[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11218-S11225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
    INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 3666 will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3666) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry 
     independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and 
     offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and 
     for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 20, 1996.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the 
leadership and the Members on both sides for allowing the VA-HUD, 
independent agencies bill, H.R. 3666, to be passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference agreement on H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 
1997.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $84.3 billion and new 
outlays of $49.7 billion to finance operations of the Department 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 is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. 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 
billion in outlays. The total bill is under the Senate subcommittee's 
602(b) nondefense allocation by $43 million for budget authority and by 
$8 million for outlays. The subcommittee is also under its defense 
allocation by $3 million for budget authority and by $4 million for 
outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 3666.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         VA-HUD SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT        
               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                                                      authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........       61
    H.R. 3666, conference report....................       126        64
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal defense discretionary..............       126       125
                                                     ===================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................       365    47,431
    H.R. 3666, conference report....................    63,917    31,589
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........    64,282    79,020
                                                     ===================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........    1,153
    H.R. 3666, conference report....................    20,260    18,013
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget Resolution assumptions..................      -406       381
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal mandatory..........................    19,854    19,547
                                                     ===================
        Adjusted bill total.........................    84,262    98,692
                                                     ===================
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...........................        -3        -4
    Nondefense discretionary........................       -43       -28
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .......
    Mandatory.......................................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Total allocation............................       -46      -32 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusting  
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions. Prepared by SBC
  Majority Staff, Sept. 24, 1996.                                       

         Section 8 Multifamily Housing Portfolio Demonstration

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have questions 
concerning the implementation of the section 8 multifamily housing 
portfolio demonstration--Section 8 mark-to-market--which was adopted as 
part of the conference report to H.R. 3666, the VA/HUD fiscal year 1997 
Appropriations Act. The purpose of this statement is to clarify these 
questions for my colleagues, as well as for HUD. The conference report 
adopts a bipartisan strategy to build on the section 8 multifamily 
housing portfolio restructuring demonstration which was adopted as part 
of the HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, H.R. 3019, a further 
downpayment toward a balanced budget.
  The conference report establishes a revised demonstration program to 
emphasize that portfolio restructuring needs to be undertaken to reform 
and improve the FHA multifamily housing programs from a financial and 
operating perspective, but not to abandon the long-term commitment to 
resident protection and ongoing low-income affordability. The revised 
demonstration, therefore, continues to give HUD a

[[Page S11219]]

number of flexible tools for restructuring section 8 assisted, FHA-
insured projects, while emphasizing the preservation of the existing 
stock as low-income housing by generally restructuring these FHA-
insured mortgages and reducing the cost of renewing the section 8 
contracts. I emphasize that this demonstration, including the concept 
of reasonable offer, is intended to preserve affordable low-income 
housing, prevent the dislocation of current residents, preserve the 
rights of current owners who have complied with program requirements, 
and to not create any significant exposure of tax liability to owners.
  The section 8 mark-to-market inventory covers some 8,500 projects 
with almost one million units that are both FHA-insured and whose debt 
service is almost totally dependent on rental assistance payments made 
under section 8 project-based contracts. Most of these projects serve 
very low-income families, with approximately 37 percent of the stock 
serving elderly families. Many of these projects are oversubsidized 
and, without the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, are at risk 
of mortgage default. This raises concerns of owner disinvestment, 
resident displacement, and government ownership, management and 
disposition of this housing inventory. While continuing the existing 
subsidy arrangements would be very popular to both owners and tenants, 
the combination of the Federal Government overpaying for the value of 
this low-income housing resource as well as the growing tide of 
discretionary budget cuts require new policies and reforms to these 
programs.

  The cost of renewing the section 8 project-based contracts on this 
multifamily housing inventory emphasizes the many difficult budget and 
policy issues which need to be addressed as Congress reevaluates 
Federal housing policy. In particular, according to HUD estimates, the 
cost of all section 8 contract renewals, both tenant-based and project-
based, will require appropriations of about $3.8 billion in fiscal year 
1997, $10 billion in fiscal year 1998, and over $16 billion in fiscal 
year 2000. In addition, the cost of renewing the section 8 project-
based contracts will grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to 
almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000, and to some $8 billion in 10 
years. Moreover, the unpaid principal balance [UPB] on the mortgages 
associated with this FHA-insured housing inventory represents a 
contingent liability of some $17 billion to HUD and the Federal 
Government.
  The section 8 multifamily housing portfolio restructuring 
demonstration is designed as an interim strategy and as a stepping 
stone for more comprehensive legislation by the authorizing committees 
as well as consideration of associated tax issues by the tax 
committees. This demonstration will require HUD to renew for up to 1 
year all section 8 contracts with rents at or below 120 percent of the 
fair market rent for an area. In addition, project owners with expiring 
contracts above 120 percent of fair market rent may opt to have their 
section 8 contracts renewed at 120 percent of the fair market rent. 
This safe harbor will cover many of the 240,000 units which are 
supported by expiring section 8 contracts in fiscal year 1997, and will 
provide HUD with the administrative ability to focus on those FHA-
insured multifamily housing projects with significantly oversubsidized 
rents. The projects with units which do not qualify for the contract 
renewal safe harbor will be eligible to participate in the section 8 
multifamily mortgage restructuring portfolio demonstration and, at a 
minimum, will be renewed at budget-based rents.
  The demonstration would encourage HUD to enter into contracts with 
qualified State housing finance agencies, local housing agencies, and 
nonprofits either as a partner or as designee to administer the program 
for HUD. The conference report reflects the belief that balancing the 
fiscal goals of reducing costs with the public policy goals of 
preserving and maintaining affordable low-income housing requires an 
intermediary which is accountable to the public interest. Because of 
the Department's capacity and management problems as documented by the 
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, the demonstration 
reflects the understanding that capable public entities and certain 
qualified nonprofits should be accorded an opportunity to restructure 
mortgages on behalf of the Federal Government. I believe that many 
State housing finance agencies [HFA's], local HFA's, and other State 
and local housing and community development entities have the requisite 
capacity and expertise to implement the mortgage restructuring 
demonstration program and that developing this capacity and expertise 
will be important in the future for further establishing and building 
on both new and existing public and private partnerships for the 
development of affordable housing. I emphasize that nonprofits must be 
financially sound and have a demonstrated record in the area of 
affordable housing issues. I warn HUD to be very careful that sham 
nonprofits are not to be included, especially where a nonprofit is 
determined to be acting as a tool for the interests of some other 
entity.

