[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 56 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3938-S3946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to consideration
of S. 672, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 672) making supplemental appropriations and
rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997,
and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
privilege of the floor be granted to the appropriations staff as listed
on the request that I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:
Majority clerks: Becky Davies, Jim Morhard, Mary Beth
Nethercutt, Alex Flint, Robin Cleveland, Bruce Evans, Craig
Higgins, Christine Ciccone, Sid Ashworth, Wally Burnett,
Tammy Perrin, and Jon Kamarck.
Also, Lisa Sutherland, Dona Pate, Susan Hogan, Jay Kimmitt,
Carrie Apostolou, Martha Poindexter, Kevin Linsky, and Paddy
Linc.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this bill covers several subcommittees.
It is just easier to do it that way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to present to the
Senate S. 672, which provides emergency supplemental appropriations for
numerous natural disasters and defense overseas contingencies. This is
my first opportunity to come before the Senate as chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, and I am very proud that this first bill from
our committee focuses on assisting our fellow citizens in need. I am
humbled to be here with my good friend from West Virginia, the
distinguished former majority leader, minority leader, chairman of our
Appropriations Committee, and now the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee. I can think of no one I have studied under
longer than Senator Byrd. It is a privilege to be here to present this
bill with him today.
Our committee reported this bill on Wednesday, and the report has
been available since last Thursday for Members. Many of our colleagues
will comment later on the terrible events which precipitated this
disaster relief bill. They represent the States involved, and I will
leave it to them to comment on the specific situations in their own
States.
Our committee worked to target spending in this bill to the agencies
and accounts that are responding to these crises now. The $5.5 billion
provided for emergency relief exceeds the President's request by $2.5
billion. Some of these funds will not be spent this fiscal year. We
sought to use the best estimates we could, but in many cases it will be
weeks or months until a final assessment of damages can be made in
these disaster areas.
As has been widely reported, there are some controversial measures in
this bill. I do thank all my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
for their cooperation during the markup last week. One clear conclusion
we reached was that not all the funds in this bill will be directed to
the most recent disasters. We have witnessed a steady increase in the
Presidential disaster recommendations, which have radically increased
disaster relief costs. In addition, the President has waived the
matching requirement on many of the programs involved, adding to the
Federal costs for these disasters. We cannot and will not try to solve
this problem on this bill, but it is something I believe must be
addressed by Congress. There ought to be a clear understanding and a
clear yardstick for disasters, regardless of the area involved.
All new spending in this bill is offset by corresponding rescissions
or budget authority or canceling spending authority. This is sort of
complicated. For budget scoring purposes, the disaster-related spending
will be treated as an emergency. Those outlays will not count against
this year's budget limits.
Part of this difference relates to how CBO scores appropriations
bills. The Congressional Budget Office has a unique approach. When we
appropriated funds for military personnel in September, the
Congressional Budget Office scored those outlays--the money would
actually be spent under the authorizations that were previously given
by Congress--they were scored at 98 percent. Yet, when we rescind those
same funds in this bill, the Congressional Budget Office process
credits the committee with only 25 percent of the outlays as savings to
offset the money spent. It is the same dollar, but we only get a
portion of the credit. The moneys have already been spent; that is the
problem. The bias of the CBO process makes offsetting outlays a
daunting task this late in the fiscal year.
Our committee did not recommend general cuts against agencies to
offset these disaster funds, and I urged Members not to propose
reductions against the operating accounts of agencies. The disaster
relief funds proposed in the bill are not targeted or earmarked for any
region of the country. Again, I ask our colleagues to follow the
suggestions the Appropriations Committee
[[Page S3939]]
made and hold to this practice during the consideration of this bill.
The needs of all persons and communities impacted by these crises are
real and pressing. Mr. President, some of these disasters occurred last
year, some this year. I do not believe we should--and I will oppose
attempts to--tie the funds of agencies responsible for providing relief
to the impacted regions. There is still much unknown about these
disasters, as I said before. I do not believe we should second-guess,
nor should we micromanage from Congress, relief efforts at this stage.
Once more precise recovery plans are developed, we will have an
opportunity in the fiscal year 1998 bills, which will be presented
later this year, to address some additional specific needs.
The bill also includes $1.8 billion for defense contingency
operations. Earlier this year, I went with a delegation of Senators to
Bosnia and to Southwest Asia to review United States military
operations there. We returned disturbed by the lack of concern about
the costs of the operations by our regional commanders. My staff and I
have been working since January with the comptroller at the Department
of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to establish procedures and
controls to help control and monitor spending for overseas deployments.
This committee report before the Senate reduced the funds requested for
overseas operations by $100 million. Already, to his great credit,
Secretary Cohen has reduced unneeded units in both Bosnia and southwest
Asia, and I believe more savings will be achieved during this fiscal
year.
In the case of unforeseen emergencies, our bill includes an
additional $100 million in reprogramming authority for the Department
of Defense. In the past, the administration has increased spending on
these overseas operations without any consultation with Congress.
The commanders in the field discussed with the Senators I was with
and myself, in January, in Bosnia, in Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia, and in
connection with the Bosnia operation in both Hungary and Italy,
commitments of 20 to 30 years for procurement for these overseas
deployments. They did so without the slightest concern or hesitation
about the costs involved. I believe that is a process that should stop.
Spending on contingencies does not mean giving military commanders a
blank check to commit us to expenditures far into the years to come for
deployments which have never been approved by Congress.
In fiscal year 1998, we will take specific steps to ensure fiscal
concerns are addressed on all peacekeeping operations. The Department
of Defense now refers to missions such as Bosnia and Southwest Asia as,
``operations other than war.'' Unfortunately, some spending practices
of the Department, and particularly the regional commanders, assume
wartime needs and are driven by wartime needs.
