[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11833-S11847]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 
the VA-HUD conference report. There are 60 minutes for debate to be 
equally divided.
  The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4194), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 5, 1998.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Maryland for a 
request.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during 
consideration of the report 105-769, that Ms. Bertha Lopez, a detailee 
from HUD serving with the VA-HUD committee, be afforded floor 
privileges.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you. I yield the floor and look forward to 
proceeding on our conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank our distinguished ranking member, Senator Mikulski. 
Before I get into the bill, let me say Senator Mikulski and her staff 
have given us tremendous cooperation, guidance and support. The process 
is always very difficult in this bill, but it runs much more smoothly 
because of her leadership, her guidance, and her deep concern for all 
of the programs covered.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference 
report on the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD and independent agencies 
appropriations bill. The conference report provides $93.4 billion, 
including $23.3 billion in mandatory veterans' benefits. I believe this 
represents a fair and balanced approach to meeting the many compelling 
needs that are afforded this subcommittee, particularly in the face of 
a very tight budget allocation.
  The conference report accords the highest priority to veterans' 
needs, providing $439 million more than the President's request for 
veterans' programs. Other priorities include elderly housing, 
protecting environmental spending, and ensuring sufficient funding for 
space and science.
  We did our best to satisfy priorities of Senators who made special 
requests for such items as economic development grants, water 
infrastructure improvements, and similar vitally important 
infrastructure investments. Such requests numbered over 1,000 
individual items, illustrating the level of interest and the demand for 
assistance provided in this bill.
  We also attempted to address the administration's top concerns 
wherever possible, including funding for 50,000 new incremental housing 
vouchers, funding for the National Service Program at the current year 
rate, additional funding for the cleanup of Boston Harbor, and $650 
million in advance funding for Superfund, contingent upon authorization 
and reform of the Superfund Program by August 1, 1999.
  For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the conference report 
provides a total of $42.6 billion. This includes $17.306 billion for 
veterans medical care. That figure is $278 million more than the 
President's request, and $249 million more than the 1998 level. Thus, 
we have increased by just about a quarter of a billion dollars the 
amount of money going to veterans health care above what was available 
for the past fiscal year. There was a strong consensus in this body, on 
a bipartisan basis, that the President's request for veterans medical 
care was inadequate, and that additional funds were needed to ensure 
the highest quality care to all eligible veterans seeking care.
  Funds above the President's request also provided for construction, 
research, State veterans nursing homes, and the processing of veterans 
claims. I am confident these additional funds will be spent to honor 
and care for our Nation's veterans.
  In HUD, the conference report provides for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development a total of $26 billion. Again, this is $1 billion 
over the President's request. We were able to provide this significant 
increase in funding because of additional savings from excess section 8 
project-based funds as well as savings from our reform of how HUD 
conducts its FHA property disposition program.
  Because of these savings and reforms, we have been able to increase 
funding for a number of important HUD programs, including increasing 
critically needed funding for public housing modernization from $2.55 
billion to $3 billion; increasing HOPE VI to eliminate distressed 
public housing from $550 million to $625 million; increasing the very 
important local government top priority, Community Development Block 
Grants from $4.675 billion to $4.750 billion.
  We increased HOME funds, providing the flexibility for local 
governments to make improvements in providing needed housing for low-
income and needy residents, from $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion, and we 
increased funding for homeless assistance from $823 million to over $1 
billion, including requirements for HUD, recapturing and reprogramming 
unused homeless funds.
  We also included $854 million for section 202 elderly housing, and 
section 811 disabled housing. This is an increase of some $550 million 
over the President's request for the section 202 program.
  This reflects the sense of this body, expressed in a resolution 
jointly sponsored by my ranking member and myself, saying that we could 
not afford an 80-percent cut in assistance for elderly housing as 
proposed by the Office of Management and Budget.
  I want to be clear that these funding decisions for HUD do not 
reflect a vote of confidence for HUD. HUD remains a troubled agency 
with significant capacity problems and dysfunctional decisionmaking. 
Let me remind my colleagues that HUD remains designated as a high-risk 
area by the General Accounting Office, the only department-wide agency 
ever so designated. I am not confident that HUD is making appropriate 
progress. I also want to warn my colleagues that, while we have 
provided the additional 50,000 welfare-to-work incremental vouchers 
that the administration requested, HUD and we are fast approaching a 
train wreck. And the debris will be on our hands.
  Let me call our colleagues' attention to this chart. It shows an 
explosion. To be specific, in fiscal year 1997 we had to appropriate 
$3.6 billion in budget authority for the renewal of existing section 8 
vouchers. These are the renewals for people who are now receiving 
section 8 assistance. Because in prior years we had multiyear 
authorizations, those authorizations are expiring, and just to maintain 
the section 8 assistance we are providing we had to go up to $8.2 
billion this year. We will go up next year to $11.1 billion, the year 
after $12.8 billion, and by 2004 we will have to find budget authority 
of $18.2 billion, just to maintain the section 8 certificates, the 
vouchers for assisted housing for those in need that we already 
provide.
  So, this is a budgetary problem of huge magnitude and it is something 
that is coming. Unless we are to stop providing assistance for those 
who need section 8, we are going to have to find in the budget room for 
that much budget authority. I have asked HUD repeatedly, in hearings 
before our committee, to address this fiscal crisis. Yet HUD has 
repeatedly failed to fulfill these responsibilities. This is something 
this body and the House are going to have to work on next year and the 
year after and the year after. The problem grows significantly more 
severe as we move into the outyears.
  The conference report, at the request of the House and the leaders of 
the Housing Authorization Committee in

[[Page S11834]]

the Senate--the distinguished chairman of that subcommittee, Senator 
Mack, will be addressing this later--includes a public housing reform 
bill entitled the ``Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 
1998.'' I congratulate the members of the authorizing committee for 
making significant and positive reforms to public and assisted housing 
programs. I believe that, given the legislative calendar and the 
situation, it was appropriate, with the advice, counsel and direction 
of the leadership, that we included it.
  There are some issues I want to flag now because I think we may want 
to come back and readdress them, as we do in so many things that we 
pass in the housing area in this body.
  I am concerned that the requirements on targeting might adversely 
impact the elderly poor. I am concerned about a provision that could 
allow HUD to micromanage housing choices of public housing families on 
a building-by-building basis, and I don't agree with the provision that 
would provide the HUD Secretary with a slush fund of some $110 million.
  Most of my concerns, however, relate to provisions that will become 
effective in fiscal year 2000. I expect that we will continue to review 
these areas and we will work, as we have in the past, in full 
cooperation with our distinguished colleagues on the authorizing 
committees in both the House and the Senate and discuss these further 
in future bills.
  Finally, this appropriations bill provides a significant increase for 
FHA mortgage insurance. We raised the floor from $86,000 to $109,000 
and the ceiling for high-cost areas from $170,000 to $197,000. This is 
a critical provision. It means that families will have new and 
important opportunities to become homeowners.
  With respect to the Environmental Protection Agency, the conference 
report provides $7.650 billion for EPA. That is about $200 million more 
than current year funding. Included in this is the President's full 
request for the clean water action plan which totals $150 million in 
new funding, principally for State grants aimed at controlling polluted 
runoff or nonpoint source pollution. The conference report also 
provides $2.125 billion for State clean water and safe drinking water 
revolving funds, an increase of $275 million over the President's 
request and $50 million over the current year.
  Mr. President, I am very proud that we were able to provide this, 
because I think in every State, if you talk with the people who are 
actually doing the hard work of making sure that wastewater is cleaned 
up and that we have safe drinking water, they will tell you that these 
State revolving funds, which provide low-cost loans and enable 
communities to take vitally important steps necessary to ensure that 
they clean up their wastewater and they have safe drinking water, they 
will tell you that these State revolving funds are absolutely critical 
for meeting the long-term needs of our communities.
  Back to the rest of the bill, for Superfund, the conference report 
provides $1.5 billion, the same as the current year funding. In 
addition, there is an advance appropriation of $650 million, contingent 
upon authorization by August 1, 1999.
  Other high priorities in EPA, which we have funded, include 
particulate matter research, funding for the brownfields at the full 
request level, providing to the States the tools they need to prevent 
pollution, cleanup of waste sites and enforcing environmental laws. 
Almost half of the funds provided in this bill will go directly to the 
States for these purposes.
  For FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there is a total 
of $827 million, approximately the same amount as current year funding, 
with emphasis on preparing for both natural and man-made disasters.
  The conference report includes the President's request of $308 
million for disaster relief spending. While there are not any 
additional funds above the President's request for disaster relief, let 
me assure everyone that the current balances in the disaster relief 
fund are sufficient to meet all the needs at this time, including those 
stemming from Hurricane Georges, as well as the flooding that hit my 
State over the weekend and resulted in tragic deaths in the Kansas City 
area, as well as severe damage to homes and businesses.
  We all appreciate the good work FEMA has done to help the victims 
struggling to recover from recent devastation, whether it is 
hurricanes, floods or tornadoes. Our thoughts and prayers are with the 
many people who suffered severe losses because of natural disasters.
  In order to support efforts aimed at mitigating against future 
disasters, the conference report provides $25 million for predisaster 
mitigation grants. These funds are intended to ensure communities will 
be better prepared and that losses will be minimized when the next 
disaster strikes. We hope these funds will be well spent to strengthen 
the Nation's preparedness for natural disasters.
  Finally, within FEMA, the conference agreement provides the full 
budget amount requested by the administration in July for antiterrorism 
activities. My ranking member and I believe this is vitally important 
preparation. It is something we need to be looking at in every area, 
and we are very proud to be able to provide this assistance for FEMA, 
because this is critical as part of an interagency effort aimed at 
preparing States and local governments for possible terrorists 
incidents.
  For the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the 
conference report provides a total of $13.665 billion. This is $200 
million over the President's request, including $5.480 billion for the 
international space station and shuttle activities.
  We remain very concerned over cost overruns, and the failure of the 
Russian Government to meet its obligations as a partner in the 
development and operation of the space station. As a result, this 
conference report includes requirements for NASA to address Russian 
noncompliance and includes a provision addressing the need for NASA to 
explore alternative ways of doing business with the Russians. Again, I 
thank my distinguished ranking member for her leadership on this issue.
  For the National Science Foundation, the conference agreement 
provides $3.6 billion for NSF. This is $242 million above the enacted 
level for the past year. Included in this is $50 million for the plant 
genome program. Mapping the significant crop genomes is vitally 
important to the future of agriculture and to feeding our country and 
to feeding the hungry people of the world. This is an increase of $10 
million over last year's level and the initial phases of what I believe 
will be a significant scientific breakthrough.
  Before I yield to my colleague from Maryland, I do want to take this 
opportunity to talk about a crisis that is wreaking havoc throughout 
our country. That crisis is in Medicare home health benefits. They are 
in severe jeopardy.
  The Health Care Financing Administration implemented a home health 
interim payment system, the IPS, which hits hundreds of home health 
agencies, many of which are small, freestanding providers, and has been 
forcing them out of business.
  In Missouri alone where we had last year 230 home health care 
agencies, 50 agencies have already shut their doors entirely or have 
stopped accepting Medicare patients. One of them is the largest program 
in the State, the St. Louis Visiting Nurses Association, but many of 
them are small businesses that provide vitally needed health care 
services. It may be in rural areas or it may be in the inner cities, 
but they are serving some of the most deserving, poor elderly and 
disabled in our country.
  The agencies that are being hit are those that serve the most complex 
cases, the ones with the most difficult challenges. Some parts of 
Missouri are losing their only source of home health care.
  My hometown of Mexico, MO, has a small rural hospital. It is the 
Audrain Medical Center. We are very proud of it. But recently I 
received a letter from David Neuendorf, the medical center's chief 
financial officer, describing the difficulties they are facing. He 
stated the following:

       In Mexico the HealthCor, Beacon of Hope, and Homecare 
     Connections agencies have closed. Other firms headquartered 
     elsewhere have closed their Mexico offices. People who need 
     home care in this area are simply not going to be able to get 
     it in the future. When

[[Page S11835]]

     they become sick enough they will end up in the hospital 
     where they will receive more expensive treatment.

