[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11415-S11417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         VA/HUD APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on the night of September 24, the Senate 
very quickly took up and passed by unanimous consent the Veterans 
Administration/Housing and Urban Development/Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997. Because it was not possible 
for me to comment on the bill at that time, I would like to do so 
today.
  Mr. President, there is much to commend this bill, but there are a 
few glaring faults. I will focus first on the positive features.
  Part of the good news is that the bill provides level funding for the 
HOME and CDBG programs. These are two of HUD's model programs that 
provide an appropriate mix of local flexibility within federal 
priorities.
  I am also particularly pleased that the final conference agreement 
includes a provision that I sponsored in the Senate with Senator 
Dominici to provide $50 million for vouchers for disabled individuals. 
These vouchers are a critical housing resource for those disabled 
people who are affected when public housing authorities designate 
certain buildings for elderly residents only when those buildings used 
to be available also to nonelderly disabled individuals. I thank the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member for including this provision in the 
final agreement.
  The mental health parity provisions the Senate added by floor 
amendment were included in this bill, and I congratulate Senators 
Dominici and Wellstone, who initially proposed this legislation, for 
their efforts. Many health plans now impose lifetime limits of $50,000 
and annual caps of $10,000 for treatment of mental illness--far lower 
than comparable limits for physical treatments in most insurance 
policies. The mental health parity provision will require greater 
equality between the lifetime and annual limits for mental health 
coverage and the limits for physical health coverage. Millions of 
American families will now be able to get the therapy and other mental 
health treatment they need.
  Mr. President, we have taken another very important step in this bill 
by including Senator Bradley's legislation to ban ``drive through 
deliveries.'' Health insurers will now be required to allow mothers and 
their newborns to remain in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours 
after a normal vaginal delivery and 96 hours after a Caesarean section. 
By taking the decision of how long to stay in the hospital out of the 
hands of insurance companies and placing it in the hands of health care 
providers and mothers who have just given birth, we will have healthier 
babies during their first days and we will give the mothers the help 
and security they deserve.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased that my colleagues have chosen to 
place the needs of children suffering from spina bifida, a serious 
neural tube defect, ahead of partisan politics. This conference report 
contains the Agent Orange Benefits Amendment, which extends health care 
and related benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
children of Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida. In March, 
the National Academy of Sciences issued a report citing new evidence 
supporting the link between exposure of service men and women who 
served in Vietnam to Agent Orange, the chemical defoliant sprayed over 
much of Vietnam, and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children.

[[Page S11416]]

  Mr. President, we in the Senate are legislators, not scientists. I 
believe it is entirely appropriate for us to accept the Academy's 
recommendations regarding the effects of Agent Orange as we did when we 
unanimously passed the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I coauthored. 
The NAS has published its conclusions and President Clinton and 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown both have asked that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs be given the authority to provide care 
for the children of Vietnam Veterans who suffer from spina bifida. I am 
proud that this legislation which I offered with Senators Tom Daschle 
and John D. Rockefeller IV provides that necessary authority.
  By passing this legislation, we take another definitive step forward 
in repaying our debt to those who have honorably served their country 
and are still suffering as a result of their service in Vietnam many 
years ago. I am hopeful that the families in Massachusetts who will 
benefit from this legislation, as well as the families around the 
country, will find some comfort--knowing that their children will be 
guaranteed special care to address their specific needs.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased that the appropriators have met the 
housing needs of people living with AIDS. The Housing Opportunities for 
People With AIDS (HOPWA) program is a vital component in our national 
response to the HIV-epidemic. As people with HIV-disease are living 
longer, services they require become more acute and public resources 
more strained. My colleagues know how important this program is to me 
and the city of Boston: I urged the appropriators to increase the HOPWA 
account by $25 million in order to provide housing for thousands of 
individuals and families who currently need shelter. The conferees 
responded favorably and increased the funding for HOPWA for FY 1997 to 
$196 million.
  It is necessary that I also address the deficiencies in the bill, and 
I regret to say that there are several that are quite serious. The most 
distressing of these faults is the Republican effort to continue to 
reduce the federal assistance to clean up Boston Harbor. The VA/HUD 
conference report contains just $40 million of the $100 million 
requested by the President for fiscal year 1997. Senator Kennedy and I 
have fought to retain the President's level during the appropriations 
process. Regrettably, the Republican-controlled House included funding 
for only half of this amount and the Republicans in the Senate refused 
to approve any funding for this worthy environmental protection 
program. The conference settled on the $40 million figure.