I want to assure the Senate and the Department that our committee
will tirelessly work to ensure that any of our forces deployed in the
field have everything they need to fight and win and maintain their
safety in any conflict. Their deployment, however, cannot be without
the participation of Congress. Ultimately we are called upon to pay the
bill for such deployments.
We have had some disagreements with regard to this bill. I do not
think there has been any question, however, that all concerned wanted
to report this bill to the Senate as quickly as possible to meet the
needs that I have spoken about. I hope the bill marks the commencement
of a long and fruitful partnership among all members of the
Appropriations Committee serving during this Congress. I do believe
that this bill can be completed by tomorrow evening, or Wednesday at
the latest. It will, of course, be our practice to await the passage of
the bill in the House before we take final action on this bill. And I
do hope all Senators will help us work toward the goal of being
prepared to send the bill to conference as soon as the House has sent
us their appropriations bill for these disasters.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as every Senator is aware, over the past
winter and now into spring, the Nation has been besieged by numerous
natural disasters that have wreaked havoc on hundreds of communities
across the country and have affected the lives of hundreds of thousands
of our citizens. The damages from these disasters in terms of financial
losses run into the billions of dollars. Many people have lost many, if
not all, of their worldly possessions, things that they worked for for
a lifetime. Not only their homes and personal possessions have been
destroyed, but in many cases, entire communities have been wiped out,
leaving many citizens with no means of livelihood.
It is only fitting that the President and the Senate should move as
quickly as is humanly possible to address the financial costs of these
disasters and thereby, hopefully, help to lift the spirits of those who
have lost so much.
The bill now before the Senate contains more than $5.5 billion for
the various disaster assistance programs throughout the Federal
Government to provide relief for the communities and the citizens of
those communities who have suffered devastation from these historic
natural disasters. The largest single amount, $3.5 billion, will go to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, which has a major
responsibility in providing disaster relief. In addition, the bill
provides $650 million for emergency highway repairs resulting from
floods in the western, midwestern, northern plains and mid-Atlantic
regions of the Nation between December of 1996 and April of this
year. This amount is $359 million more than requested by the
administration, but is fully supported by the President since the
committee's recommendation covers the most recent estimates of highway
damages.
For the emergency conservation program, an appropriation of $77
million is included, together with $161 million for watershed and flood
prevention operations. For the Economic Development Administration, the
bill contains an appropriation of $54.7 million for emergency grants.
The bill also contains over $500 million for flood control and
operations and maintenance accounts of the Corps of Engineers, and $187
million for emergency repairs of national parks, principally at
Yosemite National Park. There is an appropriation of $91 million for
construction activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service for damages to
their resources due to flooding and storms around the country. For the
U.S. Forest Service, $68 million is provided for repairs,
reconstruction, and restoration of their roads, facilities, fish and
wildlife habitats, etc.
Finally, as recommended by the President, the bill contains $100
million for community development block grants, or CDBGs, to assist
communities throughout the Nation with their emergency expenses in
dealing with the tragic circumstances facing them as a result of these
natural disasters.
In all, Mr. President, some 33 States, including my own State of West
Virginia, will qualify for these disaster assistance funds.
The bill also contains appropriations totaling over $1.8 billion for
continuing operations by the Department of Defense in Bosnia and
Southwest Asia, as well as other non-emergency discretionary
appropriations, including $58 million for WIC, $31 million for the
District of Columbia, and $100 million for payments to the United
Nations.
It is important to note that all of the fiscal year 1997
discretionary amounts provided in the bill have been offset by budget
authority cuts. The full amounts of emergency appropriations, $5.5
billion, the nearly $1.8 billion in DoD appropriations, and the $273
million in regular, non-DoD supplementals have all been fully offset.
While I do not subscribe to the notion that emergency appropriations
for disaster assistance should have to be offset, I congratulate the
chairman and the various subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who
searched for and found offsets sufficient to fully cover the entire
budget authority recommended in this bill.
I understand the administration is also supportive of these offsets,
the principal one being a rescission of $3.6 billion from HUD's Section
8 housing program. These funds apparently cannot be obligated this
fiscal year and, consequently, can be rescinded without causing undue
harm to this program.
[[Page S3940]]
The bill also contains a mandatory appropriation of $753 million for
veterans' compensation and pensions. This amount is needed to pay for
an increased caseload in this area, as well as the cost-of-living
adjustment enacted last year for compensation benefits.
Senators should also be aware that the committee recommends an
increase in the 1997 highway obligation limit of $933 million. This is
some $615 million more than requested by the administration, but it is
necessary to ensure that no State receives less Federal-aid highway
apportionments than it got in 1996. Finally, the bill advances
appropriations of $198 million for title I education funding for fiscal
year 1998.
So, in carrying out its responsibilities in providing these
desperately needed funds to hundreds of thousands of citizens in a
fiscally responsible way, the committee has done well and I
congratulate the chairman, Senator Stevens, as well as the subcommittee
chairmen and ranking members, who have primary responsibility over
various portions of the bill.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the bill reported by the committee
contains several non-emergency, controversial provisions which, if not
removed prior to the bill's being presented to the President, will
cause him to veto the bill. There is no question about it, the
President will veto S. 672, the pending measure, unless at least some
of these objectionable provisions are removed. I have here a letter
addressed to me from the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, Franklin D. Raines, which addresses the administration's
concerns in a number of areas. Principal among those concerns is the
so-called ``automatic CR'' language contained in title VII of the
pending measure. That provision was debated during the committee
markup, after which my motion to strike the provision failed on a
party-line vote of 13 yeas to 15 nays. I shall have more to say about
this title and the reasons why I believe it should be stricken from the
bill as the debate unfolds on S. 672.