  Mr. President, in Missouri we have a well known phrase: ``Show me.'' 
Mr. President, people in Missouri have shown me that the interim 
payment system is denying access to critical home health services. The 
IPS is the worst case of false economy I have ever seen. If the elderly 
and disabled cannot get care in the home, what is going to happen? They 
either will wind up in the emergency room very sick or they will go 
into institutionalized care, going into expensive nursing homes or even 
hospitals, or the patients simply will not get care at all.
  One agency chief officer who testified before the Small Business 
Committee exemplifies the problem. She tells me she provides care to 
the most complex cases, the most difficult ones to serve in a central 
city area. And if this system and the proposed cuts go through, she 
could go out of business, and of the 350 patients she has, almost half 
of them would have to go immediately into nursing homes.
  This means that not only will Medicare costs rise, but there will be 
an explosion in State and Federal Medicaid budgets. We are going to 
have to pay for these poor, elderly, and disabled who are very sick. If 
we do not take care of them in the home health setting, we are going to 
take care of them in less convenient, less comfortable ways for them 
but far more expensive ways for us.
  We must demand this insane, inequitable, and punitive system be 
corrected before we adjourn. And there are many proposals floating 
around. I believe Members on both sides of the aisle of this body know 
stories about how serious this crisis is. Some of them provide needed 
relief to home health agencies, those whom they serve. Some of them 
merely add a few lifeboats to a sinking ship. But it is clear one 
important consideration is missing. It is imperative we restore access 
to home health care for medically complex patients, especially those in 
center cities and rural areas. We cannot just reshuffle the deck and 
cause losses to vulnerable patients.
  Mr. President, I would have addressed this under the VA-HUD bill, 
under the FEMA's emergency budget. Unfortunately, home health care does 
not qualify for disaster relief. But let me assure my colleagues, that 
the human disaster of failing to address this home health care problem 
is going to be as severe, if not more severe, than many of the tragic 
natural disasters we address in FEMA.
  Mr. President, to sum up, I am very proud of the work that we have 
been able to accomplish. I appreciate once again the work of my 
distinguished colleague. I will recognize others who have worked on 
this later, but now it is my pleasure to defer to the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. President.
  I am really proud once again to come to the floor with my colleague, 
Senator Bond, to bring to the Senate's attention the 1999 VA-HUD 
conference report and urge that we move quickly to vote on and pass 
what I believe is a very solid report. This is a strong conference 
report, and I believe it is one which will be signed by the President 
of the United States. And why? Because it meets the day-to-day needs of 
the American people as well as the long-range needs of the United 
States of America.
  It provides a safety net for our seniors. It gets behind our kids. It 
invests in science and technology and makes our world safer. It meets 
compelling human needs and at the same time makes public investments in 
Federal Laboratories that will come up with the new ideas for the new 
products, for the new jobs, for the 21st century.
  Let's talk about a safety net for seniors. We have often said to our 
veterans that we are a grateful nation for the sacrifice that they have 
made in the wars, and many of them bear the permanent wounds of war. 
But I believe the way a grateful nation expresses its gratitude is not 
with words but with deeds. That is why I am so pleased that we are 
providing in the VA medical care account $17.3 billion to meet that 
need. This will ensure that our veterans will receive quality medical 
care and that whenever they enter a VA hospital or an outpatient 
clinic, promises made will be promises kept.
  At the same time, we provided $316 million for VA medical research. 
VA medical research is different from NIH research. Building on basic 
science, it actually does research in hands-on ways to improve clinical 
practice--both in acute care as well as in prevention and home health 
care. This means that this will focus on those diseases that ravage our 
veterans--like diabetes and like prostate cancer as well as the Gulf 
War Syndrome.
  In addition to what we have done for senior citizens in the veterans 
health care program, we also worked to make sure that there is a safety 
net for seniors in our housing for the elderly. Misguided budget 
cutters sent a budget to us cutting housing for the elderly by a half a 
billion dollars, and at the same time they wanted to convert those 
funds to vouchers. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Bond and I said that 
was absolutely unacceptable.
  First of all, the Housing for Elderly Program is one of the most 
popular programs within HUD. And it is often run by nonprofit 
organizations, many of whom are faith-based, like Catholic Charities 
and Associated Jewish Charities in my own State, not only taking 
taxpayers' dollars and adding housing for the elderly but value adding 
to that. That is why we restored that cut of a half-billion dollars, to 
make sure that the funds are there.
  We also rejected their approach to providing vouchers. Senator Bond 
and I really did not believe that an 80-year-old frail, elderly woman 
with her walker should be walking up and down the streets of St. Louis, 
MO, or Baltimore, MD, or any of our communities, trying to get into an 
apartment that might not meet the needs of the elderly, and certainly 
the frail elderly.
  So we got rid of the misguided budget cutting and also the poor 
policy thinking that went into it. We are challenging HUD, however, to 
come up with new thinking in their housing for the elderly to develop 
new approaches for our seniors, and particularly those that are aging 
in place. There will be a demonstration project run by Catholic 
Charities just to do that.
  At the same time, in this subcommittee, we showed our commitment to 
the next generation in terms of our children. Within the National 
Science Foundation account, we have increased the funding for the 
training of science teachers as well as expanding the informal science 
education programs to reach beyond the classroom to our children to 
encourage them to study math, science, and engineering.
  Also, we have added assistance for the historically black colleges, 
as well as ones serving Hispanic institutions, to develop important 
laboratory infrastructure so that they can modernize their facilities, 
so they can provide the best quality education available.
  In addition to our educational efforts in terms of our children, we 
also wanted to look out for their health. That is often in the Labor-
HHS appropriation, but there is a secret here often in housing, in old 
housing in slum neighborhoods, which is that they are loaded with lead. 
Lead constitutes one of the biggest problems facing many of the 
children in my own hometown of Baltimore. And we have taken Federal 
dollars and increased the funding for our lead abatement 
program. Again, we have worked on a bipartisan basis.

  Scientists and physicians at Johns Hopkins point out when a child 
comes into Hopkins and his or her blood is loaded with lead, the very 
nature of detoxification is not only painful, but it often costs in the 
Medicaid budget thousands of dollars. The impact of lead not only can 
lead to death but severe impairment of intellectual ability. By getting 
the lead out of our housing and getting the lead out of our 
bureaucracy, we will make sure we get the lead out of our children. We 
are very pleased to have been able to do that.
  While we are looking now to the day-to-day needs of the American 
people, we know we have to invest in science and technology. Again, 
Senator Bond and I believe that public investments in science and 
technology will lead to the new ideas, the new products and the new 
jobs for the 21st century. That is why we have provided significant

[[Page S11836]]

