies the health threats posed by toxic
waste sites and helps to prioritize Superfund cleanups.
[[Page S9947]]
I also am pleased that this year we will avoid the debate on anti-
environmental riders that have been pushed so hard in the past by many
House Republicans.
Mr. President, although we have made great progress on EPA funding
overall, I do remain concerned about the inadequate funding of research
into sediment decontamination technology. This work is critical to
finding affordable and environmentally benign ways of dredging many
harbors that are contaminated with deadly toxics sediments.
I also am concerned that we are continuing to add duties to EPA
without the accompanying resources. This budget does not provide the
needed funding to implement Congress' demands for more and better risk-
benefit analysis, more assistance to small business, and more
consideration of stakeholders in the regulatory process. It does not
provide the needed infrastructure to enhance EPA's scientific
abilities. It also does not provide adequate funding to counter global
warming, or for President Bush's initiative to improve the water
quality of Boston Harbor.
The President's budget provided $450 million for these various
programs, money that is not in this bill. As the process moves forward,
I want to work with the President to add these funds for this important
allocations.
Mr. President, led by Newt Gingrich and extremist Members of the
House, this Congress has seen a massive assault on our environment.
Last year, the House passed a bill to cut EPA by one-third. They have
tried to tie the agency up in regulatory knots and red-tape. And they
have invited polluters into the back rooms to weaken environmental
standards.
Mr. President, President Clinton has stood up to these extremists,
and our environment will be much cleaner as a result.
However, the war over the environment is not over. Senator Dole is
proposing a budget scheme that calls for massive cuts in domestic
programs. And that would mean deep reductions in environmental
protection. Senator Dole also has pushed hard to undermine the ability
of EPA and other agencies to protect public health and the environment.
So, Mr. President, the real battle over the environment will be
fought in this November's elections.
Mr. President, let me now move beyond the environment to discuss the
provisions in this bill that provide funding for housing, and for our
Nation's cities.
Mr. President, I am disappointed that these programs have again been
targeted for disproportionate budget cuts. I represent a State with
very severe housing needs, and several depressed urban areas. And it is
of great concern to me that the Congress has not made these problems a
higher priority.
This bill funds HUD at $2 billion below the President's budget
request and cuts spending for vital programs such as homeless
assistance, the economic development initiative, and public housing
modernization.
These cuts will adversely affect many of our Nation's most
economically vulnerable families. And that troubles me. Just as I know
it troubles many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
So, Mr. President, I am concerned about many of the cuts in this bill
for housing and community development. But I realize that the chairman
and the ranking minority member have been dealt a terrible deck, and
they've done their best in a bad situation. During last year's
appropriations process, after Senate passage, additional funds were
allocated for housing and environmental programs. I will work with the
administration to restore these funds so that we may better address the
severe housing needs of our Nation.
I want to commend both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for
protecting several other important programs from funding cuts,
including the Drug Elimination Program, CDBG, and HOME, each of which
will continue to operate at current funding levels.
Finally, I would like to thank the chairman for his generous funding
of the low-income housing preservation program. This program will help
to maintain the stock of affordable housing and potentially protect
thousands of families from losing their homes.
So, Mr. President, as a member of the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies
Subcommittee, I will vote for this bill. It is not perfect legislation.
But it is a significant improvement over some of the related
legislation we've seen in the recent past.
the neighborhood networks program
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to commend the
distinguished chairman, Senator Bond, and the distinguished ranking
member of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee on
Appropriations, Senator Mikulski, for their guidance and cooperative
efforts in bringing this bill, H.R. 3666, to the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a program that is
providing an indispensable service to Americans living in our Nation's
troubled urban areas, in public and assisted housing. As HUD has worked
to increase housing and home ownership opportunities for our citizens,
it has become increasingly clear that an important aspect of insuring
adequate housing is insuring that people have the skills and employment
opportunities that will allow them to contribute sufficiently to their
own rents and mortgages. Insuring that our people have such skills and
opportunities is not only a means of improving the lives of these
citizens but also helping them develop and maintain their neighborhoods
and communities.
Mr. BOND. I would agree with my colleague.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The University of New Orleans has developed an
entrepreneurship program designed not only to assist in the development
of skills, but also to assist in the creating of individual, family,
and small businesses in our inner cities. The two things go hand in
hand--providing training and skills development and then seeing that
there is a job in which the training skills can be used. UNO has held
discussions on this program with HUD and I believe that it is the type
of activity which HUD should be supporting. Consequently, I would hope
that we could urge HUD to pursue this effort with UNO whether it be
through the Neighborhood Networks Program or some other means.