A number of the other provisions in this bill to which the
administration objects were discussed during the committee markup, with
several Senators indicating their intentions to offer floor amendments
on those provisions. Among those provisions are: one, a provision
prohibiting the Department of Commerce from developing a plan for the
2000 decennial census that would use sampling; two, a provision that
would waive certain portions of the Endangered Species Act; three, a
provision relating to the promulgation of rules on RS2477; and,
finally, a provision establishing a block grant to states to assist
legal immigrants losing their SSI and Medicaid eligibilities.
Additionally, I understand that there are several other possible
controversial floor amendments which may be proposed by various
Senators on a variety of issues.
Mr. President, I close by asking, why is it that the majority has
chosen this bill, of all bills, to attach certain objectionable
amendments which the majority knows are controversial and which will
cause a Presidential veto? I am not an advocate of even the
constitutional Presidential veto, and, of course, I am adamantly
opposed to the line-item veto. But in the case of the constitutional
Presidential veto, I am not an advocate of it but I certainly would
expect and would hope that the President would veto this bill if the
automatic CR provision remains in it when it reaches his desk. What
justifiable reason can there be to hold this disaster assistance bill
hostage to such riders that have nothing to do with the basic purposes
of the bill?
Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of victims in 33 States who are
suffering from the ravages of the disasters which this bill addresses
will possibly have to wait. It suits the political agenda of the
majority to have this delay and the confrontation with the President,
perhaps, and unless these matters are resolved here, or in conference
with the House, we may have to go through the veto process before we
will be able to get these funds enacted and out to the people who so
desperately need this assistance.
So, I entreat my colleagues to rethink their positions on such
controversial, unrelated matters which have no business being included
on this bill. It is not too late to resolve these issues in ways that
will remove the likelihood that the President will veto this disaster
assistance bill.
I, again, congratulate the chairman of the committee, Mr. Stevens, my
long-time friend, the Senator from Alaska, and I congratulate all of
the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as you know, over the past several weeks,
towns and farms in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota have been
battered by the floodwaters of the Red River. It is impossible to
describe the devastation that the flooded Red River is causing in
Minnesota and North Dakota, because the enormity of the damage, so far,
is far beyond what anyone has ever put into words.
The lives of those who live in the flooded areas have been shattered.
Entire communities--homes, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries--
have literally been washed away. Thousands of residents have no home to
go to, so they crowd into shelters, unsure yet of what the river will
leave behind when it finally releases its hold. Many cannot sleep
because there is so much uncertainty. They cannot bathe because there
is no running water. They cannot make plans because there are so many
unanswered questions.
Mr. President, I have been working with the Governor of Minnesota and
my fellow Senators in the flood area to assess how to address the needs
of these deserving people. Part of our effort has been to get the funds
and assistance to rebuild through the supplemental appropriations bill
that will, hopefully, pass today or tomorrow or Wednesday at the
latest. Part of it has been to listen to the concerns of our
constituents and to make sure that they do get speedy assistance from
the agencies that are administering the State and Federal relief
efforts.
While I have been involved in many efforts to ease the suffering of
my constituents, I am here today to offer as an amendment to the
supplemental appropriations bill, along with my colleague from South
Dakota, Senator Johnson, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief
Act. This amendment will complement the other relief efforts by making
it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses and local
governments to rebuild from the devastation that has been brought by
the floods.
Amendment No. 54
(Purpose: To facilitate recovery from the recent flooding across North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota by providing greater flexibility
for depository institutions and their regulators, and for other
purposes)
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], for himself and Mr.
Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 54.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:
TITLE ____--DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION DISASTER RELIEF
SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Depository Institution
Disaster Relief Act of 1997''.
SEC. ____02. TRUTH IN LENDING ACT; EXPEDITED FUNDS
AVAILABILITY ACT.
(a) Truth in Lending Act.--During the 180-day period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Board may
make exceptions to the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.) for transactions within an area in which the
President, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), has determined that a major disaster exists, or
within an area determined to be eligible for disaster relief
under other Federal law by reason of damage related to the
1997 flooding of the Red River of the North and its
tributaries, if the Board determines that the exception can
reasonably be expected to alleviate hardships to the public
resulting from such disaster that outweigh possible adverse
effects.
(b) Expedited Funds Availability Act.--During the 180-day
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the
Board may make exceptions to the Expedited
[[Page S3941]]
Funds Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) for
depository institution offices located within any area
referred to in subsection (a) if the Board determines that
the exception can reasonably be expected to alleviate
hardships to the public resulting from such disaster that
outweigh possible adverse effects.
(c) Time Limit on Exceptions.--Any exception made under
this section shall expire not later than the earlier of--
(1) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) 1 year after the date of any determination referred to
in subsection (a).
(d) Publication Required.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of a determination under subsection (a), the Board shall
publish in the Federal Register a statement that--
(1) describes the exception made under this section; and
(2) explains how the exception can reasonably be expected
to produce benefits to the public that outweigh possible
adverse effects.
SEC. ____03. DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS.
The appropriate Federal banking agency may, by order,
permit an insured depository institution, during the 18-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, to
subtract from the institution's total assets, in calculating
compliance with the leverage limit prescribed under section
38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o), an
amount not exceeding the qualifying amount attributable to
insurance proceeds, if the agency determines that--
(1) the institution--
(A) had its principal place of business within an area in
which the President, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, has
determined that a major disaster exists, or within an area
determined to be eligible for disaster relief under other
Federal law by reason of damage related to the 1997 flooding
of the Red River of the North and its tributaries, on the day
before the date of any such determination;
(B) derives more than 60 percent of its total deposits from
persons who normally reside within, or whose principal place
of business is normally within, areas of intense devastation
caused by the major disaster;
(C) was adequately capitalized (as defined in section 38 of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o)) before
the major disaster; and
(D) has an acceptable plan for managing the increase in its
total assets and total deposits; and
(2) the subtraction is consistent with the purpose of
section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1831o).
