Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8425-S8447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2168.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2168) making appropriations for the Department
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:

Wellstone/Murray/McCain amendment No. 3199, to restore
veterans tobacco-related benefits as in effect before the
enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century.
Murkowski amendment No. 3200, to provide land allotments
for certain Native Alaskan veterans.
Nickles amendment No. 3202, to provide for an increase in
FHA single family maximum mortgage amounts and GNMA guaranty
fee.
Burns amendment No. 3205, to provide for insurance and
indemnification with respect to the development of certain
experimental aerospace vehicles.
Sessions amendment No. 3206, to increase 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.

Amendment No. 3199

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone
amendment. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of
Senator Murray, Senator McCain and myself. This amendment speaks to an
injustice. This amendment would restore benefits to veterans for
smoking-related diseases. We had a lot of smoke and mirrors, we did a
lot of things in the budget resolution that we should not have done. We
have never had an up-or-down vote.
What this amendment essentially says is we should not have used that
offset for highways, taking benefits that go to veterans. It is that
clear.
Mr. President, let me just be crystal clear. There have been a lot of
OMB stories that I would question. I believe there will not be that
much that will be required, but this funding ought to go to veterans.
In fact, I would argue you will never get the $17 billion for highways,
and we will ultimately have to go to surplus anyway. I have heard my
colleagues talk about the surplus that we are going to have. We can at

[[Page S8426]]

least take a little bit of that surplus and give it back to veterans.
We never should have taken their benefits away. It was an injustice.
This amendment by Senator Murray, Senator McCain, and myself would
restore those benefits.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I do strongly support the work of Chairman Bond and Senator
Mikulski. I do not take challenging an appropriations bill lightly.
However, in this instance, I feel strongly that I must join my
colleagues Senator Wellstone and Senator McCain in seeking to repeal
the veterans grab contained in the recently adopted transportation and
IRS legislation.
The bill before us today is a veterans bill. It funds health care and
I thank the leaders of this subcommittee for increasing health care
funding by more than $200 million. This increase in health care funding
is my number one veterans priority. I also strongly support the
subcommittee's work on VA medical research, the national cemetery
system, and homeless veterans. These are all very important programs.
However, I continue to oppose the veterans offset used to fund
increases in transportation. These cuts have been attached to
politically popular bills. The transportation legislation and the IRS
reform bill both passed by overwhelming and bipartisan margins. Both
were admirable pieces of legislation with the exception of the veterans
grab hidden within those bills.
I have been fighting this veterans grab all year. It was in the
President's budget and I opposed it. At the Budget Committee, I voted
against Democratic and Republican proposals that included the
disastrous cuts to veterans health. And on the Senate floor, I voted
against the Craig/Domenici amendment to validate the $10 billion cut in
veterans funding and against the budget one final time in opposition to
these cuts to veterans.
Just last week, I asked the Senate to sustain a point of order on the
IRS reform bill to support my effort to strike the veterans cuts. That
most recent effort failed by one vote. One vote.
My colleagues need to know that this issue is not going to go away.
This issue has touched a nerve with America's veterans. They are deeply
offended that the Congress and the Administration would divert money
targeted to care for sick veterans to pay for other spending
priorities. That's why Senator Wellstone, Senator McCain, Senator
Rockefeller, and I will keep coming back.
Our efforts to repeal the $17 billion veterans grab have been denied
through procedural maneuvers. Some may think this insulates them from
accountability. It does not. Veterans know that procedural moves are
being used to block a straight up or down vote on this issue.
This amendment is a special opportunity for the Senate. With our
votes for Wellstone-Murray-McCain, we can send a very clear message to
veterans all across our country. Passage says that the United States
Senate recognizes that using veterans funding for other spending
priorities is wrong. Passage of this amendment says to veterans that we
are moving to restore this funding to where it belongs. The $17 billion
belongs at the VA.
I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone-Murray-McCain amendment
to repeal the veterans cuts associated with the transportation
legislation.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for
the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota to restore
veterans' disability benefits for smoking-related illnesses. Earlier
this year, the Senate made a mistake. In order to help pay for the
highway bill, it reduced veterans' disability benefits. Specifically,
it overturned a decision by the General Counsel at the Department of
Veterans' Affairs that smoking related illnesses were service connected
and could qualify a veteran for VA disability and health benefits.
As I said, the Senate made a mistake when it did this, but I want the
record to show that I strenuously opposed this mistake. Throughout the
budget process and deliberations on the highway bill, I consistently
opposed efforts to pay for the highway bill by reducing VA disability
benefits. In fact, during consideration of the Senate Budget Resolution
for Fiscal Year 1999, I voted against the Domenici amendment that
cleared the way for this raid on veterans' benefits. And during
consideration of the tobacco bill, I cosponsored the McCain amendment
to use a portion of tobacco revenues to fund veterans' health benefits.
I took those actions and I support this amendment for one very simple
reason. It's the right thing to do. We all know that the U.S. military
encouraged the use of tobacco products by young service members. We all
know that the tobacco companies provided cigarettes to the Pentagon
free of charge. In return, the military for years distributed free
cigarettes in C-rations and K-rations. Military training included
smoking breaks. And until very recently, cigarettes were available on
military bases at vastly reduced prices.
Mr. President, it could not be more clear that the Federal government
has a responsibility to our veterans to help them cope with illnesses
that they acquired after the government encouraged them to get hooked
on tobacco products in the first place. The Federal government should
not walk away from this responsibility. It should not deny veterans'
benefits for smoking related illnesses.
This amendment rights the wrong we did to veterans earlier this year.
It restores benefits to those who put their lives on the line for our
country. When the Senate passed the highway bill, I assured veterans in
my State that I would work to correct the injustice that it contained.
This amendment does exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as a veteran, I rise in strong support
of this amendment to restore funds for service-related medical
conditions that result from tobacco use. This amendment offers a chance
to reverse that cut, which the Clinton Administration proposed earlier
in this process, and to reiterate our commitment to veterans.
I voted for the transportation bill that included this cut because
the bill increased North Carolina highway funds by more than $1.5
billion. I put a lot of hard work into that highway bill, and,
certainly, there is not a member of the Senate more committed to a safe
and efficient transportation infrastructure than I. However, after
further review in the relevant committees over the past several months,
this cut was exposed to some sunlight and revealed as a rush to
judgment and a disservice to American veterans.
Frankly, this episode illustrates that we need to be better attuned
to veterans issues, and we need to be more cautious about the effects
of these provisions. As a veteran of the United States Army and the
junior Senator from North Carolina, a State that is home to some
700,000 former soldiers, I cherish opportunities to serve our veterans.
For example, I set up small constituent services offices across North
Carolina to best service their needs, because I know that not all
veterans--certainly not those wounded in the line of duty--are as
mobile as the general population.
I urge the Senate to fulfill our commitment to American veterans. The
facts are now clear. This amendment presents a clear choice. Yes or no.
We stand with veterans or we do not. I choose to stand with those who
served our flag and our nation in her times of need.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I support my colleagues, Senator
Wellstone and Senator Murray, in their efforts to restore the veterans
benefit that was unjustly cut to pay for unprecedented increases in the
highway bill.
Adoption of this amendment would restore the former state of the law,
by reinstating disability rights for veterans, while still fully
preserving each and every highway project that was included in the
highway bill and in the corrections bill that was covertly attached to
the IRS Restructuring bill.
Prior to the enactment of the highway bill, the law required the
payment of disability compensation to veterans who could prove that
they became addicted to tobacco use while in military service, if that
addiction continued without interruption, and resulted in an illness
and in disability. The conference report on the highway bill rescinded
this compensation to disabled veterans, generating $17 billion in
``paper savings'' to fund an unprecedented increase in ISTEA.

[[Page S8427]]

Of course, anyone familiar with these claims for compensation for
tobacco-related illnesses knows that OMB's cost estimate is just a
guess. Since 1993, VA has received less than 8,000 claims, and has only
granted between 200-300. In arriving at its $17 billion estimate, the
Administration, for some unexplained reason, estimated that 500,000
veterans would file tobacco-related claims each year. The actual cost
to VA for claims filed over the last six years has been a few million
dollars, not anywhere near the $17 billion estimate.
I will again remind my fellow Senators who think that subsequent
actions have discharged any further responsibility to these veterans,
that so far, the Congress has done nothing to undo this wrong. An
amendment was adopted to direct a portion of the proceeds from the
tobacco bill to VA health care--but it was only for health care, and
not for compensation, that is, monthly disability benefits for tobacco-
related illnesses. But now there is no tobacco bill. So that effort is
meaningless.
There were also some provisions in the highway bill that provided
enhancements to some very important VA programs--the GI Bill, grants
for adaptive automobile equipment, and reinstatement of benefits to
surviving spouses, to name a few. But the veterans community was not
bought off by the spending of only $1.6 billion on veterans programs,
with the remaining $15.4 billion going to highway increases.
Finally, the text of H.R. 3978, the highway corrections bill, was
covertly attached to the IRS Restructuring Conference Report. Although
this Report contains some improved language, as it strikes references
to smoking being ``willful misconduct,'' it still cut off compensation
for tobacco-related illnesses for the overwhelming majority of
veterans. It does not truly help veterans. Instead, it is another nail
in their benefits coffin.
The amendment that Senators Wellstone and Murray put forth today is
our only real opportunity thus far to right this wrong and correct the
injustice done to America's veterans. The issue before the Senate now
is simply whether we are going to continue to wrongly deny disabled
veterans the rights they had under law. It is a simple choice--and I
hope my colleagues will now choose to ``do right'' by veterans.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back 1 minute I have in
rebuttal.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the No. 3 vote, Nickles-Kohl,
be the No. 2 vote--before Murkowski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. With the time
having expired, is a point of order in order at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, a point of order is in order.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order that the
pending amendment by Senator Wellstone that would repeal the provisions
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, T21, that pay
for the additional highway and transit spending in that bill violates
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Everybody should understand that we have already passed and the
President has signed an ISTEA bill. The moneys that are encapsulated in
the amendment by Senator Wellstone would now have to come out of that
bill, and as a matter of fact this particular VA-HUD bill before us
would get charged with $500 million and thus make it break its cap
because we would be spending $500 million in directed spending in this
bill that does not come within the caps.
So here is the practical effect of this amendment. Should this $500
million in spending come out of the programs in this bill or any other
bill that has yet to be considered by the Senate--Interior,
Transportation, Commerce, Justice, Labor-HHS, Foreign Operations--if
this additional spending is not ultimately offset in some fashion, the
overall spending caps would be violated by $500 million and a sequester
would be the end result with all nondefense programs being cut $500
million.
Finally, I must alert my colleagues that if this provision stands in
the final bill, not only the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill will
be charged the cost but the nondefense discretionary spending caps will
be reduced by $15 billion for the years 2000-2002. That is the amount
of the mandatory spending that would occur under T21 and not be paid
for by this repeal.
The issue has been fully debated. We debated it in the Chamber when
we were taking up ISTEA. It has been up in its totality one additional
time and partially one other time. I believe we have spoken. We have
voted. I particularly urge that the Senate not open this matter at this
late date. This is not a technical point of order. This is a serious
point of order. If this amendment passes, essentially we will add $15
billion to the expenditures under the caps, meaning that all other
programs will bear cuts related to that. And in this particular year,
$500 million will have to be cut from all of the domestic programs that
we have unless we raise the caps by $500 million--break the budget and
raise the caps by $500 million.
Mr. President, I do not choose to debate the substance of this issue.
I assume it was discussed yesterday by the distinguished prime sponsor
of this amendment. But I submit that in this bill, veteran spending is
going up, not down. In this bill before us, and in the ISTEA bill, the
veterans of America have received substantially more money than they
got last year. In addition, a $1.5 billion new add-on for the education
programs for veterans occurred in the ISTEA bill.

So we are doing our job in behalf of veterans and we need not visit
this once again and cut all the programs of Government by the amounts I
have discussed here today.
So I raise a point of order, subject to the provisions that I have
heretofore enumerated.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Motion To Waive Budget Act

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can have but 30 seconds and then I will move on
this. I say to my colleagues, this is an up-or-down vote on whether we
restore the benefits. I used the same gimmick that was used with direct
scoring. There is no sequestration at all in this amendment. None of
what my colleague from New Mexico has just said is going to happen.
I move the Budget Act be waived. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion
to waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--54 yeas, 40 nays, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes

[[Page S8428]]

Snowe
Specter
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--40

Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Brownback
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Warner

NOT VOTING--6

Dodd
Glenn
Helms
Inouye
McCain
Roberts
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3202

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the Nickles amendment.
There are 2 minutes equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in order to facilitate the discussions on
two of the remaining amendments, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
to follow the vote on the Nickles amendment be the Sessions amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered on
behalf of myself, Senator Coats, Senator Mack, Senator Allard, Senator
Faircloth, and Senator Feingold, strikes the increase in the FHA
guarantee that right now is--last year it was $160,000, and under
present law it goes to $170,000. The committee wants to take it up to
$197,000. This is a Federal guarantee, 100 percent guarantee, saying we
are going to guarantee mortgages up to $197,000.
You have to have income of $75,000 or $80,000 to be able to afford
that kind of mortgage. FHA is supposed to be guaranteeing loans for
people with low and moderate incomes, not high incomes. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for yielding.
This program was always intended to aid low- and middle-income home
buyers. It was never intended to be of assistance to the high-income
home buyer. The high-income home buyer belongs in the private mortgage
insurance business. This amendment recognizes that. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond,
Senator Mikulski, Senator Sarbanes, and others in opposition to the
amendment offered by Senator Nickles. This amendment would strike the
increase for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan limits in high
cost areas and double the guaranty fees charged by the Government
National Mortgage Association (GNMA). I strongly oppose this amendment
which would unfairly deny homeownership opportunities for moderate-
income families in high cost areas and could increase housing costs for
all FHA and Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan borrowers.
I commend Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, and the Appropriations
Committee for including an increase in the FHA loan limits for both
low-cost areas, including isolated rural areas, as well as for high
cost areas, such as Long Island and New York City in my home state of
New York. The Committee's inclusion of modest increases in the FHA
loan-limits will create fairness by allowing Americans in high- and
low-cost areas to also have the opportunities for homeownership which
are provided by FHA to their fellow Americans.
Mr. President, the FHA program is a true American success story,
having provided an opportunity for homeownership to approximately 25
million families since its inception in 1934. It has served as the
predominant player in the home mortgage market for low-income and
minority borrowers, first-time home buyers and borrowers with high
loan-to-value ratios. It operates in all regions, regardless of
economic downturns. According to a 1996 Federal Reserve Board study,
FHA bears about two-thirds of he aggregate credit risk for low-income
and minority borrowers.
FHA loans have made homeownership possible for many Americans who
otherwise could not have qualified for mortgage credit. FHA generally
differs from conventional lenders in the following ways: downpayments
may be as low as 3 percent; closing costs may be financed; credit
rating requirements are more flexible; monetary gifts may be used for
downpayments; and a borrower may carry more debt.
Mr. President, I acknowledge there are important questions that must
be answered regarding FHA's current operations, including instances of
foreclosures. The General Accounting Office and the HUD Inspector
General have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding material
weaknesses affecting the FHA program--such as staffing deficiencies,
the lack of Year 2000 compliance, improper monitoring of the single-
family property inventory, and insufficient early warning and loss
preventions systems.
HUD foreclosures have devastating effects on our families and our
neighborhoods. Rundown properties left to stand vacant for months on
end often become magnets for vandalism, crime and drug activity. These
conditions decrease the marketability of the houses, increase HUD's
holding costs, drive down the costs of surrounding homes, and in some
cases threaten the health and safety of neighbors.
HUD must do more to reduce default risks and mitigate losses. And if
foreclosure prevention efforts fail, properties must be disposed of
more quickly to protect our neighborhoods.
The increases provided in this appropriations bill respond to
inequities in home purchase prices that exist across our nation.
Americans in high- and low-cost areas should not be denied the
opportunity for homeownership simply because of the geographic regions
in which they live. I strongly support Senator Bond and Senator
Mikulski's initiative to right this wrong in high-cost urban and low-
cost rural areas. The FAA loan-limit increase, for high-cost and low-
cost areas, will allow more Americans equal access to median purchase
homes with the needed help of FHA. FHA will still help to provide new
and existing entry-level starter homes, not large or luxury homes. In
fact, in the 32 high-cost areas across America where loan limits would
be increased, the median price of a starter home is often twenty to
thirty percent higher than the current maximum loan limit. In 1996, the
average homeownership rate in these areas was approximately fifty eight
percent, compared to a national rate of approximately sixty five
percent. Clearly, the American Dream of homeownership is out of reach
for too many hardworking moderate income families in these high cost
areas.
Mr. President, FHA's current loan limits do not adequately reflect
the reality of housing prices in high cost areas. Portions of 43
metropolitan areas have median home prices at or above the current
$170,362 high-cost limit. In the Dutchess County area, the median home
sales price in 1997 was $175,000. In the Nassau-Suffolk area, the
median home sales price was $195,000. And in New York City, the median
home sales price was $208,000.
Mr. President, 52.5 million people reside in high cost areas-
comprising twenty one percent of the nation's population. It is
inherently unfair that over 50 million Americans should not have the
same opportunities through the FHA that other Americans have.
American working families would benefit from the proposal, not the
wealthy. The average FHA borrower has a family income of $40,800.
According to HUD, the limit increases included in this bill would
barely raise the average homeowner borrower income level. However, some
borrowers would need an income of $70,000 to