Mr. BOND. I strongly support finding ways to encourage people to find
means of self-support with a goal towards bettering their lives. This
seems to me an excellent way to move people away from a state of
dependence into one of independence and self-sufficiency. I agree with
the Senator from Louisiana that HUD should be supportive of such
programs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleagues. These efforts are important
as we expect a future of declining allocations. We must find ways to
meet the needs of Federal programs in a balanced way. Particular
attention should be paid to effective programs that give taxpayers the
most bang for their hard earned buck.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must note that our first priority for HUD
is demand that it more adequately address its principal
responsibilities over loan and grant programs for housing and community
development. We have worked to drastically cut back on the thicket of
programs that it amassed over the years, some 240 individual
activities. Though terminations and by consolidating related activities
in more flexible, broadly-based grant programs we are reducing
burdensome paperwork requirements both for HUD and for the local
administering agency. Furthermore, by granting flexibility, we hope to
enable local units of government to better tailor programs to meet
their specific local needs and priorities. With this orientation,we
must be restrained in our appetite for endorsing new programs or
initiatives or risk turning back the clock on our reforms by creating a
whole new set of categorical programs and requirements.
montreal protocol facilitation fund
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the EPA portion of this bill includes $12
million for Agency contributions to the Montreal Protocol facilitation
fund. This funding level is the same as that approved by the Congress
last year, but $7 million lower than the administration's request of
$19 million.
It is my understanding that the House of Representatives approved the
full fiscal year 1997 administration request of $19 million for EPA's
contribution to this fund. This funding is included in the EPA
environmental programs and management account. If I
[[Page S9948]]
might, Mr. President, I would like to provide some historical
perspective on the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund.
The fund was created in 1990 through the London Amendments to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It was
created to assist developing countries in their efforts to phase out
ozone depleting substances. The United States agreed to participate in
the fund after the Senate, on December 18, 1991, voted to approve
ratification of the London Amendments. It is important to remember that
the Montreal Protocol and the facilitation fund were successfully
negotiated by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush,
respectively.
The Montreal Protocol facilitation fund was established with the
clear understanding that the problem of ozone depletion was global in
nature. That understanding, and the agreement which ensued, was that
the developed countries would provide technical and financial
assistance to developing countries who agree to strict ozone depleting
substance use reductions.
This is a pact, Mr. President, that the United States freely
committed itself to. A pact which has enjoyed tremendous success with
respect to reducing the use of these chemicals around the world; with
respect to the promotion of American goods and services around the
world; and with respect to the development of a global effort to solve
a complicated environmental problem. Contributions to this multilateral
fund, from nations like Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada,
have been made at a higher rate, 85 percent, than any other United
Nations trust fund.
How large is the facilitation fund? How much does the United States
contribute? The total size of the fund has been set at $510 million
with the U.S. share capped at 25 percent of the total, which is the
U.N. standard. The current U.S. contribution is set at $38 million per
year.
The problem, Mr. President, is that we have not met our obligations
to the fund. At the conclusion of calendar year 1996, the United States
will be approximately $27 million in arrears. Even if the full
administration request for EPA and State Department contributions were
to be provided for fiscal year 1997, the United States would still find
itself behind in 1997 by approximately $18 million.
If the $12 million level recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee is approved by the Senate and ultimately prevails in
conference with the House, the United States would find itself $25
million in arrears. This estimate assumes that the full State
Department allotment of $27.5 million will be provided in fiscal year
1997.
Mr. President, we cannot afford to fall further and further behind on
this commitment. Failure by the United States to maintain this pact in
the agreed-upon fashion would not only harm the progress made in this
area, but would undoubtedly make negotiation of future international
environmental agreements much more difficult. As such, I would request
of my friend from Missouri, who will be leading negotiations with the
House on this matter, that he work toward conference adoption of the
House-passed funding level of $19 million for the Montreal Protocol
facilitation fund.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks made by my
colleague from Rhode Island. While I cannot guarantee the results on
this or any other matter in a conference with the House, I will make
sure that all conferees are aware of the Senator's strong interest in
this vitally important program.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Missouri and appreciate all of
his good work on this bill. Mr. President, before I yield, I would like
to conclude with a statement made by President Reagan on April 5, 1988,
concerning the Montreal Protocol:
The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a
product of the recognition and international consensus that
ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its
causes and effects. The Protocol is the result of an
extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among
representatives of the business and environmental
communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental
achievement.
Indeed it is. With that, Mr. President, I again thank the Senator
from Missouri and yield the floor.
epa research
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in 1994, the EPA awarded the University of
Rhode Island's Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory a $1.4 million
grant to examine the degree to which coastal marine areas of the United
States are degraded by elevated concentrations of waterborne nitrogen.
Why should this matter be studied? Why do we care if elevated
concentrations of nitrogen exist in estuaries and bays? Let me provide
just a few reasons.
Nitrogen concentrations stimulate the growth of marine plants such as
phytoplankton and seaweed. Excessive growth of these plants often shade
out and thus kill off natural sea grasses that form fish habitat, as in
Chesapeake Bay. In some instances these plants sink to the bottom and
decompose, thus consuming all oxygen and leading to widespread fish
kills, as in Long Island Sound, Mobile Bay, and elsewhere.
Elevated nitrogen levels are also believed to be responsible for
altering the species composition and biodiversity of indigenous plants,
thus dramatically altering marine food chains. Some suspect links
between nitrogen enrichment and toxic algal blooms and fish disease.
The project undertaken in 1994 at the University of Rhode Island is
designed to help scientists and policymakers better understand how
coastal marine systems respond to nitrogen enrichment.
Regrettably, only two-thirds of the agreed upon project has been
completed. Under the 1994 grant agreement, the University of Rhode
Island was to receive $1.4 million over fiscal years 1994 through 1996.