SEC. ____04. BANKING AGENCY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--During the 180-day period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, a qualifying regulatory agency
may take any of the following actions with respect to
depository institutions or other regulated entities whose
principal place of business is within, or with respect to
transactions or activities within, an area in which the
President, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, has determined
that a major disaster exists, or within an area determined to
be eligible for disaster relief under other Federal law by
reason of damage related to the 1997 flooding of the Red
River of the North and its tributaries, if the agency
determines that the action would facilitate recovery from the
major disaster:
(1) Procedure.--Exercise the agency's authority under
provisions of law other than this section without complying
with--
(A) any requirement of section 553 of title 5, United
States Code; or
(B) any provision of law that requires notice or
opportunity for hearing or sets maximum or minimum time
limits with respect to agency action.
(2) Publication requirements.--Make exceptions, with
respect to institutions or other entities for which the
agency is the primary Federal regulator, to--
(A) any publication requirement with respect to
establishing branches or other deposit-taking facilities; or
(B) any similar publication requirement.
(b) Publication Required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of an action under this section, a qualifying regulatory
agency shall publish in the Federal Register a statement
that--
(1) describes the action taken under this section; and
(2) explains the need for the action.
(c) Qualifying Regulatory Agency Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``qualifying regulatory agency''
means--
(1) the Board;
(2) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
(3) the Office of Thrift Supervision;
(4) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
(5) the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council;
(6) the National Credit Union Administration; and
(7) with respect to chapter 53 of title 31, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. ____05. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that each Federal financial
institutions regulatory agency should, by regulation or
order, make exceptions to the appraisal standards prescribed
by title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 3331 et seq.) for
transactions involving institutions for which the agency is
the primary Federal regulator with respect to real property
located within a disaster area pursuant to section 1123 of
the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 3352), if the agency determines that
the exceptions can reasonably be expected to alleviate
hardships to the public resulting from such disaster that
outweigh possible adverse effects.
SEC. ____06. OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.
Nothing in this title limits the authority of any
department or agency under any other provision of law.
SEC. ____07. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term
``appropriate Federal banking agency'' has the same meaning
as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1813).
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.
(3) Federal financial institutions regulatory agency.--The
term ``Federal financial institutions regulatory agency'' has
the same meaning as in section 1121 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
(12 U.S.C. 3350).
(4) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured
depository institution'' has the same meaning as in section 3
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).
(5) Leverage limit.--The term ``leverage limit'' has the
same meaning as in section 38 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o).
(6) Qualifying amount attributable to insurance proceeds.--
The term ``qualifying amount attributable to insurance
proceeds'' means the amount (if any) by which the
institution's total assets exceed the institution's average
total assets during the calendar quarter ending before the
date of any determination referred to in section
____03(1)(A), because of the deposit of insurance payments or
governmental assistance made with respect to damage caused
by, or other costs resulting from, the major disaster.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief
Act will help speed up the pace of recovery for flooded farms and
towns. Our amendment will permit homeowners, farmers, and small
businesses to have faster access to a larger pool of credit from the
banks and credit unions that serve their communities by ensuring that
there will be no regulatory roadblocks to local lending. It will permit
Federal banking and credit union regulators to make temporary
exceptions to current laws that act to reduce access to banks and
credit unions in disaster areas. It will also permit Federal regulators
to provide temporary relief from regulations so that it will be easier
for flood victims to get loans.
The temporary regulatory relief offered by this bill is strictly
limited to those counties in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
that have been declared Federal disaster areas. Because of its targeted
scope and limited duration, it will permit flood victims to rebuild
their homes, farms, and businesses without compromising the integrity
of our banking system.
When I served in the House of Representatives, I authored similar
legislation in 1993 during the Mississippi River flooding. My
legislation received bipartisan support and was signed into law by
President Clinton as part of the supplemental appropriations bill for
disaster relief. Since this legislation worked well to help flooded
communities rebuild in 1993, I am here to urge my colleagues to again
support this amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this
amendment's provisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997
Purpose
Over the past several weeks, towns and farms in Minnesota,
North Dakota and South Dakota have been demolished by the
flood waters of the Red River of the North, its tributaries,
and other rivers. Because of the extreme level of flood
damage, President Clinton has declared these areas to be
eligible for federal disaster relief pursuant to Section 401
of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act (``DIDRA'')
will significantly speed up the pace of recovery for the
flooded farms and towns. DIDRA will permit homeowners,
farmers, small-businesses and local governments in the flood
disaster areas to have
[[Page S3942]]
faster access to a larger pool of credits from the banks,
thrifts and credit unions that serve their communities. DIDRA
will do this by permitting federal financial institution
regulators to make temporary exceptions to current laws that
(1) hamper the ability of banks, thrifts and credit unions to
reopen their doors to depositors, (2) slow down the lending
process and (3) reduce the availability of credit.
Summary of Provisions
Section 1--Title of statute
The bill is called the ``Depository Institution Disaster
Relief Act of 1997'' (DIDRA). This bill contains provisions
that are substantially identical to temporary emergency
relief legislation that was signed into law in 1992 and 1993.
Section 2(a)--Exceptions to Truth In Lending Act
The Federal Reserve Board may make exceptions to the Truth
In Lending Act (TILA) for loans given by a bank, thrift or
credit union that is in the disaster area. The exceptions
must be made within 180 days of enactment of DIDRA, and may
only last a maximum of one year. For example, this permits
the Federal Reserve Board to permit consumers to receive the
proceeds from their loans 3 days faster by permitting them to
sign preprinted forms that waive their 3 day right of
rescission period pursuant to Section 125 of TILA (15 U.S.C.
1635).