  It also is expected that HUD and these public purpose designees will 
contract and subcontract with other entities, including private 
entities such as financial institutions and mortgage bankers and 
servicers, to enhance the expertise and capacity necessary to ensure 
that mortgaging restructurings are handled to the best advantage of the 
Federal Government, the project, the community, and the residents. It 
is hoped that these partnerships can be used to crossfertilize public 
and private approaches to low-income housing to create new strategies 
and leverage new funds for the preservation and creation of low-income 
affordable housing resources.
  The multifamily housing portfolio restructuring demonstration will 
provide HUD and the public agencies, and nonprofits, with a number of 
tools to restructure the FHA-insured mortgages and reduce the cost of 
section 8 project-based housing assistance. These tools include broad 
authority to restructure mortgages, including the forgiveness of 
mortgage indebtedness. For example, HUD could restructure a project 
mortgage so that a first mortgage would reflect the market value of a 
project while HUD holds a soft second on the remainder of the project 
debt. This would preserve the low-income character of the housing while 
reducing both the cost of the section 8 assistance and the risk of 
foreclosure. In exchange for mortgage restructuring, project owners 
would have to agree to preserve the housing as affordable for low-
income families in accordance with requirements established by the 
Department or a designee. These requirements shall be balanced to 
ensure the long-term economic viability of the housing.
  The demonstration also allows HUD to implement budget-based rents to 
squeeze out any inflated profits while covering the debt service, 
operating costs and a reasonable return to the owners of these 
federally assisted projects. The use of budget-based rents are intended 
to be flexible enough to ensure the preservation of unique and 
critically needed low-income housing projects, such as elderly projects 
in rural areas, projects designed to house large families, projects in 
localities with low vacancy rates, and projects with operating costs 
which exceed any comparable market rents. I emphasize that the 
Department should exercise a special sensitivity to certain projects, 
such as elderly projects in rural areas, that house a special 
population, especially where the availability of other affordable 
housing is questionable.

  The conference report has elected to focus the restructuring 
demonstration on projects with contract rents above 120 percent of the 
fair market rents. According to recent HUD estimates, section 8 
contracts affecting approximately 35,000 project-based assisted units 
will expire in fiscal year 1997. Of this amount, about 12,000 are 
assisted by HUD's section 8 new construction and substantial 
rehabilitation [NC/SR] programs. The program expects HUD to focus most 
of its mortgage restructuring efforts on the NC/SR assisted, or newer 
assisted portfolio since the costs of section 8 rental assistance 
attached to these properties are much greater than those assisted by 
HUD's section 8 loan management set aside [LMSA] program and the 
budgetary costs to maintain this inventory is greater. Therefore, the 
conference believes that greater budgetary savings will be realized on 
restructuring the newer assisted stock.

[[Page S11220]]

  Further, unlike rents on the newer assisted stock, section 8 contract 
rents on the older assisted stock are regulated on a budget-based 
process. As such, the rents are supposed to be set already at the 
minimum level necessary to meet operating and debt service expenses. 
Contract rents on the newer assisted stock also are higher than 
prevailing market rates due to the initial construction costs and 
automatic rent increases that have been provided during the term of the 
assistance contract regardless of operating needs. Finally, 
restructuring the debt on the older assisted portfolio would likely 
achieve only minimal section 8 subsidy savings since the UPB on the 
remaining mortgage is smaller than the UPB on the newer stock. For 
example, older assisted properties have an average UPB of $14,000 per 
unit compared to an average UPB of $35,000 per unit for newer assisted 
properties. Therefore, focusing on the older assisted properties for 
debt restructuring likely would not necessarily be cost-beneficial 
especially when considering the time and transaction costs of such a 
process.
  The conference bill also requires at least 75 percent of mortgages be 
restructured with FHA insurance. It is my belief that FHA mortgage 
insurance and other forms of credit enhancement are necessary for debt 
financing considering the short terms of section 8 contract renewals 
that are being provided in recent appropriation acts. Without long-term 
section 8 contracts, debt financing likely is to be difficult for 
restructured projects. If no insurance is provided when mortgages are 
restructured, debt restructuring costs also will be likely be higher, 
or mortgage debt discount deeper, than if the mortgages were 
restructured with insurance because private lenders would set the terms 
of the loans to reflect the risk of default. These projects could not 
have been built or financed without the original FHA mortgage insurance 
due to the inherent risks in developing low-income housing and the 
areas that these projects were built in.

  Nevertheless, I emphasize that the use of FHA mortgage insurance and 
other forms of credit enhancement should be explored carefully to 
minimize the default risk to the Federal Government. In some cases, 
mortgage insurance may not be necessary when owners can obtain 
reasonable financing without insurance. As a result, the demonstration 
program allows some discretion in exploring and creating new forms of 
credit enhancement that would reduce the default risk and credit 
subsidy costs to the Federal Government. The demonstration also 
includes the use of mortgage insurance under risk-sharing arrangements 
currently practiced under the mortgage risk-sharing programs enacted 
under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. Mortgage 
insurance under these risk-sharing arrangements would be encouraged by 
not applying the current statutory limitations on the number of units 
that can be made available for mortgage insurance under this program.
  There is also concern about the Department's plans to sell its 
benefits and burdens, including rights and obligations, under the FHA 
mortgage insurance program to public agencies as well as private 
entities. The demonstration permits HUD to sell to private entities the 
benefits and burdens of FHA multifamily mortgage insurance on up to 
5,000 units. While it is important to test various restructuring 
strategies under the demonstration, the Department needs to ensure that 
the housing be preserved as low income, with residents and owners not 
displaced because of any risks associated with this mortgage 
refinancing strategy.
  The demonstration also allows HUD to test the use of vouchers on up 
to 10 percent of the units in the demonstration so long as the owner 
agrees and the residents are consulted. As a further protection for 
residents, this strategy may only be implemented where it is determined 
that residents will be able to use successfully vouchers to obtain 
decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
  Finally, this demonstration is an interim step to a more 
comprehensive long-term solution to the preservation of section 8 
assisted housing. It is expected that the authorizing committee, 
consistent with hearings held by both the House and Senate authorizing 
committess, will consider reform of the section 8 mark-to-market 
inventory a priority for legislation during the next Congress.


