[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8330-S8374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the HUD-
VA appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2168) making appropriations for the Departments
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations,
and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Daschle amendment No. 3063, to amend the Public Health
Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other
health coverage.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to
the HUD-VA appropriations bill, all first-degree amendments must be
offered and debated tonight, and if votes are ordered with respect to
those amendments, they occur, in a stacked sequence, beginning at 9
o'clock in the morning--I want to emphasize to our colleagues, we are
beginning a little earlier than normal; it will be 9 o'clock; and we
will go right to the stacked sequence, with 2 minutes of debate prior
to each vote for explanation, as has been requested and is the normal
practice--and that all succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Now, Mr. President, I know that there are several
amendments that need to be worked through. I see that Senator Wellstone
is here on the floor ready to go. And I believe we can get some time
agreements on other issues.
Does the manager, Senator Bond, wish to comment?
Mr. BOND. Thank you.
Mr. President, I believe Senator Nickles was prepared to go, and I
know that Senator Wellstone wants to go right after that. But I believe
before we move forward, I need to yield to the distinguished minority
leader who has to deal with this. It was our understanding from the
discussions that Senator Nickles would move forward on a major
amendment he has, and then I would hope we would be able to turn to
Senator Wellstone.
With that, let me yield to the minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Amendment No. 3063 Withdrawn
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have been
talking throughout the day. And I believe we are making progress in
setting up a procedure by which at some point in the not too distant
future--I think the prospects are greater tonight than they have been
in some time--we might have a good debate on the Patients' Bill of
Rights. Because I believe that these negotiations are proceeding
successfully, I withdraw the pending amendment on HUD-VA with an
expectation that we will come to some successful conclusion at a later
date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 3063) was withdrawn.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I make a request for 1 second?
I ask unanimous consent that I be able to follow the Nickles
amendment, so I can go back to the office and come back.
Mr. BOND. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the minority
leader for allowing us to get back to this VA-HUD bill. We have had
good discussions on it. We have had a very important amendment debated
at length on
[[Page S8331]]
the space station. This is always one of the important points that we
have to debate on the VA-HUD bill.
We have had great cooperation from Senators on both sides. I think we
have narrowed the list of amendments. And we hope to be able to accept
and include in the managers' amendment many of the things that have
been raised by our colleagues.
We are now waiting for Senator Nickles to come forward to debate an
amendment on the FHA limits. But we do have a number of amendments we
can accept while we are waiting.
Amendment No. 3195
(Purpose: To increase funds for VA homeless grant and per
diem program)
Mr. BOND. First, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself,
Senator Cleland, and Senator Mikulski and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mr.
Cleland, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
3195.
Mr. BOND. 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 7, line 18, add the following new provisos prior to
the period: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $14,000,000 shall be for the
homeless grant program and $6,000,000 shall be for the
homeless per diem program: Provided further, That such funds
may be used for vocational training, rehabilitation, and
outreach activities in addition to other authorized homeless
assistance activities''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment would provide, within the
$17.2 billion medical care appropriation, $20 million for VA's homeless
grant and per diem program. The amendment would make these funds
available for vocational training, outreach, shelter, and other
important activities to aid homeless veterans in a comprehensive
manner.
This should help meet the needs of the 275,000 veterans who are
estimated to be homeless on any given night of the year. Together with
funds already included in the bill, we will have provided $100 million
in VA homeless assistance. This is a critical need. I commend the other
Senators who worked on supporting this. I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for their outstanding leadership on this important piece
of legislation. Given the hard work that went into this bill, I wanted
to first express my appreciation for what they have done. I am reminded
of the old phrase ``too many cooks spoil the broth.'' Sometimes the
legislative branch might be thought of in that way. As I offer this
amendment, I have attempted to be mindful not to ``spoil the broth.''
As the former head of the Veterans Administration, the veterans
portion of this bill continues to be near and dear to my heart. I am
extremely pleased to see that the Appropriations Committee under the
leadership of Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski has increased funding
for the Department of Veterans Affairs by over $1.5 billion when
compared to last year's budget. This represents a real increase in
funding even when inflation is factored in. Senator Bond and Senator
Mikulski are true friends of America's veterans, and we thank them.
The amendment I have offered attempts to fill a void that exists with
respect to services for veterans. When I was head of the Veterans
Administration, it was clear to me that the VA could not be everywhere
at all times. We relied heavily on other government agencies and
private entities in our attempt to assure that all veterans could
obtain the benefits they were entitled to and the assistance they
needed. Today, in an era of balanced budgets, we cannot depend solely
on federal dollars to solve every problem. The era of balanced budgets
brings with it the era of partnership.
The VA must continue to partner with other entities to fulfill its
mission. For instance, in this year's Defense Authorization bill, I
have authored language which would strongly encourage the VA to partner
with the Department of Defense to provide health care for our nation's
military personnel, their dependents, military retirees, and veterans.
Today, I am advocating much stronger partnering between the VA and
the private sector to fill the basic needs of our nation's veterans.
The Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program was established in
1992 to fund the development and operation of transitional housing for
homeless veterans who are free of alcohol and drugs. Over 2,000 beds
have been made available under this program. Over $21 million has been
appropriated for this purpose.
Unfortunately, the current program is completely inadequate in the
face of the overwhelming need which exists for housing for homeless
veterans. The VA estimates that over 275,000 veterans are currently
homeless on any given night. In a given year, over 500,000 veterans
find themselves homeless at some point. In Atlanta, Georgia, nearly
10,000 veterans are in need of homeless assistance. This is clearly
unacceptable. A mere 2,000 beds, while important, would not meet the
needs of one state, let alone the entire nation. The program does not
come close to fulfilling the entire need. Currently at approximately $7
million, it represents less than two-hundredths of a percent of the
entire VA budget.
The amendment I have offered would set aside $20 million for the
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program. This would nearly triple
the amount available for this program. It would also insure that funds
are available for rehabilitation, vocational training, and outreach.
These are critical elements because the list of successful programs
have demonstrated that helping veterans become drug and alcohol free
and employable is the best way to insure that they not find themselves
homeless again. Furthermore, it is important to provide for successful
outreach to veterans in need to insure that veterans are able to take
advantage of the services, both public and private, that are available
to them.
Several groups have contacted me since I was elected to the Senate to
seek support for the veterans assistance projects they are trying to
establish or expand. I would like to take a few moments to describe two
such programs.
Last year, the Georgia Military College conducted a pilot program in
which veterans voluntarily undergoing drug rehabilitation were offered
a college course. The program was paid for through the proceeds of a
golf tournament sponsored by the Atlanta Veterans Administration
Medical Center. Eighteen veterans participated in the original program.
In light of the initial success, the Georgia Military College seized on
the idea of expanding the program not only to provide for education but
to offer additional counseling and to provide shelter for the
participants. The College is in the process of establishing a 5-year
program aimed at improving the lives of Georgia's homeless veterans.
This is the type of program that can truly make a difference. Instead
of a ``band-aid'' approach, it offers true skills training, and the
transitional housing these veterans need to be able to continue with
the program.
The National Veterans Foundation offers perhaps one of the most
important services a nation can provide to our veterans in need--a
human voice. The Foundation was founded by Floyd ``Shad'' Meshad in
1985 to help veterans recover from the pain of war. It has aided over a
quarter of a million veterans, funding housing, legal services, job
training, counseling, and rehabilitative programs. A major focus of the
Foundation is its toll-free Information and Referral Line. Shad Meshad
refers to it as a ``Clearing House'' to direct veterans and their
families to the assistance they need. It is a real human voice on the
other end of the line, not a recording. Over the years, the National
Veterans Foundation has logged thousands of calls. Unfortunately, this
critical outreach program is only available during business hours,
Monday through Friday. Our veterans deserve the kind of service
provided by the National Veterans Foundation--but they deserve it 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
These are just two of the types of programs that deserve the support
of the VA. In my view, it is only lack of resources which currently
limits that support. It should be made clear that what we are talking
about is not the old give-away of federal funds. This is not new
``corporate welfare.'' I was introduced to the Homeless Providers
[[Page S8332]]
Grant and Per Diem program fairly recently. I was surprised to learn
that the Veterans Administration does not currently have a
comprehensive grant program that could fund meritorious projects, but
it does have this program. I believe the Homeless Providers Grant and
Per Diem Program combined with a future comprehensive grant program
will leverage federal dollars with private, state, and local money to
create a multiplier effect that will aid our nation's veterans for
years to come. It is my intent to introduce legislation in the future
to provide the necessary statutory authority to establish a
comprehensive grant program that goes beyond the current homeless
assistance program.
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Bond and Senator
Mikulski for their cooperation and support for this amendment. Without
their leadership, this amendment would not be possible. I look forward
to working closely with them in the future to further assist our
nation's veterans.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to concur with Senators
Cleland and Bond on this amendment. It will increase by $13 million the
amount for the homeless grants for the VA. Nobody who fought to save
our country should be out on the street. These men have borne the
permanent wounds of war, some of which have caused deep-seated
emotional problems--unable to find a job.
What I like about the VA homeless program is, it not only provides a
shelter but tries to get them focused on starting a new way of life. We
have an outstanding one in Maryland. I am proud of it. And I look
forward to accepting this amendment and say hats off to try to give the
vets a new lease on life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3195) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3196
(Purpose: To require entities that operate homeless shelters to
identify and provide certain counseling to homeless veterans)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, 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 Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 3196.
Mr. BOND. 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 93, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
Sec. 423. (a) Each entity that receives a grant from the
Federal Government for purposes of providing emergency
shelter for homeless individuals shall--
(1) ascertain, to the extent practicable, whether or not
each adult individual seeking such shelter from such entity
is a veteran; and
(2) provide each such individual who is a veteran such
counseling relating to the availability of veterans benefits
(including employment assistance, health care benefits, and
other benefits) as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
considers appropriate.
(b) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall jointly coordinate the
activities required by subsection (a).
(c) Entities referred to in subsection (a) shall notify the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs of the number and identity of
veterans ascertained under paragraph (1) of that subsection.
Such entities shall make such notification with such
frequency and in such form as the Secretary shall specify.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an entity
referred to subsection (a) that fails to meet the
requirements specified in that subsection shall not be
eligible for additional grants or other Federal funds for
purposes of carrying out activities relating to emergency
shelter for homeless individuals.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment will assist homeless veterans
by requiring the federally funded homeless shelters report to the
Veterans' Administration the number of homeless veterans they serve,
and it seeks to ensure that these homeless veterans be provide
information regarding the availability of veterans benefits.
The amendment will improve the Federal Government's database on
homeless veterans and will help homeless veterans know about programs
which can help them address critical needs. It has been cleared on both
sides.
I urge its adoption, and yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the VA/HUD
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999. The amendment will assist
homeless veterans and seek to eliminate some of the suffering of those
less fortunate Americans who served their country in the military.
This amendment will develop better methods for identifying veterans
who utilize federally funded homeless shelters so that they can be
educated about veteran benefits to which they are entitled, including
Department of Veterans Affairs health care. A homeless shelter which
receives federal funding would be required to inquire if a person, man
or woman, entering the shelter is a veteran. This information would be
used solely to assist in tracking the number of homeless veterans and
providing counseling to the veteran regarding all available benefits,
including job search, veterans preference rights, and medical benefits.
Additionally, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development will coordinate these activities and
specify a schedule for notifying the Department of Veteran Affairs of
the status of these homeless veterans. It is the intent of this
amendment to require homeless shelters to follow this procedures if
they are to be eligible for additional Federal grants.
Today, there is no easy or accurate way to track the number of
homeless veterans in the United States. I find this astonishing. We
just celebrated Independence Day, and this country owes a great deal to
the men and women who bore arms to keep America free. It is astonishing
to me that there would be no mechanism or process set up to accurately
track or keep national records on homeless veterans. The Department of
Veterans Affairs estimates the number of homeless veterans to be
between 275,000 and 500,000 over the course of a year. Conservatively,
one out of every three individuals who is sleeping in a doorway, alley,
or box in our cities and rural communities has worn a uniform and
served our country. Mr. President, the time is right, right now, to
give a helping hand.
Of the figures the Department of Veterans Affairs does acknowledge,
homeless veterans are mostly male; about three percent are women. The
vast majority are single; most come from poor, disadvantaged
communities; forty percent suffer from mental illness; and half have
substance abuse problems. More than seventy-five percent served our
country for at least four years and Vietnam veterans account for more
than forty percent of the total number estimated.
Mr. President, there are many complex factors affecting all
homelessness: extreme shortage of affordable housing, poverty, high
unemployment in big cities, and disability. A large number of displaced
and at-risk veterans live with lingering effects of Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse, compounded by a lack of
family and social support networks.
I do not mean to be critical of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in offering this
amendment. To a certain degree the Department of Veterans Affairs is
responsive in taking care of some homeless veterans. But the ones that
are receiving critical medical treatment and veterans benefits are
those who know that such programs exist. It is incumbent on our
government to reach out to all homeless veterans. However, to do that,
there must be a process in place.
Homeless veterans need a coordinated effort, between the Secretaries
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, that provides
secure housing and nutritional meals, essential physical health care,
substance abuse aftercare and mental health counseling. They may need
job assessment, training and placement assistance. To those that may
argue that this is a new entitlement program, I
[[Page S8333]]
would say that these rights and benefits currently exist for veterans
today. Why would we as a nation not do everything in our power to
provide this help for those less fortunate veterans.
Mr. President, our veterans deserve no less. I hope my colleagues
will support this amendment and support our veterans.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, no one can speak for the veterans the
way a former POW can. I wish to be associated with the remarks of
Senator McCain and move the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3196) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3197
(Purpose: To provide funds for the Primary Care Providers Incentive
Act, once authorized)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Rockefeller and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for himself, Mr.
Rockefeller and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
3197.
Mr. BOND. 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 7, line 18, add the following new provisos prior to
the period: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for
implementation of the Primary Care Providers Incentive Act,
contingent upon enactment of authorizing legislation''.
Mr. BOND. This amendment has been cleared on both sides and would
provide $10 million within the VA medical appropriation for the Primary
Care Providers Incentive Act contingent upon authorization.
Senators Mikulski and Rockefeller have been working to create a
program to facilitate the employment of primary care personnel at the
VA, including an education debt reduction program which Senator
Mikulski has long been interested in establishing. This program is
intended to improve the recruitment and retention of primary care
providers, a very important element in the service to the VA.
The Primary Care Providers Incentive Act seeks to update VA's
educational assistance programs for prospective employees, particularly
in areas where recruitment has been difficult. I urge the authorizing
committees to act expeditiously on this important program.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BOND. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this does attempt to recruit the very
best and brightest in the field of primary care to the VA. I proposed
the debt reduction program, a student debt reduction program, back in
1992.
Now, why do I approach this as debt reduction rather than
scholarships? The scholarship program is very worthwhile, but there are
many very talented people who have already graduated. They have a
substantial student debt from studying either nursing or other primary
care practices. What the $5 million would do would go towards reducing
their student debt if they would enter VA services; they would get a
year's worth of debt reduction for a year's worth of service.
This way, we know they have completed their training, they have
passed their licensing requirement, they are as fit for duty as the
veterans they will serve. That is why we approached it from that policy
standpoint. It also joins with the outstanding efforts being made by
Senator Rockefeller to also develop other tools.
I concur in the amendment, and I urge its adoption and ask it be
accepted unanimously.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am delighted that $10 million to
fund S. 2115, the Department of Veterans Affairs Primary Care Providers
Incentive Act, has been provided through a managers' amendment to the
VA/HUD appropriations bill. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the VA/HUD Subcommittee, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their
cooperation in making this possible.
The new scholarship and educational debt reduction programs that are
contained in S. 2115 are designed to revitalize the Health
Professionals Education Assistance Program at VA. This program was
originally intended to help VA to recruit and retain health
professionals, but it has atrophied in recent years, despite an ongoing
demand for educational financial aid by health professionals employed
by or interested in working at VA. This funding will help breathe new
life into the educational assistance programs, and provide much needed
incentives to improve recruitment and retention of primary care
providers.
The VA health care system is in the midst of a major reorganization
that is simultaneously reducing the current workforce and creating the
need for more primary care health professionals. VHA's five-year
strategic plan includes the activation and/or planning of nearly 400
community-based outpatient clinics, to be staffed by primary care
health professionals. Yet hiring of these professionals and retraining
of current employees, to prepare for these changes, has lagged behind
the planning process. The Primary Care Providers Incentive Programs
that will be funded through this amendment will motivate current
employees to get training in new areas of need by providing
scholarships, and assist in the recruitment of new primary care
providers by helping to pay off student loans.
VA needs educational assistance programs such as these to effectively
recruit and retain trained primary care health professionals. In VA
hospitals and clinics, some of the most difficult positions to fill are
those of nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and occupational
therapists. In my own state of West Virginia, for example, at one of
the VA hospitals, there has been a vacancy for an occupational
therapist for over 12 years! Two of the VA hospitals have no physical
therapists at all. This is simply unacceptable.
The plain fact is that starting salaries in the VA are not
competitive with those in private practice. The Education Debt
Reduction Program gives the VA a financial recruitment tool that will
be an enormous help in making the VAMCs more competitive for these
much-needed and highly skilled individuals. In fact, one of the most
frequently asked questions by prospective new employees is whether or
not VA has a debt reduction program. Clearly, this program will answer
a critical need.
But improving recruitment is only half of the story. Retention of
trained people is equally important. Funding the employee incentive
scholarship program can help solve this very real problem. Eligibility
is limited to current VA employees, providing a way for vulnerable
individuals to protect themselves against future RIFs by acquiring
training in the new areas of need. This will go a long way toward
improving staff morale at the VA, which has been severely undermined in
the last few years due to the necessary streamlining that resulted from
significant budget cuts.
The educational assistance programs in S. 2115 are a valuable
investment, enhancing morale of the VA health care providers in the
short term, while building a workforce that matches VA's needs and
improves veterans' health care in the long run. In the coming months, I
will be working with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs to authorize these worthwhile programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3197) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S8334]]
Amendment No. 3198
(Purpose: To provide for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Sarbanes, for
himself and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
3198.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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:
SEC. ____. NATIONAL FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS FOUNDATION.
(a) Establishment and Purposes.--Section 202 of the
National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Act (36 U.S.C. 5201)
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) primarily--
``(A) to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of
property for the benefit of the National Fallen Firefighters'
Memorial and the annual memorial service associated with the
memorial; and
``(B) to, in coordination with the Federal Government and
fire services (as that term is defined in section 4 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2203)), plan, direct, and manage the memorial service
referred to in subparagraph (A)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and Federal'' after
``non-Federal'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``State and local'' and inserting
``Federal, State, and local''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to provide for a national program to assist families
of fallen firefighters and fire departments in dealing with
line-of-duty deaths of those firefighters; and
``(6) to promote national, State, and local initiatives to
increase public awareness of fire and life safety in
coordination with the United States Fire Administration.''
(b) Board of Directors of Foundation.--Section 203(g)(1) of
the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Act (36 U.S.C.
5202(g)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) appointing officers or employees;''.
(c) Administrative Services and Support.--Section 205 of
the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Act (36 U.S.C.
5204) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
``(a) In General.--During the 10-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999, the Administrator may--
``(1) provide personnel, facilities, and other required
services for the operation of the Foundation; and
``(2) request and accept reimbursement for the assistance
provided under paragraph (1).
``(b) Reimbursement.--Any amounts received under subsection
(a)(2) as reimbursement for assistance shall be deposited in
the Treasury to the credit of the appropriations then current
and chargeable for the cost of providing that assistance.
``(c) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal personnel or stationery may be used to
solicit funding for the Foundation.''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Sarbanes and
Senator Mikulski affects the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation,
which is a federally chartered corporation dedicated to helping
families of fallen firefighters in assisting State and local efforts to
recognize firefighters who die in the line of duty.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration, is
a member of the foundation's board. Senator Sarbanes sponsored the
original legislation creating this foundation.
His amendment, along with Senator Mikulski, makes some technical
changes to the law and eliminates the cap on staff. We understand it
has been approved by FEMA. It has been cleared by the Commerce
Committee. It would have no impact on spending and will ensure that the
foundation is able to employ the staff it needs to operate.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield to the sponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for his support for this amendment.
The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation has done an absolutely
outstanding job. I think it bears out the wisdom of the Congress in
establishing it. The services they are now providing to the families of
deceased firefighters are really exemplary. We have had many
communications from spouses, from children, from parents, of how much
the activities of the Fallen Firefighters Foundation mean to them.
They have enlisted very significant support from the private sector
for their activities. These changes are technical in nature in order to
enable the foundation to carry out its responsibilities with greater
efficacy and greater efficiency.
I didn't want to let this opportunity pass without underscoring the
tremendously fine work that is being done by the National Fallen
Firefighters Foundation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of my
distinguished Senator. He has really done the heavy lifting on this
policy issue. I want to thank him for doing this. I absolutely concur
with the direction in which we are going. I think it will be an
important memorial and a way to staff it properly.
I urge this amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3198) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3199
(Purpose: To restore veterans tobacco-related benefits as in effect
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will get started on this amendment.
Mr. BOND. Might I ask for clarification? I ask the Senator which
amendment he has that he wants to discuss.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This is the amendment that will restore benefits to
veterans for smoking-related diseases.
Mr. President, this amendment which I now send to the desk is on
behalf of myself, Senator Murray and Senator McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for himself,
Mrs. Murray, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered
3199.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 16, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 110. (a)(1) Section 1103 of title 38, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of
such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1103.
(b) Upon the enactment of this Act--
(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall not make any estimate of changes in direct spending
outlays under section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for any fiscal year
resulting from the enactment of this section; and
(2) the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall not
make any adjustments in direct spending outlays for purposes
of the allocations, functional levels, and aggregates under
title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any
fiscal year resulting from the enactment of this section.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment would restore benefits to
veterans with smoking-related diseases. How would we do that? It is
simple. The TEA 21 highway program canceled the disability benefits
that veterans would have received under existing rules and procedures,
and it used that money instead to pay for more highway projects. My
amendment would simply return the favor. It would repeal that offset
from the highway bill.
Let me go through the procedural history of this to review how we got
to where we are today. This offset first appeared in the President's
1999 budget request. The administration, I think, wildly overestimated
the cost of benefits for smoking-related disabilities. But this money
was then taken from veterans and it was used elsewhere. There is a
tremendous amount of indignation in the veterans community over this,
and there should be. Congress decided to play the same game. In the
budget resolution they agreed to deny benefits to veterans and use the
money
[[Page S8335]]
elsewhere just like it had been done by the administration. But the
budget priorities were a little different. The savings were used for
highway projects. That didn't happen on the Senate side, but by the
time it came back from the House, that is what happened. That was the
major reason I voted against that bill.
The appropriate place to repeal this offset and restore veterans'
benefits would have been in the technical corrections to the TEA 21
highway bill. Senator Rockefeller and I intended to offer an amendment
which would have done just that, but we never got a chance because that
amendment was folded into another conference report so we could never
get an up-or-down vote. We all know that conference reports, as I just
said, cannot be amended.
As I have said before on the floor, it is only right that we should
have a clean vote on this issue. This is not only a question of
veterans, it is a question of accountability. There is simply no excuse
for hiding behind procedural gimmicks to avoid responsibility. Some
have said we have already voted on this bill, or we have already voted
on this question, but I don't think that is true.
Let me explain. The two votes we had on the budget resolution did not
deal directly with this question. Senators got a chance to pretend they
were for veterans and against the offset, knowing that 5 minutes later
we could cast a vote in the opposite direction.
We had some camouflage about doing a study sometime in the future.
But I think we all recognize it was only a study. And the vote on the
IRS reform bill was not a clean up-or-down vote; it was only a
procedural vote, a point of order. We need to have a clean vote up or
down, no subterfuge, no trickery. It is not enough to take these
benefits away from veterans. Congress will add insult to injury by not
having a clean up-or-down vote on this question.
I think veterans should take a clear position on this issue, and that
should go on the Record. Now, some may object to this amendment because
it is legislation on an appropriations bill, or they may think that
this appropriations bill is the wrong place to remedy this particular
problem. Let me remind my colleagues that this offset was a
jurisdictional raid to begin with. Transportation conferees stole the
money without ever going through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This
was originally the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If we now repeal this
offset through the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we will have to pay for
it by taking even more money away from veterans. The highway bill took
that money away. It was not taken away by the Veterans' Committee.
Nobody wants to do that. Nobody wants to take more funding away from
veterans.
There are a few misconceptions that I would like to clear up. First
and foremost, compensation for veterans with smoking-related illnesses
was not a new program. It was not an expansion of a program. It was a
benefit to which disabled veterans were entitled to under existing law.
Veterans who had become addicted to tobacco because of their service in
the military had the right to apply for disability. The highway bill
took that right away.
It is a very tough test that the veterans have to meet. Only 300 have
passed it. These were not special rules, either. Those veterans had to
meet the same legal and evidentiary requirements as for any other
service-connected disability. They had to prove that their addiction
began in the military service. They had to prove that their addiction
continued without interruption. They had to prove that their addiction
resulted in an illness. They had to prove that their addiction resulted
in a disability.
There is another thing that ought to be pointed out tonight. We are
not really talking about $17 billion here. Let's be clear about it. OMB
first came up with that figure based on an estimate of 500,000 claims
granted every year. But over the past 6 years, a grand total of only
8,000 veterans have applied, and only 300 of those claims have been
granted. CBO came in with a lower, but still high, estimate of $10.5
billion. But the TEA 21 conferees needed more money, so they took
advantage of the higher OMB number to pay for a huge increase in
funding for highways.
The administration's cost projections are based on many, many
unknowns. More importantly, OMB is assuming VA will grant 100 percent
of all claims but, to date--listen to this, colleagues--VA has granted
only 5 percent of the claims. The test veterans have to meet is simply
much harder than OMB seems to think.
There are a number of other unknowns with the administration's
methodology. On the percentage of veterans who currently smoke or are
heavy smokers, VA experts made what we consider to be a questionable
assumption that veterans who smoke more than 100 cigarettes in their
lifetime would have the same disease rates as smokers; the percentage
of veterans who may file claims for tobacco-related illnesses that are
already receiving compensation for those or other conditions; the rate
at which the VA can adjudicate these claims. There are lots of
assumptions I would question.
Let me get right down to the very nitty-gritty of what this amendment
is about. My first choice would be to keep the old rules for deciding
disability claims--the ones we had before the TEA 21 highway bill. I
don't see why Congress should go out of its way to deny disability
benefits to veterans. Don't we have better places to look for spending
offsets? Back in World War II, these veterans had free and discounted
cigarettes included in their rations, and those packs didn't even have
warning labels on them. Soldiers were encouraged to smoke to relieve
the stress of military strain. And now some of them are suffering the
consequences and they are not getting the compensation. That is what is
so outrageous about what we have done, and that is what this amendment
intends to correct.
The second choice--even if Congress does decide to deny these
benefits, I find it hard to understand why this money should be taken
away from veterans' programs. I believe, at the very least, it should
stay with veterans. It is quite one thing to argue, look, though they
deserve this compensation, they have to meet strict criteria to get
this compensation. We handed cigarettes out like candy and we know
veterans became addicted. They should have been entitled to this
benefit. It is quite one thing to take away the compensation benefit,
which we have done; it is adding insult to injury to not at least have
to put that money, scored by OMB and CBO, back into veterans' health
care.
That is why I come to the floor and I speak with so much indignation
about this. That is why Senator Murray from Washington and Senator
McCain from Arizona join me in this amendment. If this offset proposal
had been considered in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as it should
have been, I doubt that it would have seen the light of day. But if it
had passed the committee, those savings would have remained within the
committee's jurisdiction. Those savings would have been plowed right
back into veterans' programs. That would have been my second choice.
So let me be clear again. The first choice: This compensation should
have gone to the veterans. This is an injustice; it really is.
Secondly, if we weren't going to do that, it should have stayed in the
Veterans' Committee. I can tell you that committee would have at least
made sure that this money would have been invested in veterans' health
care. Only because it is late at night and because there are other
colleagues who have amendments--trust me, I think I can talk, without
notes, for 2 hours about the holes right now--gaping holes--in
veterans' health care, in the financing and delivery of veterans'
health care.
After all, we are running out of excuses for underfunding veterans'
programs. Remember, for many years, Congress used deficit reduction as
an excuse. That was the justification for flat-lining the VA budget in
the 1997 budget deal. By the way, the flat-line budget is not going to
work. It doesn't take into account inflation. It doesn't take into
account all of the veterans now living to be 85--an ever-aging veterans
population. It won't work. But now the deficit is gone and we can no
longer claim that there are no offsets available. The first time an
offset comes down the pike, and it is a real whopper, Congress
immediately whisks it away to pay for other programs--
[[Page S8336]]
programs that obviously have a much higher priority.
I can't imagine how Congress can make its budget priorities any
clearer. I have to tell you that if our priority is to live up to our
commitment to veterans, then I believe we should have 100 votes for
this amendment.
The VA-HUD appropriations bill does include a significant $222
million increase over the President's request in funding for veterans'
health care. I thank my colleagues, the Senators from Missouri and
Maryland, for their very fine leadership.
Let me bring something to my colleagues' attention. As the Veterans
Affairs' Committee wrote in its letter to Appropriations, an increase
of over $500 million is necessary to maintain the current level of
services. My argument is that not only did we not give the veterans the
compensation they would have gotten if we hadn't raided--really, what
was their funding for their addiction, for their illness--but to add
insult to injury, if we didn't do that, we should have at least put it
into veterans' health care because we are not properly funding health
care for veterans in this country. Before the budget deal, we just
simply did not take into account the inflation that is taking place.
The budget is not enough.
Finally, let me be clear about what this amendment will do and what
it will not do.
First of all, this amendment does not cancel or deny any
transportation projects. Those projects are already in law. This
amendment would not affect them in any way.
Second, this amendment that I have introduced with Senator Murray and
Senator McCain would not trigger a budget sequester. It includes the
same protection against sequestration, the same budget gimmickry that
was included in the TEA 21 bill.
It may be argued that this amendment would be using the surplus to
pay for veterans' benefits. I would argue that the highway bill was
spending the surplus because it was using an unreasonably high estimate
for this offset. That is going to happen whether or not we repeal that
offset.
But to the extent we do restore previous law on veterans' disability
benefits and waive the Budget Act--I am asking colleagues to waive the
Budget Act--the cost is not going to be anywhere near $17 billion. I
want to be clear about that.
In the summer of 1997, the VA said it wouldn't be able to process
more than a couple billion dollars worth of claims over 5 years.
Mr. President, and colleagues, let me just summarize. I have decided
to really try to be brief. There is a lot that I feel strongly about,
and there is a lot that I would like to talk about. But I think my
colleagues from Missouri and Maryland were gracious enough to let me
come to the floor with this amendment and get to work on it.
I summarize this way. This amendment would restore benefits to
veterans with smoking-related diseases. This amendment that I introduce
on behalf of myself and Senator Murray and Senator McCain does what we
should have done--to have provided this funding for compensation to go
to veterans for smoking-related disease. We did not do that through a
whole lot of gimmickry and a whole lot of zigs and zags. We took that
funding away from veterans.
My second choice would have been to have at least invested this
funding into veterans' health care.
We have got so many needs for those that are 85, and elderly
veterans; so many needs for veterans that are walking around and
struggling with PTSD; so many needs for more drop-in centers; so many
needs to fill the gaps in our current VA health care system. And we
didn't put the money into the veterans' health care.
Then, finally, I want to make real clear what this will do and what
it will not do.
I don't want anybody to be able to say that we are now going to
cancel any transportation projects. That is not what this amendment
does.
I don't want anybody to say it is going to trigger a budget
sequester. It has the same protection that we had against
sequestration.
I don't want anybody to argue that we will waive a budget order, that
we will have to go into a surplus. We have a huge surplus. We put the
surplus into the highways. Now, I am just saying take it back, even
though you don't take it from the highways, because you have already
funded that. You should at least take that money that belongs to the
veterans that should have gone to them directly for compensation.
I don't think we can avoid an up-or-down vote on this any longer. We
should have a clear up-or-down vote. We should all be accountable. I
feel very strongly about this, and I hope that I will receive very
strong support for this amendment.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Alaska has another
amendment. I was going to say that I believe the Senator from New
Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, will raise a point of
order tomorrow. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, the Senator from
Maryland and I have supported his position. There will be a Budget Act
point of order.
But I ask for the yeas and nays on Senator Wellstone's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank
Senator Wellstone for his cooperation in this debate, and for his
willingness to stay on the floor. I also appreciate his remarks. I know
the passion that the Senator from Minnesota has on behalf of veterans.
He spoke in behalf of atomic veterans, and in behalf of a group of
veterans in his own State that have been ignored. He has spoken for the
homeless, for the mentally ill veterans, and also for the need for
long-term care for the veterans. I thank him for that.
Mr. President, when we debated both the highway bill and the budget
bill, I supported the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we not raid
the veterans' medical care. Thence, when we voted on the highway bill,
I voted for final passage, but was very clear saying we should not fix
America's potholes on the backs of America's veterans and their needs
for health care, many of whom bear the permanent wounds of war.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue again. I want the Senator
from Minnesota to know that I support his policy position on this. I,
too, believe that promises made should be promises kept to the
veterans, and we should find other ways of funding that highway bill.
I look forward to further work with him on this topic.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my strong support, as an
original cosponsor of the amendment offered by Mr. Wellstone to the VA/
HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 which will rightfully
transfer approximately $10.5 billion back to the Department of Veterans
Affairs for veterans programs. I understand from the managers of the
bill that the vote on this critical amendment will not occur until
tomorrow. I would have voted for this provision if I was not called out
of town on a prior commitment. Furthermore, I urge my colleagues to
show their support for veterans and vote for this measure.