Section 2(b)--Exceptions to Expedited Funds Availability Act
The Federal Reserve Board may make exceptions to the
Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFAA) to any bank, thrift
or credit union in the disaster area, so that they may
restart their check processing operations sooner. The
exceptions must be made within 180 days of enactment of
DIDRA, and may only last for a maximum of one year. For
example, this permits the Federal Reserve Board to let a
bank, thrift or credit union restart serving its customers
even though the disruption from the flooding makes it need
more than one business day to process cash deposits and
government checks as required by Section 603 of EFAA (12
U.S.C. 4002).
Section 3--Exception to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to
Permit the Deposit of Insurance Proceeds in Bank Accounts
Farms, businesses and local governments in the flood
disaster areas will be receiving large amounts of insurance
proceeds. This money will invariably be deposited in banks,
thrifts and credit unions for a short duration until the
money is used for rebuilding. Unfortunately, the depositing
of large amounts of insurance proceeds may cause banks and
thrifts to be deemed undercapitalized pursuant to Section 38
of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDIA) (12 U.S.C. 1831o).
This could cause credit to dry up in the disaster areas, as
Section 38 would automatically require a depository
institution to file a capital restoration plan with the FDIC,
even if the insurance proceeds were invested in assets
creating little additional risk to the depository
institution. Section 38 of the FDIA would compel a depository
institution to obtain formal approval from the FDIC in order
not to be restricted in its lending policies. Section 3 of
DIDRA permits the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC
and the OTS to subtract insurance proceeds from the
depository institution's assets when they calculate whether
the depository institution meets the FDIA's minimum leverage
standards (i.e., equity capitalization requirements). Any
exception that the regulators make to Section 38 of FDIA will
expire after 18 months.
Section 4--Authority of Regulators to Act Quickly to
Facilitate Recovery in Disaster Areas
Within 180 days after the enactment of DIDRA, a qualifying
regulatory agency is given the flexibility to take any
actions permitted under its existing statutory authority to
facilitate recovery in the disaster area without being
delayed or impeded by (1) having to provide a general notice
of proposed rule-making in the Federal Register, (2) having
to hold a hearing, (3) being restricted by time limits with
respect to agency action or (4) having to meet certain
publication requirements. However, within 90 days of taking
an action, the qualifying regulatory agency must publish in
the Federal Register a statement that (1) describes what it
did and (2) explains the need for the action.
Section 5--Sense of Congress re: Exceptions to Appraisal
Requirements
The Depository Institutions Disaster Relief Act of 1992 (PL
102-485, Oct. 23, 1992) amended the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) to give
regulators the authority to waive certain appraisal standards
in disaster areas. The waiver of certain appraisal standards
for real estate loans in disaster areas will (1) permit homes
to be rebuilt faster by expediting the lending process and
(2) lower the cost of receiving loans to rebuild such homes.
Section 1123 of FIRREA (12 U.S.C. 3353) currently permits the
OCC, OTS, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board and NCUA to waive such
appraisal standards for 3 years in disaster areas.
Section 5 of DIDRA states that it is the sense of the
Congress that these federal regulators should exercise their
authority under Section 1123 of FIRREA to temporarily waive
such standards.
Section 6--Limitation of DIDRA
DIDRA shall not limit the authority of any federal agency
under any other provision of law.
Section 7--Definitions
This section defines certain terms used in DIDRA: (1)
appropriate federal banking agency, (2) Board, (3) Federal
financial institutions regulatory agency, (4) insured
depository institution, (5) leverage limit, and (6)
qualifying amount attributable to insurance proceeds.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief
Act is a carefully crafted amendment. It has been reviewed and approved
by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Treasury
Department, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, May 5, 1997.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: Thank you for requesting the
Treasury's views on S. 652, the Depository Institution
Disaster Relief Act of 1997, which seeks to speed the
recovery of areas flooded by the Red River of the North in
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
In 1992 and 1993, Congress passed similar legislation in
response to natural disasters. Like those bills, S. 652 would
permit the federal regulators of banks, savings associations,
and credit unions to make temporary exceptions to statutes
and regulations that may hamper the reopening of these
institutions, slow down the lending process, and reduce the
availability of credit. This authority is intended to
facilitate providing much needed financial services to
disaster victims, and would have no adverse effect on the
safety and soundness of depository institutions.
We share Congress's interest in assisting the victims of
natural disasters and support the passage of S. 652.
Sincerely,
John D. Hawke, Jr.,
Under Secretary of Domestic Finance.
____
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,
Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.
Hon. Rod Grams,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grams: Thank you for inviting the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation to comment on S. 652, the
Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 (DIDRA),
which would allow the FDIC and other federal financial
institution regulatory agencies flexibility in enforcing
capital and other standards for financial institutions
located or doing substantial business within the flood-
affected areas of the Red River of the North.
The FDIC is sensitive to the special needs that accompany
natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and major
storms, and we support the intent of DIDRA to facilitate
recovery from such disasters. The federal agencies have been
granted and have used similar temporary authority during past
disasters.
Certain laws and regulations that are beneficial and
protect public policy interests in normal times may hamper an
insured institution's ability to respond quickly in providing
financial services during disasters. We have learned in the
past, when natural disasters affect communities, granting
very limited relief from such laws does not affect the safety
and soundness of insured institutions. Insured institutions
continue to be subject to active supervision and bank
management is always expected to act in a prudent manner. It
is unlikely that regulated institutions would purposely harm
themselves or their customers, or cause a loss to the
insurance fund solely due to the kind of temporary relief
called for by the legislation. If any institution were to
become involved in unacceptable activities, the federal
financial institution regulatory agencies have substantial
enforcement powers to compel correction.
The FDIC supports S. 652 as a reasonable proposal to assist
communities in their recovery from this natural disaster. I
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important
issue, and the FDIC stands ready to help in any way it can.
Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Ricki Helfer,
Chairman.
____
Board of Governors,
Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1997.