                      mark-to-market demonstration

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bond for 
addressing the expiration of thousands of section 8 housing assistance 
contracts by including a FHA multifamily demonstration program in the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill. This demonstration program incorporates 
many of the major principles of S. 2042, the Multifamily Assisted 
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996, which I introduced last 
month along with Senators Bond, D'Amato, and Bennett. However, the 
success of the demonstration program depends on HUD's implementation. I 
would like to ask Senator Bond a few questions to clarify the intent of 
the legislation.
  First, the demonstration program would allow the Secretary to use 
nonprofit entities as ``designees'' to carry out the functions and 
responsibilities of portfolio restructuring. Athough I believe that 
there are legitimate and qualified nonprofits who could be used as 
restructuring entities, I am concerned about the use of nonprofits that 
do not have the support of the local community or residents. How does 
the demonstration program address ``sham'' nonprofits?
  Mr. BOND. I share the Senator's concern and believe that the 
demonstration authority does address ``sham'' nonprofits. Specifically, 
the demonstration requires the Secretary to select only these entities 
that have a long-term record of service in providing low-income housing 
and meet standards of fiscal responsibility. I expect HUD to issue 
detailed guidelines on what would constitute a qualified ``designee'' 
whether it is a nonprofit or public entity.
  Mr. MACK. My second concern is about the Department's capacity to 
restructure up to 50,000 units in the demonstration program. Numerous 
studies by the HUD IG and GAO and statements by HUD officials 
themselves have indicated that there are serious capacity problems in 
the multifamily housing area at HUD. HUD's response to these problems 
is to liquidate the inventory through sales of HUD-held and guaranteed 
mortgages to Wall Street investors. S. 2042, however, would protect the 
Federal Government's affordable housing investment by transferring the 
portfolio management responsibilities to publicly accountable entities 
such as State and local housing finance agencies. How does the 
demonstration program address these issues?
  Mr. BOND. The demonstration program is significantly based on S. 
2042. Like S. 2042, the demonstration program addresses the 
Department's capacity constraints by requiring HUD to form arrangements 
with qualified third party public entities. The demonstration program 
assumes that the participation of public entities such as State and 
local housing finance agencies will be encouraged and utilized to the 
fullest extent possible by HUD. In response to the Senator's concern 
about HUD's liquidation policy, the demonstration does allow HUD to 
transfer or sell up to 5,000 units of HUD mortgages to private sector 
parties. This provision is not intended to be used as means of 
liquidating the housing stock. Instead, the intent is to test the 
efficiency and effectiveness of using private sector entities to 
preserve the affordable housing stock at the lowest possible cost to 
the American taxpayer while recognizing the impact on communities and 
owners.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you again for your work and dedication to this issue 
and for considering the views of the authorizing committee in the 
demonstration program.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's support and work on this issue, 
and I look forward to our continued cooperative effort to develop a 
comprehensive portfolio restructuring program early next year.


                      Section 8 Contract Renewals

  Mr. GREGG. I have a question for the chairman Senator Bond. I 
congratulate him for tackling the difficult problem of renewal of 
section 8 contracts in a comprehensive manner, providing for renewal of 
all contracts with rents less than 120 percent of fair market rent at 
the existing contract rent and permitting FHA-insured projects with 
rents

[[Page S11221]]

over 120 percent of fair market rents either to accept rents at 120 
percent of fair market rents, or to enter the demonstration. The 
Senator also permits projects financed or insured by State or local 
agencies, or under section 202, 811, and 515, to be renewed at current 
rents. However, there is an omission, with regard to conventionally 
financed contracts with rents over 120 percent of fair market rent, 
which are not explicitly covered by the legislation.
  Many of these projects, including some in New Hampshire, were 
developed in the early years of section 8, and I assume that the 
conferees did not intend to exclude them.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. Under present law, namely section 
405(a) of the Balanced Budget Down Payments Act I, HUD has the 
authority to renew conventionally-financed section 8 contracts at up to 
120 percent of fair market rents. Indeed, in August HUD sent out a 
memorandum stating that it would renew such contracts at rents not in 
excess of 120 percent of Fair Market Rent. Nothing in this year's 
appropriations bill withdraws HUD's authority under section 405(a) to 
renew such contracts. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the legal opinion by Judge Diaz, the General Counsel for HUD, 
which confirms this analysis.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U.S. Department of Housing and


                                            Urban Development,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.
     Memorandum to: Nicolas P. Retsinas, Assistant Secretary for 
         Housing--FEA Commissioner.
     From: Nelson A. Diaz, General Counsel.
     Subject: Expiring project-based section 8 contracts on 
         noninsured multifamily housing projects.

       This memorandum is in response to your request for an 
     opinion from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) regarding 
     the legal authority to renew expiring project-based section 8 
     contracts on noninsured multifamily projects which have rents 
     greater than 120% of the fair market rent.
       Under Section 408(a) of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act 
     I, HUD has the authority to renew conventionally-financed 
     section 9 contracts at up to 120% of the fair market rents. 
     This position was set forth in HUD Notice H 96-74, entitled 
     Project-Based section 8 Contracts Expiring in Fiscal Year 
     1997, issued on August 28, 1996. As it is currently composed 
     in the draft before us on September 23, 1996, it is OGC's 
     opinion that nothing in this year's proposed appropriation 
     bill withdraws HUD's authority under 405(a) to enter into 
     project-based maintenance contracts on those non-FHA insured 
     projects whose expiring contract rents exceed 120% of the 
     fair market rents for the market area in which the projects 
     are located.


