[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7908-S7921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DRUG COMPETITION ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of outrageous examples 
of greed in my life but one of the worst is where pharmaceutical giants 
pay generic drug companies to keep low-cost drugs from senior citizens 
and from families.
  If Dante were still alive today I am certain he would find a special 
resting place for those who engage in these conspiracies.
  The Federal Trade Commission and the New York Times deserve credit 
for exposing this problem. Simply stated: some manufacturers of 
patented drugs--often brand-name drugs--are paying millions each month 
to generic drug companies to keep lower-cost products off the market.
  This hurts senior citizens, it hurts families, it cheats healthcare 
providers and it is a disgrace.
  These pharmaceutical giants and their generic partners then share the 
profits gained from cheating American families.
  The companies have been able to get away with this by signing secret 
deals with each other not to compete. My bill, which I am introducing 
today, will expose these deals and subject them to immediate 
investigation and action by the Federal Trade Commission, or the 
Justice Department. This solves the most difficult problem faced by 
federal investigators--finding out about the improper deals. This bill 
does not change the so-called Hatch-Waxman Act, it does not amend FDA 
law, and it does not slow down the drug approval process. It allows 
existing antitrust laws to be enforced because the enforcement agencies 
have information about deals not to compete.
  Fortunately, the FTC was able to get copies of a couple of these 
secret contracts and instantly lowered the boom on the companies
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial in the July 
26, New York Times, called ``Driving Up Drug Prices'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Driving Up Drug Prices

       Two recent antitrust actions by the Federal Trade 
     Commission and a related federal court decision have exposed 
     the way some pharmaceutical companies conspire to keep low-
     priced drugs out of reach of consumers. Manufacturers of 
     patented drugs are paying tens of millions of dollars to 
     manufacturers of generic drugs if they agree to keep products 
     off the market. The drug companies split the profits from 
     maintaining a monopoly at the consumer's expense. The 
     commission is taking aggressive action to curb the practice. 
     It needs help from Congress to close loopholes in federal 
     law.
       Dissatisfied with the supply of generic drugs, Congress 
     passed the Hatch-Waxman act in 1984 to encourage 
     manufacturers to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-
     name drugs. The act grants temporary protection from 
     competition to the first manufacturer that receives 
     permission from federal authorities to sell a generic drug 
     before the patent on a brand-name drug expires. For 180 days, 
     the federal government promises to approve no other generic 
     drug.
       But as reported Sunday by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff 
     Gerth of The Times, drug companies are undermining Congress's 
     intent. Hoechst Marion Roussel, the maker of drugs to treat 
     hypertension and angina, agreed in 1997 to pay Andrx 
     Pharmaceuticals to delay bringing its generic alternative to 
     market. The commission brought charges against the companies 
     last March and a federal judge declared last month in a 
     private lawsuit that the agreement violated antitrust laws.
       In a second case, Abbott Laboratories paid Geneva 
     pharmaceuticals to delay selling a generic alternative to an 
     Abbott drug that treats hypertension and enlarged prostates. 
     Geneva's drug could have cost Abbott over 30 million a month 
     in sales. In both cases, the manufacturer of the generic drug 
     used its claim to the 180-day grace period to block other 
     generic drugs from entering the market.
       The drug companies deny that their agreements violate the 
     antitrust laws, presenting them as private preliminary 
     settlements between companies engaged in patent disputes. 
     That is untenable. The agreements are overly broad, 
     temporarily stopping all sales of generic drugs. Typically in 
     settlement of a patent dispute, the company infringing on the 
     patent would pay the patent holder. In these cases it is 
     reversed, stunting competition. The agreements are also 
     private, going into effect before a court reviews the public 
     interest.
       Not all private settlements are anti-consumer. That is why 
     the commission has taken a careful case-by-case approach. It 
     could use a little help from congress. The 180-day grace 
     period was designed to encourage generics to enter the 
     market. Since it is being manipulated to impede competition, 
     the grace period needs to be fixed so that the production of 
     generic drugs cannot be blocked by a single company that 
     decides not to compete.