[[Page S8429]]

qualify for a $197,000 mortgage. In New York City or on Long Island, a
family income of $70,000 is a typical two wage-earner family. These are
middle class families--schoolteachers, policemen, and civil servants--
raising children and struggling to pay their bills. In Nassau and
Suffolk counties the median income of a family of four is $63,400.
Wages are higher in Long Island because the cost of living is higher.
And home purchase prices are higher--which is why this increased
adjustment is necessary. The high cost limit increase would simply
grant these areas parity--not an underserved advantage.
I am very pleased that the increase in the base limit will rural
Americans in low-cost counties where existing housing may be
substandard, the opportunity to purchase new homes. New York also has
many low-cost areas, such as Buffalo, Elmira, Glens Falls, Jamestown-
Dunkirk, Syracuse and Utica-Rome, which would be helped by the low-cost
increase. I urge my colleagues from the states without high-cost areas
to also be sympathetic to Americans in high-cost cities and suburbs,
where home prices are higher due to high land, material and labor
costs.
Also, I urge my colleagues to not support doubling the guaranty fee
charged by GNMA. There is no actuarial need for this proposal which
would affect all regions of the country and could increase consumer
costs for FHA and VA loans. This proposal is strongly opposed by
numerous veterans' organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter
in opposition to the amendment, signed by AMVETS, the Disabled American
Veterans, the Blinded Veterans' Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and the Non Commissioned Officers' Association of the USA be
printed in the Record. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a
memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service for the
Senate Banking Committee on this subject be entered into the Record.
Mr. President, the modest, prudent loan limit increases contained in
this bill are a compromise and do not reach the $227,150 national limit
requested by the Administration.
The proposed changes will assist potential homebuyers--first time
homeowners, minorities, urban dwellers and rural Americans--who are not
currently served by FHA or the conventional market--but whom should
rightly qualify under FHA's existing mission.
I respectfully urge the defeat of the amendment proposed by my
colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles.
Mr. President, let me tell what you is happening now. We have over 50
million Americans who are being shut out of an opportunity to use FHA
insurance, and they are not high income. Three million live in Long
Island alone. These high cost areas include Levittown, Long Island,
which saw such rapid expansion of home ownership for the first time for
working middle-class families after World War II--where, today you
can't buy a home with FHA because the median home price was $195,000 in
1997--well above the current FHA limit of $170,000. That is the median
price for all of Long Island--where over 3 million live; in all, there
are 11.5 million New Yorkers living in high cost areas, and they are
not wealthy. They have incomes of $50,000 to $70,000, they are two-wage
earner families, raising children, and you are shutting them out of
home ownership.
We need this increase. It is not for wealthy people. It is for
working middle-class families.
Mr. BOND. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the Nickles
amendment. Let me share why I support the FHA loan limit increase
included in the Appropriations Committee bill.
FHA is a critical tool for first time home buyers, low and moderate
income buyers, and minority buyers.
FHA will help us meet new market realities, but in a way that does
not expose taxpayers and communities to a big buck liability in the
event of FHA foreclosures.
Our Senate bill will raise the FHA loan limit in high cost areas from
$170,000 to $197,000.
It will also raise the limit in low cost areas from $86,000 to
$108,000.
Mr. President, home ownership is a critical step in a person or
family's attempt to obtain assets and to becoming a more permanent
fixture in a community.
Like many of my colleagues, I share the concern about the affect 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.
But in our bill 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, what this legislation does is provide an opportunity
for first-time home ownership. It does not put private mortgage
insurance companies out of business.
It is a good thing to do.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
has enabled millions of individuals across the country to purchase
their first home and realize a piece of the American dream.
I know this firsthand because my wife and I bought our first home
when we were newly married with an FHA loan.
There are many families today who would not own their home if it were
not for the Federal Housing Administration's single family insurance
program.
The Federal Housing Administration was created to promote home
ownership and stimulate the construction of housing by encouraging
financial institutions to make loans to those who did not have adequate
resources for a down payment.
Since then, FHA has evolved into a program which gives first-time
home buyers and under served borrowers greater access to mortgage
credit.
It is a financially sound system that not only works well, but works
well at no cost to the taxpayer.
The state of Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country and,
as in many states, the real estate activity in Nevada is an important
aspect of our economy.
As our population grows, the demand for new housing increases.
And as we all know, the cost of new homes in many cases is more
expensive than existing ones.
In Nevada, for example, many first-time home buyers rely on FHA to
purchase a home.
But as new homes are being built and as the cost of housing rapidly
increases in my state, more and more families are unable to secure home
ownership.
They simply cannot afford the cost of a home under a conventional
loan.
This not only hurts the economy, but it strips away any hope of
owning a home.
The loan limit which Senators Bond and Mikulski agreed to in the VA/
HUD appropriations bill would give more first-time home buyers the
opportunity to afford a home who would otherwise not be able to.
The FHA loan limit would increase the high limit from $170,362 to
$197,620 and the lower limit from $86,317 to $109,032.
Although the loan limit does not go as far as the President's
proposal, which I supported, I believe this proposal is a fair
compromise that would benefit our society as a whole.
Let me be clear about the importance to raise both the floor and the
ceiling of the FHA loan limit:
First, raising the FHA loan limit would increase home ownership
opportunities.
Over the years, the new home portion of FHA's activity has diminished
to roughly 6 percent, and only 5 percent of all new homes are now
financed with FHA-insured mortgages.

[[Page S8430]]

This decrease in FHA's role in the market for new homes is clearly a
result of the current mortgage loan limits.
HUD estimates that higher loan limits would enable approximately
60,000 more families--who have been cut out of the market--each year to
purchase a home.
Second, FHA is critical to first-time home buyers.
Thousands of families with the ability to make the mortgage payments
on a home cannot make the purchase because they lack the up front
capital required. Raising the FHA loan limits would give them the
chance that they do not have under current home finance options.
Third, raising the limit would enhance FHA's ability to spread risk.
The FHA insurance fund is a financially healthy program and HUD
believes that the fund will become stronger when the loan limits are
raised.
Both Price Waterhouse and the General Accounting Office note that
higher value loans perform better than lower valued loans and that the
rate of default is lower for larger loans than for smaller loans.
OMB estimates that raising the loan limits would create excess
revenues of $228 million.
Finally, raising the limit would raise revenue for the Treasury and
would improve the Government's finances; approximately $225 million in
annual revenue would be generated.
Arguments against raising the loan limits are weak and do not live up
to the true reality of what is in the best interest of the American
people.
Some argue that the very group FHA was created to serve will be
pushed along the wayside if loan limits are increased.
Let me remind you that raising the loan limit will increase the
average FHA loan amount by 4.2 percent--from $85,500 to $89,109 and the
average income by 3.8 percent--from $40,800 to $42,350.
The increase would enable more families to buy a home.
It would not take away from the underserved population.
In fact, since 1992, when the FHA loan limits increased from $124,875
to $170,362, the share of FHA mortgages to low-income borrowers
increased from 15.7 percent to 20.1 percent.
Mr. President, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me today
and support the increase in the FHA loan limit to $197,000 and reject
any measure that threatens the opportunity for many first-time home
buyers across the country to own a home.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment, No. 3202.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

YEAS--69

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--27

Allard
Ashcroft
Brownback
Cochran
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Nickles
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Glenn
Helms
McCain
Roberts
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3202) was agreed
to.

Amendment No. 3206

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the
Sessions amendment. There are 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are a Nation of explorers, a Nation
of discoverers. Our people see ourselves in that light; the world sees
us in that light.
Unfortunately, for the last 5 years, the great agency of this
Government that epitomizes our explorative nature--NASA--has seen a cut
in its budget--for 5 straight years. They have reduced personnel by 25
percent since 1993. This is a tragic event. The President's budget this
year had a cut of $180 million. The committee restores most of that,
but it still represents a $33 million cut again this year.
We need to put an end to that. We need to get back into exploring our
solar system and our galaxy. That is who we are as a people. We need to
increase the funding. This bill would first have level funding, and
then get us on the road next year to increased funding. The money as an
offset would come from that portion of the AmeriCorps program that pays
people to volunteer. It has been zeroed out in the House, and it is a
good offset.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment and support the
motion to table. Yes, this subcommittee is a strong supporter of space
and science and technology. We put $150 million more in the NASA
budget. But we object to offsetting and cutting national service that
provides the opportunity to pay for college education, in which 50,000
have earned their educational awards, a modest amount of money that
could be used to help them continue their education. We have worked to
improve 100,000 people who have participated in this program.
Don't cut the habits of the heart. Don't cut the habits of the heart
for space.
Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of space programs and strongly
support investments in science and technology. That's why I worked with
Senator Bond to find a $150 million increase for NASA. But, I must
strongly oppose cuts to the Corporation for National Service.
The National Service helps to promote the habits of the heart and
fosters the volunteer spirit that helped make this country great. To
date nearly 100,000 people have participated. They have helped to
generate thousands of un-paid volunteers in communities across the
country.
The National Service provides assistance to programs like the one run
by the Sisters of Notre Dame in Baltimore. This is a critical tutoring
service of young people.
Each year over 400,000 young children are tutored by AmeriCorps
volunteers who work to help prepare our children to be literate and
functional in the 21st century.
Volunteers also work with well respected organizations like the Red
Cross, Habitat for Humanity and the YMCA, and provide real help to meet
compeling human needs.
In addition the National Service also provides an opportunity for
participants to pay for their college education. To date 50,000 have
earned their educational awards. A modest amount of money is used to
help our young adults.
I urge my colleagues to stand with me as I stand behind our kids.
Vote to table the Sessions amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as already indicated, we support NASA very
strongly. We have added $150 million over that which the people who run
the

[[Page S8431]]

program have requested. We risk disrupting the compromise that has been
made on this bill. In order to pass this bill and to get it signed, we
have reached, I think, a good accommodation with the limited dollars.
If this tabling motion does not succeed, I will have to raise the
Budget Act point of order because the money that is spent out under
this will be above our outlay ceiling.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to table the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from
Missouri to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Alabama.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--37

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--5

Glenn
Helms
McCain
Reid
Roberts
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3206) was agreed
to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are only two amendments remaining. I
believe we have worked out accommodations on the two----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, I do
not think we are going to require any more votes. There are votes on
two amendments that have been ordered. I am going to ask that we
vitiate the yeas and nays on them. I do not know of any call for a
vote, a recorded vote on final passage. The Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Arkansas want to engage in a colloquy before we accept
that amendment.

Amendment No. 3205

Before we do that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays on the Burns amendment be vitiated and that we adopt the amendment
by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Burns amendment.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, the Burns amendment is very important.
There was a question whether it was going to be included in the NASA
reauthorization. If the NASA reauthorization does move, if that can
move, then we would drop the amendment in conference to allow it to be
included in the overall NASA reauthorization, but we think it is
vitally important for the development of the X-33 that the
indemnification be included.
Senator Mikulski.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the position that we are taking here and
urge the procedure recommended by the chairman.
Mr. BOND. We are ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Burns
amendment.
The amendment (No. 3205) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, 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.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I now yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 3200

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murkowski
amendment.

Amendment No. 3200, As Modified

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment. I believe we have worked out the amendment. I have asked
that the yeas and nays be vitiated, which has already taken place.
I submit the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 3200), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

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 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 convey 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 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 and Report.--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 purposes 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. Madam President, we have conversed with my good
friend, the Senator from Arkansas, on this amendment. It is my
understanding that we have worked it out as an accommodation to rectify
a situation where veterans, native Eskimo Indian Aleuts, who were on
active duty during

[[Page S8432]]

the time of the Vietnam conflict, were therefore unable to apply for
their allotment. This situation should be rectified. It scores zero
dollars in the first year and perhaps $1 million each year thereafter.
In view of the fact that this is a $93 billion package, I think it
warrants consideration to right a wrong for those who served in active
duty, served their country, and yet were unable to qualify for their
160-acre allotment because they were on active duty. We have assured
all parties that none of the acreage would come out of conservation
units, and Senator Bumpers has been most accommodating. It is my
understanding the minority will accept the amendment--subject to
Senator Bumpers' input.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the administration has raised very
serious objections to the Murkowski amendment.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, may we have order? I know it is tough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the administration had previously, and
may still have, serious objections to the Murkowski amendment. But he
and I had a conversation this morning. He has modified his amendment.
The modification is at the desk.
For the edification of our membership, simply because this may come
up again in conference or even later on the floor, in 1906 the Congress
passed a law giving every Native Alaskan the right to claim 160 acres
of land in Alaska. In 1971, under the Alaskan Native Settlement Claims
Act, we repealed the old 1906 Act. What Senator Murkowski seeks to do
is very laudable, in my opinion. He is simply saying those Native
Alaskans who would have otherwise had a right to claim 160 acres under
the old 1906 law, but were in Vietnam and not physically present in
Alaska so they could file such a claim--he is simply saying under this
bill that they will be grandfathered in. If they were in Vietnam
between 1969 and 1971, they are entitled to a claim.
Some of these claims would be in conservation areas. That was the
first, primary objection by the administration. We have changed that so
the administration can select nonconservation lands if a claim within a
park or wilderness or wildlife refuge is inconsistent with the purposes
of that conservation area. So that takes care of most of it.
They were vitally concerned about the cost which, as I say, should be
mitigated greatly by this compromise we have entered into.
I simply want to say there is one other objection the administration
has. They are concerned about allowing people to claim 160 acres if
they were not in Vietnam. The amendment does not really say you had to
have been in Vietnam, but they had to have been in the military. They
think that is a little broad. But in conference, whatever their
objection is I feel sure can be worked out.
I thank the Senator from Alaska. We had a hearing on this, but we had
not marked the bill up.
So, with those considerations, I think it is well to go ahead and
approve it. If they still object to something, I think it will be
something we can work out in conference.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas has stated
the position well. As the ranking member on this bill, I agree we
should take this amendment. There is disputed information about cost,
scoring, the administration's position. But I believe we have assured
everyone who has a yellow flashing light about this policy that we will
consult on the way to conference, and I believe we should accept the
amendment today. We will resolve this in conference, consulting with
all appropriate people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Maryland for her comments. I also
appreciate the efforts of the Senators from Arkansas and Alaska to work
out this situation. It sounds like a very compelling need. Obviously,
our only question is the means by which it is accomplished. I am
delighted we can gain agreement at this stage. We do have further work
to pursue.
I have advised my colleague on the other side of the aisle, if there
are substantial problems with it then we can deal with those in
conference. I hope we can remedy this wrong which has occurred to
Native Americans who fought for their country in Vietnam.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3200), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my side for their accommodation, particularly
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.