Hon. Rod Grams,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: This letter responds to your request for the
Board's views on S. 652, ``The Depository Institution
Disaster Relief Act of 1997,'' which you introduced to help
speed recovery from the recent flooding of the Red River in
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The bill would
allow the Board to make temporary exceptions to the
[[Page S3943]]
requirements of the Truth in Lending and Expedited Funds
Availability Acts; would allow the federal banking agencies
to permit insured institutions to temporarily exclude certain
insurance proceeds from their capital calculations; and would
allow the agencies to take actions to facilitate recovery
without regard to certain procedural requirements, such as
those of the Administrative Procedure Act. S. 652 also
contains a ``Sense of the Congress'' resolution calling on
the banking agencies to use their existing authority to waive
the appraisal requirements of Title XI of FIRREA.
As you know, the proposal closely tracks legislation
enacted in 1992 and 1993 in the wake of earlier natural
disasters. Based on our experience in administering those
similar laws, the Board believes that S. 652 would provide
the regulators with useful flexibility that would assist in
the disaster-recovery process. Accordingly, the Board
supports its enactment.
Thank you for this opportunity to share the Board's views.
Sincerely,
Alan Greenspan,
Chairman.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this amendment has the support of the
chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and
also the ranking member of that committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators D'Amato and Bennett be added as
cosponsors to S. 652, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you.
Mr. President, we need to assure the people of Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota that the Senate stands behind them, and the
entire Congress and the President should stand behind them as well.
I urge swift action on my amendment to the emergency supplemental
appropriations, which I hope will have the overwhelming, bipartisan
support of my colleagues when it comes to the floor.
Mr. President, I also ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 as a
noncontroversial and bipartisan amendment to the supplemental
appropriations bill being considered on the floor of the Senate today.
I want to particularly extend thanks to Senator Stevens and Senator
Byrd for their assistance on this amendment and support of this
amendment, as well as their very timely action on the underlying
supplemental appropriations legislation. And thanks to Senator D'Amato
and Senator Sarbanes of the Banking Committee for their support as
well, and, of course, to Senator Grams, my colleague from Minnesota,
who has done extraordinary work on this legislation. I am proud to join
him as a cosponsor of S. 652.
We have had an incredible series of catastrophic events in the
Northern Plains, in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. It is
absolutely essential that this body move expeditiously to provide as
much assistance as possible to get individuals, families, businesses,
and local governments back on their feet.
This amendment would give the banking regulators the authority to cut
through red tape to expedite the handling of loans and deposits for
banks, credit unions, and savings and loans in order to move along the
rebuilding of our part of the country as quickly as possible.
This legislation has the support of both FDIC and the Federal
Reserve. In our three States we have suffered vitally over these last
several months. Hundreds of thousands of livestock have been lost,
roads are under water, schools closed, hospitals closed. Family
businesses are in tremendous stress right now. It is absolutely
essential that we provide every element of assistance we possibly can.
I share Senator Grams' belief that this legislation will be one more
piece of the puzzle necessary to reach that goal. The predecessor of
this legislation was a similar amendment enacted in 1992 and 1993. So
this is a step that has been taken in the past when our Nation has been
undergoing stressful disaster circumstances.
It is very, very appropriate during this year that we reintroduce
this amendment to provide this kind of temporary but very important
relief. Again, this amendment is bipartisan. It should be
noncontroversial.
I again commend Senator Grams for his leadership in bringing this
amendment to the floor.
I yield back.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is our understanding that this
amendment that Senator Grams has presented to us continues the
precedent that was established by his legislation when he was a Member
of the other body in 1993.
We have examined the proposed amendment and have been informed that
the Banking Committee of the Senate is in agreement with it. Under the
circumstances, I know of no opposition to the amendment on this side of
the aisle, and we are prepared to accept it. I do note the Senator has
asked for the yeas and nays, but perhaps we can dispose of it today if
it is possible.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know of no objections on this side of the
aisle. But I do await a response to my call to a Senator so that I can
ascertain whether or not this is indeed the case. Until that time, I
shall have to withhold my approval.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
temporarily set aside so that the bill will be open for other
amendments.
We will await the clearance that Senator Byrd has mentioned. I
announce that it will be the policy of the committee to have these
votes take place, on any amendments presented today, at a time to be
designated by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority
leader, tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator asks unanimous consent
to lay aside this amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
Grams amendment for the time being.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. 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. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to rise today and talk a little
bit about the supplemental bill and the needs that are awaiting in
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota as well. As a Senator whose
state has been devastated by the flooding of the Red and Minnesota
Rivers, I rise in strong support of the emergency supplemental that is
before us. I have personally assessed the destruction on several
occasions over the past few weeks. If I had not seen the damage myself,
it would have been difficult to comprehend the severe impact the snows
and floods have had on my State of Minnesota.
My colleagues know of Minnesota's reputation for snow and cold. We
are a hardy people and we pride ourselves on our ability to endure even
the worst winters. But when we receive 3 years' worth of snow in a
single season --that is more than 10 to 12 feet--even Minnesotans can
reach their limit. To make matters worse, we have had to endure several
straight years of above-average rainfall. With the arrival of spring
this year, there was no place for the snow to go, other than into
rivers unable to bear the melt-off.
Many Americans watched the television coverage of Grand Forks, ND,
and sympathized with the displaced residents of that community when the
flood waters swept into town. They saw the burning buildings which have
destroyed nearly a city block, all in a sea of water. But just across
the Red River, on the Minnesota side, is East Grand Forks, a town of
nearly 10,000 people. Their mayor, Lynn Stauss, whom I have talked to
several times over the last few weeks, has had to deal with a town that
has no water, has no electricity, and has no sewer system.
[[Page S3944]]
When I was last in East Grand Forks, most of its homes and businesses
were under water. Now that the waters are receding, assessment of the
damage is continuing and, of course, the expenses are mounting. Willem
Schrage, a Minnesota Department of Agriculture employee, returned to
his home and found his basement backed up with 2 feet of sewage.