funding for critical science and research at the National Science 
Foundation and the National Space Agency. This legislation will provide 
$3.6 billion in the National Science Foundation account. This is an 8 
percent overall increase in funding.
  The NSF has peer review programs focusing on developing cutting-edge 
science and technology. We want to, again, work to make sure that this 
money is used wisely. We believe that the National Science Foundation 
is on track.
  In addition to that, this appropriation provides $13.6 billion for 
the National Space Agency. It will spur technology development, as well 
as look for the origins of the universe.
  To my colleagues in the Senate and to those also watching, while we 
were working on the funding for NASA we recognized a great American 
hero, Senator John Glenn. At the request of his colleague from Ohio, 
Senator DeWine, we have renamed the NASA Lewis Research Center in 
Cleveland the ``John Glenn Research Center,'' which we think is an 
appropriate recognition. We thank the junior Senator from Ohio for 
making that request.
  While we are working on NASA, we have been troubled about the funding 
for the space station and also the failure of the Russian Government to 
deliver its promises. We have instructed NASA to take a look at how we 
are going to get value for taxpayers' dollars and how we are going to 
get technology for taxpayers' dollars. After rather firm conversations 
with the National Security Advisor of the United States, as well as the 
Administrator, we believe we have language in our appropriations that 
will help us get both value and technology for our cooperation in this 
effort.
  We are also working on a safe world. We have funded the Environmental 
Protection Agency to clean up our environment and also take those steps 
that are necessary to prevent increased environmental degradation. One 
of the efforts, of course, is in brownfields, which we hope will be a 
new tool to be able to clean up those contaminated areas and turn a 
brownfield into a ``green field'' for economic development.
  We continue to be troubled about the lack of an authorization for 
Superfund. We will fund Superfund at last year's level but we encourage 
the authorizers to be able to move ahead and pass an authorization. We 
have an additional $650 million included, contingent on a 
reauthorization by August 1. Those are the things we believe will truly 
be able to help clean up our environment and do preventive work.
  Certain aspects in this legislation regarding EPA are important to my 
home State of Maryland. In Maryland, we consider good environment is 
absolutely good business. That is why we thank, once again, Senator 
Bond for work in continuing the funding for the cleanup and 
revitalization of the Chesapeake Bay. The bay is important because it 
provides tremendous jobs in our State, from the watermen who harvest 
the different species, including the crabs and oysters of the bay, to 
other small businesses that work on the bay.
  All of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate know we were hit by the 
terrible situation of pfiesteria--this ``X-like'' organism that sits in 
the mud, mutates 24 times, and then wreaks havoc with our fish. What 
our legislation provides is important research in pfiesteria. We hope 
to be able to come up with solutions that will be important not only 
for Maryland and the causes of it, but also that will help other parts 
of the country, like North Carolina, and rivers that are affected by 
animal wastes, with dire consequences.
  We are also very pleased the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration has been funded. We will meet, of course, the 9-1-1 
request of the United States of America, but I believe in FEMA we 
provided the three ``R's.'' We have funded readiness; we have funded 
response; and we have also funded both rehabilitation, but more 
importantly, prevention. This has been the hallmark, I think, of FEMA 
during the last 5 years, to do training at the local community and 
throughout this Nation, to be ready for those disasters that normally 
would affect a particular region, but at the same time the readiness 
help to move to a quick response. Often after a disaster we can't 
restore it to its old condition or even better, and, therefore, we need 
to look at ways to prevent disasters.
  There is also another disaster that threatens the United States that 
is very deeply troubling to me. That is the whole issue of threats of 
terrorist attacks on our own United States of America. I know at the 
highest level there are coordinated task forces, particularly from our 
military, but within our legislation we made sure we fund FEMA's effort 
to do the training necessary to deal with attacks, particularly of 
bioterrorism and chemical weapons. We regard this as a very important 
effort.
  I want to mention before I close the very close cooperation we have 
had in this bill with the authorizers on Housing and Banking. I 
particularly acknowledge the role of my senior Senator, Senator Paul 
Sarbanes, and Senator Mack of Florida. They really worked hard this 
year to come up with a new authorizing framework for public housing. I 
believe that they did it. They worked on economic integration of public 
housing so it doesn't remain ZIP Codes of pathology. We have worked 
together in our legislation. We are taking their authorization and 
incorporating it here to make sure that there are new housing 
resources. In our bill there will be 50,000 new vouchers designed for 
welfare-to-work, to make sure that welfare is not a way of life but a 
tool to a better life, and that public housing is not a way of life but 
a tool to a better life. We have worked cooperatively with them, and we 
have worked long and hard on our bill to eliminate outmoded public 
housing rules that only hold people in place, and often have kept 
people in poverty.
  Also, this legislation will extend the life of HOPE VI. HOPE VI is a 
program that I helped develop that not only tried to eliminate the 
concentrations of poverty and bring down the old walls of public 
housing, but to create new hope and new opportunity. I am so pleased 
the authorizers have spent over 2 years looking at this to come up with 
a new framework.
  I know my own colleague, Senator Sarbanes, is trying to get here to 
speak on this bill. If he doesn't, I know he will speak later. We were 
both due at a breakfast meeting in Baltimore and he covered that so I 
could be here to move my bill. How I like working as a team. It is 
really a great pleasure to me to have my senior colleague, Paul 
Sarbanes, on the Budget Committee, as well as on the Housing and 
Banking where we have worked as a team to look at the day-to-day needs 
of people.
  He took this concept of what was happening in public housing and 
delved into it to come up with new ideas and a new framework. He had 
the support of Senator Mack, who I know has gone into public housing, 
talked with residents, listened to the best ideas of foundations and 
think tanks and also the needs of residents, as did my own senior 
colleague. I wish all of my colleagues could enjoy the relationship 
with their colleague within my State as I do. Senator Sarbanes and 
Senator Mack have come up with a new framework. They pushed us to the 
wall to come up with new funding. We had to forage for the funds, but 
we were able to do it. We truly hope this will create hope and 
opportunity.
  In addition to that, we are particularly appreciative of the 
conference report to maintain the funding for national service, which 
others had wanted to eliminate.
  We want to thank them for that because that is also another tool for 
creating hope and opportunity. So that is my perspective on the VA-HUD 
bill. Once again, working on a bipartisan basis, we show that we can 
meet the day-to-day needs of our American people, as well as the long-
range needs of the United States of America. I thank Senator Bond and 
his staff for, once again, the cooperative and bipartisan way that they 
have worked with my staff and myself. Senator Bond, I thank you for all 
of the courtesies, the collegiality, and the consultation in which we 
engaged on this bill. I thank you for really the professionalism of 
your staff, Jon Kamarck and Carrie Apostolou, who really helped me in 
many ways to come up with good ideas and worked with you for good 
solutions.
  I also thank my own staff, Andy Givens and David Bowers, and Bertha 
Lopez, a detailee from HUD who has been with us, who has worked hard to

[[Page S11837]]

make sure I could fill my responsibilities. I thank them for their hard 
work and effort.
  In closing, I also want to say that over on the House side, another 
member of VA-HUD is retiring. We pay our respects to Congressman Louis 
Stokes, who has also really helped move this bill forward.
  So, Mr. President, that is my perspective on the bill. In a few 
minutes, I know we will be moving toward a vote. I urge every single 
Senator on my side of the aisle to support this bipartisan effort to 
move the appropriations and really encourage all others with 
outstanding appropriations to act in the same bipartisan fashion that 
we have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Maryland in 
expressing our appreciation to the House authorizing committee. She 
mentioned Senator Sarbanes. I want to express my sincere appreciation 
to Senator Mack. They spent 4 years in ``legislative purgatory'' 
attempting to come up with a resolution of these very difficult and 
important issues.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the conference committee 
members, and in particular the chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Bond, and the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, 
Senator Mack. I appreciate their working with me to include two 
provisions in public housing reform language which I feel are 
important.
  We have worked together to include a provision to allow vouchers for 
crime victims. This would create an opportunity for individuals who are 
living in public housing units the chance to leave a bad situation if 
they are a victim of a crime.
  Public housing residents could receive a housing voucher if they were 
the victim of a crime of violence that has been reported to law 
enforcement.
  These individuals would be empowered with the choice of where they 
want to live and are given the freedom to determine what surroundings 
they desire. I strongly believe that people should have the option of 
vouchers when their housing is unsafe.
  We have also included what I hope will be a thorough study by the 
General Accounting Office of the full costs of each federal housing 
programs. I have been dismayed by the lack of data on the cost and 
benefits of public housing, section 8, and voucher programs. We need 
better data.
  Once we determine what these programs actually cost on a unit by unit 
basis we can better determine the best approach. I personally prefer 
vouchers, but I want a complete review of all these programs to help us 
determine the most cost effective means of providing government 
assisted housing as we enter the 21st century.
  Again, I would like to thank the chairmen and their staff for 
completing action on public housing reform legislation and look forward 
to working with them in the future.


   clarifying the statement of the managers accompanying the va-hud 
                           conference report

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to clarify a section in the 
statement of the managers accompanying the VA-HUD conference report. 
The language urges EPA not to spend any funds or require any parties to 
dredge contaminated sediments until completion of a National Academy of 
Sciences report on dredging technology. The report may take two years 
to complete. It is my understanding that the language is not intended 
to limit EPA's authority during the next two years with respect to 
dredging contaminated sediments that pose a substantial threat to 
public health or the environment where EPA has found that dredging is 
an appropriate response action.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The statement of the managers is 
not intended to limit the EPA's authority with respect to dredging 
contaminated sediments that pose a substantial threat to public health 
or the environment where EPA has found, consistent with its 
contaminated sediment management strategy, that dredging is an 
appropriate response action.


                    economic development initiatives

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to thank 
Chairman Bond for his inclusion of funding within the Economic 
Development Initiatives account for three important projects in 
Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that I 
requested.
  The conference report also includes $2 million for the City of 
Pittsburgh to redevelop the LTV site in Hazelwood, Pennsylvania. These 
funds can be used by the city to clean up and prepare the site for 
eventual reuse. One possibility being contemplated in the area is an 
effort to attract the Sun Oil Company to build a new coke facility 
which create hundreds of new jobs.
  I am pleased that we have been able to increase the level of funding 
in the bill from $750,000 to $1 million for the downtown revitalization 
project in Wilkes-Barre which is also a top priority for Mayor Tom 
McGroarty and Congressman Paul Kanjorski.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes $50,000 for a 
project in Central and South Philadelphia, which is plagued with an 
average annual family income of $7,600, a 45 percent unemployment rate, 
and a 50 percent high school drop-out rate. These funds are intended to 
provide initial resources for the development of a job training and 
business center to generate employment in this section of Philadelphia. 
The renewal project is spearheaded by Universal Community Homes, a not-
for-profit community development corporation which has a strong 
presence in the city, and which has received grants from the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development for housing and other initiatives 
which are geared toward improving the quality of life for low-income 
families. In January of this year, I had the opportunity to visit 
Universal Community Homes to tour their facilities. More importantly, I 
met with individuals who directly benefit from the programs and 
services delivered by Universal Community Homes. Members of the media 
and community leaders were also present to bring to my attention that 
the South Central Philadelphia sections of the city are in critical 
need of a job training and business center.
  I take this opportunity to clarify with Chairman Bond that it is the 
conferees' intent that Universal Community Homes is the appropriate 
applicant for the EDI grant for Central and South Philadelphia.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague for his comments and have appreciated 
his input on worthwhile projects in Pennsylvania. I agree with his 
understanding that the conferees intend that Universal Community Homes 
is the appropriate applicant for the funds provided for a job training 
and business center Central and South Philadelphia.


                       new england health system

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from 
Connecticut for the purpose of a colloquy with the Chairman and the 
Senator from Vermont. Is the Chairman aware of the financial 
constraints facing the veterans health system in New England's VISN 1?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, the Chair is aware of the financial constraints in New 
England.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, news accounts have indicated that New 
England's veteran health care system will suffer additional cuts 
despite recent efficiency and consolidation efforts. Veterans could 
find themselves cut off from health services throughout the region. Is 
the Chairman aware that without additional dollars administrators will 
have to cut deeply into valuable health care programs and basic 
administrative support services?
  Mr. BOND. I am well aware that the New England region has had to make 
significant reductions in health care costs, in part because of the VA 
funding formula.
  Mr. DODD. I know the Chairman knows that the veterans in VISN 1 live 
in a region that stretches from Connecticut to Maine. The budget for 
our region's medical care has dropped from $854 million in fiscal year 
1996 to $809 million in fiscal year 1998. I have been informed by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs that the New England region will endure 
yet another budget cut in fiscal year 1999. I hope that the 
Appropriations Committee will take note of the impact these reductions 
are having on facilities across New England.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as is the Chairman, I am a member of the 
VA/

[[Page S11838]]

HUD Subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. He 
knows my personal concern about the situation facing our veterans in 
New England. The Appropriations Committee added $278 million in this 
conference report for veterans medical care, a significant increase 
over the President's budget request. It was my understanding that a 
portion of this increase will go to New England. Am I correct in that 
assumption?
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Vermont is correct. All networks will 
receive some part of these additional funds, and these funds will help 
New England and all regions address some critical funding issues.
  Mr. LEAHY. I look forward to working with the Senator from Missouri 
on this issue in the coming year, and I thank him for his leadership on 
all issues affecting our nation's veterans.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. As did my colleague from Vermont, I thank my friend 
from Missouri for his consideration on this issue of profound 
importance to New England veterans.