According to EPA, insufficient fiscal year 1996 resources prevent the
Agency from fulfilling the third and final year's commitment of
$474,000.
Mr. President, it is my belief that this important research effort
warrants the very modest resources committed to it just 2 years ago. I
might note that two papers submitted by the university as a result of
this project have been published recently in peer-reviewed scientific
journals.
Thus, it is my hope that the EPA Administrator and her Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development will give every
consideration to providing the final year of funding for this effort in
fiscal year 1997.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his interest in
EPA research programs. While I am not familiar with the merits of this
particular project, it seems only fair to me that EPA should look
closely at fulfilling previously initiated grant awards before
beginning new ones.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my friend from Missouri. Mr. President, I yield
the floor.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the HUD
appropriation levels for fiscal year 1997 and to raise concerns about
some of HUD's programs that have been going forward unabated for
decades.
HUD has failed. It has too many programs with hundreds of billions of
dollars of long-term financial commitments. There are widespread
weaknesses. It has the worst reputation of all the large Government
agencies.
Over the past 3 years, all kinds of proposals for reinventing HUD
have been suggested. Proposals have come from Secretary Cisneros, the
White House, and the Congress. HUD's proposal to change its delivery of
housing programs was named ``Reinvention Blueprint.''
This proposal is not really a reinvention of HUD. It is just a few
changes to the same idea. Solving problems was supposed to be HUD's
mission. When considering whether we should reinvent HUD or end it,
each of us has to ask ourselves these questions:
Are our inner cities better off than they were 30 years ago?
Is the state of public housing better off than it was 30 years ago?
The answers to these questions is no--absolutely no. In fact, our
cities are more decayed and more dangerous today than ever.
HUD's housing policy denotes the 1930's belief that public housing
will solve the problems of the poor--that tearing down the slums and
building public housing to replace them would eliminate breeding
grounds for crime and disease.
HUD thinks that the housing it built is now ill-designed and not well
constructed. HUD wants to believe that if
[[Page S9949]]
we tear down those unsightly highrise buildings and build more
aesthetically pleasing townhouses that the state of the poor will
change.
HUD wants to believe that bricks and mortar are to blame. But we know
that is not true. We cannot blame the state of public housing on bricks
and mortar.
That is why I believe this administration's housing policy is flawed.
Housing is first and foremost a local issue. Reinvention Blueprint
recognizes some major flaws with HUD, but it falls short of what is
really needed to reform housing.
As former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp said, ``The American people do not
want to reinvent government, they want to reduce the role of
Government.''
HUD is a massive bureaucracy with over 11,000 bureaucrats. It has
over 240 housing programs--so many that the Secretary of HUD himself
did not even know he had that many.
HUD has over $192 billion in unused budget authority. This spending
is increasing so rapidly that by the year 2000, housing assistance will
be the largest discretionary spending function in our Government.
Can Secretary Cisneros reinvent HUD? No. That is why I introduced
legislation to abolish HUD.
States should be given maximum flexibility to develop their own
housing policies. With States in control, tenants will be offered home
ownership opportunities consistent with what Secretary Jack Kemp
developed during the Bush administration.
We have made strides in changing our housing policy with reforms made
in the public housing bills currently in conference. But we need to go
further. We need to abolish HUD.
My colleagues, when you cast your vote for this bill and you look at
the funding levels for HUD, ask yourselves why we continue to fund
programs that have failed. HUD is not truly going to reinvent itself.
When you look at the administration's policy behind its funding
requests you too will see that we can't afford not to abolish HUD.
sweetwater branch project
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida,
Senator Graham, to make the Senate--and particularly the chairman of
the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee--aware of the
Sweetwater Branch project. This project is most important to the
citizens of Florida and I believe it merits attention by the Senate.
Mr. President, the Sweetwater Basin begins north of Gainesville, FL,
runs through the city and discharges into Paynes Prairie--a critical
natural resource area owned by the State of Florida and home to many
important species of plants and animals. This water ultimately makes
its way through the Alachua Sink--a large sinkhole in the area--into
the Floridan aquifer. The aquifer is a primary source of drinking water
for Florida's citizens and its health is critical to our quality of
life.
The city has brought together the State, Alachua County, and other
interested parties in an effort to ensure that these discharges into
the Prairie and the aquifer are not contaminated with agricultural and
urban runoff. The city is to be commended for its diligence in working
toward a solution. The project of cleaning up this water, however, is
beyond the scope--both geographically and financially--of the city of
Gainesville. While it has prepared to plan that would mitigate this
problem at a relatively low cost, the city needs help on the funding
and implementation.
Thus, it is important--in my view--that this project be made eligible
for Federal assistance. I am hopeful the chairman of the subcommittee
will work with us on securing the necessary funding to assist the city
of Gainesville in this most important effort.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would join Senator Mack in commending
the city of Gainesville for its diligence in funding a solution to this
complex problem. The project should be considered for Federal funding
because of the complexity of the problem, the difficult web of
jurisdictions, and the large potential impact to the State's primary
drinking water supply.