On July 8, 1998, I submitted for the Record a statement regarding
veterans' health care activities for tobacco-related illnesses and
disabilities. At that time, I had every intention to offer an amendment
to the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that would restore the $10.5 billion
in funding that was so egregiously and eagerly taken from our nation's
veterans to fund pork-laden highway programs in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998 (ISTEA). Unfortunately, there was
simply no possibility that this amendment would be adopted, simply
because of the inflexibility of the Appropriations Committee's
allocation of funds between the Transportation and VA/HUD Committees.
Because of the arcane rules of the Senate, I and my cosponsors are
precluded from righting this profound wrong that has been perpetrated
against those who have served and sacrificed for our country. I am not
sure that our efforts will be more successful this evening, but I do
know, that it is
[[Page S8337]]
the right thing to do. This issue is far from dead.
It is important, I believe, that my colleagues fully understand the
facts regarding the funding shortfall for veterans health care and
compensation for tobacco related diseases.
First, the Department of Veterans Affairs critical funding shortfall
is a result of President Clinton's legislative proposal to Congress to
disallow service-connected disability or death benefits based on
tobacco-related diseases arising after discharge from the military.
Congress, eager to fund pork-laden highway programs, then transferred
nearly $10.5 billion to the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1998 (ISTEA), H.R. 2400, earlier this year. This
egregious act was fully supported by President Clinton.
Second, on April 2, 1998 the Senate voted for an amendment sponsored
by Senators Domenici, Lott, and Craig on the Balanced Budget Act which
transferred approximately $10.5 billion over five years from the
Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans' tobacco-related diseases
to the ISTEA bill for transportation related projects. I voted for this
amendment, in part, because I believed that the tobacco companies,
rather than the taxpayers, should bear the burden for tobacco-related
diseases caused partially by smoking and using other tobacco products
while they were in military service. Military service did not force
servicemembers to smoke, but I acknowledge that for morale reasons, the
services made cigarettes available for free or at inexpensive prices.
The services also give servicemembers condoms and birth control pills
at no cost to military personnel, but that does not mean that they want
our men and women in uniform to be promiscuous.
Third, on the tobacco bill, I sponsored legislation that would
provide not less than $600 million per year to the Department of
Veterans' Affairs for veterans' health care activities for tobacco-
related illnesses and disability and directed the Secretary of
Veterans' Affairs to assist such veterans as is appropriate. The
amendment would have provided a minimum of $3 billion over five years
for those veterans that are afflicted with tobacco-related illnesses
and disability. Additionally, the amendment would have provided smoking
cessation care to veterans from various programs established under the
tobacco bill.
Now that the tobacco bill has been returned to the Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee, I feel more compelled to rectify this
situation. As a conferee on the ISTEA bill, I refused to support and
sign the ISTEA Conference Report. I opposed the ISTEA Conference Report
for a number of reasons, particularly because of my objections to
shifting critical veterans funding to support pork barrel spending in
this massive highway bill. It seems that the Congress has no hesitation
in breaking budget agreements, when it suits their own purposes to do
so, to spend far more on transportation than agreed to in the balanced
budget plan. What's worse, it seems that the Congress has no problem
with robbing from veterans, whose programs have been seriously under
funded for years, to pay for this luxury.
Furthermore, Mr. President, the facts are clear with respect to
tobacco related health care costs and the impact on veterans:
Tobacco-related diseases, for example, include cancers of the lip,
oral cavity, and pharynx; esophagus; pancreas; larynx; lung; bladder;
kidney; coronary heart disease; cerebrovascular disease (stroke);
various circulatory diseases; and chronic bronchitis.
The Department of Veteran Affairs' (VA) fiscal year 1997 expenditures
for health care for veterans with tobacco-related illnesses are
estimated to be $2.6-$3.6 billion.
In fiscal year 1997, the VA treated 405,000 patients with at least
one tobacco-related illness.
In fiscal year 1997, the VAs' average cost per patient with at least
one tobacco-related illness was $8,800.
In fiscal year 1997, patients with tobacco-related illnesses
accounted for over 6.5 million visits to the VAs' health care
facilities.
The projected additional health care costs for tobacco related-
illnesses for the VA are estimated to be $2.9 billion over the next
five years.
The projected additional health care costs for tobacco related-
illnesses for the VA are estimated to be negligible for fiscal year
1999.
The projected cost for tobacco claims in fiscal year 1999 is about
$500 million based on the number of claims that could be processed.
Processing time for claims is expected to increase with an influx of
tobacco claims.
Our nation's veterans should not be excluded from payments by tobacco
companies for health care costs associated with tobacco-related
diseases. The failure to address the tobacco-related health care needs
of our men and women who faithfully served their country in uniform
would be wrong. Congress cannot continue to rob from veterans, whose
programs have been seriously under funded for years, to pay for these
and other special interest projects.
Mr. President, our veterans deserve no less. I hope my colleagues
will support this amendment and support our veterans. Thank you.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is more comment on this
amendment, I will wait. I ask my colleague from Alaska whether he
intends to move on to another amendment, or comment on this amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in response to my friend, it would be
my intent to ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I
can offer mine.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, other colleagues may want to speak to
that. I will take 2 minutes, I say to all of my colleagues.
I would like to thank the Senator from Maryland for her very kind
remarks. I have to say that I will not go now through the technical
part of what happened. I am telling you that this was a real injustice.
We sort of went on record saying we wouldn't do this, and we have done
it. We shouldn't have. This amendment restores that funding to where it
should go.
I wish to say to my colleagues that we have a huge surplus. We really
essentially took some of that money and put it in the highways. We
shouldn't have. We got the highways. But we left the veterans out in
the cold. They know that. All of these veterans organizations know
that. I will say this tomorrow again. All these veterans know that.
Senator Murray, Senator McCain, and many of my colleagues know it as
well.
I hope that there will be very strong support for this, Democrats and
Republicans alike, because, again, the money should have gone to deal
with the problem, to deal with veterans who really are struggling with
illness based upon addiction to tobacco, and, if not, it should have
gone into the veterans' health care. It should not have gone, as my
colleague from Maryland said, to pay for additional highways, which is
what happened.
So let's correct a wrong. Please. Let's have a very strong vote on
this tomorrow morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 3200
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) proposes an
amendment numbered 3200.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:
SEC. . VIETNAM VETERANS ALLOTMENT.
The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1600,
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
open season for certain native Alaskan veterans for allotments
Sec. 41. (a) In General.--(1) During the eighteen month
period following promulgation of implementing rules pursuant
to paragraph (6), a person described in subsection (b) shall
be eligible for an allotment of not more than 160 acres of
land under the Act of May 17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 Stat.
197), as such Act was in effect before December 18, 1971.
(2) Allotments selected under this section shall not be
from existing native or non-native campsites, except for
campsites used primarily by the person selecting the
allotment.
(3) Only federal lands shall be eligible for selection and
conveyance under this Act.
(4) All conveyances shall be subject to valid existing
rights, including any right of
[[Page S8338]]
the United States to income derived, directly or indirectly,
from a lease, license, permit, right-of-way or easement.
(5) All state selected lands that have not yet been
conveyed shall be ineligible for selection under this
section.
(6) No later than 18 months after enactment of this
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate,
after consultation with Alaska Natives groups, rules to carry
out this section.
(7) The Secretary of the Interior may covey alternative
federal lands, including lands within a Conservation System
Unit, to a person entitled to an allotment located within a
Conservation System Unit if--
(A) the Secretary determines that the allotment would be
incompatible with the purposes for which the Conservation
System Unit was established.
(B) the person entitled to the allotment agrees in writing
to the alternative conveyance; and
(C) the alternative lands are of equal acreage to the
allotment.
(b) Eligible Individuals.--(1) A person is eligible under
subsection (a) if that person would have been eligible under
the Act of May 17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 Stat. 197), as that
Act was in effect before December 18, 1971, and that person
is a veteran who served during the period between January 1,
1968 and December 31, 1971.
(c) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) conduct a study to identify and assess the
circumstances of veterans of the Vietnam era who were
eligible for allotments under the Act of May 17, 1906 but who
did not apply under that Act and are not eligible under this
section; and
(2) within one year of enactment of this section, issue a
written report with recommendations to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on Resources in the House of
Representatives.
(d) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the
terms `veteran' and ``Vietnam era'' have the meanings given
those terms by paragraphs (2) and (29) respectively, of
section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we have given the amendment to
both of the floor leaders.
The simple reality of this amendment is that this affects a group of
native Alaskans--Aleut, Eskimo, and Indian--who served in uniform
during the Korean or Vietnam war, and as a consequence of that service
were unavailable and not in the State at the time when they would have
had the opportunity to take advantage of an individual allotment, which
was authorized under the 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act, allowing the
collection of up to 160 acres of nonmineral, vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved land in Alaska to any qualified Alaska Native head of a
household.
What happened during that timeframe between 1968 and 1972, which is
the 3 years that are explicitly addressed in this amendment, is that
the authorization for the selection ended. So what we have here is the
passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 that
terminated this selection opportunity, and there were a number of
Alaska Natives serving in the military who did not have an opportunity
to take advantage of the 160 acres that were due them under the 1906
law.
Now, Mr. President, it is fair to say that we do not have a scoring
on this. We hope to have one tomorrow. It is fair to say also that
scoring would be very insignificant because this is land where they
traditionally have fished, they have hunted, they have subsisted, and
it is not land in areas of sensitivity relative to parks, wilderness
areas, and wildlife areas. In all candor, it is also appropriate to say
that the Department of Interior will be in opposition to it from the
standpoint of any public land transferring to any individuals, even the
indigenous people who were given by congressional action the right to
the selection of this land.
Now, it is also fair to reflect on the fact that Alaska contains
about 365 million acres. We are talking about authorization for those
valid recipients of land in an amount less than 300,000 acres. So it
would be equivalent to dropping, if you will, a tack in the State of
Virginia in relationship to the footprint.
I recognize the effect that anything of significant scoring would
have on this bill. We do not want to jeopardize the bill. I have talked
to the floor manager. It is my hope that we can get an accurate scoring
that reflects reality. It is also my hope that we recognize this truly
belongs in the category of veterans issues. I am on the Veterans'
Committee. I have been on that committee for 18 years. These veterans
simply were unable to take advantage of the opportunity because they
were serving in the Armed Forces.
So the amendment would restore the right of the Vietnam era Alaskan
Native veterans to apply for these allotments as a right that they were
denied only because they were serving in the uniform of our Nation.
The Amendment calls for the same standards that were in effect under
the Allotment Act to be used to evaluate the new applications.
Additionally, it calls for DOI to develop rules to implement this bill
in consultation with Alaska Natives.
This amendment allows the Department of the Interior ample time to
promulgate regulations needed to carry out the provisions of this
amendment.
The amendment protects the current valid rights of the Federal
Government.
The amendment also addresses the concerns of the administration about
possible Veteran allotments within Conservation System Units.
If an Allotment is within a Conservation System Unit The Secretary of
the Interior is authorized to offer other lands to the allottee.
I think this is a fair solution as these veterans had rights to these
lands long before they were ever made part of a CSU.
This amendment is appropriate on this bill as it addresses a specific
problem incurred by Veterans of the Vietnam war who are Alaska Natives
and were denied a privilege offered other Alaska Natives, for the sole
reason that they were overseas defending our freedom.
I know the administration would like to see this amendment
``tightened'' to include a smaller class of veterans and I think that
is plain wrong.
Where our veterans are concerned I think we should always err on the
side of greater participation as without every one of them we would not
be here today as free people.
On a per capita basis, Alaska Natives represent the largest group of
minorities serving in active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
It is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays tomorrow sometime,
but I hope to have the opportunity to have further discussion with the
floor managers on the scoring unless they have specific questions for
me at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska presents a very
compelling case. As a Senator interested in that area, I can see the
importance of the case he makes. The problem is, this deals with a
subject matter over which this subcommittee does not have primary
jurisdiction, and therefore I would have to say, No. 1, I cannot
comment on or respond properly to the views of the appropriate
appropriations subcommittee, nor could I respond to the questions that
might be raised by the authorizing committee.
The Senator has advised us that we do not have the scoring from CBO.
He has assured us it will be minimal. Frankly, this bill is very close
to our limits, and if the scoring turns out to push us over the
allocations, we will have to raise a Budget Act point of order.
So I urge the Senator to talk with the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee--the chairman and ranking member, and the chairman and
ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, and seek their
counsel on it. We will be happy to have a vote on it or to deal with it
tomorrow. While it does involve veterans, the subject matter is not one
which is within the expertise of this subcommittee, and we do need to
hear from the other appropriations subcommittees and the authorizing
committee on it.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the floor manager, I appreciate
his understanding. I don't want to jeopardize activities of the
committee. If there is a significant scoring, I will be willing to
withdraw the amendment. But if it is a significant scoring, I would
appreciate your consideration. If I may leave it at that, I would
reserve the right--it would be my intention to have it listed on the
pending amendments. I will ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. BOND. I would be happy to join in asking for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
[[Page S8339]]
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will address it in the morning. I thank the floor
managers, the gentlelady from Maryland, and the gentleman from
Missouri.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur in the remarks of Chairman
Bond. It sounds as if it is a worthwhile endeavor, a complex issue, and
not necessarily appropriate to our subcommittee. So we await further
information in the morning to see what are the appropriate next steps.
I concur that the Senator always has a right to ask for a vote on his
amendment. So we will just wait to hear what we hear on the scoring and
what the Interior subcommittee chairman and ranking member say.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 3201
(Purpose: To provide class size demonstration grants)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 3201.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 93, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC.____. CLASS SIZE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS.
Subpart 3 of part D of title V of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1109 et seq.) is amended to read as
follows:
``Subpart 3--Class Size Demonstration Grants
``SEC. 561. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subpart to provide grants to
State educational agencies to enable such agencies to
determine the benefits, in various school settings, of
reducing class size on the educational performance of
students and on classroom management and organization.
``SEC. 562. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, to State educational agencies to pay the
Federal share of the costs of conducting demonstration
projects that demonstrate methods of reducing class size that
may provide information meaningful to other State educational
agencies and local educational agencies.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share shall be 50
percent.
``(b) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve not more than
5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 565A for
each fiscal year to carry out the activities described in
section 565.
``(c) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall make grants
to State educational agencies on the basis of--
``(1) the need and the ability of a State educational
agency to reduce the class size of an elementary school or
secondary school served by such agency;
``(2) the ability of a State educational agency to furnish
the non-Federal share of the costs of the demonstration
project for which assistance is sought;
``(3) the ability of a State educational agency to continue
the project for which assistance is sought after the
termination of Federal financial assistance under this
subpart; and
``(4) the degree to which a State educational agency
demonstrates in the application submitted pursuant to section
564 consultation in program implementation and design with
parents, teachers, school administrators, and local teacher
organizations, where applicable.
``(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subpart, the
Secretary shall give priority to demonstration projects that
involve at-risk students in the earliest grades, including
educationally or economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities, and limited English proficient
students.
``(e) Grants Must Supplement Other Funds.--A State
educational agency shall use the Federal funds received under
this subpart to supplement and not supplant other Federal,
State, and local funds available to the State educational
agency to carry out the purpose of this subpart.
``SEC. 563. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Annual Competition.--In each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall announce the factors to be examined in a
demonstration project assisted under this subpart. Such
factors may include--
``(1) the magnitude of the reduction in class size to be
achieved;
``(2) the level of education in which the demonstration
projects shall occur;
``(3) the form of the instructional strategy to be
demonstrated; and
``(4) the duration of the project.
``(b) Random Techniques and Appropriate Comparison
Groups.--Demonstration projects assisted under this subpart
shall be designed to utilize randomized techniques or
appropriate comparison groups.
``SEC. 564. APPLICATION.
``(a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under this
subpart, a State educational agency shall submit an
application to the Secretary that is responsive to the
announcement described in section 563(a), at such time, in
such manner, and containing or accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall encourage State
educational agencies to submit applications under this
subpart for a period of 5 years.
``(c) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a description of the objectives to be attained with
the grant funds and the manner in which the grant funds will
be used to reduce class size;
``(2) a description of the steps to be taken to achieve
target class sizes, including, where applicable, the
acquisition of additional teaching personnel and classroom
space;
``(3) a statement of the methods for the collection of data
necessary for the evaluation of the impact of class size
reduction programs on student achievement;
``(4) an assurance that the State educational agency will
pay, from non-Federal sources, the non-Federal share of the
costs of the demonstration project for which assistance is
sought; and
``(5) such additional assurances as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
``(d) Sufficient Size and Scope Required.--The Secretary
shall award grants under this subpart only to State
educational agencies submitting applications which described
projects of sufficient size and scope to contribute to
carrying out the purpose of this subpart.
``SEC. 565. EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION.
``(a) National Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct a
national evaluation of the demonstration projects assisted
under this subpart to determine the costs incurred in
achieving the reduction in class size and the effects of the
reductions on results, such as student performance in the
affected subjects or grades, attendance, discipline,
classroom organization, management, and teacher satisfaction
and retention.
``(b) Cooperation.--Each State educational agency receiving
a grant under this subpart shall cooperate in the national
evaluation described in subsection (a) and shall provide such
information to the Secretary as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
``(c) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on
the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).
``(d) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall widely
disseminate information about the results of the class size
demonstration projects assisted under this subpart.
``SEC. 565A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subpart $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.''.
SEC. ____. PROHIBITION REGARDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BY
NASA RELATING TO SUPERSONIC OR SUBSONIC
AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration may not carry out research and development
activities relating to supersonic aircraft or subsonic
aircraft.
(b) Deficit Reduction.--Upon the date of enactment of this
Act, savings resulting from amounts reduced pursuant to the
application of subsection (a) shall be subject to the
following provisions:
(1) Budget authority and spending limits.--The Office of
Management and Budget shall--
(A) reflect the reduction in discretionary budget authority
that results from the application of subsection (a) in the
estimates required by section 251(a)(7) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in
accordance with that Act, including an estimate of the
reduction of the budget authority for each outyear; and
(B) include a reduction to the discretionary spending
limits for budget authority and outlays in accordance with
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
for each applicable fiscal year set forth in section 251(c)
of that Act by amounts equal to the amounts for each fiscal
year estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) Adjustments to spending limits.--The Office of
Management and Budget shall make the reduction required by
paragraph (1)(B) as part of the next sequester report
required by section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(3) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall provide to the Committee on the Budget of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Budget
of the Senate an estimate of the reduction of the budget
authority and the reduction in outlays flowing from such
reduction of budget authority for each outyear.
On page 78, line 24, strike ``$1,305,000,000'' and insert
``$866,000,000''.
[[Page S8340]]
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just briefly, my amendment accomplishes
three things: It provides States some modest funding to promote one of
the single most effective reforms we can make to improve the education
of our children, and that is smaller class size; it eliminates a
notorious piece of corporate welfare in the budget; and it reduces our
budget deficit by $2.1 billion over the next 5 years.
The amendment authorizes a limited number of innovative demonstration
grant programs to assist States in their efforts to reduce public
school class size and to improve learning in the earliest grades.
My State of Wisconsin has been a leader in the effort to reduce
public school class size, and this amendment is modeled after
Wisconsin's successful pilot program, the so-called Student Achievement
Guaranty in Education, or the SAGE Program.
Mr. President, we have been very proud of this program. It has worked
well, and I think a model for it on the national level would be
extremely helpful.
The amendment is fully offset by cuts in a wasteful and unnecessary
Federal subsidy that benefits research and development for the world's
largest aircraft manufacturer. We can fully fund this important SAGE
Program and still reduce the Federal budget by more than $2.1 billion
over 5 years if this amendment is adopted.
As we near the end of the 105th Congress, I fear that Congress will
somehow go home having done nothing to reduce public school class size.
My amendment approaches this issue without expanding the deficit and it
eliminates an expensive corporate subsidy.
Briefly, passage of this amendment will save $2.2 billion by dealing
with certain research efforts that have the explicit goal of
maintaining the company's market share in the global aircraft market.
For the information of my colleagues, this company has reported
profits in excess of $5 billion over the last 5 years, and I don't
think there is any justification for this kind of subsidy. It flies in
the face of free-market economics and it wastes billions of our
constituents' tax dollars.
My distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, in
speaking out against this subsidy, said, ``The market system is much
more efficient at creating jobs and opportunities than the Government
is.''
So I urge my colleagues to take his heed and eliminate this form of
corporate welfare. As I noted before, we would produce in our amendment
a $2.1 billion net deficit reduction over the next 5 years. To some of
us, we may sometimes feel we are belaboring the obvious, but I feel
constrained to point out that we still do have a deficit in our Federal
budget and that this amendment will be very helpful in that regard.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and my friend, the senior Senator
from Wisconsin, for deferring to me briefly so I could have the
opportunity to speak about this amendment and offer it. In light of the
understanding that the Senate wants to move forward on this bill, let
me, in a moment, withdraw my amendment, but indicate I hope to offer it
on another appropriations bill later this year.
With that, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 3201) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator
from Wisconsin. We are now ready for the amendment by the Senator from
Oklahoma. The Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment to go after
this one. I ask the Chair to recognize him after this amendment has
been dealt with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 3202
(Purpose: To amend the bill with respect to single family maximum
mortgage amounts, and for other purposes)
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Kohl,
Mack, Allard, Feingold, DeWine and Faircloth, 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Mack, Mr. Allard, Mr. Feingold, Mr. DeWine and Mr.
Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 3202.
Mr. NICKLES. 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 53, strike lines 9 through 25 and insert the
following:
SEC. 219. INCREASE IN FHA SINGLE FAMILY MAXIMUM MORTGAGE
AMOUNTS AND GNMA GUARANTY FEE.
(a) FHA Single Family Maximum Mortgage Amounts.--Section
203(b)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``38 percent'' and
inserting ``48 percent''.
(b) GNMA Guaranty Fee.--Ssection 306(g)(3)(A) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(3)(A)) is amended by
striking ``No Fee or charge'' and all that follows through
``or collected'' and inserting ``A fee or charge in an amount
equal to not less than 12 basis points shall be assessed and
collected''.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before I describe the amendment, first I
would like to just express my appreciation to my colleagues, Senator
Bond from Missouri and Senator Mikulski from Maryland. I have the
pleasure of serving with them on the Appropriations Committee, on this
subcommittee, and I enjoyed the work on this subcommittee. This
subcommittee is a hard committee because it deals with so many
agencies. It is not easy. It is not just one agency. The bill is
commonly VA-HUD and other agencies. It includes EPA, the Science
Foundation, NASA and so on. So it requires an enormous amount of work
by staff and by Senators to try to stay on top of all the demands, and
the multitude of requests by the agencies and Senators who are involved
with them. So I compliment them for their work.
Mr. President, I agree with most of the things they have in their
bill, although I have some questions about the cost of the bill, but I
will may raise that at another time. I notice in the committee report
the bill has about a $5 billion increase in requests compared to last
year. I do not know of any other appropriations bill that has that kind
of increase. I am going to have to check into that, but that is not
what I raise tonight. I may vote against the bill because of the $5
billion compared to last year's level. I am concerned about that, but I
am going to do my homework on that.
The reason I am rising to introduce this amendment is because in the
committee bill it increases the FHA loan limits and increases them
rather significantly. For those who are not familiar with this, FHA,
the Federal Housing Administration, insures mortgage loans. These
mortgages are 100 percent guaranteed by the Federal Government. It was
started many, many years ago, and its purpose was to expand housing in
areas where people maybe could not afford it. It had a noble purpose.
We had a housing shortage. We had people who could not get money, could
not borrow money. The private sector markets were not there and money
was not available to assist people to buy a home.
One of the basic, fundamental principles we have in this country is
we want people to be able to buy their own homes. We want people to be
able to own their own homes, not just rent, we want people to own their
own homes. So the Federal Government assisted in this program with the
Federal Housing Administration.
But we have limits. We have guiding principles that say, if we are
going to have the Federal Government insure home loans to individuals,
they basically be limited to about 95 percent of the median home price
for that area. It kind of makes sense. You should not be able to get
100 percent Federal insurance for home loans far in excess of the value
of homes in the area. That does not make sense.
There is in effect, base amounts or a bottom amount so every county
across the country would not fall below a particular amount. And then
there is also a cap. We ought to have some kind of limit. We should not
have the Federal Government insuring loans very expensive homes. I see
my colleague from Rhode Island. There are some areas of Rhode Island,
at least one area there,
[[Page S8341]]
where there are probably all million-dollar homes.
Mr. REED. That is in Massachusetts.
Mr. NICKLES. Maybe that is in Massachusetts, I am not sure. But the
Federal Government should not be insuring those million dollar homes.
So we have a maximum limit to make sure the federal government doesn't
insure million dollar homes. The bottom loan limit is $86,000 this
year. Last year, it was $81,000, so it has increased. The top limit it
is $170,000. So you have limits set at 95 percent of the median value
of homes, but everywhere in this country is going to have at least this
base limit, $86,000. Right now, current law, you can get a home Loan,
insured 100 percent by the Federal Government, guaranteed by the
taxpayers, in an amount equal to $86,000. In some areas, the higher
price home areas, up to $170,000.
The committee increased both of those limits. They increased the base
amount from $86,000 to $109,000. And they also increased the top limit
from $170,000 to $197,000--almost $200,000. Our amendment strikes the
increase in the top limit.
I hope my colleagues would say, wait a minute, $170,000 is enough for
the Federal Government to insure. Shall we really go up to $200,000?
Last year, it was $160,000, so, because it is tied to a percentage of
the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, it already goes up from last
year's level in the top areas, from $160,000 it goes to $170,000. Isn't
that enough? But, no, the committee said let's go on up to almost
$200,000.
The purpose of this program was to assist low-income people, or
people who could not get loans to be able to get a loan with a Federal
guarantee; a loan that is guaranteed by taxpayers 100 percent. But now
the committee is going all the way up to $200,000? I think that is too
high. I do not think that was the purpose of the program.
The Secretary of Housing called me two or three times and said,
``Can't we do this?'' I disagreed with him. He wanted to do it on the
highway bill, and I respect the Secretary of Housing, but I said, ``No.
That is bad public policy.'' They tried to get this put in the highway
bill and I disagreed with him and we were successful in stopping it.
Now the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee is doing it.
Our amendment does not touch the bottom increase. I might tell my
colleagues, I think we should. I did not want to increase the bottom
amount, but I also know how to count votes. I didn't have the votes to
prevent the increase in the bottom limit. I hope we will have the votes
to not increase the top limit. I hope we will keep the Federal Housing
Administration targeted to lower income individuals. You have to have a
pretty good income in order to be able to afford a $200,000 mortgage.
Is that the purpose of the Federal Government, to insure loans and
mortgages up to $200,000? I don't think so. I don't think that is why
FHA was created.
What brought us here? The Secretary of Housing wants to increase the
loan limits. I guess there was a Housing Affairs letter, an internal
industry newsletter that quoted a HUD official saying, ``The increase
in the loan limit is vital to the President's nationwide home ownership
campaign, and if it passes Congress, it will surely translate into
votes in the next Presidential campaign.''
I'm not sure that is why we have this increase. I just don't think
that is what the Federal Government should be doing. I might mention
the administration wanted to take it up to $227,000, so maybe I should
thank my colleagues from Maryland and Missouri because they did not go
to $227,000. They did not accede to the President's request. The
President wanted to take it to $227,000 nationwide. That is a quarter
of a million dollars. That was the administration's proposal. To me,
that is absolutely wrong and we should not do that.
What kind of a job has FHA been doing? Have they done such a great
job that we should be encouraging them to make more and more loans? I
might mention, when you are having a Federal insured loan, you are
crowding out private sector loans. Shouldn't the private sector be
making loans? If we are talking about loans of $200,000, shouldn't the
private sector be making those loans with the risk that is involved? Or
are we going to have the Federal Government do it and have the
taxpayers at risk? I think the private sector should do it. If somebody
wants to build or buy a $200,000 home, great, I hope they do. But I
don't think the taxpayers should be at risk for it.
I have a young son who is working. When he looks at his paycheck he
says, ``Hey, Dad, thank you very much. You guys are taking a big chunk
out of my check. Thank you very much.'' I don't think we should put his
tax dollars at risk for somebody having a $200,000 home. He doesn't
have one. My daughter doesn't have one. Why in the world should we be
putting them at risk to be guaranteeing $200,000 loans? I don't think
we should be doing that. But we are getting ready to do it in this
bill. So I think that is a serious mistake.
Is FHA doing such a great job? They have three times the default rate
of conventional loans. They are not doing that great if they have a
default rate running at 8.4 percent, three times the national rate in
conventional loans.
They have a smaller downpayment, which means a much greater risk. If
you have a loan with FHA, I believe the loan-to-value ratio is 96
percent. That is far lower than conventional loans, so you have a lot
more risk and three times the default rate.
FHA is not doing such a great job. We have a system that really
encourages lenders to make FHA-insured loans, and that is another part
of our amendment. We try to take some of the incentive away from
lenders steering home buyers into FHA. Right now the system is really
loaded, really geared towards FHA. You get a 100 percent Federal
guarantee if you go FHA, and if you happen to be in the business of
lending, you are going to get a much better deal going through FHA than
you do through the private sector.
In our amendment, we also change the point level dealing with Ginnie
Mae. We raise the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee from 6 basis points to 12. I
might mention, under most conventional loans, servicing fees to lenders
are usually about half, about 25 points, but under current law, FHA, it
is 44 points.
What does that mean? If you are servicing a $100,000 loan, under a
conventional mortgage you will get about half of those 50 basis points,
or $250 on a $100,000 mortgage. If you do it for FHA, you get $440, a
much better deal if you go with the Government-guaranteed loan. There
is a much lower downpayment, and the Federal Government is going to
guarantee it 100 percent. There is a real encouragement for people to
steer home buyers into FHA. The Government is going to take care of it.
I might mention, that has had a catastrophic effect in many, many
neighborhoods. This is sad.
Let me read a little summary. And, Mr. President, I will have several
articles printed in the Record from people who studied this issue far
more than I. But this is from a report that was done by the Chicago
Area Fair Housing Alliance policy paper dated March of 1998, and it
talks about the two faces of FHA. I will read a couple points:
The Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance has conducted
studies which indicate that when FHA lending is concentrated,
it has disastrous effects on these areas of concentration,
resulting in undue levels of blight and disinvestment.
It goes on. It says:
Yet our research clearly indicates that a pattern of FHA
lending that limits housing opportunities contributes to
segregation, perpetuates a myth of race as a contributor to
community disinvestment and ultimately leads to community
decline itself. The racially discriminatory effects of FHA
single-family programs have been known to HUD for more than
25 years. However, HUD has failed to take its share of
responsibility for the role FHA plays in the destruction of
these communities.
It goes on:
FHA has allowed itself to be a direct contributor to
community disinvestment and decline.
We should be ashamed of ourselves. In other words, FHA in many areas
has done more damage than good and has contributed to the decline of
many, many neighborhoods.
This didn't come from Don Nickles, from my research, this came from a
group, the Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance.
Mr. President, I will point out a few other comments that were made
by people who have studied this issue, again, far more than I, just for
the information of our colleagues, so they can see what a lot of people
have said, that raising the FHA loan limits is not the right thing to
do.
[[Page S8342]]
There is a letter from the Cato Institute, dated July 16, 1998. I
will read a section.
Mr. President, it says:
I wish to remind you that in the late 1980s the FHA lost
over $2 billion of taxpayer funds when it became
overextended. I fear that we may soon be facing the same
problem today.
It is also worth noting that the FHA already has a very
poor lending record. At a time when the average conventional
mortgage default rate hovers between 2 and 3 percent, FHA
incredibly has an 8.4 percent default rate. I am very fearful
that the FHA is becoming a ticking timebomb that will explode
in the taxpayers' laps.
That was by Stephen Moore.
Americans for Tax Reform--I will highlight one page:
The time has long passed since potential homeowners needed
drastic federal intervention to qualify for affordable loans.
With today's home ownership at an all-time high and with an
innovative private mortgage market meeting the needs of
homeowners across the bracket, logic would strongly suggest
scaling back the FHA.
The bill we have before us doesn't scale back the FHA, Mr. President,
it expands it, and expands it rather dramatically.
The Heritage Foundation issued an executive memorandum, dated July
16, 1998. I will read a short part of it:
If ultimately enacted into law, these provisions--referring
to the expansion, raising the loan limits--would expand the
federal government's role even deeper into the residential
mortgage market, provide windfall profits to a select group
of mortgage financiers, undermine the viability of private
mortgage insurers, and expose the U.S. taxpayers to a costly
bailout for an already faltering FHA insurance fund.
According to budget data provided to Congress by HUD, the
FHA's 1997 property acquisitions through foreclosure were up
117 percent, or a staggering $2.3 billion, from initial
projections.
I might mention, if my memory serves me correct, in 1997, FHA
foreclosed on $5 billion worth of properties. This is not a success
story in housing.
I will read from a different group. I have read from the Heritage
Foundation, from the Cato Institute, and from a taxpayers group. Those
groups are usually perceived to be free enterprise, conservative think-
tanks and institutions.
This is from the Consumer Federation of America. It doesn't fall into
the above category. It says:
``I am writing to express our strong support for your amendment''--
the amendment by myself, Senator Kohl and others--``to the HUD
Appropriations bill when it comes to the Senate floor.''
The amendment eliminates a proposed increase in the high-cost FHA
loan limit, which will keep FHA focused on the moderate-income home
buyers it was created by Congress to serve.
It continues:
Your amendment discourages lenders from inappropriate
behavior by bringing the fee they make on FHA loans more in
line with private sector fees--without any increase in the
cost of an FHA loan to consumers.