                          notice of prepayment

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important 
provision of the FY1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill. Thanks to the hard 
work and grassroots efforts of tenants and housing advocates across the 
country, this VA/HUD bill includes a 5 month minimum requirement to 
notify tenants and communities of an owner's intent to repay his or her 
federally assisted mortgage.
  This provision helps tenants of Section 236 and Section 221(d)(3) 
housing as created by the National Housing Act for federally assisted, 
privately owned affordable housing. Under the Section 221 program, the 
federal government insures the mortgages on certain rental housing; 
under the Section 236 program, the federal government subsidizes the 
interest payments that owners of rental housing made on the mortgages. 
Both of these programs offer the security of a federal subsidy for 
building owners in return for their maintaining these buildings as 
affordable housing. Regulatory agreements signed between HUD and the 
building owners restrict the rents which could be charged on the units 
within the building so long as the mortgage is insured or subsidized by 
HUD. To be eligible, an owner signs a 40 year mortgage; however, the 
owner can prepay the mortgage or end the contract after 20 years and 
has the ability to remove that building from the pool of affordable 
housing.
  Twenty years have now passed, and the legislative housing initiatives 
of the 1980s have failed to curb the collapse of this once sturdy 
guarantee of affordable housing for low-income families and 
individuals. One major provision is that owners of a Section 236 
project simply need to give their tenants a 30-60 day notice that the 
property is under the prepayment process. All too often the prepayment 
of the mortgage by the owners results in a tremendous loss to the 
tenants of that project. Without the federally backed restriction on 
rents that can be charged, the prepayment of the mortgage opens the 
door to new owners who on average have increased the tenants monthly 
rent by 49%.
  This increase in rent forces low-income tenants out of their homes. 
This increase in rent forces these tenants to search for new housing, 
often in rental markets with exceptionally low vacancy rates. At the 
same time the supply of low-income housing takes a big hit, fewer and 
fewer units are available with each prepayment of Section 236 housing 
for the low-income families in desperate need of adequate housing.
  Mr. President, the Senate version of the VA/HUD bill included a 
provision to give tenants of Section 236 housing a fair notice--one 
full year--of the owner's intent to prepay the mortgage on the 
building. This critical one year notice was designed to accomplish two 
goals. First, it would have given the tenants a notice of the owner's 
prepayment intentions. For some tenants, especially those living in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area, finding housing has been 
extremely difficult. The vacancy rate is at 1.9%. It was simply 
unreasonably to expect those tenants to find alternative housing within 
only 30 days with such a low vacancy rate. In fact, it has been nearly 
impossible for low-income tenants and families to find adequate housing 
in such a short time in such a tight housing market. Secondly, the one 
year notice would have given a community the critical time necessary to 
begin to formulate options to keep that building available for those in 
need of affordable housing. I am pleased that the Senate is on record 
supporting the need for a fair notice to tenants.
  Unfortunately, the conference report does not include the full extent 
of my provision. The one-year notice period was reduced in the VA/HUD 
Conference Committee. It was reduced to not shorter than five months, 
but not longer than a nine months notice by owners. In addition, the 
provision now includes an enactment date effective 150 days after 
passage of the bill. Clearly, I am not enthusiastic about this revision 
to the notice requirement, but it is certainly an improvement over the 
current requirement of 30-60 days. As a result, the shorter time may 
only buy additional time for the families facing the increase in rent 
and their eventual move to alternative housing. I fear that the 5-9 
months will not accord non-profits and communities with the necessary 
time to purchase the building and maintain those units as affordable 
housing.
  However, this revised provision does put the right foot forward. Not 
only is it a public acknowledgment that Congress sees the prepayment of 
Section 236 and Section 231 housing as a potential crisis facing the 
market, it gives tenants and communities the framework to find 
affordable alternatives for low-income families. This is only the first 
step. To truly restore fairness to the housing situation, tenants 
should have a longer period of time--one year or longer advance notice. 
The Senate is on record in support of a one-year notice and the next 
Congress should move to increase the notice period again. I am proud of 
the work that has been done, but I believe we have to do more.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this important provision. While 
the revisions in the conference report may be the best possible 
solution to the crisis facing the tens of thousands of families dealing 
with the prepayment of their building, it does provide a necessary 
improvement to existing law.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski for 
their success in bringing this bill to the floor with such widespread 
support. Balancing the many competing needs in an appropriations bill 
is never an easy task, and Senators Bond and Mikulski and all of the 
other conferees should be proud of the work they have done.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and 
Community Development, I am particularly pleased with the 
appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for HUD is the agency's best in the 
past 10 years. Roughly $2 billion more has been appropriated for Fiscal 
Year 1999 than was made available in 1998. These gains would not have 
been possible without the tireless efforts of Secretary Cuomo, who 
delivered a strong and thoughtful budget request to the appropriators 
last January.
  The Fiscal Year 1999 HUD appropriations bill symbolizes a renewed 
commitment to meet our nation's severe housing shortages. Today, only 
about one out of every 4 households in need of housing assistance 
receives it. Of the roughly 12 million families that need housing 
assistance but do not receive it, almost half 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.
  The appropriations bill will help address this need by funding 50,000 
new section 8 vouchers, many of which will be targeted to people moving 
from welfare to work. 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 
overstated given the uncertainty of welfare reform.
  Furthermore, this bill changes current law so that housing 
authorities no longer have to hold off on reissuing vouchers and 
certificates for a period of three months upon turnover. Repealing this 
delay will provide section 8

[[Page S11839]]

vouchers to as many as 40,000 more low-income families each year. I 
commend the appropriators for recognizing the need for this resource, 
and implementing this important change.
  The conference report also reaffirms our nation's commitment to 
homeownership by expanding the FHA single family mortgage insurance 
program. We are currently seeing record levels of homeownership in this 
country, and HUD should take great pride in this accomplishment. But 
not all of those who qualify for homeownership are afforded an 
opportunity to purchase a home in the neighborhood of their choice. The 
Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations bill will help address this inequity by 
raising the FHA loan limits in both high cost urban areas and lower 
cost rural areas. These new loan limits will enable roughly 17,000 
additional families to become homeowners each year.
  The conferees are also to be commended for increasing the levels of 
funding for a number of important HUD programs. Funding for the CDBG 
program, the HOME program, the public Housing capital fund, the HOPE VI 
program, the homeless assistance fund, Fair Housing initiatives, HOPWA, 
Housing for Elderly and Disabled, and the Lead Hazard Abatement program 
have been significantly increased for Fiscal Year 1999. These funding 
levels, many of which are higher than the Administration's request, 
demonstrate the appropriators' commitment to supporting housing and 
economic development initiatives despite other competing needs 
contained in this appropriations bill.
  I am especially pleased that the appropriators have chosen to fund 
the Youthbuild program at $42.5 million for Fiscal Year 1999--$7.5 
million over what was enacted in 1998. Youthbuild, which I helped pass 
into law, 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, and many more-at-risk youth will be 
able to benefit in the future from the increased resources that have 
been devoted to this program.
  Mr. President, I would also like to express my support for the public 
housing reform act which was attached to the conference report. As 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community 
Development, I have worked closely with Senator Mack, Senator Sarbanes, 
Secretary Cuomo, Representative Kennedy and Representative Lazio to 
develop this compromise measure. I am very proud of the final product.
  The public housing reform act successfully achieves a delicate 
balance: it deregulates public housing authorities while simultaneously 
requiring them to better the lives of the residents they serve. For 
instance, the reform measure permanently repeals Federal preferences, 
which had the unintended consequence of concentrating poverty in public 
housing developments. The bill allows PHAs to develop their own 
preferences, including a preference for working families, but requires 
that at least 40 percent of all public housing units and 75 percent of 
all section 8 units that become available each year be provided to 
people making below 30 percent of area median income. These 
protections, which I fought very hard for on the Senate floor and which 
are better than current law, will benefit residents at all income 
levels by facilitating the creation of mixed income developments.

  The value of mixed income developments cannot be overstated. Working 
families stabilize communities by offering hope and opportunity in 
environments of despair. In recognition of this important principle, 
the reform bill will require housing authorities to develop plans for 
the economic desegregation of their distressed communities. Each PHA 
must develop their plan in consultation with its residents, and all 
plans will be submitted to HUD for approval. The economic desegregation 
plan was incorporated into the bill at the strong urging of Secretary 
Cuomo, and I am confident that HUD officials will be committed to 
making this provision work.
  The Reform Act eliminates many burdensome requirements for housing 
authorities. One-for-one replacement rules, which prevented PHAs from 
demolishing vacant public housing projects and building lower density 
developments, have been repealed. Total development costs have been 
revised to allow housing authorities to construct more viable 
communities. And PHAs will be permitted to use their Federal funds in a 
more flexible manner, including investment in mixed finance 
developments that attract private capital.
  But with this freedom comes a new responsibility: housing authorities 
must involve residents in the decisions that will affect their lives. 
The Reform Act will empower residents in important ways. They will sit 
on PHA boards, they will participate in the PHA planning process, and 
they will be offered greater opportunity to manage their own 
developments or solicit alternative management entities.
  Other provisions in the public housing reform act will benefit 
residents more directly. For instance, the bill includes a mandatory 
earned income disregard so that public housing residents who are 
unemployed, or who have been on welfare assistance, will not be charged 
any additional rent for a one year period after finding a job. The bill 
permits and encourages PHAs to establish escrow accounts for 
residents--accounts which residents can use to fund homeownership 
activities, moving expenses, education expenses, or other self 
sufficiency initiatives. The bill also retains the Tenant Opportunity 
Program as a separately funded grant program, and mandates that at 
least 25 percent of available funds under this program be distributed 
directly to qualified resident organizations.
  The public housing bill also makes a real commitment to expanding 
homeownership opportunities for low income Americans. PHAs will now be 
permitted to use a portion of their capital funds in support of 
homeownership activities for public housing residents, and families can 
now use their Section 8 vouchers to help cover the cost of mortgage 
payments.
  In short, the Public Housing Reform Act will go a long way towards 
improving the lives of the millions of Americans who are receiving 
Federal housing assistance. It is a nice complement to the funding 
increases contained in the rest of the VA-HUD bill--increases which 
will help many more Americans who are in dire need of housing 
assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to show their support for both 
of these important initiatives by voting in favor of the VA-HUD 
conference report.
  Mr. DOMENCI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference agreement on H.R. 4194, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 
1999.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $93.3 billion and new 
outlays of $54.0 billion to finance operations of the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies.
  I congratulate the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking 
member for producing a bill that not only is within the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation, but that also can be signed by the President. When 
outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $91.9 billion in BA and $102.1 billion in 
outlays. The total bill is exactly at the Senate subcommittee's 302(b) 
nondefense allocation for budget authority and is under the outlay 
allocation by $197 million. The bill is exactly at the defense 
allocation for both BA and outlays.
  I note that this appropriations bill does include significant 
authorizing legislation, including a major reauthorization of public 
housing programs, and that some of the provisions have a revenue impact 
which will go on the paygo scorecard.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a 
table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 4194.
  There being no objection, the data was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 H.R. 4194, VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS, 1999--SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   [Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Defense  Nondefense   Crime   Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority...........................................      131     69,914   .......    21,885     91,930

[[Page S11840]]

  Outlays....................................................      127     80,364   .......    21,570    102,061
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........................................      131     69,914   .......    21,885     91,930
  Outlays....................................................      127     80,561   .......    21,570    102,258
1998 Enacted:
  Budget authority...........................................      131     69,286   .......    21,332     90,749
  Outlays....................................................      139     80,250   .......    20,061    100,450
President's request:
  Budget authority...........................................      131     69,957   .......    21,885     91,973
  Outlays....................................................      127     81,000   .......    21,570    102,697
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........................................      130     70,899   .......    21,885     92,914
  Outlays....................................................      126     80,373   .......    21,570    102,069
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........................................      131     69,855   .......    21,885     91,871
  Outlays....................................................      127     80,653   .......    21,570    102,350
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  ........
  Outlays....................................................  .......       -197   .......  .........      -197
1998 Enacted:
  Budget authority...........................................  .......        628   .......       553      1,181
  Outlays....................................................      -12        114   .......     1,509      1,611
President's request:
  Budget authority...........................................  .......        -43   .......  .........       -43
  Outlays....................................................  .......       -636   .......  .........      -636
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........................................        1       -985   .......  .........      -984
  Outlays....................................................        1         -9   .......  .........        -8
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........................................  .......         59   .......  .........        59
  Outlays....................................................  .......       -289   .......  .........      -289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions. Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 10/07/98.