I would simply add, Mr. President, that the city of Gainesville has a
history of using local resources to solve local problems. In this case
the city has already financed the development of this plan and would be
further committed to a financial partnership on the solution. I believe
such an arrangement is critical to the success of the plan and, again,
I commend the city of Gainesville for its strong commitment to this
most important project. I express my strong support for the efforts of
the city of Gainesville and look forward to working with my colleagues
on the subcommittee to secure the necessary funding in the fiscal year
1997 legislation.
Restructuring the FHA-insured and assisted multifamily mortgage
portfolio
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senator Bond for his
interest in moving forward the process for restructuring the FHA-
insured and assisted multifamily mortgage portfolio.
I know that the Senator believes his amendment is not a substitute
for a permanent debt restructuring proposal. I want to make it clear
that the authorizing committee fully intends to move forward with
portfolio restructuring legislation that can be enacted before the end
of this Congress.
Immediately before the recess, I introduced S. 2042, the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996. This
comprehensive multifamily mortgage portfolio restructuring proposal;
will deal with expiring contracts on units with rents that exceed fair
market rents by reducing those rents to market levels and providing a
process for restructuring the underlying FHA mortgages. I am pleased
that Senator Bond has cosponsored this legislation.
The Housing Subcommittee of the Banking Committee has long been
concerned that flaws in the HUD multifamily insurance and rental
assistance programs have allowed owners to receive more federal dollars
in rental assistance than necessary to maintain properties as decent
and affordable housing. Such a policy is not fair to the American
taxpayer, and it cannot be sustained in the current budget environment.
Without changes in current policies, the cost of renewing expiring
project-based section 8 contracts will grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal
year 1997 to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $8 billion 10
years from now. However, if these contracts are not renewed, residents
and communities will be adversely affected and most of the FHA-insured
mortgages--with an unpaid balance of $18 billion--will default and
result in claims on the FHA insurance fund.
This proposal would establish an orderly and well-understood
mechanism for reducing section 8 rents and restructuring mortgage debt
with or without FHA mortgage insurance. It would utilize capable public
entities, like State housing finance agencies, to restructure the
portfolio; require input from residents and communities; and treat good
owners and managers of multifamily properties fairly.
I believe our bill will have broad-based support that reflects the
interests of all of the stakeholders in the process, and we intend to
move it forward.
I look forward to working with Senator Bond to develop a sound long
term strategy for section 8 contract renewals.
BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 366
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies appropriations bill for 1997.
This bill provides new budget authority of $84.3 billion and new
outlays of $49.7 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill
that, with adoption of the manager's amendment, is within the
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This is a one of the most difficult
bills to manage with its varied programs and challenging allocation,
but I think the bill meets most of the demands made of it while staying
under budget and is a strong candidate for enactment, so I commend my
friend the chairman for his efforts and leadership.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other adjustments
are taken into account, the bill totals $84.3 billion in budget
authority and $98.7
[[Page S9950]]
billion in outlays. As reported, the total bill is over the Senate
subcommittee's 602(b) nondefense allocation for budget authority by $4
million and under its allocation for outlays by $6 million. The
subcommittee is also under its defense allocation by $4 million in
budget authority and outlays.
I ask Members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge
the speedy adoption of this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
VA-HUD SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1997, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year budget authority
and other actions completed.............. -- 61
H.R. 3666, as reported to the Senate...... 125 64
Scorekeeping adjustment................... -- --
-------------------------
Subtotal defense discretionary.......... 125 125
=========================
Nondefense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year budget authority
and other actions completed.............. 365 47,431
H.R. 3666, as reported to the Senate...... 63,964 31,611
Scorekeeping adjustment................... -- --
-------------------------
Subtotal nondefense discretionary....... 64,329 79,042
=========================
Mandatory:
Outlays from prior-year budget authority
and other actions completed.............. -- 1,153
H.R. 3666, as reported to the Senate...... 20,260 18,013
Adjustment to conform mandatory programs
with budget resolution assumptions....... -406 381
-------------------------
Subtotal mandatory...................... 19,854 19,547
=========================
Adjusted bill total..................... 84,308 98,714
=========================
Senate subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary..................... 129 129
Nondefense discretionary.................. 64,325 79,048
Violent crime reduction trust fund........ -- --
Mandatory................................. 19,854 19,547
-------------------------
Total allocation........................ 84,308 98,724
=========================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate
subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary..................... -4 -4
Nondefense discretionary.................. 4 -6
Violent crime reduction trust fund........ -- --
Mandatory................................. -- --
-------------------------
Total allocation........................ -- -10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.
nsf supercomputer
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, more than a month after the Committee on
Appropriations reported the pending fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD
appropriations bill, the Department of Commerce announced that it would
undertake an investigation of the alleged below-market bid made by a
Japanese vendor in a pending supercomputer procurement of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research [NCAR]. This investigation is in
accordance with the anti-dumping procedures specified in law.
Subsequent to this announcement, on August 20, the National Science
Foundation, which provides the bulk of Federal operating support for
NCAR requested that the pending procurement be put on hold and await
the resolution of the dumping issue.