They are right. Again, I reiterate, one of the things that we did in
adjusting the guaranty fees on Ginnie Mae, going from 6 points to 12
points, will be to bring down the staggering servicing fees to the
lenders from 44 basis points to 38. That is not much, but it moves it
closer to being in line with the private marketplace. The marketplace
is a lot closer to 25 basis points. Right now this very high fee is a
real incentive for people to steer loans to FHA. We shouldn't have a
Federal policy making it more profitable for people to send their loans
FHA insurance with the Federal Government guaranteeing the loans. That
doesn't make sense, but that happens to be current policy.
I ask unanimous consent that letters and statements from the Cato
Institute, from the Americans for Tax Reform, and the National
Taxpayers Union, as well as the Consumer Federation of America, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Cato Institute,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: I just wanted to write you to thank
you for your efforts to block any increase in the top FHA
loan limit this year. With the FHA already holding over $300
billion of loans in its portfolio, it is the height of fiscal
folly to be substantially increasing the size of the FHA loan
portfolio, particularly since this policy would mostly affect
higher income homebuying. Taxpayers are already at great risk
of default, especially if the housing market goes into
slowdown. I wish to remind you that in the late 1980s the FHA
lost over $2 billion of taxpayer funds when it became
overextended. I fear that we may soon be facing the same
problem today.
It is also worth noting that the FHA already has a very
poor lending record. At a time when the average private
mortgage insurance claims rate hovers between 2 and 3
percent, FHA incredibly has an 8.4 percent default rate. I am
very fearful that the FHA is becoming a ticking timebomb that
will explode in taxpayers' laps. just as the savings and loan
bailout required billions of dollars of taxpayer rescue funds
in the late 1980s.
There is no reason that a federally subsidized agency
should compete with the private market place, when private
companies are quite adequately serving market need. The
primary effect of increasing the FHA loan limit will be to
divert homebuyers from PMI insurance to FHA insurance.
I'm enclosing a recent article of mine on FHA policy as
well as my recent testimony before the Banking Committee. My
position has been and continues to be that we ought to move
aggressively towards privatizing the FHA, not expanding it.
Best wishes,
Stephen Moore,
Director of Fiscal Policy Studies.
____
Americans For Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, June 18, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: I am writing to applaud your efforts
to reject the provision in the FY 99 VA/HUD Appropriations
bill that unnecessarily hikes the current Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) loan limits to $197,490 in high-cost
areas and to nearly $109,000 in lower-cost markets. Though
lower than the $227,150 nationwide limit requested by the
Administration, the new limits put forth in the Senate bill
would substantially hinder the private market's ability to
provide adequate mortgage capital and subsequently place the
taxpayer at a higher risk of losses.
In what may have seemed like a plausible solution to
solving mortgage debt defaults during the Great Depression,
today's FHA loan program has changed little to meet the
current structure of the market. The time has long passed
since potential homeowners needed drastic federal
intervention to qualify for affordable loans. With today's
home ownership at an all-time high and with an innovative
private mortgage market meeting the needs of homeowners
across the income bracket, logic would strongly suggest
scaling back the FHA.
Instead of limiting such loan programs, however, the
Clinton Administration wants to increase the guaranteed loan
rate for the most affluent homeowners, making it possible for
higher-income individuals who cannot qualify for credit in
the private market to obtain taxpayer-insured loans. Why
should Americans, at any level of income, run the risk of
paying higher taxes to cover the potential mortgage defaults
of higher-income individuals with poor credit ratings?
The FHA loan program, which requires minimal payments yet
loses $4 billion per year, has a default rate of three times
the national average in comparison to the private sector.
Lacking any credible economic wisdom, we must assume that the
Clinton Administration will use the taxpayer-funded loans to
harvest votes.
The Congress should not place American taxpayers at a
higher risk of losses by increasing FHA's loan limits.
Americans for Tax Reform, and the undersigned groups, in
support of limiting the tax burden on all Americans,
considers such an increase as fiscally irresponsible and a
gross intrusion into the private market. On behalf of all
taxpayers, we applaud your efforts to defeat this provision.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist
(And 6 others).
____
The Heritage Foundation,
July 16, 1998.
Executive Memorandum--Why Raising the FHA Mortgage Insurance Limit
Would Be Bad Policy
(Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.)
As Congress moves to consider the House and Senate
appropriations bills for the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA), lawmakers will
have to consider provisions to raise the maximum mortgage
amount that can be backed by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) insurance fund. If ultimately enacted
into law, these provisions would expand the federal
government's role even deeper into the residential mortgage
market, provide windfall profits to a select group of
mortgage financiers, undermine the viability of private
mortgage insurers, and expose the U.S. taxpayers to a costly
bailout for the already faltering FHA insurance fund.
Since early this year, the FHA has been confronting much-
higher-than-expected loan defaults and insurance claims.
According to budget data provided to Congress by HUD, the
FHA's 1997 property acquisitions through foreclosure were up
117 percent, or a staggering $2.3 billion, from initial
projections. The FHA further announced that it anticipated
this higher rate of foreclosure to continue,
[[Page S8343]]
and that it was revising 1998 foreclosed property acquisition
estimates upward from an initial $1.9 billion to almost $4
billion. The FHA's declining confidence in the quality of its
mortgage insurance portfolio has been justified by events. In
the first quarter of 1998, despite the booming economy and
rising employment throughout the United States, the FHA's
delinquency rate reached an all-time high of 8.35 percent,
meaning that nearly one in ten FHA borrowers were behind in
their payments. This compares with a default rate of just
2.91 percent on conventional mortgages, the market on which
the FHA seeks congressional approval to encroach.
Apparently having learned little from the devastating
collapse of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s and
the subsequent scandals that revealed shoddy underwriting
standards in billions of dollars of mortgages, some Members
of Congress are proposing that the FHA be allowed to insure a
greater share of the market by moving into riskier, higher-
valued mortgages. They also are recommending that the FHA's
minimum down-payment requirement be reduced from its already
inadequate levels. Minimal down-payment requirements under
current law allow the FHA to insure 99.6 percent of a
$100,000 loan, leaving little or no equity cushion to protect
FHA reserves in the event of loan default and/or foreclosure.
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo has proposed that the FHA
maximum loan limit be increased to $227,150 throughout the
country, and that FHA's already generous down-payment
requirements be made even more generous. House and Senate
appropriators have agreed to propose much of what Cuomo is
asking for: upping the regional cap on the minimum loan
from $86,000 to $109,000, raising the maximum cap from
$170,000 to $197,000, and allowing borrowers to make an
even smaller down payment.
If enacted into law, these changes would worsen an already
deteriorating situation within the FHA's insured portfolio by
exposing it to disproportionately greater risks. With FHA
out-of-pocket losses typically running at a rate equivalent
to 30 percent of the value of the loan on the foreclosed
property, the unanticipated foreclosed property acquisitions
in 1997 and 1998 could lead to additional losses of $1.26
billion against the FHA's reserves.
Rather than placing the taxpayer at far greater risk of
having to pick up the tab on foreclosed FHA-backed mortgages,
a better alternative for Congress to consider is an amendment
to the Senate bill that will be offered by a bipartisan
coalition composed of Senators Don Nickles (R-OK), Herbert
Kohl (D-WI), Connie Mack (R-FL), Wayne Allard (R-CO), and
Russell Feingold (D-WI). Their amendment would raise the
floor on the maximum-size mortgage the FHA can insure from
the current $86,000 to $109,000 to target first-time and
moderate-income home buyers more accurately while also
eliminating much of the windfall corporate welfare benefits
FHA mortgages bestow on some mortgage financiers. Whereas
conventional mortgages allow mortgage originators to keep
just 20 to 25 basis points in servicing fees, the FHA
currently allows them 44 basis points, which largely explains
the real estate industry's enthusiasm for the further
federalization of the market. Under the bipartisan
coalition's plan, these excessive servicing fees would be cut
back to 38 basic points, with the 6-basis-point difference
applied to the Government National Mortgage Association, a
part of HUD that repackages and reinsures FHA and VA
mortgages for final sale to investors.
Although the bipartisan coalition's amendment is a step in
the right direction, an even better alternative would be for
Congress to reject any expansion of the FHA's scope and
instead hold oversight hearings to determine the reason the
FHA and the mortgage originators that use the program have
done such a consistently poor job of maintaining the
financial integrity of a program that could be of
considerable value to first-time home buyers. By failing to
achieve underwriting standards common in the conventional
mortgage market, the existing management of the FHA has
exposed the U.S. taxpayer to the risk of a costly bailout and
made it likely that many more FHA home buyers will face the
humiliation and financial loss of foreclosure.
[Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in
Federal Budgetary Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. For
additional information, see the author's ``HUD Wants Federal
Housing Administration to Offer More Corporate Welfare,''
Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 512, March 9,
1998.]
____
Consumer Federation of America,
Washington, DC, July 13, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles and Hon. Herb Kohl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles and Senator Kohl: I am writing to
express our strong support for your amendment to the HUD
Appropriations bill when it comes to the Senate Floor.
The amendment eliminates a proposed increase in the high-
cost FHA loan limit, which will keep FHA properly focused on
the moderate-income home buyers it was created by Congress to
serve. Congress should not increase FHA's loan limit to
enable borrowers making as much as $75,000 a year to use a
government program to buy a home.
The amendment also is a step in the right direction in
lowering lender incentives to steer borrowers to FHA-insured
mortgages when they may not be the best financing option.
Lenders now make nearly twice the amount servicing FHA loans
than they do servicing conventional loans. Your amendment
discourages lenders from inappropriate behavior by bringing
the fee they make on FHA loans more in line with private
sector fees--without any increase in the cost of an FHA loan
to consumers. Lowering lenders' fees on FHA loans even
further would serve as a more effective disincentive for such
anti-consumer lender action.
Sincerely,
Stephen Brobeck,
Executive Director.
____
National Taxpayers Union,
Alexandria, VA, July 14, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: On behalf of the 300,000-member
National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I am writing to applaud your
opposition to any increase in FHA mortgage insurance
ceilings.
The Federal Housing Administration was created in 1934 to
fill a void in the marketplace created by the Depression. Its
aim has been to assist lower income families in obtaining
their first home through mortgage insurance and lower down
payments. Thanks to the enormous economic growth experienced
in America since World War II, first time homeowners'
reliance of FHA subsidized loans has fallen from 50% of the
market during the 1950s, to the current level of only 10%.
Yet, instead of trumpeting the success in lowering the number
of Americans reliant upon government assistance to enter the
housing market, the Clinton Administration is seeking to
expand this entitlement to the wealthiest 14% of American
households.
Now, some in Congress are pushing a ``compromise'' that
would raise the top FHA limit to $198,000 and the base FHA
limit to $109,000 (up from $86,000). This ``compromise'' will
expand FHA benefits to the richest 16% of Americans and will
direct FHA away from low and moderate income borrowers.
Defenders of the FHA note that the agency provides an
important resource to lower-income families and minorities
who wish to purchase a home. NTU fails to see how low income
families will be served by FHA loans to those in the middle-
to upper-class income range. This is especially curious since
approximately 90% of Americans at this income level already
own a home or have owned a home in the past. In most cases,
families in this income bracket who cannot obtain private
mortgages are trying to purchase homes out of their price
range. Apparently, supporters of raising the ceilings will
not be happy until every wealthy American owns a home at
government expense.
In fact, the evidence suggests that low income families
would actually be hurt by increasing the mortgage ceiling. A
recent GAO report shows that in 1994, the FHA insured only
24% of all loans made to minorities, 20% of all loans to low-
income families, and 21% of all loans to first time buyers--
all of whom the FHA was supposedly created to help. Under the
current system, the only means FHA has to direct loans to
these target groups is through the loan insurance ceilings.
Raising the ceilings would direct even less FHA assistance to
these presumably needy groups. Who can defend lessening
federal entitlements to the poor and minorities in order to
expand benefits to the richest Americans?
This move also represents an unnecessary government
intervention into the private sector--which could have
disastrous results. As a document prepared by the House
Banking Committee notes:
``Since the FHA pays mortgage lenders significantly higher
servicing fees than either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (.44% of
a loan value compared to .25%) and the agency assumes the
total risk, allowing the FHA to expand into this market would
skew the incentives of mortgage lenders against dealing with
private entities to no justifiable public end.''
In other words, the federal government would crowd private
mortgage insurers out of the home mortgage business, leaving
the government as the main mortgage insurer for most
Americans. What's next? The official U.S. Government Visa
card? This represents a clearly unneeded and harmful
intrusion into the private sector by the federal government
and should be stopped.
In fact, there is some question as to whether the FHA is
even necessary in today's market. Presently, home ownership
is at an all time high of 65.7%. In 1997 alone, there was a
27.7% surge in minority home ownership. Clearly, the days
when most Americans couldn't afford their own home are over.
While the need for the FHA has been decreasing, there has
been a serious increase in mismanagement at the FHA. In fact,
as recently as last year, the GAO designated the FHA as
``high-risk.'' Within the last year, FHA was forced to change
its adjustable rate mortgage program as a result of high
losses caused by weak underwriting. A report prepared by the
House Banking Committee notes that:
``[I]n 1997, the FHA fund paid 71,599 claims, an 18%
increase from the previous year. These foreclosures occurred
despite reforms to the FHA fund, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, a record low levels of
unemployment, increasing real wages, historically low
mortgage interest rates, and a period of sustained economic
prosperity since 1993. According to the Mortgage Bankers of
America, FHA delinquencies have
[[Page S8344]]
risen by 23% since 1988. During that same period, Department
of Veterans Affairs Single Family Mortgage Guaranty Program
delinquencies rose at a much lower rate (only 9%) and
conventional mortgage delinquencies actually fell by 8%.''
Plainly, wise lending practices are not being followed by
the FHA. What the FHA needs is reform, not expansion.
To put it simply, Washington wants to expand an inefficient
federal program that barely helps those it is intended to
help in order to provide an entitlement to the richest 14% of
American families--done at the expense of low income and
minority families.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record an editorial that was in the Wall Street Journal
on June 8 of this year talking about vote building, which is an
excellent editorial that talks about how this policy will hurt areas,
large cities, blighted areas, and how this policy will increase,
unfortunately, the plight of many, many neighborhoods, as well as the
exposure to taxpayers.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 1998]
Review & Outlook
vote building
It seemed like a worthy idea at the time. In 1934, when
Congress created the Federal Housing Administration, half the
nation's mortgage debt was in default. It was felt some
entity was needed to help home buyers who couldn't qualify
for conventional mortgages. Today, home ownership's at an
all-time high and an innovative private mortgage market keeps
coming up with new products to extend credit to low and
moderate income home buyers. Logic suggests scaling back the
FHA: instead, the Clinton Administration wants to make it
easier for the affluent to qualify for 100% taxpayer-insured
loans. This is intriguing.
FHA's share of the mortgage market has fallen to 9.1% in
1996 from 13.1% in 1990. This has prompted Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo to propose a plan he says
will let the FHA ``maintain its market share'' by increasing
its maximum loan amount to $227,150, a one-third increase
over current levels.
Not only would this reorient the program to higher-income
borrowers who don't need government help to purchase a home,
but it would increase the taxpayer risk of loans going sour.
Democratic Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin notes that the
default rate on FHA lending, which requires minimal down
payments, is almost three times as high as in the private
sector. This year, the FHA is losing $4 billion in loan
defaults.
Even at current loan levels, the FHA is having a perverse
effect on neighborhoods. The Chicago Area Fair Housing
Alliance issued a study this month that found the FHA's 100%-
backed loans offer service fees that are twice as large as
those for privately insured loans and that encourage mortgage
lenders to create loans likely to fail. The result is
clusters of abandoned and boarded-up homes in marginal
neighborhoods. ``Large inventories of FHA foreclosed, vacant
and deteriorating properties are found concentrated in
minority and racially changing areas,'' the study concluded.
``It is this blight that creates the impression that racial
change causes neighborhood decline.''
There are better ways to open the housing market. Financing
isn't the only restraint on supply; there are politically
created obstacles. In 1991 a commission headed by then-HUD
Secretary Jack Kemp called for removing unnecessary barriers
to the creation of housing. New studies have estimated that
in high-priced California, where many new FHA loans would be
made, the amenity and code requirements can boost prices as
much as $60,000 a home.
Despite the taxpayer risks inherent in increasing the FHA
loan limit, the Clinton Administration is trying to sell the
expansion as a revenue raiser. Added premiums from FHA
mortgage insurance would add some $1 billion to the Treasury
over five years.
But it may also be an attempt to use a taxpayer-funded
program to harvest votes. The April 17 issue of the Housing
Affairs Letter, an internal industry newsletter, quoted a HUD
official as saying, ``The increase in the loan limit is vital
to the president's nationwide homeownership campaign, and if
it passes Congress, it will surely translate into votes in
the next presidential campaign.'' Former HUD Secretary Kemp
calls raising FHA loans limits a ``classic Clinton-Gore
strategy: courting suburbanites with proposals that they
could rationalize through the prism of politics, but couldn't
defend as sound policy.''
Under ideal conditions, a political playpen like the FHA
would be privatized and local governments encouraged to fine-
tune their zoning and code requirements to help home buyers
now frozen out of high-priced markets. But so long as that
doesn't happen, it makes little sense to expand FHA loans to
people with upper-middle-class incomes.
Who should be eligible for FHA loans? Why not restrict such
loans only to those families in the 15% tax bracket. If the
Clinton Administration wants to help more people buy homes,
it can lower the number of people subject to the steeper 28%
bracket, and at the same time provide them with more money to
meet the loan payments and avoid default. But with its more
upscale ``reform,'' it appears that the White House prefers
buying votes the old-fashioned way.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have a letter from Jack Kemp, who was
former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, dated July 15, 1998.
I will read one short paragraph. He says:
Your amendment will also stop a brash move by the
administration to push the FHA further and further away from
its core mission of supporting the home ownership dreams of
low- and moderate-income American families, a noble mission
that has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress.
The drive to raise the FHA loan limit to $197,000 is
motivated by a desire for votes in the fall elections. It
would take an income of about $75,000 a year to qualify for
such a loan, or the top 16% of wage earners.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
July 15, 1998.
Hon. Don Nickles,
SH-133 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: I am writing to you today to support
your efforts to stop yet another attempt by the federal
government to expand its power, harm those it intends to
serve and trample on the private sector mortgage market. As
you know, I have opposed raising the FHA loan limits at all.
And the provision in the current HUD/VA Appropriations Bill
raising the limits to the proposed level would expose the
federal taxpayer to $10 billion in contingent liability. It
also would increase economic incentives for mortgage lenders
to steer borrowers to the FHA program even though it may not
be the best financing option. Therefore, I cannot support
raising the FHA loan limits a single dollar.
However, if you have concluded that the provision has
sufficient support to pass, I believe your amendment to raise
Ginnie Mae's guarantee fees from 6 to 12 basis points goes a
long way toward making a bad idea a livable one. And on its
own merits, I believe you have an excellent proposal. Without
costing a homebuyer an extra cent, your amendment removes the
incentive for mortgage companies to unnecessarily direct
buyers toward FHA loans. Currently, lenders make twice as
much in servicing fees from FHA loans than they do in
servicing conventional loans. Even though they require lower
downpayments, FHA loans are more costly to the borrower over
the life of the loan. By reducing lenders' fees for servicing
FHA loans, lenders will have less incentive to steer
borrowers to these higher cost FHA loans when they might have
qualified for cheaper conventional financing.
Furthermore, the point must be made that without your
amendment, the contingent liability on the American people
will increase by $10 billion. With FHA delinquencies already
at an all-time high, an economic slowdown or recession could
render the FHA insurance fund insolvent and that contingent
liability would come due.
Your amendment also will stop a brash move by the
administration to push the FHA further and further away from
its core mission of supporting the homeownership dreams of
low- and moderate-income American families, a noble mission
that has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress.
The drive to raise the FHA loan limit to $197,000 is
motivated by a desire for votes in the fall elections. It
would take an income of about $75,000 a year to qualify for
such a loan, or the top 16% of wage earners. Among these
borrowers, 86% are homeowners today. It would make more sense
to target families making less than $50,000, 40% of whom own
their home, and can use the FHA program at today's levels.
I applaud you for your efforts to sensibly raise money for
housing programs and keep the FHA program true to its mission
of serving low- and moderate-income Americans.
Very sincerely yours,
Jack Kemp.
Mr. NICKLES. Let me just conclude by stating that I regret coming in
and opposing my friends and colleagues from Missouri and Maryland on
this issue. But if my memory serves, several years ago the Senator from
Maryland and I wrestled with this issue on the floor of the Senate.
At that time there was an effort for people to raise the limits. I
said, ``Wait a minute. Why are we having the Federal Government
guaranteeing more and more loans?'' Home ownership, I might mention, in
this country is at an all-time high. I think that is great. Most of
that is done in the private sector. It just so happens FHA is losing
its percentage share as the private sector has exploded. I think that
is good.
I think this increase is an effort by the Secretary of Housing to
say, ``Wait a minute. We want the Federal Government to be making more
loans.'' I also think it is also driven by a desire to generate more
money for the Government. Because as you increase the loan
[[Page S8345]]
limits, you increase the fees, and so on, and that allows the
Government to spend more money.
I will not get too technical on the budget, but if the committee
raises money through fees and so on, that allows them to stay within
the ``budget caps'' because they get an offset for the increase in
fees, and as a result, by increasing the fees both on the bottom and
the top, the committee is going to get about an extra $80 million a
year over and above the budget that we agreed to last year, that the
President signed. I am not saying it is not within the rules of the
Congress. I am just saying I think it is an attempt to have more money
to spend. I personally am somewhat troubled by that.
Under existing law, loan rates on both the low end and the top end
have already increased. They increased on the low end from $81,000 to
$86,000. This committee bill increases it to $109,000. We do not touch
that. I think maybe we should, but we do not.
Our amendment just says we should not increase the top limit from
$170,000--keep in mind, last year's was $160,000--to $197,000. A
$10,000 increase in Federal Government loan guarantees in the high
income areas, surely that is enough. The committee wants to take it
almost $200,000. I think that is a serious mistake. I think that takes
FHA away from its core mission. FHA's mission was to help low- and
moderate-income people, not the wealthiest 15 percent of society.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. We will be
voting on it early tomorrow morning. I think it is very important that
we protect taxpayers from greater risk, and that we keep FHA focused on
low and moderate income home buyers. I thank my colleague from
Wisconsin for his leadership and support on this amendment, his
coauthorship of this amendment, as well as my colleague, Senator Mack,
from Florida, who happens to be chairman of the authorizing committee.
I also want to thank Senators Faircloth, Allard, and Feingold for their
support in trying to eliminate this expansion of the higher income
limits for FHA.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is always good to see our former
colleague on the VA-HUD committee come to the floor to talk about the
difficult issues. We certainly appreciate his kind comments.
The VA-HUD-Independent Agencies is a very challenging and interesting
area. He raised the question about the increase in spending; and to
explain that will perhaps give my colleagues some idea why this is such
a complex area.
The total spending includes--total spending is about $93 billion--
includes $22 billion in mandatory spending for veterans administration
categories. That is about a $4 billion increase over fiscal year 1998.
The increase is attributable largely to the following--about a $1.5
billion increase in veterans administration, primarily mandatory
spending, things over which our subcommittee has no control.
In addition, there is, HUD figures, about $2.6 billion over last
year's figure. And that is because money was taken from section 8
contracts earlier in the year to pay for a supplemental. This is the
budget that is always raided. And the broader Appropriations Committee
has raided these section 8 contracts. That would be good except for the
fact that the cost of renewing section 8 contracts in HUD continues to
escalate.
In fiscal year 1997, we needed $3.6 billion in budget authority to
renew existing section 8 contracts. Because we had moved to shorter and
shorter term contracts, from multiyear contracts down to 2-year and 1-
year contracts, it then shot up to $8.2 billion in budget authority for
fiscal year 1998, the current year; and it jumps to $11.1 billion in
fiscal year 1999. That is the result of the length of the contracts.
But it means, in order to continue providing the same assistance we
do currently under section 8, we have to have about $2.9 billion more
in budget authority for fiscal year 1999 than we did for fiscal year
1998. If you say we do not want to increase it, it means, in essence,
that we are going to have to take away section 8 housing contracts and
kick people out. That is just a simple choice.
I must oppose the amendment of my good friend from Oklahoma to strike
the increase in FHA mortgage insurance limits for high-cost areas and
to offset that with an increase of 6 basis points to the fees that
Ginnie Mae charges for servicing costs.
The first point we need to make is that the FHA mortgage insurance
increase is a bipartisan proposal, a bipartisan congressional proposal,
that enjoys wide support from both Republicans and Democrats in this
body. I do not see this modest increase as growing government. Rather,
the FHA mortgage increase represents an approach to fill a gap that
allows Americans of modest means--moderate-income Americans--to own
their own homes, one of the great American dreams for all families.
The FHA was established in 1934 as a result of nearly impossible
lending conditions during the Great Depression, and in over 60 years
the public-private partnership of FHA and private lenders has enabled
more than 25 million families to realize the dream of home ownership.
Moreover, the FHA Mortgage Insurance Program supplements and
complements the role of private mortgage insurance by assisting
families who do not have adequate resources to meet the private
mortgage markets' downpayment requirement, which is often 20 percent of
the mortgage amount.
While the private mortgage insurance market has made tremendous
strides in providing new products to assist families in purchasing
homes, many families would be unable to purchase their home without the
benefit of FHA mortgage insurance. In brief, the Senate VA-HUD fiscal
year 1999 appropriations bill provides modest increases in the FHA
mortgage insurance limits, raising the floor from 38 percent of the
Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, or about $86,000, to 48 percent of
the conforming loan limit, or some $109,000. It establishes a new
ceiling for high-cost areas from the existing 75 percent of the
conforming loan limit, or some $170,000, to 87 percent of the
conforming loan limit, or some $197,000.
And let me indicate where these higher loan limits would be
implemented. Right now--this is a chart which shows the United States.
The colors of the chart indicate where the low rate, the base limit, is
in place. These are the areas in blue. This is where the base lending
rate would go from $86,000 to roughly $109,000.
The green areas on here are 95 percent of the local median.
The high-low rate, the one which is being challenged in this
amendment which is raised to $197,000, would be in these few red areas
on the East Coast--essentially, Boston, New York, Washington, DC area,
Denver, CO, and California along the coastline. The rest of the country
is not affected by the increases in the higher-end loan limit.
I think the legislation seeks to strike a reasonable balance to
promote additional home ownership and would allow home ownership for
some 30,000 families, 20,000 in high-cost areas and 10,000 basically
nonurban areas. In particular, these new FHA mortgage insurance limits
will help in nonurban areas where the price of new housing has
escalated beyond the capacity of first-time home buyers to use FHA
mortgage insurance to buy a house in some areas because the FHA lower-
limits financing is not available for construction of first homes for
families of workers with lower wages.
The problem is that the existing FHA mortgage insurance limits do not
reflect the higher cost of new homes. New homes cost more than existing
homes because of the cost of materials and labor. In addition, there
are many other expenses. For example, the cost to develop new housing
subdivisions is expensive because of the cost of utility hookups,
environmental requirements, local taxes and surcharges for things like
schools, roads, fire protection, as well as the cost of buildable land.
Currently, the median price for a new home is $142,000, while the
median price for an existing home is $126,500, for a $15,500
difference.
Now, this difference is very important for Missouri as well as the
rest of the Nation. Home ownership in housing construction has been and
always will be a locomotive for the U.S. economy. In addition to the
jobs created through
[[Page S8346]]
the development of new housing, many nonurban areas in particular will
be able to provide the affordable housing that is so critical to
attracting new business and to maintaining existing businesses.
I have talked with people in areas just outside the metropolitan
Kansas, MO area, in areas of north Missouri, where they are benefiting
from new jobs coming into the area but they are strangled because the
new jobs bring in people who can't get housing. They can't get
affordable housing. This is one of the critical needs for people in
those areas so that they can continue to create jobs and see their
communities grow. They need to have affordable housing. I am hoping
that the raising of the lower limit will enable them to get FHA
financing and build new homes.
Now, I don't want to confuse anyone. As I said, Senator Nickles'
amendment does not seek to reduce the increase to the FHA mortgage
insurance floor, the one I was just talking about, as provided in the
VA-HUD 1999 appropriations bill. Senator Nickles' concern, as well as
those of his colleagues, is that the proposed new mortgage insurance
limit of $197,000 for high-cost areas is too high. In particular, in a
``Dear Colleague'' letter, Senators Nickles, Mack, Allard, Kohl, and
Feingold state that to qualify for a mortgage of $197,000, a family
would need an income of at least $75,000. Well, $197,000 is a lot of
money for a house. That cost, however, is the reality in many areas and
it needs to be addressed.
In addition, I think it is fair to say that $75,000 is not an
extraordinary amount of income for a family. For example, it means that
a two-income family, a schoolteacher and a firefighter, will be able to
live in a community in which they serve. This is important. I do not
think we should lose sight of the importance of mixed-income
communities while providing opportunities for home ownership.
Moreover, as part of Secretary Kemp's FHA reform initiative as
enacted in the National Affordable Housing Act, Price Waterhouse
conducts an actuarial review of the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
on an annual basis. From the perspective of actuarial soundness, NAHA
mandated a fund to achieve a capital ratio of at least 2 percent by
fiscal year 2000. However, the fund reached a capital ratio of 2.81
percent in fiscal year 1997 and is expected to reach 3.21 percent by
fiscal year 2000. Moreover, the projected economic value of the Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Fund was $11.3 billion at the end of fiscal year
1997. This represents a more than $14 billion increase in the value of
the fund since Secretary Kemp's reforms in 1990, when it was a negative
$2.7 billion.
In addition, the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program is
self-sustaining, has not cost the American taxpayer any money in its
entire existence. Insurance premiums and loan loss recovery proceeds
pay for all costs incurred in the administration of the program,
leaving sufficient reserves from an actuarial perspective to pay all
future claims.
I note that Senators Nickles, Mack, and Faircloth have developed a
number of very worthwhile reforms to the FHA mortgage insurance program
which have been agreed to and will be included in the next managers'
amendment. As with my colleagues, I remain concerned over HUD's
capacity to administer its many programs, including its FHA mortgage
insurance programs. These FHA management reforms would require that
each lender provide a comparison of FHA mortgage funding with three of
a lender's most frequently employed mortgage loan structures, an annual
study by GAO on steering by lenders to FHA, and a requirement that HUD
submit an initial report within 60 days annually on how HUD plans to
correct mortgage problems in the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance
Program.
Finally, I have concerns about any changes to the Ginnie Mae
servicing structure. I have been advised that any change in the
servicing fee will likely result in increased home ownership costs to
families, with estimates that it could cost consumers some $250 million
per year and price some 15,000 home buyers out of the market each year.
I have a letter from a significant group of veterans organizations
that I will place at the end of my statement for the Record from the
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Non Commissioned Officers
Association, Blind Veterans Association, and Paralyzed Veterans of
America, saying that any increase in Ginnie Mae fees will result in an
added cost to lenders which will invariably be passed on to VA loan
recipients. We estimate that even just a 6-basis-point increase in the
Ginnie Mae guarantee fee will cost VA borrowers over $67 million
annually, with a typical veteran paying over $250 in upfront closing
costs. With the veterans already struggling to afford their first
homes, this cost increase would be devastating.
I expect the argument of my colleagues will be that lenders currently
receive a fee for servicing FHA-insured mortgages of 38 basis points,
almost double the fee that lenders receive for servicing loans in the
private sector. For example, as opposed to the 38 basis points lenders
receive in service fees under FHA, lenders receive between 20 and 25
basis points for servicing fees associated with conventional mortgages
guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nevertheless, Ginnie Mae
operates significantly different from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
particularly when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take on the responsibility
that all security holders receive their payments, whereas the servicer
is responsible for the pass-through on a Ginnie Mae security, and where
a servicer fails, it is no longer permitted to participate in a Ginnie
Mae program. That is a significant responsibility and merits additional
fees.
I send this letter of July 14 to the desk. It happens to be addressed
to the distinguished occupant of the Chair. This is a letter from
AMVETS, Disabled Veterans, Non Commissioned Officers, Blind Veterans,
and the Association of Paralyzed Veterans of America.
I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
July 14, 1998.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allard: The Senate is scheduled to consider
the FY 99 VA/HUD Appropriations bill, S. 2168 in the next few
days. As organizations that share a deep commitment to our
nation's veterans, we ask that you oppose any amendments to
increase the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee. Specifically, this fee
increase would mean added costs to veterans taking out VA
mortgages. Quite simply, this policy would make homeownership
more expensive for veterans.
Because VA mortgages are typically placed into mortgage-
backed securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, the VA home loan
program is linked to the capital markets. This link means
lower cost mortgage funds for veteran borrowers. Ginnie Mae,
which charges lenders a fee for the guaranty, makes the whole
process possible.
However, any increase in Ginnie Mae fees will result in an
added cost to lenders, which will invariably be passed on to
VA loan recipients. We estimate that even just a six basis
point increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee would cost VA
borrowers over $67 million annually--with the typical veteran
paying over $250 more in up-front closing costs. With many
veterans already struggling to afford their first homes, this
cost increase could be devastating.
Please vote against any amendments to increase the Ginnie
Mae guaranty fee.
Sincerely,
AMVETS.
Disabled American Veterans.
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA.
Blinded Veterans Association.
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Mr. BOND. I urge my colleagues, when the vote is held on this very
important amendment tomorrow morning, that they oppose this amendment.
I believe the time has come to provide this modest increase in the loan
limits, and I hope our colleagues will support the committee in this
effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment
offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. As my
colleagues know, this amendment would strike the increase to the high-
end FHA loan limit included in the VA/HUD bill.
FHA is intended to fill an important mission--helping low- and
middle-income Americans purchase their first
[[Page S8347]]
homes--helping those who are not served by the private market.
For this reason, our amendment leaves the proposed increase to the
low-end FHA loan limit in place, ensuring that in the vast majority of
States across the country--97 percent of the counties in the United
States--the loan limit will be more than sufficient for low- to
moderate-income people to purchase homes of their own.
