[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 126 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11379-S11398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2684, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Wellstone amendment No. 1789, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that lung cancer, colon cancer, and brain and central 
     nervous system cancer should be presumed to be service-
     connected disabilities as radiogenic diseases.

                           Amendment No. 1789

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate prior to the vote on amendment No. 1789.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is to express the sense 
of the Senate--that is all we are doing--that lung cancer, colon 
cancer, and brain and central nervous system cancer should be presumed 
to be service-connected disabilities as radiogenic diseases.
  Colleagues, I am talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, atomic 
veterans who were in Nevada and Utah. They went to ground zero. Our 
government never told them they were in harm's way, never gave them any 
protective gear. It is just unbelievable, the incidents of cancer, and 
all I am saying is that we just right an injustice. We should make sure 
they get the health care they deserve; they should get the compensation 
they deserve. We do this presumption for Agent Orange and Vietnam vets. 
We should. We do it for

[[Page S11380]]

Persian Gulf veterans. We should. We ought to do it for these atomic 
veterans. They have been waiting a half century. I understand the 
Department of Veterans Affairs is opposed to the Senate going on record 
with a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Let me just say that Ken Kizer, former Under Secretary of Health for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, wrote that this is a mistake and 
that given our position on gulf war veterans and Agent Orange veterans, 
it is a matter of equity and fairness.
  Please vote for this, colleagues. It is absolutely the right thing to 
do. These veterans have been waiting for justice for a half century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota has been a 
devoted advocate for veterans who have been exposed to atomic 
radiation. I commend him for his advocacy. He has for 3 years pursued 
attaching legislation to this bill. However, the legislation is 
properly under the VA subcommittee's jurisdiction. The VA has opposed 
amending this law because, No. 1, it would cost over $500 million in 
additional entitlement payments over 5 years. The VA has the authority 
and the responsibility to make the medical judgments as to whether 
these are, in fact, service-connected disabilities, and I suggest that 
this body does not have before it the medical evidence or the 
scientific proof needed to make that kind of judgment. We commend the 
Senator for being interested and concerned about these veterans, but we 
are not in a position to make the medical judgment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1789. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Allard
     Bond
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1789) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be proceeding momentarily on two 
amendments, one of which will be accepted, and one of which, it is my 
understanding, we still want to have a discussion about to see how we 
can proceed.
  Before we do that, last evening, the chairman and the ranking member 
graciously agreed to include in the legislation an amendment with 
respect to the Montreal Protocol. Senator Chafee and I, the original 
cosponsors, along with Senator Brownback and others, were not able to 
be here at that time. We wanted to take a very quick moment on that 
amendment, if we could. We promise not to tax our colleagues' patience. 
We want to say a few words about this because of its importance. We are 
very grateful to Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for working with us 
to accept this amendment.
  I am very grateful to Senator Chafee for his long commitment and 
labor in this area. He is chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and he is one of the architects of the very successful 
Montreal Protocol.
  I also want to thank our colleagues, Senators Brownback, Snowe, 
Lieberman, Leahy, Moynihan, Kennedy, Bingaman, Jeffords, Daschle, Roth, 
Boxer, and Grams, who are cosponsoring this amendment.
  Let me say very quickly where we are with respect to this.
  The Montreal Protocol is the landmark international agreement to halt 
and eventually reverse the growing hole in the Earth's ozone layer. It 
is extremely important as an agreement in the context of international 
efforts for the environment as well as for public health. The 
destruction of the ozone layer and the resultant increase in 
ultraviolet radiation has been clearly scientifically linked to higher 
instances of skin cancer, premature aging, and other skin problems; to 
cataracts and other eye damage; and the suppression of the human immune 
system.
  The American Cancer Society reports melanoma, the most serious form 
of skin cancer, is expected to be diagnosed in 44,200 people in 1999. 
It is one of the fastest growing cancers in the United States--growing 
4 percent per year since the early 1970's. And, according to the EPA, 
one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their life time--and 
that amounts to one American dying every hour from this disease.
  According to a scientific assessment called the Environmental Effects 
of Ozone Depletion and published in 1998 by the United Nations, 
exposure to increased UV radiation can be highly destructive to the 
human eye. The assessment concludes that, ``The increases of UV-B 
radiation associated with ozone depletion are likely to lead to 
increases in the incidence and/or severity of a variety of short-term 
and long-term health effects.'' The effects, according to the report, 
will include cataracts, blindness from cataracts, ocular melanoma and 
other eye cancers, and death associated with cancers of the eye. 
Cataracts are the leading cause of blindness in the world, and in 1992 
alone, the United States spent $3.1 billion treating cataracts.
  It is because of this danger to human health that American Academy of 
Dermatology and the Physicians for Social Responsibility are supporting 
this amendment.
  In addition to these health impacts, increased exposure to UV 
radiation can degrade terrestrial and aquatic species, including 
commercial crops. The damage caused to ecosystems can vary widely 
depending on the species in question--and we're learning more about how 
UV radiation can subtly--and not so subtly--damage a species. For 
example, it is becoming increasingly evident that UV-B and UV-A 
radiation have adverse effects on photoplankton, macroalgae and 
seagrasses. Now, I know it's not every day that we talk about 
photoplankton, macroalgae and seagrass, but if you care about fisheries 
and the well-being of our oceans, then to you these things matter. They 
are the building blocks of the marine ecosystem, the matter of the web 
of life and if they're not healthy, then our ocean and fisheries will 
not be healthy.
  The multilateral fund, which is the specific program that our 
amendment

[[Page S11381]]

supports, is the policy mechanism within the Montreal Protocol to 
reduce the emissions of ozone-depleting substances from developing 
countries.
  I want to emphasize this. It happens by chance that the Chair at this 
moment is deeply involved in the issue of Kyoto and global warming. 
This is not global warming. But it does reflect the same principle of 
getting less developed countries to participate in the effort to be 
responsible about environmental damage.
  The Montreal Protocol specifically brought developing countries into 
the process through the efforts of the multilateral fund.
  The United States and other nations leading the effort to protect the 
ozone layer have long understood that emissions from developing 
countries which were not included in the last round of cuts because of 
their relatively low emission levels and their relative inability to 
act in the long run would be equally as destructive to the ozone layer 
as the emissions from the United States.
  So to address the problem in 1990 we passed this effort, and we are 
now restoring $12 million to the funding within EPA's budget in order 
to support the Montreal Protocol.
  To address this problem, the United States negotiated in 1990 the 
Multilateral Fund to provide technical and financial assistance to 
developing nations to undertake projects to reduce their emissions. It 
has been extraordinarily successful.
  Mr. President, let me say now what this amendment would do--it's very 
simple. It restores $12 million in funding within EPA's budget to 
support the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund. Unfortunately, the 
VA-HUD bill now provides no funds for the EPA to participate in the 
Multilateral Fund--despite President Clinton's request of $21 million.
  To fund this $12 million increase in the Multilateral Fund, the 
amendment makes an across-the-board cut to other accounts in the EPA's 
budget. I have sought this offset reluctantly. I strongly believe that 
Congress is making a mistake by cutting our national investment in 
environmental protection and natural resource conservation year after 
year. If it were my decision alone, this Senate would not have capped 
natural resource spending at $2.4 billion below last year's budget and 
$3.1 billion below the President's request. I opposed these low caps 
precisely because they jeopardize important federal programs 
Multilateral Fund. And, I want to stress that I commend Chairman Bond 
and Ranking Member Mikulski for the work they done to craft the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill--under what I believe are more demanding 
constraints than any other appropriations committee.
  Nonetheless, I strongly believe that we should fund this program, and 
I want to stress that it is only because of critical importance of the 
Multilateral Fund that I accept this shifting of funds within the EPA 
accounts.

  Mr. President, I have asked my colleagues to support this amendment 
for the following reasons.
  First and foremost, the Montreal Protocol is a success. In 1998, 
NASA, NOAA and other scientific bodies coauthored a report called the 
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. The assessment concluded--and 
it could not have been more direct or more succinct--that ``The 
Montreal Protocol is working.''
  Too often we come to this floor to debate the failure of 
international agreements, whether they're about the environment, trade 
or peace--but not today. The Montreal Protocol, with the participation 
of over 162 nations, is working.
  To support this claim, NASA and NOAA cited two compelling 
observations that clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the 
Protocol:
  Firstly, the abundance of ozone depleting chemicals in the lower 
atmosphere peaked in 1994 and is now slowly declining. Thanks to the 
Protocol we have turned the corner and we are now reducing the 
accumulation of these destructive substances in the atmosphere.
  Secondly, the abundance of substitutes for ozone depleting chemicals 
in the atmosphere is rising. The abundance of chemicals that have been 
created to replace CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals are on the 
rise in the atmosphere. These chemicals are providing us the same 
services we require, but not destroy the ozone.
  This isn't to say that a danger doesn't still exist. One does--and 
that's the point of this amendment. The fact is that the ozone hole 
over the Antarctic was the largest it has ever been in 1998. While we 
have turned the corner, we must stat vigilant, follow through and get 
the job done.
  Mr. President, I want to make an important point: In their report, 
NASA and NOAA concluded that the success of the Protocol would not have 
been possible without the strengthening amendments of 1990 that created 
the Multilateral Fund. The report reads ``It is important to note that, 
while the provisions of the original Montreal Protocol in 1987 would 
have lowered the [growth rates in ozone depletion], recovery would have 
been impossible without the Amendments and Adjustments.''--and it 
specifically includes the 1990 amendments creating the Multilateral 
Fund.
  Second, the Multilateral Fund itself is working. Since its inception 
in 1990, 32 industrialized nations have contributed $847 million to the 
Multilateral Fund. These funds have sponsored more than 2,700 projects 
in 110 nations, whose implementation will phase out the consumption of 
119,000 tonnes of ozone depleting substances.
  These projects for technical and financial in developing countries 
are selected by an Executive Committee, which the U.S. chairs. In fact, 
it is the EPA that takes the lead in the U.S. role as chair of the 
Executive Committee. The Agency provides technical expertise and 
experience that has been crucial to the Multilateral Fund's success.
  And the program has been well-run. In 1997, the GAO reviewed the 
Multilateral Fund's performance and concluded that it was well managed 
and fiscally sound. GAO reported that the Executive Committee reviews 
projects for their cost effectiveness and rejects projects that fail to 
meet cost standards. Further, the GAO concluded that the administrative 
costs of operating the Fund were appropriate. In fact, the GAO made a 
single recommendation to improve the program's fiscal operation 
relating to use of promissary notes--which the Clinton Administration 
has since instituted at the EPA.
  Third, the Multilateral Fund has strong business support. I have a 
letter from the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy urging 
Congress to fund the U.S. treaty obligations. This letter demonstrates 
America's leadership in the development, manufacture and marketing of 
ozone-safe products. Alliance members include General Electric, Ford 
Motor Co., General Motors Co., Whirlpool, Johnson Controls, 
AlliedSignal and dozens of the others. These are some of leading names 
in American business.

  In their statement, the Alliance writes that they support the fund 
for very simple reasons:
  Firstly, the Multilateral Fund was part of the deal when the Montreal 
Protocol was negotiated in the late 1980s. They argue that American 
industry has been supportive because a fund to assist developing 
nations assured world wide compliance.
  Secondly, U.S. industry has invested billions of dollars in ozone-
safe technologies and the Multilateral fund will facilitate the world 
wide use of these technologies, creating markets for U.S. companies and 
reducing pollution. These companies know that we are creating jobs and 
profits by exporting American-made, ozone-safe technologies. According 
to EPA, the overwhelming majority of ozone-safe products utilized in 
the Fund's projects are American.
  Thirdly, these more than 100 companies recognize that the phase out 
of ozone depleting chemicals in developing nations is the final step in 
protecting the atmosphere.
  In a statement to Congress, the Alliance writes,

       The international effort to protect the Earth's 
     stratospheric ozone layer has been one of the most successful 
     global environmental protection efforts ever, with an 
     unprecedented level of cooperation between and among 
     governments and industry. To not fulfill our treaty 
     obligations at this time is bad environmental policy, hurts 
     U.S. credibility around the world, especially in important 
     developing country emerging markets, and is self-destructive 
     toward U.S. industry and workers who have, in effect, already 
     paid for this contribution.


[[Page S11382]]


  I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the Alliance for 
Responsible Atmospheric Policy, and a list of its member companies be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to discuss how it is that we decided 
to seek $12 million. This year the U.S. commitment to the Multilateral 
Fund is $38 million. The Senate has approved roughly $26 million in the 
International Operations Programs at the State Department. By restoring 
$12 million into the EPA program, this amendment will allow us to 
fulfill the U.S. commitment of $38 million. Further, we have funded the 
EPA program for the Multilateral Fund at $12 million in FY96, FY97 and 
FY98, and at nearly $12 million in FY99. Therefore, by providing $12 
million we will meet our 1999 obligation and essentially level fund 
this program.
  I want my colleagues to know that even if this amendment is accepted, 
it will do nothing to pay down the U.S. arrears to the Multilateral 
Fund--which is now at $23.8 million. Mr. President, that is 
unfortunate. I wish that we could do better--and I applaud President 
Clinton for requesting enough to pay our debt to the Fund--and urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment so that, at the very least, we can 
meet our obligations for this year.
  In closing, I want to stress the bipartisan nature of this effort, 
and not just this amendment. The Montreal Protocol was finalized in 
1987 by the Reagan administration, and it passed the Senate by a vote 
of 93-0. The Multilateral Fund was created in 1990 by the Bush 
administration. Under the Clinton administration, with the EPA and the 
State Department's stewardship, the Protocol has been strengthened and 
the Multilateral Fund operated effectively and efficiently. And today, 
our amendment is sponsored by 9 Democrats and 6 Republicans.
  The Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund deserves our nation's full 
support. I believe the offset we have chosen is reasonable and fair. I 
thank my colleagues who have sponsored this amendment, and want to 
thank again Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for accepting the 
amendment.

       Exhibit 1--The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy


SUPPORT FUNDING FOR THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE MULTILATERAL FUND IN EPA FY 
                           2000 APPROPRIATION

       The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, the 
     largest industry coalition involved on the issue of 
     stratospheric ozone protection, urges the continued funding 
     of the US treaty obligations to the Stratospheric Ozone 
     Protection Multilateral Fund.
       The Administration budget request for FY 2000 is $21 
     million in the EPA budget. This amount, plus funding under 
     the State Department budget would allow the US to meet its 
     year 2000 treaty obligations and to allow it to make up its 
     arrears to the fund. FY 99 funding for this activity in the 
     EPA budget was approximately $12 million.
       Industry supports this fund for several simple reasons. 
     First, the fund to assist developing countries in the phase 
     out of ozone depleting substances was part of the original 
     bargain when the Montreal Protocol was negotiated in the late 
     1980s. Industry has been supportive of this treaty because it 
     assured world wide compliance rather than damaging unilateral 
     action.
       Second, the developing country phase out of these compounds 
     is the last critical step towards restoring the Earth's 
     protective stratospheric ozone layer, without developing 
     country phaseout the environmental objective cannot be 
     completed.
       Third, US industry has invested billions of dollars in 
     substitute technologies to replace the ozone depleting 
     compounds. The Multilateral Fund is designed to facilitate 
     the shift to these new technologies. If the US does not meet 
     its treaty obligations, it puts US industries at a 
     disadvantage against competitors from Japan and Europe.
       Fourth, US industry has been taxed more than $6 billion in 
     excise taxes since 1990 on the ozone depleting compounds! 
     Total contributions to the Multilateral Fund since 1991 have 
     been less than $300 million!
       The international effort to protect the earth's 
     stratospheric ozone layer has been one of the most successful 
     global environmental protection efforts ever, with an 
     unprecedented level of cooperation between and among 
     governments and industry. To not fulfill our treaty 
     obligations at this time is bad environmental policy, hurts 
     US credibility around the world especially in important 
     developing country emerging markets, and is self-destructive 
     towards US industry and workers who have, in effect, already 
     paid for this contribution.
       The Senate Appropriations Committee is urged to restore the 
     funding for this important United States treaty obligation. A 
     list of the Alliance members is attached. Please contact us 
     if you have further questions regarding this matter.