EPA Activities Related To CO2 Emissions

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As we debate the provisions of the FY 1999
appropriations for the EPA and other agencies I would like to raise an
issue of concern. During a June 4 hearing before the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, committee members explored the concern
that this Administration has no real plan in place to assure that we
will meet the nation's substantial and growing energy needs. In
responding to this concern, Administration representatives, including a
representative of the EPA, failed to mention that in addition to
failing to plan for our growing energy needs, EPA had recently taken
action that could further erode our capability to fuel our economic
growth by a ``back-door'' attempt to regulate carbon dioxide.
On June 2, only two days before this hearing, the EPA had published a
notice in the Federal Register of its intent to modify a consent decree
between EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization
with very strong views on global climate policy. The proposed
modification would require EPA to analyze emissions reductions of
CO2 through its regulation of other emissions. While this
seems innocuous enough, it is clear that this is an attempt to bring
CO2 within the meaning of ``air pollutant'' under the Clean
Air Act.
Although EPA has apparently denied that this is an attempt to
implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its ratification, a spokesman for
the Natural Resources Defense Council had a different response. In a
Washinton Times article on July 8, Mr. Dan Lashoff of the Council
states that the consent decree ``is intended to look ahead to emissions
reductions of carbon dioxide that may be required to achieve national
objectives as established by the [Kyoto] treaty.'' As a key party to
the consent decree, Mr. Lashoff understands the objectives of this
modification, even if EPA does not.
My concerns about this development are several. First, this action
constitutes an attempted breach of promise against the Administration's
assurances to Congress that there will be no implementation of the
Kyoto accord prior to Senate ratification. Under Secretary Eizenstat
has gone so far as to commit that ``no agency or interagency body has
been given responsibility to develop potential proposals for
legislation or regulation that would be intended to comply with the
Kyoto Protocol if it were to become binding on the U.S.'' Second, the
proposed modification exceeds EPA's authorities under the Clean Air
Act. Third, the proposed modification is outside the scope of the
original consent agreement.
Clearly, Madam President, Congress should expect both EPA and the
Justice Department to withhold consent to this inappropriate
modification to the consent agreement. Could you state whether you
believe the actions I have described would be an appropriate use of the
proposed funding for EPA in the appropriations bill under
consideration?
Mr. BOND. First, I thank my colleague from Alaska for bringing this
issue to the attention of this body. I agree that this is an issue of
concern. There are no funds currently provided to EPA, nor any funds to
be provided in this bill for fiscal year 1999 for the issuance of
federal regulations designed solely for the purpose of Kyoto Protocol
implementation.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri to note
the

[[Page S8433]]

statement at page 74 of the Report regarding the Agency's sector
facility indexing project. I concur with the Committee's judgment. I
would like to call to the Senator's attention some further concerns
regarding the Agency's use of toxicity weighting factors in relation to
both the sector facility indexing project and the environmental
indicators project. For example, the Agency's Science Advisory Board
recently criticized EPA's use of toxicity weighting factors based on
policy rather than science and raised other scientific issues as well.
Does the Senator share my concern?
Mr. BOND. Yes, Senator Burns, I do share your concern on this issue.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I had intended to offer an amendment
today to begin monitoring of mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants and include this information in the Toxic Release Inventory.
Congress has a long track record of supporting the public's ``right to
know'' about the nature and volume of toxic chemicals that are being
released into the environment from manufacturing facilities in their
neighborhoods. The ``Toxics Release Inventory'' has empowered citizens
and communities and is helping local and state environmental agencies
to identify the most pressing problems within their neighborhoods. A
glaring gap in information from the Inventory is mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates
that at least 52 tons of mercury are being released to the environment
each year, every year, from these plants. When Congress amended the
Clean Air Act in 1990, we did not address mercury emissions but instead
required EPA to report back to Congress on the sources, impacts and
control strategies for mercury. Congress finally received that report
last year and now needs to act on it. That is why I introduced the
``Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998.'' Although I will
not offer my mercury right-to-know amendment today, Congress has a
responsibility to act on the EPA Mercury Report to Congress. I believe
Senator Chafee who is one of the leading proponents of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, agrees with me that steps should be taken to
address mercury emissions.
Mr. CHAFEE. I agree with the senior senator from Vermont that
although the EPA Mercury Report does the best job so far in quantifying
mercury emissions, many believe that the report understates the actual
amount of mercury being released to the environment. Along with Senator
Leahy, I voiced my concern when the release of the EPA Mercury Report
was delayed. It is my understanding the EPA is taking a number of long-
overdue steps to address mercury emissions. Toward the end of obtaining
better data on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, we
should begin collecting information from these facilities on the
mercury that they emit. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, I intend to hold hearings in September on the issues raised
by the EPA Mercury Report and Senator Leahy's amendment in order to
foster a broader public discussion from all concerned parties about the
information and findings that are contained in the EPA Mercury Report.
Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the leadership that Senator Chafee is taking
on this issue in light of the troubling language included in the House
report on the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I have
serious concerns about this language. Among other things, the report
language would require that another mercury report be developed. Each
of the mercury-related tasks stipulated in the report language would
need to be completed before EPA would be allowed to make any regulatory
determinations that pertain to mercury.
Mr. CHAFEE. I agree with Senator Leahy. The American taxpayers have
already spent over $1 million on the EPA Mercury Report. The Report
does not need to be redone. I do not believe that anyone who actually
reads it objectively would conclude that we need to study mercury all
over again before Congress or EPA can make any decision about mercury
emissions. But that is precisely what the House report language would
require. This report language is an inappropriate use of the
appropriations process.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct and I am glad to see that the
Senate has not concurred with this language. I thank the Chairman and
look forward to participating in his hearing on this important issue.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the Senator from Missouri yield for
a question on the appropriation of funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and its energy and environment related
programs? I note that on pages 74 and 75 of the Committee's Report that
the Committee addresses the issue of the EPA's compliance with the
Government Performance and Results Act and the EPA's submission of a
report on activities related to these ongoing programs. Is it the
Senator's understanding that the committee report reminds the EPA that
it is to fully comply with the Government Performance and Results Act?
Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The language in the report requires
full compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act.
Mr. BYRD. Is it the intent of the Senator to create additional legal
requirements in this area beyond those required by the letter and
spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act?
Mr. BOND. No, not at all. I would say to my friend from West Virginia
that all we are asking here is for a more comprehensive explanation by
the EPA of the components of its energy and environment programs, any
justifications for funding increases, and a clear definition of how
these programs are justified by the EPA's goals and objectives
independent of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I would also note that
the Committee Report expects the EPA to submit a report to the
Committee by December 31, 1998, with a follow-up analysis by the
General Accounting Office ninety days later. As the Senator may know,
Senator Craig and I submitted language to the Interior Appropriations
bill directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit a similar
report, but this report is to be submitted in conjunction with DOE's
Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission. Given the short period between the
likely enactment of this Act and the December 31 deadline, would the
Senator agree that it might be more reasonable for the EPA to also
submit its report along with its Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission?
Mr. BOND. Yes. I believe that is a more appropriate time for the EPA
to fulfill the reporting requirement as outlined in the Committee
Report language.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. The EPA should provide a
more detailed plan for better evaluating its programs, but I believe
this is a more appropriate date to require such a report. It would not
be wise to arbitrarily cap funding for vital energy and environment
programs that encourage domestic energy efficiency, decrease costs, and
promote domestic energy security. These programs should be evaluated on
their own merits. The Federal Government serves a vital catalytic role
in supporting and developing cutting edge research programs that the
private sector can then take into the marketplace. The true benefits of
these technologies and programs may not be evident for a number of
years. Through these efforts, the United States has a tremendous
opportunity to profit from new technologies, both at home and abroad,
while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

HUD NOTICE AND COMMENT RULEMAKING

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with my colleagues, Senator Kit Bond, the Chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Senator Connie Mack, the Chairman of the Banking
Committee's Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community
Development.
It is my understanding that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) issued a series of regulations on June 30, 1998
dealing with a wide variety of HUD programs affecting millions of units
of affordable housing. In each of these regulations, HUD has waived the
sixty-day public comment period required under HUD's notice and comment
rulemaking procedures. Instead, each of these regulations has included
an expedited comment and review period. I would ask

[[Page S8434]]

my colleagues if I have stated the facts accurately.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, the Chairman of the Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs is entirely correct. On June 30, 1998, HUD
issued three important regulations. For all these regulations, HUD
waived the sixty-day comment period. Specifically, these rules would:
first, establish requirements relating to physical conditions and
inspections and would apply to a wide variety of HUD rental assistance
and mortgage insurance programs; second, establish uniform financial
reporting standards for HUD housing programs; and third, establish a
new Public Housing Assessment System.
Despite the enormous impact of these proposed rules, HUD has waived
the sixty-day public comment period as provided by HUD's own
regulations (24 CFR 10.1), often referred to as ``Part 10.''
Previously, HUD attempted to repeal, as a practical matter, its Part 10
regulations related to notice and comment rulemaking. At that time,
members of the Senate joined together in a bipartisan manner to enact
legislation to safeguard public notice and comment in HUD's rulemaking
process.
It is essential that HUD maintain an adequate period of time for the
public to review, analyze and comment upon proposed changes in HUD's
policies and procedures. Congress established the notice and comment
rulemaking procedure in order to allow the public to provide adequate
input so as to avoid potential confusion in the development of new
rules. Given the importance of the proposed rules at issue, a more
extensive period of time for public review and comment is warranted.
Mr. BOND. I agree with my colleagues Senator Connie Mack and Senator
Alfonse D'Amato, in urging HUD to reinstate a fair and adequate time
period for public review of these important new rules. In fact, it was
my amendment in 1996 which halted HUD's attempt to remove the important
public notice and comment provisions of the rulemaking procedure.
On August 16, 1996, HUD issued a regulation entitled, ``Rulemaking
Policies and Procedures; Proposed Removal of Part 10.'' The Fiscal Year
1997 VA-HUD Appropriations Act included my amendment to safeguard the
notice and comment procedure contained in the Part 10 regulation. Last
year, the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 contained a
provision which in practical effect makes the notice and comment
procedure part of the permanent law.
While HUD can provide for good cause waivers of the sixty-day comment
period, the regulation states that such waivers should only be made
when the procedure is ``impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest.'' I do not believe that HUD has met any component of
this threshold in this instance.
HUD's current public rulemaking procedure were not adopted by
accident. In fact, they were adopted in an effort to respond to past
program abuses and were considered an essential component of HUD
reform. Given HUD's ongoing systemic management difficulties, it is
incumbent upon HUD to abide by the rules of public notice and comment
rulemaking. Waivers of public notice requirements will not contribute
to the much-needed reform of HUD's management problems. Public
participation and input are critical aspects to avoiding unintended
consequences in the rulemaking process.
HUD's new proposed rules have followed soon after a series of massive
``Super-NOFA's,'' or Notices of Funding Availability which announce the
availability and competition for dozens of HUD grant programs. Many
local government agencies and community-based housing organizations are
still in the process of finalizing their applications for these
important HUD programs. Most organizations--including local public
housing authorities, community-based non-profit corporations and
resident organizations--have limited capacity to wade through and
analyze HUD's new proposed regulations, in addition to applying for
funding. HUD's decision to unilaterally waive the sixty-day comment
period compounds this problematic situation.
I therefore join my colleagues in strongly urging HUD to extend the
review and comment period for the proposed rules issued on June 30,
1998.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleagues for their remarks and I join them
in urging HUD to extend the time allotted for public review and comment
of these three important and expansive HUD rules. HUD's notice and
comment rulemaking procedures are designed to ensure an adequate period
of time for public notice, review and comment.
It is essential that HUD provide an adequate timeframe in which
housing organizations, residents of assisted housing and local
government entities have a chance to offer meaningful input in the
development of final regulations. Given the important nature of these
three rules and the significant impact which they will likely have on
the families assisted by HUD's programs, I believe it is essential that
the public be granted an additional amount of time in which to comment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, page 71 of the committee report
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill states that, ``[n]one of the funds provided to the
EPA are to be used to support activities related to implementation of
the Kyoto Protocol prior to its ratification.'' I want to try to get a
clarification on this report language from the distinguished chairman
of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, Senator Bond. I
would agree that the EPA should not use appropriated funds for the
purpose of issuing regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol, unless
and until such treaty is ratified by the United States.
I would like to point out, however, that the United States is a full
participating signatory nation to the 1992 Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Under the 1992 Framework Convention, which was agreed
to in Rio de Janeiro by President Bush and later consented to by the
U.S. Senate, the United States pledged to carry out a wide variety of
voluntary initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. These
initiatives, being implemented by the EPA, the Department of Energy,
and other agencies, are in place today. The Congress has funded these
initiatives for several years now, indeed, long before the December
1997 climate conference in Kyoto, Japan. These initiatives; the Climate
Challenge program, the Program for a New Generation of Vehicles, Green
Lights, Energy Star, and others, have to varying degrees reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy efficiency across a broad
range of domestic industrial sectors. They make sense for other
reasons, Madam President. We have found with these programs and others
that our companies and American consumers benefit economically. When we
conserve resources and reduce energy consumption in a sensible way, we
save money. When we research, manufacture and market new energy
efficient goods and services, we create export opportunities and jobs.
We also increase U.S. energy security by reducing our dependence on
imported oil, natural gas and coal. Finally, when we find cost
effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases, we oftentimes reduce other
air pollutants like mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide.
So, I want to make sure that the committee report language that I
cited previously does not interfere with these important and worthwhile
efforts. I would ask my friend from Missouri if these ongoing energy
conservation and climate-related programs and initiatives, which are
not intended to directly implement actions called for under the Kyoto
Protocol, would go forward under this bill?
Mr. BOND. Indeed they would, Senator Chafee. Our only goal here is to
prevent the issuance of federal regulations designed solely for the
purpose of Kyoto Protocol implementation. We have funded these EPA
programs for the upcoming fiscal year and expect the agency to spend
the money in an effective and appropriate manner.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.