Actually, he said he is one of the lucky ones, and says, ``Things could
be worse. At least I still have my home.''
As you know, about 3 weeks ago, just as the spring thaw began to
swell the rivers, Minnesota and the Dakotas were hit with another
blizzard that dumped a couple of additional feet of snow. This
contributed greatly to the severe flooding already predicted.
At the time of year when farmers should be out in the fields,
planting, they were out helping their neighbors sandbag to try to
minimize the damage. Randy Tufton is an example of that. He is the
director of the Farm Service Agency in Ada, MN, and wanted to spend his
time helping farmers get the advice and financial assistance they need
to cope with the floods. But instead, Randy found himself sandbagging
his own home for several days. He had to travel by motorboat just to
get to his house.
Jerry Larson, a seed potato grower in the town of Climax, is another
such example. Instead of planting this year, he is helping another
farmer to try to save his home. Many of our farmers will be losing
their homes and farm buildings to the floods. While some of them will
be able to start planting after the water recedes, many are still
unable to do so and may lose their income for this year. We had almost
2 million acres of farmland in our region under water. In the Red River
Valley, one of the most fertile areas of the country, this is a
crippling blow to our agricultural economy.
Now we are coming to that time of year when high school students
should be thinking about their proms and their graduation festivities.
Instead, Don Vellenga, who is the superintendent of Ada Borup Public
Schools in Ada is now meeting with FEMA officials to discuss replacing
the high school, 67 percent of which has been damaged. There will be no
prom this year at the high school and there will be no graduation
ceremony either. Don Vellenga, by the way, after meeting with FEMA
officials about the school during the day, goes home to a house that
has 4 feet of standing water in the basement.
In Breckenridge, at Breckenridge Elementary, Jeri Yaggie, president
of the school board, is meeting with FEMA officials and wondering if
the school will be replaced, as parents ask where their first graders
will begin school this fall.
Hospital administrators normally spend their time providing for the
care of their patients. Laura Nelson, who is program director of Bridge
Medical Services in Ada, is now looking for ways to get the additional
money needed to replace the hospital there.
In Moorhead, I was impressed by the dedication of our young people as
they worked alongside their parents and their neighbors in filling
sandbags against the rising waters. In East Grand Forks, there was an
army of volunteers to feed the hungry, who found shelter for the
homeless, and comforted thousands more as the Red River was swallowing
an entire community. Their determination repeatedly reminded me of the
spirit that brought us together as communities and will keep us
together as communities.
It was a week ago today, that I spoke about the flooding crisis
before a joint session of our Minnesota State Legislature. I was proud
to be accompanied by seven Minnesotans who know all too well the
struggle it has taken to fight the floods. They were representatives of
the towns that have suffered some of the worst damage, and they deserve
our appreciation for guiding their communities through this nightmare.
I want to take a moment to mention them by name. They were: Mayor
Russell Onstad of Ada, Mayor Kal Michels of Breckenridge, Mayor Donald
Osborne of Crookston, Mayor Lynn Stauss of East Grand Forks, Mayor
David Smiglewski of Granite Falls, Mayor Jim Curtiss of Montevideo, and
also City Council President Millie McLeod of Moorhead, who was there
for Mayor Lanning at the meeting. They have served their neighbors well
during these trying times.
FEMA has done an outstanding job in Minnesota, and I would like to
personally thank the staff, from the Director Mr. Witt, all the way
down, for their yeoman-like efforts to be on the scenes and to help
provide assistance to Minnesotans and those in North and South Dakota.
When I inspected the flood damage with President Clinton, I was
assured that the Government would help the people of Minnesota recover
from its devastation. A week ago, the majority leader and our floor
leader here today, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, made similar pledges during meetings with Minnesota Governor
Arne Carlson and me.
I would like to thank Senator Stevens for reporting out the emergency
supplemental so rapidly. We all know how difficult it is to determine
the exact extent of damage until the cleanup and the rebuilding is
underway, but I believe the committee did an outstanding job to address
the needs of the 23 States that have suffered disasters over the past
few months. The total $5.581 billion for disaster relief is desperately
needed.
The $100 million for CDBG, the EDA money, and the assistance provided
by USDA, including the livestock indemnity program in the supplemental,
are crucial for Minnesota, where losses could add up to more than $1
billion once we have been able to accurately assess our damages.
Governor Carlson expressed his support for the President's requests
of $2.3 billion for FEMA and $100 million for CDBG in the supplemental
when he was here in Washington as well last week. At the same time, he
recognized that once we obtain an accurate accounting, additional
relief could be pursued through the 1998 appropriations process, and/or
a future supplemental request that would be made by the President.
I am also pleased that the committee included language I supported
that would provide more flexibility in the granting of CDBG funds. That
language was useful to the State of Minnesota, as you know, after the
1993 Mississippi River flooding and was requested by the State for this
year's flood as well. Some have raised concerns that it is too early to
fully estimate the extent of the damage and therefore we may find
ourselves with inadequate funding in this bill. To address those
concerns, I am working with my colleagues from North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Minnesota on an amendment that would add additional funding
for CDBG and EDA that represents a better estimate of what we believe
the damages will be in our three States. The amendment would also
include funding for meeting the education needs of displaced students
in our States plus several other smaller items that are not covered yet
in the bill.
The amendment would be a compromise among the three States and
hopefully the appropriators, who believe they have addressed our needs
for the remainder of this fiscal year and prefer to consider longer-
term rebuilding requests through the regular appropriations process. It
would be offset with current budget authority.