                            section 8 rents

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am concerned that this legislation 
does not adequately address the circumstances faced by certain unique 
properties. Specifically, I am worried about situations where the 
current section 8 rents exceed the fair market rents set by HUD by more 
than 120 percent, but are below the comparable market rents. If HUD 
cannot renew these contracts at current rents, the low and moderate-
income residents of these properties may quickly find themselves 
without a decent place to live, especially in tight housing market such 
as we have in northern New Jersey. In this situation, I fear that an 
owner may have little choice other than to terminate the leases and 
rent the property to people who are willing to pay the real market 
rent. I do not believe that we have provided any sort of inducement for 
the owner of this type of property to continue to house low and 
moderate income people, many of whom may be elderly. Sticky vouchers 
would have been a very good solution to this problem. However, I have 
been advised by staff that the budget-based rent provisions under the 
demonstration address my concerns. I would like to be assured that this 
is, in fact, the case.
  Mr. BOND. I would like to assure my colleague that the budget-based 
rent provisions can be used to address the concerns you raise. Under 
the budget-based rent provisions, the owner of unique property located 
in a tight housing market which houses elderly families and where the 
market rates are greater than the current contract rents and the rents 
are in excess of 120 percent of the FMR, could be provided with a 
contract renewal at the current contract rent level for 1 year. Also, 
Congress should look at the use of sticky vouchers in the future.
  Mr. LAUTENBURG. So the budget-based rent provision is not limited to 
properties where the operating costs exceed comparable market rents?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct. Properties where the operating costs 
exceed the comparable market rents are eligible for the budget-based 
rent provisions, but eligibility for budget-based rents is not limited 
to such properties. I emphasize that the mark-to-market demonstration 
is designed to ensure that HUD is particularly sensitive to the need to 
preserve existing low-income housing for the elderly and disabled.
  Mr. LAUTENBURG. What would induce an owner of the type of property I 
described to continue to keep the property as an affordable housing 
resource?
  Mr. BOND. The owner could be induced to continue to keep the property 
as an affordable housing resource by allowing the owner an adequate 
return on equity.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the calculation of an adequate return on equity 
take into account the true market value of the property in unique 
circumstances such as the one I have described?
  Mr. BOND. The Secretary would have the discretion to determine an 
adequate return on equity in this way if he so chose.


                   section 8 housing for the elderly

  Mr. KERREY. I am very concerned that in Nebraska and its neighboring 
States, section 8 projects for the elderly will be disadvantaged under 
the language in the conference report, unless a special effort is made 
to preserve them. Fair market rents in these areas for zero and 1-
bedroom apartments are low which cause high rents necessary to sustain 
section 8 projects with appropriate services for the elderly. These 
projects often have elevators, additional facilities for food, 
recreation and services, and extra management services such as 24-hour-
in-house staff. They are above the 120 percent of FMR threshold for 
renewal at current rents. In order to bring these project rents down to 
FMR, all or most of the debt services would have to be eliminated. Debt 
reduction of this magnitude would most certainly give rise to 
significant tax liabilities. Is it your intent that debt restructuring 
occur?
  Mr. BOND. The legislation is intended to preserve section 8 housing 
for the elderly and special populations. While debt restructuring may 
be unnecessary in most cases, it may be advantageous in some. 
Therefore, the chairman's intent is for HUD to review carefully each 
case and limit the use of debt restructuring to those rare cases where 
it is most advantageous. Furthermore, in any calculation HUD uses in 
determining the market rent for these projects, HUD must include 
compensation to cover services that meet the unique needs of the 
elderly and special populations.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would ask that the chairman clarify his intentions on 
the limitations placed on HUD when considering debt restructuring.
  Mr. BOND. HUD is instructed to use a three-pronged approach in 
determining whether the debt should be restructured. First, no tenants 
should be displaced. Second, the owners should not be forced to sell 
the project. Third, owners should not be subject to significant tax 
liability.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the chairman and look forward to assisting in the 
oversight of the implementation of these legislative provisions.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would also like to thank the chairman. It is 
increasingly important that we preserve these projects for the elderly, 
especially in rural areas.


                      section 8 contract renewals

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Cohen and I have been working 
extensively with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
and the Maine State Housing Authority to clarify the status and 
handling of contracts for 17 housing projects in Maine that were 
originally subsidized under section 23 and were later converted to 
section 8. We would like to confirm that these housing projects meet 
the definition of ``project-based'' as defined under paragraph (5), 
section 21 of the housing appropriations bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, of these housing projects, all of which 
receive

[[Page S11222]]

project-based assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 14 are financed through the Maine State Housing Authority. 
None of them are FHA-insured. We would like to further confirm our 
understanding that the project-based contracts for these particular 
housing projects will be renewed for 1-year at the current rent level 
under the terms and conditions of paragraph (2), section 211 of the 
housing appropriations bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Maine is absolutely 
right.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Bond, for incorporating report language 
clarifying that Congress does not intend for the Fair Housing Act to 
apply to property insurance. HUD's assertion of authority over the 
conduct of the property insurance market overreaches, and in fact 
contradicts, congressional intent as reflected in the plain language 
and legislative history of the Fair Housing Act.
  HUD's attempt to regulate the business of insurance, notwithstanding 
the lack of any reference to property insurance in the Fair Housing Act 
or its legislative history, also contradicts the statutory mandate of 
the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which requires that, unless a 
Federal law ``specifically relates to the business of insurance,'' that 
law shall not apply where it would ``invalidate, impair or supersede'' 
State law. HUD's assumption of authority to regulate property insurance 
has the practical effect of invalidating, impairing and superseding the 
State laws which prohibit unfair discrimination by insurers, and it is 
the type of duplicative regulation which Congress sought to avoid 
through McCarran-Ferguson.
  We should not tolerate illegal discriminatory practices by anyone 
involved in the real estate market. However, every State provides 
recourse for addressing complaints of unfair discrimination by 
insurers. There is no need for HUD, which currently has difficulty 
meeting its statutory mandates, to step into the shoes of State 
regulators to create a Federal regulatory regime without clear 
justification or authority.


                     PROPERTY INSURANCE REGULATION

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I am 
fundamentally and adamantly opposed to discrimination in any form, 
including discrimination in the provision of property insurance. 
Nevertheless, I believe that HUD has no authority under the Fair 
Housing Act to regulate the practices of the insurance industry, 
including practices related to the provision of property insurance. 
Moreover, HUD does not have the capacity or ability to address 
discrimination issues in the practices of the insurance industry, and 
any attempts to establish and enforce standards are likely to result in 
confusion and questionable actions.
  The purpose of both the Senate and House committee reports to the VA/
HUD fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill is to ask HUD to focus its 
fair housing resources of $30 million toward activities designed to 
fight discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.
  These are limited resources and the committee report language in both 
House and Senate reports is designed to ensure that this funding is 
used in a comprehensive and focused manner to fight housing 
discrimination.
  Furthermore, while the courts have not always been consistent in the 
application of the Fair Housing Act, I believe Congress has made it 
clear that the regulation of property insurance is outside the scope of 
the Fair Housing Act and is contrary to the intent of the MacCarran-
Ferguson Act which states that the responsibility for insurance 
matters, including property insurance, is the responsibility of the 
States. The Fair Housing Act says nothing about Federal action with 
regard to discrimination in the provision of property insurance.
  In fact, the legislative history of the Fair Housing Act indicates 
that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to insurance. Notably, in the 
Senate floor debate on the 1980 amendments to the Fair Housing Act, 
Senator Heflin stated that it was * * *

       * * *the decision of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
     acquiesced in by the full Senate Judiciary Committee, to 
     leave the regulation and oversight of the property insurance 
     business to the States and to reject extension of [the Fair 
     Housing Act] to that business.