But we should all be reminded that any decision to raise the loan
limits on the high end should be approached with caution. FHA loans are
100 percent insured by the Federal Government. If a home owner goes
into default, it is the taxpayer, not the lender, that bares the risk.
And that's no small risk--FHA default rates are three times higher than
defaults on conventional mortgages. Last year, foreclosures on FHA
homes resulted in over $5 billion in claims.
There is no reason to extend that risk on behalf of home buyers who
are already well-served by the private market. Raising the high end
limit and expanding FHA to cover expensive homes may very well
jeopardize the health of the entire program. Higher priced home loans,
especially when combined with the relatively low downpayments required
by FHA, default more often--and obviously cost more when they default.
Raising the high end limit would clearly place the Federal Government
in competition with the private sector, needlessly expose taxpayers to
more risk, and give upper income home buyers access to mortgage credit
they don't need.
Changing the high end limit will steer the program away from working
families--at a higher cost to taxpayers--with more devastation to the
communities that hold abandoned, foreclosed-upon FHA properties.
With this amendment, we have the chance to ensure that the program
stays focused on borrowers who legitimately need help and also to
create a strong, healthy FHA that works for everyone--home buyers,
lenders, and the taxpayers.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Nickles amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues,
Senator Nickles, Senator Kohl and Senator Mack in supporting this
amendment to strike language raising the ceiling on mortgage limits
insured by the Federal Housing Administration.
Mr. President, the appropriations bill we are currently considering
includes language that would raise the ceiling on the Federal Housing
Administration's loan limit from the current level of 75% of the
conforming loan limit--approximately $170,000--to 87% of the conforming
loan limit, which is approximately $197,000.
Mr. President, it is--quite frankly--astounding to me that Congress
is considering action that would raise the FHA loan limit. In a time
when Congress needs to be focusing on balancing the budget, it is truly
ironic to me that some members seem to want to increase the burden to
taxpayers by expanding a government program into an area already well-
served by the private sector. In case you or any of our colleagues is
wondering, a $197,000 loan translates to a house worth over $200,000.
To afford such a house, a family would have to have annual earnings of
over $75,000--an income level that only about 16% of American families
are at. I don't know about you, Mr. President, but in Wisconsin, we
don't consider folks who own $200,000 homes to be ``needy.'' These
upper-income families are already well-served by the private market.
Mr. President, the arguments against raising FHA loan limits are
overwhelming: HUD's own FY 1999 Budget proposal predicts a 100%
increase in the default rate for 1998--totaling $4 billion. The very
same Committee Report seeking to raise the loan limits also
acknowledges, and I quote, ``concern[s] about HUD's capability to
manage the FHA mortgage insurance programs and the potential exposure
of the Federal Government if there is an economic downturn.'' Since
1990, while the mortgage delinquency rate in the conventional market
fell by 8%, the FHA delinquency rate rose by 23%. FHA backs 100% of
every loan it insures, and so those delinquencies and defaults are
borne 100% by taxpayers. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that those
who seek to increase FHA's loan-limits are sending a strong message
that they are willing to let American taxpayers pick-up the tab.
Mr. President, I have here a letter from the National Taxpayers Union
to Congressman Bob Livingston, Chair of the House Appropriations
Committee. The letter, which I would ask be inserted in the record,
sums-up--I think very nicely--the manifold concerns with increasing the
loan limit ceiling:
Defenders of the FHA note that the agency provides an
important resource to lower-income familes and minorities who
wish to purchase a home. NTU fails to see how low-income
families will be served by FHA loans to those in the middle-
to upper-class income range . . . Apparently, supporters of
raising the ceilings will not be happy until every wealthy
American owns a home at government expense.
It would seem to me, Mr. President, that rather than raising the FHA
loan limits, Congress needs to be thinking critically about what steps
we can take to improve the actuarial safety and soundness of FHA
programs so that it can continue to help working families purchase
their homes. Rather than expanding the program for the benefit of
upper-income borrowers and special interest groups, we ought to be
thinking about how we can make sure those working families of modest
means are truly being served by the existing FHA programs.
Mr. President, the amendment my colleagues and I are introducing
today would remove language raising the FHA loan limit ceiling and
increase the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee by 12 basis points. I believe that
raising the loan limit ceiling to $197,000 is fiscally irresponsible,
unnecessarily expands a government program into an area already well-
served by the private sector, and distracts the FHA from its mission to
serve lower-income home-buyers. I hope my colleagues will give careful
consideration to these concerns and support our amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Nickles
amendment. The simple fact is that the Nickles amendment would greatly
reduce the availability of FHA loans, which have helped millions of
first-time, low-income and minority home buyers share in the American
dream of home ownership. S. 2168, before us, currently includes a
provision that would expand the FHA loan limits in high-cost markets
only--in high-cost markets only--from a current cap of $170,000 to a
new cap of $197,000 in such high-cost markets. My able colleague from
Missouri earlier indicated on a map where those markets would be
located.
Now, the committee's proposal represents, I think, a very significant
and appropriate compromise to the administration's request. The
administration's request was to institute a single, nationwide loan
limit of $227,000. The committee did not go down that path. The
committee, instead, went down the path of raising the lower limit
which, interestingly enough, this amendment does not try to strike,
apparently, according to my colleague from Oklahoma, because of just
political realities of the matter, and also raise the high-cost limit,
maintaining that distinction. I think it represents a very significant
compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the committee and to reject
the amendment.
Now, we are experiencing a time when almost two-thirds of American
families own their own homes today. This would not have been possible
without the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program. Each year,
about 700,000 Americans purchase homes using FHA insurance. The vast
majority of these home buyers could not qualify for a conventional home
loan. If the FHA weren't available, they would not have been able to
break into the ranks of homeowners.
The point is made that the default rate within the FHA is somewhat
greater, at 8 percent, than it is in the private insurance market. But
that is because, of course, the FHA is making this opportunity
available to people who would otherwise be closed out of the market
altogether. Of course, the reverse side of the 8 percent is the 92
percent who were able to break into the home ownership market.
It is estimated that 77 percent of first-time home buyers and 85
percent of minority home buyers who use FHA
[[Page S8348]]
would not have qualified for private mortgage insurance. And since the
FHA insurance premium is financed through borrower premiums, it does
not end up costing the taxpayer.
One of the difficulties is that FHA insurance, at a set figure,
cannot be utilized effectively in all parts of the country. Nationwide,
there are 43 metropolitan areas, representing 25 percent of the
population, which are capped at the current ceiling of $170,000. In 32
out of the 43 metropolitan areas, the median home price exceeds the
$170,000 figure. So at the $170,000 figure, in 32 of the 43
metropolitan areas, the median home price exceeds that figure. In
Maryland, half of our counties--12 of our 24 countries--are now capped
at $170,000. Now, by striking the provision in S. 2168 which raises the
loan limits in high-cost areas to $197,000, the result of the Nickles
amendment would be that hundreds of thousands of Americans would be
denied the opportunity to purchase modestly priced homes simply because
they live and work in high-cost parts of the country.
These are not wealthy Americans. These are teachers, policemen, and
firemen who serve in communities where they often cannot afford to
live. Now, this isn't just unfortunate, this is also unfair. What has
to be understood is that a limit that will work in one part of the
country will not work in another part of the country. In other words,
if you say, well, we ought to give moderate-income people an
opportunity to have home ownership, you have some parts of the country
where the cost of housing is low, incomes are lower, costs are lower, a
whole different dynamic works, and other parts of the country where
costs are much higher and housing costs in particular are much higher.
I can take you on a very short ride from here to jurisdictions where
ordinary working people would not have a chance at home ownership,
except through the FHA program. We need to raise those limits in those
areas because the median housing cost is now well above the existing
cap.
Furthermore, I want to know--because of the split which the Senator
from Oklahoma has made where he said he doesn't go after the lower
limits, which, of course, have a much broader application throughout
the country--the Nickles amendment imposes substantial increases in
Ginnie Mae user fees. This imposes a double hit on consumers. First,
the increased cost to lenders will be passed along to FHA consumers in
the form of higher interest rates and/or larger downpayments. Second,
FHA lenders may opt out of the program if the cost of participation
becomes too high.
The net result of these changes, the increase in the Ginnie Mae user
fees, would be a substantial reduction in FHA use and availability even
within the current loan limits. And to those of my colleagues who do
not have high-cost areas in their State, I point out that the Nickles
amendment provision to increase the Ginnie Mae user fees would hurt all
FHA users regardless of the size of their loans. By contrast, S. 2168
would increase FHA participation without placing a cost on the
taxpayers or any additional financial burdens upon FHA consumers.
Mr. President, the FHA program has helped millions of Americans
purchase homes who would not otherwise qualify. The FHA program serves
a much higher percentage of first-time, low- and moderate-income and
minority home buyers than any conventional loan product.
If we as a Nation are committed to supporting home ownership for all
Americans, we should reaffirm our commitment to the FHA program.
I really want to commend the committee, I think, for the very careful
balance which they developed. This is a far departure from what the
administration's request was. In fact, I think the committee obviously
took into account the number of points that had been raised by
proponents of the Nickles amendment in making their calculations and
reaching their judgments in terms of what to do. But unless we raise
the cap in the high-cost markets, they are really going to get excluded
from the possibility of home ownership. People really qualify as low-
and moderate-income people in those high-cost areas. The Nickles
amendment allows the floor figure to come up, which in those areas of
the country means that the very sort of people that I am concerned
about in the high-cost areas would, in fact, not be able to obtain home
ownership. I don't think the people in the high-cost areas who confront
a whole different economic circumstance ought to be denied that
opportunity.
This program has been enormously important and successful in moving
Americans into home ownership who would not otherwise have had that
opportunity.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Nickles amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment.
At the outset, I want to say to the chairman of the VA-HUD
Subcommittee, both to Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, that I
congratulate them for their effort in putting together what is
generally a good and balanced HUD appropriations bill.
As chairman of the HUD's authorizing subcommittee, I appreciate the
difficulty of funding the most important parts of HUD's mission, while
also addressing the critical need of the Department to reform its
management and operations.
I especially appreciate Senator Bond's cooperation in helping ensure
the effective implementation of the section 8 ``mark-to-market''
program we enacted last year. However, on the issue of FHA loan limits,
Senator Bond and I disagree.
I am concerned that the Appropriations Committee did not consider the
views of the authorizing committee. This is a major policy change that
is being implemented through the appropriations process despite
evidence gathered in hearings that would indicate that the change is
ill-advised.
Last month, the Housing Opportunity and Community Development
Subcommittee held two days of oversight hearings on FHA. The
Subcommittee heard extensive testimony from HUD, GAO, the HUD Inspector
General and outside witnesses on the programs, operations and mission
of FHA, and on proposals for reform. I heard little testimony at those
hearings that made a compelling case to raise the FHA loan limit. As
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I would not have recommended
an increase in the loan limits.
This bill does not contain the Administration's initial proposal for
raising the loan limits--a proposal I strongly oppose. However, the
proposal contained in the bill does focus attention away from the
traditional mission of FHA of serving low- and moderate-income families
and first-time home buyers. Further, it covers up some of the
fundamental problems in the FHA single-family insurance program that
jeopardize its long-term stability.
This proposal would result in targeting FHA, in part, to households
well above median income, the vast majority of whom are already
homeowners. An increase in the maximum mortgage amount would do little
to help the households that FHA is intended to serve, namely moderate
income families who for one reason or another do not have access to the
conventional mortgage market.
Mr. President, Senator Nickles, I think, did a good job of arguing
his position, and the points that Senator Sarbanes raised is one of the
central areas of debate.
I would like to focus my attention on some other aspects of FHA. I
want to focus the bulk of my comments now on a series of management
problems in FHA which should be corrected before FHA expands its
program and assumes further risks.
At a Housing Subcommittee hearing in May, we heard testimony
concerning serious material weaknesses in internal controls, financial
systems and resource management that make the Department vulnerable to
waste, fraud and mismanagement. Although HUD is in the process of a
major management reform program, the ultimate success of that effort is
questionable.
FHA, with about $400 billion of insurance-in-force and a portfolio of
6.7 million single-family loans, is HUD's largest, most visible--and
most vulnerable--program area. Many of the material weaknesses
identified and described by the HUD Inspector General,
[[Page S8349]]
the General Accounting Office and others, involve FHA programs.
Further, these problems have been identified in each independent audit
of FHA conducted since fiscal year 1991.
First, FHA's staffing resources have significantly declined over the
past several years. Furthermore, the majority of staffing reductions
that have already occurred or are planned under HUD's 2020 Management
Reform come out of FHA's single-family operations. FHA's staffing
resources have declined during a period where its insured portfolio has
continued to increase. In 1992, FHA's staff was about 6,800, but today,
its staff is down to around 4,100. This is equivalent to a 40 percent
reduction. This raises concerns about the quality of skilled staff that
remain at FHA today, since many senior staff have left the Department.
Replacing this staff is problematic, since unlike private entities, FHA
does not have the authority to hire staff or the ability to quickly
invest more resources in automated tools or staff training when its
business increase.
Second, FHA has serious weaknesses with its accounting and financial
management systems. The main problems with its information system is
that the systems are not linked and integrated or configured to meet
all financial reporting requirements. Also, data quality problems exist
in its default monitoring system. Although these problems have been
recognized for several years. The HUD Inspector General has found that
``resources needed to develop state-of-the-art systems are lacking''
because of budgetary constraints or the lack of prioritizing these
matters.
FHA's accounting and financial management systems will also be
affected by the so-called ``Year 2000'' or ``Y2K'' problem. FHA has 19
critical systems that OMB has mandated to be Y2K compliant by March
1999. However, only two systems have been programmed to address Y2K,
and neither has been certified as Y2K compliant. The GAO recently
warned that failure to address the Y2K problem could result in system
failures that would interrupt the processing of applications for
mortgage insurance and the payment of mortgage insurance claims.
Third, data integrity problems with its default monitoring system has
affected FHA's ability to effectively monitor the performance of its
mortgagees. FHA also lacks an effective underwriting system that can
predict which borrowers pose the greatest risk. Identifying and
managing risk is absolutely critical to the long-term soundness of FHA.
While FHA's single-family insurance fund currently exceeds its
capital reserve requirement, there have been recent indications
of potential problems in the FHA program. If these problems are not
corrected, then FHA faces financial instability. For example, FHA
defaults are serveral times higher than either the VA or the
conventional mortgage market. During fiscal year 1997 claim payments
for FHA-insured loans, especially for adjustable rate mortgages, were
far higher than expected. The inventory of single-family properties
owned by HUD increased by about 30 percent to more than 30,000. We have
also heard and seen evidence that the geographic concentration of
mortgage defaults, and FHA's inability to manage and monitor its
portfolio, have damaged neighborhoods and permitted families to
purchase homes that are either substandard or unafforable. In addition,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have recently introduced lower down payment
mortgage products that may attract some of FHA's lower-risk borrowers,
leaving FHA with more of the high-risk market.
There is no denying that the FHA single-family insurance program has
been a success. More than 24 million households have used FHA since its
creation in 1934. FHA has traditionally been a preferred tool for
homeownership by young families and first-time homebuyers and by lower
income and minority households who for many reasons have not been
served well by the conventional marketplace. And, thanks to reforms
begun under Secretary Jack Kemp, FHA has made significant strides
toward financial stability. I have a strong interest in ensuring that
FHA take all of the necessary steps to ensure that it continues to
serve the people and communities the program is intended to serve and
will ultimately make the program more financially stable.
However,I question whether it is prudent for any business, let alone
one ultimately subsidized by the taxpayer, to expand its operations
while attempting to deal with serious management problems. And on the
basis of this concern alone, an increase in FHA loan limits would not
be prudent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER, Mr. President, I take the floor to stand in opposition to
the amendment that would strike the raise in the ceiling on the Federal
Housing Administration loan limit. I believe the raise in the ceiling
is critical for high cost real estate market areas, and I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
This bill raises the ceiling on FHA loans from 75 percent of the
Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, which is about $170,000, to 87
percent of the conforming loan limit, or about $197,000. This is
particularly good for my state, where the cost of housing is so high,
especially in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
FHA loans encourages lenders to make mortgage credit available in
areas and to borrowers who may not otherwise qualify for conventional
loans on affordable terms, such as first-time home buyers. Raising the
loan limit will help those who have not been able to get conventional
loans because of small credit blemishes or a lack of a large cash
downpayment. These are the gaps in homeownership that FHA now fills,
across income levels, and home prices.
This is a modest proposal, and one that helps consumers residing in
high-cost areas of the country who are currently locked out of housing
because the FHA maximum of $170,362 is less than the average cost of
housing.
The cost of housing is so high in the Bay Area, that Bridge Housing
Corporation rarely uses FHA. Carol Galante, the president of Bridge,
one of the largest non-profit housing developers in the country, says
she rarely can use FHA insurance because the loan limits are so far
below the median home price for Northern California.
Raising the FHA loan limit will enable FHA to reach more borrowers
and more communities which are not currently being served by the
private mortgage industry. The raise in the FHA loan limit as provided
for in this bill will help between 125,000 and 175,000 worthy American
families, including 16,500 to 23,100 California families, to have
access to homeownership over the next 5 years.
In the 15 highest cost U.S. housing markets, the homeownership rate
is only 58%. That is more than 7 percentage points below the national
average, and in these markets, FHA is the only credit program not
available to moderate-income households. Thus, in places like New York,
Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, over 7% of families are
systematically denied access to homeownership. This increase in the
loan limit will allow 18 counties in California to raise their loan
limits.
The increase in the loan limit will generate revenues of about $80
million a year. FHA has never called upon the taxpayers for a bailout,
and certainly will not under this proposal.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Nickles
amendment.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks by the chairman of the
subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, as well as the
senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who also is the ranking
member on the Housing, Banking, and Urban Affairs Committee. Senator
Sarbanes outlined, I think in rather solid, logical terms, exactly why
the Nickles amendment really is, though well-intentioned, flawed in its
public policy ramifications, as did Senator Bond.
I must say that initially, when Secretary Cuomo came and presented
this idea, I really raised my eyebrows. I thought, my gosh, FHA--he
wanted to raise the limit to $227,000. That is a quarter of a million
dollars. That is a lot of money. Now, from the time I either chaired
the subcommittee or now, as ranking, it has been my passion and my
commitment to public policy to expand opportunities for first-time home
ownership, and two significant tools
[[Page S8350]]
were in the VA-HUD Subcommittee--the VA mortgage itself, which has been
a significant empowerment tool for minorities and for others who might
have been really segregated out of the mortgage market, and also FHA
has been very, very important in terms of first-time home buyers.
But yet as we looked at the facts, it really became important for us
to lift the limit, and we felt that a reasonable approach would be to
raise the FHA loan limit in high-cost areas, many of which are in my
State, from $170,000 to $197,000, and also to raise the limit in low-
cost areas from $86,000 to $108,000, which are also in my State, and to
streamline the downpayment calculations to reduce administrative costs
and burdens.
The administration wanted to have just that one limit of $227,000 for
all communities. I do not believe that one size fits all. I do believe
we need to recognize the realities of the market.
In addition to that, we are concerned about foreclosures, and we did
not want to risk people getting into so much debt early in their lives
or risking the loss of a home because they got in over their heads. We
did not want to end up with heartbreak for the families and heartburn
for the taxpayers.
I believe what we have here is a good middle ground. Included in the
language, in addition to the mortgage, we direct HUD to consult with
Congress before beginning its bulk sale of foreclosed properties so
that we can deal with the way they deal with foreclosed properties,
which I am not happy about and I know the Presiding Officer is not
either. I do not want to see those properties go at fire sale prices or
end up blighting a community when it should have been a tool of
empowerment. The Federal Government ends up being a slum landlord,
selling it to someone who either cannot afford it or chooses to use it
to downgrade the neighborhood. FHA should be a tool for first-time home
buyers and not a tool for neighborhood deterioration.
Let me just give you some figures from Maryland and why I think this
bill is good for Maryland and also good for the Nation. There are three
counties in Maryland at the current low end limit of $86,000. They are
Allegany, Garrett, and Somerset. And I also know Dorchester sits
somewhere in there as well. In Garrett, the realtors report that the
median home price is $124,000 in a county where the FHA limit is
$86,000. That is a poor county. FHA is a very important tool. It is not
a poor county, but it is of very modest means.
Eleven counties out of our 23 and Baltimore have limits at the FHA
limit of $170,000, yet in Montgomery County housing the median price is
$174,000. Raising these limits, I note, could help create 2,000 new
home buyers in the State of Maryland.
Well, Mr. President, that talks about Maryland, and I have a whole
set of facts here on why it would be good for the Nation and also why
increasing the Ginnie Mae fees would really give me pause, and I
absolutely oppose raising the Ginnie Mae fees.
What applies in Maryland will also apply in many communities around
the country.
This is especially true in many urban high cost areas, particularly
in the Northeast and California. It is also true that in many rural
areas in the heartland of the country. FHA does not meet the local
market realities.
HUD estimates that the provision we have included in our bill will
provide for 17,000 new home buyers annually and generate $80 million a
year in revenue for the FHA fund.
HUD estimates the Senate's FHA increase will raise the limits in 32
high-cost metropolitan areas and 174 lower cost areas.
But let's be clear; we're not talking about buying a place, but we
are talking about buying a home. It is estimated that the average loan
amount under the Senate proposal will only be $142,000.
We have raised the limits enough to meet today's market realities
without unduly increasing the risks for foreclosures.
FHA is also a critical resource to fill the gap for potential home
buyers who are credit worthy, but don't have the money for large down
payments. Two-thirds of FHA loans have down payments of 5 percent or
less, while only 8 percent of private mortgage insurance purchases are
low down payment loans.
Why oppose the Nickles amendment? Two reasons: it eliminates the
high-cost area increase and increases GNMA fees by 6 basis points, from
6 to 12.
eliminates increase in loan limit in high cost areas
Striking the high-end increase will affect people in 32 high-cost
areas across the country, including several areas in Maryland--
Baltimore City, and three counties: Baltimore, Montgomery, and Prince
Georges.
For thousands of people in high cost cities and counties across the
country, FHA will be severely limited in its ability to provide this
real resource for families shopping in the local housing markets.
increases gnma fees
The Nickles amendment also increase the GNMA fees for those who
handle FHA loans. This can get really technical, and the ``experts''
have a nice time detailing the intricacies.
The bottom line is that it will cost more for a lender to have GNMA
securitize both FHA and VA loans and despite what people may say, I
think we all would agree that when costs go up for a product provider,
costs often go up for the consumer.
Simply put, this amendment could make FHA and VA loans more costly
for consumers. HUD estimates that it will increase the cost to the
lender by an average of $2,200. Several veterans services organizations
have also estimated that the increase in GNMA fees will increase costs
for veterans purchasing a home by $250. These costs may be passed along
to those trying to purchase their first homes.
We do not want to burden our first-time home buyers or our veterans
with pass-through costs.
Mr. President, home ownership is critical step in a person or
family's attempt to obtain assets and become a more permanent fixture
in a community.
Like many of my colleagues, I share the concern about the effect that
foreclosures can have on individuals' credit and the stability of a
community. My own hometown of Baltimore has been a victim of
foreclosures harming neighborhoods.
We have provided a modest increase that does not raise the limit too
much too quickly.
Our objective is clear, for those who FHA serves, ensure that it is a
useful tool. The objective is not to put the private mortgage insurance
companies out of business or to move FHA away from providing for low-
and moderate-income buyers.
I believe that the FHA provision included in the Senate bill before
us is good for Maryland and good for the Nation.
I believe that this is a positive step in rewarding investment and
provides relief to working families.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Nickles amendment and support
the Appropriations Committee's attempt to help home buyers across the
country.
Mr. President, I hope that we defeat the Nickles amendment at
tomorrow's vote and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' comments.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from
Colorado wishes to speak on this. Has the Senator from North Carolina
spoken yet? I believe he also wishes to speak. And then I believe we
are ready to go on to the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island.
So I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I thank the Chair for
recognizing me. I appreciate the other Members who are on the floor
allowing me to go ahead and speak. I was presiding, and the Senator
from Florida has graciously consented to give me some relief from the
Chair while I come down and make some comments on this important piece
of legislation.
I want to talk a little bit about my State because I think it gives
some idea of how this issue impacts my State.
I happen to be rising in favor of the Nickles amendment, the Senator
from Oklahoma. You see the map on the Senate floor entitled ``FHA Loan
Limits by County,'' which was alluded to during comments made by my
colleague from Missouri. During his comments, he pointed to the Rocky
Mountain region in my State. That region
[[Page S8351]]
characterizes counties of high levels of income which would be impacted
by the upper loan limit increase in the VA/HUD Appropriations bill.
These counties have a high preponderance of second homes. The reason
these counties have a higher FHA loan limit is that they are recreation
counties. People who go to these counties and have second homes make a
considerable amount of money.
Now, there is no doubt that there is a housing problem in those
counties for individuals who have to run the ski lifts, individuals who
work in the ski lodges, but they do not have the income level to afford
a loan of $197,000 for a home. In fact, some may not even qualify for
the lower loan limit range, which we are raising from $86,000 to
$109,000. In addition to this disparity of wages that you see in these
areas, many of these counties have implemented a no-growth policy.
Finding affordable housing is certainly a problem we all should
strive to deal with, not just at the Federal level, but also at the
local level, at the county level, and particularly at the city level.
Many counties in Colorado, because of their rapid growth rate, have
decided to try to slow down that growth by increasing the costs of
development, increasing the costs of homes.
If we have a problem in those counties with obtaining affordable
housing, I think that local governments should have a responsibility
and should implement some programs that would hold the costs of those
homes down so that those with lower and median incomes can afford them.
I think my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, did a very good
job in explaining what the current situation is, and the proposed
increase of the FHA loan limit. Currently, the lower FHA loan limit is
$86,000 and the upper limit is $170,000. This appropriations bill
raises both of these limits to a lower limit of $109,000 and an upper
limit of $197,000. I like the idea that we raise up the lower loan
limits. I think that helps us meet the needs of lower income and
median-income families. The higher income limits, in my view, don't
need to be subsidized. Most of that market is already met by
conventional loans. In fact, in order to have a $197,000 mortgage, a
buyer typically needs an income level of $74,000 or more. These
individuals are the top 16 percent of the income earners in the United
States. Nearly 85 percent of households earning more than $50,000
already own homes. I think that is reflected in the State of Colorado.
I point out this idea of raising the loan limits is a rather
controversial issue, as far as Colorado is concerned. The mortgage
lenders in my State cannot reach a consensus as to whether this ought
to happen or not. They are divided. So it is with a considerable amount
of thought and concern that I enter into the debate as it applies to my
State of Colorado.
I see no reason why the Congress should be advocating that HUD
compete against a very successful private market. I would also point
out, from some of the testimony that was received by the Banking
Committee on which I serve with the Senator from Florida, Senator Mack,
there is really no clear connection between FHA loan limit increases
and greater access to financing affordable houses.
So when I put all these factors together, I find myself opposing
raising the upper loan limit, and yet supporting an increase in the
lower FHA loan limit. I think a lot of the testimony that was heard by
the Banking Committee, the authorizing committee, was significant in
pointing out that there is a three-times higher default rate for higher
loans than there is for lower loans. In other words, the higher the
loan is for the home, the higher the default rate is, as far as FHA is
concerned.
In this program, if there is a default on a loan, the taxpayers must
pick up the cost. I do not think it is necessary for us to provide for
that indirect subsidy.
If we look at the lower loan limit, 73 percent of all mortgages of
$85,000 or less are already provided by the private sector. Therefore,
I think we can assume that this market is being serviced sufficiently.
The FHA program is set up to make riskier loans to individuals who are
not serviced in the private sector. By allowing the loan limit to
increase, FHA will be insuring higher valued loans and will be, as a
consequence, exposed to an increased risk.
As I pointed out earlier, as these loan limits increase, the number
of defaults will simply increase. I don't think that we should be
increasing the upper loan limit. Therefore, I am supporting the Nickles
amendment. I think it is the correct approach to the problem,
particularly as it applies to my State. I think it is also the right
approach as far as the country is concerned since only three percent of
the counties will be affected by the upper limit.
Without any further ado, I yield the floor. I thank Senators for
their indulgence.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. This
amendment does two things. First, it limits the FHA loan limit increase
to the base level. Second, it creates an equal playing field for
private sector and FHA loans.
The current FHA limit for low-cost areas is $86,000. Although it gets
indexed every year to median home sale prices in that area (so that it
is increased annually), many believe that the limit is too low. Some
argue that you cannot build new construction for $86,000.
Now, I thought FHA was for first-time and low and moderate income
home buyers. And I didn't realize that first-time home buyers were
entitled to a brand new house. I thought FHA was supposed to help with
``starter homes''. But some people feel otherwise and so this amendment
will leave the increase in place that raises the limit from $86,000 to
almost $109,000.
However, I feel very strongly that we should not be raising the
ceiling from the current $170,000 to more than $197,000. To qualify for
a mortgage of $197,000 a person must make more than $75,000 a year.
Only 15% of the people in this country make salaries that high--and
most of those folks already own homes through the private sector.
I don't think when President Roosevelt created FHA back in 1934 that
he intended the program to help people making $75,000 a year. I don't
think he intended for the federal government to back 100% of those
loans. He believed that FHA should step in where the private sector
cannot. The private sector is making these loans already. There is no
reason to raise the limit to almost $200,000.
Second, the amendment establishes a more level playing field between
FHA and private sector loans so that borrowers are not steered towards
FHA. Currently, lenders receive huge financial incentives to make loans
through FHA.
The first incentive is that the federal government insures 100% of
the loan amount. There is no risk to the lender. Total to taxpayer. In
the private sector, the lender assumes some of the risk of the loan so
there is a greater stake in making sure that a borrower can pay back
the loan.
Second, under FHA, the lender makes twice the amount in servicing the
loan than what he makes in the private sector. A servicing fee is
charged for collecting the monthly mortgage payment, escrowing real
estate taxes, etc. There is no justification why lenders should get
much bigger servicing fees for FHA loans. CRS said that it would have
no effect on FHA loans or increasing costs on homeownership. It only
goes to the profit that the servicers make.
Until we level the playing field lenders will have every economic
incentive to steer borrowers towards FHA. Remember we've already given
the lender a 100% federal guarantee that the loan will be paid back.
Now we are making them rich in servicing fees.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. FHA has a lot of
problems already. Default rates for FHA loans are already three to four
times the rate of the private sector. Unless we take steps to change
the situation and deter borrowers from being steered towards FHA,
things may only get worse for the program and, ultimately, the country.
Join consumer groups, the National Taxpayer Union and others in
supporting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, I echo the comments made by
others praising the work that has been
[[Page S8352]]
done by Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski in framing the housing part
of this appropriations bill. I have had a chance to go over it. I think
they have been very sensitive to the various concerns existing in this
field. I think they have done a very good job on the legislation. So as
the ranking member on the authorizing committee, I want to enter that
into the Record as others have done, recognizing the general work they
have done on this legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish a recorded vote?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not see any other Senators wishing to
speak on this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BOND. I ask this amendment be set aside and the Senator from
Rhode Island be recognized to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 3203
(Purpose: To increase the funding for community development block
grants)
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 3203.
Mr. REED. 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 33, line 17, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert
``$70,000,000''.
On page 33, line 21, insert ``Provided: That none of these
funds shall be available for the Healthy Homes Initiative''
before the period.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment tonight not
only on behalf of myself, but Mr. Abraham, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Wellstone, and Ms. Mikulski. My amendment would add a modest $10
million increase to the budget for the Office of Lead Hazard in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I first want to commend and thank the chairman and ranking member for
their assistance and their help. Both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski
have committed to finding more resources to prevent the exposure of
young children to the lead hazard which is so prevalent in older
housing throughout the United States. They have worked very closely
with my staff and myself. I thank them for that. I am also very
confident they will continue these efforts in conference so we can
increase even more the funds that are allocated to this important
endeavor.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has made great strides in
reducing lead exposure among our population, particularly among our
children. Since the enactment of a ban on lead-based paint, since the
elimination of lead solder in food cans and the deleading of gasoline,
we have seen a significant decrease in blood level exposures of
American citizens by about an order of 80 percent. However, it is still
estimated that approximately 1 million children nationwide still have
excessive levels of lead in their blood, making lead poisoning a
leading childhood environmental disease and a disease that can be
prevented.
Today, the key culprit in this exposure is lead-based paint in
housing. It is the major source of exposure and is responsible for most
cases of childhood lead poisoning. It has been estimated that
approximately half of America's housing stock, roughly 64 million
homes, contain some lead-based paint. Twenty million of these homes
contain lead-based paint in a hazardous condition, paint which is
peeling, cracked or chipped, paint that can be ingested by children,
taken into their bloodstream, causing them severe health problems.
The problem of lead-based paint is particularly severe in my home
State of Rhode Island. Forty-three percent of our housing stock was
built before 1950, the time in which lead paint was universally used in
painting homes.
But the problem of lead-paint exposure and lead-paint poisoning in
children is not related to Rhode Island; it is truly a national
problem. One in 11 children nationwide have elevated blood levels, and
if you refer to the chart on my left, you can see that, for example, in
the city of Baltimore, 22 percent of children age 1 through 6 have
dangerously high levels of blood--Chicago, 12 percent; Davenport, Iowa,
18 percent; Denver, CO, 16 percent; Milwaukee, 36 percent; St. Louis,
MO, 23 percent; my home State, Providence, RI, 28 percent of children
tested have higher than normal levels of lead in their bloodstream.
This is a nationwide problem. It is a problem particularly severe in
the older urban areas of the country, but not exclusively there.
Again, one of the key factors is housing stock of the community.