                       1998-1999 membership list

       3M Company, Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp., Aeroquip 
     Corporation, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Air 
     Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute, Air Conditioning & 
     Refrigeration Wholesalers Association, Air Mechanical, Inc., 
     Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., AlliedSignal Inc., Altair 
     Industries, American Pacific Corp., Anderson Bros. 
     Refrigeration Service, Inc., Arthur D. Little, Inc., Ashland 
     Oil, Association of Home Appliances Manufacturers, Ausimont 
     USA Inc., Bard Manufacturing Co., Beltway Heating & Air 
     Conditioning Co., Inc., Branson Ultrasonic Corp.
       Cap & Seal Company, Carrier Corporation, Central Coating 
     Company, Inc., Cetylite Industries, Inc., Chemical Packaging 
     Corp., Chemtronics, Inc., Commercial Refrigerator 
     Manufacturers Association, Commodore CFC Services, Inc., 
     Copeland Corporation, Department of Corrections--Colorado, 
     Dow Chemical U.S.A., Dupont, E.V. Dunbar Co., Elf Atochem, 
     Engineering & Refrigeration, Inc., Envirotech Systems, Falcon 
     Safety Products, Inc., Foam Enterprises, Inc., Food Marketing 
     Institute, Ford Motor Company.
       Forma Scientific, FP International, GE Appliances, Gebauer 
     Company, General Electric Company, General Motors, Gilman 
     Corporation, H.C. Duke & Son, Inc., Halogenated Solvents 
     Industry Alliance, Halotron Inc., Halsey Supply Co., Inc., 
     Hill Phoenix, Hudson Technologies, Inc., Hussmann 
     Corporation, ICI Klea, IMI Cornelius Company, Institute of 
     International Container Lessors, International Assoc. of 
     Refrigerated Warehouses, International Pharmaceutical Aerosol 
     Consortium.
       Join Journeymen and Apprentice Training Trust. Johnson 
     Controls, Joseph Simons Company, Kysor Warren, Lennox 
     International, Library of Congress, Lintern Corporation, 
     Luce, Schwab & Kase, Inc., MARVCO Inc., Maytag Corporation, 
     McGee Industries, Inc., MDA Manufacturing, Mechanical Service 
     Contractors of America, Merck & Co., Inc., Metl-Span 
     Corporation, Mobile Air Conditioning Society, Montgomery 
     County Schools, Nat. Assoc. of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors, National Refrigerants, Inc., New Mexico 
     Engineering Research Institute, North American Fire Guardian. 
     North Carolina State Board of Refrigeration Examiners, 
     Northern Research & Eng. Corp., NYE Lubricants, Inc.,
       Owens Corning Specialty & Foam Products Center, 
     Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, 
     Polycold Systems International, Refrigeration Engineering, 
     Inc., Refron, RemTec International, Revco Scientific, Ritchie 
     Eng. Co., Inc., Robinair Div., SPX Corp., Salas O'Brien 
     Engineers, Sexton Can Company, South Central Co., Inc., 
     Society of the Plastics Industries, Sporlan Valve Co., 
     Stoelting, Inc., Sub-Zero Freezer Co., Inc., TAFCO 
     Refrigeration Inc., Tech Spray, Inc., Tecumseh Products Co., 
     Tesco Distributors, Inc., Thermo-King Corporation, Thompson 
     Supply Co., Tolin Mech. Systems Co., Total Reclaim, Inc., 
     Trane Company, Tu Electric, Tyler Refrigeration Corp., Union 
     Chemical Lab, ITRI, United Refrigeration, Inc., Unitor Ships 
     Service, Inc., Valvoline Company, Vulcan Chemicals Co., Wei 
     T'O Associates, Inc., Whirlpool Corporation, White & Shauger, 
     Inc., W.M. Barr and Company, Worthington Cylinder, W.W. 
     Grainger, York International Corp., Zero Zone Ref. Mfg.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to express my thanks to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and also to the managers of 
the bill for accepting this amendment. Once in a while, we pass some 
legislation that really works. With the Montreal Protocol, we have an 
example of that.
  The Montreal Protocol has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in 
the Congress and public support across the country.
  As our colleagues well remember, it was President Reagan who 
negotiated and signed the Protocol in 1987. Since that time, many 
strengthening amendments have been adopted and ratified during the 
administrations of both President Bush and President Clinton.
  One of the most effective provisions of the protocol is an 
international fund that provides assistance to developing nations to 
aid their phaseout of ozone depleting substances. This is not a U.S. 
aid program. It is an international fund supported by 35 countries. It 
has assisted projects to reduce ozone use in 120 developing countries.
  Mr. President, I can tell the Senate that the Montreal Protocol Fund 
is a very cost effective program because the U.S. General Accounting 
Office audited the program in 1997 and gave it high praise. GAO had 
only one recommendation to make to improve its performance and that 
recommendation has since been implemented. I would note that the U.S. 
business community also strongly supports this program. Quite often the 
assistance provided by

[[Page S11383]]

the fund is used by developing nations to buy our technology to reduce 
CFC use. So, there is no question that this program works and has been 
highly successful.
  The only issue is whether there is room for the U.S. contribution in 
this budget. We have pledged approximately $39 million for this coming 
year. There is $27 million in the foreign operations appropriation. 
Which means that we need an additional $12 million to honor our 
commitment. The amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts would 
provide that $12 million from EPA's budget. This follows a long 
tradition of paying for part of our contribution from State Department 
funds and part of our contribution through the EPA budget.
  Can EPA afford $12 million for this purpose? We know that the budget 
is tight this year. But it is not so tight that we need to entirely 
eliminate this expenditure. In fact, I would note that this bill 
provides EPA $116 million more than the President requested. As the 
Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has said many times here on 
the floor, this bill is still a work in progress. I am confident that 
the very able managers of the bill can find room for the Montreal 
Protocol Fund in a budget for EPA that provides $116 million more than 
the President's request for the coming year.
  We have our differences here in the Senate over environmental policy. 
But everyone has to admit that the international program to protect the 
stratospheric ozone layer negotiated by President Reagan has been a 
tremendous success. The work is not quite done. CFCs are not entirely 
out of our economy. In fact, the U.S. remains the third largest user of 
CFCs. But we are well on the way to a CFC-free world. And this program, 
the Montreal Protocol Fund, has been a very important part of the 
effort. It deserves our continued support.
  We have been able to curb the CFCs. We are on a downward glidepath, 
not only among those nations that signed the Montreal Protocol, but the 
international fund is supported by 35 countries. We have also reached 
out to reduce the CFC use in 120 developing countries.
  The CFCs are extremely dangerous substances in the destruction of the 
ozone layer. We are gradually eliminating them. This is a step forward.
  This amendment takes from the total EPA budget some $12 million, 
which is then added to the $27 million in the foreign operations 
appropriations so that we then meet our commitment of $39 million for 
this international fund, which is the contribution of the United 
States. It is not the United States alone, as I mentioned before; we 
have some 35 other countries that are contributing.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Brownback wants to make a brief comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment put 
forward by Senator Kerry, Senator Chafee, and myself and a number of 
other Senators. Also, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski 
for accepting it.
  I think this is a great statement and a great amendment for us to 
push forward. It provides funding for the Montreal Protocol with the 
multilateral fund. The fund sponsors technical assistance to 110 
developing nations to reduce the ozone-depleting substances. It is 
supported by 120 industrialized nations. I think it is an important way 
for the world to combat pollution cooperatively.
  It will help phase out ozone-depleting substances in developing 
countries. GAO's 1997 report says this was a good working solution. It 
was working well.
  The amendment is fiscally responsible as well. It provides $12 
million for the fund, offset with a tiny reduction--less than .02 of a 
percent--in EPA's discretionary spending.
  Today's world is an international, interactive relationship, 
particularly on the environment. Here is a very commonsense, practical 
approach for us to be able to work cooperatively with other nations. 
Twelve million dollars is economically responsible, budget-wise, coming 
out of the EPA discretionary fund.
  This is a good way to work forward.
  I thank my colleagues for their leadership. I think this is an 
excellent way for us to work toward international environmental 
cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                    Amendment No. 1756, As Modified

(Purpose: Amend Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS to increase 
              by $7 million and section 811 by $7 million)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  Let me quickly proceed to the amendment that I know is going to be 
accepted. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 1756. We have worked out 
a modification with the ranking member and the Chair.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), for himself and 
     Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1756, as modified.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 35, strike ``$904,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``$911,000,000''.
       On page 36, line 8, strike ``$194,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$201,000,000''.
       On page 28, line 2, strike ``$225,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$232,000,000''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment increases housing 
opportunities for people with AIDS--the AIDS account--and the section 
811 disabled housing account by $7 million each.
  As I said, this is with the consent of the Chair and the ranking 
member. I appreciate their willingness to work with me on this 
amendment.
  These funds are going to help provide housing for an additional 1,850 
people with HIV-AIDS, and also crucial new housing for the disabled.
  This particular effort, housing opportunities for people with AIDS, 
serves a unique function within the HUD budget. It is a vital program 
for people with HIV-AIDS. Fully 60 percent of them will face a housing 
crisis at some point during their illness. Tragically, at any given 
time, half the people with AIDS are either homeless or on the brink of 
losing their homes.
  This amendment would go a long way to solving that problem. I look 
forward to working with the Chair and the ranking member to maintain 
this in conference.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. KERRY. I think we are going to pass this amendment. I am happy to 
yield for a quick comment.
  Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I, too, appreciate Senators Mikulski 
and Bond supporting this. I think the point Senator Kerry is making 
with this amendment--I hope in the days ahead it yields to a broader 
debate--is that at a time of record economic prosperity, we are having 
extraordinary crises in terms of access to affordable housing. All 
across this country we have waiting lists, sometimes for years, for the 
kind of people that Senator Kerry is trying to assist with this 
amendment. I think this is a start. Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond 
have been very gracious to accept this amendment. I commend them for 
it. But I hope in the days ahead that we can build on the Kerry 
amendment and really drive these waiting lists down. If anything, the 
hot economy we are seeing is driving up rents and, in effect, 
contributing to the problems we are having with these waiting lists.

  I didn't want to take a lot of time of the Senate, and I am very 
pleased Senator Kerry is leading this effort. I hope this is seen as 
the beginning of a bipartisan effort to drive down these waiting lists 
that are years and years in some communities for disabled folks, 
seniors, and those with HIV.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding time. I am glad 
this amendment has been accepted on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his 
comments and for his own personal dedication to this issue.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are pleased to be able to work with the 
Senator from Massachusetts, the ranking member on the housing 
authorization committee. We know there are

[[Page S11384]]

great needs. We are very pleased we have been able to work with the 
Senator and provide an additional $7 million for section 8, for the 
HOPWA program and the section 811 program. When we talk about 
availability of housing, section 811 does provide additional housing. 
In many of the section 8 programs, we find they cannot create new 
housing. Having a certificate without a place to live, without a place 
to use it, doesn't do any good. The section 811 program has been at a 
static level of $194 million over the last decade. We were able to 
provide in the original mark for an additional $40 million in section 8 
for persons with disabilities.
  Section 811 is a construction program for persons with disabilities. 
This is a modest increase. It is well deserved. I appreciate working 
with my ranking member, Senator Kerry, to get this done.
  I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, lend my support for this 
amendment. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his advocacy, and 
I thank the Senator from Missouri for the staff, along with my own 
staff, who helped find the funds.
  For any person disabled or with AIDS, finding the kind of suitable 
housing with the appropriate physical architecture, the kind of things 
needed for the aged or for someone quite ill, is important. We need to 
make sure we provide the opportunity for people to be able to maintain 
self-sufficiency in the community and be able to get the treatment they 
need.
  This goes a long way to adding help for 1,800 more people. I am 
willing to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1756), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1761

 (Purpose: To provide funding for incremental section 8 vouchers under 
section 558 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we now move to the last amendment I have, 
amendment No. 1761.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1761.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 18, line 3, strike ``$10,855,135,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,566,335,000''.
       On page 18, line 4, strike ``$6,655,135,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,366,335,000''.
       On page 18, line 19, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, $288,800,000 shall be made available for 
     incremental section 8 vouchers under section 558 of the 
     Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public 
     Law 105-276; 112 Stat. 2614): Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may not expend any 
     amount made available under the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, for tenant-based 
     assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 to 
     help eligible families make the transition from welfare to 
     work until March 1, 2000''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, let me summarize this as succinctly 
as I can. It is a critical topic and one I want to talk a couple of 
minutes on in order to share with my colleagues where we stand with 
respect to housing and section 8 in the effort to try to provide 
affordable housing in the country.
  I have nothing but enormous respect for the difficult circumstances 
under which the Chair and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee have labored. It is fair to say their situation has been 
unfair, untenable, and it wasn't until there was a raid on the labor 
and education money that they conceivably had enough money to try to 
bring a bill to the floor.
  Most Members know what will happen: There will be some other kind of 
raid which will take place to try to restore some money back into the 
labor and education fund so we can somehow bring a bill to the floor 
and create a fiction that we were able to do something.
  My comments are not directed at the Chair or the ranking member, who 
have done an exemplary job of dealing with the most difficult 
constraints of almost any committee within the Senate. But there are 
some tough realities about which the rest of us, properly representing 
our States and our citizens, need to talk. Those tough realities are 
the situations we face with respect to housing in the country.
  The amendment I have offered redirects $288 million in funds needed 
to renew the existing section 8 contracts, and to use those funds to 
provide an additional 50,000 section 8 vouchers. I come after this as 
the ranking member of the authorizing committee with an understanding 
there are back-end costs. I know the Chair will say it is not just the 
50,000 you put up today; there will be back-end costs. I will talk 
about that in a moment. I fully acknowledge that reality.
  However, the amendment we offer is supported by the National Low 
Income Housing Coalition, by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 
the National Housing Conference, the Catholic Charities USA, the Center 
for Community Change, the National Housing Law Project, and the 
National Association of Home Builders which call for an increase in 
section 8 vouchers. I also point out the statement of administration 
policy in their letter on this bill says they object to the committee's 
decision not to fund new incremental section 8 vouchers.
  The President asked for 100,000 new vouchers. I think the President's 
request for 100,000 new vouchers represents the commitment we 
reinstituted last year to try to begin a process of recognizing what 
was happening to housing in the country. The fact is we now face an 
extraordinary and growing shortage of affordable housing for poor and 
working families in America. It seems to me, and to a lot of my 
colleagues, in the economic times we have in this country, when the 
stock market--though obviously it is up and down, and yesterday was 
down--is at its highest level, the economy has been remarkable in its 
sustained consecutive months of growth, unemployment is at a record 
low--we all know those statistics--in the middle of this remarkable 
growth, when ownership of homes is at a new and historic high, we are 
seeing the stock of affordable housing decline. Indeed, we now have a 
record number of families that face a housing crisis of some 
proportion. Nearly 5.6 million American families have what is called 
worst case housing needs. Yesterday, HUD released new data showing that 
number was added to by some 260,000 households in the past 2 years. We 
are talking about worst case needs, according to our own definition.
  These families pay one half of their income in rent. I ask all of my 
colleagues to think about that. We have a pretty good salary and a lot 
of Members in the Senate have income from other sources and don't face 
some of the choices that a lot of our fellow citizens have, but one 
half of family income going to rent for these families is an 
unacceptable level by any of the standards or guidelines we offer. 
Increasingly, these families are working families. For them, the 
economic bump in the road that can result is a bump that brings 
shortages of food, utility cutoffs, and even evictions and 
homelessness.
  This is illustrated by a study recently completed by the Institute 
for Children and Poverty which shows that homelessness is rising among 
working families. The study shows that in Newark, working families 
constitute 44 percent of the homeless families. Mr. President, 44 
percent of homeless families are also working families. In Boston, I 
know we found a huge increase in the rental market. So there is 
increasing difficulty for working families with students to be able to 
find adequate housing.
  I might add, it is not just in the short term that this presents us a 
problem, it is in the long term that it presents us a problem. We have 
50,000 or 100,000 vouchers we are looking for, which will only take 
care of a fraction of the need or the demand. But it is help that is 
sorely needed, and it reflects the efforts of the Government to try to 
respond within the limits we face today.