University of Cincinnati

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to
extend my congratulations to Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski and
other members of the appropriations subcommittee on the FY 1999
appropriations bill. The committee has faced tough budget constraints
this year and I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting
this bill. I would also like to call to the Chairman's attention an
important project in Ohio that I believe is deserving of funding

[[Page S8435]]

under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program,
specifically, the Economic Development Initiative funding for various
community development projects. A number were listed by the Committee
in its report on the bill. I am very interested in a project that has
been supported by both the local community and the State of Ohio--the
rehabilitation of the Medical Science Building at the University of
Cincinnati's Medical Center. This facility ranks among the top in the
nation for biomedical research, research which benefits both the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Veterans' Administration, as
well as contributing to the local economy in excess of $2 billion.
Would the Senator from Missouri agree that an initiative which will
rehabilitate a facility dedicated to such research be a worthy
candidate for funding under the Committee's EDI provision?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio raising
this issue. I agree with him that the project he has described in
Cincinnati would appear to be well-suited for the EDI program.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee for his
comments. I would ask that the Chairman of the Subcommittee take a very
close look at this project as he proceeds to conference with the House
on the final version of this appropriations bill. Specifically, what I
am seeking is consideration for support of funds to allow for the
renovation of this facility.
Mr. BOND. I understand the Senator from Ohio's concerns, and commend
him for his efforts to seek a positive solution. As I am sure he well
knows, this has been a difficult year for community development
projects, such as the one he has discussed. Nonetheless, I am impressed
by the overall project and their commitment to continuing research. I
will give the Senator's request all due consideration as we go to
conference on this bill. Is that satisfactory to the Senator?
Mr. DeWINE. That is satisfactory and I thank the distinguished
Chairman for his willingness to work with me and the members of the
Ohio Congressional Delegation as we work with the University to help
them carry on this important work.

lorain st. joseph's facility

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I would like to draw the attention of
the distinguished Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee,
Senator Bond, to the allocation of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds for Economic Development Initiative projects. As the
Chairman may recall, we had numerous discussions last year about my
interest in preventing the permanent closure of the St. Joseph's
Hospital complex located in the heart of Downtown Lorain. Thanks in
large part to the assistance provided Lorain in the FY 1998 VA-HUD
Appropriations Conference Report, we were able to forestall closure and
have now developed a solid group of tenants who wish to occupy the
complex.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I recall the effort of my colleague on
behalf of his constituents in Lorain, and am happy that we were able to
be of some assistance.
Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, while I will not detail every
development at the St. Joseph's site which has occurred over the past
twelve months, it is worth mentioning the highlights. Based on the
expression of Congressional support, Community Health Partners agreed
to transfer ownership of the facility to a community-based non-profit
entity incorporated as South Shore Development Corporation. Community
Health Partners has also agreed to provide 12 months of utilities and
security for the facility while South Shore proceeds with its plans to
convert the facility for non-hospital uses. Notwithstanding the need to
attract additional funds to underwrite the conversion effort, the
Veterans' Administration, the Lorain Public Schools system, the Lorain
County Community College and the local Community Action Agency have all
signed leases to implement community services from the 400,000 square
foot facility.
As the distinguished Chairman may recall, earlier this year I had
expressed my support to him for a request for an additional $2,000,000
for the conversion effort. These funds would be utilized for the
establishment of the Community College's distance learning center at
the St. Joseph's facility. It is through this facility and the downlink
site at the Community College that area residents would be provided
access to the job training programs which would be offered by the
Community College for veterans, the unemployed and others struggling to
make the transition to the information technology marketplace.
Inasmuch as the Committee was not able to accommodate my request in
the bill reported from Committee, could my good friend the Chairman
provide me with some insights on the prospects for funding when the
House and Senate meet to resolve differences between their respective
bills?
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's continuing efforts to keep me
apprised of developments on the St. Joseph's conversion effort. I
regret that our difficult funding problems prevented the subcommittee
from allocating funding for this initiative, and I assure my friend
that I will do all that I can to accommodate his request in the
upcoming conference.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for his comments, and stand ready to
provide him and the conferees with documentation validating the merits
of this request.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, in January of this year I addressed
the Senate along with my colleagues from New York and Maine about the
awesome ice storm that struck our area. Thanks to the help of Chairman
Bond and others, our region received much needed assistance and relief.
Today, I rise to inform my colleagues that Vermont has experienced yet
another series of natural disasters. During the past few weeks the
state of Vermont has received tremendous amounts of rain, causing
severe flooding throughout the state. In fact, eleven of our fourteen
counties were declared disaster areas after several days of heavy rain
flooded streams and rivers.
Hardest hit was the pristine Mad River in central Vermont. The
river's stream banks were overwhelmed. Heavy sediment washed down the
river depleting water quality. However, in sections of the river where
methods to protect the stream banks through bioengineering and
vegetation planting were established, the banks held steady during the
floods preventing soils and sediments from entering the water system.
Assistance is needed in the Mad River Valley of Vermont. The quality
of the water in the Mad River is of great importance to the communities
in the valley. Because of the recent flooding there is a need for the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide assistance for maintaining
that water quality. I am aware of the devastation that occurs during a
long period of heavy rain and understand the impact it can have on a
river's health and appearance. Protecting the water quality is
important. EPA should provide assistance to the Mad River Valley Union
Municipal District to assist them in water quality improvements.
Experimenting with new methods to protect our river banks will help
find solutions to maintain water quality and the health of our rivers,
as well as safeguard the property and lives that inhabit the river
valleys.
Madam President, with help from the EPA, more creative methods could
be established and tested along the Mad River helping maintain water
quality and the beauty of the river.

metered-dose inhalers

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine for
their efforts to address the issue of FDA action on Chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). I share their commitment to
protecting the health and safety of the millions of Americans who rely
daily on MDIs to treat asthma and other pulmonary conditions.
Most of today's products rely on CFCs, which the nations of the world
under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, have agreed to phase out.
This phase out is due to the reported damage CFCs cause to the
stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from excessive amounts of
ultraviolet radiation. However, patients with asthma and other
pulmonary conditions understandably are concerned about the possibility
that one day they may no

[[Page S8436]]

longer have access to their medications and whether it will come before
adequate replacement medicines are available.
I believe the resolution included in the appropriations legislation
appropriately balances the need to establish a framework for the
transition from CFC to non-CFC products promptly, so patients and
physicians will understand the process and deal with it. Immediate
action is needed so patients and care givers have the opportunity to
consider and appropriately manage the impact of a transition from one
safe and effective medication to another. With sufficient time to make
such preparations, the important transition from CFC to non-CFC MDIs
will work for the people who matter most--the patients.
The resolution states the FDA shall issue a proposed rule no later
than May 1, 1999. Although I would like to see the process move more
quickly, I believe this is ample time for the FDA to take into account
patient concerns and needs. The FDA has already been working on this
issue for more than 15 months and has heard from thousand of interested
individuals and groups. In March 1997, the FDA issued an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking which most parties agree was flawed,
particularly in its tentative suggestion of a so-called ``therapeutic
class'' transition from existing drugs to new products. The resolution
clearly instructs FDA not to take this approach, but to consider
alternatives. For example, one preferable approach would be to require
an alternative be available for a particular active moiety before the
agency could take a CFC-containing product off the market.
The resolution recognizes the pharmaceutical industry has made a
great deal of progress toward fulfilling the expectation of the
Montreal Protocol--that there will be excellent non-CFC MDIs available
to patients. Clearly, this is not a situation where we will be taking
good medications from the market and leaving a void. Nothing could be
further from the truth, but it's important for us not to send a signal
to manufacturers who are doing the right thing in developing
alternatives that we do not see the urgency of beginning this
transition. The resolution my good friends from Arkansas and Ohio
propose corrects that mis-impression and I thank them for clarifying
it.
The resolution expresses the expectation that the FDA, in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, will assess the
impacts on the environment and patient health of a transition to CFC-
free products. In doing this, the FDA must consult in the process with
the many parties interested in this issue, which is as it should be.
The information the FDA receives and develops from these discussions
should be reflected in its proposed rule, along with information the
agency has already received in the form of comments on its ANPR. I
believe the intention of this resolution is clear--the FDA should
continue this important dialogue after the proposed rule is issued. In
this way, we can be assured a fair and balanced rule will emerge and
move us away from the use of CFCs in a way which protects patients
health and safety.
In short, this resolution urges the FDA to get on with the business
at hand--namely, publish a proposed rule which lays out a framework for
the transition from CFC to non-CFC MDIs by no later than May 1, 1999.
This framework should be developed in consultation with patients, care
givers and others to ensure continued patient health and safety. The
urgency of this action is dictated by the need to allow patients and
care givers time to consider the ramifications of the transition and
prepare for it.
I want to thank the gentlemen from Arkansas and Ohio again for their
leadership on this issue and their willingness to accommodate our
concerns.

THE TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT

Mr. DURBIN. As we consider the FY 1999 VA-HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations bill, I would like to call your attention to
the serious flooding problems that continue to plague the City of
Chicago and its surrounding suburbs, and to urge your consideration to
provide funding for a system of flood control tunnels designed to
mitigate these weather-related problems.
For years, severe thunderstorms have caused extensive flooding in the
Chicago area due to the antiquated storm drainage system that serves
the region. The drainage system, also linked to the sewage system, is
quickly filled to capacity and overwhelmed during storm events,
resulting in sewage backflows into Lake Michigan and the basements of
thousands of homes. This flooding creates major public health hazards,
leaves neighborhoods without electrical power, and causes disruptions
of major transportation thoroughfares.
These kind of flooding emergencies will continue to plague the City
of Chicago and neighboring communities until the construction of an
important system of tunnels and reservoirs is completed. This system is
known as the Tunnel and Reservoir plan (TARP), an initiative of the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, my colleague from Illinois is
exactly correct. TARP is a network of underground tunnels and
reservoirs designed as an outlet for sewage and floodwaters during
large thunderstorms. For almost two decades, the TARP system has slowly
grown, gradually improving flood prevention system in Chicago. Without
TARP, local sewage and rainwater drainage would have no where to go
when large storms hit the area.
Already, TARP has greatly reduced contaminated flooding of basements,
polluted backflows into Lake Michigan, and to the amazement of many,
has markedly improved the water quality of the Chicago River, a feat
thought to be impossible a decade ago. Although TARP is largely
complete, federal funds are still needed to finish the system and
complete the commitment that the federal government made to this
project years ago.
Chicago desperately needs additional capacity to stop this flooding.
Without TARP, homeowners and residents in the greater Chicago region
will continue to experience serious economic and health hazards from
flooding during severe thunderstorm events.
Mr. DURBIN. That is why we would like to ask the Chairman if he will
give us his assurances that the subcommittee will give every
consideration to including the House level of funding for this project
during conference of this bill.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the remarks of my colleagues from Illinois,
and I understand the longtime importance of this pollution control
project to you and your constituents. You can be sure I will work to
include the funding for this project during conference of the VA-HUD
Appropriations bill.

Mercury Emissions

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have spoken previously on my concerns
about the ongoing threats from mercury pollution to the lands, rivers
and lakes of Vermont and the rest of the country. I sponsored a Senate
Resolution that called on the Administration to release its long
overdue Mercury Study Report to Congress, a report that was mandated by
the Clean Air Act of 1990. Earlier this year I introduced S. 1915, the
``Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998'' which, if enacted,
would significantly reduce the risks that this powerful neurotoxin
poses to the neurological health and development of pregnant women and
their fetuses, women of child bearing age, and children. Senators
Snowe, Wellstone and Moynihan have joined me in co-sponsoring the
legislation.
The Mercury Study Report to Congress states that 150 tons of mercury
are released to the environment every year, year after year. The Study
reports that more than one-third of the mercury that is released in the
United States each year--52 tons--comes from coal-fired power plants.
Mercury is contained in the coal. When coal is burned the mercury is
vaporized and is released to the environment.
Once released to the environment, mercury does not behave like many
pollutants. It does not biodegrade, it persists. Mercury does not
become less toxic--it transforms chemically into even stronger and more
toxic forms such as methyl mercury. Methyl mercury accumulates in fish,
and it accumulates in the human beings that eat the fish. Once
ingested, methyl mercury is rapidly absorbed and distributed throughout
the body. It easily penetrates the blood-brain and placental barriers,
and it stays in the body

[[Page S8437]]

for very long periods of time. One of the ways that it is finally
excreted from the body is through breast milk. A developing fetal brain
and nervous system can be exposed to mercury because the placenta and
the blood-brain barriers offer no protection, and once born, the
exposure can continue through breast milk.
There is ample evidence that mercury levels in the environment are
increasing. One of the most telling indicators is the trend in mercury
fishing advisories. In 1993, 27 states had issued health advisories
warning the public about consuming mercury-tainted fish. In 1997, this
had grown to 39 states. We are going in the wrong direction. Before we
know it we are going to have filled the whole map with these warnings.
It is time to reverse this trend.
While the EPA report does the best job so far in quantifying mercury
emissions, many believe that the report understates the actual amount
of mercury being released to the environment. Toward the end of
obtaining better data on mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants, EPA has issued notice of its intent to begin collecting
information from these facilities on the mercury that they emit. I
think that this is an excellent step for EPA to be taking, and I
strongly urge the Office of Management and Budget to support this
information collection request. It is very much in keeping with the
public's ``right to know'' about the types and amounts of toxic
pollutants that are being released, and I strongly urge EPA to
disseminate the information widely, including making it available via
the Internet.
Madam President, I would like to state my serious concern about
mercury-related report language in the House of Representatives VA/HUD/
Independent Agencies appropriations bill. Among other things, the
report language would require that another mercury report be developed.
Each of the mercury-related tasks stipulated in the report language
would need to be completed before EPA would be allowed to make any
regulatory determinations on mercury.
This report language purely and simply delays efforts to control
mercury emissions at the expense of those who are most susceptible to
the effects of mercury pollution--pregnant women and their fetuses,
women of child bearing age, and young children.
To put this delay into perspective, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
required EPA to study mercury emissions and to report to Congress. EPA
completed the report in 1994 and, largely due to highly effective
pressure exerted by the coal-fired power industry, the Agency sat on
the report for 2 years. It was finally released last December after
much effort by this Senator and a number of my colleagues. It is an
excellent report, and the years that it spent on the shelf gathering
dust did not alter its message. In the meantime, hundreds of tons of
toxic mercury emissions continued to rain down unabated on our lands,
rivers, and lakes.
The mercury report does not need to be redone. I do not believe that
anyone who actually reads it objectively would conclude that we need to
study mercury all over again before Congress or the Executive Branch
can make any decisions about controlling mercury emissions. But that is
precisely what the House report language would require. If the past is
any indicator of how long it will take to accomplish what is
contemplated by the report language, we will be at least halfway
through the first decade of the next century and buried under more than
a thousand more tons of mercury before the United States can take even
the most minuscule action to control this toxic pollutant. This report
language is an inappropriate use of the appropriations process. Such
matters of substance and impact on the health and welfare of the
citizens of the United States should be debated on the floor of the
Senate and House of Representatives.