Housing built before 1950 typically have extensive lead paint still
residing in these homes. If you look across the country, there are
States everywhere that have significant totals of housing built before
1950. For example, in Illinois, 36 percent of the housing was built
before 1950; in Michigan, 31 percent; in New York, 47 percent.
All of this points to an extremely important public health problem.
It is important because childhood lead poisoning has a profound health
effect on children, a profound educational impact on children, their
ability to learn and their ability to develop intellectually. Children
with high blood levels can suffer from brain damage, behavior and
learning problems, slow growth and hearing problems.
Children with a history of lead poisoning frequently require special
education to compensate for intellectual deficits and behavior
problems. In my State of Rhode Island, officials believe special
education services are 40 percent higher among children with
significant lead exposure, and in 1990 dollars, it costs roughly an
additional $10,000 to provide special education services to a child.
By failing to eliminate the hazard of lead in homes, we are harming
not only the children directly, but we are also incurring huge
additional costs for education and health care. This is truly a problem
that we must address, and we have to address it with the resources
necessary to address this problem effectively.
Mr. President, childhood lead poisoning is a significant health,
educational and fiscal issue. We must do everything to eliminate this
lead-based paint hazard to our children. By providing sufficient
funding to the HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control, which has the
primary responsibility for addressing this hazard in housing, and since
1992, the Office of Lead Hazard Control has been a highly effective
component of the Federal Government's effort to address childhood lead
poisoning.
Through its grant program, this office has provided grants to State
and local governments to reduce the exposure of young children to lead-
based paint hazards in their homes. Specifically, they have given
grants to privately owned homes, to low-income occupied, and rental
housing, all in an attempt to help them eliminate the source of lead
poisoning in children, the most common source, and that is lead paint
within homes.
Since 1993, $385 million has been awarded to 30 States and the
District of Columbia. These grants have helped abate or mitigate lead-
based paint hazards in 50,000 homes where young children reside.
Regrettably, this is just, in effect, the tip of the iceberg, because
there are so many homes that have these particular hazards to children.
In addition to helping mitigate and abate lead exposure in homes,
they have also supported programs to test children for lead-based paint
exposure, and also to test the homes. All of these efforts together
have helped in some small way to eliminate this problem, and I have had
the opportunity in my own home State of Rhode Island to visit and look
at the efforts that are undertaken to eliminate these exposures to
children. They are important.
What is most important is ensuring that we have the resources so that
we can protect the health of all of these young children. As I stated
before, this is a problem that is terribly frustrating. We know that
children, if they ingest lead into their system, will suffer some type
of health effect. This health effect will usually result in poor
intellectual development and behavioral problems. We will be paying
later through special education and through
[[Page S8353]]
the lifetime of these children who then become adults.
We can at this point take an effective step to ensure that these
problems are addressed. It is preventable. It is a pediatric disease we
can prevent if we simply get the lead out. My amendment this evening
will increase the resources to the Office of Lead Hazard Mitigation so
that we can, in fact, help local communities ensure that the housing
these young children are living in is lead free.
Oftentimes, the families of these children have no choice. They must
go to homes that is the best available housing, but in providing a
shelter for their child, in some cases unwittingly they are exposing
their child to a hazard which will claim not only their health, but
also their intellectual development.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I am prepared
to yield to the chairman at this time.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island
because there is no question about the dangers of lead-based paint,
what hazards they present. This is a critical program. The program is
funded at $60 million. The Senator's amendment will increase it to $70
million.
There is a great need to reduce lead-based paint hazards for
children. As the Senator has pointed out, some of the statistics of
lead-based paint and the dangers in some of our more mature urban areas
is really frightening. I believe the figures are that there are some $3
billion in housing rehabilitation needs existing out there to address
all of the lead-based paint problems in the country.
It is our desire to accept the amendment on this side. The funding
will be taken from the overall CDBG funding of $4.75 billion, which is
$75 million over last year's level. We are willing to accept it on this
side.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, concur with the chairman. I
thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership. The facts speak
for themselves. The situation in Baltimore of 22 percent of children in
Baltimore city have some type of lead in their blood, this is a serious
issue. I won't go into all the public health aspects and pediatric
consequences this late. But I will tell you what it means.
It means lower intellectual achievement. It means a lethargy, a
sluggishness that is perpetual. Unless the child has their blood
chelated, and if you go into Johns Hopkins and you are going to have
your blood chelated because there was lead paint dust on your mom's
kitchen table that kind of got mixed up with after-school cookies, then
it is going to cost $8,000 in Medicaid to clean out your blood.
Even if we can clean that blood out, we can't necessarily clean out
the consequences that have already set this child back, particularly in
cognitive development.
I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for raising this, to move it
up.
I am glad we can finally accept it with an offset. I asked that I be
a cosponsor of the amendment. And we know that we need more research.
We need the type of licensed people to be able to clean out the lead
paint and protect our children. I view this as an important public
health, get-behind-our-kids initiative. I look forward to just
accepting it and defending it in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3203) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 3204
(Purpose: To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency from implementing or enforcing the public water system treatment
requirements related to the copper action level of the national primary
drinking water regulations for lead and copper until certain studies
are completed.)
Mr. KERREY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself and Mr.
Hagel, proposes an amendment numbered 3204.
Mr. KERREY. 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 93, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. 423. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OR
ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR COPPER ACTION LEVEL.
(a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this
or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
implement or enforce the national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper in drinking water promulgated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),
to the extent that the regulations pertain to the public
water system treatment requirements related to the copper
action level, until--
(1) the Administrator and the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention jointly conduct a study to
establish a reliable dose-response relationship for the
adverse human health effects that may result from exposure to
copper in drinking water, that--
(A) includes an analysis of the health effects that may be
experienced by groups within the general population
(including infants) that are potentially at greater risk of
adverse health effects as the result of the exposure;
(B) is conducted in consultation with interested States;
(C) is based on the best available science and supporting
studies that are subject to peer review and conducted in
accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and
(D) is completed not later than 30 months after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) based on the results of the study and, once peer
reviewed and published, the 2 studies of copper in drinking
water conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the State of Nebraska and the State of
Delaware, the Administrator establishes an action level for
the presence of copper in drinking water that protects the
public health against reasonably expected adverse effects due
to exposure to copper in drinking water.
(b) Current Requirements.--Nothing in this section
precludes a State from implementing or enforcing the national
primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper in
drinking water promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) that are in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, to the extent that the regulations
pertain to the public water system treatment requirements
related to the copper action level.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment together with
my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to delay implementation of a
rule that has been promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This delay would be required until the agents review existing
scientific data to determine whether there is ample evidence to support
the rule.
Mr. President, this rule, together with the rule on lead, is there to
protect Americans, to give us safe drinking water. Unlike lead,
however, copper is an essential element and is regulated in a much
different fashion. I intend with my statement to lay before the body an
appeal.
Nebraska has an unusual situation. Perhaps other States do have a
similar situation. But ours is essentially this: The Environmental
Protection Agency has a limit with their rule of 1.3 milligrams per
liter. There isn't a single city in Nebraska that has 1.3 milligrams
per liter. Here is the problem. In some communities, the water level is
sufficiently acidic if it remains in the pipes for 6 hours or longer.
When you turn the water on, you will get more than 1.3 milligrams per
liter. Run the water for a minute, and the water drops below 1.3
milligrams per liter.
The EPA is saying, it does not matter. The EPA is saying, ``We test
the
[[Page S8354]]
water. It comes out of the pipe immediately. It is over 1.3 milligrams;
therefore, you have to make investments, substantial investments.''
Hastings, NE, is having to invest about $1 million initially, and
$250,000 per year. Sixty communities are being asked to make
substantial investments in their water systems to remove copper from
their water, even though not a single citizen in Nebraska is getting
sick--not a single person. I emphasize this.
The EPA comes into Nebraska and says, ``You are right, Senator,
nobody is getting sick.'' I say, ``Wait a minute, what is the Safe
Drinking Water Act for?'' They say, ``Well, it is to make the water
safe.'' I say, ``The water is safe, is it not? If somebody was getting
sick, then we would have unsafe water.'' They say, ``Yes, that is
right. But we have established 1.3 milligrams per liter as the level
allowed.'' And even though there is not a single community with 1.3
milligrams per liter--if it sets in the pipe 6 hours--even though it is
flushed out immediately, and even though the State public health people
are willing to implement a program of public education to make sure
they stay below 1.3 milligrams, the EPA says, ``It doesn't matter.''
Unfortunately, Mr. President, this has become one of those litmus
test issues. I have talked to many people in the environmental
community. And they have said to me, ``Gee, Senator, you can't put this
on this bill because it is another rider.'' They compare it to the 1995
bill--I guess it was 1995 or 1996--the year when a lot of riders were
attached. ``We don't want another rider.'' I said, ``Well, what does
that have to do with anything? Do you think the public health data
supports what you are trying to do in Nebraska? Is there a reason?''
They say, ``No, it doesn't matter. What we are talking about here,
Senator,'' they say, ``is politics. We don't disagree with the public
health aspect of this.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two studies be printed in
the Record, both done by the Centers for Disease Control, that say
there isn't a problem.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Interim Trip Report: Cu Health Effects in Delaware, 1996
Dates and Places
Washington, DC: Feb. 12.
Dover, DE: July 10-12, July 29-Aug. 7, Nov. 7-8.
Background
Copper is an established gastro-intestinal irritant which
has been documented to cause nausea, vomiting, stomach
cramps, and diarrhea in humans. The lowest level at which
these adverse effect occur has not been well defined.
Following amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986,
EPA promulgated a revised standard for Cu. The new copper
standard required action, such as the installation of
corrosion control measures, when the highest 10% of first
morning flush household tap samples exceeds 1.3 mg/1 for a
given water distribution system. During a state-wide survey
of water systems in Delaware in 1995, 35 systems exceeded the
action level for copper. Thirteen of these systems had 10% of
their samples higher than 5.3 mg/1, the EPA's LOEL (lowest
observable effect level).
Out of concern for the health of individuals consuming high
levels of copper, and to utilize the unique social and
geological conditions in Delaware to better document the
consequences of such exposure. Delaware Health and Social
Services contacted CDC for technical assistance. Many small
communities in Delaware have older houses with copper pipes
and utilize untreated, acidic groundwater sources from high
silica soils. The results of this collaborative effort are
presented herein. Note that data collection is ongoing and
the results presented are those of a work in progress.
Principle Persons Met
EPA: Jeff Cohen, Office of G.W. and D.W.; Ken Baily, ORD;
Bruce Mintz, ORD; Ed Hoddum.
Delaware: Ed Hallock, Barbara Ashby, Raymond C. Davidson,
and Donna Stulir, Office of Drinking Water, Health and Social
Services; Gerald Llewellyn, Dir. of Public Health, Health and
Social Services; Mahhadeo Verma, Director, Public Health
Laboratory; and Christopher Zimmerman, Dep. Dir., Public
Health Laboratory.
Methods
Those communities which has high levels of copper during
the state-wide survey of 1995, had a population over 100, and
which were suspected of not having installed adequate
corrosion control measures as of June, 1996 were included in
the study. Because of the widespread installation of
corrosion control systems in the preceding year, only 4
communities met this criteria. One additional trailer park
which not in violation during the 1955 survey but which had
older homes with acidic water was also visited. All household
in the area with homes built before 1980 were visited.
Contacted households were given a copper free container and
asked to capture the first water of the day out of whichever
tap they usually drank on the following morning. Participants
were asked not to run any other taps and not to flush their
toilets in the morning until after they had collected the
water sample. On the morning after the bottles were handed
out, samples were picked-up by investigators, stored in a
cooler, and taken to the State Public Health Laboratory by 1
PM.
Households with > 5.0 mg/l copper in the first flush sample
were revisited and interviewed. For each of these ``High
Copper'' households, 2 neighborhood matched ``Control''
households were interviewed. Potential control households
were those with less than 0.5 mg/l copper in the first flush
water sample they had provided. A copy of the interview form
is attached.
To attempt to estimate individual doses, all ``High
Copper'' individuals and 10 individuals from ``Control''
households were asked to collect a daily water intake
sample in a provided bucket. To do this, each time a
person ingested coffee, or water, or any other drink
containing water, they were asked to put an equal volume,
taken from the same tap at the same time, into a bucket.
Houses were also revised at the end of the study to obtain
a second first flush water sample to help confirm that
their exposure status did not change over the course of
the study. Blank samples consisted of bottles filled with
store bought distilled water. Some bucket samples were
shaken and two bottles were filled to serve as duplicates.
The laboratory was blinded to the cohort status and the
sample type (first flush vs. blank vs. bucket) by a sample
numbering scheme. Duplicate samples were separated in the
numbering sequence.
Households were contacted by phone once per week over a
period of 12 weeks between August 5th and October 21st.
Interviewees were asked, ``Has anyone in your household been
ill during the past week?'' If the answer was yes, a
questionnaire regarding patient symptoms was completed. No
individuals were ill with the same symptoms for more than one
phone interview. A copy of the illness inquiry form is
attached.
Households that were called 3 times without an answer were
considered ``not contacted'' for that week. Households who
departed for the season or asked to no longer be contacted
were terminated and information from the household was
included for those person-weeks during which successful phone
contact took place. Weeks in which interviewers neglected to
call households were also excluded from the analysis.
Self-reported nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, diarrhea,
and constipation were all defined as being consistent with
copper toxicity (CCT). Having acute nausea and/or vomiting
alone or with a headache, or any 3 of the 5 symptoms
consistent with copper toxicity was defined as indicative of
copper toxicity (ICT).
results
Cohort selection
867 houses were approached and 365 successfully contacted
(42%). Of those, 7 (1.9%) refused to participate, 32 (8.8%)
drank bottled water exclusively, and the remaining 326 self-
reported tap water drinkers were asked to collect a first
flush sample. Forty-seven households (14.4%) did not return
the sample bottle. Of the 279 samples collected, 23 were
above 5.0 mg/l copper.
Of these 23 high copper households, 3 could not be re-
contacted, and 3 decided that they did not drink the water by
the time they were re-contacted. 17 high copper households
were enrolled in the study. During the course of the study, 2
households began drinking bottled water, 1 used a RO unit
which had been by-passed during our initial sampling, and 1
pregnant woman was advised by the investigators to drink only
bottled water. Thus, 13 households and 40 individuals were
followed over the entire course of the study. Of the 40
enrolled control households, 3 acquired filters during the
course of the study and 7 reported beginning to use bottled
water exclusively. These control households were not excluded
from the analysis since the new water source did not change
their copper exposure status. Two control households and 1
``High Copper'' household asked to be dis-enrolled during the
study.
Water
The average ``High Copper'' household first flush
concentration was 7.21 mg/l Cu among the 17 households
enrolled. Nine bucket samples were collected from nine
individuals. The average first flush concentrations for these
people was 7.00 mg/l Cu while the average daily intake value
was 2.91 mg/l Cu. Thus, average intake was 41% of first flush
values. These 9 people ingested an average of 2.3 quarts per
day according to our bucket collection procedure.
Health
A summary of the weekly phone surveillance results is
presented below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Control High Cu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of households.................... 40 13
No. of individuals................... 102 40
Person/week-phone contacts as a % of
attempts............................ 818/1127 (72%) 346/413 (84%)
Illness events (all)................. 26 15
Persons ill at some time during study 20 (19.6%) 11 (27.5%)
[[Page S8355]]
Cases consistent with Cu toxicity
(CCT)............................... 31 9
Cases CCT/all person-weeks........... 31/818 (3.8%) 9/346 (2.6%)
No. of people with CCT at some point. 13 (12.6%) 8 (20.0%)
Cases indicative of copper toxicity
(ICT)............................... 22 4
Cases ICT/all person-weeks........... 22/818 (2.7%) 4/346 (1.2%)
No. of people with ICT at some point. 9 (8.8%) 4 (10.0%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other findings
It is possible that more people (as a fraction of the
population) consume high levels of copper (>5 mg/l) in their
water in Southern Delaware as anywhere in the U.S. Therefore
Gerald Llewellyn and Laurie Cowen of Delaware's Dept. of
Health and Social Services searched the state databases to
look at the incidence of Wilson's Disease, an illness
previously associated with copper ingestion. Between 1979 and
the present, only one case of Wilson's Disease was reported
in the State and that case occurred in the Wilmington area
where systems have little problem with corrosion control.
This is a Statewide reported rate of .08 illnesses per
million population per year. Nationally, approximately 15
deaths per year were recorded between 1979 and 1992 with
Wilson's Disease being listed as the primary cause. Between
1988 and 1990, less than 700 hospital discharges were
estimated to occur nationally via the NCHS Hospital Discharge
Database (less than 2.8 hospitalizations per million
population per year). Given the rarity of Wilson's Disease
and the potential for incomplete reporting of this illness,
little significance can be attributed to Delaware's
apparently lower rate of the illness.
Discussion
While the study reported herein included far fewer
households than initially intended, there seems to be no
difference in the symptoms typically associated with copper
toxicity among the two study groups. If copper is a gastro-
intestinal irritant at the levels observed in the 40
individuals included in our study, the effect was not
observed here. The most specific and direct indicator for a
persistent irritant would be displayed by contrasting the
persons meeting the most specific case definition divided by
the number of person/week observation periods, ``Cases ICT/
all person weeks'' in this study. Individuals in the ``High
Copper'' household had a statistically similar, but lower
rate of symptoms ``Indicative of Copper Toxicity'' than did
the individuals in the ``Control'' households.
There are three possible explanations for this finding.
(1) People drinking water with an average of 2.7 mg/l Cu
and with a first flush level of 7.2 mg/l are not ingesting
enough copper to develop G.I. symptoms.
(2) The ``High Copper'' exposure level in this study is
enough to make people sick, but not the people in this study.
(3) These copper levels do make people sick, but the study
failed to detect this fact.
Addressing these issues in reverse order, while the sample
size in this study was small, it is likely that a major
effect from copper ingestion would have been detected. People
displayed symptoms, like those expected in copper toxicity
cases (ICT), during approximately 2% of the person weeks
surveyed (2.7% in control households, 1.2% in high copper
households). Thus, if the effect was missed due to a lack of
power in the study, the effect is likely to be less than 3
episodes of nausea or vomiting per person per year, which is
not consistent with the ongoing symptoms of copper toxicity
typically described in the scientific literature. The final
data set was sufficient in size to detect a relative risk of
2.5 in ``cases ICT/all person weeks'' and a relative risk of
3.5 in the ``number of people with ICT at some point'' with
95% confidence and 80% power. While self-described symptoms
via a phone interview can produce lower quality data than
some other methods, for exmaple, medical examinations, it is
unlikely in this case that a systematic bias on the part of
the interviewee or the interviewer resulted in an
underreporting in the ``High Copper'' cohort. The
interviewers were blinded to the cohort status of the study
participants.
Explanation 2, that the study population was not
susceptible to copper induced illness, is somewhat more
problematic. People may be susceptible to copper for a short
period and then acclimate. This study had very few transient
participants and most households had been at their present
location for months or years. Likewise, within a population,
some individuals may be particularly susceptible to copper
toxicity, realize that their water is making them ill, and
change sources. Because households who reported not
drinking their water were not enrolled in the study, the
data here cannot address that possibility. Several people
during the initial interview process reported becoming ill
after moving to their present address and attributed their
illness to their water. Several of these individuals lived
in ``High Copper'' homes.
Explanation 1, that the ingested levels of copper in the
study were not sufficient to cause illness, seems the most
likely explanation, perhaps in conjunction with the self-
exclusion bias described above. Given that the average intake
was 2.4 liters with a Cu concentration of 2.9 mg/l, and given
this level is below the EPA LOEL, this is not surprising.
What is surprising is that, in perhaps the systems serving
some of the most corrosive water in the U.S., studying just
the older homes with copper pipes, no adverse health effects
can be detected. Houses in the study were receiving water at
6 times the concentration of EPA's 90th percentile action
level, and represented the 92nd percentile, of the oldest
portions of the State's most problematic systems (therefore,
perhaps the 99th percentile of their communities). Thus, it
is unlikely that there is widespread acute illness in
Delaware from the ingestion of copper in people's homes.
findings
(1) This study indicated that those people drinking the
highest levels of copper identified in Delaware are not
suffering adverse acute effects from this exposure.
(2) No evidence of Wilson's Disease can be seen in the
state registry in this population with some of the highest
water copper levels seen in the U.S.
(3) Average daily intakes of copper are not well predicted
by first flush values. A time and volume weighed daily intake
was typically 41% of the Cu concentrations found in the first
flush samples.
(4) The bucket collection procedure employed here for
estimating daily dose was easy and quantitative. Future
studies should use urine collection techniques to confirm its
accuracy.
recommendations
To Delaware
Future inquiries regarding population concerns over Cu in
drinking water in Delaware should be addressed with a one
page summary of this study since it represents a best effort
to identify the most problematic systems and households in
the state. Susceptible individuals may exist and individual
complaints regarding systems with corrosive water should be
investigated and copper toxicity events reported to the CDC.
Many good reasons exist for promoting corrosion control
measures independent of copper and lead toxicity. The results
of this investigation should not be used by utilities to
avoid undertaking prudent investments in municipal
infrastructures or treatment processes.
Cooperation between the Department of Epidemiology, the
State Public Health Laboratory, and the Drinking Water
Program has been exemplary throughout this study. The study
should be held forward as a model cooperatively and thriftily
addressing public health concerns.
Phone monitoring efforts in future studies should remain
directly under the supervision of the Delaware official with
principle responsibility for the study.
To CDC
CDC should not conduct future studies to identify and
quantify the copper LOEL in a stable domestic population
without reports of symptomatic illness. It is unlikely that
ongoing illness from copper exposure in drinking water is a
major problem anywhere in the U.S. among domestic users. If
the EPA LOEL of 5.3 is an accurate estimate of where health
effects begin to be seen, this study indicated that first
flush levels of 13 mg/l would be needed to inflict daily
average tap water level of 5.3 mg/l Cu. No households in our
study or the state-wide survey had such high concentrations
of Cu.
the daily dose method employed here was appears to be
effective and should be validated.
Support of the kind provided to Delaware in this modest
study: (a) is a cost-effective way to produce valuable public
health data, (b) established excellent ties for future
cooperation, (c) is educational for both State and Federal
participants who often have dramatically different
perspectives.
____
Interim Report
Evaluating Gastrointestinal Irritation among Humans From
Copper in Drinking Water, Lincoln, Nebraska (Epi-E94-73)--
Sharunda D. Buchanan,\1\ Ph.D., Robby Diseker,\1\ M.P.H.,
Jack Daniel,\2\ Thomas Floodman,\2\ Thomas Sinks,\1\ Ph.D.
\1\ Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects,
National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, N.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724.
\2\ Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Sanitation,
Nebraska Department of Health, 301 Centennial Mall South,
P.O. Box 95007, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007.
____
Abstract
evaluating Human Gastrointestinal Irritation From Copper (Cu) in
Drinking Water, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1994
Background: In 1993, Nebraska copper (Cu) drinking water
levels exceeded EPA's action level of 1.3 mg/L Cu in 50% (19
of 38) of public water systems serving 3,300 to 10,000
people. The action level is based on gastrointestinal illness
(GI) including vomiting, nausea, stomach cramps, or diarrhea.
Officials at the state health department were concerned that
Nebraskan's were suffering adverse health effects as a result
of this exposure and requested assistance from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
Methods: To determine if Nebraskan's were at increased risk
of GI due to Cu concentrations in drinking water, we
interviewed people living in homes having Cu levels (measured
in 1993) of >3 mg/L (51 homes), 2 to 3 mg/L (54 homes), and
<1.3 mg/L (42 homes). Case-subjects were those who had rapid
onset of vomiting or nausea with abdominal pain during the 2
weeks preceeding interview. To validate the relationship
between Cu and GI, we conducted a nested case-control study,
resampling drinking water in the homes of 22 case-subjects
and 27 age-matched control-subjects.
Interim Results: The risk of GI was greater for persons in
households with drinking
[[Page S8356]]
water >3 mg/L (RR=1.65; 95% CI 0.63, 4.31) but not for
persons in households with copper levels from 2 to 3 mg/L
(RR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.24 to 2.17) when compared to individuals
with copper levels less than 1.3 mg/L. The relationship was
not confirmed in the nested case-control study
(OR>3 mg/L, <1.3 mg/L=0.44, 95% CI 0.8 and
OR2 to 3 mg/L, <1.3 mg/L=0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to
0.62) because 1993 sampling results differed substantially
from sampling results in 1994. The occurrence of GI was
explained by weight loss (OR=8.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 44.11) and
self-reported flue-like illness (OR=4.18; 95% CI 0.77,
22.78).
Interim Conclusions: These preliminary data indicate that
at the time of the survey, people were not experiencing GI
related to the level of Cu in their drinking water, even
though 51 of the selected homes had Cu drinking water levels
that were greater than two times the EPA action level the
year prior to the study. We also noted that Cu concentrations
in drinking water at the time of the study were far less than
the levels measured one year earlier. We encourage further
investigations of the health effects of copper in drinking
water. We also encourage further work to evaluate the
reproducibility of the sampling method recommended by the EPA
to establish compliance with the drinking water standard for
Cu and Pb.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, copper is a substance that at certain
levels will cause gastrointestinal problems. That is the issue here.
Unlike lead, it is a different sort of public health problem. Again, it
is an essential element. Understand, that the estimated content in
mother's milk in some cases will exceed 1.35--will exceed 1.3
milligrams per liter. You can imagine what the EPA would say if we gave
them the authority to regulate mother's milk. Perhaps they would
require some sort of contraption to be applied in order to make certain
that babies are not getting a dose in excess of 1.3 milligrams, even
though no scientific study, Mr. President, has concluded that there is
a problem.
The EPA will say, remarkably, ``Well, the World Health Organization
has a standard of 2.0 milligrams per liter, and 1.3 milligrams per
liter is close.'' Two is almost twice of 1.3. It may look close if you
are calculating the size of the deficit, but it is not very close as a
multiple of 1.3.
They set a level, Mr. President, an arbitrary level, that cannot be
supported by science. All we are asking for is delay. I would be
willing to accept some change in the law, some report language that
would enable Nebraska to say, ``We will, with our public health effort,
make certain that no one in Nebraska is going to get sick. But, for
gosh sakes, don't make these Nebraska communities invest millions of
dollars in water treatment efforts.''
Some of these communities have very, very small budgets. You are
asking them to invest substantial amounts of money even though there
isn't a single person in their communities getting sick--no one. There
is no public health problem. And what we are being told--we tried to
get this amendment accepted. We tried to get EPA to change their rule.
They said to us, ``We don't care. We don't care, Senator, that science
demonstrates that 1.3 milligrams is not really supportable. We don't
care that nobody in Nebraska is getting sick. We are not concerned.''
``Please, do not offer this because of the political problems of
another rider on this bill.''
Mr. President, this is one of the reasons that people like myself--
that have supported the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the Clean Air Act--we struggle to sustain our support for this kind
of effort because time and time again we find ourselves faced with a
situation where common sense and science combine to say the EPA should
not be given authority to require local communities to make these kinds
of investments because there is no public health case that can be made
to require them to do it.
This amendment, Mr. President, is propublic health and pro-
environment. I, too, seek public health protections, and I seek
environmental protections as well. Senator Hagel and I see this as an
amendment that says that money spent on threats that do not exist is
money that cannot be spent to prevent actual hazards to health or the
environment.
I am not seeking to overturn EPA regulations, and I am not seeking to
instruct EPA on scientific issues on which myself and the legislative
branch are not qualified to provide instructions. I am seeking, Mr.
President, to have the EPA give adequate consideration, evidence from
another Federal agency that is amply qualified in this respect, an
agency, Mr. President, that is charged with ensuring public health and
safety, and that is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mr. President, whatever you think on this issue, we should all agree
that the people of this country who are drinking the water and who are
paying the bills should at least have a say in this matter. And they
should have a say through their elected officials. The argument that
comes from the EPA that Congress does not have the right or the
responsibility to question regulations or to weigh in on regulatory
debates is an argument that government should not be held accountable
to the people.
Mr. President, that is an argument that I do not support. And it is
an argument I hope we would all dismiss outright. But, Mr. President,
beyond this argument--and there is a truly valid argument against that
scientific basis for this EPA rule which I, tonight on this floor,
challenge with this amendment. I challenge any of my colleagues to come
to the floor and dispute the evidence that I offer.
The rule pertains to copper levels in drinking water, and the
requirement that communities treat their water supplies to remove
copper when it is present at levels higher than EPA's `action level' of
1.3 milligrams per liter (mg/l). There are currently 60 communities in
Nebraska that are being required by EPA to begin treating their water
to remove copper. I have here in my hand two studies conducted by the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the
drinking water in these communities is safe, and is not causing any
illness or adverse health effects. One of the studies was conducted in
my state of Nebraska. However, the EPA will not consider these studies
until they are peer reviewed and published. Fair enough, I say--they
are scheduled to be published before the end of the calendar year, and
likely sooner than that. So my amendment simply states that EPA wait
until these studies are published, and that they review these studies,
and any additional peer-reviewed data pertinent to this issue, to
determine whether the CDC is correct, and perhaps this copper action
level is not set at the appropriate level.
There is also a savings clause in my amendment that will allow any
state that so chooses to continue to implement and enforce, if they
desire, the copper treatment aspect of this rule. If a community or a
state is currently treating its water supplies to reduce copper, or
chooses to implement treatments based on copper levels, nothing in my
amendment precludes them from doing so.
Mr. President, I support fully the efforts and the importance of the
mission and the work of the Environmental Protection Agency. I support
fully the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, and all the other acts under whose auspices the authorities of the
EPA lie. However, I support these Acts based on the assumption that all
the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the agency are based
on sound science. But in this case--in the case of a copper action
level in drinking water supplies--we do not have sound science at work.
What we are seeing here is a level that has been set that cannot be
supported by science--a level that even the federal Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, EPA's sister agency, says in at least two
different studies causes neither illness nor adverse health effects.
The CDC has indicated that in my home state of Nebraska, and in
Delaware, copper in drinking water supplies that is in excess of EPA's
action level does not cause any illness or adverse health effects.
But 60 small- and medium-sized communities in Nebraska are being
forced to implement expensive water treatment activities to remove the
copper from their drinking water. One community alone, Hastings,
Nebraska, with a population of 23,000, has estimated the costs of this
treatment at $1 million to start, and $250,000 annually thereafter.
That is for one community alone. In the Village of Snyder, which has a
population of 280, and an annual water budget of $31,000, the estimated
cost to treat two wells is $30,000 for building modifications and
equipment purchases, plus an additional annual cost
[[Page S8357]]
of $12,000 for chemicals, training, administrative, and repair and
maintenance costs. For the first year, then, this figure represents
$11,000 more than the Village of Snyder's annual water budget--or a
total first year cost of $42,000. Multiply these figures and these
hardships by 60 communities, we are talking about an inordinate amount
of money to remove an essential mineral, a naturally occurring element,
from drinking water when there are no known or associated adverse
health effects at the levels that it is present at.
But that's not the most unreasonable aspect of this issue, Mr.
President--because there is more. Here's the rub. The ground water that
these public water supplies rely on for drinking water in these 64
Nebraska communities does NOT contain copper in excess of EPA's action
level. As a matter of fact, none of the natural groundwater supplies in
Nebraska exceed the copper action level as established by EPA. Not one.
The problem is the method EPA requires that States use when testing
for copper. EPA requires that the water be tested only after being
undisturbed for at least 6 hours--that is, the water must be sitting in
the pipes and plumbing of a home for at least 6 hours, or overnight,
before being tested. And while the water sits in these pipes, copper
leaches out of the pipes, and the ``action level'' is exceeded. Why
does this happen? It so happens that the acidity of the ground water in
my state of Nebraska causes the copper to corrode, or to leach out when
it sits in pipes for a long period of time, such as overnight. However,
if you run this water for a few minutes before testing it, or before
drinking it, the copper action level set by EPA are not exceeded.
But even the CDC has questioned this testing method. In one of its
studies, the CDC states:
We encourage further investigations of the health effects
of copper in drinking water. We also encourage further work
to evaluate the reproducibility of the sampling method
recommended by EPA to establish compliance with the drinking
water standard for Cu (copper) and Pb (lead).
But even beyond that, even at the levels that are coming out of these
pipes now, and that the people of these Nebraska communities are
drinking now, there is no incidence of illness or other deleterious
effects from this water. My amendment will simply delay some costly
requirements to remove copper from water that is not causing illness.
So the issue immediately at hand, at best I or anyone else can
discern, is really an issue of testing. Despite the fact that none of
the groundwater in Nebraska exceeds EPA's copper action level, the
manner of testing required by EPA results in some communities actually
exceeding the action level. Flushing for a few minutes prior to
testing, or to drinking, would result in copper levels in the water
that are below EPA's action level. And it is likely that an improved
testing methodology will result in none of these water systems
exceeding the copper rule. But until this is reviewed, we have no way
of knowing.
Beyond the testing issue is the greater issue of the validity of the
rule. No, I am not a scientist qualified to decide this issue, but some
of the scientists that I have talked to about the issue agree that the
science is insufficient to support EPA's action level for copper. Even
government scientists who have studied copper their entire careers
agree that the evidence just isn't there--and I'm talking about human
nutrition scientists, not just the scientists who conducted the studies
at the CDC. Scientists have told me that there is little evidence of
chronic health effects caused by ingestion of copper at the levels we
are talking about in our communities. There is even preliminary
evidence that seems to suggest that elevated copper plays a role in
reducing or preventing the incidence of osteoporosis, a disease which
causes significant suffering, discomfort and associated medical
problems, primarily in the elderly. What this underscores is the lack
of definitive knowledge about this substance.
My colleagues in the State of Nebraska have tried to work with the
EPA on this, and have tried to offer reasonable alternatives and
solutions that will prevent costly and needless treatments from being
required. My colleagues in Nebraska asked the EPA if it would be
acceptable to implement an educational program to get folks in these
communities to run the water for a time, to flush out the water that
may have absorbed some copper, before drinking it. EPA said no.