[[Page S11385]]

 I might add, this money is available. We are not taking it from 
somewhere else. We are taking it from unspent funds within HUD itself 
because of their lack of expenditure at this point in time.
  Let me share with my colleagues one of the aspects of this problem on 
which a lot of people do not focus. Dr. Alan Meyers, who is a 
pediatrician at the Boston Medical Center, did a series of studies on 
the impact of high housing costs on child nutrition. In each case, he 
found that children of poor families receiving housing assistance were 
better nourished and in better health than similar families without 
such assistance. In a stark illustration of the choices the unassisted 
families face, he found children were most likely to be undernourished 
during the 90 days after the coldest month of the year, highlighting 
what he called the ``heat or eat dilemma.''
  In addition, let me underscore that lack of proper nourishment is 
only one problem that comes out of the housing crisis. The fact is, 
children who have a housing crisis are also forced to move from school 
to school. Social workers in Charlotte, NC, have told us about children 
they have seen going to as many as six different elementary schools in 
a single year. One expert estimated that as many as half the children 
in the Washington, DC, foster care system could be reunited with their 
parents if their families had access to stable housing.
  So here we are in the Senate, arguing about changes in the welfare 
culture, arguing about schools that do not work, arguing about the need 
to have parents involved in families, and clearly one of the links that 
reunites parents with families and provides stability in the school 
system and capacity for children to stay out of trouble is available, 
affordable housing. It is an astonishing statistic, that half the 
children in Washington, DC, in the foster care system could actually be 
reunited with their parents if we had adequate housing available.
  Some people will say to us that this costs a lot of money and is hard 
to do. There was a report that came out recently called ``Out Of 
Reach,'' which was done by the National Low-Income Housing Alliance. In 
my home State of Massachusetts, a person would have to work 100 hours 
every week at the minimum wage just to afford the typical rental on a 
two-bedroom apartment. It is even worse in a number of other cities 
where you need to work 135 hours a week or earn the equivalent of 
$17.42 hourly, more than three times the minimum wage, in order to 
afford to put a roof over your head. Massachusetts is not alone. 
Virginia, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, and other States 
are feeling the economic crunch of the housing shortage and the impact 
on families as a consequence of that.

  We also talk a lot around here about making work pay. The fact is, if 
people go to work and work according to all the rules but they have a 
work-week of 135 hours, or 100 hours, at a wage of $17, which is three 
times the minimum wage, we are obviously creating a gap that breaks 
faith with the capacity of the Government to provide value for that 
work. I think that is a serious issue.
  In addition, let me point out, this is not an enormous request. I ask 
my colleagues to look at this chart. In 1978, we were putting out 
350,000 housing units a year; in 1979, close to 350,000; in 1980, 
200,000; 1981, about 200,000; and from 1981 through the entire 1980s we 
went through a dramatic drop in housing, and in 1984, with the passage 
of the Balanced Budget Act, we went through the most dramatic decrease 
in housing, and we have had zero increase in housing starts until last 
year when, thanks to the good efforts of the chairman of the committee 
and ranking member and others working on it, we were able to get the 
first year's increase in 50,000 initial, new vouchers for section 8 
housing.
  But that only tells one part of the story. My colleagues in the 
Senate--and I share this belief--understand we have a lot of budget 
problems. But we ought to be treating things fairly. Every time we have 
a crisis in the Senate, in the budget, whether it is a hurricane, 
whether it is a farm problem, whether it is some other issue of 
Government, where we need to find funding for some project, the piggy 
bank is housing. What we have seen over the last years is what I call 
the ``Great HUD-Way Robbery.''
  From 1995 until 1999, we have seen a year-by-year cut, or rescission, 
or diversion from housing. So it is not that housing was not originally 
on people's minds. It was not that we did not have an original sense 
that housing ought to be part of the budget process. But every time 
somebody wants to fund something else, they take it out of housing's 
hide.
  The fact is, in 1995 we had $6.462 billion of rescissions; the next 
year, $114 million; the next year $3.8 billion; $3.03 billion the next 
year; $2 billion the next year. So we have had rescissions of $15.41 
billion. We have had program cuts of $4.8 billion. So housing has lost 
$20 billion-plus in the course of the last years.
  It is absolutely imperative that housing receive its fair share 
within this budget. In the final analysis, it is as critical a 
component of the social fabric and the social security of this country 
as almost anything else we do. We need to make work valuable. We need 
to ensure our citizens understand, if they play by the rules, it pays 
off. It is most important for our children and for a generation that 
are shunted from place to place, or separated from their parents, or 
taken from school to school to school. This is one of the things that 
contributes to juvenile violence, to the problems we have in our 
cities, people feeling disconnected--not just in the cities, also in 
rural communities--and I hope we will change it.
  I look to our colleagues on the committee, who I know are committed 
to trying to do something, to hopefully share with us this sense that, 
even though in the conference ultimately there will be a negotiation--
we all know that; ultimately there is going to be a showdown on what 
the final numbers are going to be--to guarantee, when that showdown 
comes, housing is not again going to be the piggy bank for everything 
else; it will be a priority at the forefront of our efforts and we will 
be able to continue the good work the chairman, I know, cares about, 
and the ranking member is equally committed about, that they began last 
year where they began to increase funds for housing.
  Again, this is not a problem of their choice or their making. I know 
they share a belief this ought to be different. They were given the 
toughest budget figures of anybody in the Senate. That is why this is 
one of the last appropriations bills to be able to come to the floor. 
Everyone knows it only came to the floor by robbing Peter to pay Paul, 
by taking money from education and from the labor account in order to 
even make this possible. I hope we are going to change that trend in 
the next weeks. We certainly have that opportunity. I also believe we 
have that obligation and responsibility.
  I know a couple of others of my colleagues wanted to say a few words.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his eloquent leadership and his determination to keep 
this issue of affordable housing in front of us. We have 5 million 
American households that have either inadequate or unaffordable 
housing. We have 2 million of those families with children, and 1 
million of them are seniors.
  Each one of our communities is faced with this kind of a shortfall. 
We have a waiting list of over 1 million people for the vouchers, and 
this amendment will add a few.
  There are three realities about which we are talking. One is a 
reality out on the street. That is the reality which millions of 
families face that do not have affordable housing or adequate housing. 
We have a budget reality which is driven by allocations through our 
appropriations subcommittees. This subcommittee has labored mightily to 
see what it could do with a very inadequate--totally inadequate--
allocation. It has done an amazingly good job in fighting for at least 
a reasonably adequate number.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee 
for what they have done, for the fight they have waged. It has been a 
long fight, and I know it has been a hard fight. They were shorted 
severely at the beginning and less severely now.

[[Page S11386]]

 Nonetheless, they have been shorted, and that means America has been 
shorted.
  The third reality is the conference, and that is the reality to which 
the Senator from Massachusetts made reference in closing. In supporting 
his effort to add back half of the vouchers which were requested by the 
administration for section 8, I can only add my voice, far less 
eloquently than his, to the hope that our chairman and our ranking 
member in conference will strive to find a way to do some justice for 
section 8 housing this year. Again, I thank him and thank both of our 
floor managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments that 
have been made about the need for affordable housing. Unfortunately, 
this problem is bigger than just section 8. Section 8 is a real 
problem, as I outlined several days ago.
  To repeat, we used to have multiyear section 8 contracts, 10-, 15-
year section 8 contracts. That allowed landlords to obtain financing to 
build housing.
  In the last 10 years, we have gone from 10-, 15-year contracts down 
to 2-year and 1-year budget authority appropriations. In order to save 
money in the overall spending caps in budget authority, they shortened 
the contracts. That means, No. 1, as these contracts expire, we are 
spending over $20 billion a year in outlays on section 8 contracts. 
Those outlays are in the budget. But the budget authority needed rises 
every year, from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $8.2 billion in 1998 to $11.1 
billion in 1999, and the need is $12.8 billion for fiscal year 2000. 
That number goes up to $18.2 billion by the year 2004. Unfortunately, 
that is how we budget around here, on how much budget authority you 
request.
  The problem we have with the administration seeking additional 
section 8s is that in their recommendations, their OMB budget request, 
they say they are going to appropriate $11.3 billion for the next 10 
years. As those needs for more appropriations continue to rise, we will 
wind up kicking 1.3 million families out the back door.
  First, let's make clear, we are not going to let that happen. We have 
to protect those who are actually in publicly assisted housing. We have 
to scrape, we have to do everything we can to find the funds to do so.
  The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned the 50,000 additional 
vouchers the administration sought. Two things: I was promised by the 
Secretary of HUD the budget submission this year will account for those 
additional 50,000 vouchers, which we will accept into the stock, and we 
are renewing all the vouchers that are coming due. Unfortunately, 
instead of making provision in the budget for the additional 50,000, 
the administration proposed, and we have had to accept, a deferral on 
an advanced appropriation of $4.2 billion. In other words, we were $4.2 
billion short of the budget authority needed to continue all of the 
section 8 certificates expiring this year. This means we rolled over 
into 2001 $4.2 billion. So we are falling way behind in the budget 
authority and being able to maintain the section 8 certificates we have 
now.
  In addition, we have heard people say: The need is now for section 8 
certificates. None of the 50,000 vouchers we approved last fall have 
been used. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. None of them have been used. The 
administration has not gotten them out. We have discussed this problem, 
but they have not gotten them out. We are trying to renew vouchers that 
have not been used this year. We cannot use money that was not used 
this year to add new vouchers next year when we have already included 
provisions for the vouchers that we authorized last year and they have 
not been used.
  Probably the most important thing--and this is the point on which we 
really are going to have to get to work--is that a 1-year section 8 
voucher does not create a house. It does not create an apartment. It 
does not create a condominium. Nobody can finance the construction of 
housing on the promise of a 1-year section 8 voucher.
  Right now in St. Louis County, for every 100 vouchers they issue, 
only 50 of them are used because there are no places physically to 
house the people who need housing. That is why we put money into HOME, 
into CDBG, to increase the stock of housing. That is why we have the 
low-income housing credits. That is why we have section 202 which does 
build housing for the elderly.
  We are not suffering a lack of housing because of a lack of section 8 
certificates. We are suffering a lack of housing because in many areas 
they just have not been built.
  We will work with people on both sides of the aisle to create housing 
that is needed, to give somebody a certificate. That certificate does 
not keep the rain off them; it does not keep them warm in the winter. 
They have to have shelter. Merely giving them a section 8 voucher does 
not create a shelter when there is no shelter available. It will enable 
them to pay the rent if there is one available, but in too many areas 
there is not.
  This is a subject for much discussion later on. I look forward to 
working with the Senator from Massachusetts and the others who have 
talked about it. This is not a section 8 problem. We have our own 
section 8 problems with the budget authority needed. The real problem 
is providing housing.
  I commend groups such as Enterprise and LIST. I commend local units. 
I commend people who are working under the low-income housing tax 
credit, housing authorities across the Nation such as the Missouri 
Housing Development Commission, and Habitat for Humanity. They are the 
ones who are providing shelter. These are the places we have to look in 
many areas for a house.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his insights on this 
measure. Unfortunately, we are in a budgetary situation where we cannot 
provide additional section 8 certificates in this current budget.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support 
of Senator Kerry's amendment. Also, I recognize the very thoughtful 
analysis that Chairman Bond has done about the budget problems that 
face this committee as it struggles to fill many different needs in the 
area of housing.
  All this discussion underscores a very fundamental question that 
transcends all of our considerations in the Senate and that is, we have 
many unfulfilled obligations in the country which make us very wary of 
significant reductions in our revenues and significant changes in 
policy until we address these very fundamental concerns: How would we 
provide going forward with resources so every American can have a safe, 
decent, affordable home?

  I also agree with Senator Bond that we have to do a lot more in terms 
of construction policies, in terms of encouraging the creation of 
housing units. But the section 8 program is particularly critical to so 
many people throughout this country.
  I think it is also very important to note that this is one of those 
very significant and very efficient combinations of public purpose and 
private enterprise because we are not, in most cases, operating at 
public facilities these housing units. They are private housing units 
which are receiving, through the section 8 subsidies, supports which 
are available to low-income people--again, a very efficient, very 
effective way to use very scarce Federal resources to allow individual 
Americans access to safe and decent housing.
  I think we have to, in this situation--even recognizing the 
significant budgetary constraints--move forward because this is one of 
those situations where if we make the commitment we will find a way to 
fund it.
  I think the essence of Senator Kerry's amendment is: Let's make this 
commitment. Let's make this commitment this year again to expand the 
section 8 voucher program so we can offer the real possibility of safe, 
decent, affordable housing to more citizens of this country.
  I, too, agree with Senator Bond's analysis, which I have been 
listening to intently over the last several days, about the need to go 
deeper with our targeting for the low-income housing tax credit 
program, to support the HOME program, to support the CDBG program. All 
of these contribute to the housing market, to the availability of

[[Page S11387]]

adequate, decent housing for all of our citizens. All of them will 
contribute to the solution of the dilemma facing us all: How do we 
provide affordable, decent, safe housing for all of our citizens?
  I support very strongly Senator Kerry's amendment and commend him for 
doing this. I also commend, as I have said before, both Senators Bond 
and Mikulski for their great efforts to try to work through this very 
difficult thicket.
  Let me, before I conclude, also raise another topic which I have 
addressed previously on the floor; that is, the staffing level within 
the Department of HUD, but in particular the HUD Community Builders 
Fellowship. I must confess I did not know too much about this 
particular program until we began this debate. But it has come to my 
knowledge this is an innovative program which is essentially selecting 
through some very rigorous means professionals in the area of urban 
policy planning, housing policy, to spend 2 years as a fellow at the 
Department of HUD after training at the Harvard Kennedy School of 
Government, to try to create an entrepreneurial spirit in HUD, to go 
beyond the box to create new opportunities in housing. Then these 
individuals, having served their fellowship, have the opportunity to go 
back to their communities and take these skills, this training, and 
their expertise and again contribute to their communities.
  I think it is a worthwhile program. But I am prompted to speak not so 
much because of what I have heard on this floor but because of what I 
am hearing back in Rhode Island as a result of the success of this 
program. Stephen O'Rourke is the executive director of the Providence 
Housing Authority. He is a tough-minded administrator who stepped into 
a difficult situation decades ago in a housing authority that was 
crumbling, both physically and in terms of its management style, a 
housing authority that was beset with all the problems of urban 
cities--crime, drug use, violence, dilapidated units--and he has done a 
remarkable job. He has done it by being hard-nosed, aggressive. I 
suspect people would probably characterize his approach as ``tough 
love.'' And it has worked.