Ship Scrapping

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I inserted a provision in this
legislation to prohibit our government from sending our great Navy
ships overseas--where they are dismembered in a dangerous,
irresponsible and immoral manner. The export of misery and the
exploitation of workers is beneath the dignity and honor of our nation.
I'd like to give the Senate some background on this issue.
With the end of the Cold War the number of ships to be disposed of in
the military arsenal is growing. There are 180 Navy and Maritime
Administration ships waiting to be scrapped. These ships are difficult
and dangerous to dismantle. They usually contain asbestos, PCB's and
lead paint. They were built long before we understood all the
environmental hazards associated with these materials.
This issue was brought to my attention by a Pulitzer Prize-winning
series of articles that appeared in the Sun written by reporters Gary
Cohn and Will Englund.
They conducted a thorough and rigorous investigation of the way we
dispose of our Navy and maritime ships. They traveled around the
country and around the world to see firsthand how our ships are
dismantled, and Mr. President, I must advise that the way we do this is
not being done in an honorable, environmentally sensitive, or efficient
way.
I believe when we have ships that have defended the United States of
America, that they were floating military bases--and they should be
retired with the same care and dignity with which we close a military
base.
Let me read from the Sun series:

As the Navy sells off warships at the end of the Cold War,
a little known industry has grown up. In America's depressed
ports and where the ship breaking industry goes, pollution
and injured workers are left in its wake.
The Pentagon repeatedly deals with ship breakers with
dismal records, then fails to keep watch as they leave
health, environmental and legal problems in their wake.

Of the 58 ships sold for scrapping since 1991, only 28 have been
finished. And oh, my God, how they have been finished. I would like to
turn to my own hometown of Baltimore.
In Baltimore the dismantling of the Coral Sea has been a disaster.
There were fires, lawsuits, delays--and injuries. The Navy inspector
refused to board the Coral Sea because he was afraid it was too
dangerous.
I am quoting now the Sun paper. ``September 16, 1993, the military
sent its lone inspector for the United States to the salvage yard in
Baltimore. He didn't inspect it because he thought it was too
dangerous.''
The inspector was right to be concerned about his own safety. The
next day a 23 year-old worker found out how safe it would be.
He walked on a flight deck and he dropped 30 feet from the hangar.
``I felt the burning feeling inside,'' he said, ``blood was coming out
of my mouth, I didn't think I would live.'' He suffered a fractured
spleen, pelvis, and broke his arms in several places.
At the same time we had repeated fires that were breaking out. In
November of 1996, a fire broke out in the Coral Sea's engine room. No
one was standing fire watch. No hose nearby. The blaze burned quickly
out of control and for the sixth time Baltimore City's fire department
had to come in and rescue a shipyard. At the same time the owner of the
shipyard had a record of environmental violations - a record for which
he ultimately was sentenced to jail.
While all of this has been going on, the Navy also planned to send
our ships overseas--where worker and environmental safety are virtually
ignored.
In India, the Sun paper found a tidal beach where 35,000 men scrapped
the world ships with little more than their bare hands. They worked
under wretched conditions.
They often dismantle ships with their bare hands. They earn just a
couple of dollars a day. They have no hard hats, no training. Every
day, someone dies breaking these ships.
I will quote from the Sun series:

They live in hovels built of scrap, with no showers,
toilets or latrines. They have come from poor villages on the
other side of India, lured by wages that start at one dollar
and fifty cents a day, to work at dangerous jobs, protected
only by scarves and sandals.
They suffer broken ankles, severed fingers, smashed skulls,
malaria fevers, dysentery and tuberculosis. Some are burned
and some are drowned. Nobody keeps track of how many die here
from accidents and disease. Some say a worker dies every day.

This is an international disgrace.
So I introduced legislation to prohibit the overseas sales of
government owned ships to countries with poor labor and environmental
records. I inserted similar language in the VA-HUD

[[Page S8438]]

appropriations bill that we are considering today.
This is not a ban on exports. Ships could be exported to countries
that can break ships responsibly.
This limitation on exports would only be in effect for one year. This
would enable the Navy to come up with a more ethical, workable plan for
exports. This one year pause in exports would also enable us to improve
our ability to dispose of ships here in the U.S. This will provide
American jobs, and will strengthen our shipbuilding industrial base.
Some say that it is cheaper to send our ships to India and other
developing countries. It is cheaper. Why? Because workers earn one
dollar and fifty cents a day. They work eighteen hours a day. They have
no training and no protection. They die or are maimed in terrible,
preventable accidents.
It is always cheaper to exploit workers--and it is always wrong.
I would like to thank the Sun paper for their outstanding service in
bringing this not only to my attention but to America's attention. Now
the Senate must act to end these shameful policies.
The Sun reporters won the Pulitzer prize. But I want the United
States of America to be sure that we win a victory here today for
workers, the environment--and especially for the Navy. Because I know
our Navy wants to do the right, honorable thing.
I hope my colleagues will agree with me that the practice of
exploiting foreign workers and ignoring the environment is beneath the
dignity of our great Navy, and of our nation.
(At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. GLENN. I want to commend Senator Mikulski and the other
Members of the Subcommittee for incorporating elements of the Mikulski-
Glenn Bill (S. 2064) to prohibit export of ships to be scrapped in
countries with substandard environmental laws and practices.
Senator Mikulski, with me as the prime cosponsor; introduced the
original bill in May upon learning that the Federal ship-owning
agencies, principally MARAD and the Navy, were retaining the option to
export ships to countries with weak environmental and labor protection
laws. They were retaining this option even after public reports and a
GAO analysis that criticized Federal agencies for allowing the export
of ships laden with PCBs, asbestos and hazardous materials.
In the past, these ships were sent to developing countries to be
scrapped. They would lie listing just offshore, giant metal hulks
waiting to be cut up and disassembled--often by children in barefeet--
with the hazardous waste from the ships' interiors unceremoniously
dumped overboard.
While I can respect the sovereignty of these countries in making
their own environmental and labor laws--however inadequate they may be,
I don't think that as a government the Feds should be contributing to
that inadequacy by sending its own ships there to be scrapped in that
fashion.
The VA-HUD Appropriations Bill contains language that contains a 1
year restriction of Federal ship exports for scrapping. No exports can
be made unless the EPA certifies that the destination country has
environmental standards and enforcement ``comparable'' to the U.S. So
it is not an outright ban on exports. The language supplements the
other part of the Mikulski-Glenn Bill, which strengthens environmental
and labor protection criteria in Federal contracts for domestic ship
scrapping. Those provisions were unanimously adopted as part of the DOD
Authorization Bill and $7.8 million has been provided for this effort
in the DOD Appropriations Bill.
We can protect our oceans, treat harmful hazardous waste safely, and
scrap ships responsibly if we're willing to make the commitment to do
the right thing. The language incorporated into the VA-HUD Bill takes
that approach and resides there largely because of the effort and
persistence of the good Senator from Maryland. I urge my colleagues to
support that language, and to oppose any efforts to weaken it or strike
it.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD
Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski, my
good friend from Maryland, for their efforts in bringing this bill to
the floor so quickly. I know how difficult it is to balance the many
competing needs contained in this appropriations bill. Senators Bond
and Mikulski are to be commended for the good bill that they have
produced.
As Ranking Member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, I am particularly pleased with the appropriations for HUD. S.
2168 provides an increase in appropriations to HUD over what was
enacted in FY 1998. I applaud these funding increases and I believe
they will go a long way towards helping our neediest citizens. However,
I am concerned that they fall somewhat short of the Administration's
request--and considerably short of what is needed to address the severe
housing and community development needs in this country.
Today, only about one out of every 4 households in need of housing
assistance receives it. This includes households living in public
housing, assisted housing, and housing built with the tax credit and
HOME funds. Of the roughly 12 million unassisted families,
approximately five and a half million have worst-case housing needs.
These families are paying more than half of their incomes every month
in rent, or live in physically substandard housing, or both.
My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee recognize this need.
For the first time since 1995, they have provided for additional
incremental vouchers; $40 million has been appropriated to support
roughly 7,000 to 8,000 welfare-to-work vouchers--vouchers that will
play a crucial role in helping smooth the transition from welfare to
work. Furthermore, the appropriators have deleted a provision in
current law which requires housing authorities to retain vouchers and
certificates for a period of three months upon their turnover. This
simple change means that as many as 40,000 additional low-income
families will be served by the Section 8 program each year. I commend
the appropriators for implementing this change.
While I applaud the direction S. 2168 moves us, I am discouraged by
the pace. I fully understand the constraints in which the Committee has
to work, but these constraints are artificial. CBO tells us to expect
up to $63 billion in budget surpluses for FY '98, and hundreds of
billions of dollars in surpluses over the next ten years. At least some
portion of these funds should be returned to the HUD budget, which has
been sacrificed over the years in the name of deficit reduction.
An appropriate start would be to fully fund the Administration's
request of 50,000 welfare-to-work vouchers. A recent HUD study found
that the fastest growth in worst case housing needs during the 1990s
has been among working families. These findings indicate that wages
earned by lower income working families simply have not kept pace with
the escalating cost of housing. Welfare-to-work vouchers help fill the
gap between real wages and housing costs. Additionally, they help
unemployed and underemployed individuals move to where jobs are
available. Finally, welfare-to-work vouchers build new partnerships
between housing agencies and other local agencies which promote and
implement welfare reform. For all of these reasons, it is important
that more welfare-to-work vouchers are available in future years.
We should also be providing funding to fulfill the President's
request of 34,000 vouchers for homeless persons. Homelessness continues
to be a significant problem in this country. It is estimated that as
many as 2 million people will experience homelessness at some point in
the next year. Some of these people have chronic disabilities that lead
to chronic homelessness; others experience unanticipated problems such
as job loss or a sudden illness which results in displacement from
their housing.
That is why I strongly support the appropriators' decision to
substantially increase funding for homeless programs, and their
decision to include a recommendation that 30% of all funding be
allocated to permanent housing. These gestures indicate a real
commitment to attaching permanent solutions to the problem of
homelessness. But make no mistake. Vouchers are an essential tool for
addressing the needs of the homeless. A tenant-based voucher provides
immediate assistance to families in need, and is a much better and

[[Page S8439]]

cheaper housing alternative than a shelter. Project-based vouchers can
leverage funding for supportive housing developments, which provide
essential services for chronically disabled and chronically homeless
individuals.
I am also pleased to see a renewed commitment to the HOPE VI program.
S. 2168 would increase funding for the HOPE VI program by $50 million.
This program has provided a crucial source of funding for redeveloping
obsolete public housing developments and transforming entire
neighborhoods. HOPE VI funds are used to leverage other public and
private funds which can be used to promote resident self-sufficiency
and economic independence. I have witnessed first-hand the impact that
this program has had on communities in Baltimore, and I commend the
appropriators for pledging more funds in support of these vital
initiatives.
In order to succeed, however, public housing needs more funding.
Without adequate operating subsidies, public housing authorities cannot
pay for the day to day operations of their housing developments. PHAs
are forced to put off routine maintenance and small capital projects.
Over time, this leads to a greater demand for large scale capital
improvements. It is currently estimated that PHAs would need roughly
$4.5 billion of capital funds per year for 10 years just to address
their backlogged capital needs. The Senate appropriation of $2.55
billion in capital funding for FY 1999 represents a $50 million
increase over the level enacted in 1998, but does not come close to
addressing the severe need for public housing capital improvements.
It is regrettable that S. 2168, while providing a much needed $75
million increase for Community Development Block Grants, does not
adequately fund the Administration's Economic Development Initiative.
The EDI supports grants and Federal loan guarantees which
municipalities can use to leverage private capital for business loans,
community development banks, revolving loan funds, large scale retail
developments, and welfare-to-work projects. HUD requested $400 million
to fund EDI in FY '99, anticipating that this would leverage $2 billion
in private sector loans and create roughly 280,000 jobs in needy
communities. Economic growth and jobs are the key to revitalizing urban
areas, and the EDI fosters these opportunities. It is unfortunate that
the EDI could only be funded at $85 million.
I am pleased that the appropriators showed a commitment to
homeownership by expanding the FHA single family mortgage insurance
program. This program is the best tool that the Federal government has
for helping low- to moderate-income families become homeowners, and it
doesn't cost the taxpayer a single dime. It is well documented that the
FHA program serves a higher proportion of low-income, minority and
first-time homebuyers than any of the conventional home loan products.
By increasing the loan limits for this program, we should see a further
expansion in homeownership throughout the country--both in high cost
urban areas and lower cost rural regions.
S. 2168 also contains language which would require HUD to engage in a
lengthy and resource consuming effort to redefine their fair housing
mission. While I appreciate the need to have a clear mission statement,
I am concerned that the process prescribed in S. 2168 will be
detrimental to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity's
ability to fight housing discrimination. The Department's standard
policy making procedures require that the public and Congress be
notified when significant policy changes are being contemplated.
Additional requirements beyond this will hamstring the Office, and take
away resources which could be deployed to meet program goals.
Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for all of their
hard work. They are to be commended for substantially increasing the
Federal commitment to housing and economic development programs in a
climate of limited resources. I regret that we cannot do more at this
time in the areas I have outlined, but S. 2168 is a good bill and I
urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

FEMA

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the good work of
my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for taking on the
difficult task each year of drafting the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I
don't think many of us envy the job they have or the difficult choices
they have had to make.
I have come to the floor today to talk about a small but very
important agency that is funded in under the VA-HUD Appropriations
bill--the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA.
My first experience with FEMA was during the devastating floods that
swept through Minnesota in the Spring of 1993. Most recently, I
traveled with James Lee Witt to tour the damage caused by tornadoes
this spring from Comfrey to St. Peter, Minnesota. I never thought that
I would be forced to learn the intricate ins and outs of FEMA's
programs and other emergency assistance programs, but I have. Since the
flood of 1993, FEMA has been there on several occasions to help
Minnesotans as they struggled through the early days after tornadoes
and blizzards and floods to rebuild their lives and communities.
I want to thank James Lee Witt the Director of FEMA for all of his
help over the years.
I really had the opportunity to get to know James Lee during last
year's devastating flood of the Red River. He is one of the President's
most outstanding appointments, a dedicated public servant and a great
guy. Spending time with James Lee always has a catch, because it
usually means that something really bad has happened in your state.
The good news is that it also means that something good is about to
happen. Because FEMA comes in fast, comes in ready and works in
partnership with state and local communities and authorities. FEMA is a
great partner to have.
Under the direction of James Lee Witt, FEMA has undertaken a new
program called Project Impact, a predisaster mitigation program. With
Project Impact, FEMA joins in partnership with local communities and
private sector businesses to educate residents on the steps they can
take to reduce the damage disasters bring to our families and
communities. This is another example of FEMA being a good partner.
FEMA and Director James Lee Witt have been there on many instances to
help my state. I want to thank them for their assistance. Following our
action here on the floor of the Senate, this bill will move to
conference. At that time I hope that our conferees will remember the
needs of a small agency with a big job--FEMA--and support the level of
funding that was requested in the President's budget.

