[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.

                          ____________________