  He has seen every fad and fancy in housing in the last two decades. 
He has taken it upon himself to communicate with the regional HUD 
office, commending the Community Builders Fellowship Program. In fact, 
in his words:

       I find their enthusiasm and ``can-do'' attitude infectious. 
     They constitute a new, special breed of government workers.

  When I start hearing about that kind of performance from a local 
official, I think there is something here we cannot discard totally.
  In Rhode Island, this program is working to do things that people 
have wanted to do for years. But they have never been able to think 
outside the box or cross the bureaucratic lines of organization to get 
the job done. These fellows are doing that. They started a statewide 
ownership center so we can do what I think we all want to see--get 
people into their own homes.
  They are working with the Welfare-to-Work Program to develop an 
innovative program where a housing authority is sponsoring a 
microbusiness, a van service, that not only employs individuals but 
contributes to one of the most significant issues facing people making 
the transfer from welfare to work--how do you physically get to work? 
This van service helps that.
  These are the types of out-of-the-box, innovative, entrepreneurial 
solutions we should encourage and not discourage. There have been 
several preliminary assessments of the program.
  Anderson Consulting company has looked at the program and has 
concluded that it has a positive effect on the ability of HUD customers 
to conduct their business and get the job done. Ernst & Young has 
interviewed many people involved in this program. They, too, are 
convinced. These are their words:

       They consider Community Builders to be responsive to their 
     concerns and timely in addressing them.

  Finally, the individuals at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government 
who were training these professionals believe the program is 
worthwhile. So I think at this juncture, after barely a year of 
experience, to totally eliminate the program is the wrong approach.
  The other aspect we should know is that HUD has already seen 
significant reductions in its personnel rolls from 13,000 to 9,300. In 
fact, both GAO and the HUD IG are arguing that perhaps they have 
reached the limits of cuts that can be made reasonably. There is no way 
we can demand a new reformed, reinvigorated, entrepreneurial HUD if 
they do not have physically the men and women to hold the jobs and to 
do the jobs. If this program is eliminated totally, as proposed in this 
appropriation, 81 communities throughout the country will be affected, 
including Providence, RI, and others. In fact, for the sheer lack of 
personnel, many significant functions of HUD will be lost if this 
program is abandoned. If we are asking HUD to be more efficient, more 
effective, more customer conscious, I do not think at this juncture we 
should eliminate a program that shows promise.
  There also has been a suggestion on the floor that there are some 
internal criticisms. There was reference, I think, to the Commissioner 
of the Federal Housing Administration, of Mr. Apgar's criticism. He, in 
fact, indicates there is potential for this program.
  At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from Mr. Apgar.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Department of


                                Housing and Urban Development,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I understand that in the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee discussion on the FY2000 HUD/VA 
     Appropriations Act, you attempted to discredit HUD's 
     Community Builder initiative by referencing a memo dated 
     September 2 and signed by me. By taking this routine internal 
     communication out of context, you presented a distorted 
     picture of my views on the critical role Community Builders 
     play in helping the HUD's Office of Housing manage its 
     programs.
       I would like to take this opportunity to set the record 
     straight. My views on this topic are informed both by my 
     experience as the Federal Housing Commissioner, as well as by 
     two decades of research and teaching on housing and community 
     development issues at Harvard's Joint Center for Housing 
     Studies and Kennedy School of Government. Based on this 
     experience, I truly believe that your efforts to ``fire'' 
     some 400 Community Builders will significantly harm HUD's 
     ability to accomplish its mission and protect the public 
     trust. Initially, over 20 offices could be forced to close as 
     they would not have adequate staff to function. To close 
     these offices would be disastrous. In particular, the loss of 
     400 HUD employees could cripple HUD's ability to dispose of 
     HUD held assets (Real Estate Owned Properties) in a cost 
     effective manner and seriously undermine the financial 
     integrity of the FHA fund.
       The Community Builder initiative is an innovative effort to 
     clarify the roles and responsibilities of HUD staff. Leading 
     management experts frequently write and speak about the 
     dysfunction that results from requiring employees to assume 
     dual roles--at times offering assistance, facilitating and 
     problem solving, and at other times performing oversight and 
     enforcing compliance. Through a series of public forums on 
     the future of the Federal Housing Administration that I led 
     in 1994, I gained extensive first hand knowledge about the 
     adverse consequences of the Department's historical failure 
     to separate the service and compliance functions.
       Even before joining the HUD team, I applauded Secretary 
     Cuomo's plan to identify two distinct groups of HUD 
     employees. ``Public Trust Officers,'' with responsibility for 
     ensuring compliance with program rules and requirements and 
     protecting against waste, fraud and abuse; and ``Community 
     Builders,'' who function out in the communities as the 
     Department's ``front door'' and access point to HUD's array 
     of program resources and services. While working at HUD, I 
     have watched the Secretary's vision become a powerful reality 
     as each day Community Builders serve HUD, and FHA, taxpayers 
     and low- and moderate-income families and communities.
       I appreciate that you and many of your Senate colleagues 
     are concerned about the effective and fiscally responsible 
     operation of FHA and HUD. I am therefore hard pressed to 
     understand how the Subcommittee's effort to terminate 400 
     essential HUD employees will help. Community Builders are 
     vital to the success of FHA's homeownership and rental 
     housing initiatives. Community Builders have primary 
     responsibility for all marketing activities including 
     ensuring that FHA's single-family programs effectively serve 
     minority and other underserved communities. They work with 
     community based organizations to implement the new 
     Congressionally mandated single-family property disposition 
     initiative. They also work with state and local agencies to 
     expand

[[Page S11388]]

     availability of services for HUD's elderly and family 
     developments. These are just a few of the ways that Community 
     Builders assist the Office of Housing in meeting the needs of 
     low- and moderate-income families and communities.
       Community Builders play a particularly important role in 
     HUD's effort to manage and dispose of distressed multifamily 
     properties. The September 2 memo reflects HUD's ongoing 
     commitment to manage these disposition efforts in a way that 
     both empowers communities and preserves the public trust. 
     Property disposition must be a team effort involving 
     Community Builders working in cooperation with the 
     Department's Enforcement Center, Property Disposition 
     Centers, and Office of Multifamily Housing. As indicated in 
     the memo, Edward Kraus, Director of the Enforcement Center, 
     Mary Madden, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and 
     Management and myself constantly monitor the work effort of 
     both Community Builders and Public Trust Officers to insure 
     that each HUD employee knows his or her role and 
     responsibility, and that through effective communication 
     these employees operate as a team.
       The Community Builders play an essential role in property 
     disposition efforts. While all monitoring, compliance, and 
     enforcement decisions must be made by Public Trust Officers, 
     Community Builders serve as HUD's ``EYES AND EARS'' in the 
     neighborhood, providing important early information about HUD 
     insured and HUD subsidized properties obtained from their 
     ongoing meetings with tenant and community-based 
     organizations and state and local officials. Clearly, 
     effective early communication with all interested parties is 
     essential for the fair and quick resolution of issues 
     associated with troubled properties, and if need be the cost-
     effective disposition of assets through foreclosure and sale.
       In closing, I ask you to stop this wrong headed effort to 
     fire 400 HUD employees. As you know, the management of HUD's 
     portfolio of troubled properties has long been a source of 
     material weakness in our operations. The loss of 400 front 
     line workers, combined with the Subcommittee's equally 
     questionable decision to cut back funding for Departmental 
     salaries and expenses, could very well cripple HUD's capacity 
     to manage these troubled assets. Rather than continue to use 
     the memo of September 2 to present a distorted picture of the 
     Community Builder program, I trust that you will share this 
     letter with your Senate colleagues so that they will have a 
     fair and accurate accounting of my own views on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William C. Apgar,
                 Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing 
                                                     Commissioner.

  Mr. REED. Again, this is an example of a program that has great 
potential. I think it would be unfortunate to eliminate it in its first 
year of operation. Let us step back objectively and review it, look at 
it, and make a judgment. I think that judgment, based on what I am 
hearing from my home State of Rhode Island, would be a very favorable 
one. So I urge reconsideration of this program to go forward.
  Again, I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue of 
Section 8. I recognize the difficulty both Senators Bond and Mikulski 
face, but this might be an issue, when it comes to section 8--
particularly if we move forward boldly to serve the people who sent us 
here--we will find the means to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I will take a quick minute. Other colleagues are waiting.
  I thank the Senator from Rhode Island very much. He is a valuable and 
very thoughtful member of our committee; and clearly representing Rhode 
Island, he understands the pressures people are under in this respect. 
I thank him also for raising the issue of community builders and 
putting the letter from Secretary Apgar in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum from Ernst & Young, which 
discusses the Community Builder Program, and a letter from Harvard 
University regarding the training process for the community builders be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Ernst & Young LLP,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     To: Douglas Kantor, HUD.
     From: Ernst & Young LLP,
     Date: September 21, 1999.


               ``Analysis of Community Builder Program''

                               background

       Ernst & Young is providing this memorandum as an interim 
     status update of our Analysis of the Community Builder 
     Program engagement.
       We are finalizing our procedures and drafting our report on 
     the effectiveness of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development's Community Builder Program. Based on the case 
     studies reviewed and the interviews conducted to date, 
     Community Builders have been successful in facilitating 
     positive communication between HUD and the communities they 
     serve. Participants interviewed indicated that Community 
     Builders are effectively serving as the ``front door'' of 
     HUD, as envisioned in the Department's 2020 Management Reform 
     Plan.
       Our work to date has included:
       Review of a sample of 25 case studies provided by HUD 
     covering a cross section of programs and each HUD region;
       Research regarding the history, design and purposes of the 
     Community Builder program;
       Interviews of Harvard University Kennedy School of 
     Government personnel; and
       Interviews of over 50 HUD customers and stakehoders listed 
     in the case studies with knowledge of the selected cases. The 
     interviewees included Housing Authorities, Civic Leaders, 
     other Federal, state and local government personnel and 
     others.


                         interviewee responses

       Interviewees generally provided very positive feedback 
     regarding the work of the Community Builders. They consider 
     Community Builders to be responsible to their concerns and 
     timely in addressing them. A number of interviewees indicated 
     that:
       The Community Builders have been very effective in bringing 
     their private sector expertise to the public sector.
       The Community Builders have been proactive in identifying 
     opportunities and areas of need within their communities.
       The Community Builders are acting as a point of contact 
     which makes HUD seem much more accessible to interviewees.
       The Community Builders are very knowledgeable about HUD 
     programs and non-HUD programs alike.
       The Community Builders are efficient. They are able to 
     provide information on several programs rather than the 
     client having to contact numerous departments.
       The Community Builders are professionally competent and are 
     well respected figures in their communities.
       The Community Builders are a ``New Face'' for HUD. Several 
     respondents commented that their perception of HUD is much 
     improved due to their interactions with the Community 
     Builders.
       In fact, one interviewee indicated the Community Builder 
     program was the most innovative program he has seen in his 
     twenty (20) years of government service.


                          Working Partnerships

       The case studies indicate that Community Builders have 
     performed outreach to a diverse group of community partners 
     including private businesses, not-for-profits, health 
     organizations, Federal agencies, resident groups, religious 
     organizations, universities, investment banks, local 
     government entities, and Housing Authorities. According to 
     the case studies and the interviews, successful partnerships 
     have been developed to date with a number of groups 
     including:
         National Housing Ministries,
         Non-Profit Center of Milwaukee,
         Cleveland Browns football team,
         Federal Reserve Bank of Los Angeles,
         Cherokee Nation Housing Authority,
         AIDS Task Force,
         Hawaii Governor's Office of State Volunteers,
         Credit Counseling Center, Inc.,
         Capitol Region Council of Churches,
         Temple University,
         University of Pennsylvania,
         Harrison Plaza Resident Council,
         Northwest Opportunities Vocational Technical Academy,
         Council of Churches of Bridgeport, CT,
         Valley Catholic Charities,
         FEMA.


         customer and stakeholder concerns and recommendations

       When asked, most of the interviewees did not express 
     concerns or provide recommendations regarding the Community 
     Builders. Some interviewees who did respond in this area 
     provided comments such as additional clarification is needed 
     regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Community 
     Builder as well as Community Builders should have better 
     familiarity with the community they serve. In addition some 
     interviewees indicated that some individual Community 
     Builders had not yet been in place long enough to see all of 
     their projects to completion. There were some differences of 
     opinion among customers and stakeholders. For example, some 
     customers thought that Community Builders should receive more 
     of the Department's resources while others did not want 
     resources diverted away from enforcement activities.


                                summary

       Almost all of the interviewees told us that the Community 
     Builder Program positively changed their perception of HUD. 
     Please note that this is an interim status report. We will 
     give you a final report on this project shortly after we 
     complete our procedures and finish summarizing the results.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard University,

                                Cambridge, MA, September 22, 1999.
     Christopher Feeney,
     Ernst and Young.
       Dear Christopher. I'm writing to follow up your inquiry and 
     our discussion about the Community Builders program of the US 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development. I currently 
     serve as the school's director and dean for executive 
     education, though

[[Page S11389]]

     I should stress that the thoughts herein are my own.
       Executive education is an important element in the Kennedy 
     School's mission to train people to play leadership roles in 
     their organizations, communities and in the larger society. 
     In this capacity, we conduct dozens of executive education 
     programs for public officials from the US and abroad. We have 
     developed a three-week program (taught in two modules, of two 
     and one week respectively) on community building, strategic 
     management and leadership, which has been elected by the 
     newly appointed Community Builders from inside and outside 
     HUD. Over the past year and a half more than four hundred 
     community builders have participated in the program. This 
     involvement provides a vantage point to offer some 
     observations about the program.