I have been asked if these actions negate or otherwise change the
Committee's position with respect to the deletion of section 421 of the
House-passed bill. That provision was intended to block the NCAR
procurement by prohibiting the use of funds to pay the salaries of
personnel who approve a contract for a supercomputer which is found to
be in violation of the anti-dumping provisions of law.
The answer is no. The House provision inappropriately attempted to
impose a penalty for alleged dumping, separate and apart from that
provided for in law. Current law specifies a clearly defined process
for the Department of Commerce to investigate and determine if unfair
prices are being offered by a foreign vendor. Furthermore, upon the
determination that dumping has occurred, redress is provided through
the imposition of compensating duties. The House proposal would require
the National Science Foundation to determine whether dumping has
occurred, an agency that does not have the expertise nor the authority
to make such a finding. If this provision were to be enacted the
Foundation would have to prejudge the outcome of the Commerce
Department investigation. Unfortunately, by preventing any contract
from being approved, NSF may lead to the adverse consequences that we
are seeking to avoid.
The decision of the Foundation to request a delay in the procurement
pending competition of the anti-dumping investigation process now
underway by the Commerce Department may jeopardize the pending
procurement, and will certainly delay the needed acquisition of state-
of-the-art supercomputing technology. Such potential consequences are
very disturbing, especially since the NSF is under no obligation to
delay these contractual negotiations. Indeed, the anti-dumping
provisions remedies are premised on imposition of special duties, not
on a rescission of any sales or a prohibition on any sale.
If the action of the Foundation were to terminate the pending
procurement, it would have the effect of nullifying the established
process of investigating and determining whether dumping has occurred,
a responsibility of the Commerce Department, not the National Science
Foundation.
Mr. President, the chairman and the ranking minority Member of the
Senate Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, wrote a letter
objecting to the House provision, and urging that the normal process be
followed. In addition, the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, also
wrote on behalf of the Government Affairs Committee expressing his
concern over the implications that the House provision would have on
procurement procedures of the Government, under the jurisdiction of
that committee.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Kit: We are writing to express our concerns about a
provision in the House version of the VA-HUD appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1997 (H.R. 3666), which may also be
offered as an amendment to the Senate version of the bill.
This provision (section 421) would prohibit the use of
appropriated funds to pay the salaries of National Science
Foundation (NSF) employees who authorize the acquisition of
any supercomputer, which the Department of Commerce
determines was sold at a dumped price.
In our opinion, it is inappropriate to include this
provision on an appropriations bill. The provision involves
the administration of the antidumping law, which falls
squarely under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on
Finance. Because the provision could result in a violation of
United States' obligations under the antidumping rules of the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the Committee on Finance
should have an opportunity to examine the potential
consequences should the provision be enacted into law.
Moreover, in making its procurement decision, the NSF must
take into account all relevant factors, including the
possibility of dumping. However, the U.S. antidumping law
provides a remedy if the NSF's procurement results in the
U.S. industry having to compete with dumped imports. Then the
appropriate action is for the U.S. industry to file an
antidumping petition with the Department of Commerce and the
U.S. International Trade Commission or for the Department of
Commerce to self initiate an antidumping investigation.
In light of these considerations, we urge you to do what
you can to resist any attempt to add this or any similar
provision to the Senate bill and to ensure that the provision
is not included in the bill when the legislation moves to
conference.
Sincerely,
William V. Roth, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1996.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA-HUD Appropriations, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Attached is a copy of a provision
contained in H.R. 3666, which the House recently passed to
provide appropriations for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies.
This bill contains funding for National Science Foundation
(NSF) programs. Section 421 is aimed at preventing the
planned lease of a supercomputer by the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which must
obtain NSF approval before entering into a contract to
acquire the supercomputing capacity selected by UCAR
technical experts under a competitive procurement process.
When the House of Representatives considered H.R. 3666,
there was serious disagreement among several Members as to
whether the language of Section 421 was a violation of the
government procurement code. Representative Kolbe and
Representative Campbell presented strong arguments that the
[[Page S9951]]
procurement code would indeed be violated by this provision,
if it is enacted into law. Representative Crane, Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Trade, presented arguments that the
provision could also be a violation of antidumping and trade
laws (please see attached copy of his letter).
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management and the District of Columbia, I wanted
to inform you of my concern that this particular provision
has not been discussed in appropriate hearings before the
Senate and that it's impact has not received any
consideration by the Committee on Government Affairs which
has jurisdiction over the issue of government procurement.
In your role as the Chairman of the Subcommittee providing
funding for the National Science Foundation, I hope you will
agree the language of Section 421 or any language which is
intended to interrupt the orderly operation of the formal
procurement process could set a dangerous precedent. Because
of the intense concern expressed by the House Members during
their debate and because the Senate committee of jurisdiction
has not yet discussed this serious issue, I ask that you take
whatever action is necessary to prevent the inclusion of any
language in the VA-HUD appropriations bill which, in effect,
could create a legislated change in the manner in which the
procurement code is applied. Any impact on the procurement
process caused by congressional legislative action should
receive the full review and consideration by the committee of
jurisdiction.
Your consideration of this request will be sincerely
appreciated.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
William S. Cohen,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management
and the District of Columbia.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, June 12, 1996.