STATE REVOLVING LOAD FUNDS

Mr. BOND. Madam President--I would like to take some time to talk
about the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds.
First, let me say that the Clean Water Act has been one of our most
successful environmental statues. Our success is measurable and
indisputable. We must ensure that the progress made continues.
Enacted in 1972--we have seen impressive gains in our water quality
protection.
Most of us are familiar with the Cuyahoga River fires. We are all
familiar with rivers and streams that we couldn't let our kids swim or
fish in.
Here in Washington, Lyndon Johnson called the Potomac River a
``national disgrace''.
The Clean Water Act, and more importantly, with the cooperation and
dedication of the American people and industry, the majority of our
rivers, lakes, and streams are fishable and swimmable.
But, we still have a ways to go.
Why?
One reason is that statistics show that beaches, rivers, and lakes
are the number one vocation choice for Americans. Whether people go to
swim, boat, or one of my favorite past-times--fish, keeping our rivers,
lakes, beaches, and streams clean is imperative for public health, the
environment and the economy.
In addition, it has already been ``shown'' that improving the water
quality of the Potomac, or the Lehigh in Pennsylvania, or the
Shenandoah in West Virginia is not just an environmental and public
health success, but an economic one as well.

[[Page S8440]]

According to EPA's 1999 Annual Plan Request, ``Safe drinking water is
the first line of defense in protecting human health.'' In addition,
``Safe drinking water is essential to human health and contaminated
drinking water can cause illness and even death, and exposure to
contaminated drinking water poses a special risk to such populations as
children and the elderly.''
Today, we have close to 58,000 community water systems that are
providing drinking water for 80 million households.
According to statistics this country has over 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams, 41 million acres of lakes, and 58,000 miles of
ocean shoreline.
Cleaning up our nation's wastewater and assuring safe drinking water
should be, must be, at the top of our environmental priority list.
Putting our resources to work where the risks are known and the
benefits--both environmental and public health--are real and tangible!
Setting priorities and making progress. Protecting public health and
the environment. Investing our taxpayer dollars the right way. That is
what investing in our water infrastructure is about.
Mr. President, despite the fact that the Administration has claimed
clean water as a top priority, the President proposed a reduction of
$275 million in the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds
for fiscal year 1999.
As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have made a priority of state
revolving funds for water infrastructure financing--providing over $6
billion for SRFs since becoming chairman.
I know. Senator Mikulski knows. More importantly, this Congress has
``shown'' that the state revolving funds are critical for ensuring the
nation's water is protected and safe drinking water is provided to
commities across the country.
The state revolving funds stretch the federal dollar significantly
through leveraging and cost-sharing features, helping to meet the very
large need for water infrastructure financing.
The $14.3 billion federal investment into the clean water SRF has
generated an additional $11.4 billion for wastewater projects,
including $8.7 billion in net leveraged bond proceeds. This loan pool
of $25 billion has resulted in almost 6,000 project loans! This is a
very substantial and gratifying return on the federal investment.

According to EPA, the SRF program buys up to 4 times more
environmental protection for the federal dollar than traditional one-
time grants over a 20-year period.
EPA has identified the national need for infrastructure financing at
over $130 billion just in the wastewater area alone. EPA has identified
over $135 billion in drinking water infrastructure needs.
Mr. President--there are two glaring reasons of why investment in our
water infrastructure is imperative.
First are tuberculated drinking water pipes.
Let me give you the definition of ``tubercle.'' Tubercle is a
``small, rounded prominence or process, such as a wartlike excrescence
on the roots of some leguminous plants.'' In other words, there is
something growing.
Too many drinking water pipes providing water to communities--water
that comes out of your faucet in your kitchen sink and bathtub--are
tuberculated. But it is rare that anyone ever thinks about it.
Too often no thought is given to the pipes until we become sick or
there is an outbreak in the community.
The second reason is a sanitary sewer overflow.
A sanitary sewer overflow is a release of raw sewage often into
lakes, rivers, and streams.
We still have instances of raw sewerage overflowing into our lakes.
As I mentioned earlier, EPA has estimated over $130 billion in
wastewater needs. Continued improvements to our wastewater
infrastructure will help us conquer the problem.
For example, according to the EPA, improved sewage treatment is
recognized as the single biggest factor in the Potomac River's
restoration.
Our wastewater infrastructure, like our drinking water
infrastructure, is out of sight. We forget that in some cases we have
century-old facilities. All too often, we have facilities that have not
been able to keep in step with the population growth and treatment
needs.
Like our nation's highways, in many areas our water infrastructure
has well exceeded its design life. Add to the expired design life,
increased capacity and increased federal and state regulatory
requirements and we have a potentially disastrous situation.
I was reading a brochure about clean water given to me by the
National Utility Contractors and came across the following:

Before you build homes, establish businesses, or pave the
streets, a dependable wastewater treatment system must be in
place.

Way too often we tend to forget this basic fact.
Mr. President, I have made, and will continue to make, a commitment
in protecting our nation's water. I look forward to continuing to work
with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that our progress
continues in protecting public health and that real environmental gains
and progress are made.

kyoto protocol

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion
over the past year on the Kyoto Protocol and concerns about efforts to
implement its requirements prior to Senate ratification.
We may disagree about whether or not the global climate is warming--
and there certainly is no scientific consensus on the matter. But
regardless of the scientific uncertainties and the differing views on
the issue, one thing is certain: the level of greenhouse gas reductions
called for in the Kyoto Protocol have the very real potential of
inflicting serious economic harm on the U.S. economy.
The agreement reached last December in Kyoto would, according to
numerous studies, lead to significant job less and substantial
lifestyle changes for Americans. Energy prices could rise dramatically.
One study by Charles River Associates and DRI/McGraw-Hill, for example,
projected that in my state, industrial electricity prices could
increase 54.4 percent.
Mr. President, this kind of increase in electricity prices would be
devastating to small businesses, farmers, large manufacturers who
employ thousands, and individual consumers, including those with
limited incomes who would be hardest hit.
From the numerous studies that have been done to determine the
effects of implementing the Kyoto Protocol, we know that we could
expect a serious economic disruption. What is not so clear is whether
there is a global climate change problem, and if so, how significant it
is and what is its cause.
Therefore, I believe we must continue the debate and try to gain a
better understanding of climate change and what action might be needed.
To do so, we must continue funding of research and technology
development. We must continue to support the voluntary efforts that
many companies have undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases. And we must
continue to support energy efficiency programs.
What we should not do at this time is to begin to implement the
reduction requirements called for in the Kyoto Protocol. That should
not happen until there has been a full debate and until this body has
given its advice and consent to ratify the Protocol.
The Administration has assured Congress that it is not their intent
to implement the Kyoto requirements in the absence of Senate
ratification. Those assurances are appreciated. There is evidence,
however, that efforts are underway to begin to implement the Kyoto
requirements prematurely.
This is a concern because, as I said earlier, there is a potential
for serious economic harm if the Protocol is implemented. Until we have
eliminated the uncertainties surrounding climate change, and until we
have had a full, open debate on the issue and appropriate responses, we
should not embark on a path that could lead us into economic disarray.
Implementation before ratification is not the responsible--nor
constitutional--way to go.
That is why the Senate Appropriations Committee included in the VA/
HUD report language clarifying that no funds should be used to
implement the Kyoto Protocol. We must continue to provide for research
efforts and other important programs that make sense, such as energy
efficiency and voluntary initiatives, but we should not

[[Page S8441]]

begin to spend funds for a Protocol that has not yet been determined to
be in the best interests of our country.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator
Mikulski for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor so
quickly and with such widespread support. It is a good bill--one which
balances a number of competing demands while reinforcing the Senate's
commitment to create new affordable housing and community development
opportunities. This is not an easy task, and they deserve
congratulations for successfully juggling many differing needs and
interests.
While I wish that it could be more, I was pleased that President
Clinton requested $50 million in funding for the cleanup of Boston
Harbor. I am disappointed that the bill does not allocate funding for
this project and other important water and sewer projects in
Massachusetts. However, I am pleased that the House of Representatives
has funded four important water and sewer projects in Massachusetts. I
will be working to ensure that funding for Boston Harbor and other
important water and sewer priorities are included in the Conference
Report.
I believe that the overall budget for the Environmental Protection
Agency is adequate. However, I am disappointed that bill does not
include $600 million in funding to accelerate the cleanup of superfund
sites which protect the public health.
I am also delighted that the bill includes a $500,000 appropriation
to undertake interior restorations of Symphony Hall in Boston. For
almost a century, Symphony Hall has been among the finest concert halls
in the world and has been the center for classical music for the City
of Boston and the New England region. These funds will be used to
undertake interior renovations of Symphony Hall, including updating of
the electrical, climate control, and fire protection systems.
I am pleased that the bill increases the level of funding that would
be made available for medical care, benefits, pensions, and assistance
programs to our nation's veterans in Fiscal Year 1999. I strongly
believe that the administration's budget request for veterans--
especially for VA medical care--sorely shortchanged the medical care
needs of our veteran population as it is increasing in age and
requiring additional health care attention. We have a moral obligation
to ensure that all 25 million American veterans have adequate benefits
and access to the best possible health care available.
I will continue to work diligently with my colleagues to find
effective means to compensate veterans for smoking related illnesses
and disabilities that directly resulted from the use of tobacco
products during the veteran's active military service. Regrettably, the
amendment raised by Senator Wellstone--that would have restored the
ability of veterans to receive tobacco-related benefits eliminated with
the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--
did not pass. I cosponsored this amendment with the strong belief that
the VA must retain this compensatory authority so that our veterans no
longer are betrayed in underhanded attempts to secure funds for
unrelated programs.
There is no parliamentary procedure or backdoor maneuver that can
disguise the intention of the administration and many members of the
Senate to deny veterans the ability to apply for these compensation
benefits and the ability to receive health care treatment for them.
America's veterans are painfully aware of these attempts. It is clear
that our government actually contributed to the use of tobacco by
service members when it supplied tobacco products free or at reduced
prices. It is equally clear that our government has the responsibility
to compensate them for the suffering they have incurred as a direct
result. I remain committed to our nation's veterans and will do all I
can to see that they receive the health care and attention they
rightfully deserve.
There are many who would argue that the government no longer needs to
focus its energies on housing and economic development initiatives.
They say that the economy has never been stronger. They will site seven
consecutive years of economic expansion. They will site growth in the
GDP of 3.9% last year--the best showing in a decade. They will point to
the lowest unemployment rates in 24 years and to the more than 14
million new jobs that have been created since 1993. And indeed, these
are tremendous accomplishments for which the Clinton Administration is
due a great deal of credit.
But to assume that all communities and individuals are benefiting
from this growth would be a grave mistake. Nationwide the poverty rate
in cities increased nearly 50% between 1970 and 1995. In all metro
areas, central city unemployment rates are at 5.1%, a full one and a
half points higher than their suburbs. It has also been estimated that
only 13% of the new entry-level jobs created in the early 1990s were
created in central cities. And tragically, while the nation is
experiencing record levels of home ownership, there are still two
million Americans who will experience homelessness in the next year.
This growing discrepancy in economic opportunity argues for a renewed
commitment to funding for The Department of Housing and Urban
Development programs. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the exact
opposite has occurred. Since 1995, more than $11 billion has been cut
from the HUD budgets. During this same period, HUD has instituted
programmatic reforms that have produced savings of more than $4.4
billion. In other words, HUD has contributed more than $15 billion in
savings and deficit reduction to the Federal government during a time
when demand for its programs is growing. Now that the budget deficit
has been eliminated, and there are projections of budget surpluses for
the next decade, it is time to start reinvesting in housing, job
creation and economic development for all Americans.
I believe that this bill takes a step in the right direction. On the
whole, it provides additional funding for HUD above what was
appropriated in FY 1998. $40 million has been appropriated to fund
roughly 7,000 to 8,000 welfare-to-work vouchers. These vouchers
establish a crucial link between housing and employment opportunities,
while simultaneously helping those who are making a concerted effort to
get off of welfare assistance. They are important tools whose
significance cannot be understated given the uncertainty of welfare
reform. It is unfortunate that the subcommittee was not provided enough
funding to fully support the Administration's request to fund 50,000
welfare-to-work vouchers. It is also unfortunate, given these funding
limitations, that the committee chose to earmark the vast majority of
these vouchers for communities which may not have the greatest need.
I want to applaud the committee for striking a provision in previous
appropriations bills which required housing authorities to delay the
reissuance of vouchers and certificates for a three month period. The
three-month delay meant that about one-fourth of all vouchers and
certificates were taken out of circulation each month. As a result of
the effective leadership shown by Senators Bond and Mikulski, repeal of
the three-month delay provision means that approximately 30,000 to
40,000 more low-income families will be provided with housing
assistance each year.
The committee is also to be congratulated for enhancing the
commitment to fighting homelessness. This bill provides $1 billion in
homeless assistance, a 22% increase over the $823 million appropriated
for FY 1998. This money will be used by municipalities and non-profit
organization to fund a variety of activities, locally determined, which
address the needs of homeless Americans. This bill also includes a
recommendation that at least 30% of these funds be used in support of
permanent housing activities. Homeless providers and policy experts are
nearly unanimous in their support for this set-aside. Permanent housing
is the only long term solution to the homeless problem. I regret that
the committee could not fund the Administration's request for 34,000
Section 8 vouchers for the homeless, but on the whole this bill
reaffirms the Senate's commitment to ending homelessness.
It funds the Community Development Block Grant program at $4.75
billion, or $75 million more than was appropriated in FY 1998. These
additional

[[Page S8442]]

funds will help communities fund economic development projects in
distressed neighborhoods. Included in this appropriation is a $40
million set-aside for the Youthbuild program. I am the primary author
of the YouthBuild legislation in the Senate. Youthbuild provides on-
site training in construction skills, as well as off-site academic and
job skill lessons, to at risk youth between the ages of 16 and 24.
Approximately 7,300 young people have participated in Youthbuild
programs to date. By increasing funding for this program by $5 million
over what was enacted in FY 1998, the Senate has demonstrated a firm
commitment to this very important program. More is needed, however, to
help this program grow to meet the demand for these services. I will be
working to increase the funding for this worthy program to $70 million
in the Conference Report.
It is unfortunate that the committee could only make $85 million
available for the Economic Development Initiative, another very
important set-aside under CDBG. The EDI supports grants and Federal
loan guarantees which allow municipalities to leverage private capital
to promote economic development. HUD requested $400 million for EDI in
FY 1999. At this higher level of funding, the EDI fund could serve as a
mechanism for providing incentives for standardization of economic
development loan criteria. Such standards could eventually serve as the
foundation for development of a private secondary market for economic
development lending--a step whose significance cannot be overstated.
Our mortgage markets are the envy of the world because of their depth
and liquidity--neither of which would be possible without the existence
of government-sponsored secondary markets. These principles should be
applied to economic development lending, and an enhanced EDI fund could
provide the crucial first step. I hope that this need can be better
addressed in conference.
We are currently seeing record levels of home ownership in this
country, and HUD should take great pride in this accomplishment. The
committee recognized the importance of home ownership, and has expanded
the FHA single family mortgage insurance program to better reflect
today's housing prices in high cost urban and rural areas. I support
this provision. The FHA program is one of the most effective tools the
government has for assisting low-income, minority and first time home
buyers, and the modest expansion proposed by appropriators will help
more middle income Americans realize the dream of home ownership. But
we need to ensure that all who qualify for home ownership, regardless
of race, creed or color, are afforded an opportunity to purchase a home
in the neighborhood of their choice. Discrimination, as intolerable and
deplorable as it is, is still a significant problem in this country--
especially in the home purchase and rental market. That is why it is
important to promote HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity. The programs run out of this office support
investigations, training, technical assistance, lawsuits and other
locally developed initiatives that target and eliminate housing
discrimination. Unfortunately, this bill falls considerably short of
the Administration's request to fund these programs at $52 million for
FY 1999. Worse yet, it institutes an onerous policy development
requirement which may actually diminish FHEO's capabilities to protect
Americans against housing discrimination. I believe the Department's
fair housing policy is best set through the regular notice and comment
rulemaking process, which takes into account the views of the public
and the Congress. Adding additional requirements beyond this process
will burden FHEO and hamper their vital mission.
Mr. President, this appropriations bill is not perfect. In addition
to some of the shortcomings I've already highlighted, S. 2168 contains
a significant cut in the public housing operating fund and continues to
starve public housing of much needed capital funds. It does not fund
HOME, lead-based paint initiatives, or homeless assistance at the
levels requested by the Administration. Nonetheless, the bill has
managed to increase funding for a number of very important HUD
programs, which is no small task in a resource-starved environment.
This bill places housing and economic development issues in the
forefront of public debate, and takes a step in the direction of
helping those who have yet to benefit from our nation's recent economic
growth. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Amendment No. 3199