Mr. President, earlier I discussed some of the devastation faced by
Minnesota farmers, many of whom are still not sure when they can begin
planting for this year. I strongly support the efforts by Secretary
Glickman to help farmers through authorization of CRP grazing,
increasing the Emergency Loan Assistance Program, deferring payments
for FSA borrowers, and inclusion of more farm losses under FEMA itself.
Since it is uncertain whether existing agriculture or FEMA programs
will address the needs of all Minnesota farmers, I have also asked
Secretary Glickman to consider extending the delayed planting deadline
for crop insurance, as well. I have requested clarifications on how, or
whether, the disaster relief would cover soil erosion and other run-off
problems.
I have asked the Secretary to consider using existing authority under
CCC to address the grain storage losses of Minnesota farmers, as well
as other property losses suffered by farmers who may not currently
qualify for the Emergency Loan Assistance Program.
Mr. President, I want to note again that earlier this afternoon I
offered my amendment, the Depository Institution
[[Page S3945]]
Disaster Relief Act of 1997, or more commonly referred to as DIDRA,
which would facilitate and increase the availability of credit in the
disaster areas of all 23 States.
It is noncontroversial, costs nothing, and is supported by the
Banking Committee chairman and ranking member, and my colleague from
South Dakota, Senator Johnson. I urge support from all of my
colleagues.
Mr. President, the funds provided by the emergency supplemental will
facilitate the cleanup effort, which has just begun. We know it will
take many months and possibly several years. The worst part of a
disaster like this is the aftermath, when the extent of the damage
finally sinks in to all who have suffered losses. It is a time when we
need to reach out to those within the disaster area and let them know
they have our full support.
It is gestures like that of the California woman who contributed
$2,000 apiece to thousands of suffering flood victims as one we will
remember for some time. She is one of many heroes of the floods whose
efforts will never be fully recognized.
To ensure that I am thoroughly appraised of every step in the
cleanup, I have opened an office in Crookston with FEMA to have staff
on location to provide whatever assistance we can to facilitate
available relief. I want to assure my constituents that I will not
allow them to be forgotten now that the flood waters have receded.
Mr. President, I again want to thank the Senate for its efforts to
facilitate this needed relief legislation.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am advised that Senator Mikulski says that
if Mr. Sarbanes has cleared the Grams-Johnson amendment, she has no
objection to it as the ranking member of the VA/HUD subcommittee.
Therefore, I know of no objection on this side of the bill. I am ready
and willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and
it is my understanding that the Senator would prefer a vote, and the
leadership does prefer we have a vote to start the day off at a
specific time tomorrow. Therefore, I ask this amendment now be set
aside, to come before the Senate for a rollcall vote at a time
specified by the leadership, the majority leader after consultation
with the minority leader later today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator
from Alaska is ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
proceed as in morning business for the purpose of introducing a bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 692 are
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and
Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 55
(Purpose: To make a technical correction which adjusts the rescission
for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense program to the correct
fiscal year of appropriations for Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 55.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 65, line 5, strike the amount ``$41,090,000'' and
insert the amount ``$81,090,000''; and
On page 65, line 7, strike the amount ``135,000,000'' and
insert the amount ``$95,000,000''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 55) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a list of amendments that we
believe are going to be presented to the Senate, about 20 amendments.
It was our hope that we will get some of these presented this afternoon
and debated at our leisure and voted on tomorrow. I hoped that we might
have votes today, but that is not possible.
I urge Members to let us know if they intend to bring any amendments
to the floor this afternoon. There are a series that have been
suggested that, I believe, could be worked out and would be acceptable
to the managers of the bill on both sides. We hope that we can find
some business to accomplish this afternoon on this bill. It is a very
important bill, one that should not be delayed if it is possible to
move forward.
I urge Members to contact us if they intend to offer amendments
today.
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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 56
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a lease
of property for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Lexington
Blue Grass Station, Lexington, Kentucky)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed
to be offered by Senators Ford and McConnell and ask that it receive
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Ford and Mr.
McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 56.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO ENTER INTO LEASE
OF BUILDING NO. 1, LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS
STATION, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY.
(a) Authority To Enter Into Lease.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense may enter
into an agreement for the lease of Building No. 1, Lexington
Blue Grass Station, Lexington, Kentucky, and any real
property associated with the building, for purposes of the
use of the building by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service. The agreement shall meet the requirements of this
section.
(b) Term.--(1) The agreement under this section shall
provide for a lease term of not to exceed 50 years, but may
provide for one or more options to renew or extend the term
of the lease.
(2) The agreement shall include a provision specifying
that, if the Secretary ceases to require the leased building
for purposes of the use of the building by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service before the expiration of the
term of the lease (including any extension or renewal of the
term under an option provided for in paragraph (1)), the
remainder of the lease term may, upon the approval of the
entity leasing the building, be satisfied by the Secretary or
another department or agency of the Federal Government
(including a military department) for another purpose similar
to such purpose.
(c) Consideration.--(1) The agreement under this section
may not require rental payments by the United States under
the lease under the agreement.
(2) The Secretary or other leasee, if any, under subsection
(b)(2) shall be responsible under the agreement for payment
of any utilities associated with the lessee of the building
covered by the agreement and for maintenance and repair of
the building.
(d) Improvement.--The agreement under this section may
provide for the improvement of the building covered by the
agreement by the Secretary or other lessee, if any, under
subsection (b)(2).
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment pertaining to a
building in Kentucky to be leased by the Department of Defense. It has
been approved by the Subcommittee on Defense appropriations, Senator
Inouye and myself, and Senator Byrd has cleared this for the minority.
I ask that it be accepted.
[[Page S3946]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 56) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is apparent that no one is prepared to
offer an amendment today. There are several complex amendments coming,
and I am sad we cannot get some of them discussed today. But in a few
minutes I shall present a closing statement on behalf of the majority
leader. Meanwhile, I will announce there will be no further action on
this bill today.
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. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as in morning business for not more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
____________________