  Mr. LEAHY. This editorial neatly summarizes the problem and concludes 
that the FTC ``is taking aggressive action to curb the practice. It 
needs help from Congress to close loopholes in federal law.''
  My bill slams the door shut on would-be violators by exposing the 
deals to our competition enforcement agencies.
  Under current law, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to 
challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so that consumers 
can enjoy lower generic drug prices.
  Current law grants these generic companies a temporary protection 
from competition to the first manufacturer that gets permission to sell 
a generic drug before the patent on the brand-name drug expires.
  This approach then gives the generic company a 180-day headstart on 
other generic companies.
  That was a good idea--the unfortunate loophole exploited by a few is 
that secret deals can be made that allow the manufacturer of the 
generic drug to claim the 180-day grace period--to block other generic 
drugs from entering the market--while, at the same time, getting paid 
by the brand-name manufacturer to not sell the generic drug.
  The bill I am introducing today will shut this loophole down for 
companies who want to cheat the public, but keeps the system the same 
for companies engaged in true competition with each other. This bill 
would give the FTC or the Justice Department the information it needs 
to take quick and decisive action against companies driven more by 
greed than by good sense.
  I think it is important for Congress not to overreact in this case 
and throw out the good with the bad. Most generic companies want to 
take advantage of this 180-day provision and deliver quality generic 
drugs at much lower costs for consumers. We should not eliminate the 
incentive for them.
  Instead, we should let the FTC and Justice look at every single deal 
that could lead to abuse so that only the deals that are consistent 
with the intent of that law will be allowed to stand.
  This bill was quickly drafted because I wanted my colleagues to be 
able to look at it over the recess so that we can be ready to act when 
we get back in session.
  I look forward to suggestions from other Members on this matter and 
from brand-name and generic companies who will work with me to make 
sure this loophole is closed. I am not interested in comments from 
companies who want to continue to cheat consumers.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2993

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Competition Act of 
     2000.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) prescription drug costs are increasing at an alarming 
     rate and are a major worry of senior citizens and American 
     families;
       (2) there is a potential for drug companies owning patents 
     on brand-name drugs to enter to private financial deals with 
     generic drug companies in a manner that could tend to 
     restrain trade and greatly reduce competition and increase 
     prescription drug costs for American citizens; and
       (3) enhancing competition between generic drug 
     manufacturers and brand name manufacturers can significantly 
     reduce prescription drug costs to American families.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide timely notice to the Department of Justice 
     and the Federal Trade Commission regarding agreements between 
     companies owning patents on branded drugs and companies who 
     could manufacture generic or bioequivalent versions of such 
     branded drugs; and
       (2) by providing timely notice, to--

[[Page S7909]]

       (A) enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
     enforcement of the antitrust laws of the United States; and
       (B) deter pharmaceutical companies from engaging in 
     anticompetitive actions or actions that tend to unfairly 
     restrain trade.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``agreement'' means an agreement 
     under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (2) Antitrust laws.-- The term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
     same meaning as in section 1 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     12), except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such 
     section applies to unfair methods of competition.
       (3) ANDA.--The term ``ANDA'' means an Abbreviated New Drug 
     Application, as defined under section 505(j) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
       (4) Brand name drug company.--The term ``brand name drug 
     company'' means a person engaged in the manufacture or 
     marketing of a drug approved under section 505(b) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
       (5) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (6) FDA.--The term ``FDA'' means the United States Food and 
     Drug Administration.
       (7) Generic drug.--The term ``generic drug'' is a product 
     that the Food and Drug Administration has approved under 
     section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
       (8) Generic drug applicant.--The term ``generic drug 
     applicant'' means a person who has filed or received approval 
     for an ANDA under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug 
     and Cosmetic Act.
       (9) NDA.--The term ``NDA'' means a New Drug Application, as 
     defined under 505(b) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act et seq. (21 U.S.C. 355(b) et seq.)

     SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS AFFECTING THE SALE OR 
                   MARKETING OF GENERIC DRUGS.