  HUD's property insurance activities are wholly unwarranted. Every 
State and the District of Columbia have laws and regulations addressing 
unfair discrimination in property insurance. We need to avoid 
duplication of effort and also avoid the risk of creating new and 
different standards that will be confusing and administratively 
burdensome. The House and Senate reports to the VA/HUD fiscal year 1997 
Appropriations Act are identical on the issue of fair housing and 
property insurance, and are designed to state the understanding of the 
House and Senate that HUD should not intrude upon the responsibilities 
of the States with regard to the regulation of insurance, including 
property insurance.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on September 5, 1996, several senators 
expressed concern about language regarding property insurance 
activities by HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 
contained in the committee report accompanying the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriation bill.
  For some time now, HUD has claimed it has jurisdiction under the Fair 
Housing Act to investigate complaints about alleged insurance redlining 
practices. Statements have been made that the committee report language 
is an effort to somehow exempt the insurance industry from civil rights 
enforcement. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about 
civil rights. It is about regulation.
  Congress never intended to apply the Fair Housing Act to property 
insurance for the simple reason that the insurance industry is subject 
to State regulation under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. It is for this 
reason that the Congress chose specifically not to include the sale or 
underwriting of insurance under the Fair Housing Act.
  HUD's enforcement and regulatory activities regarding property 
insurance is clearly a waste of resources because it duplicates State 
laws and regulations. Virtually every State and the District of 
Columbia have laws or regulations governing unfair discriminatory 
practices by insurance companies. States are actively investigating and 
addressing discrimination where it is found to occur. HUD is just 
adding another wasteful and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
  Congress faces many hard choices in working to fulfill its commitment 
to eliminate unnecessary Federal spending and red tape. With respect to 
HUD, Congress must determine how to preserve essential programs while 
creating a more efficient Federal Government and reduce the budget 
deficit. If there is one area of Federal spending where Congress need 
not struggle to determine whether cutbacks are appropriate, it is HUD's 
activities regarding property insurance.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about HUD's 
attempts over the past few years to regulate property insurance under 
the Fair Housing Act. Let me state for the record that I am committed 
to strict enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and its prohibitions 
against discrimination in housing.
  The Fair Housing Act is one of the basic tenets of our country's 
civil rights laws. Where outright discrimination in housing is found, 
enforcement must be swift and strong.
  However, my concerns stem from two issues. First, HUD lacks the 
authority to regulate property insurance. Second, regulation of 
property insurance is already being done by the States.
  The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful ``to discriminate against any 
person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a 
home . . . Because of race.'' The language goes on to refer to the 
services provided by mortgage bankers and real estate brokers. Nowhere 
in the language does the act refer to property insurance. The Fair 
Housing Act does not specifically relate to the business of insurance. 
Courts have held that Congress never intended the Fair Housing Act to 
apply to insurance. HUD is clearly overstepping its authority by 
pursuing any regulation in this area. In fact, it spent hundreds of 
thousands of dollars on outside legal help to write this regulation 
because the legal basis for doing so was so tenuous.

[[Page S11223]]