                         purpose and conception

       The need for and potential value of the program arises from 
     several observations.
       First, the federal government, through the vehicle of the 
     Department of Housing and Development (HUD) has significant 
     potential to add real value to the development process in 
     America's communities and neighborhoods. HUD can draw upon a 
     wide range of resources, including its knowledge and 
     comparative perspective, research, its convening and 
     coordination capacity as well as its legal and financial 
     resources.
       Second, I doubt that anyone would argue that HUD is as 
     effective as it could be in bringing value to the process. 
     Its program and activities have been historically organized 
     and delivered through a number of specific programmatic and 
     regulatory channels, stove pipers, in effect, each with its 
     own discrete organizational structure, personnel, procedures, 
     and norms, From the standpoint of community leaders, this 
     often appeared as a bewildering array of possible channels 
     and activities, no doubt at times it has seemed that HUD's 
     left hand and right hand (and feet) were pointing in 
     different directions.
       Third, like many other federal agencies, HUD has been 
     buffeted by the erosion in trust and confidence in 
     government, has seen its budget and personnel levels cut, in 
     some areas sharply, and the morale and commitment of HUD's 
     career staff has certainly suffered.
       Against this background, the concept of the community 
     builders program, bringing in a mix of experienced HUD staff 
     and diverse professionals from outside HUD; charging them to 
     bring new energy and vitality to HUD's activities, to help 
     communities around the country develop strategies that draw 
     together resources from the complex array of federal 
     programs, to bridge the various stovepipes on behalf of 
     community needs and priorities, this makes a good deal of 
     sense.
       It is also predictable, as night follows day, that an 
     initiative such as this, bringing several hundred new HUD 
     officials into the field, charged up and inspired as they 
     have been, is bound to generate friction, misunderstandings, 
     and ill will in some locations, as the newly authorized 
     community builders encounter the existing HUD establishment.
       This surely has happened in a number of locations, and is a 
     function of how well HUD's staff has prepared the ground for 
     the community builders arrival, and the personalities, 
     temperament and professionalism of the HUD staff both new and 
     of longstanding (including, of course, the community 
     builders). Anecdotal reporting suggests a wide range of 
     experiences--both positive and negative--for the community 
     builders and existing HUD staff.


                         Evaluating the Program

       It is much too early to assess or properly evaluate the 
     program. Some community builders have only recently taken up 
     positions. Those of longest standing have been in their 
     assignments less than one year of their two year contract. 
     This is very much the shakedown and learning period for a 
     venture such as this.
       To do a reasonable evaluation, one would ideally wait until 
     well into the second year of the initial cohort, then direct 
     an assessment to key officials in local communities where the 
     community builders are working, to the community builders 
     themselves and to other HUD professionals, both in the field 
     and headquarters.
       One would look at whether and how communities had been able 
     to concert resources from HUD (and elsewhere), bridging 
     stovepipes and boundaries and taking full advantage of public 
     and private resources. If a number of communities were able 
     to cite such successes (as departures from past practice), 
     and the community builders and demonstrably involved, there 
     is a pretty good indication that the program is having the 
     desired effect. But, it is just too early to expect such as 
     accounting or to find this kind of evidence.


                         Teaching and Learning

       We have had the experience of working with several hundred 
     community builders--both from within HUD and those hired from 
     outside, over the past year or so. In our classrooms, they 
     have shown themselves to be serious, committed, bright, and 
     thoroughly professional. They work hard, are open to learning 
     and are well regarded by the faculty who teach them. It is my 
     impression that their performance compares favorably with 
     other groups of officials we teach in programs here and in 
     government agencies at federal, state and local level.
       Overall, the program holds considerable promise (not fully 
     realized as it is still early) to make a distinctive 
     contribution to community development in the US, helping 
     local communities advance their development goals and 
     contributing to more effective partnership between the 
     federal government and those at the local level.
       If I can answer any further questions, I'm happy to do so.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter Zimmerman.

  Mr. KERRY. With respect to the community builders--and I think the 
Senator from Rhode Island summarized it; I will not repeat that--I have 
heard from many people in Massachusetts concerned about the cut. Many 
of them have had very positive experiences with the community builders.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters supporting the Community 
Builders Program from the mayor of Boston, Mayor Menino; from the mayor 
of Springfield, Mayor Albano; from the Boston Police Department; and 
from the Veterans Department be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       State of Massachusetts,

                               City of Boston, September 17, 1999.
     Ms. Mary Lou K. Crane,
     Regional Director,
     U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Boston, MA.
       Dear Mary Lou: I appreciate your discussion with me 
     concerning the Community Builders Fellowship program which 
     Secretary Cuomo has initiated, and I am very pleased to see 
     the degree to which Community Builders in the Boston HUD 
     Office have been involved with the City. I also like the fact 
     that you have assigned several different people to work with 
     us.
       Certainly Community Builder Juan Evereteze has brought much 
     knowledge and enthusiasm to his liaison work with our massive 
     Disposition Demonstration program. In that same vein, it has 
     been quite helpful to have Community Builder HOPE VI 
     Specialist Abbey Ogunbola assisting the Boston Housing 
     Authority on the complicated Orchard Park development.
       One of my special initiatives has been the after-school 
     program know as From 2 to 6, and Bonnie Peak-Graham has been 
     a dynamic addition to our team for that program.
       I would be remiss if I did not mention the substantive 
     contributions Deborah Griswold makes in her role representing 
     you as liaison to our Empowerment Zone. She has been very 
     skillful in helping our folks craft their governance 
     structures.
       It is great having so many talented Federal partners 
     working with my professional team. I know you have always 
     been available to help us, but I also know that you have 
     competing demands for your time. Having the Community 
     Builders here has been very useful. Thank you for your 
     careful attention to our myriad issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas M. Menino,
     Mayor of Boston.
                                  ____

                                           State of Massachusetts,


                                              Springfield, MA,

                                               September 13, 1999.
     Mary Lou K. Crane
     HUD Secretary's Representative for New England, Boston, MA
       Dear Secretary Crane: It has come to my attention that 
     Senator Kerry has asked Secretary Cuomo to provide some 
     objective analysis of the added value which the new Community 
     Builders are bringing to HUD's relationship with its many 
     partners. I would like to comment on the significant 
     contributions I believe this gentleman assigned to 
     Springfield, MA, Jim Wenner, has made.
       While I know that I have but to call you office whenever I 
     have a question, it is very helpful to have a generalist with 
     the skills and experience of Jim Wenner basically ``on call'' 
     to our great city whenever we need him. Mr. Wenner has made a 
     substantive difference in so many of the pending issues we 
     must deal with on a daily basis. My Housing Department has 
     praised his involvement in the Lower Liberty Heights 
     neighborhood as we continue our work to bring back that area 
     of Springfield. Jim has worked with the Board of Director's 
     of a low-income cooperative housing development assisting in 
     building their management capacity. In addition, Jim was 
     quite helpful to Herberto Flores, Executive Director of 
     Brightwood Development, Inc., on major foreclosure issue.
       I can't tell you how pleased I am to learn that we have 
     been selected to be a pilot city for the Asset Management 
     Pilot Program which your property disposition team is 
     launching. I know that Mr. Wenner's representation to tackle 
     difficult projects was persuasive in your selection.
       As Mayor of a city located a distance from Boston, we 
     frequently complain that we never see our Federal and State 
     partners. I can no longer say that now that we have a 
     Community Builder. Jim Wenner has brought our partnership 
     with HUD to a very professional and responsive level and I 
     want to be sure you know how appreciative I am.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael J. Albano,
                                                            Mayor.

[[Page S11390]]

     
                                  ____
                                      Boston Municipal Police,

                                    Dorchester, MA, March 2, 1999.
     Ms. Deborah Griswold,
     Community Builders,
     U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Boston, MA.
       Dear Ms. Griswold: I was very impressed with your 
     presentation of the ``Community Builders'' program at the 
     Ramsay Park Coalition last week, and I was wondering if you 
     would be available on March 9, 1999 to speak to the Grant 
     Manor/Camfield Gardens/Roxse Homes and Lenox Camden Safety 
     Task Force. The Task Force was established to coordinate 
     safety and security for the H.U.D./M.H.F.A. Demonstration 
     Disposition Program, and I feel many of the initiatives of 
     the Community Builders Program would be an invaluable 
     resource for the various tenant associations.
       The Safety Task Force meeting will be held at the Lenox 
     Camden Residents Association Office at 515 Shawmurt Ave. 
     Also, if possible, could you send me a copy of your booklet 
     ``Boston Connects''.
       Thank you for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert Francis,
     Deputy Director.
                                  ____



                               Department of Veterans Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, November 27, 1998.
     Mr. Ron Armstead,
     U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Boston, MA.
       Dear Mr. Armstead: Thank you for your help in putting 
     together and executing the Center for Minority Veterans most 
     successful training conference to date.
       Over 150 Minority Veterans Program Coordinators (MVPC) 
     participated in this year's conference. Initial feedback 
     indicates that conference goals were overwhelmingly 
     accomplished. Participants walked away better prepared to 
     build effective minority veterans programs at their local 
     facilities. They have a more comprehensive understanding of 
     VA benefits and programs, as well as ways to promote the use 
     of these services.
       This success was achieved through the collaborative efforts 
     of everyone involved. Again, thanks for your role in making 
     this a great event.
           Sincerely,
                                                Willie L. Hensley,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for 
more section 8 housing vouchers to help local housing agencies meet 
local housing needs. Although many Americans have benefited 
tremendously from the current economy, many others have not shared in 
that wealth. In my state, housing costs in communities like Santa Fe 
and Albuquerque have risen faster than the incomes of low- and middle-
income workers.
  Many working families can no longer afford housing in the cities 
where they work, and many are forced to commute long distances just to 
stay employed. Section 8 vouchers fulfill a very great need in the 
communities where entry level housing costs are seven to eight times 
the annual income of its residents.
  The need for vouchers in New Mexico far exceeds the number of 
vouchers currently available. The waiting list for section 8 vouchers 
is 14 months in New Mexico. The waiting time is even higher in places 
like Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Mr. President, the elderly, disabled and 
working families with children cannot wait 2 years to get into decent, 
affordable housing. Those on the waiting list do not have many 
alternatives in New Mexico as the waiting time to get into public 
housing is 9 months. Voucher recipients are not asking for free 
housing, they are asking for assistance in obtaining one of the most 
basic needs we have--shelter.
  Although Congress authorized 100,000 new vouchers for fiscal year 
2000, this bill failed to fund those new vouchers. Mr. President, I 
hope we can pass an amendment today that will adequately address the 
housing needs of our working families, disabled, and elderly.
  Mr. KERRY. A final, quick comment. I couldn't agree more with what 
the Senator from Missouri, the chairman, said about the problems of the 
budget. What we are asking today is, when we go into the final 
negotiations and the numbers that are being fought over as to what the 
allocations really will be, when we have an opportunity to perhaps make 
good on certain efforts, that this program, this effort of housing, 
will be at the forefront of those priorities. We understand the 
limitations of the current allocation, but most people are assuming we 
have an opportunity to change that.
  Secondly, the Senator from Missouri is correct about the problem of 
building housing, but that will never resolve the current problem of 
low-income working families who are simply out of reach of affordable 
housing. I think everybody understands that section 8 and other 
affordable housing efforts within HUD are the key measures that try to 
lift people up when they play by the rules, go to work, do their best 
to try to get ahead, but simply can't afford to put one half of their 
entire earned income into rent, therefore, at the expense often of 
health care, of food, of adequate clothing, and of the other essentials 
of life. I think that is really what we are talking about. Even in the 
best of circumstances, if we start building housing today, there will 
still be millions of American families in that worst-case situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise before you today in support of 
increased funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Specifically, two programs--housing vouchers for low-
income families and the Community Builders program--of interest to both 
Delaware and the nation, need additional funding that is not in this 
bill. I hope that my comments will be helpful to my colleagues when we 
eventually head into conference on this bill.
  Before I speak, I wish to commend the managers of this bill. 
Competing demands and good programs are a recipe for tough choices. 
These managers have done an excellent job in moving this bill along 
smoothly and effectively and with a spirit of comaraderie.
  But this bill would not fund a single new housing voucher for low-
income Americans to obtain housing. Not a single one. This just makes 
no sense for two basic reasons. First, these vouchers enable low-income 
families to afford a reasonable place to live, to afford decent 
housing--but we now have more than one million Americans waiting for 
housing assistance. Not only are these numbers abominable, but 
Americans are waiting months and even years to get affordable housing. 
In my home state of Delaware, people are stuck on waiting lists for an 
average of 10 months for public housing and 18 months for section 8 
vouchers. In Philadelphia, just down the road, the waiting time is 11 
years. In Cincinnati, it is 10 years. How can we be freezing a program 
that provides housing vouchers when, before the freeze, HUD-assisted 
households were growing at a rate of 107,000 households per year? We 
are freezing out the elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons 
trying to get close to a good job. And what is the alternative for 
these million people on waiting lists? It is substandard housing or a 
paycheck that goes almost entirely to rent.
  Second, we are in a time of booming growth and prosperity. A time 
when we have an actual surplus in our treasury. But not all Americans 
are touched by this prosperity, as evidenced by the waiting lists. In 
fact, many Americans are discovering that they cannot pay their rents 
because this economy has driven up the cost of their rents. Over 5 
million families have severe housing needs in this country. These 
vouchers are all the more necessary as rents rise more and more out of 
reach.
  The administration has asked for a conservative number of new housing 
vouchers. These 100,000 vouchers would go to the elderly, the homeless 
and worst-case housing needs. In addition, these vouchers would support 
people moving from welfare to work. Mr. President, we are creating new 
jobs in this economy, but the people that need these jobs are not 
living where these jobs are. These vouchers would help get people to 
where they need to be in order to work and get off the welfare rolls. 
Last year we voted to add 90,000 new vouchers, the first growth since 
1994. If we vote for new vouchers now, 259 families in Delaware would 
be able to receive housing assistance. To provide no new vouchers seems 
just unreasonable.
  This bill also terminates the Community Builders program. This public 
service program has put HUD out into the community to strengthen and 
revive our neighborhoods. Frankly, in the past, HUD has not been an 
exemplary representative of good bureaucracy. But this administration 
has gone to great lengths to turn things around--and begin to provide 
services effectively and skillfully to our communities. The Community 
Builders program is a successful example of this turn-around. The 
program is not even 2 years old, yet what it has accomplished in my 
state of Delaware is remarkable.

[[Page S11391]]

Let me tell you what the Community Builders program is doing in 
Delaware and why it is important.

  We did not have a HUD presence in Delaware before the Community 
Builders. Now, for the first time, Delaware has a direct link to HUD 
programs. Let me tell you what that means. In Delaware, we have some 
pretty amazing people who are trying to help their communities by 
developing projects to create jobs and fair housing. They have the will 
and Community Builders gave them the way. The Community Builders, who 
are experts in technical assistance, are training these people on how 
to start community development programs.
  Besides providing expertise, this program has literally put people on 
the street who facilitate and coordinate the community's access to HUD 
programs. Let me give you another example. Next week in the Terry 
Apartments on Bloom Street in Wilmington, computers will be installed 
for its elderly residents. The Community Builders helped secure the 
funding for these computers. It also teamed with the University of 
Delaware so that next week, people will come to the apartment building 
to train these residents how to use the computers. This means that 
persons living in section 8 buildings will now have access to the 
internet.
  I have seen letter upon letter sent to HUD thanking them for what 
this program has brought to Delaware. Let me quote for you a letter 
from Patti Campbell at the University of Delaware written to HUD:

       The Delaware Community Builders have been instrumental in 
     our continued progress on building community Neighborhood 
     Networks, and have made possible the first ever Statewide 
     strategic discussion and conference of faith-based community 
     development groups. The input and advice from HUD's Community 
     Builder . . . provides a unique housing perspective that has 
     helped the program make strong, well-thought out strategic 
     decisions. This expertise is an invaluable tool that assists 
     in the forward progress of many of our affordable housing and 
     community based programs. HUD's Community Builders have a 
     unique position in Delaware in that they can offer 
     information about the overall community-based development 
     process with the full knowledge and support of HUD's broader 
     programs.