Hon. Bob Livingston,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Bob: I am writing in reference to provision 421
included in the National Science Foundation (NSF)
appropriations legislation as reported out by subcommittee
that would provide that no funding may be used to pay the
salaries of any NSF employee who approves a contract for
supercomputing equipment after a preliminary or final
determination of dumping by the Commerce Department (language
attached). This amendment is aimed at the proposed
procurement of an NEC supercomputer by an NSF grantee. In a
May 20, 1996 letter, the Commerce Department opined, without
conducting a formal investigation, that the lease in question
may constitute dumping.
I am greatly concerned that the effect of this amendment
would be to force NSF to turn down the NEC supercomputer even
though neither the Department of Commerce nor the
International Trade Commission have made any formal findings
of dumping and injury and, in fact, have not initiated any
formal investigations, as required in order to impose
antidumping duties.
Clearly, we must enforce our antidumping laws to prevent
unfair trading. However, this amendment would improperly use
the appropriations process to chill what could be a
legitimate, procurement that does not involve dumping. I
believe that whether the NEC lease is an appropriate
procurement and whether the lease is in fact being made at a
dumped price should be determined on the merits of the case.
It is impossible for Congress to determine now whether the
procurement in question violates the antidumping statute.
That is a matter for the Commerce Department and the
International Trade Commission to determine, using
statutorily mandated procedures. Only when they have made
this determination can we begin to consider the effects on
the procurement.
The amendment, however, forces Congress to prejudge this
decision. Indeed, I am concerned that such an amendment could
violate our obligations under Article 18(1) of the WTO
Antidumping Agreement, which states that no specific action
against dumping of exports from another party may be taken
except in accordance with the Agreement and does not
authorize punitive measures such as disqualification from
government procurement. In addition, I am concerned that the
amendment could violate Article III of the Government
Procurement Agreement, which provides that each party shall
provide national treatment to suppliers of other parties.
Accordingly, I strongly urge you to remove the amendment from
the legislation when the bill is considered by your
Committee.
I look forward to working with you on this matter.
With best personal regards,
Philip M. Crane,
Chairman.
____
Provision 421
Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries of
personnel who approve a contract for the purchase, lease, or
acquisition in any manner of supercomputing equipment or
services after a preliminary determination, as defined in 19
U.S.C. 1673b, or final determination, as defined in 19 U.S.C.
1673d, by the Department of Commerce that an organization
providing such supercomputing equipment or services has
offered such product at other than fair value.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the reasons I have outlined, both
programmatic, as well as jurisdictional, it is my intent to sustain the
Senate's deletion of the House provision in conference. And for the
same reasons, I urge the National Science Foundation to reconsider its
delay in this procurement.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last year Republicans waged a covert war
against the environment when they attempted to drastically cut EPA's
budget in order to cripple the EPA's ability to set and enforce
environmental standards. The cuts that eventually passed were not as
drastic, but they have meant that an already stretched EPA has had to
curtail important work that ensures the health and safety of all
Americans.
I am relieved to see that, this year, there is no new attempt by
Republicans to further cut EPA's enforcement budget. A poorly funded
EPA will mean more water pollution, more smog in our cities and
countryside, more toxic waste problems. For this reason I will continue
to fight for a strong, efficient, and well funded Environmental
Protection Agency. It is in the best interest of the health and safety
of our citizens.
I am also pleased that the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill for
the Environmental Protection Agency does not include any of the
contentious antienvironmental legislative riders that were attempted
last year.
There are several issues included in this bill of great importance to
California that I would like to highlight:
South Tahoe export pipeline replacement project:
Although my request for funds for this project was not included in
the bill, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their
interest in the project and ask them to keep Lake Tahoe in mind in
conference to see if some help for Lake Tahoe can be provided.
Help for Lake Tahoe is so urgent that the project was authorized in
the Safe Drinking Water Act as a special project to be considered by
the Administrator of EPA if there are sufficient funds.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District needs urgent help in
replacing its export pipeline system which protects and preserves the
water quality in Lake Tahoe. The export pipeline transports reclaimed
water from the wastewater treatment plant in South Tahoe out of the
Lake Tahoe basin to a nearby reservoir where the reclaimed water is
stored and later used for irrigation and other purposes.
The existing pipeline is reaching the end of its useful life and must
be replaced quickly if we are to avoid the possibility of a
catastrophic spill resulting in serious environmental harm to Lake
Tahoe. Several serious leaks have already occurred over the last 2
years, and the risk of a rupture increases the longer it takes to
complete the replacement project.
The local community has raised $10 million toward replacement of the
pipeline, but a total of $30 million will be needed. The local
community is already paying sewer rates substantially higher than the
average in California, $10 million in Federal assistance is needed if
the pipeline is to be replaced in a timely manner. While the local
community might be able to pay for the pipeline replacement over the
long term by enduring high utility rates, it will not get the job done
as quickly as it could be done with Federal assistance. Such Federal
assistance would enable the South Tahoe Public Utility District to
complete the project in a more expeditious manner, reducing the chances
of a large leak with serious environmental consequences for the lake.
Southwest center for environmental research and policy center.
I am pleased that the bill includes an additional $2.5 million for
the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy.