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote regarding
waiving the Budget Act for Senator Wellstone's amendment, I would have
voted to waive the Budget Act. Senator Wellstone's amendment addresses
the same issue as the point of order Senator Murray raised earlier this
week. I supported Senator Murray then in her effort to ensure that
veterans receive the compensation they are due, and I support Senator
Wellstone. Although the Budget Act was not waived by a vote of 54-40,
Senator Wellstone's effort was fitting and praiseworthy.
Veterans who suffer from smoking-related illnesses must be
compensated by the government that encouraged them to smoke during
their military service. During World War II, the government included
cigarettes in the rations it issued to troops. Long after the
government stopped issuing cigarettes, a ``smoke `em if you got `em''
culture pervaded military life. That culture led troops to begin and
continue smoking, so this government has an obligation to do right by
the men and women who once fought this nation's enemies. Many of those
men and women are now locked in a different sort of combat. They battle
against life-threatening, smoking-related illnesses, and in the
meantime, this government is shifting funds away from veterans to pay
for roads.
Today, the addictive nature of cigarettes is well known. Many
veterans now smoke because they started during their military service.
The government cannot deny this fact, nor can it walk away from
veterans by denying them the compensation they are due. I will continue
to stand with my colleagues who support providing for our veterans'
needs.

Prostate Cancer Research

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduced the Prostate Testing Full
Information Act in June of 1997 following a series of town hall
meetings in my State of California. At these meetings, we brought
together the top prostate cancer experts in the State, the head of the
urology branch at the National Cancer Institute, and prostate cancer
survivors. Participants at these meetings reached consensus that
Congress needs to do much more to fight prostate cancer. I introduced
my bill to mobilize Congress on this issue and to increase resources to
help the thousands of men who suffer from prostate cancer.
Last month, President Clinton announced the release of $60 million
for prostate cancer research grants in a promising new Department of
Defense program. This DoD research complements research at the National
Institutes of Health. It is an essential component of the national
effort to find effective treatment for prostate cancer.
To institute this program at the $60 million level, the DoD had to
combine two years of appropriations. Even then, the program was only
able to fund 25 percent of the worthwhile research projects presented.
Every meritorious grant that goes unfunded is a missed opportunity to
find a cure.
To ensure the strength of the DoD program, Congress should
appropriate $80 million for fiscal year 1999. This would include $60
million to continue funding peer-reviewed research projects, and $20
million to maintain other elements of the DoD prostate cancer program,
such as the prostate cancer imaging project at Walter Reed Medical
Center and research initiatives to target minority populations. To
appropriate anything less than $80 million would send a devastating
message to the men living and dying from this disease, to their
families, and to the scientific community that is working to find a
cure.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed, at a minimum,
funding prostate cancer research at the same level as last year. That
proposal is not good enough. We need to do more on prostate cancer--not
the same as we have done in the past. The Senate proposal does not
provide sufficient funds to expand prostate cancer research. We need to
appropriate at least $80 million for prostate cancer research at the
DoD

[[Page S8443]]

if we are to reach our goal of funding a cure for this disease.
41,800 American men will die from prostate cancer this year. It is
the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among all Americans. More
than 15 percent of all new cases of cancer this year in America will be
prostate cancer, but less than 4 percent of total federal cancer
research funds go to prostate cancer research. In the United States,
prostate cancer kills about the same number of men each year as breast
cancer kills women, yet prostate cancer receives only one-sixth of the
research funding for breast cancer. This does not mean we should cut
breast cancer research. Rather, we need to significantly increase our
commitment to prostate and other cancer research.
Yesterday, 575 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer; another 575
men will be diagnosed today. 114 men died yesterday of prostate cancer
and that same number will die today. We cannot make a difference for
yesterday or today. But we can and must make a difference for tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to support this increase in funding for prostate
cancer research at the Department of Defense so we can make true
progress in the fight against devastating disease.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bond and
Senator Mikulski for once again crafting a VA-HUD Appropriations bill
which deals fairly with a wide variety of competing programs and
interests. I know that budget constraints have made the job especially
difficult in recent years, but within those constraints in general,
this bill reaches a very good balance.
There are two provision in the bill which I have concerns about and
which I hope can be addressed in conference. The first is funding for
the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. The
Senate bill provides $55 million for this important program, $25
million below last year's level and $70 million below the President's
request.
The CDFI Fund is an economic development initiative that was adopted
with overwhelming bi-partisan support several years ago. The program is
an important investment tool for economically distressed communities.
CDFI leverages private investment to stretch every Federal dollar. The
VA-HUD Appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee includes level funding for CDFI, still well below the level
requested by the Administration. This program is working effectively in
communities across the country, and I believe additional resources are
needed to maximize the value of this important Federal investment. I
look forward to working with Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond during
conference to provide additional funding for this program.
The second provision I would like to address is Section 214 of the
Senate bill. Section 214 specifically prohibits the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from providing any extra points or
preferences to grant applications from Empowerment Zones or Enterprise
Communities on the basis of their special designation. This prohibition
is in direct opposition to the approach Federal Departments have taken
since the creation of the Empowerment Zone program, of providing modest
advantages to applications from designated communities. The grant
preferences HUD offers to designated communities are indeed modest, two
points out of a total score of 100. These extra points will not provide
the boost needed to allow bad applications to be chosen over good ones
just because the poorer application is submitted from an Empowerment
Zone or Enterprise Community. What they do provide is an incentive for
designated communities to continue to pursue the initiatives they set
out in their application for Empowerment Zone status. I strongly oppose
this provision and will work with Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski in
conference to drop it from the VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, despite overwhelming public opposition to
weakening protections for the environment and public health, some
members of Congress are attempting to do so indirectly, by including
anti-environment and anti-health directives in committee reports
accompanying this year's appropriations bills. Often, these policy
directives flatly contradict specific laws or the statute books.
One particularly insidious example would endanger children. In the
last Congress, with broad bipartisan support, we enacted the Food
Quality Protection Act to provide safeguards against exposure to
dangerous pesticides. But now, the Senate committee report accompanying
this VA-HUD Appropriations Bill contains language that could delay
implementation of key parts of this law for years, prolonging exposure
of children to pesticides used in treating high chairs, sponges,
cutting boards and other products used by children.
The use of pesticides in these products is unauthorized, but
unauthorized uses have become a serious problem in recent years. Some
manufacturers are taking pesticides intended for other uses, and using
them in connection with common household products, and advertising the
products as safe. Very little research has been carried out to
determine whether these household uses are safe. Until they are shown
to be safe, their use in such products should be restricted. EPA has
the authority to do so, and EPA is right to do so.
Under the Food Quality Protection Act, the Environmental Protection
Agency has recently acted against manufacturers who use pesticides in
ways not approved by EPA. Usually, the manufacturers make unproven
claims that their products kill salmonella or other germs, and state or
imply that the products are safer for children than other products on
the market that have not had such treatment.
The Committee report on the current bill asks EPA to go through the
process of promulgating a formal rule before moving forward with such
enforcement actions. EPA has already given extensive opportunities to
the industry to comment on the agency's rules on this issue. A formal
rulemaking procedure is unnecessary and will result only in delay of
needed action and needless litigation to block such protection.
Obviously, committee report language cannot change current law. I
urge the Administration to ignore all policy directives in reports that
are inconsistent with existing law and that would undermine the
environment and public health. EPA should continue its important
mission of protecting the environment and children's health.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to thank my colleague, the
Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee, Senator Bond, for
including in this appropriations bill an important provision--one that
would unlock and open the door to many first-time home buyers.
As we are all aware, it is often the downpayment that is the largest
impediment to home ownership for first-time home buyers. The Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) began a pilot program two years ago to
help families overcome that impediment by lowering the downpayment
necessary for an FHA home mortgage.
Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the pilot program, which is
located in Alaska and Hawaii, has reported great success.
This pilot program is effective because it accomplishes two feats:
(1) it lowers the FHA downpayment, making it more affordable; and (2)
it makes the FHA downpayment calculation easier and more understandable
for all parties to the transaction. The pilot program requires--on
average--only a minimum cash investment of three percent for home
buyers.
Earlier in the year, I and Senators Stevens, Akaka and Inouye,
introduced a bill that amends the National Housing Act by simplifying
the current complex downpayment formula. The simplified formula creates
a lower, more affordable downpayment. Our bill would extend this lower
and simplified downpayment rate to perspective home buyers across the
country.
Mr. President, the pilot program is a win-win situation: affordable
homes are made available to responsible buyers without any increase in
mortgage default rates. Here's what mortgage lenders have reported:

There is no indication of increase in risk. The loans we
have made to date have been to

[[Page S8444]]

borrowers with excellent credit records and stable
employment, but not enough disposable income to accumulate
the cash necessary for a high downpayment.--Richard E.
Dolman, Manager, Seattle Mortgage, Anchorage Branch.
Is the 97% program working? The answer is a resounding
YES!. . .In this current day, it takes two incomes to meet
basic needs. To come up with a large downpayment is
increasingly difficult, especially for those just starting
out. The 3% program is a good start. . .I do not believe that
lowering the downpayment increased our risk. . .--Nancy A.
Karriowski, Alaska Home Mortgage, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.
We have experienced nothing but positive benefits from the
FHA Pilot Program Loan Calculation in Alaska and Hawaii.--
Roger Aldrich, President, City Mortgage Corporation,
Anchorage, Alaska.

In fact, but for the pilot program, approximately 70% of the FHA loan
applications in Palmer, Alaska would be rejected, simply because the
buyer could not afford the downpayment. Mr. President, thanks to this
pilot program, more and more deserving Alaskans are becoming home
owners.
Mr. President, our legislation has the support of the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America, the National Association of Realtors,
the National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. They believe, as I do, that borrowers in
all states should benefit from the simplification of the FHA
downpayment calculation.
Therefore, I am pleased that the Chairman of the Subcommittee has
included in this appropriation bill a provision to expand the Alaska/
Hawaii demonstration program to all states. The provision only offers
the program as a two-year demonstration project, whereas, my
legislation would have made it permanent--but I understand the
Chairman's desire to continue evaluating the costs of this program
before permanent status is granted.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that helping American families
realize their dream of home ownership is vital to the Nation as a
whole. This important provision in the VA/HUD appropriations bill does
much to assist families in owning their first home--thereby making the
American dream of home ownership a reality.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with respect to the HUD Section 811
program, does the bill provide for continued funding for the
``mainstream'' voucher and certificates program?
Mr. BOND. The bill allows HUD to direct 25% of the funds allocated
for the HUD Section 811 toward tenant-based rental assistance for
people with disabilities--$48.5 million. Congress has allowed HUD to
transfer these funds for ``mainstream'' vouchers and certificates in
both FY 1997 and FY 1998. In addition, the bill grants HUD specific
waiver authority with respect to existing programmatic requirements
under Section 811. This limited waiver authority is intended to assist
HUD in furthering the overall goals of the 811 program by increasing
housing opportunities for persons with the most severe disabilities.
Mr. HARKIN. I believe that the voucher and certificate 811 program
would be more beneficial to those with significant disabilities if non-
profit organizations with significant experience providing such
services would be fully engaged, working with housing authorities. And,
I believe that HUD should give favorable treatment to applications
providing for substantial assistance by non-profit organizations with
experience in helping the severely disabled.
Mr. BOND. I agree. As my colleague knows, non-profit organizations
that traditionally serve persons with severe mental and physical
disabilities are a critical part of the success of the section 811
program. Any federal programs intended to meet the housing needs of
people with mental and physical disabilities should draw in the
expertise of organizations that have experience in providing supports
and services to adults with severe disabilities. By contrast, the
current ``mainstream'' voucher and certificate program does not
currently consider this very important issue in the allocation of
certificates and vouchers. Housing authorities should be encouraged to
increase their coordination with non-profit organizations and the
awarding of the vouchers and certificates should be based, in part, on
that factor.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Chairman's assistance in this matter.

recognition of ozanam in kansas city, missouri

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ozanam in Kansas
City, Missouri for its service to the community. For fifty years,
Ozanam has been helping children and families in turmoil. Ozanam
facility and staff help children reach their full potential and become
productive members of society.
Ozanam began in the home of Mr. Al Allen, a Catholic Welfare Staff
member, who after noticing the lack of help for emotionally disturbed
adolescents, took it upon himself to being six boys into his own home
to give them long-term care, education and guidance. However, in just a
year's short time, the need for a larger facility became apparent.
Presently, the agency occupies 95 acres including two dormitories, a
campus group home, a special education center that contains vocational
training classrooms, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and a
spiritual life center.
During its existence, Ozanam has had some outstanding staff and
administration to help the more than 4,000 children who have stayed
there. Paul Gemeinhardt, President, Judith Hart, Senior Vice President
of Development and Doug Zimmerman, Senior Vice President of Agency
Operations, deserve special recognition for their undying commitment
and service to Ozanam.
I commend the staff of Ozanam for their untiring dedication to
helping children and their families in their time of need. I join the
many in Missouri who thank Ozanam for its good work and continuing
efforts to better the community. Congratulations for fifty years of
service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I just wanted to raise an issue to my
colleague from Missouri, the manager of the bill, and the distinguished
Senator from Maryland. This is just as an issue to raise with you. We
may want to take a look at it. I regret I didn't bring this up earlier.
Under the present system, as I understand it, nurses at VA hospitals
do not receive cost-of-living adjustments. It is based on locality pay.
In many areas around the country, nurses in our VA hospitals have not
been getting raises. It is a bit more complicated an issue than just a
simple amendment to deal with this, but for the last 3 years, in many
veterans hospitals there have been no cost-of-living or locality
increases during a robust economy.
Many of these, mostly women but some men, work very hard on behalf of
our veterans. I know all my colleagues know and understand this. I
urge, if we could, maybe enter into a colloquy in some way and look at
report language in which we might examine that issue in terms of how,
for nurses who work in these hospitals, we may be able to work out some
better pay increase arrangement for them at these VA hospitals. I
really raise that for the consideration of the two managers of the
bill.
I apologize for interrupting what I know is a decision to just move
to final passage on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, frankly, I am not aware of this problem,
but I sincerely appreciate the Senator from Connecticut raising it
because it sounds like a very serious problem. I can assure the
Senator, our staffs and we will work with the Senator to try to get to
the bottom of this because we want to maintain the highest caliber
professional service to our veterans in the VA system.
I am not prepared to say anything about how it is occurring or why,
but I assure the Senator we appreciate his bringing it up and we will
look into it and work on it. Perhaps in conference we can take some
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut
for raising this issue. It is never too late to raise the issue about
the quality of care that our veterans get. That means we need to be
able to retain the very best from our nurses. The Senator has brought
to our attention an issue which I believe has not been raised before.
As we move to conference, you have the assurance of your colleague on
this side of the aisle, we will look