  By pursuing this issue, HUD is assuming that States have not been 
doing anything in this area. That assumption is wrong. All 50 States 
and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes or regulations, or 
both, that address unfair discrimination in insurance practices, 
violations of civil rights or which permit insurance departments to 
investigate unfair trade practices. I will submit for the record a 
compilation of some of these State statutes or regulations governing 
unfair discrimination in insurance. States are active in investigating 
discrimination. There is strong protection against illegal 
discrimination. HUD's actions only add another unnecessary layer of 
Federal bureaucracy.
  This is just another example of HUD trying to assert more Federal 
power and more Federal control in an area traditionally under the 
domain of the States. HUD has shown, over the more than 30 years that 
the department has been in existence, that it cannot perform well those 
programs that are under its administration. What case can be made for 
HUD to take on yet another program. HUD is a failure. Regulation of 
property insurance is not within HUD's authority, and every effort 
should be made to keep HUD out of this area.
  I ask unanimous consent that a representative sample of State 
statutes or regulations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             STATE LAWS GOVERNING UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION IN INSURANCE                            
   [Below is a compilation of laws and regulations in the 50 states and the District of Columbia which address  
 unfair discrimination in insurance practices, violations of civil rights, or which permit insurance departments
   to investigate unfair trade practices. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes or   
 regulations, or both, to address these issues. Except where otherwise indicated, all citations are to insurance
                                              codes or regulations]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State: Citation and chapter/section heading                             Relevant text                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:                                                                                                        
    Trade Practices Law: Sec.  27-12-2; Sec.  27-12-21...........  No person shall engage in this state in any  
                                                                    trade practice which is . . . determined [by
                                                                    the Commissioner] to be an unfair method of 
                                                                    competition or an unfair or deceptive act or
                                                                    practice in the business of insurance.      
    Rates and Rate Organizations: Sec.  27-13-1; Sec.  27-13-65..  Every rating organization and every insurer  
                                                                    which makes its own rates shall make rates  
                                                                    that are not unreasonably high or inadequate
                                                                    for the safety and soundness of the insurer 
                                                                    and which do not unfairly discriminate      
                                                                    between risks in this state . . .           
Arkansas:                                                                                                       
    Trade Practices: Sec.  23-66-205; Sec.  23-66-206(7).........  Prohibited unfair competition or unfair or   
                                                                    deceptive acts or practices include the     
                                                                    following:                                  
                                                                   (C) Making or permitting any unfair          
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class and of essentially the    
                                                                    same hazards by refusing to issue, refusing 
                                                                    to renew, canceling, or limiting the amount 
                                                                    of insurance coverage on a property or      
                                                                    casualty risk because of the geographic     
                                                                    location of the risk, unless:               
                                                                      (i) The refusal, cancellation, or         
                                                                       limitation is for a business purpose     
                                                                       which is not a mere pretext for unfair   
                                                                       discrimination; or                       
                                                                      (ii) The refusal, cancellation, or        
                                                                       limitation is required by law or         
                                                                       regulatory mandate.                      
                                                                   (D) Making or permitting any unfair          
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class and of essentially the    
                                                                    same hazards by refusing to issue, refusing 
                                                                    to renew, canceling, or limiting the amount 
                                                                    of insurance coverage on a residential      
                                                                    property risk or on the personal property   
                                                                    contained therein because of the age of the 
                                                                    residential property, unless:               
                                                                      (i) The refusal, cancellation, or         
                                                                       limitation is for a business purpose     
                                                                       which is not a mere pretext for unfair   
                                                                       discrimination; or                       
                                                                      (ii) The refusal, cancellation, or        
                                                                       limitation is required by law or         
                                                                       regulatory mandate.                      
    Rates and Rating Organizations: Sec.  23-67-201; Sec.  23-67-  (a) [Insurance] rates shall not be excessive,
     208.                                                           inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.     
California:                                                                                                     
    Prohibition of Discriminatory Practices by Certain Admitted    No admitted insurer shall fail or refuse to  
     Insurers: Sec.  679.71.                                        accept an application for, or to issue a    
                                                                    policy to an applicant, or cancel insurance,
                                                                    under conditions less favorable to the      
                                                                    insured than in other comparable cases,     
                                                                    except for reasons applicable alike to      
                                                                    persons of every marital status, sex, race, 
                                                                    color, religion, national origin, or        
                                                                    ancestry; nor shall sex, race, color,       
                                                                    religion, national origin, or ancestry      
                                                                    itself constitute a condition or risk for   
                                                                    which a higher rate, premium, or charge may 
                                                                    be required of the insured for such         
                                                                    insurance.                                  
    CA Code of Regulations (CCR): Sec.  2646.6...................  Requires insurers to collect and submit      
                                                                    comprehensive insurance premium/exposure,   
                                                                    marketing and customer demographic data by  
                                                                    geographical area on an annual basis to the 
                                                                    Department of Insurance.                    
District of Columbia:                                                                                           
    Fire, Casualty, and Marine Insurance: Sec.  35-1533..........  Discrimination between individual risks of   
                                                                    the same class or hazard in the amount of   
                                                                    premiums or rates charged for any policy, or
                                                                    in the benefits or amount of insurance      
                                                                    payable thereon, or in any of the terms or  
                                                                    conditions of such policy, or in any other  
                                                                    manner whatsoever, is prohibited, and the   
                                                                    Superintendent is empowered after           
                                                                    investigation to order removed at such time 
                                                                    and in such manner as he shall specify any  
                                                                    such discrimination which his investigation 
                                                                    may reveal.                                 
    Regulation of Casualty and Other Insurance Rates: Sec.  35-    (a) Rates for insurance within the scope of  
     1703.                                                          this chapter shall not be excessive,        
                                                                    inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.     
Georgia:                                                                                                        
    Unfair Trade Practices: Sec.  33-6-3; Sec.  33-6-4(b)(A)(iii)  Prohibited unfair methods of competition and 
                                                                    unfair and deceptive acts or practices in   
                                                                    the business of insurance include the       
                                                                    following:                                  
                                                                   (A)(iii) Making or permitting any unfair     
                                                                    discrimination in the issuance, renewal, or 
                                                                    cancellation of any policy or contract of   
                                                                    insurance against direct loss to residual   
                                                                    property and the contents thereof, in the   
                                                                    amount of premium, policy fees, or rates    
                                                                    charged for the policies or contracts when  
                                                                    the discrimination is solely based upon the 
                                                                    age or geographical location of the property
                                                                    within a rated fire without regard to       
                                                                    objective loss experience relating thereto. 
    Regulation of Rates, Underwriting Rules, and Related           (1) [Insurance] rates shall not be excessive 
     Organizations: Sec.  33-9-1; Sec.  33-9-4.                     or inadequate, as defined in this Code      
                                                                    section, nor shall they be unfairly         
                                                                    discriminatory.                             
    GA Regulations: 120-2-65; 120-2-66...........................  Prohibitive underwriting guidelines for      
                                                                    automobile insurance. Prohibitive           
                                                                    underwriting guidelines for property        
                                                                    insurance.                                  
Illinois:                                                                                                       
    Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair and Deceptive Acts    Prohibited unfair methods of competition or  
     and Practices: 215 ILCS 5/423; 215 ILCS 5/424; 215 ILCS 5/     unfair and deceptive acts or practices      
     155.22.                                                        include the following:                      
                                                                   (3) Making or permitting, in the case of     
                                                                    insurance of the types enumerated in classes
                                                                    2 and 3 of section 4, any unfair            
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class or of essentially the same
                                                                    hazard and expense element because of the   
                                                                    race, color, religion or national origin of 
                                                                    such insurance risks or applicant.          
                                                                   No company authorized to transact in this    
                                                                    State the kinds of business described in    
                                                                    Classes 2 and 3 of Section 4,\1\ and no     
                                                                    officer, director, agent, clerk, employee or
                                                                    broker of such company shall upon proper    
                                                                    application refuse to provide insurance     
                                                                    solely on the basis of the specific         
                                                                    geographic location of the risk sought to be
                                                                    insured unless such refusal is for a        
                                                                    business purpose which is not a mere pretext
                                                                    for unfair discrimination.                  
Louisiana:                                                                                                      
    Unfair Trade Practices: Sec.  22.1213; Sec.  22:1214(7)......  Prohibited unfair methods of competition in  
                                                                    the business of insurance include the       
                                                                    following:                                  
                                                                   (7)(d) Making or permitting any unfair       
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class and of essentially the    
                                                                    same hazard by refusing to insure, refusing 
                                                                    to renew, cancelling, or limiting the amount
                                                                    of insurance coverage on a property or      
                                                                    casualty risk solely because of the         
                                                                    geographic location of the risk, unless such
                                                                    action is a result of the application of    
                                                                    sound underwriting and actuarial principles 
                                                                    related to actual or reasonably anticipated 
                                                                    loss experience;                            
                                                                   (e) Making or permitting any unfair          
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class and of essentially the    
                                                                    same hazards by refusing to insure, refusing
                                                                    to renew, canceling, or limiting the amount 
                                                                    of insurance coverage on the residential    
                                                                    property risk, or the personal property     
                                                                    contained therein, solely because of the age
                                                                    of the residential property;                
                                                                   (f) Refusing to insure, refusing to continue 
                                                                    to insure or limiting the amount of coverage
                                                                    available to an individual solely because of
                                                                    the sex, marital status, race, religion, or 
                                                                    national origin of the individual. However, 
                                                                    nothing in this Subsection shall prohibit an
                                                                    insurer from taking marital status into     
                                                                    account for the purpose of defining persons 
                                                                    eligible for dependent benefits. Nothing in 
                                                                    this Section shall prohibit or limit the    
                                                                    operation of fraternal benefit societies.   
    Sec.  22:652.................................................  No insurer shall make or permit any unfair   
                                                                    discrimination in favor of particular       
                                                                    individuals or persons, or between insureds 
                                                                    or subjects of insurance having             
                                                                    substantially like insuring risk and        
                                                                    exposure factors, or expense elements, in   
                                                                    the terms or conditions of any insurance    
                                                                    contract, or in the rate of amount of       
                                                                    premium charged therefor, or in the benefits
                                                                    payable or in any other rights or privileges
                                                                    accruing thereunder . . .                   
    Loisiana Insurance Rating Commission and Rate Regulation:      (2) [Insurance] rates shall not be excessive,
     Sec.  1402; Sec.  1404.                                        inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.      
New York:                                                                                                       
    Unfair Claim Settlement Practices; Other Misconduct;           (a) . . . no individual or entity subject to 
     Discrimination: Sec.  2606.                                    the supervision of the superintendent shall 
                                                                    because of race, color, creed or national   
                                                                    origin: (1) Make any distinction or         
                                                                    discrimination between persons as to the    
                                                                    premiums or rates charged for insurance     
                                                                    policies or in any other manner whatever.   
                                                                    (2) Demand or require a greater premium from
                                                                    any persons than it requires at that time   
                                                                    from others in similar cases.               
                                                                   (b) . . . no individual or entity subject to 
                                                                    the superintendent's supervision shall      
                                                                    solely because of the applicant's race,     
                                                                    color, creed or national origin: (1) Reject 
                                                                    any application for a policy of insurance   
                                                                    issued and/or sold by it. (2) Refuse to     
                                                                    issue, renew or sell such policy after      
                                                                    appropriate application therefor.           
    Sec.  2607...................................................  No individual or entity shall refuse to issue
                                                                    any policy of insurance, or cancel or       
                                                                    decline to renew such policy because of the 
                                                                    sex or marital status of the applicant or   
                                                                    policyholder.                               
    Property/Casualty Insurance Rates: Sec.  2301; Sec.  2303....  Rates shall not be excessive, inadequate,    
                                                                    unfairly discriminatory, destructive of     
                                                                    competition or detrimental to the solvency  
                                                                    of insurers.                                
North Carolina:                                                                                                 
    Unfair Trade Practices: Sec.  58-63-10; Sec.  58-63-15(7)....  Prohibited acts of unfair discrimination     
                                                                    include:                                    
                                                                   (7)c. Making or permitting any unfair        
                                                                    discrimination between or among individuals 
                                                                    or risks of the same class and of           
                                                                    essentially the same hazards by refusing to 
                                                                    issue, refusing to renew, canceling, or     
                                                                    limiting the amount of insurance coverage on
                                                                    a property or casualty risk because of the  
                                                                    geographic location of the risk, unless:    
                                                                   1. The refusal or limitation is for the      
                                                                    purpose of preserving the solvency of the   
                                                                    insurer and is not a mere pretext for unfair
                                                                    discrimination or                           
                                                                   2. The refusal, cancellation, or limitation  
                                                                    is required by law.                         
                                                                   d. Making or permitting any unfair           
                                                                    discrimination between or among individuals 
                                                                    or risks of the same class and of           
                                                                    essentially the same hazard by refusing to  
                                                                    issue, refusing to renew, canceling, or     
                                                                    limiting the amount of insurance coverage on
                                                                    a residential property risk, or the personal
                                                                    property contained therein, because of the  
                                                                    age of the residential property, unless:    
                                                                      1. The refusal or limitation is for the   
                                                                       purpose of preserving the solvency of the
                                                                       insurer and is not a mere pretext for    
                                                                       unfair discrimination, or                
                                                                      2. The refusal, cancellation, or          
                                                                       limitation is required by law.           