  As this letter vocalizes, the Community Builders have created a 
partnership connecting organizations trying to develop affordable 
housing in Delaware--and has built their capacity to do so. It is clear 
that closing this office in Delaware, which would happen if this 
program is disbanded, would harm this partnership.
  Mr. President, again, I commend the managers of this bill. This bill 
would be an even better one if it secured more housing for the people 
that need it and if it continued HUD's presence in local communities. I 
hope that my colleagues will be able to find the resources to fund 
these programs by the time this bill comes out of conference.
  I know my colleagues are ready to move on. Let me make three broad 
points. It will take about 3 to 5 minutes.
  No. 1, the fact is, we have asked the Housing Department, HUD, to 
become more innovative. We have asked them to trim down. We have asked 
them to become more efficient. We have asked them to become more 
customer oriented. I think under Andrew Cuomo they have done just that. 
Now, because of problems beyond the control of the subcommittee, this 
is the caboose at the end of the train that is going to be empty. This 
is not going to get the kind of attention, the whole of HUD is not 
going to get the kind of attention, it deserves.
  The second point is very basic. My colleague from Missouri made a 
very compelling argument about section 8. He made the point, why this 
tax cut is so brain dead, why we are here talking about cutting what 
everyone on this floor acknowledges there is a need for, recognizing 
but not saying that in order to be able to come up with a surplus of $1 
trillion over 10 years, which is the projection, that encompasses a 20-
percent cut across the board in all programs. If we increase defense, 
it means a 40-percent cut in some programs.
  Here we are debating, tying up the end of a session. This is totally 
beyond the control of my colleagues on the subcommittee, totally beyond 
their control. I am not suggesting they agree with what I am saying. I 
am telling Senators, this is the classic example of why we are in such 
trouble.
  Here we are with this booming economy, a projected surplus, very few 
appropriations bills passed. The only thing we are talking about is an 
$800 billion tax cut that now has been vetoed and now it is said there 
will be no compromise on until next year. We are spending a surplus we 
don't have, and we are kidding the American public that there is 
somehow a painless way of arriving at the surplus so we can give it 
back in a tax cut.
  I defy anyone to tell me how we are going to meet the needs. 
Democrats and Republicans have stood up, to the best of my knowledge, 
and said: You are right; we have this serious section 8 problem; we 
have this serious problem in providing affordable housing; we should do 
something about it. Tell me how you do it. This, as well as education, 
as well as 10 other things we could name--defense, where we all 
acknowledge there are significant needs--by spending a surplus we don't 
have and that is premised upon a continued cut of 20 percent beyond 
what we have cut over the last 6 years on balance.
  As the grade school kids used to say, I hope we get real here. These 
folks managing this legislation can't manufacture an allocation. They 
can't come up with magic money. I hope people who are setting policy, 
making the decisions about how to proceed on these overall budget items 
and how to deal with the projected surplus, which seems to have us 
completely tied up in knots--I have been here for 27 years. My friend 
from Massachusetts has been here longer than I have. I don't ever 
remember a time when things were in as much disarray at the end of the 
year and in the appropriations process. The difference is, nobody has a 
plan. Nobody has a plan. At least when Gingrich was in charge over 
there, they had a plan. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. It 
was the proverbial freight train, but it was a light. He had a plan--a 
bad plan but a plan. We don't even have a plan.
  We are careening down this hill, having no notion what is going to 
happen. At least I don't have any notion. Maybe others are smarter than 
I am and can tell me what is going to happen in the next week, 2 weeks, 
1 month, 6 weeks. I have no idea. I don't think there is a plan.

  The plan relates to having a rational strategy towards the budget in 
terms of how we are going to deal with this booming economy, this 
projected surplus, and the spending priorities. Mark my words, this is 
not the only one. My friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and my 
friend from Illinois have talked about education and how it has gotten 
just gored--no pun intended. This is crazy.
  I hope saner leaders decide how to approach this problem, so we are 
not here talking about something we all think we should do something 
about and the American public, with the economy booming, can't 
understand why we can't do something about. Yet we have no idea how to 
do anything about it. I find that fascinating, I find that deplorable, 
and I find that frightening.
  I hope this illustration on this small issue in relative terms is 
able to be looked at by people. If there is a problem here, it is 
everywhere. All these priorities we say we want, and yet we are 
fighting over a surplus that doesn't exist and trying to give away $800 
billion in a tax cut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  I say, very quickly, to my colleague from Delaware, I appreciate the 
kind words he said about the ranking member and me, but I have to 
disagree with all the rest he said.
  I am not going to make the argument here. There is a plan. We have a 
budget. We are faced with problems in this allocation, not because of 
any tax cut but because of the budget caps that were adopted by 
Congress and signed into law by the President.
  There is a plan, and I will leave it to the Budget Committee members 
and the leadership of the committees to describe that plan. We have 
added money above the caps this year for the costs of military actions. 
That is why there will be work on the Labor-HHS bill to raise the money 
necessary within the available surplus. It has nothing to do with the 
tax cut. We will not be touching Social Security.

[[Page S11392]]

  Because the Senator from Rhode Island raised a question about 
community builders, I send a memorandum to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent it be printed in the Record. It is a memorandum from the 
Assistant Secretary for Housing, the Federal Housing Commissioner, 
outlining the problems with community builders. We have heard from many 
people in HUD offices, who do not wish to be quoted, concerning their 
problems with the community builders. We are not going to argue that 
point here.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U.S. Department of Housing and


                                            Urban Development,

                                Washington, DC, September 2, 1999.

     Memorandum for: Secretary's Representatives; Senior Community 
         Builders; Departmental Enforcement Center, Headquarters 
         Division Directors; Departmental Enforcement Center, 
         Satellite Office Directors; Multifamily Hub/Program 
         Center Directors; Property Disposition Center Directors; 
         Headquarters Multifamily Office Directors.
     Subject: Clarifying Community Builder Roles in Troubled FHA 
         Multifamily Housing Projects.

       In order for HUD to promptly and properly address troubled 
     multifamily projects, it is essential that we act and speak 
     with one voice, as ``One HUD''. As HUD is currently 
     structured, the Office of Housing remains responsible for the 
     asset management functions for these projects at all times. 
     The Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC), working closely 
     with Housing staff, is currently involved with several 
     hundred of these projects.
       It has come to our attention that in their effort to 
     provide responsive customer service, Community Builders (CBs) 
     in certain areas have misinterpreted or overstepped their 
     role in dealing with HUD's identified troubled multifamily 
     projects.
       Handling these troubled multifamily projects must be a team 
     effort at all times. To this end, it cannot be stressed too 
     strongly that, prior to responding to any inquiries, issues, 
     etc. regarding any multifamily project, the Community 
     Building MUST first consult with the Multifamily Hub/Program 
     Center Director to determine whether it is a troubled MF 
     project and how to respond. If Housing advises the CB that 
     the DEC is involved in the troubled project, then Housing and 
     the Community Builder must communicate with the appropriate 
     DEC Satellite Office. These three organizations will jointly 
     determine the response and the role of the Community Builder, 
     if any, in addressing the issue. In highly sensitive cases 
     (e.g., involving OGC or OIG), the CB may be advised to 
     refrain from any communication, or will be limited to 
     discussion of only very specific aspects of the case.
       At no time is it proper for the Community Builder to 
     schedule meetings, respond to or initiate contacts directly 
     with an owner, owner's representative, owner's agent, the 
     media, tenants, Members of Congress or their staffs, etc. 
     regarding a troubled multifamily project without the explicit 
     prior agreement of the Director of the Multifamily Hub/
     Program Center and, where the DEC is involved, the DEC 
     Satellite Office Director. Keep in mind that any separate 
     communications between the Community Builders and any of 
     these parties could compromise proposed or ongoing 
     negotiations between the Departmental Enforcement Center and 
     the owner. At all times, HUD must present itself to the 
     public as speaking with one voice on troubled multifamily 
     projects.
       When a multifamily project has been referred to one of the 
     Office of Housing's two Property Disposition (PD) Centers for 
     foreclosure or taking over a project as mortgagee-in-
     possession or owner, responsibility for the property moves to 
     the PD Center. In such cases, Community Builders remain an 
     essential part of the HUD team, but will need to work closely 
     and coordinate with the Director of the appropriate PD 
     Center.
       The policy outlined above must be adhered to immediately. 
     More detailed guidance is being developed by a working group 
     to be established by the Office of Housing, Departmental 
     Enforcement Center, and the Office of Field Policy and 
     Management.
       If you have any questions, please contact Marc Harris, 
     Office of Housing (202) 708-0614, ext. 2680; Jane Hildt, DEC 
     Operations Division (202) 708-9395, ext. 3567 or Barry 
     Reibman, Office of Field Policy and Management (202) 708-
     1123. Note that the Departmental Enforcement Center Satellite 
     Offices are located in New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Fort 
     Worth, and Los Angeles; the Property Disposition Centers are 
     located in Atlanta and Fort Worth.
     William Apgar,
       Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing 
     Commissioner.
     Edward J. Kraus,
       Director, Departmental Enforcement Center.
     Mary E. Madden,
       Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management.

  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to pay my compliments to 
Senators Bond and Mikulski. They have each made the best of a very 
difficult situation. I compliment them on their leadership. I 
particularly thank Senator Mikulski, who continues to be of service to 
people of my State and whose own priorities are written throughout this 
bill, which for all of us in our region of the country is particularly 
important. It is in furtherance of their priorities, not in 
contradiction, that I rise in support of Senator Kerry's amendment.
  This legislation does not contain any funding for new section 8 
housing vouchers. This amendment will provide $288 million for 50,000 
of those new vouchers. It is a modest but necessary addition. It does 
not increase authority or outlays. There are offsets for each and every 
one of those dollars. It is simply a reordering of priorities to 
recognize the state of housing in America.
  Rising economic prosperity in America erodes the foundation of many 
of our most endemic social problems. Housing is a single exception. 
Prosperity is not solving the housing crisis in America; it is 
exacerbating the housing problem in America. Indeed, what was a housing 
problem in the last decade is a housing crisis in this decade. Rents 
are rising, costs are increasing, there is homelessness, and 
homelessness increases as the demand on people's income to accommodate 
housing also rises.
  The single weapon the Federal Government has available to deal with 
the housing crisis in America is section 8 vouchers. This is not a 
giveaway; this is no free ride for the citizens of America. Between 30 
and 40 percent of people's income must be dedicated to paying rent from 
their own resources as part of this program. In many of our urban 
areas, it is the single tool available to prevent children and families 
from going to the streets.
  In Newark, NJ, over 172,000 families are paying more than 50 percent 
of their income in rent or living in substandard conditions. More than 
1 million people are languishing on waiting lists for section 8 
vouchers or affordable housing. And they are not waiting a few days or 
weeks or even a few months; the average is 28 months. You realize you 
are in trouble, you cannot provide affordable, decent housing for your 
children, and then you wait in substandard conditions, paying rent 
where you also cannot afford health care or food for your children. You 
wait 28 months--unless you live in Philadelphia, where you wait 11 
years. In New Jersey, the average in our cities is 3 years. We have 
15,000 people waiting for vouchers in Jersey City and 10,000 are 
waiting in Newark.
  Every year, year in and year out, the numbers in America grow by 
100,000. The simple reality is that this year, unless Senator Kerry's 
amendment is adopted, the number of section 8 vouchers will not 
increase--not by 100,000 to meet growing demand, not by 50,000 to meet 
half of the demand, but by none, not a single new family. The problem 
becomes a crisis, and the crisis deepens.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to follow Senator Kerry's leadership to 
improve upon the work, the already considerable work, Senators Mikulski 
and Bond have done.
  Also, as did the Senator from Rhode Island, I add my voice in defense 
of the Community Builders Program. This is America at its best, where 
young people, for modest remuneration, give their time and their 
talents to reach out to fellow citizens, to help them avail themselves 
of Government or private programs, to improve their own lives. In some 
cities of my State, virtually the only contact some desperate people in 
need of assistance for housing, drug abuse, educational services have 
is with these people. Their only contact with the Federal Government 
may be one of these young people giving a stage of their lives to go 
into a community and reach out. That program is not going to be reduced 
on the legislation. It could be eliminated.
  This Senate voted to allow Andrew Cuomo to become a member of this 
Cabinet to provide leadership for HUD. This is one of his signature 
programs. His talents and his time have brought him to believe this is 
one thing we can

[[Page S11393]]