My colleagues asked the federal Centers for Disease Control to study
the issue in the state, and determine if the copper was causing any
illness or adverse health effects. The CDC did this, and found no
adverse health effects. EPA's response is that they cannot consider
this data because it is not yet peer-reviewed and published. That is
what bring me here now.
What frustrates me most about this is that I am a staunch proponent
of the role of the federal government in protecting the safety and
health of the people. This role is perhaps one of the greatest issues
separating our country from many other industrialized and non-
industrialized countries--we protect our nation from potential hazards
in our food and drink, and from many other hazards that may befall us.
But I am also a proponent of a government that is of, by, and for the
people--of a government that serves to protect when protection is
needed, but that does not intervene needlessly when intervention is not
needed. Yet here we have evidence that a regulation promulgated by a
federal agency will cost Nebraska communities millions of dollars, and
will have no apparent impact on the health or safety of the people. So
I am here to ask for a delay before costly treatment is required in
these communities, a delay to allow these studies to be published,
which they imminently will be, and a review of the data, to include
these studies.
To help my colleagues understand how deeply flawed this action level
may be, and thus, how inappropriate is the insistence of the EPA that
these small Nebraska communities spend millions of dollars to correct a
ghost problem, let me share with you some additional information on how
copper in drinking water is treated elsewhere.
On an international scale, the World Health Organization, or WHO,
which is recognized worldwide as the preeminent public health and
welfare agency in both developed and underdeveloped nations, has
declared that:
In view of uncertainties regarding copper toxicity in
humans, a provisional guideline value for copper of 2 mg/
litre was established in the 1993 WHO guidelines for drinking
water quality.
The WHO further states that:
A copper action level of 2 mg/litre in drinking water will
be protective of adverse effects of copper and provides an
adequate margin of safety. It is also noteworthy that copper
is an essential element.
This provisional, international action level for copper of 2 mg/l is
set at a level that approaches twice EPA's action level of 1.3 mg/l.
Yet EPA cites this level as evidence that their level is ``not far
off'' from the WHO level, and thus is supportive of their 1.3 mg/l
level.
Mr. President, there are two last, astounding pieces of information.
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has
established a recommended daily allowance for copper of 3 mg, with an
adult toxic dose of 100 mg. These recommendations are for adults. But
more astounding is the following information, published in peer
reviewed literature: ``Copper levels of human milk range from 0.15 to
1.34 mg./litre.'' Human breast milk, Mr. President, contains up to 1.34
mg/litre of copper, which is in exceedance of the EPA copper action
level.
There is much more evidence to support my contention, Mr. President,
that there is cause to review the data and perhaps revise EPA's action
level for copper, and I am more than willing to share it with my
colleagues. At the moment, however, there is great urgency in offering
this amendment and approving it to prevent needless costly treatments
from being implemented in many small American communities that will be
more harmed from the economic impacts of this rule than from the
potential adverse health effects from copper.
The EPA says, ``We don't care''--the EPA says, ``We don't care. This
is a political issue.''
I say wait a minute, what is the purpose here? ``We don't care.''
Reject it out of hand, ignore the scientific evidence, and say we are
concerned that this is one of these riders. They are not
[[Page S8358]]
willing to come and debate each rider on its merit. They say ``rider'';
we rule out of hand.
I would love to have Administrator Browning come to Hastings, NB, and
explain that to my citizens in Nebraska. She would not be able to do
it. That is what I have to do. I have to go home and explain these
rules. When I go home and explain these rule to these 60 communities
where nobody is getting sick, why they have to spend millions of
dollars to invest in their water systems, they say this doesn't make
any sense at all.
So I invite any Senator who opposes--I would love, if they take the
EPA position--come out to Hastings, NB. Come out to my State and talk
to the community and explain to them why, if nobody is getting sick, I
have two CDC studies saying there is no health problem and yet the rule
still is going to be enforced.
As I said earlier, I am not looking to overturn the EPA regulation.
Indeed, in this amendment there is a savings clause that allows any
State that so chooses to continue to implement and enforce the copper
treatment aspect of the rule. If the communities--or State, is
currently treating its water supplies to reduce copper, or chooses to
implement treatments based on copper levels, nothing in my amendment
precludes them from doing so.
I see both the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Alabama. It
looks like they have an amendment. I would like to talk longer, and I
apologize to the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland. I
know both they and I would like to go to sleep. I would prefer a
healthier debate. Unfortunately, what will happen is, we will talk
tomorrow, we will have 2 minutes equally divided, the opponents will
offer some reason to oppose this amendment, and everybody is likely to
walk down and oppose it.
What will happen is, I will have millions of dollars' worth of
investments that will have to occur and there will be a deterioration
of support for any regulation of this kind.
I am willing to stop and allow the Senators from Montana and Alabama
to offer their amendment. I don't know how long they will take.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will tell you briefly why this amendment
is going to have to be opposed and why I think it will be defeated and
move to table it, because we do have other amendments to go on to
tonight.
Obviously, the Senator can seek the floor later on if he has not
finished.
If he has finished with his argument, I am happy to respond briefly.
The chairman and/or ranking member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee will be here tomorrow to express their opposition, and
I will print in the Record tonight the letter from the Environmental
Protection Agency which says the EPA is strongly opposed to this
amendment.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senator has some compelling
arguments. I sympathize with his frustration, but the EPA said, ``We
believe it is unnecessary, inconsistent with the policy requirements of
the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and harmful to the
protection of the public health.'' He goes on to cite articles. He does
state that, ``The State of Nebraska has yet to avail itself of several
opportunities for substantial flexibility and assistance described
herein,'' and the EPA Assistant Administrator, Robert Perciasepe, has
offered to go to Nebraska and show up in Hastings. I think my colleague
from Maryland and I will urge him in the strongest possible terms to
coordinate his schedule with yours and go to Hastings and other towns
to answer.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a strong objection by the
EPA to this. That objection is supported by the members of the
authorizing committee. In our appropriations measures, we have not, we
do not, and we will not take authorizing measures or legislative
matters which are strongly opposed by the authorizing committee. We
believe as a courtesy to the committees of jurisdiction that we should
not do it. We have not done it and we don't intend to do it.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I guess--as I said, I am willing--I don't
know how long the Senator from Montana and Alabama want to talk. I
intend to talk further. I appreciate what will happen tomorrow is,
there will be 2 minutes equally divided and Senator Chafee and Senator
Baucus will come down here and they will say, ``We don't necessarily
disagree with you but we have a letter from the EPA and they are saying
for rules''--blah, blah, blah--``we don't care that there is no public
health problem. We don't care that nobody is getting sick, and we are
willing to be flexible.''
Well, I appreciate you are willing to be flexible, but the problem
is, we don't have a public health problem. What are you talking about,
you want to be flexible? Thank you, Mr. Perciasepe. I appreciate you
being willing to visit these communities, but I have 60 communities you
are asking to spend millions of dollars. You have a rule that you are
going to enforce it even though there is no public health problem.
I know we have a dilemma here. It is 10:30 at night and the unanimous
consent procedure requires me to talk for however long I am prepared to
talk, and then we will have 2 minutes tomorrow. I will have 1 minute,
Senators Chafee and Baucus will come down here and they will say
whatever, and this thing will get knocked out.
Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues, this is not something that
is a small item. Nobody is going to walk down here. I suspect the
Senator from Missouri will not stand up and say that there is a
compelling public health reason why Nebraska citizens and their
communities should have to make these investments. EPA doesn't. They
don't make a case that it is a public health problem. They don't come
to Nebraska and say, gee, there is somebody getting sick that we
haven't noticed.
Copper is different from lead. We are not talking about something
that has the dangerous properties of lead. This is an essential
element. This is an element that is contained in mother's milk, for
gosh sakes. And in some cases the mother's milk is at a level higher
than what the EPA will allow in drinking water.
Nebraska is being forced to sue the Environmental Protection Agency
because the Environmental Protection Agency is unwilling to be
flexible. I seek a remedy to this, Senators. You are saying you don't
accept the amendment, fine. I am prepared to talk, then, further,
because I want to make certain that Nebraskans understand what is at
stake here--that even though nobody is getting sick, even though there
is no public health problem, even though there is no safety issue at
all in our State, it doesn't matter; the Federal Government is still
going to require and this Senate is going to say, ``Well, it is a
rider, we will accept the EPA's recommendation, regardless. We will
vote to table or we will vote no on the amendment, we don't care. It
doesn't matter.''
It seems to me that what we have here is a reasonable request by a
State that has an unusual situation that deserves to be remedied. It is
not enough for the EPA to say,''We are willing to be flexible.'' It
doesn't work. Their flexibility still, at the end of the day, will say,
``You will have to get your copper levels down to 1.3 milligrams per
liter in the first burst of water that comes out of the faucet,'' even
though nobody in Nebraska is getting sick, even though no faucet is at
1.3 milligrams per liter. Only the first burst has the problem.
I go back to my statement here and continue.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I might ask the Senator from Nebraska. He
obviously has made some very compelling points. It is noted there are
Senators who are waiting to offer amendments. If he would be willing to
do so, I would like to finish up the work of the Senators who are
waiting, and I will move to table the amendment, and then I will offer
to go back in morning business and afford the Senator from Nebraska as
much time as he wishes, because we have heard the compelling
arguments--the situation is very clearly that with the authorizing
committees opposing this, the agency opposing it, it is our policy not
to accept these amendments on an appropriations bill. His arguments are
made with a great deal of passion and common sense, but they are not
going to be accepted, and he will have an opportunity to appeal to our
colleagues in a colloquy or in discussions later this evening, or in
the
[[Page S8359]]
1 minute tomorrow. Would that be acceptable to the Senator from
Nebraska?
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate what you are trying to do,
but I am not sure I understand what it is you are trying to do.
First of all, I ask the Senator from Montana, how long does he and
the Senator from Alabama want to take?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, responding to the Senator's question, it
will take me less than 5 minutes. I can assure the Senator from
Nebraska that I will support his amendment.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield so that I may have a letter printed
in the Record?
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will yield only for that purpose,
without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1998.
Hon. John Chafee,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus: As you requested,
this letter presents the views of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the draft amendment
proposed by Senators Hagel and Kerrey to the Fiscal Year 1999
Appropriation Bill for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, which
amendment would prevent for an indefinite period of time the
implementation of the portions of the Lead and Copper Rule
providing protection from hazardous levels of copper in
public drinking water supplies. EPA strongly opposes this
amendment. We believe it is unnecessary, inconsistent with
the policy directions and requirements of the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and harmful to the
protection of public health.
The proposed amendment is based on the questions raised by
the State of Nebraska on the validity of the science
underlying the Copper Rule. These questions are said to be
based on interim reports on recent surveillance studies
performed in Nebraska by the Federal Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), and in Delaware by Delaware's Division of
Public Health. Neither of these studies has been peer
reviewed or published. The interim findings on the level of
adverse health effects reported for the CDC Nebraska study
actually are consistent with the scientific data EPA relied
upon to develop the action level for copper. That action
level incorporates a margin of safety below the lowest level
of adverse health effects, as required by SDWA. The interim
findings of the Delaware study are based on a very small
sample with low statistical ``power'' to identify health
effects.
In the 1996 Amendments to SDWA, your Committee developed,
and Congress and the President enacted, a requirement that
standard setting under the SDWA must be ``based on the best
available, peer reviewed science.'' This requirement is
equally applicable to EPA's review and revision of existing
standards such as the Copper Rule, which was finalized in
1991, as it is to the setting of new standards. EPA does not
believe that the interim reports on these studies meet the
test of scientific rigor required by the 1996 Amendments for
the revision of any existing drinking water standard, or make
a compelling scientific case to change the action level for
copper. EPA is participating in planning further studies on
health effects of copper, and is prepared to reevaluate the
scientific basis of the present copper action level if
appropriate.
In this regard, an article entitled ``Defining a Safe Level
for Copper in Drinking Water'' was published in the July 1998
issue of Journal AWWA by Frederick Pontius, a staff member of
the American Water Works Association. This article presents a
review of available scientific research on the health effects
of copper exposure, noted that ``USEPA's MCLG and action
level for copper have been criticized as being either too
low, or not low enough, depending on the health study
cited,'' and concluded that a ``change in the copper action
level would be difficult to justify based on feasibility of
corrosion control treatment unless a better measure is
developed for determining when optimal corrosion control for
copper is being applied.''
The State of Nebraska has also expressed serious concerns
about excessive costs and implementation burdens on affected
communities from enforcement of the Copper Rule. However, the
copper standard is framed as an action level. When public
water systems exceed the level in 10 percent or more of the
required samples, the State primacy agency is supposed to
work with the systems to help them develop and implement a
treatment optimization plan. Such a plan is not a ``one size
fits all'' approach that seems to have generated exaggerated
estimates of compliance costs cited for some Nebraska towns.
Rather, treatment optimization is to address in the most cost
effective way possible the specific conditions in the system
that caused them to exceed the action level, and meet
effectiveness criteria set by the State.
The 1996 SDWA Amendments give States additional flexibility
to use the exemption process to phase in whatever tailored
approach to treatment the State and water system agree to
implement. Also, the Amendments provided for a new source of
Federal funding, the Drinking Water States Revolving Loan
Fund, to offer subsidized financing to water systems facing
significant costs associated with implementing treatment. The
State of Nebraska has yet to avail itself of any of the
several opportunities for substantial flexibility and
assistance described here.
I appreciate your request to present our understanding of
this issue and the several workable, potential solutions
available. EPA wants to continue working with the State of
Nebraska to resolve this matter, and stands ready to provide
hands-on technical assistance to demonstrate how the State
can identify practical, common sense ways to help towns
provide the important public health protections that
compliance with the Copper Rule will bring.
Sincerely,
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senator from Nebraska has the floor.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in that case, I would like to continue
with my statement. Again, I don't mean to tie up the Senator from
Missouri and the Senator from Maryland here unreasonably, I appreciate
that I am, but this is a very serious issue in my State. We have a UC
here that gives me very limited options. The unanimous consent puts me
in a position where I have 1 minute tomorrow, and the authorizers are
going to come down here and they are going to merely say, ``we
object.'' They are not going to offer any science, or refute the
scientific evaluation, or argue what the CDC has said. They are not
going to present a case that 1.3 milligrams is reasonable. They are not
going to refute statements about nobody getting sick in Nebraska, or
they are not going to say what EPA is doing is reasonable.
We are left with a situation where the State of Nebraska is going to
have to sue the EPA. That is what we are left with. Again, I am willing
to step aside here and allow the Senator from Alabama and the Senator
from Montana to do their work. I guess what you are seeking is an
opportunity to go into morning business so you could all leave and I
can stay here and talk. Is that basically what you are saying?
Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. You have made a very compelling
case. We have expressed our views. I was suggesting that other Senators
also have amendments to offer. Quite frankly, the people who wish to
hear this can read this in the Record. They will be able to do so. But
there are other people waiting.
Mr. KERREY. I am perfectly willing to make an effort to accommodate.
Unfortunately, I am in a situation where I don't feel like I am going
to get much accommodation from the Senators in communities that are
going to spend millions of dollars to invest in something that is going
to produce no improvement in public health.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Nebraska will yield, the suggestion
by the Senator from Missouri is not to deny the Senator from Nebraska
from presenting his arguments. What it does do is give us a framework
for moving on these other two amendments and it relieves us of our
responsibility to conduct our business. It doesn't preclude the Senator
from Nebraska from talking.
If the Senator will yield further, why would talking while we two are
here accomplish what you want to accomplish, beyond what we have
already discussed? I don't understand why you are objecting to morning
business when we are not in any way asking you to give up your right to
continue to speak.
Mr. KERREY. Well, my hope is that by listening to these wonderful
arguments, there is going to be persuasion. You are saying that you
want to move to table my amendment and leave and go into morning
business, and then I will have 2 minutes tomorrow to persuade a
majority of my colleagues, which is not going to happen. There is going
to be no persuasion. Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus will come
[[Page S8360]]
down with 30 seconds each and they are going to say no, and they are
not going to offer any arguments at all. They are not going to read
anything into the Record or consider any arguments given. I appreciate
that things get scheduled and bumped up against a late hour.
Ms. MIKULSKI. But why is it that speaking on the bill is different
than speaking in morning business, if you want to continue to persuade?
Mr. KERREY. Are you basically saying you want to move to table my
amendment and then walk out? Is that it? You will leave and we will say
we are in morning business; is that the offer?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Is it the Senator's belief that the longer we stay,
there will be a change in our position?
Mr. KERREY. Well----
Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that his hope?
Mr. KERREY. That is my hope.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Hope springs eternal, as does this evening.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am sort of teetering on the edge of how
reasonable I want to be. I am appealing to colleagues. I have 70
communities in Nebraska that are facing substantial costs. There is no
argument against this, other than that EPA opposes it. I don't hear any
scientific argument against it or any public health argument against
it. Earlier today, by a voice vote, the Senator from Arkansas and the
Senator from Mississippi accepted a $500 million amendment to indemnify
farmers in disaster aid--just like that--and it was accepted on a voice
vote.
Here we are being told, no, we can't accept this amendment. EPA isn't
saying we disagree with the science, or we disagree that it is an
unreasonable rule in the case of Nebraska, or we disagree with any
argument you offer; we are just going to enforce it. I say to the
Senator from Missouri--and as you know, I am preaching to the choir
here. The Senator from Missouri has faced this sort of thing in the
past in Missouri as a Governor and as a Senator.
I am seeking some sort of remedy other than merely voting this
amendment down. Had this occurred earlier in the day, my colleague,
Senator Hagel, would be on the floor with me, arguing with much passion
in favor of this amendment, that it is reasonable, and that science
supports what we are trying to do.
Again, I say to the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from
Maryland, I know it is 10:45, and I would rather not be here either,
but that is the hand I have been dealt. If it were earlier in the day,
there would be more debate on this. I would love to have Senator Chafee
and Senator Baucus come and tell me why this rule should be enforced,
tell me why what I am offering, with a savings clause that enables any
State that wants to, to continue to enforce 1.3 milligrams per liter--
allow them to continue to do that--is not a reasonable thing. Or some
other alternative, or some language that would enable Nebraska to
engage in a public health effort. Let us spend the money per year to
engage in a public health effort to make certain that these communities
are keeping their drinking water levels safe.
I am just appealing to my colleagues to look for an alternative. You
all have the votes and you have the way to knock this thing out. But
there must be some way to give me some assistance with the EPA other
than to say they are going to give me flexibility. You know what their
idea of flexibility is at the end of the day.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will yield, what would he suggest?
Mr. KERREY. I would accept report language that would say the State
of Nebraska would be allowed to make a public health investment in
those communities where there is in excess of 1.3 milligrams that first
minute. I would allow Nebraska to be permitted to experiment with the
different testing methodology--anything that would give me something
that would say to the communities in Nebraska that the Federal
Government is prepared to be reasonable, other than just surrendering
me to the good wishes of the EPA, saying they are willing to come out
and be flexible. We all know what that means. I would be willing, I say
to my colleagues, to accept report language and not put this amendment
up for a vote--accept report language that made an attempt to rectify
this situation. You know what we are dealing with. I see heads shaking
there. Are you saying no?
Ms. MIKULSKI. It would have been useful if perhaps the Senator had
suggested this earlier and we could have consulted with the
authorizers. Our hands are shackled, really, because of the authorizers
strongly opposing the amendment.
Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that. I didn't know at 8 o'clock this
morning that we were going to be taking this thing up.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Could the Senator talk to the Senator from Montana, Mr.
Baucus, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, to see if they
would accept some report language, and come back and discuss the report
language?
Mr. KERREY. I would agree to in some sort of consent agreement. I
don't want to surrender the floor and then end up with my amendment
tabled with no capacity to appeal for some sort of flexibility in law
or report language that would enable me to satisfy the concerns that I
have. I think what you are asking for is reasonable. I would be willing
to talk to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and Administrative Browner,
and see if they would accept some kind of report language that would do
precisely what you are saying.
I would say to the Senator from Missouri that I would be willing to
go right this minute to the cloakroom and make those calls. But I would
like to resolve it without having my amendment tabled, because I know I
am going to have to bring a report back to you and say what they said
and see if you would agree with it.
Mr. BOND. If the Senator from Nebraska would yield, we are willing to
try to be as helpful as we possibly can. I have outlined for him the
position in which we find ourselves. We are not going to be able to
accept the amendment that is proposed. We have gone through that. The
EPA has filed a letter that is now on the record objecting to it. That
is not going to change.
The Senator can speak as long as he wishes. But he is not going to
change that position from my standpoint.
If the Senator is willing to work with us--we can't do report
language here. We can do report language in the committee and attempt
to work with him on getting report language and seeing what we can
encourage the authorizing committee to do. I have said we would be
willing to ask the EPA Administrator to go out there. We don't direct
and we cannot control the EPA. I think that is clear. You know what the
political situation is.
Frankly, continuing to talk on the floor tonight when others are
waiting to offer amendments is not going to encourage us to work with
the Senator from Nebraska on the very compelling problem he has. But we
would be willing to help him. But talking about it on the floor at
greater length is not going to further the process of cooperation and
assist us in working out report language or some alternative means by
which we can encourage the EPA to come to an agreement with the State
of Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that. The Senator from
Missouri knows that a couple of years ago we did the very same thing
with the radon rule the EPA had and the Senator from Missouri
cooperated. We knew what the impact was going to be, and we delayed or
withheld the money from EPA to enforce a radon rule that we all knew
was unreasonable. We did that because they could not make a scientific
case that the rule that they had was going to increase public health.
We withheld their money. As I recall, the Senator from Missouri
supported that.
I appreciate what you are saying. I understand I am pushing here to a
point where you are saying that if I continue doing this I am going to
get less than I would likely get by trying to work cooperatively. I
regret that at 11 o'clock at night that I am in that position. I am
prepared to call Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus to ask them. I am
prepared to talk to them to see if there is some flexibility to achieve
it either in report language or in some fashion.
But I appeal to my colleagues. The flexibility offered by the EPA, as
you know, is not sufficient. They have the law on their side. They are
going to enforce 1.3 milligrams per liter. They are
[[Page S8361]]
not going to give us any testing flexibility. They are going to force
1.3 milligrams per liter even though nobody is getting sick. I have
communities investing enormous amounts of money. Again, you are hearing
this for the seventh or eighth time, this argument.
Again, I would be willing to allow this thing to come to a painful
close. The Senators are saying if I talk to Senator Chafee and Senator
Baucus that they are willing to consider some sort of report language
and this thing will move in committee if I can get some report
language.
Mr. BOND. In the conference.
Mr. KERREY. But not on this bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we don't have further report language we can
offer.
Mr. KERREY. In conference, you would be willing.
Mr. BOND. I thought we tried to emphasize, we are willing to do
anything we can the next opportunity we have. We have already stated on
the floor that we would urge the assistant administrator to come out.
He has talked in his letter about flexibility being available for the
State of Nebraska. The EPA contends that there are a number of remedies
available.
I would certainly urge my colleagues on the Environment and Public
Works Committee to work with you and the State of Nebraska to see if
there are accommodations that can be made. We can work with you. And
based on what we learned from the authorizing committee--the majority
and minority--we might put language in the report directing or asking
that steps be taken. But, frankly, that is not going to be bill
language. But we are willing to work with you and with the ranking
member and the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. KERREY. First of all, let me say that I appreciate the good-faith
effort to try to accommodate this. I know that both the Senator from
Missouri and the Senator from Maryland are in a bind. You were facing
the situation in your State before. And I know it has been frustrating.
I have spoken with both of you about these kinds of regulations and how
they can decrease our citizen support for environmental regulations.
I have all week long been approached by environmental organizations
begging me not to offer this amendment, and not a single one of them,
by the way, being able to offer a single shred of evidence as to why
this rule ought to be enforced--not a one of them--just saying, ``for
political reasons, we would rather the Senator not offer it.''
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question without in any
way yielding the floor? The talented staff has come up with an idea
that might help. We would like to discuss it with you by going into a
quorum without you losing your right to the floor. This is no trick.
Mr. KERREY. I would be willing to do a UC and let the Senators from
Montana and Alabama go to theirs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like you to hear this proposal and see if it
would be acceptable to get out of the logjam that we are in right this
minute.
Mr. KERREY. I don't object to that. I just want to make it clear that
I have a sufficient amount of trust in both the Senator from Maryland
and the Senator from Missouri that I would be willing to allow the
Senators from Alabama and Montana to offer their amendments. I am not
even that concerned about that. The problem is--I know I need to talk
to both of you to try to get something and, when I talk to Senator
Chafee and Senator Baucus, that I have instructions as to what it is I
am trying to do.
Do we need to go into a quorum call? I would be prepared to let them
go ahead, just as long as I get back to this thing when they are
finished.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Kerrey amendment be laid aside for not more than 5 minutes, and that
the Senator from Montana offer his indemnification amendment, and that
at the conclusion of that amendment we return to the amendment of
Senator Kerrey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Amendment No. 3205
(Purpose: To provide for insurance and indemnification with respect to
the development of certain experimental aerospace vehicles)
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) proposes an amendment
numbered 3205.
Mr. BURNS. 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 93, between lines 18 and 19 insert the following:
SEC. 4____. INSURANCE; INDEMNIFICATION; LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--The Administrator may provide liability
insurance for, or indemnification to, the developer of an
experimental aerospace vehicle developed or used in execution
of an agreement between the Administration and the developer.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the insurance and indemnification provided by the
Administration under subsection (a) to a developer shall be
provided on the same terms and conditions as insurance and
indemnification is provided by the Administration under
section 308 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
(42 U.S.C. 2458b) to the user of a space vehicle.
(2) Insurance.--
(A) In general.--A developer shall obtain liability
insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts
to compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims by--
(i) a third party for death, bodily injury, or property
damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in
connection with the development or use of an experimental
aerospace vehicle; and
(ii) the United States Government for damage or loss to
Government property resulting from such an activity.
(B) Maximum required.--The Administrator shall determine
the amount of insurance required, but, except as provided in
subparagraph (C), that amount shall not be greater than the
amount required under section 70112(a)(3) of title 49, United
States Code, for a launch. The Administrator shall publish
notice of the Administrator's determination and the
applicable amount or amounts in the Federal Register within
10 days after making the determination.
(C) Increase in dollar amounts.--The Administrator may
increase the dollar amounts set forth in section
70112(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, for the
purpose of applying that section under this section to a
developer after consultation with the Comptroller General and
such experts and consultants as may be appropriate, and after
publishing notice of the increase in the Federal Register not
less than 180 days before the increase goes into effect. The
Administrator shall make available for public inspection, not
later than the date of publication of such notice, a complete
record of any correspondence received by the Administration,
and a transcript of any meetings in which the Administration
participated, regarding the proposed increase.
(D) Safety review required before administrator provides
insurance.--The Administrator may not provide liability
insurance or indemnification under subsection (a) unless the
developer establishes to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that appropriate safety procedures and
practices are being followed in the development of the
experimental aerospace vehicle.
(3) No indemnification without cross-waiver.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Administrator may not
indemnify a developer of an experimental aerospace vehicle
under this section unless there is an agreement between the
Administration and the developer described in subsection (c).
(4) Application of certain procedures.--If the
Administrator requests additional appropriations to make
payments under this section, like the payments that may be
made under section 308(b) of the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2458b(b)), then the request for
those appropriations shall be made in accordance with the
procedures established by subsections (d) and (e) of section
70113 of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Cross-Waivers.--
(1) Administrator authorized to waive.--The Administrator,
on behalf of the United States, and its departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities, may reciprocally waive
claims with a developer and with the related entities of that
developer under which each party to the waiver agrees to be
responsible, and agrees to ensure that its own related
entities are responsible, for damage or loss to its property
for which it is responsible, or for losses resulting from any
injury or death sustained by its own employees or agents, as
a result of activities connected to the agreement or use of
the experimental aerospace vehicle.
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Claims.--A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may
not preclude a claim by any natural person (including, but
not limited to, a natural person who is an employee of the
United States, the developer, or the
[[Page S8362]]
developer's subcontractors) or that natural person's estate,
survivors, or subrogees for injury or death, except with
respect to a subrogee that is a party to the waiver or has
otherwise agreed to be bound by the terms of the waiver.
(B) Liability for negligence.--A reciprocal waiver under
paragraph (1) may not absolve any party of liability to any
natural person (including, but not limited to, a natural
person who is an employee of the United States, the
developer, or the developer's subcontractors) or such a
natural person's estate, survivors, or subrogees for
negligence, except with respect to a subrogee that is a party
to the waiver or has otherwise agreed to be bound by the
terms of the waiver.
(C) Indemnification for damages.--A reciprocal waiver under
paragraph (1) may not be used as the basis of a claim by the
Administration or the developer for indemnification against
the other for damages paid to a natural person, or that
natural person's estate, survivors, or subrogees, for injury
or death sustained by that natural person as a result of
activities connected to the agreement or use of the
experimental aerospace vehicle.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
(3) Common terms.--Any term used in this section that is
defined in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42
U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) has the same meaning in this section as
when it is used in that Act.
(4) Developer.--The term ``developer'' means a person
(other than a natural person) who--
(A) is a party to an agreement that was in effect before
the date of enactment of this Act with the Administration for
the purpose of developing new technology for an experimental
aerospace vehicle;
(B) owns or provides property to be flown or situated on
that vehicle; or
(C) employs a natural person to be flown on that vehicle.
(5) Experimental aerospace vehicle.--The term
``experimental aerospace vehicle'' means an object intended
to be flown in, or launched into, suborbital flight for the
purpose of demonstrating technologies necessary for a
reusable launch vehicle, developed under an agreement between
the Administration and a developer that was in effect before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(e) Relationship to Other Laws.--
(1) Section 308 of national aeronautics and space act of
1958.--This section does not apply to any object,
transaction, or operation to which section 308 of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2458b)
applies.
(2) Chapter 701 of title 49, united states code.--The
Administrator may not provide indemnification to a developer
under this section for launches subject to license under
section 70117(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code.
(f) Termination.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of this section shall
terminate on December 31, 2002, except that the Administrator
may extend the termination date to a date not later than
September 30, 2005, if the Administrator determines that such
an extension is necessary to cover the operation of an
experimental aerospace vehicle.
(2) Effect of termination on agreements.--The termination
of this section does not terminate or otherwise affect a
cross-waiver agreement, insurance agreement, indemnification
agreement, or any other agreement entered into under this
section except as may be provided in that agreement.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a pretty straightforward amendment.
This is an indemnification amendment that would be part of the
reauthorization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
We have in process now the building of the X-33 and the X-34, which are
unmanned space capsules, and it is probably key to our next step into
space. Those tests are due to start next year, and no test has ever
been conducted by this country that this clause was not included to
cover the testing of those experimental aircraft. I have been told by
the leadership that this will require a vote in the morning, and so I
would just let the amendment remain at the desk and also call for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BURNS. That is all the time I need. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be laid aside and now the
Kerrey amendment 3204 recurs.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. BOND. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. KERREY. 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. 3204, Withdrawn
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have spoken to the managers of this
bill, the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished
Senator from Maryland. I appreciate, very much, their cooperation. I
understand why they have to oppose this amendment. I know that they
have experienced very frustrating situations themselves with
regulations that are being imposed with no benefit attached.
What I would propose to do, and I would like to ask the Senator from
Missouri and the Senator from Maryland just to engage me in a little
bit of colloquy on this, I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment
and to work with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from
Maryland as well as the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from
Montana, the ranking members of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and with Administrator Browner of the EPA, to see if some
kind of report language could be included in the conference that would
allow us to apply some common sense to the implementation of this rule
without sacrificing the public health objective, which is all that I
want to accomplish.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, I appreciate the willingness of the
Senator from Nebraska to actually withdraw the amendment. The Senator
from Missouri has my absolute assurance to work for report language or
another acceptable approach that would deal with the compelling issue
that he raised about the State of Nebraska. This would mean working
with the appropriate authorizers. It also means working with the
Administrator. We are willing to work with the Senator.
We understand that Nebraska comes under a rule where there are
consequences with excessive copper--with nausea, diarrhea, and other
things. They might not affect anybody in Nebraska, but there are
consequences. We are not going to debate science tonight.
What we want to let the Senator know is, first of all, we appreciate
the Senator's withdrawing the amendment. The Senator has our assurance
we will work with him to advance this so that Nebraska's small
communities do not have to make these expensive expenditures to comply
with a rule that might in that State have either no or limited utility.
We all have examples in our States. And the consequences, particularly
to small, rural areas, are quite severe.
I have had to confront some of these issues in Maryland myself. I
won't give the examples because of the time. But I know what it is like
for a county not to have a lot of money, to maybe have to go into bonds
to be able to do that and then, having to spend their bond money, they
can't build another school, another library, buy another computer for a
child. So we understand that and look forward to working with the
Senator. The Senator has my assurance we will work with him in
conference.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Nebraska for
his willingness to withdraw the amendment. This is not a productive
road we are going down. But we are willing to work with both Senators
from Nebraska because the points they make raise some very serious
issues that need to be addressed by the EPA and by the authorizing
committee with staff. I hope that we can bring them together and
perhaps we can come out of the conference with report language that
will outline a solution, or at least we can work with the authorizing
committees and the other scientific entities to find out if the science
on which the EPA is relying is adequate.
Also, as I believe I mentioned, the EPA has said there are
flexibility options under the existing programming in which Nebraska
could take advantage. I cannot tell the Senator what
[[Page S8363]]
those are, but we can find out and present those to the Senators so
that a determination can be made if the problem can be solved by
flexibility that EPA will utilize. At this juncture, at this time of
night, we can't say what it will be, but we certainly assure the
Senator that we will work to find, to explore every avenue to bring the
relief the Senator seeks.