SCERP is a consortium of American and Mexican universities that works
to address environmental problems along the United States-Mexican
border including but not limited to air quality, water quality, and
hazardous materials. SCERP's members include San Diego State
University, New Mexico State University, University of Utah, University
of Texas-El Paso, and Arizona State University. SCERP had its
[[Page S9952]]
origins in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which authorized the
establishment of an entity to research air and water quality and other
environmental problems in the border region. SCERP has been funded
through congressional appropriations for the last 5 years in
fulfillment of the Clean Air Act mandate.
United States-Mexico border cleanup: New River cleanup.
I strongly support the $100,000 million appropriation, the same as
the budget request, for architecture, engineering, design, and
construction-related activities for high priority water and wastewater
facilities in communities near the United States-Mexico border.
A top priority border cleanup project is the cleanup of the New
River, which flows from Mexico to Imperial County, CA, and is one of
the most polluted rivers in the world.
New River cleanup is essential to ensuring the environmental health
of the southern California border region. The cleanup project consists
of two stages. Stage one, currently underway, consists of a series of
quick fix repair jobs on the Mexicali, Mexico, sewer system aimed at
significantly reducing the flow of raw sewage into the New River. Stage
two will consist of planning, design, and construction of a wastewater
treatment plant and allied systems.
I recently wrote to Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency asking the EPA to reaffirm its commitment to meeting
the obligation of the United States to contribute 55 percent of the
cleanup costs of the New River in Imperial County, CA. The EPA
responded on July 26, 1996, confirming its commitment to meeting its
55-percent share of the cleanup costs for the New River. I ask
unanimous consent that the EPA letter appear in the Record immediately
after my statement.
Rice growers in California's Sacramento River valley.
In closing I strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency to
continue working closely with California rice growers to help them
achieve certainty regarding the regulation of agricultural waters under
the Clean Water Act. Rice growers need clarity and certainty regarding
how water quality standards apply to waters associated with rice
production in the Sacramento River Valley. I am hopeful that we will be
able to reach a solution that all sides are comfortable with in the
very near future.
Low-Income Housing Preservation
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman
and ranking member of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Subcommittee, on behalf of myself and the other sponsors of the
preservation amendment, for including an increase in preservation
funding in the manager's amendment to the appropriations bill. Senator
Bond and Senator Mikulski have been strong and constant champions of
the preservation program.
The provision included in the manager's amendment would increase the
full appropriation for the low-income housing preservation program by
$150 million to $500 million by rescinding $150 million in recaptured
preservation interest payments.
Adequate funding for preservation sales to nonprofit organizations is
vital if we are to retain affordable rental housing in our communities
for families and senior citizens. There are currently more than 300
projects with 30,000 units of affordable housing in the process of
being sold to nonprofit and tenant organizations. Without sufficient
funding these sales will not go through and thousands of units of
affordable housing could be irretrievably lost.
Preservation has been a tremendous success throughout the country and
in my own State of Illinois. To date, over 4,000 apartments in more
than 17 developments in Illinois have been preserved as affordable
housing. Eight of these properties, containing over 2,400 apartments
have been transferred to non-profit owners with the support of the
residents.
In Illinois we have three properties, Carmen Marine Apartments, 707
Waveland, and West Park Place, that have been sold to resident councils
who are converting the properties to resident home ownership. Carmen
Marine is a 300 unit high rise located on Lake Michigan. The residents
here became the first tenants in the country to purchase their units
under the preservation program in 1994. The average income is
approximately $18,000 per year. Rents have remained affordable and a
mixed income community with seniors and families of diverse national
origins has been preserved. An Illinois success story repeated across
the Nation.
The need for affordable housing greatly exceeds the supply. It does
not make sense to take a significant number of high quality, low-income
units off the market where they can be preserved. With adequate
preservation funding we can preserve some of the best of our affordable
housing stock. In many neighborhoods, there is no comparable housing
available to these tenants.
In Illinois alone, the sales of over 3,500 units to nonprofits are
pending. These are units that house senior citizens in their own
neighborhoods. These are units that allow families to grow up in good
communities. These are affordable units for working people.
The decisions we make concerning funding for preservation will have a
direct impact on the lives of these residents and for hundreds of
thousand of others around the country. Good, affordable apartments and
the American dream of home ownership, to me that, is something worth
preserving. I thank my colleagues for including this important increase
in preservation funding in the fiscal year 1997 VA, HUD, and
independent agencies appropriations bill.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the HUD title of
the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I first want to commend the chairman
and the ranking member of the subscommittee for their hard work on this
bill. The competing and diverse priorities addressed by this
appropriations bill make it arguably the most difficult of all the
bills to craft. The chairman and the ranking members take a thoughtful,
considered approach to a difficult task and their efforts deserve
recognition.
Unfortunately, the VA-HUD Subcommittee has over the last several
years been saddled with an insufficient budget allocation. It should
not be terribly surprising therefore, that the amounts the subcommittee
has provided for many of its programs and activities are inadequate.
Nowhere are the overall Federal budget pressures felt more keenly than
at HUD. Funding in this bill for public housing operating subsidies,
public housing modernization, incremental section 8, elderly and
disabled housing, and homeless assistance simply is inadequate relative
to the needs across our Nation.