       A brand name drug manufacturer and a generic drug 
     manufacturer that enter into an agreement regarding the sale 
     or manufacture of a generic drug equivalent of a brand name 
     drug that is manufactured by that brand name manufacturer and 
     which agreement could have the effect of limiting--
       (1) the research, development, manufacture, marketing or 
     selling of a generic drug product that could be approved for 
     sale by the FDA pursuant to the ANDA; or
       (2) the research, development, manufacture, marketing or 
     selling of a generic drug product that could be approved by 
     the FDA;
     both shall file with the Commission and the Attorney General 
     the text of the agreement, an explanation of the purpose and 
     scope of the agreement and an explanation of whether the 
     agreement could delay, restrain, limit, or in any way 
     interfere with the production, manufacture or sale of the 
     generic version of the drug in question.

     SEC. 6. FILING DEADLINES.

       Any notice, agreement, or other material required to be 
     filed under section 5 shall be filed with the Attorney 
     General and the FTC not later than 10 business days after the 
     date the agreements are executed.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Civil Fine.--Any person, or any officer, director, or 
     partner thereof, who fails to comply with any provision of 
     this Act shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than 
     $20,000 for each day during which such person is in violation 
     of this Act. Such penalty may be recovered in a civil action 
     brought by the United States, or brought by the Commission in 
     accordance with the procedures established in section 
     16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     56(a)).
       (b) Compliance and Equitable Relief.--If any person, or any 
     officer, director, partner, agent, or employee thereof, fails 
     to comply with the notification requirement under section 5 
     of this Act, the United States district court may order 
     compliance, and may grant such other equitable relief as the 
     court in its discretion determines necessary or appropriate, 
     upon application of the Commission or the Assistant Attorney 
     General.

     SEC. 8. RULEMAKING.

       The Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant 
     Attorney General and by rule in accordance with section 553 
     of title 5, consistent with the purposes of this Act--
       (1) may require that the notice described in section 5 of 
     this Act be in such form and contain such documentary 
     material and information relevant to the agreement as is 
     necessary and appropriate to enable the Commission and the 
     Assistant Attorney General to determine whether such 
     agreement may violate the antitrust laws;
       (2) may define the terms used in this Act;
       (3) may exempt classes of persons or agreements from the 
     requirements of this Act; and
       (4) may prescribe such other rules as may be necessary and 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 2994. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives to encourage small business health plans, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                    the health insurance equity act

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new legislative 
proposal to help level the playing field for small businesses that try 
to provide health insurance for their employees and make health 
insurance more affordable for all Americans.
  While our economy is the strongest it's ever been, the number of 
uninsured Americans has gone from 32 million in 1987 to more than 44 
million today. And that number is rising. While our nation continues to 
forge ahead in improving the world's greatest health care system, we 
face the increasing problem of having a significant percentage of our 
population that has no way to access it.
  One of the largest sectors of the uninsured is employees who work for 
small businesses. While small businesses are the lifeblood of our 
economy, they also face some of the greatest challenges--particularly 
when it comes to providing health benefits for their employees. While 
the number of uninsured among employees who work for companies with 
more than 500 people is 1 in 8, that number soars among companies with 
fewer than 25 employees--to 1 in 3. This is because large employers can 
spread the costs of providing health insurance among their multitude of 
employees, while smaller companies have a much more difficult task. We 
need to help small business owners--and the employees who work for 
them--better afford quality health insurance.
  Today, I propose that we lend a hand to the hardworking small 
businessmen and women of America, and their employees, to help them 
erase the gap in coverage between large and small businesses. The 
legislation I am introducing--the Health Insurance Equity Act--will 
give small businesses with less than 50 employees a 20% tax credit 
toward the cost of buying health insurance for their employees. To 
encourage small businesses to pool together and take advantage of the 
same benefits that their larger counterparts have, the credit will 
increase to 25% if the businesses join new ``qualified health benefit 
purchasing coalitions'' that can help them easily administer their new 
health plans and negotiate better rates with insurers.
  In addition, this legislation makes a change in the tax code to 
ensure that these new coalitions can enjoy the full benefit of 
charitable contributions from private foundations. While some private 
foundations have indicated that they are willing to help fund some of 
the start-up costs of health purchasing coalitions, current law does 
not specify that these sorts of contributions would qualify as a 
charitable donation. For this reason, private foundations have been 
reluctant to make grants or loans to these coalitions. The bill I am 
introducing today will clarify that aid to qualified health benefit 
purchasing coalitions are entirely tax-deductible, which can help 
encourage private foundations and other interested parties to help the 
coalitions with their important duties.
  By helping people get better access to basic health insurance--before 
they get very sick--we can save money for both hospital and patient, 
while helping millions of Americans live more healthy lifestyles.
  With that Mr. President, I send my legislation to the desk, and ask 
that it be appropriately referred. I also ask unanimous consent that it 
be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2994