[[Page S11224]]

                                                                                                                
    Regulation of Insurance Rates: Sec.  58-40-1; Sec.  58-40-20.  (a) In order to serve the public interest,   
                                                                    rates shall not be excessive, inadequate or 
                                                                    unfairly discriminatory.                    
Texas:                                                                                                          
    Misrepresentation and Discrimination: Art. 21.21 sec. 3; Art.  Prohibited acts of unfair discrimination     
     21.21 sec. 4.                                                  include:                                    
                                                                   (7)(c) Making or permitting any unfair       
                                                                    discrimination between individuals or risks 
                                                                    of the same class and of essentially the    
                                                                    same hazards by refusing to renew, canceling
                                                                    or limiting the amount of coverage on a     
                                                                    policy of insurance covered by Subchapter C,
                                                                    Chapter 4, of this code because of the      
                                                                    geographic location of the risk unless:     
                                                                      (1) the refusal, cancellation or          
                                                                       limitation is for a business purpose that
                                                                       is not a mere pretext for unfair         
                                                                       discrimination; or                       
                                                                      (2) the refusal, cancellation or          
                                                                       limitation is required by law or         
                                                                       regulatory mandate.                      
    Casualty Insurance and Fidelity, Guaranty and Surety Bonds:    (3) Rates shall be reasonable, adequate, not 
     Art. 5.14.                                                     unfairly discriminatory.                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 215 ILCS 5/4.                                                                                               

                    fair housing initiative program

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, during consideration of the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill on September 5, 1996, several 
of my colleagues made statements about language contained in the report 
accompanying the bill that directs HUD to expend the limited funds 
available for the Fair Housing Initiative Program [FHIP] only on such 
forms of discrimination as are explicitly identified under title VIII 
of the Civil Rights Act.
  The Fair Housing Act makes no mention of property insurance. A 
reading of the legislative history of the act will disclose that 
Congress intentionally left out property insurance because insurance is 
a State regulated activity. Since the States regulate property 
insurance and have laws and regulations addressing unfair 
discrimination in property insurance, it was our conclusion that this 
is one area where HUD does not need to expend its resources.
  Moreover, the report language was included in response to testimony 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development stating it had 
limited resources available for the FHIP Program. It was our thought 
that HUD should use its limited resources to address only those areas 
specifically mentioned in the law that include the sale, rental, and 
financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services.
  Throughout all of its efforts and funding of outside groups to 
investigate insurance practices, it is interesting that neither HUD nor 
the private groups it funds with public money have been able to produce 
one individual who has failed to purchase a home because insurance was 
denied to that person. So much for ``no insurance, no loan, no house.''
  In a statement released September 11, 1995, Max Boozell, the Illinois 
director of insurance, stated,

       I am very disturbed by the contention that major homeowner 
     insurance companies are redlining in Chicago. To the 
     contrary, our 1994 study of homeowners insurance not only 
     reflects a healthy, viable urban insurance market in 
     Illinois, but provides no hard evidence of institutional 
     redlining by any Illinois insurer.