  Believe it is in the national interest for the federal government to 
provide direct assistance to the Massachusetts Water Resources 
Authority (MWRA) for the Boston Harbor project. It 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 more 
than $5 billion. The sewage treatment plant is being built under a 
federal court-ordered schedule that requires completion by 1999.
  Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are well aware, 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 
equaling 50 to 90 percent of the costs of 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. In the case of the Boston Harbor 
project, the share of the secondary sewerage treatment project costs to 
date that have been paid with federal funds is less then twenty 
percent, and this excludes the CSO and other improvements that will be 
required in the future.
  Cleaning up Boston Harbor has been and should continue to be a 
bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, during the 104th Congress, it has 
turned into a partisan issue where the Democrats in Congress and the 
President are continuing to fight to protect the environment and the 
Republicans in the House and Senate are playing political games at the 
expense of the citizens of Massachusetts.
  During the House-Senate conference on the VA/HUD bill, the 
Republicans would not yield to efforts of the White House and 
Congressional Democrats to support the full $100 million funding 
request. With much urging by the Democratic conferees, the Republicans 
yielded to $40 million. Senator Mikulski made one final effort to add 
back funding to reach the level appropriated in last year's budget: $50 
million. That amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.
  I thank the President and my colleagues in the House and Senate, in 
particular Senator Mikulski and Congressmen Obey and Stokes, for their 
support during the conference. I greatly regret that Republicans killed 
the deal.
  Mr. President, this bill also continues to underfund HUD and many of 
its key housing programs. There are more than 5 million Americans with 
severe housing needs. We are not doing enough to meet the housing and 
service needs of the homeless, the elderly, and the disabled. Moreover, 
I am concerned that the strict budget for HUD exposes the federal 
government to future liabilities if our payments for existing 
developments fail to provide for adequate maintenance or cuts in 
staffing lead to inadequate monitoring. It is very clear that the 
appropriations for core HUD programs like public housing operating 
subsidies, public housing modernization, homeless assistance, and 
incremental Section 8 assistance are inadequate.
  The funding decision with respect to the low-income housing 
preservation program is one of my greatest disappointments in the bill. 
I cosponsored a successful amendment in the Senate with Senators Craig, 
Moseley-Braun, Sarbanes, and Murray to provide $500 million for this 
program. Then I joined my distinguished colleague, Senator Larry Craig, 
in sending a letter to the conferees requesting at least $900 million 
for the program. We were joined by 10 other members of the Senate from 
both sides of the aisle.
  Instead, the conference committee provided only $350 million for the 
preservation program. After setting aside $100 million for vouchers and 
$75 million for projects affected by special problems, only $175 
million remains for sales to residents and resident-supported 
nonprofits. This is stunning given a queue of projects awaiting funding 
with funding needs totaling over $900 million. Thousands of residents 
around the country have been working closely with nonprofits over 
several years to organize and to assemble financial packages to 
purchase these buildings. This bill dashes the hopes of many who have 
worked hard to preserve this housing and to empower its residents.
  The conference committee also imposed new cost caps on preservation 
projects even though these projects already have HUD-approved plans of 
action. While the Congress should continue to consider reforms to the 
program to reduce its cost, changing the rules for projects that have 
reached this stage of processing is unfair. We have seen no analysis 
assessing the impact of the cost caps or comparing this approach to 
other alternatives. I believe that the Secretary should exercise the 
discretion granted him in the legislation to provide waivers to the 
cost caps as necessary to preserve affordable housing.
  Further, I strongly urge the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to consider the discretion it has within the appropriations 
language to fund as many of the developments awaiting sale as possible. 
There is strong evidence that the Department will not need anywhere 
near the entire $100 million for vouchers, for example. It should, 
therefore, make a large portion of the voucher amount available for 
sales early in the year. Likewise, the Administration should strongly 
consider using other legal authorities it has to recapture prior year 
funds and other balances available for sales under this program. The 
mission of this program--preserving affordable housing--is vital.

[[Page S11417]]

  Mr. President, I also want to express my regret that the conference 
agreement did not follow the wisdom of the Senate in the funding level 
for the Youthbuild program. Although $30 million is provided, which is 
$10 million more than in fiscal year 1996, the Senate this year 
provided $40 million. The higher level was warranted by Youthbuild's 
proven success in giving young adults in our inner cities a chance to 
make something of their lives, while simultaneously adding to the low 
income housing stock in our cities. I do want to commend the Senate 
appropriations for including $40 million in the Senate bill, and 
especially Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski for her assistance in this 
effort.
  I also would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Ms. Dorothy 
Stoneman, the founder and President of Youthbuild USA, who was recently 
awarded the prestigious MacArthur Foundation award in recognition of 
her long fight to improve the lives of youths on the margins of poor 
communities. It is richly-deserved recognition of her work and 
commitment.
  Mr. President, that is the good, the bad and the ugly of this 
legislation. There are many Americans who will be helped greatly by 
this bill, but it leaves out many others. It evidences vision in some 
respects, but myopia in others. And with respect to the latter, I plan 
to devote myself to correcting the bill's inequities when the 105th 
Congress convenes next year.

                          ____________________