 Provisions in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator 
Sarbanes, to clarify various provisions in the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 and discuss the understandings reached among 
conferees regarding these provisions.
  Section 508 requires a disregard of earned income under some 
circumstances, including persons who obtain employment after one year 
of unemployment. The rules defining ``unemployment'' for this purpose 
should provide sufficient flexibility so that a family member who may 
have a brief, temporary period of employment during the preceding year 
would not be ineligible for the disregard. At the same time, the rules 
must not encourage households to change their employment patterns to 
take advantage of the disregard.
  Section 519 provides guidance for a new Operating Fund formula, 
including that agencies will ``benefit'' from increases in rental 
income due to increases in earned income by families in occupancy. The 
extent of this benefit will be determined in the negotiated rulemaking 
on the Operating Fund formula. More generally, the Operating Fund 
formula should not be skewed against or discourage mixing of incomes in 
public housing that is consistent with the bill's objectives. With 
respect to the Capital Fund formula, the possibility of having an 
incentive to encourage agencies to leverage other resources, including 
through mixed-finance transactions, should be considered during the 
negotiated rulemaking process.
  Section 520 amends the current definition of total development costs, 
but retains the current law directive in section 6(b)(2) of the United 
States Housing Act that these guidelines are to allow publicly bid 
construction of good and sound quality. In the past, HUD has not 
interpreted this reference in a way that allows for sufficiently 
durable construction, of a nature that will reduce maintenance and 
repair costs and will assure that public housing meets reasonable 
community standards. The Department should interpret this section as 
requiring the use of indices such as the R.S. Means cost index for 
construction of ``average'' quality and the Marshal & Swift cost index 
for construction of ``good'' quality.
  Where a family is relocated due to demolition or disposition, 
voluntary conversion of a development to tenant-based assistance or 
homeownership (sections 531, 533 and 536), the family must be offered 
comparable housing that is located in an area that is generally not 
less desirable than the location of the displaced resident's housing. 
For purposes of this provision, the phrase ``location of the displaced 
resident's housing'' may be construed to mean the public housing 
development from which the family was vacated, rather than a larger 
geographic area.
  Where a family is relocated due to demolition or disposition, 
voluntary or required conversion of public housing to tenant-based 
assistance or a homeownership program (sections 531, 533, 536 and 537), 
relocation may be to another public housing unit of the agency at a 
rental rate that is comparable to the rental rate applicable to the 
unit from which the family is vacated. However, this requirement does 
not mean that the rental rate always must be exactly the same. 
Specifically, if the agency has exercised its discretionary authority 
in the initial unit to charge less than thirty percent of adjusted 
income and that authority would be inapplicable to or inappropriate for 
the new unit, the comparable rent could be a rent that would apply if 
this discretionary authority had not been exercised (i.e., up to thirty 
percent of adjusted income).

  With respect to public housing demolition (section 531), the 
conference report does not include a provision from the Senate bill 
that would deem applications approved if HUD did not respond within 60 
days. However, HUD is urged to continue processing applications 
responsibly and expeditiously. In the same section, references to 
demolition or disposition of a ``project'' may be applied to portions 
of projects where only portions are undergoing demolition or 
disposition.
  In the provisions for voluntary or required conversion of public 
housing to vouchers (sections 533 and 537), residents of affected 
developments are to be provided notification that they can remain in 
their dwelling unit and use tenant-based assistance if the affected 
development or portion is to be used as housing. In many such 
instances, the development may be undergoing rehabilitation, 
reconfiguration or demolition and new construction. If so, the resident 
would be entitled to stay in the same development and use tenant-based 
assistance, but not necessarily the same dwelling unit.
  The bill provides for the possibility of transfer of housing from an 
agency to an eligible management entity due to the mismanagement of the 
agency (section 534). Such mismanagement may relate to a single housing 
development, rather than more widespread mismanagement.
  With respect to the definition of ``mixed-finance projects'' in 
section 539, the requirement that a project is financially assisted by 
private resources means that the private resources must be greater than 
a de minimis amount. In addition, in the same section, new Section 
35(h) of the 1937 Act applies only to a mixed-finance project that has 
a ``significant number'' of units other than public housing units. 
Therefore, this section would not apply to a mixed-finance project 
which had only a de minimis number of units other than public housing 
units.
  It is intended that wherever appropriate in programs authorized 
throughout the bill, reasonable accommodation be made for persons with 
disabilities. This would apply, for example, in homeownership programs 
authorized by section 536. With respect to the setting of voucher 
payment standards authorized by section 545, agencies are urged to make 
payment standard adjustments to facilitate reasonable availability of 
suitable and accessible units and assure full participation of persons 
with disabilities. Subject to the availability of funds, HUD also 
should allow administrative fee adjustments to cover any necessary 
additional expenses for serving persons with disabilities fully, such 
as additional counseling expenses.
  The provision allowing HUD to phase in the new Section 8 law, section 
559, provides HUD the flexibility to apply current law to assistance 
obligated before October 1, 1999. This language is intended to be 
construed so that HUD may continue for as long as necessary to apply 
current law to families now assisted by Section 8, to the extent the 
Secretary deems appropriate.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator for the clarification and concur 
with the Senator's understanding of the intent of these provisions.


                              section 226

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with my good friend Senator Bond in order to fully clarify a provision 
of the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I am pleased 
that the conferees have included language in Section 226 of the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rpt. 105-769) which would clarify 
that existing contractual arrangements between the New York City 
Housing Authority

[[Page S11841]]

(NYCHA) and HUD are maintained. Under current practice, NYCHA is 
expressly allowed, under prior formula agreement with HUD, to utilize 
its existing allocations of operating and modernization subsidies for 
the benefit of certain state and city developed public housing units. 
While the FY 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act will not allocate any 
additional funds for these local units, the Act does include a specific 
statutory protection for units which were assisted prior to October 1, 
1998. Thus, the current contractual relationship between NYCHA and HUD 
would be fully protected and maintained. I would ask the distinguished 
Chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee if my explanation is consistent 
with the intent of the conferees?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I concur with the statement by Senator 
D'Amato, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The conferees 
were mindful of the existing situation in New York City and have fully 
protected existing practice in the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference 
Report. No provision of the Act is intended in any way to interfere 
with or abrogate existing contracts for the use of assistance in New 
York City.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Chairman for his clarifying remarks and wish 
to express my thanks to the conferees for their consideration of the 
unique circumstances which exist in New York City.


        the quality housing and work responsibility act of 1998

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to support the Quality Housing and 
Work Responsibility Act of 1998. This public and assisted housing 
reform legislation is the result of four years of delicate crafting and 
compromise and has bipartisan Congressional support and the endorsement 
of Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Cuomo. I 
support its final passage today as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 4194).
  Mr. President, it is with great respect that I salute the 
distinguished Chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing 
Opportunity and Community Development, Senator Connie Mack. Senator 
Mack is owed a debt of gratitude for his great determination and 
commitment to an informed and reasoned approach to public housing 
reform. He consistently pursued a steadfast course toward a compromise 
which represents a positive change to the existing public housing 
system while protecting our residents whom the program serves. I 
commend him for his strong leadership and effective stewardship of this 
landmark legislation.
  I also commend Banking Committee Ranking Minority Member Paul 
Sarbanes, Housing Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member John Kerry, all 
Members of the Banking Committee and many interested Members of the 
Senate for their essential guidance and leadership on this issue. 
Chairman Kit Bond and Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski of the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Subcommittee deserve our appreciation for their 
willingness to allow this bipartisan legislation to be included in the 
Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. Our House colleagues, in 
particular Banking Subcommittee on Housing Chairman Rick Lazio, Banking 
Committee Chairman Jim Leach, Banking Committee Ranking Minority Member 
John LaFalce and Housing Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Joe 
Kennedy, all deserve thanks and appreciation. In addition, I commend 
and thank HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and his Administration for his 
able assistance and support of this bill. All deserve credit for their 
dedication to this consensus-building effort.
  Resident associations, public housing authorities, low-income housing 
advocates, non-profit organizations, state and local officials and 
other affected parties have shared their views and participated in this 
important political and policy process. I express my thanks to all for 
their significant involvement which has successfully yielded a 
balanced, fair, and comprehensive reform bill which will enhance and 
revitalize affordable housing throughout our nation.
  The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act recognizes that the 
vast majority of public housing is well-managed and provides over 1 
million American families, elderly and disabled with decent, safe and 
affordable housing. It also responds to the need for improvements to 
the public and assisted housing system. It will protect our residents 
by maintaining the Brooke amendment, which caps rents at 30% of a 
tenant's income, and establishing a ceiling rent voluntary option as an 
incentive for working families. In addition, the bill will ensure that 
housing assistance continues to be targeted to those most in need. 
Forty percent of all public housing units which become vacant in any 
year and seventy-five percent of re-issued Section 8 vouchers will be 
targeted to families with incomes below thirty percent of the local 
area median income. It will expand homeownership opportunities for low 
and moderate income families. The bill also will speed the demolition 
of distressed housing projects through the repeal of the one-for-one 
replacement requirement.
  The reforms contained in this Act will reduce the costs of public and 
assisted housing to the Federal Government by streamlining regulations, 
facilitating the formation of local partnerships, and leveraging 
additional state, local and private resources to improve the quality of 
the existing stock. These changes will help ensure that federal funds 
can be used more efficiently in order to serve additional families 
through the creation of mixed income communities.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment in more detail on a few of the 
many significant provisions in the bill. The legislation recognizes 
that every American deserves to live in a safe and secure community. To 
achieve that goal, a number of safety and security provisions have been 
included in the bill. Specifically, the Act will allow police officers 
to reside in public and assisted housing, regardless of their income. 
Also, the Act improves tenant screening and eviction procedures against 
persons engaged in violent or drug-related crimes or behavior which 
disrupts the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the 
premises of other tenants or public housing employees. In addition, the 
Act will serve to improve coordination between housing authorities, 
local law enforcement agencies and resident councils, particularly in 
developing and implementing anti-crime strategies.
  Further, at my request, the Act includes provision to ban child 
molesters and sexually violent predators from receiving federal housing 
assistance. To achieve this, local public housing agencies would be 
granted access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's national 
database on sexually violent offenders, as well as State databases. 
This improved records access provision is critical to ensuring that 
these offenders are properly screened out and prevented from 
endangering our children.
  Another critical safety and security measure will ensure that housing 
authorities have the well-defined power to ban absentee and negligent 
landlords from participation in the Section 8 voucher program. 
Currently, HUD's regulations only allow housing authorities to refuse 
to do business with absentee landlords on very narrow grounds. The 
legislation being passed today will clarify that housing authorities 
may cease to do business with landlords who refuse to take action 
against tenants who are engaged in criminal activity or who threaten 
the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of 
their neighbors.
  In addition, my proposals to protect the essential rights of current 
residents have been adopted in the Act and I commend the residents of 
my home State for bringing injustices to my attention so that I might 
act. First, the protection against eviction without good cause has been 
fully maintained in the Act. This is critical for the hundreds of 
thousands of senior, disabled and hardworking low-income New Yorkers 
who depend on public and assisted housing for shelter. Second, the 
residents' right to organize and assemble has been fully protected and 
extended to the project-based and Section 8 opt-out properties. It is 
imperative that residents have their First Amendment rights to free 
speech and assembly protected. Finally, the Act makes absolutely clear 
that no provision of the existing HUD regulation (24 CFR