do for a modest cost that would make a difference. He deserves that 
support. This modest vote will allow him to continue with a program 
that he believes and I believe is critical.
  I urge adoption of Senator Kerry's amendment. I express my thanks, 
again, to Senator Bond, and particularly Senator Mikulski, for 
improving this legislation and bringing us to this point. We are all 
very grateful.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their 
kind words about the Senator from Missouri and myself.
  Speaking on the amendment of Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, I want 
to reiterate the fact that there is very keen interest on the part of 
the subcommittee to continue to expand the voucher program. What we 
lack is really the wallet. We hope that as we move to conference, 
working very closely with the administration, we can find an offset to 
pay for new vouchers, and an offset that will not only take care of 
this year's appropriation but will be sustainable and reliable.
  I am pleased to report to my colleagues in the Senate that I have had 
extensive conversations with the head of OMB, who is working on this, 
along with our Secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo. I do not believe the 
eloquent statements by my colleagues on the compelling human need to be 
reiterated by me. I do want to reiterate my support for increasing the 
voucher program in conference. I know that the President is deeply 
concerned about this, and should we not be able to proceed with an 
expansion, his senior advisers are already advising a veto. We are not 
there yet.
  I say to my colleagues that this is a work in progress. They have 
outlined the compelling human need. I could give the same kinds of 
examples from my own State of Maryland, where, though we are enjoying a 
prosperous economy, there are still very significant ZIP Codes of 
poverty. So working together, we will be able to do that.
  With that, I want to convey, first, my support, and, second, I 
believe we can move forward and listen to the Senator from 
Massachusetts in relation to the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kerry amendment. 
Let me explain that, as a member of the Budget Committee, I understand 
the burden this appropriations subcommittee faced. The budget 
allocations were entirely inadequate for the demands of this very 
important budget--the Veterans' Administration, the National Aeronautic 
and Space Administration, and certainly for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, as well as other agencies.
  The chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Mikulski of Maryland 
have done the very best they could under the circumstances to try to 
address these critical national needs. I believe Senator Kerry and 
others have said perhaps one of the areas that really needs more 
attention when this bill goes to conference relates to the section 8 
voucher program--a program which takes working families and gives them 
a helping hand to find affordable housing.
  It is hard to imagine why, in this time of economic prosperity, we 
would have people still searching for housing. In my home State of 
Illinois, in the city of Chicago, we have seen this booming economy 
bring rents up even higher, and so working families, particularly with 
the low minimum wage, which has not been addressed for several years, 
are striving to do their very best for their children while rents are 
rising in an otherwise prosperous economy.
  In the city of Chicago, we can have some pretty powerful winters. I 
can recall not too long ago visiting the flat of a working family. The 
man had recently become unemployed, his wife was on dialysis, and he 
had two small children. They had no heat in the apartment they were 
living in. They were all huddled in one room with a space heater. All 
of the plumbing had frozen. It was a miserable living condition. They 
were within minutes of the loop of Chicago.
  I think it is an illustration of families that are struggling to 
provide decent, safe, healthy housing for their families under the 
worst of circumstances.
  This bill does not provide any additional money for section 8 
vouchers. For over 20 years, we have put more money into section 8 
vouchers to try to keep up with the demand of those who cannot find 
adequate housing.
  I might also add that we are now going through a revolution in 
thinking on public housing, which probably started several decades ago 
in the city of St. Louis--represented by the chairman of this 
subcommittee--when they decided the vertical slums, the public housing 
projects, were to be torn down, and they were to try to build things 
which were more habitable and housing which was more decent for the 
families that needed them.
  We are doing the same thing in Illinois and in the city of Chicago. 
But as these high-rise, public housing units are torn down, the people 
living there need a place to live. Section 8 vouchers give them money 
in hand to supplement with their own money to find something in the 
community. When this bill provides no new money for section 8, it 
reduces, if not eliminates, the possibility that these families can 
find that kind of housing.
  When you take a look at the situation in the State of Illinois, when 
it comes to housing, it is an illustration, as my colleague from New 
Jersey noted earlier, of the problems they face. The number of families 
with unmet worst case needs for housing in the metropolitan area of 
Chicago is 151,000 families. The average time on waiting lists for 
public housing and section 8 vouchers in Illinois for public housing is 
16 months. If you wanted to get into a public housing unit, the average 
wait is 16 months, if you are eligible. If you apply for a section 8 
voucher to stay in the private market and rent a flat or a unit or an 
apartment, you wait 63 months--over 5 years to qualify for section 8 
vouchers.
  That will get worse if in conference we don't put money in for 
section 8 vouchers.
  In addition, the number of families on waiting lists in the 
metropolitan area of Chicago is 31,000 families looking for public 
housing, and 30,000 for section 8 vouchers. If we don't put additional 
money for section 8 in this bill in conference, the number of families 
in my State that will not receive assistance for section 8 is over 
12,733 families that, frankly, will be out on their own.
  Why do we have such a crisis at this time of otherwise economic 
prosperity? Because, frankly, despite the fact that between 1977 and 
1994 the number of HUD-assisted households grew by 2.6 million--an 
average of 204,000 additional households each year from 1977 through 
1983, and an additional 107,000 households in 1984 to 1994--in 1995, we 
saw a historic reversal in Federal housing policy, freezes on new 
housing vouchers, despite a growing need.
  If you travel through some cities in this country, even our Nation's 
Capital of Washington, in the cold of winter, you will see homeless 
people. Some of these folks have serious personal problems. Others are 
desperate to find housing. What we do in this bill relates directly to 
the relief they need.

  I salute the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership. I hope in 
conference the Senators from Missouri and Maryland and other members of 
this subcommittee can find the resources and wherewithal to increase 
the number of section 8 vouchers in this bill.
  The last point I will make is this: This bill also eliminates 400 
employees in HUD for community builders who are generally young people 
who have decided to give 2 years of their life to leave a job or career 
and dedicate it to public service. These are people working in 
communities throughout the United States to provide housing and 
counseling, and their counseling is very good.
  Ernst & Young, a very well-respected organization, did an audit of 
the Community Builders Program in HUD, and didn't stay in Washington to 
speak for the bureaucrats here. They went out in the communities and 
asked the people who served. They applauded community builders. They 
said community builders work. These are people doing a good job for the 
government, people with idealism and energy whom we

[[Page S11394]]

need to make this already good department an even better agency.
  It is sad to me this appropriations bill eliminates these 400 
community builders, and will close down offices in some 81 cities 
across America.
  That is a disservice to the people who truly need their services. I 
hope in conference the conferees will reconsider this.
  Let me close by commending Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for 
their hard work. I understand the burden they face with the budget 
allocation. But we certainly have a burden, too, and the burden is to 
face the needs of working people who need help to find decent housing 
for their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                      Amendment No. 1782, Vitiated

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate 
amendment No. 1782.
  This was included inadvertently in the list of amendments and was 
already agreed to as part of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     Amendment No. 1761, Withdrawn

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for the 
substance of his comments, and also for his generous comments about my 
efforts and the efforts of the ranking member and others on this bill.
  I thank each of our colleagues who have come to the floor--the 
Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Rhode Island, and others--each 
of whom have spoken very eloquently and very forcefully about the need 
to increase housing, and section 8 particularly.
  All of us are very mindful of the particular predicament the Senator 
from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri have faced. We have said 
many things on the floor this morning about their commitment to this 
effort. I am particularly grateful to the Senator from Maryland for her 
statements a moment ago about the efforts they will make in the course 
of the conference.
  After discussions with Secretary Cuomo, and discussions with the 
chairman and with the ranking member, we are convinced the best course 
at this point in time is to continue to respect what the ranking member 
said--that this is a working process--to do our best in the course of 
the next weeks to honor the efforts of those Senators on the floor 
today who have spoken about the need. I am convinced we can do that.
  I think there is no purpose at this point in time in taking the 
Senate to a vote, given the assurance of those efforts by the 
administration and ranking member, and therefore I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.


                           Amendment No. 1790

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding education 
                                funding)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1790.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 113, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The American people know that a strong public education 
     system is vital to our Nation's future and they 
     overwhelmingly support increasing the Federal investment in 
     education.
       (2) The funding level for the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate has been reduced to pay for 
     other programs.
       (3) The current allocation for the Subcommittee on Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
     Appropriations is 17 percent below fiscal year 1999 levels.
       (4) The 17 percent reduction in Head Start will result in 
     142,000 children not being served.
       (5) The 17 percent reduction will cost school districts the 
     funds for 5,246 newly hired teachers.
       (6) The 17 percent reduction will deprive 50,000 students 
     of access to after-school and summer school programs.
       (7) The 17 percent reduction in funding for the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will make it far more 
     difficult for States to provide an appropriate education for 
     students with disabilities by reducing funding by more than 
     $880,000,000.
       (8) The 17 percent reduction will deprive 2,100,000 
     children in high-poverty communities of educational services 
     to help them do well in school and master the basics.
       (9) The 17 percent reduction will result in 1,000 fewer 
     school districts receiving support for their initiatives to 
     integrate technology into their classrooms.
       (10) The 17 percent reduction will deny nearly 200,000 
     disadvantaged and middle-income students access to counseling 
     and educational support to help them succeed in college.
       (11) The 17 percent reduction will reduce funds provided to 
     schools to improve school safety by nearly $100,000,000.
       (12) The 17 percent reduction will cause 100,000 students 
     to lose their Federal Pell Grant awards.
       (13) No action has been taken in the Senate on the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000.
       (14) There are only 5 legislative work days left before the 
     end of fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate should increase the Federal investment in 
     education, including providing--
       (A) $1,400,000,000 for the second year of the initiative to 
     reduce class sizes in early grades by hiring 100,000 
     qualified teachers;
       (B) an increase in support for programs that recruit, 
     train, and provide professional development for, teachers;
       (C) $600,000,000 for after-school programs, thereby 
     tripling the current investment;
       (D) an increase, not a decrease, in funding for the Safe 
     and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994;
       (E) an increase in funding for part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for children 
     from disadvantaged backgrounds, and an increase in funding 
     for reading and literacy grants under part C of title II of 
     such Act;
       (F) an increase, not a decrease, in funding for the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;
       (G) funding for a larger maximum Federal Pell Grant award 
     for college students, and an increase in funding for 
     mentoring and other need-based programs;
       (H) an increase, not a decrease, in funds available to help 
     schools use technology effectively in the classroom and 
     narrow the technology gap; and
       (I) at least $3,700,000,000 in Federal resources to help 
     communities leverage funds to modernize public school 
     facilities; and
       (2) the Senate should stay within the discretionary 
     spending caps and avoid using the resources of the social 
     security program by finding discretionary spending offsets 
     that do not jeopardize important investments in other key 
     programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is the last amendment, as I 
understand it, that will require a rollcall vote. I propose that there 
be a 1-hour time limit provided for the amendment with the assumption 
that there would be no second degree amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a 1-hour time limit provided 
for the amendment to be equally divided, and no second degree amendment 
be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
talk with the majority leader and others on this before we agree to a 
time limit. I suggest the absence of a quorum at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the floor, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by discussing the amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would prefer not to object. But I was not 
aware of the content of the amendment

[[Page S11395]]

until just a short time ago. I would like to have a chance to take a 
look at it. I think I am going to want to offer, to be perfectly frank, 
a second-degree amendment to it.
  I want to have a chance, when the Senator completes his remarks, to 
talk with him about what time will be needed and how we can work 
through the parliamentary procedure. I want to be candid with the 
Senator about that. I look forward to having a chance to discuss it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are 7 calendar days away from the 
beginning of the new fiscal year. We have yet to schedule a markup on 
spending for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education here in 
the Senate. It is becoming increasingly disconcerting to many Members 
that over the course of the last several months, it has been the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education bill in particular, that has 
become the ATM machine for the entire Federal budget.
  Given the fact that we are at the end of a fiscal year, given the 
fact that just yesterday we saw the intentions of our Republican 
colleagues on the House side as they made spending decisions with 
regard to education, given the fact it may be we will not have an 
opportunity to debate a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
bill on the Senate floor at least before the first of October, many 
Members thought it was important to raise the issue now, to at least 
have some discussion about where we are and where we need to go on this 
critical issue prior to the time we have cemented in all the other 
commitments and all the other decisions with regard to the budget and 
appropriations for the next fiscal year.
  On January 6, the majority leader made a very strong statement about 
education. He said, ``Education is going to be a central issue this 
year. The Democrats say it is important and should be a high priority; 
Republicans say it is a high priority.''
  On April 14, the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee made a 
similar statement, very strong in its nature. He claimed that the 
budget resolution increased education funding by $3.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2000, and on March 1 he said, ``We are going to put real 
money where our rhetoric has been.'' The reality is, so far our 
colleagues have not kept their promise. Instead, as I said, we are 
using education as an ATM machine for everything else.
  Senate funding for Labor-HHS-Education today is $15 billion below 
last year's levels, a 17-percent cut from a hard freeze of last year. 
Just last week, the Appropriations Committee took $7 billion away from 
the education budget. The Republican tax bill which was vetoed 
yesterday would have cut education by 50 percent in the 10th year. 
Yesterday, the House Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee finally brought 
up a bill, and that bill provides less for education than we provided 
last year. It kills the class-size reduction program, it provides only 
half of the President's request for afterschool programs, it provides a 
half a billion less for Head Start than the President requested, it 
underfunds title I for disadvantaged children, it underfunds safe and 
drug-free schools, and it underfunds education technology and youth 
employment programs. Clearly, education is the lowest--not the 
highest--priority for our Republican colleagues.
  In the Senate, we still have a 17-percent cut, which would be 
devastating. Make no mistake about it, the ramifications of that kind 
of cut on education in one fiscal year would absolutely devastate 
educational programs: 175,000 fewer young children would attend Head 
Start; 2.1 million kids from high poverty areas would not receive the 
help they need to succeed; 85,000 fewer students would have access to 
afterschool programs and summer school programs than the year before; 
Federal funding for special education would be destroyed; virtually all 
schools would lose funding for drug abuse and violence prevention 
programs; 166,000 college students would not get work-study that makes 
college more affordable; 120,000 disadvantaged college students would 
lose the TRIO services that help them complete college.
  Americans certainly know strong public schools are vital to our 
future. They say it over and over when we ask them in the polling data. 
Mr. President, 79 percent of Americans in a poll just taken say 
improving education and schools is one of the most important factors 
they will use in choosing the next President. A strong majority 
supports increasing our investment in education, not slashing it. Some 
say public schools are broken and can't be fixed. That evidence is just 
not there. It doesn't support claims as erratic and as irrational as 
that.

  In 1994, the Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. We put policies in place to encourage schools to set high 
standards for disadvantaged children and assess students' performance. 
The standards are just now going into effect. Setting standards for 
low-achieving students helps all students. Eighty percent of poor 
school districts and almost half of all districts report title I has 
actually encouraged schools to put standards in place for all. We are 
starting now to see real results. Student performance is rising in 
reading, math, and science. U.S. students scored near the top on the 
latest international assessment of reading. American fourth graders 
outperform students from all other nations but one. The combined verbal 
and math scores on SAT increased 15 points between 1992 and 1997. The 
average math score is at its highest level in 26 years.
  There are other signs of improvement. More students are taking 
rigorous courses and doing better. The percentage of students taking 
biology, chemistry, and physics has doubled. The number of AP exams 
where students scored a passing grade has risen nearly fivefold since 
1992. Fewer students are dropping out. From 1982 to 1996, the dropout 
rate for students between 16 and 24 fell from 14 to 11. The gap between 
whites and blacks in completing high school has closed. In 1995, for 
the first time, blacks and whites completed high school at the same 
rate, 87 percent.
  However, not all schools, not all students, reach their potential. We 
know we have to do better. Schools face many challenges they didn't 
face even when I was going to school. Enrollments are at record levels. 
A large part of the teaching corps is getting ready to retire. 
Diversity is increasingly bringing new languages and cultures into the 
classroom. Family structures are changing. More women are in the 
workplace. That increases the need for instructive afterschool and 
summer school activities. We are learning more about how children learn 
during early childhood, how important stimulating activities are for 
later success in school. The importance of a higher education and 
lifelong learning has never been greater, requiring even better 
preparation of all students.
  These are national challenges. The Federal Government has to be a 
partner in addressing them. Now cannot be the time to cut education. 
Our Republican colleagues have proposed an education plan that falls 
short, not just in funding. Their other actions show they don't have a 
constructive agenda for public schools. They are blocking efforts to 
keep guns out of the hands of kids. Education block grants shift help 
away from disadvantaged children and reduce accountability, yet they 
continue to create even more block grants, and then slash the funding. 
They think giving a $5-per-year tax break to families with children in 
public schools will somehow improve student learning. They think 
diverting Federal resources to provide vouchers for a few children to 
go to private school rather than strengthening public schools that 
serve 90 percent of all children is somehow going to improve education 
in this country.
  I think, with all due respect, our colleagues on the other side need 
to think a little harder. We have a comprehensive, constructive, and 
realistic educational agenda for the rest of this session. We help 
communities by serving all students, providing $1.4 billion to reduce 
class size and improve teacher quality, by tripling funding for 
afterschool programs and improving school safety, by increasing college 
access and affordability, by expanding opportunities to incorporate 
education and technology into the classroom and training teachers and 
principals in using it effectively, by advancing school readiness and 
literacy, and by helping communities leverage funds to modernize school 
buildings.

