[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.

                          ____________________