Mr. KERREY. I sincerely thank the Senator from Missouri and I thank
the Senator from Maryland. I know the hour is late. I regret that I am
in the Chamber dragging you beyond what is a reasonable hour.
I appreciate very much your willingness to try to work with both
Senator Hagel and I, and I will assure you that I will talk to the
chairman and ranking member, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, to try
to come up with some report language that will satisfy EPA.
One of the reasons we are here today is the flexibility offering that
the EPA made to the Department of Environmental Control in the State of
Nebraska was so insufficient the State attorney general has filed a
lawsuit against EPA as a consequence. So we have reached this extreme
situation, and I am very grateful for the willingness of both Senators
to cooperate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I sent to
the desk earlier be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3204) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3206
(Purpose: An amendment increasing funding for activities of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration concerning science and
technology, aeronautics, space transportation, and technology by
reducing funding for the AmeriCorps program)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask
for its consideration.
I also ask that Mr. Jim Frees, a member of my staff, be given the
privilege of the floor throughout the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 3206.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my sincere
appreciation to my good friend, Senator Bond, from Missouri, who is
managing this bill in a magnificent fashion, and the ranking member,
the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. She is a
true friend of space and NASA. Under the leadership of these two
distinguished Senators, the subcommittee has done an excellent job in
crafting this important piece of legislation. But, this bill provides
funding for a variety of important Federal agencies, and a number of
areas in this bill are of special interest to me and my constituents.
However, today I would like to confine my remarks to the issues
involving NASA and its funding and budget.
First, I congratulate this Senate for its strong support of the
International Space Station. On July 7, a few days ago, this body voted
by a 2 to 1 margin to continue this Nation's commitment to research in
space. The first assembly flights of the space station are only a few
months away. When it becomes operable, the space station will provide a
unique microgravity laboratory that will far exceed any capability that
has been previously available on the space shuttle or the Mir Space
Station. Advances in medical and pharmaceutical science that result
from space station research alone, may ultimately justify our national
investment in the space station. Shuttle-based research is just
beginning to demonstrate the enormous potential of using the
microgravity environment for research into pharmaceutical products, and
other aspects. Important developments in physics, materials science,
life science and other fields through the space station research are
not only possible, but probable in the future.
Furthermore, perhaps more important, the space station represents a
bridge to further human exploration in space. The willingness and
foresight of this Congress to take a long-term view to keep the United
States involved in manned exploration of the universe is important.
Since its establishment in 1958, NASA has been a tremendous force for
scientific and technological progress in this Nation. In addition, NASA
has been a source of inspiration for literally millions of people,
myself included, who were captivated by the dream of exploring the
frontiers of space. Despite its great record and strong public support,
however, NASA is laboring under the weight of several successive years
of significant budget cuts.
For fiscal year 1999, the President proposed giving NASA less than
$13.5 billion, which is far less than 1 percent of the national budget.
This would mark the fifth year in a row that NASA's budget has been
cut, in terms of real dollars. If we consider the further reduction in
buying power caused by inflation during this 5-year period, the
significance of these cuts become apparent. To make matters worse, the
administration's budget estimate for fiscal year 2000 contemplates
almost $200 million in additional budget cuts to NASA. The cuts in the
President's budget request are all the more disconcerting in that they
come in a year in which the President is proposing increases for almost
every other civilian research and development budget as part of what
the administration calls the 21st Century Research Fund.
Let me ask, can any agency symbolize to our people, and to the world,
the discovering, adventuring spirit of America better than NASA? The
administration, and this budget, appear to suggest differently. If the
administration wants to build a bridge to the 21st century, then NASA
must be one of its trusses. It simply does not make sense for our
dynamic, high-tech Nation to keep cutting NASA's budget year after
year.
I share the concern expressed by the National Space Society. They
wrote recently:
NASA's potential to be a world leader as we move into the
next millennium will be compromised by a lack of
Administration interest in space exploration.
That is a serious comment and we ought to think carefully about it.
The low priority put on the space program is evident when you compare
the President's budget submission with the budget projections for NASA
from past administrations. This chart makes the comparison.
In 1991, a very distinguished panel studied space, the Committee on
the Future of the U.S. Space Program. They projected what we ought to
be spending to keep NASA at the level at which they thought it should
be. It went all the way up to almost $60 billion by the year 2003, and
would be at $37 billion next year. Right now we are at $13 billion in
this budget.
In addition to that, according to the FY 1993 budget submission that
was projected to carry out through this time period, we would have
substantially more money in the NASA budget. Indeed, this year shows us
$8 billion below the budget submission that was projected in 1993 for
NASA. That is a significant reduction. During this whole time, the
total reduction from the budgetary projections for NASA total $27
billion. So they have had basically a flat and declining budget at a
time they were projected to go up significantly. I think those are
matters of great importance.
Norm Augustine, the Chairman of Martin Marietta, saw the need for
NASA budgets which would rise by 10 percent a year through the end of
the decade. We have not kept up with his vision for America and the
Commission's vision for America, and we must do better about that.
Let me ask this: How has NASA coped with these large budget
reductions that they sustained? In my view, they have done very well.
Under the leadership of Administrator Dan Goldin, NASA has made ``Doing
more with less'' not just a slogan, but a reality. Administrator Goldin
has pushed his agency over and over again to do things better, faster
and cheaper. The results at NASA, in my opinion, have been remarkable.
They have done a good job. Mr. Goldin told me several weeks ago that
``business as usual'' does not count anymore at NASA.
I am sure all of my colleagues recall the fascinating Mars Pathfinder
Mission. Just 1 year ago, Pathfinder, on
[[Page S8364]]
July 4, with its little Sojourner rover, was busy exploring the surface
of the red planet.
Most of my colleagues probably recall also the Viking mission in
1976. The Viking spacecraft landed on Mars, took photos, and was the
first mission to scoop up and analyze Martian soil. Viking was a
remarkable success. It cost over $3 billion, however, in today's
dollars, and took about a decade to develop. It was about the size of
an average car. By contrast, the Mars Pathfinder of last year took a
quarter of the time to develop, it cost less than one-tenth as much,
and it was a fraction of the size, yet produced remarkable results,
catching the attention of the world. I am told the Internet site,
NASA's Internet site, received more hits during that period of time
than any other site in history.
So this chart summarizes what has been accomplished in terms of Mr.
Goldin's goal of faster, better, and cheaper.
As to cheaper, the average spacecraft development cost has gone from,
in fiscal years 1990 to 1994, a cost of $600 million, down to $175
million in the period fiscal years 1995 to 1999, and they expect it to
be at $85 million. That is the kind of progress we like to see. It
makes space exploration much more viable in today's world than it was.
The average development time in terms of years: In fiscal year 1990
to 1994, a new mission took 8.3 years; in 1995 to 1999, it is now at
4.4. It will go to 3.5, and 3.1, under their efforts.
With regard to flight rate, that is the number of launches they are
able to conduct per year--in 1990 to 1994 there were just 2. In 1995 to
1999 they have gone up to 9. In fiscal year 2000 they expect to have
13; and, in 2004, they expect to have 16. That is good. They are doing
what this Congress has asked; that is, to do more with less, to explore
space and to make the kind of progress that makes America proud.
Mr. President, during this time since 1993, NASA has cut its number
of employees 25 percent. I recall a time 3 years ago when I became
Attorney General of Alabama and I faced a budget crisis of enormous
proportions. The first day I took office, we made a major decision. We
had to terminate the employment of one-third of our people. We worked
hard, we did a lot of different things, and we were able to continue
the productivity of that office; and begin to build on that as time
went by and have a better office.
NASA has done what we have asked them to do. There is no other
agency, I believe, in this kind of research and exploration that has
had that kind of employment cut in the last 4 or 5 years. They have
done well. They are doing more in less time at less cost and at the
same time with less people. I think it is something we ought to be
proud of and we ought to celebrate. But we ought not to keep taking
advantage of them and always cutting their budget because they are
performing as we encouraged them to do.
With regard to space flight by humankind, they have continued to work
on that, and it is difficult, but they have reduced the cost of space
shuttle flights by 42 percent between 1992 and 1997. That is what we
like to see. They are working to cut those costs even more.
The conclusion we draw is that during a time of tight budgets, NASA
has been doing better than could be expected, and they responded to
this Congress' challenge. Certainly, up to a point, budget challenges
can be healthy for an agency. They force some critical self-
examination, and they result in some positive changes.
We have heard that the periodical giving of blood makes a person
strong, but if you give more than a pint and more blood and more blood,
it begins to weaken you. I believe NASA is lean and healthy and strong
now. It is at a good point, and we need to strengthen it now and allow
it to flower and grow and continue its great scientific exploration.
The budget request for 1999 increases other civilian and research
development agencies. Almost all of them, whether it is the NIH or
National Science Foundation, received substantial budget increases, but
not NASA. The administration proposes increases for all the major
agencies in VA and HUD, but not for NASA. For fiscal year 1999, the
administration has requested less than $13.5 billion, a reduction of
$183 million from last year's budget.
Fortunately, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski restored $150 million
of that cut, and that leaves NASA facing a $33 million cut for fiscal
year 1999. That is just not acceptable for this Nation. This is not a
huge amount, but it is an important principle.
Our history, our heritage, our character as a nation is that we are
explorers. We believe in discovery and reaching out beyond our homeland
and exploring this universe. That character is at stake if year after
year we keep cutting our exploration agency.
That is why I am proposing this amendment. It would add $33 million
in funds for NASA for fiscal year 1999. That would bring it up to level
funding--that is all--but it would be a statement, an important message
by this Congress, that the day of cutting their budget more and more
will end.
We are supposed to have offsets for that, and we have worked hard at
that. There is no way you can have a pleasant experience when you talk
about finding funds for an offset.
I have noticed, and it is well known at this time by the Members of
this body, that the House committee has terminated the AmeriCorps
budget, zeroed it out. We have over $220 million in this bill's funding
for AmeriCorps. The whole program is about $400 million.
If we take $33 million from that, we are talking about less than a
10-percent reduction in that budget. That will probably happen in
conference committee because, as I said, the House committee has zeroed
out the budget, and we expect it to be less. This may be and does
appear to be a perfect place to find the funds we need to maintain the
NASA spending at the level of last year. In the future, we need to work
to increase that budget to identify the kind of programs that will be
exciting and worthwhile in this Nation and in this world.
Of the $33 million in additional funds provided by my amendment, $20
million would go to NASA's aeronautics, space transportation, and
technology line item, which includes the Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program. It will also provide funds to accelerate research in advanced
space transportation technologies.
Additional funds will also be available for NASA's important
aeronautics programs and many other projects. It will have $13 million
for additional funding for NASA's science and technology programs. It
will provide them the kind of affirmation and support they need.
I thank our distinguished subcommittee chairman, the Senator from
Missouri, and our ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, for their
efforts in restoring much of the money that was cut from NASA's budget
by the President's budget request. While the amount of money is not
large in terms of this Senate's overall budgetary concerns, it is
significant and it sends an important signal.
Adoption of my amendment will send an important message, a message
that says that NASA's programs are significant for the future of this
country and its citizens and that this Congress is not going to be a
party to continued reductions in support for space exploration. That is
not what we ought to do. We ought not to worry about it when we have
well below 1 percent of our budget going for this project.
Next year's budget submission from the President will literally take
this Government into the 21st century. I call on President Clinton to
demonstrate true leadership by proposing an increase in NASA's budget.
The President's plan to cut additional millions from NASA next year is
not acceptable.
Last year, on this floor, I made a speech proclaiming my conviction
that we must continue to be a nation of explorers. At that time, I
stated the following:
Space is a key to the image and the future of this Nation
in the 21st century and beyond. We must have national
leadership, keen vision, clear-cut goals and a strong
commitment from this Congress and the Congresses to follow.
We must be willing to pay the price necessary to realize our
dreams and the dreams and goals of our children.
That was true last year, and it is true today, and it will continue
to be true. We are a nation of explorers. This is how the world sees
us. It is how we see ourselves. All over the world on July 4 last year,
people watched Pathfinder
[[Page S8365]]
on Mars. The Internet lit up like it has never lit up before. There
were record high levels of inquiries. Let's not allow this great
achievement to slip away from us. Let's not give it away at this point
in time. We have to make a decision as we stand on the threshold of the
next millennium. It is no time to be timid; it is no time to fall back.
We are on the verge of some of the world's greatest accomplishments in
science and space and technology. NASA will play a key role in that.
Mr. President, that is why I ask for support for this amendment. I
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. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment. I
really respect the Senator from Alabama and his deep commitment to
space and to the significant investments that must be made in science
if America is to be a leader in the 21st century.
I have been to the Huntsville NASA program where they are doing a
significant amount of the space station work, along with so many other
worthwhile projects, and can see why he would have such a passion both
from a patriotic standpoint, a competitive standpoint, and in actually
seeing it hands on. I do not dispute the need to increase NASA's
budget. Both the chairman and I have really dealt with this issue as
forcibly as we could.
Given our parameters, we felt that we have come up with essentially a
funding for NASA that keeps crucial and critical programs, that keeps
us exploring, keeps the Shuttle safe, and continues our work in Earth
observatory data. What I object to, though, in the amendment of the
Senator from Alabama, is his offset. He takes the offset of $33 million
from the Corporation for National and Community Service. That program,
too, has been flatlined for more than 3 years.
When we talk about national and community service, let me just say
what it is. This corporation makes grants to States, institutions of
higher education, and public and nonprofit organizations to create
service opportunities. But most of all, one of its most significant
programs is to have volunteers in communities. If you are an AmeriCorps
volunteer, you get a voucher to reduce your student debt or to be able
to use that voucher to either go to college, higher education,
vocational education, or get yourself ready for the future.
Essentially, it is an earned-learned service opportunity. I could ask
the Senator from Alabama a series of questions but I will not. But if
we are going to talk about $33 million, know that $5 million in this
program is to continue the Points of Light Foundation established by
President Bush which we have supported in a bipartisan way. It is also
$18 million from the Civilian Conservation Corps. I cannot support
cutting $18 million for the Civilian Conservation Corps. So $5 million,
$18 million, and we are up to $23 million. I really do not want to cut
Points of Light. I really do not want to cut the Civilian Conservation
Corps.
Then there is $43 million for school-based and community-based
service learning. I think we do need to teach values. I do think we
need to teach habits of the heart, and service learning is one of the
most important ways we could do that.
The benefits in my State, my State of Maryland, show that when
students have participated in volunteer services as part of the
requirement to graduate from high school, they have been forever
changed by the fact that they worked in a library, visited senior
citizens, helped in a soup kitchen and did a whole series of other
things.
Mr. President, tonight is not the night to extol the virtues of the
Corporation for National and Community Service, but it has served the
Nation very well. It, too, has been flatlined.
I will just conclude by saying this. There is a program in Baltimore,
it is an old convent called St. Stanislaus Convent right down the
street from where I lived in a neighborhood called Fells Point. It has
been recycled where Catholic nuns and AmeriCorps volunteers are working
with children from very poor families--really out of the public housing
projects. Because of what the AmeriCorps volunteers bring, they recruit
other volunteers to help the sisters be able to educate these children.
When we talk about exploring the future, we have to get behind our
kids to make sure that our kids have the skills that they need to get
ready for this future. And what AmeriCorps does in many ways is that
the very volunteers work in public education, work to be able to
recruit people for an American roots program, and gets them ready for
the exciting opportunities that we have.
So while we want to go into space to explore--I want to make sure we
look for yet unidentified planets--I want to make sure we have those
programs that make sure that we get our kids ready to be able to work
in these science and technology programs. And I believe the AmeriCorps
program helps do that. And, therefore, I urge rejection of the Sessions
amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to all of the
wonderful and exciting things my colleague from Alabama said about the
space program. He made very telling points about how this is the future
and motivation of our children, this is a symbol for the next century.
There are many, many, many good things about our space program. As a
matter of fact, I agree with almost everything he said about how
important the space program is, and I think my colleague from Maryland
agrees. And, frankly, that is why in a very extremely tough budget,
when the President recommended $13.465 billion for NASA, we recommended
we appropriate $13.615 billion for NASA.
Now, these are the people who are running NASA. They say all they
want is $13.465 billion. And we said, ``No. You've got to do better.
You are going to take another $150 million beyond what the folks who
are running it--under the direction of the Director of OMB--have asked
for. We are increasing it. And we think that is very important.''
Unfortunately, we have had to make these choices in a budget where we
had to restore an 83-percent cut in elderly housing, the section 202
elderly and assisted housing, the supportive housing that was savaged
by Secretary Cuomo and the administration. We have had to restore money
for veterans' health care where that was cut.
Frankly, we have reached the accommodation on a very difficult bill.
And we have agreed to maintain the funding at the National Service and
AmeriCorps. And as part of, I think, an overall responsible approach to
the budget for all of these agencies we work on, and, in addition, to
assure that the administration will be able to sign the bill--because
without the administration signing the bill, it does not do us any good
to go through the drill of coming up with a totally different set of
priorities than they have--we have kept in funding for National Service
and AmeriCorps.
Therefore, I commend the Senator for his enthusiasm for NASA. I do
not believe it is feasible to achieve it. Therefore, I move to table
the amendment, and 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. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be set aside until
tomorrow.
Amendment No. 3207
(Purpose: To provide for the ineligibility for certain housing
assistance of individuals convicted of manufacturing or producing
methamphetamine)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment for Mr.
Ashcroft and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Ashcroft, for
himself and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 3207.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S8366]]
At the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4____. INELIGIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF
MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING METHAMPHETAMINE FOR
CERTAIN HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437n) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Ineligibility of Individuals Convicted of
Manufacturing or Producing Methamphetamine on the Premises.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public housing
agency shall establish standards for occupancy in public
housing dwelling units and assistance under section 8 that--
``(1) permanently prohibit occupancy in any public housing
dwelling unit by, and assistance under section 8 for, any
person who has been convicted of manufacturing or otherwise
producing methamphetamine on the premises in violation of any
Federal or State law; and
``(2) immediately and permanently terminate the tenancy in
any public housing unit of, and the assistance under section
8 for, any person who is convicted of manufacturing or
otherwise producing methamphetamine on the premises in
violation of any Federal or State law.''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, quite simply, this has to do with getting
and keeping methamphetamine production out of public housing. Many of
my colleagues do not have the misfortune of understanding why the
amendment is so important. Methamphetamine is a raging crisis in
Missouri and many other States in the Midwest. And if it isn't in your
State now, it may well be soon.
For those of you unfamiliar with the drug, it is a highly addictive,
artificial stimulant constituted of such unwholesome products as
lighter fluid, antifreeze, and ether, among other things. It is highly
addictive, some say more so than crack; but it is perhaps the most
physically destructive of illegal drugs.
In my State of Missouri, through the excellent work of local law
enforcement, in cooperation with the State, and with the DEA, nearly
800 clandestine methamphetamine labs were busted last year. Law
enforcement reports that there may be even more this year.
Meth started off as a rural drug, but labs have started to turn up in
the major metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City. Urban drug
users are starting to discover this drug as well. It is not likely that
this trend will slow down, because the drug is cheaper than crack, it
is more potent than crack or cocaine, it is more addictive than either
of those drugs, and it can be made in the home or, in fact, almost
anywhere else. In fact, it largely, in our State, is a home-made drug,
which is the reason why this amendment is important.
Most of the meth being consumed in Missouri is homemade in mom-and-
pop drug stores. Information necessary to make the drug is widely
available and the ingredients can be purchased at your local
convenience store or discount store.
The drug, however, is very dangerous to produce. While some who make
this drug may consider themselves to be amateur chemists, they are
actually rather ignorant individuals who are not only endangering
themselves but innocent others.
Mr. President, I have seen pictures of children horribly burned
because adults caring for them have them in the room where this junk is
being produced, and when it goes off it can be highly dangerous. It is
highly explosive. Producing meth in a kitchen or a basement produces
toxins, and it produces highly explosive gas. Meth labs have been known
to explode when drug officers go into a bust. They use low-velocity
guns, they use low-intensity flashlights, because a flashlight, a hot
flashlight, could set off the ether.
If you don't believe it, there are buildings that have had the sides
blown out of them--motel rooms, shacks, wherever they have done it.
When one of the meth labs explodes, it doesn't just cause a little
fire. It can burn people. It can kill people. It can blow the sides of
buildings out. It is very, very dangerous. That is why this bill
provides for training and more assistance to local law enforcement
officers, the first responders in emergency personnel--fire officials,
law enforcement officials--so they will know what to do when they go
into a meth lab.
We need to send a clear message that this activity is not welcome and
it will not be tolerated in public housing. Not only do we want drug
dealers out, but we especially want those out who are so cavalier with
the safety of others that they would conduct a chemical operation, a
chemistry operation that is highly dangerous, in the heart of a densely
populated residential area. Should anyone doubt that this is taking
place, law enforcement officers have told me about drug dealers
performing the process in hotel rooms, moving cars, trailer parks,
State parks, in the parking lot next to our official offices in one
city, and in homes with children.
This amendment adopts zero tolerance for drug dealers. I hope that it
can be adopted.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side of the aisle accepts the
amendment offered by Senators Bond and Ashcroft. I commend the Senators
from Missouri for bringing this to our national attention.
It obviously points out this despicable drug has two negative
consequences. It is horrendous and devastating to anyone who takes it,
but it is also dangerous in where it is made, and innocent people,
innocent children nearby, are unwittingly exposed to and even in
additional danger around its manufacturer.
We want to support this amendment. I believe we need those steps to
get crime out of public housing. Public housing should be an
opportunity to lead a better life, not an incubator for small business
drug trafficking.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri. I
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment because it
addresses the most pressing illegal drug problem facing our state and,
perhaps, our country.
As my colleague explained, our amendment provides for a lifetime ban
for individuals who manufacture or produce methamphetamine on public
housing premises. Specifically, the amendment requires public housing
agencies to prohibit occupancy in any public housing unit by any person
convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of federal or
state law. Current tenants convicted of meth manufacturing will be
evicted immediately and permanently.
The need for this amendment could not be clearer. According to the
Drug Czar's office, methamphetamine is by far the most prevalent
synthetic controlled substance manufactured in the United States. This
fact is not news to my constituents in Missouri. Last year alone,
authorities seized 396 meth labs in Missouri, more than double the
number of labs seized in California.
Congress has taken some significant steps to address the growing meth
problem. I was proud to have sponsored the Comprehensive
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 and to have helped secure funding
for the creation of a high-intensity drug trafficking area in the
Midwest. We have tried to target meth production by giving it higher
priority in the demand for limited federal resources.
Unfortunately, the meth problem has become a crisis. Just this past
weekend, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing
that methamphetamine use among adult arrestees and detainees has risen
to alarming levels. The problem is not confined to adults, however.
Among 12th graders, the use of ice, which is a slang term for a very
pure, smokeable form of meth, has risen 60 percent since 1992.
The amendment we are offering today sends a clear signal to meth
producers: We will not tolerate your behavior and we certainly will not
subsidize it. If you want to turn your taxpayer-subsidized residence
into a meth lab, the only public housing you will be eligible for in
the future is the penitentiary.
Our amendment attacks the problem of meth production and manufacture
in federal housing projects in order to protect the safety and welfare
of those law-abiding individuals who need subsidized housing. The
sponsor of this amendment, my colleague from Missouri, deserves a great
deal of credit for his lead role in cracking down on drug users and
dealers in public housing. In 1996, he was instrumental in getting
Congress to pass a provision requiring the eviction of any tenant from
publicly or federally assisted housing if that tenant is determined to
be involved in a drug-related criminal activity. As a result of his
efforts, tenants
[[Page S8367]]
involved in drugs are prohibited from receiving federal housing
assistance for three years or until the evicted tenant successfully
meets certain rehabilitation requirements.
These provisions were designed to ensure the safety and security of
families living in public housing. In addition, the reforms sought to
instill responsibility in families participating in the federally
assisted housing programs and to emphasize that federal housing
assistance is a privilege, not a right. The amendment we are offering
today extends and strengthens these provisions to address the deadly
consequences of meth production.
Meth labs have been called toxic time bombs, containing highly
flammable materials and deadly chemicals. As DEA Special Agent Michael
Cashman has observed, ``The investigation of clandestine
methamphetamine laboratories is one of the few instances where the
evidence and crime scene can hurt or even kill the investigator.''
Clandestine lab explosions are responsible for killing and injuring
not only meth producers and law enforcement investigators, but innocent
bystanders as well. Just last year, a four-year-old child was killed in
Arizona when the meth lab his parents had erected in their apartment
caught on fire. As horrifying as this case is, it is not an isolated
incident. Within the last couple of years, other innocent young
children of meth-producing addicts as well as heroic law enforcement
agents have been victimized by the highly dangerous enterprise of meth
manufacturing.
As the epidemic of meth production has grown, so has its presence in
public housing. When I asked local prosecutors if they knew of recent
manufacturing activities in Missouri, it seemed everyone had a story or
two to tell.
In Dekalb County, two men recently pled guilty to attempted
manufacturing of meth in a public housing unit. Sadly, when police made
the arrest, they found not only gas cans, paint thinner, butane fuel,
and other meth paraphernalia, but an infant girl.
In Platte County, a man living in section 8 housing was recently
convicted of meth production, possession, and endangering the welfare
of a child.
And, in Grundy County, two recipients of federal housing assistance
were found guilty recently of attempting to manufacture meth in their
apartment.
Mr. President, these examples were obtained with just a few phone
calls. I do not doubt that many of my colleagues have heard about
similar crimes from police and prosecutors in their states.
We need to get serious again about fighting the use of meth and all
illegal drugs in this country. I say ``again'' because for the past
five and one-half years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed to
provide leadership on this critical threat to our nation. Since
President Clinton took office, use of marijuana by 8th graders has
increased 176 percent. Cocaine and heroin use among 10th graders have
more than doubled. And, as I mentioned before, use of meth ice has
risen 60 percent on this Administration's watch.
Even if it is accepted, this amendment will not single-handedly
reverse these frightening trends. It is, however, a step in the right
direction. It sends the signal this Congress needs to send; namely,
that the dangerous manufacture of illegal drugs in public housing is
unacceptable.
I want to thank my colleague again for his leadership on this issue.
He understands the destruction meth has caused in our state and around
the country, and his amendment is an appropriate response. I am glad to
join him in this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3207) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3208
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate that it should be the goal
of the Department of Veterans Affairs to serve all veterans at health
care facilities within 250 miles of their homes, and for other
purposes)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Snowe and Collins, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Ms. Snowe, for
herself, and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered
3208.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Sec. 110. (a) It is the sense of the Senate that it should
be the goal of the Department of Veterans Affairs to serve
all veterans at health care facilities within 250 miles of
their homes, and to minimize travel distances if specialized
services are not available at a health care facility operated
by the Veterans Health Administration within 250 miles of a
veteran's home.
(b) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report on the estimated
costs to and impact on the health care system administered by
the Veterans Health Administration of making specialty care
available to all veterans within 250 miles of their homes.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment will help ensure that
America's veterans get the health care and services they deserve as
close to home as possible.
My amendment does two things: It expresses the sense of the Senate
that it should be the goal of the VA to serve all veterans at health
care facilities within 250 miles of their homes, and minimize travel
distances if specialized services are not available at a health care
facility operated by the VA within 250 miles of a veteran's home.
Second, it mandates that the VA submit a report to Congress on the
estimated cost to and impact on the health care system administered by
the VA of making specialty care available to all veterans within 250
miles of their homes.
Mr. President, I represent a rural state, Maine, which is served by
one Department of Veterans Affairs facility, the Togus VA Medical
Center outside the state's capital, Augusta. Many of Maine's veterans
already must travel hundreds of miles just to reach Togus--and often,
if specialized services are required, they must travel even further to
facilities in Boston. This means long drives, frequently in terrible
weather, and separation from the vital support that family and friends
can provide.
This is not a problem limited to Maine--far from it. It is a problem
that exists anywhere where there are vast distances between cities--out
west, in the heartland, and down south.
The level of our commitment to this nation's veterans should not be
contingent upon the whims of geography. I understand the financial
constraints under which the VA must operate, however, the debt we owe
our veterans will never be repaid until we do all we can to ensure that
all our nation's veterans have appropriate access to services.
Mr. President, this amendment does not all any additional funding to
the VA/HUD bill. All it does is to recognize that there is a serious
disparity in terms of veterans' access to the services which they
earned and to which they are entitled, encourage the VA to make a
priority of serving all veterans equally, and require the VA to explore
the situation further.
I think we can all agree that we owe our veterans that much. I know
that the VA is facing challenging times, but my hope is that the VA
will also recognize that our veterans are facing serious challenges in
accessing the services they were promised. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. BOND. The amendment has been cleared on both sides. It is a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that it should be the goal of the
Veterans' Administration to serve all veterans at health care
facilities within 250 miles of their home. It sounds like a very
reasonable proposal. I urge its adoption.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I gladly accept the amendment offered by my colleague
from Maine. Her commitment to health care and its accessibility is long
standing. To ensure that veterans don't have to drive miles and miles
and miles to get the health care that they need is a very modest
amendment that we could agree to.
[[Page S8368]]
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3208) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for purposes of a
colloquy?
Mr. BOND. I am happy to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. As the Senator is aware, I have worked extensively on
assuring the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, a site in New Mexico to
store low-level, transuranic waste, is open to dispose of nuclear
waste.
Mr. BOND. I am aware of the extensive support the Senator has given
to WIPP.
Mr. CRAIG. Is the Senator aware that the New Mexico Environment
Department is in the process of issuing a RCRA Part B Permit to have
mixed waste shipped to and stored at the site?
Mr. BOND. The Senator from Idaho has made me aware that the RCRA Part
B permit is to be issued soon.
Mr. CRAIG. Well, I would like to address that process and the actions
of the New Mexico Environment Department for a moment. Mr. Chairman, it
is my belief that the State of New Mexico is using an unprecedented
process in issuing the RCRA Part B. If the current draft is finalized,
the permit would require that each site which seeks to ship mixed waste
to WIPP go through a modification of the Part B Permit. This could
delay already stalled shipments from sites in New Mexico, Colorado and
Idaho because of procedural impediments put in place by the State of
New Mexico. This needless delay would likely cause the Department of
Energy to violate their agreement regarding the disposal of nuclear
waste from Idaho. Mr. Chairman, my point is this: The reason that the
State of New Mexico is involved in this process is that the
Environmental Protection Agency has delegated its authority over
materials regulated by RCRA to the State of New Mexico. However,
delegating authority does not, I believe, relieve EPA from its
responsibility to ensure that the permitting of the WIPP facility is
done within the intent of Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and
RCRA. As a matter of fact, it is tasked with ensuring that the State
acts within the intent of federal law. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental
Protection Agency has recently certified that WIPP can accept
transuranic waste. However, it sits idly by as the State works to
ensure that WIPP is not opened in a timely manner. The EPA should
provide adequate oversight of the State of New Mexico to assure WIPP's
timely opening.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for bringing this to the attention of
the Committee. I would hope EPA would carefully evaluate the situation
and keep the Committee informed of its progress.
senior citizens housing
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with my friend Senator Kit Bond, the distinguished Chairman of the
Veterans Affairs and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Appropriations Subcommittee. I applaud the strong efforts of the
Chairman in protecting funding for housing programs for senior
citizens. I am pleased to support the funding provided by this bill for
elderly housing.
I was pleased to cosponsor Senator Bond's amendment to the Senate
Budget Resolution earlier this year, expressing the Sense of the Senate
that funding for the HUD Section 202 Elderly Housing program should be
protected. The amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 97-2 on
April 2, 1998, expressed a policy that was not only met but exceeded by
this bill. Specifically, I fully support this bill's inclusion of $676
million for the Section 202 program in Fiscal Year 1999--a $31 million
increase from the Fiscal Year 1998 funding level.
The HUD Section 202 program is a critical component of our federal
housing strategy. The program provides funding for the development of
new affordable housing opportunities and services for seniors. This
combination of affordable housing with services helps to promote and
maintain the independence and dignity of our senior citizens. This
critical program helps to protect seniors' quality of life by offering
them an opportunity to remain active and respected members of the
community.
I was dismayed earlier this year by the Administration's proposal to
reduce funding for this important program by over 83 percent, to a
level of $109 million. This proposal to cut housing for the elderly was
unacceptable. The funding increase provided by this bill sends a strong
signal to the Administration that future proposals to cut the program
will be met by fierce opposition by the Senate.
Mr. President, I would also like to applaud Chairman Bond's inclusion
of a requirement for HUD to conduct a formal study assessing the
housing needs of elderly Americans. This much-needed study will examine
the unmet housing needs of the elderly and assess the physical
condition of the existing stock of affordable housing for the elderly.
In connection with this study, I would like to bring to the attention
of the Senate an important resource for elderly housing in my home
state of New York. The Council of Senior Centers and Services of New
York City (Council) can provide invaluable input to HUD during the
development of this study. The Council represents 265 senior service
organizations--ranging from individual community centers to large,
multiservice, city-wide organizations.
I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee if it is
his intent that HUD should develop the required study with the input
and assistance of local senior housing providers and nonprofit
organizations such as the Council of Senior Centers and Services?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I agree with the comments of my friend,
Senator D'Amato, the Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs, which has jurisdiction over federal housing programs. In
an effort to ensure that HUD's elderly housing programs are operating
in an effective manner, the Subcommittee included a provision in the
legislation to require a report on the unmet housing needs of the
elderly and the condition of the existing elderly housing stock. In
addition, HUD will report on new and innovative approaches to providing
additional housing opportunities while reducing costs and increasing
efficiency.
It is the intent of the authors of this legislation that HUD's report
on elderly housing shall be developed with meaningful input from a wide
variety of interested parties, including government entities and
housing organizations. In particular, the authors fully intend HUD to
develop this study in partnership with housing and service providers.