[[Page S8445]]

into the matters raised and see how we can do the redress in
conference, if a remedy is necessary.
But you have really brought something to our attention. It is
important to the nurses who give care that they get paid and are
retained, and we say thank you by adequate pay. Second, it has a direct
impact on veterans' care, because the more we retain the best, the
better care they get. So I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me say, I thank both the distinguished
Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Maryland for
their comments. As I said, I think it is a complicated issue. I don't
mean to suggest it is simple. But I really do appreciate--I know the
nurses all across the country who work in our veterans hospitals really
appreciate the attention I know our colleagues will give to this issue,
to see if some mechanism can be offered to try to address this issue.
I am very grateful to both of them. I know the nurses in the hospital
in West Haven, CT, are, and I am certain they are in other parts of the
country as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed.
(The text of the bill (S. 2168) will be printed in a future edition
of the Record.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I know there may be a couple of statements
by the managers of the bill. I thank them for the work they have done.
They stayed here until about midnight last night.
The distinguished chairman from Missouri and ranking member, Senator
Mikulski from Maryland, have done outstanding work. By staying here
until midnight last night, they completed a bill that probably would
have taken 2 full days next week, so I congratulate them for their good
work. We just passed the HUD-VA appropriations bill. That is the fourth
appropriations bill this year.
We will next proceed to the legislative appropriations bill. However,
no further votes will occur during today's session. Because of the good
progress we are making and the cooperation we are receiving, we can go
to the legislative appropriations bill. Any votes with respect to the
legislative appropriations bill will be postponed to occur at 9:30 a.m.
on Tuesday. Therefore, there will be no recorded votes on Monday. On
Monday, the Senate will begin the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations
bill.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the distinguished majority leader
yield for a quick question?
Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. On the legislative appropriations bill, will there be no
further amendments after today if we have to vote on them next week?
Mr. LOTT. I respond, Madam President, to the Senator from Kentucky,
it is our intent to complete debate on all amendments with the
possibility of one amendment where there could be some further debate
on that on Monday. But all debate on all issues will be completed
during today, except that one amendment. There could be 2 hours debate
on Monday and hopefully complete it with a voice vote; hopefully
complete legislative appropriations on Monday. If a vote or votes are
required, they will not occur until Tuesday morning.
Mr. FORD. I am not particularly worried about when you have a vote on
final passage. I am worrying about cutting off amendments, so that when
Monday comes and somebody thinks of another amendment, they will be cut
off.
Mr. LOTT. We will propound another unanimous consent request to lock
that in.
There will be no more recorded votes today and no recorded votes on
Monday. The next will occur at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I express appreciation to the leadership
on both sides--the majority leader and the minority leader--for
enabling us to get back on this bill and move it through. I thank all
Senators for their accommodations and for working with us to get a very
challenging and interesting bill finished.
I express particular appreciation to Senator Mikulski. She has been
an absolutely invaluable ally in making accommodations and working out
reasonable agreements on this bill. Last night she said her clear,
cogent, and charismatic comments, which helped us move the bill forward
in an expeditious fashion.
I express thanks to her very able staff, Andy Givens, David Bowers,
and Bertha Lopez.
I thank my staff, John Kamarck and Carolyn Apostolou, as well as
members of my personal staff who helped on the bill. We look forward to
taking this measure to conference and working on it in the most
efficient and effective way possible. I appreciate the assistance of
all those who stayed with us last night. Their sense of humor continued
into the small hours of the morning, and I am most grateful for that.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, first, I thank the leadership--the
Republican leader and the Democratic leader--for giving us a window of
opportunity which enabled us to move the bill. Yes, it was late at
night, but we did due diligence and deliberation. I am proud to support
the final passage of this bill. It is good for the Nation; it is good
for my own home State.

We provide increases for veterans' medical care and veterans
research. We fought to restore cuts in elderly housing, and we provided
increases in the high-tech future through NASA and the National Science
Foundation. We are going to get behind our kids in terms of the funding
for national service and those wonderful informal science programs at
the NSF.
We worked to protect our environment, as well as stand sentry to help
our communities in the event of a disaster. I was particularly pleased
to work on a bipartisan effort to increase antiterrorist efforts in the
FEMA program and to make sure that we protect our Nation from any foe,
domestic or foreign. That is our oath, and that is what we will do.
Also in this funding, we look for those important things that look
out for the Chesapeake Bay and deal with important research on
pfiesteria.
Madam President, this is a good bill. I was pleased to work with
Senator Bond. Again, this is a partisan-free zone that we had called
for. I thank him. I thank his professional staff for their very
professional behavior. I thank my own staff for the hard work that they
put into this bill, and I look forward to working in conference and
perhaps getting our conference done before the August recess.
Madam President, that concludes my remarks on this bill. Again,
thanks to John Kamarck, Carolyn Apostolou, Andy Givens, David Bowers,
and Bertha Lopez.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Coeur d'Alene Lake and Basin

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I chose not to offer an amendment on VA-
HUD, and I thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for the tremendous
work that they have done.
For a few moments, if I can have the attention of the Senate, Madam
President, I want to speak to an issue that is not unlike what the
Senator from Nebraska spoke to last evening, a very real concern of
mine and the Idaho congressional delegation and the citizens of our
State. This is an issue that particularly affects north Idaho, the
beautiful lakes and the mountains that we are so proud of in my State
and that many of you have come to enjoy.
As I said, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would assure the
Environmental Protection Agency would participate in the mediation
process that is currently underway in my State over the issue of the
Coeur d'Alene Basin.
On May 4 of 1998, U.S. News & World Report published an article
dealing with supposed pollution in the Coeur d'Alene Lake and Basin. I
read the article with near disbelief. For the first

[[Page S8446]]

2\1/2\ pages, I read of a land fouled by pollution, of poisoned fish
and dying wildlife, and the Idaho congressional delegation
``scrambling'' to block the creation of a Superfund site of over
1,500--let me repeat--a Superfund site proposed of over 1,500 square
miles in my State stretching into the State of Washington and the
Pacific Northwest.
I read the article and said, could this be the land that I know and
love, a land of beautiful forests, mountains, lakes, rivers, the Coeur
d'Alene area, ``considered to be one of the most beautiful mountain
lakes in the world''? I have put this in quotes because it is a direct
quote from the web site of the Coeur d'Alene Basin Indians. The Coeur
d'Alene Indians talk about the beauty of the land, and yet the Coeur
d'Alene Tribe has also filed a lawsuit asking for a Superfund natural
resource damage settlement in the basin that could be up to $1 billion.
One would believe that another study is needed to understand the
horrible pollution that is described in the beginning of that article.
But then I arrived on page 3 of the U.S. News & World Report article
and read about the lake, this beautiful lake that I have just spoken
of, a lake that meets Federal drinking water standards and that the
sediments in the lake are not known to be causing problems. Indeed,
thousands of people swim in this lake every year. They boat in its
waters; they fish, they camp and recreate along its shores.
Over the Fourth of July break, just a few weeks ago, 40,000 to
100,000 people came to recreate in and around Lake Coeur d'Alene.
Several communities draw their drinking water from the river below the
lake. The water they consume continually meets tough Federal drinking
water standards.
A recently completed statistical validation study by the State of
Idaho, with assistance from the Coeur d'Alene tribe and a toxicologist
at the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, with
data analysis from the Federal Centers of Disease Control and
Prevention, have said and found no contaminated fish in the waters of
this lake.
The Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have
spent millions of dollars from the public coffers to study the
situation. Lawyers are litigating and making hundreds of thousands of
dollars and building beautiful homes along the lake's shore from the
money they make from this lawsuit as they describe the poisonous
sediments of this lake. Now, remember, this is the lake that I just
said meets Federal drinking water standards.
What is going on up there? Well, it is not unlike what the Senator
from Nebraska talked about last night--an EPA that just keeps on
running and keeps on moving and pushing the regulations when there is
no basis under Federal law and tests for that. Looks like they have
just got to have something to do.
Should we be looking for ways to address the problem rather than
pursuing study after study that appears to lead to more studies? Well,
I think the answer is yes. That is why the Idaho congressional
delegation has introduced legislation to improve cleanup efforts rather
than to fuel more lawsuits and spend more taxpayers' dollars studying
the already well-defined problem.
This legislation has been approved by the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. This is what we need to do in the Coeur d'Alene
Basin. We need to stop EPA and work to resolve the issue instead of
spreading it to a 1,500-square-mile area. It is impossible to believe
that when we created the Superfund law that we were intending EPA to
even reasonably think about an area of 1,500 square miles. That is
bigger than some States here on the east coast.
I have not offered the amendment because EPA is now beginning to
negotiate with the State of Idaho. I hope they can continue to work
together to resolve this issue and not expand a Superfund site beyond
the limited one we have that is now being well addressed and properly
cared for.
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Bond,
for being reasonable and working with us on this issue.
But EPA ought to get the message, and the Justice Department ought to
get the message: Politics is one thing, but spending America's taxpayer
money--millions and millions of dollars--to play the political game is
yet another thing. To tie up the beautiful Lake Coeur d'Alene and the
city of Coeur d'Alene, one of the No. 1 destination sites in the Nation
for tourism and recreation, an area that you can walk out into the lake
and swim in the lake and drink the water, and yet EPA is suggesting,
and the Coeur d'Alene Indians are suggesting, that this should be a
Superfund site? I would hope not.
In fact, I hope this Congress would wake up to the games that have
been played in the EPW Committee not to allow Superfund reauthorization
out because somehow it does not fit the politics of the current
administration. It does not make a lot of sense, certainly does not
make any sense in Idaho.
I hope EPA will continue to negotiate with our State to resolve this
issue. If not, the Idaho congressional delegation will be forced to
take quick action to resolve the issue here. I think finally we are
going to get the understanding of our colleagues because of their
recognizing that Superfund does not work anymore. It just means a lot
of lawsuits and a lot of politics.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement
my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, made about the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Coeur d'Alene Basin's pollution problems. I
appreciate that he did not offer his amendment, which I would have
opposed, because I believe it would have severely restricted the State
of Washington's rights to protect its citizens from pollution generated
in Idaho.
At least one version of the senior senator from Idaho's proposed
amendment would have given the governor of Idaho veto power over the
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect the watershed
shared by Washington and Idaho citizens. The amendment would have
prevented the EPA from even studying expansion of the existing
Superfund site without the Idaho governor's permission.
This is a bad precedent. I know there are many times when decisions
made in one state can affect the quality of the water in another state.
In this case, the Governor of Washington has publicly stated his
support for potential expansion of the Superfund site to ensure all
polluted waterways are cleaned up. Why should the governor of Idaho be
allowed to thwart efforts to protect the quality of water in
Washington?
I don't think he should.
Mr. President, I have written a letter to Senators Craig and
Kempthorne asking them to work with me to develop a way to ensure we
cost-effectively clean up the Coeur d'Alene Basin while ensuring my
state's interests aren't jeopardized in the decision making process. I
firmly believe we can do this.
I am committed to protecting water quality in the State of
Washington. I believe we could establish a working commission, which
would include the federal government, both state governors, and tribes,
that could develop a model by which the Coeur d'Alene Basin would be
quickly, cost-efficiently, and rationally cleaned up. However, giving
one state's governor veto power is not the way to do it.
I pledge to work with the Idaho delegation, the State of Washington,
and concerned citizens to ensure our waters are as pure as they can be.
There are few more precious natural resources than water and we all
must work to protect it.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

On the Victory for FHA Insurance

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I was tremendously heartened by the
vote today on an amendment which would have set back home ownership
tremendously. Indeed, by a vote of 69 to 27, the Senate voted to table
the amendment offered by Senator Nickles which would have limited FHA
insurance to over 50 million Americans.
Currently, there are 52.5 million Americans who live in high-cost
areas where FHA simply does not reflect the reality of the marketplace.
In high cost areas, such as Nassau County, New York the current FHA
limit of $170,000 is insufficient because the median cost for a home
was $195,000 in 1997. It is nearly impossible for many young families
starting out to achieve the American Dream of homeownership. Let me

[[Page S8447]]

be clear, we are not talking about wealthy families; we are talking
about a two-wage-earner couple, just married, a schoolteacher and a
police officer--struggling to accumulate the necessary funds for that
first downpayment.
In many high cost areas, FHA no longer covers the cost for entry-
level, new starter homes. In Levittown, Long Island--which epitomized
post-war expansion of homeownership for working, middle-class families,
especially for GIs returning home from the war--that opportunity,
unfortunately, is becoming more difficult today. Even in times where we
say the economy is booming and a nationwide rise in homeownership,
families in high cost areas are too often being left behind. Indeed, in
many of these high cost areas, the homeownership rate is lagging far
behind the nationwide average. Young families starting out on their own
have to come up with $25,000 for a downpayment--which is very, very
difficult to achieve, especially in an area where the cost of living
places such a tremendous strain on the family budget. We are not
talking about people of affluence. Nor are we talking about magnificent
estates or mansions, but simply average median-cost homes.
Indeed, in Long Island, where homeownership has been such a key
ingredient to permitting people to work and live as part of a
community, home ownership is becoming more difficult for these working,
middle-class families. It is simply beyond their reach. Thankfully,
today we have helped to bring relief to families in high cost areas by
raising the FHA limit. In Long Island, the area that I grew up in and
live in, where there are nearly 3 million people, we will now be
providing greater opportunities for young middle class families to own
their own home. The current FHA limit, which is set at $170,000, is
simply too low in an area where there are relatively very few homes
that can be purchased in all of the island for $170,000 or less. By
raising the limit up to $197,000, FHA will better reflect the reality
of the marketplace where the median home prices in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties were $195,000 in 1997. We will now be providing that
opportunity to thousands of young families who will be looking to
purchase that first home in Long Island.
Nationwide, about 21 percent of the Nation's population lives in
high-income areas. Again, this FHA increase in not for the benefit of
the affluent--they do not need FHA insurance and will continue to be
served by the private market. Indeed, they buy homes that cost much
more than $197,000.
What we have done is, I believe, struck a blow for home ownership,
for young families who want to get an opportunity, from one length of
the country to another.
The mayor of Albany, Mayor Gerald Jennings, he called me yesterday.
He was concerned because of the outlying communities in the Albany
area. The county executive from Nassau, Tom Gulotta, called me because
his housing experts advised him that too many young families are being
denied the opportunity to purchase a home. They need to be able to get
FHA insurance for young families who are starting out on their own.
I commend the Senate for overwhelmingly supporting this provision by
a vote of 69-27 to raise the FHA limits in high cost areas. I believe
we achieved a big victory for home ownership throughout this country
today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted
to speak as in morning business until 11 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________