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Equity Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. CERTAIN GRANTS BY PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS TO QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH BENEFIT PURCHASING COALITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4942 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to taxes on failure to distribute income) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Certain Qualified Health Benefit Purchasing Coalition 
     Distributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (g) and 
     section 4945(d)(5), a qualified health benefit purchasing 
     coalition distribution by a private foundation shall be 
     considered to be a distribution for a charitable purpose.
       ``(2) Qualified health benefit purchasing coalition 
     distribution.--For purposes of paragraph (1)--

[[Page S7910]]

       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified health benefit 
     purchasing coalition distribution' means any amount paid by a 
     private foundation to or on behalf of a qualified health 
     benefit purchasing coalition (as defined in section 9841) for 
     purposes of payment or reimbursement of start-up costs paid 
     or incurred in connection with the establishment and 
     maintenance of such coalition.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--Such term shall not include any amount 
     used by a qualified health benefit purchasing coalition (as 
     so defined)--
       ``(i) for the purchase of real property,
       ``(ii) as payment to, or for the benefit of, members (or 
     employees or affiliates of such members) of such coalition, 
     or
       ``(iii) for start-up costs paid or incurred more than 24 
     months after the date of establishment of such coalition.
       ``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply--
       ``(A) to qualified health benefit purchasing coalition 
     distributions paid or incurred after December 31, 2008, and
       ``(B) with respect to start-up costs of a coalition which 
     are paid or incurred after December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to qualified health benefit purchasing coalition 
     distributions, as defined in section 4942(k)(2) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by subsection (a), 
     paid in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

     SEC. 3. SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH PLAN TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, in the 
     case of a small employer (as defined in section 4980D(d)(2)), 
     the employee health insurance expenses credit determined 
     under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 
     the applicable percentage of the amount paid by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year for qualified employee health 
     insurance expenses.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(1) in the case of insurance purchased as a member of a 
     qualified health benefit purchasing coalition (as defined in 
     section 9841), 25 percent, and
       ``(2) in the case of insurance not described in paragraph 
     (1), 20 percent.
       ``(c) Per Employee Dollar Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of qualified employee health 
     insurance expenses taken into account under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any qualified employee for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for 
     coverage months of such employee during such taxable year.
       ``(2) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for each 
     coverage month during the taxable year is equal to \1/12\ 
     of--
       ``(A) $2,000 in the case of self-only coverage, and
       ``(B) $5,000 in the case of family coverage.
       ``(3) Coverage month.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `coverage month' means, with respect to an individual, 
     any month if--
       ``(A) as of the first day of such month such individual is 
     covered by the taxpayer's new health plan, and
       ``(B) the premium for coverage under such plan for such 
     month is paid by the taxpayer.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified employee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified employee' means, 
     with respect to any period, an employee of an employer if--
       ``(i) the total amount of wages paid or incurred by such 
     employer with respect to such employee for the taxable year 
     is not in excess of $10,000, and
       ``(ii) the employee is not a highly compensated employee.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain employees.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `employee' shall include--
       ``(i) an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), 
     and
       ``(ii) a leased employee within the meaning of section 
     414(n).
       ``(C) Exclusion of certain employees.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a plan--