[[Page S11396]]

  Further, as the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
works to update the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will 
push for higher standards for student achievement and get those 
standards into the classroom. We are going to fight for strong 
accountability provisions, including providing school report cards to 
parents, increasing public school choice through open enrollment, 
expansion of charter schools, and strengthening reforms to turn around 
failing schools.
  We are going to focus on attracting talented individuals into 
teaching and make sure that new and veteran teachers and principals 
have access to opportunities to learn more about effective teaching and 
management strategies. We want to continue support for efforts to 
streamline Federal regulations and increase flexibility for local 
school districts while holding them accountable for student 
achievement.
  However, funding is critical. While money is not the only answer, it 
has to be part of the solution. Mr. President, 17-percent cuts in 
programs such as title I and Head Start will only make matters worse. A 
freeze at last year's levels is also unacceptable. The current fiscal 
year ends in 5 business days. Time is clearly running out.

  We are simply offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to lay out 
why a 17-percent cut in education is unacceptable, and to lay out our 
priorities. The Democratic record on education could not be stronger. 
We voted for increases in funding for education without exceeding the 
spending caps or spending Social Security trust funds. We have a 
constructive agenda to improve public schools and increase achievement. 
Strong public education is critical to our future. Public schools have 
increased opportunities for people from all walks of life throughout 
our Nation's history. We have to continue to make sure all students 
have access to public schools so all students have the opportunity to 
develop their skills and learn to their highest abilities.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a 
question.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, do I not have the floor?
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has the floor and may 
yield for a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I had yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts for a 
question, but if the Senator will withhold for a moment, I am happy to 
yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I wanted to ask, if we are going to have some debate, if we 
could go back and forth? Or is it the Democratic leader's intention to 
have Senator Kennedy ask a question?
  I would like to get into some discussion, but I understand the 
Senator has the floor. Certainly I would not want to take you off your 
feet. But I would like to be heard on this issue, and I hope we can get 
some flow back and forth. I might say, we are trying to work up an 
agreement as to how we can proceed on this today and Monday. When you 
and I have a chance, I would like to clear that. That is all.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 
for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have the attention of the two leaders, if it 
is the desire of Senator Lott to have Senator Gregg speak briefly so 
the two leaders can talk, I will be glad to withhold then, with the 
understanding I might be recognized afterwards to speak for maybe 15 
minutes, if that is the way the leaders want to go. We can do it 
whichever way. If it is the desire of the leaders to get together to 
work out procedure, I will be glad to withhold questions. The Senator 
from New Hampshire could speak, if it is for 10 or 15 minutes, and then 
I will be glad to follow, if that is helpful. Or we could continue the 
way we are. Whichever way.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, I still have the floor, and I am 
happy to yield to the majority leader at this time.
  Mr. LOTT. Let's see if we can ascertain exactly what the Senator from 
Massachusetts is proposing. Perhaps Senator Gregg could speak, and then 
Senator Kennedy, giving the two of us the chance to talk about how we 
can proceed. Is that what he was proposing?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thought that was what the leader wanted. That will be 
fine and acceptable to me.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps we can enter into a unanimous consent agreement 
that the Senator from New Hampshire be given 10 or 15 minutes----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 15 would be nice.
  Mr. DASCHLE. To be recognized, then the Senator from Massachusetts, 
and then I ask I be recognized following the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. LOTT. And this is all for debate only. Was that in the form of a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I have 15 minutes?
  Mr. GREGG. Do I have 15 minutes?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I amend my request by asking that the Senator from New 
Hampshire have 15 minutes, the Senator from Massachusetts have 15 
minutes for purposes of debate only, and I be recognized following the 
presentations by both Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the leaders for 
their courtesy and thanking the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
courtesy. I want to respond to some of the points the Democratic leader 
has made relative to the education issue and talk about some of the 
agenda items about which we as Republicans are talking.
  I have not seen the Democratic leader's sense of the Senate, but as I 
understand it, it is basically a castigation of the Republican majority 
for our position on education and promotion of the Democrat position on 
education, which would not be too surprising coming from the Democratic 
leader. But let me make a couple of points that I think underlie this 
whole debate.
  The first is this: There is no amendment on the floor, there is no 
proposal on the floor, dealing with funding for education. It is my 
understanding the appropriations subcommittee, of which I happen to be 
a member, which deals with education funding, is going to be funding 
the Head Start at a very aggressive level and is going to be funding 
other education accounts at very aggressive levels. Those levels will 
be significant.
  The second point to make: the Democratic membership has come forward 
with a whole series of new initiatives, most of them put forth by the 
President. They include class size initiative, afterschool initiative, 
building of new schoolroom initiatives. All of these are extremely 
expensive items. What they have not come forward with, however, is a 
commitment to support the already expensive items which the Federal 
Government has forced the local communities and the States to spend 
money on--specifically, special education.
  On our side of the aisle, we have taken the position that it is much 
better for the Federal Government to fund already-existing programs, 
which it requires the local communities to spend money on, than to 
start up new programs, to force the local communities to spend new 
money on programs when they are not even getting reimbursed for the 
programs for which we already asked them to pay.
  Special education is probably the single biggest drain on the costs 
of running your local school districts. You can go across this country 
and I suspect you will not find any school district in this country 
where the principals and the superintendents, and even the teachers, 
and especially the parents, do not tell you that if the Federal 
Government would simply pay its fair share of the cost of special 
education, then the local schools could do the things they need to do 
in other areas; whether it happens to be reducing the class size, 
building buildings, adding computers, adding foreign language courses, 
or adding new athletic programs. But because the Federal Government has 
refused to pay its fair share of the cost of special education when the 
Federal Government originally committed to pay 40 percent for each 
child in special ed, and today only pays about 10.5 percent, because 
the

[[Page S11397]]

Federal Government has failed to fulfill its commitment in this area of 
paying the full 40 percent, local school districts have had to take 
school dollars raised at the local level and apply those dollars to 
satisfy the Federal obligation, to pay for the Federal obligation. That 
has skewed dramatically the ability of the local school districts to 
effectively manage their own budgets and to take care of local 
education.
  What has been the administration's response to this? Has the 
administration said that is wrong? We put on the books a law that said 
we were going to help the special needs child--a very appropriate law--
and the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the cost of the 
special needs child, and we are not doing it. We are only paying 10.5 
percent. Has this administration said let's take care of that problem, 
let's address that problem?

  No. They have totally ignored the special needs child in their 
budgets. In fact, were it not for the Senate Republicans and for the 
leadership of Senator Lott, special education, the special education 
commitment of the Federal Government, would still be around 6 percent.
  Over the last 3 years, because of Senator Lott's support and because 
of efforts of other Senators such as myself, we have been able to move 
that number up fairly significantly so we are now supporting about 10.5 
percent. We have essentially doubled, in many States, the amount of 
money coming from the Federal Government, but we are still far short of 
the dollars that should be going back to local communities to help them 
with special education.
  This has had a series of insidious impacts, this failure to fund 
special education, especially the failure of this administration to 
step up to the bar and fund special education. What this administration 
does is it creates or proposes all these new programs, whether it is a 
new building program or class size program or afterschool program, and 
it says to the local school district: OK, we are going to send you 
money for this program--call it a building program for their local 
school district. Then it says to the local school district, but to get 
this money you may have to have some sort of match. So the local school 
district finds itself in an impossible position because the Federal 
Government, instead of sending it the money it needs for special 
education, is saying to them: We are not going to send you the money we 
already told you we were going to send you for special education cases; 
we are going to take the money we told you we would send you for 
special education and create a new program; and we are going to tell 
you that you have to take this new program in order to get the money 
which you should have gotten in the first place from the special ed 
dollars.
  The local school districts are left in the impossible situation of, 
first, using their local dollars to pay the Federal share of special 
education, and then in order to get the dollars coming to them for 
special education from the Federal Government, they have to create a 
new program and do something they do not want to do; where if the 
Federal Government did what it was supposed to do in the first place--
which is pay for its fair share of special education--they would be 
freeing up the dollars at the local level that have been used to 
subsidize the Federal Government, and the local school district can 
make a decision: Do we need a new building? Do we need more teachers? 
Do we need afterschool programs? Do we need a foreign language program? 
Do we need new computers? The local school districts can make those 
decisions.
  The Democratic leadership in this Congress and the President do not 
like that idea. Why do they not like that idea? Because they do not get 
to call the shots. The education bureaucracy in Washington does not get 
to make the decisions for the local school districts. That is what this 
is about.
  This is not about funding. This is not about adequate resources being 
sent to support the local school districts. The Republican proposals 
have put more money into special education than the Democratic 
proposals ever even thought of doing. We committed more than adequate 
funding for areas such as Head Start. But what we do not do--and this 
is what really galls the education establishment; this is what galls 
the teachers' unions that happen to dominate this city's liberal left 
and especially the Democratic Party in this city in the White House--is 
we do not tell them how to spend the money. We return to the States the 
money we said we would pay them in the first place for special 
education, and we let the States, then, make their decisions and the 
communities make the decisions and the parents make the decisions as to 
how they are going to spend their own dollars--whether they are going 
to add a classroom, add a teacher, add a foreign language program, add 
a computer program--instead of saying to them, as this President would 
have us do and as the proposal from the Democratic leader would have us 
do: We are going to tell you how to spend the money we send you, and 
you have to do it our way or you do not get the money.

  Isn't it about time we, as a government, as a Federal Government, 
live up to our obligations when we say to local communities we are 
going to send you 40 percent of the cost of a special ed student's 
education, we should be sending them the money to pay for that special 
ed student's education? We require that education under Federal law. We 
should, obviously, fund it.
  This administration does not want to do it. Why? It is very simple. 
It is purely an issue of power. They want to control local education 
from Washington. They do not like the idea the local school district 
might have its local dollars freed up so it can make a decision, so a 
parent can go into a school and say: Listen, we don't happen to have 
enough books in the library; that's what we need. They do not like the 
idea that a parent might have that much power with the local dollars. 
They want to take those local dollars and control them by underfunding 
the Federal obligation. Then they want to come up with new Federal 
programs which may have absolutely no need in the local community and 
which, as a practical matter, really skews the ability of the local 
community to fund its local education activities.
  Let's also talk about the merits of some of these programs they are 
proposing and are going to force down the throats of the local school 
districts, the towns, and the cities. Let's talk about their teacher 
program, their class size program.
  The theory is, if you do not have an 18-to-1 ratio, you do not meet 
the class-size obligations the Federal Government is setting up, and 
therefore you must take this money to spend it on additional teachers.
  First off, 42 of the 50 States already meet the 18-to-1 ratio. So it 
is almost a meaningless proposal. Secondly, there happens to be very 
little statistical support for the idea that a class size of 18 to 1 is 
better than 20 to 1 or better than 15 to 1. It is not the size of the 
class when you get into those levels of ratio; it is the teacher. Do 
you have a good teacher? It is the person who is actually standing in 
that classroom that makes the difference. If you have a terrible 
teacher in a failing school who has taught there for a long time, you 
are going to turn out poorly prepared students whether you have 5 to 1, 
10 to 1, or 25 to 1.
  What the Federal Government refuses to do is say to the failing 
school that has failed year after year: Stop it; stop; just stop; stop 
it; don't teach our kids poorly any longer.

  Why not? Because the teachers' unions have such a control over the 
positions of this administration and the Department of Education that 
there is trepidation about confronting the failing school and the 
failing teacher in the failing school.
  The Republicans have a better idea. We say essentially this. We say 
if a school has failed for 2 years on standards set by the State, not 
set in Washington--we are not going to tell the State and local 
communities how to set the standards, but if it has failed for 2 years 
so the kids are not getting a good education, then we say the States 
have to come into that school and direct that school to do a better job 
with its kids.
  If after 4 years of failure--and that means almost half a generation 
of kids going through that school, if it is an elementary school going 
up to grade 8--if it is still failing and it is not producing results, 
and the kids coming out of that school cannot read and cannot do math--
very basic things; we are not asking them to teach rocket science;

[[Page S11398]]

we are asking them to teach the basics of American education--if after 
4 years this school still cannot cut it under standards set by the 
State, then we suggest that it is time to give the parents of the kids 
in those schools a chance to get their kids out of those schools.
  We say to the school systems that the dollars that were going to that 
school system will instead follow the child to another school, to 
whatever school that parent wants to send that child to so that child 
has an opportunity to get into a school where they can actually learn 
and, thus, participate in the American dream.
  It is unconscionable that the proposals coming from the other side 
essentially take the attitude that we will continue to support failing 
schools year after year and, thus, basically deny the kids going 
through those schools a shot at the American dream because you cannot 
participate in the American dream if you are not educated. Yet that is 
the position. That is the position of the President.
  Why does he take that position? Very simply because there is an 
education lobby in Washington which refuses to face up to the fact that 
there are failing schools because they recognize that once they admit 
that, and once they admit that parents should have the right to take 
their kids out of those schools, they are admitting that parents should 
have choice and have a chance to participate in the system of educating 
their kids.
  That is something that is an anathema, the idea that parents should 
actually have some role in choosing where their kids go to school and 
having the opportunity of making sure their kids get a decent education 
as a result of having some choice. That is an anathema to the education 
lobby in Washington.
  The proposal brought forward by the President, one, shortchanges the 
special needs child dramatically. It doesn't do anything to help fund 
the special needs child. Two, it skews the ability of the local school 
system of the opportunity to use local dollars where they think they 
should go, whether it is a new building, whether it is a new library, 
whether it is another teacher, or whether it is a new language program. 
It makes it impossible for them to make that choice because they are 
not given the dollars necessary to make that choice and the dollars are 
taken instead to support the special education obligations the Federal 
Government requires them to make.
  Three, they are putting in place categorical programs. The President 
wants categorical programs which have no relationship, in many 
instances, to the needs of the local school district.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for one additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. They are categorical programs that have no relationship to 
a local school district's needs, instead of giving the school district 
and parents the flexibility to make the choices they want.
  And four, the Republican proposal suggests that parents and schools 
should have the ability to take action when a school is failing year in 
and year out. This is opposed by the other side of the aisle.

  Good education proposals are being put forward in this Congress. They 
are being put forward by those of us on this side of the aisle who see 
the need to help special education, who see the need to empower 
parents, who see the need to give teachers the opportunity to learn and 
expand their abilities, but also to recognize if the teacher is not 
doing their job, there should be action taken.
  These are good initiatives. This education debate is going to be 
about the difference in opinions. We are looking forward to that 
debate.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a moment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield to the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this not be taken 
out of his time so the Senator has his full 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are about ready to do what I 
had suggested to Senator Kennedy, that the managers of this bill will 
be able to do a manager's amendment and complete action on the HUD-VA 
bill expeditiously. We can go forward then with our discussion of 
education and have votes on the two different approaches Monday 
afternoon.
  Would the Senator from Massachusetts prefer to go forward?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am always delighted to accede to my friend, Senator 
Mikulski. I probably have 15 minutes. But if you thought hers was just 
a matter of a few minutes, I will ask consent when I conclude she be 
recognized to do that. Would that be satisfactory?
  Mr. LOTT. That is an excellent idea. I cannot speak for Senator 
Daschle, but I do not think he would object to that. He has indicated 
his willingness to work through what we have talked about. Since they 
are not here--maybe it will take a couple minutes to get ready to wrap 
it up--you can give your remarks and then we can go to the chairman and 
ranking member on the HUD-VA bill and complete that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________