[[Page S11842]]

964) governing resident councils is in any way abrogated by this Act. I 
am gratified that the Act protects the residents' right to organize and 
empower themselves to improve further their own communities.
  Without the tireless and steadfast efforts of our staff, this bill 
would not have become a reality. I would like to express my 
appreciation and thanks to the following Senate majority and minority 
Banking Committee and Housing Subcommittee staff: Chris Lord, Kari 
Davidson, Cheh Kim, Jonathan Miller, Matthew Josephs, and Army Randel. 
I would also like to commend the House Banking Committee and Housing 
Subcommittee staff for their fine work and spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. President, this landmark legislation will greatly improve the 
quality of life for our nation's families residing in public and 
assisted housing and will help to ensure the long-term viability of our 
nation's existing stock of affordable housing. I respectfully urge its 
immediate passage.


                         rent choice provision

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would ask my friend Senator Mack for a 
clarification of the provision included in the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 which will grant residents a voluntary 
option to choose a flat rent. Several clarifying provisions have been 
added to the legislation to protect residents and reduce the 
administrative burden of such a choice on housing authorities. First, 
residents will be protected from being coerced into making a choice of 
rents which is adverse to their interest. Second, in the case of a 
financial hardship, residents are granted the right to an immediate 
change to the Brooke Amendment rent, which caps rent at no greater than 
thirty percent of income.
  Mr. President, the Act also specifically provides that no additional 
administrative burden be placed on housing authorities that already 
administer flat rent or ceiling rent systems. If an agency's present 
system allows the family the opportunity to annually request a change 
from an income-based system to a flat or ceiling rent system, or vice-
versa, the fact that rent is initially determined by an existing 
computer system which automatically selects the lower rent should not 
be considered contrary to the requirements of the Act. I would ask 
Senator Mack if these statements accurately describe the provisions of 
the Act?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I fully concur with the statements of my 
friend, Senator D'Amato. His statements are fully consistent with my 
understanding of the legislation.


                  section 8 tenant-based renewal terms

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Mack his view 
of the provisions of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 
1998 that relate to the renewal of expiring tenant-based Section 8 
contracts. I am greatly heartened by the inclusion of specific terms 
for the renewal of expiring Section 8 tenant-based contracts. The 
renewal terms included in the Act will ensure that housing authorities 
continue to receive full funding to maintain effective Section 8 
assisted housing programs. The Act's renewal provision will address a 
number of problems which have arisen--including a very serious 
potential threat to affordable housing in my home State of New York--as 
a result of HUD's attempt to revise its method of funding renewals.
  Under the renewal terms of Section 556 of the Act, housing 
authorities will be ensured that they receive full funding to maintain 
their current obligations and continue to re-issue turnover vouchers, 
without any attrition or loss of assistance. Housing authorities in New 
York will be able to continue to assist thousands of new families each 
year--particularly the homeless and victims of domestic violence. 
Without the changes included in this legislation, the New York City 
Housing Authority alone could have suffered a loss of over 7,000 
vouchers over the next few years. This potential catastrophe has been 
averted.
  To be more specific, Section 556 establishes a baseline for 
maintaining current Section 8 obligations. This baseline is to be 
calculated by taking into account the number of families which were 
actually under lease as of October 1, 1997 plus any incremental units 
or additional units authorized by HUD after that date. It is the 
explicit intent of the authors of this legislation that the units 
approved by HUD pursuant to its April 1, 1998 Notice shall be included 
in the definition of ``additional families authorized.'' Finally, HUD 
shall apply an inflation factor to the baseline which takes into 
account local factors such as actual increases in local market rents.
  I would ask Senator Mack, if these statements are consistent with his 
views of the legislation?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, Senator D'Amato's comments are absolutely 
accurate. Section 556 of the Act was added in response to a vociferous 
outcry among housing authorities and low-income advocates who feared 
that HUD's administrative actions during Fiscal Year 1998 could have 
inadvertently led to a decline in housing assistance under the Section 
8 program. The renewal terms included in the Act are intended to avoid 
such a result and will ensure that full funding for the program is 
maintained. I appreciate the Chairman's work to ensure that this 
provision will not have adverse budgetary implications.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator for his clarifying remarks and 
commend him for the excellent work that went into the legislation.


                  drug elimination program amendments

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with the respected Chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on 
Housing Opportunity and Community Development, Senator Connie Mack and 
the full Committee Ranking Member, Senator Paul Sarbanes. One of the 
most significant provisions addressed by the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 is the amendment of the Public and Assisted 
Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990.
  Mr. President, the Drug Elimination Program is critical to the fight 
against drugs and serious, violent crime in our Federal housing 
developments. The residents of this housing have a right to a safe and 
peaceful environment. The Federal Government bears a unique and 
overriding responsibility to ensure that residents feel secure in their 
homes, can walk to the store or send their children to school without 
fear for their physical well-being. I am especially appreciative of the 
inclusion of a funding mechanism which will ensure the continued 
direction of assistance to housing authorities with significant needs. 
In my home State, the Drug Elimination Program plays a critical role in 
communities from Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Albany to Brooklyn, 
the Bronx and Long Island. The provisions of the Act will ensure that 
existing programs are placed on a solid financial foundation--without 
precluding assistance to new programs which meet urgent or serious 
crime problems.
  I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee 
for his views on the legislation?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I welcome the comments of my friend, Senator 
D'Amato. Indeed, the amendments to the Public and Assisted Housing Drug 
Elimination Act of 1990 which we have included in the Act represent a 
significant improvement in the program. The amendments will provide 
renewable grants for agencies that meet performance standards 
established by HUD. In addition, housing authorities with urgent or 
serious crime needs are protected and will be assured an equitable 
amount of funding.
  Mr. President, the intent of these provisions is to provide more 
certain funding for agencies with clear needs for funds and to assure 
that both current funding recipients and other agencies with urgent or 
serious crime problems are appropriately assisted by the program. The 
provisions will also reduce the administrative costs of the current 
application process which entails a substantial paperwork burden for 
agencies and HUD. Under the terms of the amendments, HUD can establish 
a fixed funding mechanism in which the relative needs of housing 
authorities are addressed with a greater amount of certainty.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I concur with my colleagues. Drug 
Elimination Grant funds have proven to be an extremely effective tool 
in fighting drugs and crime in public housing. This provision will 
enable housing authorities with significant needs to implement long-
term strategies to continue this important fight. I

[[Page S11843]]

appreciate the work of the Chairman on this important issue.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for their 
clarifying remarks.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, I find myself in the 
unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable 
levels of parochial projects in the VA/HUD appropriations bill. 
Although the level of add-ons in some portions of this conference are 
down, this bill still contains approximately $865 million in wasteful 
pork barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of low priority, 
unrequested, wasteful spending.
  The level of add-ons in the Veterans Affairs section of this 
conference report is down. The total value of specific earmarks in the 
Veterans Affairs section of this conference report is about $116 
million.
  Let me just review some examples of items included in the bill. The 
bill directs $1 million for the VA's first-year costs to the Alaska 
Federal Health Care Partnership's proposal to develop an Alaska-wide 
telemedicine network to provide access to health services and health 
education information at VA, IHS, DOD and Coast Guard clinic facilities 
and linking remote installations and villages with tertiary health 
facilities in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
  An especially troublesome expense, neither budgeted for nor requested 
by the Administration for the past seven years, is a provision that 
directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue the seven-year-
old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia VAMC 
and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Last year, 
the appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million to the 
Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto 
list and that the Administration had concluded was truly wasteful.
  The VA provides first-rate research in many areas such as 
prosthetics. However, some of my colleagues still prefer to direct the 
VA to ignore their priority research programs and instead provide 
critical veterans health care dollars for parochial or special interest 
projects. For example, this bill earmarks $3 million for the Center of 
Excellence at the Truman Memorial VA Medical Center in Missouri for 
studies on hypertension, surfactants, and lupus erythematosus, and 
provides $6 million in the medical and prosthetic research 
appropriation for Musculoskeletal Disease research in Long Beach, 
California. It is difficult to argue against worthy research projects 
such as these, but they are not a priority for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  Like transportation and military construction bills, the VA 
appropriations funding bill is no exception for construction project 
additions to the President's budget request. For example, the bill adds 
$7.5 million in funding for the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in 
Missouri for gravesite development which will provide 13,200 grave 
sites for full casket interments. Although this is a worthy cause, I 
wonder how many other national cemetery projects in other States were 
leapfrogged to ensure that Missouri's cemetery received in the VA's 
highest priority.
  In the area of critical VA, medical facility funding, again, certain 
projects in key members' states received priority billing, including 
$20.8 million add for the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center 
ambulatory care renovation project in Ohio, a $9.5 million add for the 
Lebanon, Pennsylvania VAMC for nursing unit renovations, including 
providing patients with increased privacy, a $25.2 million add for 
construction of an ambulatory care addition at the Tucson VA Medical 
Center in Arizona, and provides $125,000 for renovation of the Pershing 
Hall building in Paris, France for memorial and private purposes.
  Mr. President, we are charged with the important responsibility of 
dedicating funding toward the highest priorities to safeguard our 
environment. Yet, I am troubled that this conference report is loaded 
with directed earmarks toward specific projects without adequate 
explanation of why these projects are higher in priority than national 
environmental problems and needs.
  I continue to hear about the number of Superfund sites that are in 
critical need of remediation actions or leaking background storage 
tanks that continue to endanger lives. Yet, the picture that I am 
putting together from this report is a prioritization of member 
interest projects. EPA's overall budget contains approximately 
$484,325,000 in earmarks that are directed to specific states and to 
national organizations.
  Rather than dedicating funding toward our most pressing environmental 
concerns, the priorities of the conferees are earmarking spending of 
$125,000 for the establishment of a regional environmental finance 
center in Kentucky and $225,000 for a demonstration project in Maryland 
to determine the feasibility of using poultry litter as a fuel to 
general electric power.
  I commend the efforts of my colleagues who worked tirelessly to 
rectify differences between the two chambers and present us with this 
conference report. Each of them have worked diligently to ensure that 
important housing programs and initiatives are adequately funded in a 
fair and objective manner.
  Contained in this bill is funding for many programs vital in meeting 
the housing needs of our nation and for the revitalization and 
development of our communities. Many of the programs administered by 
HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, assists low-income 
families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the 
housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our 
nation's most vulernable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have 
access to safe and affordable housing.
  In July, I came to the Senate floor and highlighted the numerous 
earmarks and set asides contained in the Senate version of this bill. 
At that time, the egregious violations of the appropriate budgetary 
process in the HUD section amounted to $270.25 million dollars.
  Unfortunately, I find myself coming to the floor today to again 
highlight the numerous earmarks and budgetary violations which remain 
in the conference report of this bill. In the HUD section alone there 
is $265.1 million in set asides or earmarks. While this amount is 
slightly lower than when the Senate first considered this bill it is 
still too great a burden for the American taxpayers.
  The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long 
but I will highlight a few of the more egregious violations. There is 
$1.25 million set aside for the City of Charlotte, NC to conduct 
economic development in the Wilkinson Boulevard corridor, $1 million 
for the Audubon Institute Living Sciences Museum in New Orleans and $2 
million for the Hawaii Housing Authority to construct a community 
resource center at Kuhio Homes/Kuhio Park Terrace in Honolulu, Hawaii.
  It is difficult to believe many credible and viable community 
development proposals may be excluded from access to federal housing 
funds because such a large amount of funds have been unfairly set aside 
for specific projects fortunate enough to have advocates on the 
appropriating committee.
  Finally, I would like to comment on the public housing reform bill 
which is now included in this funding bill. In the limited period of 
time I was afforded to examine this provision, I have learned that it 
includes several initiatives intended to enhance the quality of life 
for many individuals while promoting self sufficiency and personal 
responsibility in our communities.
  While I applaud these goals and will not object to this bill based on 
the inclusion of this section I am gravely concerned about the process 
used to pass this reform bill. It concerns me that this complex measure 
was inserted at the last moment during conference which precluded the 
Senate from having sufficient time to thoroughly examine its contents 
and fully evaluate its objectives. This is a very serious matter which 
directly impacts the lives of thousands of American families and our 
local communities.
  Certainly, this issue deserves thoughtful deliberation and careful 
review through the established legislative process and should not be 
attached at the last moment to a funding conference report. This is not 
the manner in which we should be implementing meaningful reform 
intended to benefit the citizens of our nation.
  Mr. President, I have touched on only the tip if the iceberg. There 
is more I