       ``(I) prescribes minimum age and service requirements as a 
     condition of coverage, and
       ``(II) excludes all employees not meeting such requirements 
     from coverage,

     then such employees shall be excluded from consideration for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Collective bargaining agreement.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, there shall be excluded from consideration 
     employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by 
     an agreement between employee representatives and one or more 
     employers, if there is evidence that health insurance 
     benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between 
     such employee representatives and such employer.
       ``(iii) Limits on minimum requirements.--Rules similar to 
     the rules of section 410(a) shall apply with respect to 
     minimum age and service requirements under clause (i).
       ``(D) Wages.--The term `wages'--
       ``(i) has the meaning given such term by section 3121(a) 
     (determined without regard to any dollar limitation contained 
     in such section), and
       ``(ii) in the case of an employee described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), includes the net earnings from self-employment (as 
     defined in section 1402(a) and as so determined).
       ``(2) Qualified employee health insurance expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified employee health 
     insurance expenses' means any amount paid or incurred by an 
     employer during the applicable period for health insurance 
     coverage provided under a new health plan to the extent such 
     amount is attributable to coverage provided to any employee 
     who is not a highly compensated employee.
       ``(B) Exception for amounts paid under salary reduction 
     arrangements.--No amount paid or incurred for health 
     insurance coverage pursuant to a salary reduction arrangement 
     shall be taken into account under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Health insurance coverage.--The term `health 
     insurance coverage' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 9832(b)(1).
       ``(D) New health plan.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `new health plan' means any arrangement of the employer 
     which provides health insurance coverage to employees if--
       ``(i) such employer (or predecessor employer) did not 
     establish or maintain such arrangement (or any similar 
     arrangement) at any time during the 2 taxable years ending 
     prior to the taxable year in which the credit under this 
     section is first allowed, and
       ``(ii) such arrangement covers at least 70 percent of the 
     qualified employees of such employer who are not otherwise 
     covered by health insurance.
       ``(E) Applicable period.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the applicable period with respect to an employer shall be 
     the 4-year period beginning on the date such employer 
     establishes a new health plan.
       ``(3) Highly compensated employee.--The term `highly 
     compensated employee' means an employee who for the preceding 
     year had compensation from the employer in excess of $75,000.
       ``(e) Certain rules made applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 52 shall 
     apply.
       ``(f) Disallowance of Deduction.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed for that portion of the qualified employee health 
     insurance expenses for the taxable year which is equal to the 
     amount of the credit determined under subsection (a).
       ``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to 
     expenses paid or incurred by an employer with respect to any 
     arrangement established on or after January 1, 2009.''.
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(13) the employee health insurance expenses credit 
     determined under section 45D.''
       (c) No Carrybacks.--Subsection (d) of section 39 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback and 
     carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(9) No carryback of section 45D credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the employee health 
     insurance expenses credit determined under section 45D may be 
     carried back to a taxable year ending before the date of the 
     enactment of section 45D.''
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``Sec. 45D. Employee health insurance expenses.''

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2000, for arrangements 
     established after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFIT PURCHASING COALITION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to group health plan requirements) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

     ``Subchapter D--Qualified Health Benefit Purchasing Coalition

``Sec.  9841.  Qualified health benefit purchasing coalition.

     ``SEC. 9841. QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFIT PURCHASING COALITION.

       ``(a) In General.--A qualified health benefit purchasing 
     coalition is a private not-for-profit corporation which--
       ``(1) is licensed to provide health insurance in the State 
     in which the employers to which such coalition is providing 
     insurance is located, and
       ``(2) establishes to the Secretary, under State 
     certification procedures or other procedures as the Secretary 
     may provide by regulation, that such coalition meets the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Board of Directors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each purchasing coalition under this 
     section shall be governed by a Board of Directors.
       ``(2) Election.--The Secretary shall establish procedures 
     governing election of such Board.

[[Page S7911]]