But despite the insufficient overall allocation, there are some
bright spots in the bill. Several elements of the HUD title deserve
particular mention. I congratulate the subcommittee for providing level
funding for the HOME and CDBG programs. These are extremely important
programs for providing affordable housing and revitalizing distressed
communities. Their blend of national priorities and local flexibility
makes these two of HUD's strongest programs.
I also would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
accepting two amendments that I offered with other members. The first
amendment that I offered with my distinguished colleague from new
Mexico, Senator Domenici, will provide a set-aside of $50 million for
vouchers for disabled persons. As the Congress has moved to allow local
public housing authorities to designate certain housing developments
for elderly only, it is important that we provide alternative housing
resources to meet the housing needs of disabled individuals who in the
past had access to such housing.
The second amendment increases the appropriations for the low-income
housing preservation program from $350 million to $500 million. This is
an extremely important program in Massachusetts and across the country.
Thousands of families around the country are threatened with losing
their affordable housing as owners prepay their HUD-assisted mortgages
and convert the housing to either market-rate housing or other uses.
The preservation program provides funding to maintain the buildings as
affordable housing. The program has been troubled, but its mission is
sound. We on the authorizing committee will continue to work to
[[Page S9953]]
improve its performance. I again thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their support of this amendment and I thank my cosponsors
Senators Craig, Moseley-Braun, and Sarbanes.
In 1996, Congress provided a priority for funding the portion of the
preservation program that provides for the transfer of these
developments to community and resident-based nonprofit corporations. I
have visited with residents in my home State who have worked for years
to assemble funding packages and grant applications to achieve
ownership of their dwellings. With this appropriation, the dreams of
many across the Nation will come to fruition. But the demand for the
sales program has been extraordinary and it is already clear that the
$500 million for fiscal year 1997 will not be enough. I am planning to
work with the administration and the conferees on this bill to identify
other possible sources of funding in order to meet this demand.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to comment on the Bond amendment
related to HUD multifamily portfolio restructuring. We have been
working very hard in a bipartisan manner in the Banking Committee to
address this intractable problem. As others have described, the effort
to lower high section 8 costs and avoid excessive FAA mortgage
defaults--while at the same time preserving affordable housing--is
complicated and costly. The demonstration for which the Bond amendment
provides, represents a good first step toward putting in place a
program for lowering section 8 costs and restructuring the mortgages in
a sound way. Most important, the amendment states that the purpose of
the demonstration is to preserve affordable housing and identifies the
public interest in the future affordability of these properties. The
amendment preserves project-based assistance and ensures that public
agencies are involved in the restructuring.
I do have several concerns with the Bond amendment--particularly
related to the role of the residents, the community, and the local
government in the restructuring process--but I am confident the
bipartisan approach Senator Bond has taken to this point with respect
to this amendment will continue in the conference committee and I look
forward to working with the chairman in making these improvements and
in putting something in place until the authorizing committee can enact
a permanent solution.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me thank the leaders for their
cooperation in helping us come to what I had not expected to see at
this point. We are deeply grateful for the accommodation. After we have
acted on the pending amendments, then I believe we will be ready to go
to third reading.
Thanks and appreciation to all involved, particularly my colleague,
Senator Mikulski, and our staffs on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we are just minutes away from the
vote on four amendments and then final passage, I thank Senator Bond
for his cooperation, respecting the voice of the minority, and for his
very able staff and the way they worked with us; Senator Lott, who
worked with us to bring the bill to the floor; to the Democratic leader
for his advocacy for all of the issues in this bill, and for creating a
framework where we could get many things done; and also to my staff for
the excellent work that they did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. I would like to take a moment, too, to say to the chairman
of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the managers of this
legislation, they have done an excellent job. I know it has not been
easy for them, many times, working with the leadership as we have tried
to get agreement on a whole number of issues that were really unrelated
to their legislation. I think they have done a great job with the bill
itself. I apologize for us not being able to get it done before the
August recess, but you have been very considerate in your willingness
for us to do other things. I thank you for your work. You have done a
good job and I am glad we are going to be able to complete it tonight.
Although we have enjoyed having you on the floor all this week, you
have done such a wonderful job, we still think it better to move on to
other issues. Thank you for your good work.
Amendment No. 5194, As Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 5194, as amended, offered by the Senator from New Mexico.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, before we start, we had a minute on each
side. Do they need it? I think we might as well get started. I don't
think we need it on this particular amendment, but I wanted to be sure.
Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there are 2 minutes equally
divided prior to each piece of legislation.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kentucky, I
think on the Domenici-Wellstone amendment, we had a pretty thorough
debate and discussion, so we probably don't need it on this one.
Mr. FORD. That is what I was saying. On the others, I wanted to alert
the Chair to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the minority whip. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] would
vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--15
Ashcroft
Brown
Coats
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Inhofe
Kyl
Mack
McCain
Nickles
Smith
Thompson
NOT VOTING--3
Hatfield
Inouye
Murkowski
The amendment (No. 5194), as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5197
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All succeeding votes will be 10-minute
rollcall votes. The next order of business is amendment No. 5197, the
amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
____________________