[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.

                          ____________________