       ``(3) Membership.--The Board of Directors shall--
       ``(A) be composed of small employers and employee 
     representatives of such employers, but
       ``(B) not include other interested parties, such as service 
     providers, health insurers, or insurance agents or brokers 
     which may have a conflict of interest with the purposes of 
     the coalition.
       ``(c) Membership of Coalition.--
       ``(1) In general.--A purchasing coalition--
       ``(A) shall accept all small employers residing within the 
     area served by the coalition as members if such employers 
     request such membership, and
       ``(B) may accept any other employers residing with such 
     area.
       ``(2) Voting.--Members of a purchasing coalition shall have 
     voting rights consistent with the rules established by the 
     State.
       ``(d) Duties of Purchasing Coalitions.--Each purchasing 
     coalition shall--
       ``(1) enter into agreements with employers to provide 
     health insurance benefits to employees of such employers,
       ``(2) enter into agreements with 3 or more unaffiliated, 
     qualified licensed health plans, to offer benefits to 
     members,
       ``(3) offer to members at least 1 open enrollment period 
     per calendar year,
       ``(4) serve a significant geographical area, and
       ``(5) carry out other functions provided for under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Limitation on Activities.--A purchasing coalition 
     shall not--
       ``(1) perform any activity (including certification or 
     enforcement) relating to compliance or licensing of health 
     plans,
       ``(2) assume insurance or financial risk in relation to any 
     health plan, or
       ``(3) perform other activities identified by the State as 
     being inconsistent with the performance of its duties under 
     this section.
       ``(f) Additional Requirements For Purchasing Coalitions.--
     As provided by the Secretary in regulations, a purchasing 
     coalition shall be subject to requirements similar to the 
     requirements of a group health plan under this chapter.
       ``(g) Definition of Small Employer.--The term `small 
     employer' has the meaning given such term by section 
     4980D(d)(2).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of subchapters for 
     chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following item:
``Subchapter D.  Qualified health benefit purchasing coalition.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2995. A bill to assist States with land use planning in order to 
promote improved quality of life, regionalism, sustainable economic 
development, and environmental stewardship, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  the community character act of 2000

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of an issue which 
effects every American, and future generations of Americans.
  As the saying goes, ``burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, 
shame on me.''
  After the second World War, waves of returning GIs--looking for a 
better life for themselves and their families--helped create a 
unprecedented building boom in the United States. The potato fields of 
Long Island were turned into massive tracts of uniform new houses known 
as Levittown. This same post-World War II growth at one point so 
overwhelmed my own home town of Warwick, Rhode Island that the state 
newspaper described the city as ``a suburban nightmare''. Before long, 
strip retail development catering to the automobile became the 
trademark of the American landscape.
  Our landscape has since been pockmarked by incremental, haphazard 
development, which too often offends the eye, and saps our economic 
strength by requiring very expensive investment for extending 
infrastructure farther and father into the country side. Driving down 
the street in Anytown USA you see an apartment house next to a fast 
food franchise, next to a fire station, next to an office building, 
next to a strip mall. That isn't planned development.
  Over forty years after Levittown, we find ourselves in a strong 
economy sustained as never before. At the same time, every state in the 
country face significant problems relating to unplanned growth, from 
protecting open space in the east to protecting precious drinking water 
supplies in the west. We ought to seize the moment and learn from our 
previous mistakes--we should not be burned twice.
  The last thing anyone needs, citizens and developers alike, is to 
have angry and divisive planning board, zoning board or city or town 
council meetings. The best thing we can do to ensure wise growth is to 
encourage decision makers to work together with the citizens, 
developers, interest groups and others to develop a consensus for 
planning for growth in an orderly manner.
  That is what the Community Character Act does.
  Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Bennett, 
Cleland, Jeffords, Levin, Lieberman and Leahy to introduce a bill that 
I believe will help states plan wise growth. This bill, Community 
Character Act of 2000, seeks to authorize $25 million over four years 
for a grant program to help states develop or update their land use 
statutes and Comprehensive Plans.
  No state in the nation is immune from the effects of rapid unplanned 
development. Suburbanization is expensive, costing state and local 
taxpayers dearly for extending roads and infrastructure, and building 
new schools. Even states considered more rural are now facing rapid 
alterations in land use and quality of life.
  Federal grants under this act would help states promote citizen 
participation in the developing of state plans, encourage sustainable 
economic development, coordinate transportation and other 
infrastructure development, conserve historic scenic resources and the 
environment, and sustainably manage natural resources.
  I am pleased that this bill has such bipartisan support and hope that 
the full Senate will give it favorable action.
  I thank the chair and ask unanimous consent that my full statement 
and the text of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2995