[[Page S11844]]

could point to, were time available. I continue to look forward to the 
day when my trips to the floor to highlight member interest spending 
are no longer necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 7 minutes 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 7 minutes 30 seconds to the Senator from Florida. I 
will ask my colleague, if there is additional time remaining, if he 
might have 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to work with the Senator. I would like 
to bring to my colleague's attention that Senator Sarbanes might be 
parachuting in, as well, to comment on the public housing initiatives. 
If he lands, I want to be able to accommodate him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for the 
remaining time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
conference report. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Bond, and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski for bringing to 
the floor a well-balanced bill.
  I am extremely pleased that this bill contains a comprehensive reform 
of the nation's system of public and assisted housing. We began this 
process of reforming public housing more than three years ago. 
Negotiating this legislation was a long, difficult and sometimes 
painful process. But the end result is a carefully crafted, bipartisan 
compromise that reflects input from the Senate, the House, and the 
administration. I believe it is a good bill. I appreciate the 
indulgence of Chairman Bond in permitting the authorizing committee to 
utilize the appropriations process as the vehicle to enact these 
important reforms, and I appreciate his long-standing support of public 
housing reform. In the end, it was the willingness of the 
Appropriations Committee to increase the level of incremental section 8 
assistance that removed the last hurdle to this agreement.
  I want to express special thanks to Senator Paul Sarbanes for his 
critical role in the development of this legislation and in the recent 
negotiations. I am convinced that this agreement would not have been 
possible without the leadership and support of the Senator from 
Maryland, and I can't thank him enough. I also want to thank the 
chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, for his 
steady support and guidance over the past 3 years, and also the ranking 
member of the Housing Subcommittee, Senator Kerry, who has made major 
contributions to this legislation. This has truly been a bipartisan 
effort throughout.
  There are so many people that have played a role in this. Obviously, 
the Secretary of HUD, Secretary Cuomo, and I spent many hours and many, 
many phone calls trying to work through this and working also with 
Congressman Lazio, who made a special effort to try to find a way to 
bring this to a conclusion, and also the work of Congressman Lewis, the 
chairman of the subcommittee on the House side. So, again, this has 
truly been a bipartisan effort. I thank all of those who were involved.
  Since my appointment to the Banking Committee almost 10 years ago, I 
have visited public housing developments throughout Florida and in 
cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Jersey City. I have seen public 
housing that is well run and I have seen public housing that 
concentrates the very poorest of the poor in developments that are 
havens for crime and drug abuse and islands of welfare dependency.
  On a personal note, I want to say to my colleagues that while I have 
been working on this specific legislation now for 4 years, I have been 
involved in public housing issues now for 10 years, since I have been 
on the Banking Committee. There are two particular thoughts that come 
to my mind, two visits that I made.
  I spoke with individuals that lived in public housing, and that 
significantly affected me. I am pleased to say it has had a major role 
in this legislation that we developed. One person was an individual 
from Liberty City in Miami, who, frankly, grew up in public housing in 
Liberty City and saw how public housing has changed since the late 
1930s. She--and I have used this term --``screamed'' at me as she was 
explaining to me the problems she was dealing with and how she used to 
have a decent place to live and how it had been destroyed over the 
years. Her message was heard.
  I also think of a little 4, 5, or 6-year-old boy in Melbourne, FL. 
When we walked out of an apartment that was totally destroyed, as we 
walked down between these three-story buildings and saw the boarding up 
of windows and doors hanging by their hinges, this little fellow was 
walking down between the buildings. I thought to myself, what kind of 
future can this little fellow possibly dream of if the only environment 
in which he was going to live was the public housing like we saw. I 
wanted to share that with my colleagues.
  The time is long overdue for us to eliminate the disincentives to 
work and economic self-sufficiency that trap people in poverty, and to 
ease the complex, top-down bureaucratic rules and regulations that 
aggravate the problems and prevent housing authorities from operating 
effectively and efficiently. It is time to begin the process of 
deconcentrating the poor, create mixed-income communities with role 
models and establish a foundation for building communities of hope 
instead of despair.
  Let me make clear that this is only the beginning. The effect of 
these reforms won't be felt overnight. We are creating a framework for 
meaningful and beneficial change in our public and assisted housing 
system. But our ultimate success will depend on the ongoing cooperation 
and commitment of Congress, HUD, housing authorities, residents, and 
local communities.
  The reforms contained in this legislation will significantly improve 
the nation's public housing and tenant-based rental assistance program 
and the lives of those who reside in federally assisted housing. The 
funding flexibility, substantial deregulation of the day-to-day 
operations and policies of public housing authorities, encouragement of 
mixed-finance developments, policies to deal with distressed and 
troubled public housing, and rent reforms will change the face of 
public housing for PHAs, residents, and local communities.
  This bill empowers residents and promotes self-sufficiency and 
personal responsibility. It institutes permanent rent reforms to remove 
disincentives for residents to work, seek higher paying jobs and 
maintain family unity. Further, it expands homeownership opportunities 
for residents of both public and assisted housing.
  It improves the living environment for public housing residents by 
expanding opportunities for working poor families and providing 
flexibility for housing authorities to leverage private resources and 
develop mixed-income, mixed finance communities.
  It refocuses the responsibility for managing public housing back to 
the public housing authorities, residents and communities, it 
eliminates counterproductive rules and regulations, and frees public 
housing communities to seek innovative ways to serve residents.
  The bill requires tough, swift action against PHA with severe 
management deficiencies and provides HUD or court-appointed receivers 
with the necessary tools and powers to deal with troubled agencies and 
to protect public housing residents.
  It enhances safety and security in public housing by enhancing the 
ability of public housing authorities to screen out and evict criminals 
and drug abusers who pose a threat to their communities.
  Finally, the bill enhances resident choice. It merges the section 8 
voucher and certificate programs into a single, choice-based program 
designed to operate more effectively in the private marketplace. It 
repeals requirements that are administratively burdensome to landlords, 
such as ``take-one, take-all,'' endless lease and 90-day termination 
notice requirements. These reforms will make participation in the 
section 8 tenant-based program more attractive to private landlords and 
increase housing choices for lower income families.
  To get to this stage, we have had to work through some very difficult 
and contentious issues. All sides have been willing to make concessions 
in the interest of compromise. I will mention only one of those 
issues--income targeting.

[[Page S11845]]