Furthermore, the Subcommittee is fully cognizant of the invaluable work
of the Council of Senior Centers and Services in meeting the housing
and service needs of the elderly in New York City. The Subcommittee
strongly encourages HUD to solicit the input and advice of the Council
in the development of this study.
I thank Senator D'Amato for his clarifying remarks and I look forward
to receiving this much-anticipated HUD report on elderly housing.
Tornado Preparedness Pilot Program in South Dakota
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on the night of May 30 a powerful tornado
devastated the small community of Spencer, South Dakota. The tornado
destroyed ninety percent of the town, injured 150 people, and, most
tragically, killed six South Dakotans. I am pleased to say the positive
determination of the residents of Spencer to rebuild their lives has
been inspirational and all of the surviving victims are making progress
toward returning their lives to some semblance of normality.
Unfortunately tornadoes are all too common in my state, however one
aspect of the Spencer tornado caught my attention right away--that is
the fact the warning siren did not sound because the electricity had
been blown out. I recognize that the tornado which hit Spencer was so
powerful that sounding a warning siren may not have
[[Page S8369]]
spared the residents of Spencer the total destruction of their
community. However, reports of the lack of a warning from the siren in
Spencer prompted a statewide focus on the quality of the emergency
alert capability around my state of South Dakota. Unfortunately, almost
every county in my state has acknowledged that it urgently needs some
sort of emergency alert upgrade.
Mr. President, my guess is that South Dakota is not unique in that
the emergency alert system for tornadoes is inadequate in virtually
every part of the state. I suspect many states have never
systematically examined their emergency alert systems and how needs
have changed since the civil defense sirens were initially erected and
technology advanced.
I am hopeful that at least one positive development to come out of
the devastation of the Spencer tornado can be legislative action to
address the emergency alert needs across the state of South Dakota and
this nation. Consequently, I have proposed the creation of Tornado
Preparedness Pilot Program to be administered by Region VIII of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mr. President, this pilot program would provide $1 million from the
Emergency Planning and Assistance appropriation for grants directly to
local and county emergency management officials in South Dakota to
provide 75% of the cost of purchasing emergency alert equipment.
Examples of emergency alert equipment eligible for purchase under this
Tornado Preparedness Pilot Program includes: new sirens with back-up
capability, siren upgrade equipment, weather radio transmitters,
weather radios and other emergency alert equipment.
This pilot program would be an excellent first step in establishing a
nationwide Tornado Preparedness Program much like the Hurricane
Preparedness Grant Program and an Earthquake Hazards Reduction Grant
Program which currently exist.
Further, I think South Dakota is the appropriate state to conduct
this pilot program because in the wake of the tragic Spencer tornado,
awareness has been elevated all over the state of South Dakota about
the critical importance of high quality, effective emergency alert
capability. Our state is now ready to aggressively deal with this
problem. Additionally a large, rural state like South Dakota has unique
needs. For example, many South Dakotans need a different kind of alert
system than sirens because they live in a remote area. Most small
communities lack the tax base to fully fund a siren upgrade or the
purchase of additional sirens. Also, the terrain of the Black Hills of
South Dakota presents challenges for transmitter coverage and also for
adequate siren coverage.
Senator Mikulski, do you support my proposal to create a Tornado
Preparedness Pilot Program in the State of South Dakota?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate your bringing the situation in South
Dakota to the Senate's attention. I encourage the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to fund this important initiative.
Mr. JOHNSON. I deeply appreciate the Senator's support. The number of
tornados experienced each year throughout the '90s has remained
consistently high. Data available from the National Climatic Data
Center shows that in every year in the '90s our country has experienced
close to or over 1,100 tornados each year. Mr. Chairman, do you agree
that the pilot program I have proposed would be useful not only in
terms of meeting the needs in South Dakota, but also in terms of
providing this nation a model for the future to be used to increase
emergency alert capabilities across the country?
Mr. BOND. I urge the Federal Emergency Management Agency to consider
funding the pilot program so that we can assess its success prior to
the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations process.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chairman for this support, and I deeply
appreciate your and the Senator from Maryland's willingness to work
with me on this critically important issue.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Responding to several constituent inquiries on this
matter, I wanted to clarify with the Subcommittee Chairman and the
Ranking Member of the purposes for which the funds contained in FY 1999
Department of Veteran's Affairs and Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations bill for Section 319 of the Clean Water Act can be used.
Is this Senator correct in his understanding, Mr. Chairman, that Phase
I, II, and III projects, and lake water quality assessments which were
previously done under the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program may be funded
with the funds provided for Section 319 grants?
Mr. BOND. Yes, the Senator is correct. With the resources provided in
this bill, states may use Section 319 funding for eligible activities
that might have been funded in previous years under Section 314 of the
Clean Water Act. It is the Committee's hope that Section 314 program
activities can be well supported with the funding provided to the 319
program.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the clarification by the Senator from
Missouri. There has been considerable concern in our home state of
Wisconsin that since EPA has combined its budget request for the 319
and 314 programs, Clean Lakes program grants to states have been
reduced in the number of projects and dollars spent. I would ask the
Senator from Maryland if she shares Senator from Missouri's
understanding?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Again, to be clear, the funds in this legislation can
be used to support Section 314 program priorities. EPA Regional Clean
Lakes Coordinators and EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators and
their counterparts at the state and local level will need to work
together to assure that critical Clean Lakes program needs, such as
water quality assessment and diagnostic studies, are accomplished with
319 dollars.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Members for their
explanations.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand that in conference the
issue of FHA property disposition reform may be raised. Without going
into the details of any possible changes to the program, I would like
to receive some indication from the bill managers as to how the funds
that would be saved by such reforms might be used. I hope such savings
would be used for housing assistance. It seems to me that this would be
a unique opportunity to further address the 5.3 million American
households with worst case housing needs. I know that my colleagues on
the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee worked hard to put as much money
into housing as possible given the constraints that they were working
under. I know housing is a priority for them. So I would simply ask my
colleague if he agrees with the logic of putting HUD program reform
savings into housing assistance.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the question from the Senator from Minnesota.
I agree that there are greater housing needs in this country than can
be met by this bill, though I believe the Committee has done a good job
of trying to reconcile a lot of conflicting priorities. Naturally it
would be the intent of this senator to maximize the number of Americans
who are able to avail themselves of federal housing assistance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the observations of the Senator from
Minnesota. There is a disturbingly large gap between the number of
units of affordable housing and the number of families in need. Savings
from HUD property disposition reform should go to federal housing
assistance in some form. As a clarification, would it be correct to say
that my Colleague from Missouri agrees with the Senator from Minnesota
and myself that if savings could be found within the HUD accounts, that
housing programs would be a primary target for such funds?
Mr. BOND: That is correct. I also want to emphasize that the reform
of FHA property disposition is critical, but needs to be designed to
ensure that property disposition helps to protect distressed
communities, where applicable.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with Chairman Bond and will work with him to
ensure that the reform of the FHA property disposition program protects
local communities.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The Chairman and Ranking member's comments on property
disposition reform are well taken. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Bond and
Mikulski for their hard work in bringing this appropriations bill to
floor. I
[[Page S8370]]
realize it is a difficult task to accommodate so many members'
requests, and I appreciate their efforts. I do want to bring to their
attention, however, a project I believe is very worthy of funding. It
is a multi-purpose in Shiprock, New Mexico, which is on the Navajo
Indian Reservation. The center would primarily be for Navajo youth. I
know the Senator from Maryland is well aware that juvenile crime, drug
abuse, alcohol abuse and unemployment are very serious problems on the
Navajo reservation. There is a desperate need to get these problems
under control and give youth a meaningful alternative. This multi-
purpose Center will do exactly that.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing this
worthy project to my attention. I am aware of the serious problems on
the Navajo reservation, and I agree that this is a worthy project. The
Senator from New Mexico has my commitment to work in conference to
support this project should funding become available.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her commitment to
help address the desperate situation facing many of these Navajo youth,
and I look forward to working with her.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend from Missouri for allowing me to ask
him a question regarding the Supreme Court's June 25th ruling that the
line-item veto is unconstitutional. As Chairman of the VA/HUD
Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe his opinion on this matter is
important. Especially, in light of the fact that his Subcommittee has
approved $900,000 in its FY 1998 Conference Report for the final
planning and design stages of a new national veterans cemetery in
Oklahoma which was line-item vetoed by the president.
My question is this, now that the line-item veto has been declared
unconstitutional, does the VA now have the authority to spend the
$900,000 that was appropriated in the FY 1998 VA/HUD bill.
Mr. BOND. It is my understanding, now that the Line-item veto has
been declared unconstitutional, that the VA can go ahead and spend the
$900,000 that was appropriated in the FY 1998 VA/HUD Appropriations
bill, and I strongly encourage the VA to do so, as expeditiously as is
possible.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman. I want to add that my staff asked
the Congressional Research Service (CRS) this same question and in a
memo to my staff CRS offered this opinion, ``The United States Supreme
Court has held that a law that is repugnant to the Constitution is void
and is as no law.'' Seeing as the line-item veto has been declared
unconstitutional, it is void and is as no law. Therefore one can
conclude that the $900,000 set aside for the cemetery in Oklahoma
should be spent by the VA for that purpose.
Mr. BOND. Again, I agree with my friend from Oklahoma. I am of the
opinion that the VA can and should spend the $900,000 for the national
veterans cemetery in Oklahoma. I do want to say to my friend and
colleague from Oklahoma, that it is my understanding that the
Administration is still debating how to move forward on this issue--the
line item veto being declared unconstitutional. If for some reason, the
Administration determines that the money is not available to be spent
in FY 1998, or does not reach a decision regarding the final
disposition of these funds by the time this bill goes to Conference I,
as Chairman of this subcommittee will do everything I can to make sure
that the $900,000 for the final planning and design stage of the new
national veterans cemetery is included in the FY 99 Conference Report
so that this important project can move forward in FY 1999.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman for his support of this project,
and for the cooperative manner in which he has worked with me on this
important matter for the veterans of Oklahoma.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
majority manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding the Great
Waters program.
As the Senator from Missouri is aware, the Great Waters program is
important to my state, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and Lake
Champlain area and all states with coastal waters. The program is
intended to monitor atmospheric deposition of toxic air pollutants,
provide information on these pollutants sources and loadings in our
surface waters, and recommend to Congress any necessary changes in the
Clean Air Act to prevent serious adverse effects to public health and
serious or widespread environmental effects. These are important multi-
media tasks that should receive Congress's full support. This program
will help us identify and reduce toxic air pollution in an efficient
way.
The FY99 budget request for the Great Waters program, also known as
section 112(m) of the Clean Air Act, is $1.484 million. In FY 98, the
program received $2.612 million in appropriations. The House
Appropriations Committee has included language in its report urging
that the EPA ``--provide at least $3 million to carry out--the Great
Waters program.'' I would hope that, at a minimum, the Senate would
support this amount for this important program.
Could the Senator indicate what the Senate's position would be in the
conference on this matter?
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his interest. As he
knows, the Senate report and bill do not speak directly to the Great
Waters program. But, barring action on any amendment specifically to
reduce that program, I see no reason that the Senate conferees would
not accept the House statement.
Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator's assistance and attention to
this issue.
Sweetwater Branch Project, Gainesville, FL
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with you
concerning a very important project in the State of Florida, known as
the Sweetwater Branch/Payne's Prairie Stormwater Protection Initiative.
Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator
from Florida on what I do understand is a project that will have a
positive impact on the drinking water supply or the residents of
Central Florida.
Mr. Mack. I thank the chairman. Through the Sweetwater Branch/Payne's
Prairie Stormwater Protection Initiative, the City of Gainsville,
Florida is attempting to tackle a very critical and complex problem
that confronts not only Gainesville, but ultimately the drinking water
supply of much of Central Florida.
The Sweetwater Basin, which emanates above and beyond Gainesville,
runs through some of the oldest sections of the City. The Sweetwater
Basin discharges into a very critical natural resource in Florida,
known as Payne's Prairie, a natural reserve park owned by the State of
Florida. It is home to a number of plants and animal species that are
unique to Florida. As these discharges move further through the system,
they discharge into what is called the Alachua Sink, a major natural
sink hole that drains directly into the Florida Aquifer.
The City has taken the initiative to bring together the State, the
County and a broad array of environmental resources and interests in
order to tackle the problems that result from contaminated runoffs
which seriously impact the health of Payne's Prairie and ultimately the
Florida Aquifer. The City is trying to address the problem now, in
order to prevent a more serious deterioration. Unfortunately, this is a
problem and a project that is beyond the scope and reach of this one
small city.
Mr. BOND. Has Gainesville been working with other jurisdictions
concerning this initiative?
Mr. MACK. Yes, it has. The City has brought together and obtained the
support of Alachua County, the St. Johns Water Management District, and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the purpose of
providing a solution to this problem. The City of Gainesville is to be
commended for bringing together so many various interests and impact
parties to address this problem. This City needs help. They have
devised a preliminary plan with a relatively low cost which could
ameliorate and potentially resolve the situation, but because the
project is beyond the scope of the City's jurisdiction, it seems to
fall between the cracks of any one federal program at this time.
Mr. BOND. I understand your concerns, and the reasons for you support
of this project. This project would appear to warrant support as a
special demonstration project through the Environmental Protection
Agency.
[[Page S8371]]
Do I understand that the City of Gainesville has been devoting its
own resources towards the resolution of this problem and is fully
committed to a financial partnership on this project?
Mr. MACK. The Chairman is correct. The City of Gainesville has a long
history of taking care of its own problems with local resources. In
this case the City has already committed resources to the development
of this plan and remain commits to a financial partnership.
I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you agree with me on the importance
of this project and are willing to work with Senator Graham and the
City of Gainesville to explore a more specific source of funding for
this project in the up coming Conference with the other body. It is my
understanding that this is correct?
Mr. BOND. Yes, Senator you are correct in your understanding.
Further, I appreciate the position of the Senator from Florida and do
commend the City of Gainesville for its initiative. I would like to
work with you to further explore ways to assist Gainesville in moving
this partnership forward, an to address this further in final FY'99
legislation.
Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your consideration. I am
confidant that we can work together to provide funding for this project
through the Environmental Protection Agency.
drinking water state revolving loan fund money
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask Senator Chafee, as chairman of
the committee with jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act if he
could please explain the eligibility requirements to qualify for loans
from the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan fund, or DWSRF as it is
commonly known?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, I would be happy to. The DWSRF is to be used to
assist pubiic water systems to finance infrastructure projects needed
to comply with federal drinking water regulations. Public water systems
that regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents or have a least
15 service connections qualify for assistance. The DWSRF may be used if
it will significantly further the public health objectives of the Act.
We recognize that there are a few communities that are currently
serviced by wells that are contaminated, and the best way to solve the
existing public health problems intended to be addressed by the Act may
be to create a federally regulated public water system.
Mr. BROWNBACK. A community in Kansas called Colwich receives their
drinking water from private wells. When the county tested a sampling of
the wells in this community they discovered that 81 percent of the
wells are poorly constructed, 75 percent are improperly located, 29
percent experience bacterial problems and 6 percent have levels of
nitrates greater than the EPA recommended level. Senator Chafee, as a
cosponsor to the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, is it your
opinion that providing DWSRF money to the community of Colwich will
enable the families of Colwich to have safe drinking water and will
further the health objectives of this Act?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, it is my opinion that providing Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan fund money to the community of Colwich to create a
public water system will further the health objectives of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. Therefore, the State of Kansas
has the authority to allocate DWSRF money to the community of Colwich.
Mr. BOND. Although the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies was able to increase the drinking water SRF for
fiscal year 1999 to $800 million, it is impossible to expect the DWSRF
to fund new projects where there is not a public health threat. The
purpose of the DWSRF is to fund drinking water systems that are having
difficulties complying with the Act, it is not intended to finance new
drinking water systems for communities that are having difficulties
distributing drinking water.
fort harrison vamc sewer line
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I'd like to clarify the issue of funding
for a new sewer line connecting Fort Harrison VA Medical Center to the
City of Helena. The Senate Appropriations Committee Report directs the
VA to work with interested parties on a cost-sharing plan for the sewer
line. The Committee has received a commitment from the Department of
Veterans Affairs to provide $1.4 million for the sewer line out of its
minor construction account. This amount is slightly over half of the
estimated total cost for the project. Does the Chairman concur that the
Committee endorses this funding agreement and expects the VA to make
the funds available in an expeditious manner?
Mr. BOND. I concur with the Senator from Montana. The Committee
expects the VA to provide $1.4 million for the Fort Harrison sewer line
in an expeditious manner. I thank the Senator from Montana for the
clarification.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Chairman on his
leadership and hard work on his bill. He and the Subcommittee have had
to make hard decisions about scarce resources and have labored to do so
fairly. I also appreciate the Chairman's diligence in pursuing needed,
aggressive oversight of some large agencies that, at times, have been
sluggish in responding. He and the Subcommittee have made real efforts
to make sure the taxpayer's hard-earned dollar is spent effectively and
efficiently. I have seen first-hand, and appreciate, the Chairman's
dedication to the integrity of this process.
I request that the distinguished Chairman and I be permitted to
engage in a colloquy.
As the Chairman knows, the City of McCall, Idaho, is faced with the
absolutely critical need to make significant improvements to its water
system. McCall faces a potential cost of $6 million because of federal
mandates for water purification.
However, as much of 85 to 90 percent of these capital costs might be
saved by installing a new, prototype, filtration technology. The City
only recently received a proposal for a prototype filtration system. In
what ought to be a prototype for voluntary private-public partnerships,
the cost of research and development of the system would be borne by
the contractor.
That leaves the City with the need for $253,000 toward installation,
start-up, and initial testing of the system. Through no fault on
anyone's part, the proposal was not ready for the City to review, and
could not be submitted to the Subcommittee, in time for consideration
during the markup of this bill.
I would ask the Chairman if he could work with us in conference to
evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference
report.
This investment of $253,000 would not only save the community of
McCall possibly more than $5 million, it would be a demonstration
project that could help countless other communities, as well as the
federal government, save millions of the taxpayers dollars in the
future. I believe such a project would be consistent with the missions
of either the EPA Science and Technology program or EPA State and
Tribal Grants.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate Senator Craig's concern for the City of
McCall, its environment, the burdens imposed by federal requirements,
and the very real need that this and other communities have to comply
with federal mandates as economically as possible.
I will be happy to work with the Senator to examine this proposal
more thoroughy. If we can determine that this project does, indeed,
qualify for existing EPA programs, we will see what can be done to
address this need.
epa grant programs for planning future growth
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I take the Senate floor to enter a
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies Subcommittee, Senator Bond. The topic of which I speak is the
tremendous growth that continues to take place in my home state of
Utah. Presently, Utah is ranked by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as the
third fastest growing state in the Union. While Utah is often thought
of as a rural state, roughly 80 percent of our population resides in
the narrow mountain valleys along 100 miles of the Wasatch Front. In
reality, Utah is one of the most urban states in the country.
With this in mind, I would like to thank the Chairman of the VA, HUD
Committee for his assistance in including report language in the Fiscal
Year 1999 bill, which encourages the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to work with Envision Utah, a private/
[[Page S8372]]
public organization tasked with planning for Utah's future. I would
also like to ask Chairman Bond whether or not additional EPA programs
might be of assistance to Envision Utah in fulfilling its mission?
Mr. BOND. I am happy to respond to my colleague from Utah that EPA
has a number of programs that can assist organizations like Envision
Utah in preparing for future growth demands. Clearly, EPA's mission of
protecting the environment includes management of resources such as
open space by encouraging sound urban planning. I encourage the EPA to
look at any grant program that might help Envision Utah meet its goal
of preparing Utah for future growth.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Missouri for his assistance and
support in addressing growth in Utah.
budget committee scoring of s. 2168
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2168, the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill for 1999.
This bill provides new budget authority of $93.9 billion and new
outlays of $54.5 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill
that complies with the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is a one
of the most difficult bills to manage with its varied programs and
challenging allocation, but I think the bill meets most of the demands
made of it while not exceeding its budget and is a strong candidate for
enactment. So I commend my friend the chairman for his efforts and
leadership.
When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into
account, the bill totals $91.9 billion in BA and $102.4 billion in
outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation for budget authority and outlays, for both defense and
nondefense.
I ask members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge
the speedy adoption of this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2168, VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS, 1999 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seante-reported bill:
Budget authority........................... 131 69,855 ........... 21,885 91,871
Outlays.................................... 127 80,653 ........... 21,570 102,350
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority........................... 131 69,855 ........... 21,885 91,871
Outlays.................................... 127 80,653 ........... 21,570 102,350
1998 Enacted:
Budget authority........................... 131 69,286 ........... 21,332 90,749
Outlays.................................... 139 80,250 ........... 20,061 100,450
President's request:
Budget authority........................... 131 70,607 ........... 21,885 92,623
Outlays.................................... 127 81,163 ........... 21,570 102,860
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Outlays.................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Senate-reported bill compared to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Outlays................................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1998 Enacted:
Budget authority....................... ........... 569 ........... 553 1,122
Outlays................................ (12) 403 ........... 1,509 1,900
President's request:
Budget authority....................... ........... (752) ........... ........... (752)
Outlays................................ ........... (510) ........... ........... (510)
House-passed bill:
Budget authority....................... 131 69,855 ........... 21,885 91,871
Outlays................................ 127 80,653 ........... 21,570 102,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Amendment No. 3209
Mr. BOND. I have a managers' amendment to offer, and I offer it en
bloc. It has been cleared on both sides.
First, there are a number of technical amendments.
Second, for Senators Campbell, Stevens, and Mack, there are several
amendments to ensure Native American groups are eligible for HUD drug
elimination grants and the HUD rural housing and economic development.
Third, for Senator D'Amato, we are continuing the authority for the
HUD G-4 auction program.
Fourth, we are allowing HUD to use data on multifamily housing
developed by the Multifamily Housing Institute.
Fifth, this amendment would require all agencies under the bill to
provide detailed salaries and expenses information.
In addition, we are including Senator Frist's amendment which
authorizes OSTP, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to
conduct a study on methods for evaluating federally funded research and
development.
We have also included an amendment for Senator Wellstone providing
for a 12-month notice to tenants before prepaying the mortgage of a
preservation project. Owners who have already filed notice would not be
impacted. We appreciate Senator Wellstone's providing this amendment.
We had been hoping we could have adopted this one a number of weeks
ago.
Finally, we included a number of reforms of the FHA which we believe
are very sound and responsible provisions. They are from Senator
Nickles, Senator Mack, and Senator Faircloth to direct HUD to improve
the management of FHA.
I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendments will
be considered en bloc.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Ms.
Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 3209.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPAYMENT OF FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED MORTGAGES
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for including in the manager's amendment, my amendment
to the VA/HUD appropriations bill. This amendment addresses the loss of
Section 236 and Section 221 housing across the country. Prepayment of
federally assisted mortgages is exacerbating an already static housing
market and is wrenching for the tenants, who often barely receive
adequate warning that their homes may soon become too expensive for
them to afford. My amendment provides tenants and local officials with
fair notice that a Section 236 or 221 building is leaving the federal
subsidy program. This allows tenants the ability to try and find
alternate housing, and non-profits and local governments the
opportunity to preserve the housing by buying out the owner's interest.
[[Page S8373]]
Section 236 and Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act
provided for the creation of federally assisted, privately owned
affordable housing. Under the Section 221 program, the federal
government insured the mortgages on certain rental housing, under the
Section 236 program, the federally government subsidized the interest
payments that owners of rental housing made on the mortgages. Both of
the programs offered the security of a federal subsidy for building
owners in return for their maintaining these buildings as affordable
housing--the regulatory agreement signed between HUD and the building
owner restricted the rents which could be charged on the units within
the building so long as the mortgage was insured or subsidized by HUD.
To be eligible for the program, an owner signed a 40 year mortgage,
however, the deeds of trust for such properties that the owner could
prepay the mortgage or terminate the insurance contract after 20 years
and potentially remove that building from the pool of affordable
housing.
By the late 1980's, Congress realized that the loss of Section 236
and Section 211 properties could be devastating to the supply of
affordable housing. In many communities across the country, housing and
real estate markets were tight enough that owners of such properties
had a strong incentive to leave the programs and convert their units to
market rate, or to find alternate uses for the property. In 1987,
Congress enacted the Emergency Low Income Preservation Act, which
created a two year moratorium on prepayment of Section 221 or Section
236 mortgages. This was done to allow Congress some time to formulate a
comprehensive solution to the prepayment problem. In 1990 as part of
the National Affordable Housing Act, Congress enacted the Low Income
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of LIHPRHA (LIPRA).
This law was intended to manage the prepayment process, to provide
incentives for owners with critical properties to stay in the system
and to create a mechanism for transfer of properties to nonprofit or
resident ownership.
Today this system is in tatters. Congress has not appropriated funds
for the incentive program since fiscal year 1997 and it appears that
HUD is no longer enforcing the provisions of LIHPRHA which call for
fair notice to tenants and a plan of action to be submitted by owners.
Mr. President, the loss of Section 236 and 221 properties has become
a crisis in my state. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency believes
that 10% of Minnesota's Section 236 and 221 housing is at risk--Housing
advocates believe that the long term losses will be far greater. But
the loss of these apartment buildings does not occur in a vacuum, the
Twin Cities metropolitan area has a vacancy rate of 1.9 percent--five
percent vacancy is usually regarded as full. The loss of these
buildings as affordable housing is absolutely devastating to these
communities.
Mr. President, I'd like to share some examples from my own state of
illustrate the problem facing these tenants. These Minnesotans have had
their lives completely disrupted by the prepayment of a Section 236
mortgage and if you listen to their stories over and over again you
hear the same thing: with more notice they could have organized an
equitable buy out of the current owner's mortgage or have made a
dignified search for other housing.
Terry Truja moved into Oak Grove Towers in Minneapolis, MN, ten years
ago when she became disabled; she now uses a wheel chair. She lived in
the neighborhood around Oak Grove Towers for seven years prior to her
disability and worked as a nurse. Her building's Section 236 mortgage
was prepaid in July of 1997. Prior to the prepayment, Terry paid $250 a
month for her apartment. After prepayment, her apartment now rents for
$615. She has been able to stay in her apartment for one year thanks to
en Enhanced Section 8 Voucher, but she will not be eligible for
ordinary Section 8 after that period. Terry and the other tenants of
Oak Grove Towers received 60 days notice that the mortgage was being
prepaid. They are trying to work with a local non-profit who wishes to
buy the building and keep it as low income housing, but now they are
fighting against time. Extra notice could have made all the difference.
Elza Glikina is a Russian immigrant who lives with her husband in Oak
Grove Towers. She speaks fluent English and serves as a contact with
the outside world for the many elderly Russian immigrants who live in
the building, many of whom do not speak English. She says that these
people ``lived through so much grief in their lives'' back in their
home countries and that they ``thought they had found peace'' here in
Oak Grove Towers where they have formed closed bonds with others of the
same nationality. For them, Elza said, the prepayment was terrifying.
It reminded them of arbitrariness and soullessness of life in the
Soviet Union. 60 days was not enough time for these immigrants to get
their affairs in order, to apply for supplemental assistance. Though
Elza is more capable then most, she says that she ``feels sick at the
thought of moving.''
Jennifer Nguyen is a severely disabled Vietnamese immigrant who lives
next to her brother and mother in Oak Grove Towers. She suffers from
multiple medical problems, including tuberculosis and has only a
portion of one lung remaining. Her doctor is located in the
neighborhood, and her health might be seriously jeopardized if she is
forced to move. She likes living at Oak Grove Towers, but if the
building is not sold to a non-profit, she will likely have to relocate
to the suburbs--away from her friends and her doctor.
Ann Peterson is a mother with a nine year old son who lives in
Boulevard Villa in Coon Rapids, MN. She works, but medical problems
make employment difficult. The mortgage on their building was prepaid
in April of this year. Tenants and local housing officials received
three weeks notice of prepayment. Ann and others tried to find a non-
profit to take over the mortgage but three weeks was just not enough
time--in fact it took 6 weeks after prepayment for the paperwork to
provide Enhanced Vouchers to be approved. She has lived there 8 years
and says that she still ``has faith that they will be able to stay.''
She continues to try and find a buyer for the building.
Mr. President, these are a few stories from two buildings where the
Section 236 mortgages have been repaid. Together they represent the
potential loss of 281 units of affordable housing--in a market that
already has a 1.9 percent vacancy. Again, I think there stories show
why notice is important for two reasons: as a buffer to the tenant and
to allow local governments and non-profits time to react to keep the
housing affordable.
Mr. President, I believe my amendment is a step in the right
direction. It:
1. Requires an owner of eligable low income housing, such as a
Section 236 or Section 221(d)(3) building, who intends to prepay a
federally subsidized mortgage or terminate the federal insurance
contract to give a one year notice of such intent to the tenants of the
affected property and to the appropriate state and local authorities.
2. Waives this requirement in the event that the owner wishes to
transfer the property to a non-profit or Residents Council which
intends to maintain the units as affordable housing.
3. This amendment does not apply to owners who have already given
notice of prepayment or termination, as of July 7, 1998, in accordance
with current law and regulation.
Under current federal law, tenants of federally assisted rental
housing receive only 30 or 60 days notice of an owner's attempt to pre-
pay an insured mortgage. This short time period makes it impossible for
the tenants, their advocates, local or state government to devise any
alternatives to prevent the permanent loss of affordable housing.
Minnesota has enacted a one year prepayment notice requirement, but
this been pre-empted by LIHPRHA, LIHPRHA specifically struck down state
laws which put more restrictive requirements for Section 236 and 221
than is provided for in federal law. This was justified by the funding
mechanism also included in LIHPRHA, which was designed to preserve the
housing should the owner decide to prepay. Now that this federal
funding is gone, I believe Congress should act to require a firm, one
year notice period. Again, however, my amendment is not intended to
cover owners who have given legal notice of prepayment or termination
under the prepayment process currently being implemented by HUD.
[[Page S8374]]
Mr. President, the Congressional budget office has determined that my
amendment would not add to the cost of this bill. I don't believe it
will be a burden to owners either. It simply provides warning to
tenants, warning that I believe out of simple dignity they should be
provided, and gives local and state governments the tools they need to
preserve the housing--after buying out the owner at a fair price--in
the affordable housing pool.
Mr. President, other speakers have talked about the crisis in
affordable housing. We are at a point in our history where we are
simultaneously experiencing some of the most tremendous economic growth
while enduring an all time high of renters with worst case housing
needs--5.3 million people across the country. My amendment is a small
change, but if it is a change which provides low income tenants with
increased security and allows for ample warning so that housing can be
preserved then, I believe it will have a big impact.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that it be designated as a Bond and
Mikulski amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3209) was agreed to en bloc.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Again, my sincere thanks particularly to my colleague from
Maryland for her fine staff. My thanks to our staff for staying with
us. I think we have set a record for debate, for expeditious handling
of VA/HUD bill. We are grateful, No. 1, to the leadership, Senator
Daschle and Senator Lott, for giving us such a propitious time to
expedite the consideration of this measure.
Let me extend my special thanks to the occupant of the Chair and all
of the floor personnel, including the pages, of the Senate for staying
with us to quarter to 12, and perhaps a little later. We appreciate
your willingness. This has helped us move forward.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we close the debate on the fiscal
year 1999 VA/HUD bill, I thank Chairman Bond, first, for all the
courtesies that he has extended both to myself and to my staff during
the entire year that we have considered this legislation--many
hearings, many discussions, many issues that we ironed out so we could
come to the floor with the bill that really met compelling human need
and investment in the future.
And at the same time, avoid a lot of the wrangling that sometimes can
surround appropriations bills. I also think he handled the bill tonight
with great deftness. We want to thank him. I want to thank his staff,
Carolyn Apostolou and Jon Kamarck for the outstanding job they did. Of
course, I could not stand here and be able to articulate the position
of both my party and my own beliefs without my very able staff. I thank
Andy Givens, David Bowers and Bertha Lopez, who were with me throughout
the entire year as we moved this bill.
So I look forward to voting for the bill tomorrow and in conference.
And really, for all of the pages who have worked so late, they should
know that this bill has really helped. We have housing for the poor and
have saved the environment, invested in the future. I could go on, but
I am going to now yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes
ordered with respect to the amendments offered to the VA-HUD
appropriations bill occur in the order they were offered, beginning at
9 a.m. tomorrow morning as under the previous order. I further ask that
no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. For the information of all Senators, the voting schedule
for Friday morning is as follows:
The Wellstone amendment regarding veterans compensation. I understand
that the chairman of the budget committee will raise a point of order
with respect to this amendment so the vote will be on a motion to waive
the budget act with respect to the Wellstone amendment.
Following the Wellstone vote the Senate will vote on or in relation
to the Murkowski amendment regarding Alaska veterans, followed by a
vote on or in relation to the Nickles FHA amendment, followed by a vote
on or in relation to the Burns amendment regarding NASA
indemnification, followed by a vote on or in relation to the Sessions
amendment regarding NASA funding.
It is hoped that following the preceding amendment votes the Senate
will immediately move to final passage of the VA-HUD Appropriations
Bill.
unanimous consent agreement
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes
all action on S. 2168, that it not be engrossed and be held at the
desk. I further ask that when the House of Representatives companion
measure is received in the Senate, the Senate immediately proceed its
consideration; that all after the enacting clause of the House bill be
stricken and the text of S. 2168, as passed, be inserted in lieu
thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read for a third time and
passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and
the Chair be authorized to appoint the following conferees on the part
of the Senate: Senators Bond, Burns, Stevens, Shelby, Campbell, Craig,
Mikulski, Leahy, Lautenberg, Harkin, and Byrd; and that the foregoing
occur without any intervening action or debate.
I further ask unanimous consent that upon passage by the Senate of
the House companion measure, as amended, the passage of S. 2168 be
vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________