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Character Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) inadequate planning at the State level contributes to 
     increased public and private capital costs for infrastructure 
     development, loss of community character, and environmental 
     degradation;
       (2) land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction 
     of State and local governments;
       (3) comprehensive planning and community development should 
     be supported by the Federal Government and State governments;
       (4) States should provide a proper climate and context for 
     planning through legislation in order for appropriate 
     comprehensive land use planning and community development to 
     occur;
       (5) many States have outdated land use planning 
     legislation, and many States are undertaking efforts to 
     update and reform the legislation; and
       (6) efforts to coordinate State resources with local plans 
     require additional planning at the State level.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land management agency.--The term ``Federal 
     land management agency'' means the Bureau of Land Management, 
     the Forest Service, and any other Federal land management 
     agency that conducts land use planning for Federal land.
       (2) Land use planning legislation.--The term ``land use 
     planning legislation'' means a statute, regulation, executive 
     order or other action taken by a State to guide, regulate, 
     and assist in the planning, regulation, and management of 
     land, natural resources, development practices, and other 
     activities related to the pattern and scope of future land 
     use.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.
       (5) State planning director.--The term ``State planning 
     director'' means the State official designated by statute or 
     by the Governor whose principal responsibility is the 
     drafting and updating of State guide plans or guidance 
     documents that regulate land use and infrastructure 
     development on a statewide basis.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES FOR UPDATING LAND USE PLANNING 
                   LEGISLATION AND INTEGRATING FEDERAL LAND 
                   MANAGEMENT AND STATE PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     provide grants to States for the purpose of assisting in--
       (1) as a first priority, development or revision of land 
     use planning legislation in States that currently have 
     inadequate or outmoded land use planning legislation; and
       (2) creation or revision of State comprehensive land use 
     plans or plan elements in

[[Page S7912]]

     States that have updated land use planning legislation.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State shall submit to the Secretary, in 
     such form as the Secretary may require, an application 
     demonstrating that the State's basic goals for land use 
     planning legislation reform are consistent with all of the 
     following guidelines:
       (1) Citizen representation.--Citizens are notified and 
     citizen representation is required in the developing, 
     adopting, and updating of land use plans.
       (2) Multijurisdictional cooperation.--In order to 
     effectively manage the impacts of land development and to 
     provide for resource sustainability, land use plans are 
     created based on multi-jurisdictional governmental 
     cooperation, when practicable, particularly in the case of 
     land use plans based on watershed boundaries.
       (3) Implementation elements.--Land use plans contain an 
     implementation element that--
       (A) includes a timetable for action and a definition of the 
     respective roles and responsibilities of agencies, local 
     governments, and other stakeholders;
       (B) is consistent with State capital budget objectives; and
       (C) provides the framework for decisions relating to the 
     siting of future infrastructure development, including 
     development of utilities and utility distribution systems.
       (4) Comprehensive planning.--There is comprehensive 
     planning to encourage land use plans that--
       (A) promote sustainable economic development and social 
     equity;
       (B) enhance community character;
       (C) coordinate transportation, housing, education, and 
     other infrastructure development;
       (D) conserve historic resources, scenic resources, and the 
     environment; and
       (E) sustainably manage natural resources.
       (5) Updating.--Land use plans are routinely updated.
       (6) Standards.--Land use plans reflect an approach that is 
     consistent with established professional planning standards.
       (c) Use of Grant Funds.--Grant funds received by a State 
     under subsection (a) shall be used to obtain technical 
     assistance in--
       (1) drafting land use planning legislation;
       (2) research and development for land use planning programs 
     and requirements relating to the development of State guide 
     plans;
       (3) conducting workshops, educating and consulting policy 
     makers, and involving citizens in the planning process; and
       (4) integrating State and regional concerns and land use 
     plans with Federal land use plans.
       (d) Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant to a State 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed $500,000.
       (e) Cost-Sharing.--The Federal share of a project funded 
     with a grant under subsection (a) shall not exceed 90 
     percent.
       (f) Audits.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development shall conduct an audit of a 
     portion of the grants provided under this section to ensure 
     that all funds provided under the grants are used for the 
     purposes specified in this section.
       (2) Use of audit results.--The results of audits conducted 
     under paragraph (1) and any recommendations made in 
     connection with the audits shall be taken into consideration 
     in awarding any future grant under this section to a State.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES.

