[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.
____________________