  Nor is this a civil rights debate as many would have us believe. 
Activities of the Justice Department under the Fair Housing Act have 
not been curtailed, nor does the inclusion of this report language 
impact the application to property insurance practices of section 1981 
of the U.S. Code, which prohibits racial discrimination in the 
provision of insurance and other services under contract.
  Nowhere in the Fair Housing Act is property insurance mentioned. More 
than 50 years ago, Congress wisely decided that, in the area of 
insurance regulation, the States should be spared Federal interference. 
Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, Congress explicitly provided 
that, unless a Federal law ``specifically relates to the business of 
insurance,'' that law shall not be deemed applicable to insurance 
practices. By applying the Fair Housing Act to insurance, HUD simply 
disregards the fact that the law does not ``specifically relate to the 
business of insurance.''
  Mr. President, the courts are divided on this issue. It was 
disappointing that the Supreme Court failed to grant certiorari in the 
case of Nationwide Mutual versus Cisneros. The Court could have 
resolved the conflict that now exists in 2 circuits out of our 13 
Federal circuit courts. The two courts that have found that the Fair 
Housing Act applies to property insurance practices have relied on 
HUD's regulations, which, without any statutory authority, refer to 
discrimination in property insurance. In other words, HUD did not have 
a law, so the bureaucrats got to work and created one through 
regulations.
  There is simply no justification for HUD continuing to expend funds 
for insurance regulatory activities that duplicate comprehensive State 
regulation at the expense of the American taxpayer. HUD would do better 
to work within the framework of the law with its limited resources.


             OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the conference report to H.R. 3666, the VA/
HUD Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act, included an amendment by 
Senator Bennett, that requires GAO to audit the operations of the 
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO] concerning staff 
organization, expertise, capacity, and contracting authority to ensure 
that the resources are adequate and that they are being used 
appropriately to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately 
capitalized and operating safely. As Senator Bennett previously 
advised, OFHEO is over 2 years behind in developing risk-based capital 
standards which are intended to ensure the financial safety and 
soundness of these Government-sponsored entities. Senator Bennett 
further advised that OFHEO needs to refocus its activities, away from 
such activities as trips abroad, to ensure that these critically needed 
risk-based capital standards are developed and operative.
  I also am very concerned over OFHEO's lapse in its responsibility for 
the timely development of these risk-based capital standards, and I 
urge OFHEO to expedite these necessary rulemaking requirements. I also 
advise that the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
established OFHEO as an independent office in HUD and not as a new 
Federal agency. Nevertheless, in a time of Government downsizing, OFHEO 
continues to request additional staff and funding, while focusing on 
activities other than its primary responsibility to promulgate 
financial safety and soundness rules.
  The 1992 housing bill, which I worked on, intended OFHEO, as a 
practical matter, to be a tripwire to alert Congress and the Nation to 
any significant financial risks that may be confronting Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. This is a critically important function and OFHEO's 
primary function--I do not think that anyone intends or expects OFHEO 
to become a new agency or act as a political entity. I expect the GAO 
audit to lend some perspective to OFHEO's purpose, its ability to 
perform its purpose, and recommend ways to streamline and ensure 
OFHEO's capacity and expertise will meet its rulemaking and regulatory 
functions.


                 drinking water health effects research

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, since completion of the VA-HUD conference, 
some confusion has arisen as to funding of drinking water health 
effects research. First, let me state unequivocally that I strongly 
support funding for drinking water health effects research to ensure 
that rules governing drinking water quality are based on the best 
science and result in cost-effective protection of public health. As a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I advocated 
amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to change the standard setting 
process and improve the scientific basis for regulations.
  As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I have worked to fund fully the new State revolving fund 
program for the construction of drinking water plants. The conference 
report before us includes $1.275 billion--$550 million as requested by 
the President, and

[[Page S11225]]

an additional $725 million to restore funds previously appropriated for 
this program but released last month for clean water SRF's.
  Unfortunately, delays in enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendments precluded in VA-HUD subcommittee's consideration of the many 
additional funding requirements associated with implementation of this 
legislation.
  However, the conference agreement acknowledges that the new 
legislation will require resources, and states ``the conferees expect 
EPA to address any funding requirements for implementation of [this] 
important statute, such as drinking water health effects research, in 
the agency's operating plan.''
  Funding for drinking water health effects research--outside of the 
amounts included in the science and technology account--was not in 
either House or Senate version of the VA-HUD bill, and hence was not an 
issue in conference. While I object to off-the-top setasides from State 
revolving funds, I fully support funding for health effects research 
from the science and technology account, which funds all of EPA's 
research activities. Should EPA propose to increase the relative 
priority for health effects research as part of its operating plan, and 
request additional funding for such research within the $542 million 
appropriated for science and technology, it is my expectation that this 
would be favorably received.
  In conclusion, I encourage EPA to consider carefully the funding 
requirements associated with this new legislation, and propose a 
redirection of funds for these important activities within the $6.7 
billion fiscal year 1997 appropriation.


                coordinated tribal water quality program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the subcommittee for its 
hard and diligent work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate the 
earmark of $500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program 
for fiscal year 1997.
  This program began in 1990 when the 26 tribes and tribal 
organizations in Washington State came together with a cooperative 
intergovernmental strategy to accomplish national clean water goals. As 
a result of Federal court decisions, the State of Washington has 
recognized the tribes as comanagers of water quality in the State. This 
program has been an effective tool for leveraging scarce public funds 
to create viable, watershed-based water quality protection plans.
  It is my understanding that the $500,000 earmark in the committee 
report is not intended to preclude the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality 
Program from receiving the needed additional $2 million from the 
Environmental Protection Agency's existing funds under section 104(b)3 
of the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct. The 
earmark is intended to be a floor from which the EPA may supplement the 
Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program. The additional funding will 
allow the tribes to fulfill their roles as comanagers of water quality 
in Washington State.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished Chairman for this 
clarification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, having 
been received, the conference report is agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider is tabled.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________