  At a time when housing resources are scarce, a strong argument can be 
made that the bulk of housing assistance should be made available for 
the very poor. At the same time, there is a concern that excessive 
concentrations of the very poor in public housing developments have 
negatively affected the liveability of those developments.
  The final income targeting numbers of public housing and project-
based and tenant-based section 8 represent a fair compromise that will 
encourage mixed income communities in public housing, and ensure that 
tenant-based assistance remains an important tool for housing choice 
for very low-income families.
  Mr. President, this public housing reform bill is the first 
comprehensive housing reform measure to pass Congress in almost six 
years. It is a good, bipartisan package that represents the most 
significant reform of public and assisted housing in decades. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this conference report and I urge the President to 
sign the bill.
  Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes was not here when I mentioned earlier 
how much I appreciate his working with us, working with me, in trying 
to find ways to keep the process moving as we would hit roadblock after 
roadblock after roadblock. I want to extend to him publicly my 
appreciation for his work; also, again, to Senator Mikulski, and to 
Senator Bond. We know that we added to their difficulties. We greatly 
appreciate what they were able to accomplish with us.
  Lastly, I want to mention some members of the staff. Jonathan Miller, 
and Matt Josephs of the minority staff, again, just went out of their 
way to help us accomplish this. David Hardiman and Melody Fennel--I 
thank them as well.
  Chris Lord, Kari Davidson, and Cheh Kim of my staff did an 
outstanding job and worked endless hours to accomplish this, at moments 
of maybe thinking that we weren't going to make it but held in there to 
get the job done. I thank them.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 43 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield such time as he may use to Senator Sarbanes, 
and I very much appreciate his excellent work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  First, although I am going to speak a little more later about our 
involvement in this process, I thank Senator Mack for his very generous 
and gracious comments, and I want to say that this bill would never 
have happened but for his very fine leadership. I am extremely indebted 
to him for the very positive and instructive and understanding way he 
moved this process forward. It has been a long and difficult process, 
but I am very pleased that we have arrived at this day.
  First, let me express my very strong support for this bill. I want to 
commend Senator Mikulski and the chairman, Senator Bond, for their very 
excellent work with respect to the matters before the Appropriations 
Subcommittee. In particular, I want to applaud them for the excellent 
bill they have written with regard to the funding for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
  The President submitted a strong budget. And I am happy to see that 
the bill now before us responds to many of those requests.
  The bill represents a well-rounded approach to housing and economic 
development. It provides for 50,000 new vouchers targeted to helping 
people move from welfare to work by eliminating the current 90-day wait 
on reissuing vouchers upon turnover. The bill effectively adds another 
40,000 vouchers.
  It provides $500 million in additional capital funds for public 
housing modernization to help maintain this important affordable 
housing resource. And the bill includes a total of $625 million for 
HOPE VI, the very innovative program that was created by my very able 
colleague, Senator Mikulski, which is focused on tearing down the 
worst, most isolated public housing projects and replacing them with 
mixed-income housing. Senator Mikulski has been an absolute champion of 
trying to rescue this situation which plagues many of our very large 
housing projects. I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership that 
she has provided in this area. Working together with Senator Bond, they 
have fashioned I think a first-rate piece of legislation. I am very 
pleased to support it.
  Let me say, since she is my very able colleague, what a pleasure it 
has been working with her. I sit on the authorizing committee. Of 
course, she is on the appropriating committee. Over the years we have 
been able to work together I think in a partnership not only for our 
State but for the country.
  Mr. President, the primary reason I come to the floor today is to 
call the Senate's attention to the fact that an important piece of 
legislation reforming the Nation's Public Housing Program is attached 
to this appropriations conference report. This is a tremendous step 
forward. This public housing legislation I think represents a fine 
piece of legislative craftsmanship. It reflects a bipartisan approach 
to reform of our public and assisted housing.
  We have been working at this problem, Senator Mack has been working 
at this problem for 4 years, at least. The success of this effort 
reflecting what is before us, is, to a very significant extent, the 
result of the fine leadership provided by Senator Mack as Chairman of 
the Housing Subcommittee of the authorizing committee; the work of 
Senator Kerry, the ranking member of that subcommittee, interacting 
with our House colleagues, and with Secretary Cuomo, who has been a 
tireless advocate for housing and economic development programs.
  Senator Mack has taken a keen interest in the area of public housing 
since he took over the housing subcommittee in 1995. He has personally 
visited public housing projects and has spoken to administrators and 
residents. The commitment of his own time and concern I think is a 
model of how people responsible for certain programs need to understand 
the program, oversee the program, and then formulate the changes which 
will make the program work better.
  Senator Mack has been a strongly positive and constructive force 
throughout the long and often difficult process we have followed to get 
this positive resolution. I am pleased to express publicly my very deep 
respect and appreciation for his efforts.
  Mr. President, this public housing bill embodies an important 
bargain. We provide public housing authorities with increased 
flexibility to develop local situations to address housing needs in 
their communities but, in turn, they are required to use that 
flexibility to better serve their residents by creating healthier, more 
economically integrated communities.
  The PHAs will get more flexibility in how to use operating and 
capital funds. It encourages them to seek new sources of private 
capital to both build new housing and to repair existing units. It 
provides more flexibility in the calculation of public housing 
development costs and encourages the construction of higher quality 
housing.
  Finally, the law gives PHAs increased flexibility to admit higher 
income families while guaranteeing that the poor, including the working 
poor, continue to have access to 40 percent of the public housing units 
made available each year.
  This new increased flexibility is not an end in itself. The purpose 
is to provide higher quality housing in an overall improved living 
environment to the families who live in public housing. We want the 
Public Housing Program and the Rental Voucher Program, which the 
appropriators have generously supported in this legislation, to be 
stepping stones to better lives, to provide access to better schools 
and more economic opportunities.
  There is now a growing consensus that we need to have a mix of 
families with different levels of income in public housing. Such a 
policy will strengthen public housing projects and make them more 
livable communities. To ensure this outcome, the legislation requires 
the public housing authorities to demonstrate how they will attempt to 
create these more economically integrated communities. The Secretary

[[Page S11846]]

is required to review these plans and to ensure that housing 
authorities pursue them.
  The bill also creates new rent rules that encourage existing tenants 
to go to work. There is a mandatory earned income disregard so that 
tenants who start working will reap the benefit of that effort at least 
for a year before additional payments are phased in. As a result of the 
special efforts of Senator Kerry, the bill deepens the targeting above 
the levels contained in both House and Senate bills for section 8 
vouchers, requiring 75 percent of vouchers to go to lower-income 
families.
  The bill gives tenants an important role in working with housing 
authorities to determine housing policies. Residents will sit on 
boards, and the resident advisory boards I think will be very helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. May I have 30 seconds, if the chairman has any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland have an additional minute. I ask 
for an additional 3 minutes on this side to afford 2 minutes to my 
colleague from Ohio and a minute for myself to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman.
  Finally, the bill helps encourage home ownership in two ways. First, 
as a result of an amendment offered by Senator Dodd, our able colleague 
from Connecticut, public housing authorities will be able to devote 
part of their public housing capital funds to home ownership 
activities. In addition, section 8 assistance will be able to be used 
to support home ownership.
  Mr. President, I close again by thanking Senator Bond and Senator 
Mikulski for their very effective efforts. We are deeply appreciative 
of their cooperation. I again voice my respect for the tremendous 
leadership which Senator Mack provided in enabling us to achieve public 
housing reform which we have been striving to achieve for a number of 
years and to do it in a way that commands a consensus. The process we 
followed in working this out I really commend to all my colleagues. I 
think it is an example of how really to craft legislation and in the 
end achieve a very positive and constructive result.
  Finally, I want to recognize and thank the staff for their hard work 
and dedication. Jonathan Miller and Matt Josephs on the Democratic 
side, Chris Lord, Kari Davidson, Cheh Kim, David Hardiman, and Melody 
Fennel from the Majority side, worked extremely well together to help 
us bring this finished product to the floor today.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this 
important piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important provisions in 
this bill--provisions that honor two distinguished Ohioans who are 
retiring from public service this year--Lou Stokes and John Glenn.
  Mr. President, the bill before us would name the Veterans 
Administration Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, the Louis Stokes VA 
Medical Center. That is a fitting tribute for a number of reasons.
  First, Lou Stokes is a veteran, serving our country in the U.S. Army 
during the Second World War.
  Second, as ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Veterans' Affairs, Lou Stokes has demonstrated that he is a true 
champion on behalf of his fellow veterans.
  Third, Lou Stokes in recent years has dedicated his attention to 
improving the quality of care at the facility that will bear his name. 
He has been working tirelessly with me to provide funds to improve this 
facility for our veterans in northeast Ohio. This bill in fact contains 
$20.8 million to improve the ambulatory care unit at the Stokes Medical 
Center. This is the latest of a lifetime of examples of how Lou Stokes 
has made a difference--a difference for veterans and for all his 
constituents.
  I also am pleased and proud that the bill before us contains a 
provision that, in my view, represents the deepest feelings of the 
people of Ohio regarding our senior Senator John Glenn.
  Mr. President, it would be fair to say that the imagination of Ohio, 
and indeed of all America, has been captured by Senator Glenn's 
impending space voyage. It is an inspiring odyssey. It is exiciting--it 
reminds us of the spirit of American possibility we all thrilled to 
when John Glenn made his first orbit back in 1962.
  Senator Glenn's return to space as a member of the crew of the space 
shuttle Discovery marks the culmination of an incredible public career.
  This is man who flew 149 heroic combat missions as a Marine pilot in 
World War II and the Korean war--facing death from enemy fighters and 
antiaircraft fire.
  And none of us who were alive back in 1962 can forget his historic 
space flight. I was in Mr. Ed Wingard's science class, at Yellow 
Springs High School in Yellow Springs, Ohio--we were glued to the TV. 
Our hearts, and the hearts of all Americans, were with him that day.
  John Glenn reassured us all that America didn't just have a place in 
space. At the height of the cold war, he reassured us that we have a 
place--in the future.
  And that, Mr. President, brings me to the purpose of the legislation 
I am introducing. Even as we speak, in Cleveland, Ohio, there are some 
hardworking men and women of science who are keeping America strong, 
who are keeping us on the frontier of the human adventure. They are the 
brilliant, persevering, and dedicated workers of the NASA-Lewis Space 
Research Center.

  People who understand aviation know how crucially important the 
cutting-edge work of the NASA-Lewis scientists is, for America's 
economic and technological future.
  Mr. President, what more fitting tribute could there be to our 
distinguished colleague, Senator Glenn, than to rename this facility--
in his honor?
  That, Mr. President, is the purpose of this legislation. It 
recognizes not just a man's physical accomplishments--but his spirit. 
It inspired us in 1962. It inspires us this year. And it will remain 
strong in the work of all those who expand America's frontiers.
  The facility would be renamed the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field--to honor 
our distinguished colleague, and also the aviation pioneer for whom it 
is currently named. George Lewis became Director of Aeronautical 
Research at the precursor to NASA in 1919. It was then called the 
National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, or NACA.
  Lewis visited Germany prior to World War II. When he saw their 
commitment to aeronautic research, he championed American investment in 
aeronautic improvements--and created the center which eventually bore 
his name.
  He and John Glenn are pioneers on the same American odyssey. Ohio 
looks to both of them with pride--and with immense gratitude for their 
leadership.
  And I am proud, today, that we were able to include this in the bill. 
I thank my colleagues for that, and I also want to thank our good 
friend, Louis Stokes, who has been instrumental in shepherding this 
measure honoring Senator Glenn in the other body.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio.
  I, too, join with him in expressing appreciation for the services of 
our colleague, Senator Glenn, and our colleague on the House side, 
Congressman Stokes. I believe it is very important that we recognize 
them in this bill. I thank him for his comments.
  Again, my sincerest thanks to Senator Mikulski, to Andy Givens, David 
Bowers, and Bertha Lopez on their side. On my side, this is a very 
difficult bill, and I could not have done it without the leadership of 
Jon Kamarck and the dedicated efforts of Carrie Apostolou and Lashawnda 
Leftwich.
  We have the statement by the chairman of the Budget Committee saying 
this bill is within the budget guidelines.

[[Page S11847]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this measure because I believe, while 
it has many compromises in it, they are reasonable compromises. I am 
most hopeful that we can have a resounding vote and see this measure 
signed into law.
  I thank the Chair and staff for their courtesies, and I urge a yes 
vote on the conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this conference report.
  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 VA-HUD 
conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 307 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

      
     Kyl
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Glenn
     Helms
     Hollings
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________