       (a) Land Use Planning Coordinator.--The head of each 
     Federal land management agency shall designate an officer to 
     act as coordinator working with State planning directors on 
     projects funded under section 4.
       (b) Provision of Information.--A Federal land management 
     agency shall provide to a State planning director such 
     background information, plans, and relevant budget 
     information as the State planning director considers to be 
     needed in connection with a project funded under section 4.
       (c) Assistance and Participation in Community Organized 
     Events.--Each Federal land management agency shall 
     participate in any community organized events requested by 
     the State planning director.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators DeWine, 
Hatch and Voinovich in introducing bipartisan legislation to provide 
common-sense tax incentives to help address asbestos liability issues.
  I agree with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Amchem 
Products decision that Congress can provide a secure, fair and 
efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. The 
appropriate role for Congress is to provide incentives for private 
parties to reach settlements, not to take away the legal rights of 
asbestos victims and their families. Our bipartisan bill provides these 
tax incentives for private parties involved in asbestos-related 
litigation to reach global settlements and for asbestos victims and 
their families receive the full benefit of the incentives.
  Mr. President, encouraging fair settlements while still preserving 
the legal rights of all parties involved is a win-win situation for 
business and asbestos victims. For example, Rutland Fire Clay Company, 
a family-run, 117-year-old small business in my home state of Vermont, 
recently reached a settlement with its insurers and the trial bar 
concerning the firm's asbestos problems. Unlike some big businesses 
that are trying to avoid any accountability for their asbestos 
responsibilities through national ``tort reform'' legislation, the 
Rutland Fire Clay Company and its President, Tom Martin, are doing the 
right thing within the legal system. Mr. Martin plans to lead the 
family-run business from bankruptcy this year as a stronger firm with a 
solid financial foundation for its employees in the 21st Century. The 
tax incentives in our bipartisan bill will support the Rutland Fire 
Clay Company and its employees while providing financial security for 
its settlement with asbestos victims.
  I believe it is in the national interest to encourage fair and 
expeditious settlements between companies and asbestos victims. The 
legislation we are introducing today will protect payments to victims 
while ensuring defendant firms remain solvent. I urge my colleagues to 
support our bipartisan legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2996. A bill to extend the milk price support program through 2002 
at an increased price support rate; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                    dairy price support legislation

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that is intended to begin a long overdue discussion regarding the 
future of an industry, and a way of life that is basic not only to our 
agricultural economy but to the soul of America. I am talking about 
family dairy farming. To maintain this country's family dairy industry, 
we in the Senate need to act quickly before the end of this session, to 
effect a change in Federal dairy policy that will make a difference, a 
difference to dairy farmers who are struggling because they receive a 
price that is less than what it cost them to produce the product.
  It is clear dairy farmers in this country are facing devastating 
times. The current dairy policies have brought chaos to family dairy 
farmers. Last year, the Class III milk price decreased from $16.26 cwt. 
in September to $9.63 cwt in December, and prices have still not 
recovered. Over the last ten months we have seen a drop of over forty 
percent in milk prices. How can our dairy farmers survive with such 
volatility in the market place? Dairy farmers need to have a stable and 
equitable market price, and that simply does not exist under our 
current dairy policy.
  That is why I am pleased to introduce this legislation to set the 
milk support price at $12.50 per hundredweight. As my colleagues know, 
the dairy support price sets a floor on the price received by all 
producers, regardless of region, that should be set at a level 
sufficient to curb market volatility. However, the current support 
level of $9.90 cwt. is too low to act as a stabilizer for the market. 
The five year average for milk is $12.78 cwt, therefore this 
legislation to set the support price at $12.50 would protect against 
the huge drops producers have experienced in the past few years.
  I want to make clear that this legislation is not intended to be the 
complete solution to the problems with our national dairy policy, or 
lack thereof. I firmly believe that we need to develop a supply 
management mechanism to complement an increase in the price support, 
however, for too long this Congress has ignored the economic crisis our 
nation's dairy farmers are facing.
  Mr. President, what we do here in Washington has to be rooted in the 
lives of the people we represent. It has to be based upon the reality 
of lives of people in our communities, including people in rural 
communities. I think it is vitally important to understand that there 
is a crisis in capital letters with dairy farmers that is evident when 
you go out and talk with people, talk to farmers, hardworking dairy 
farmers, good managers, sitting down in their kitchens adding up the 
figures trying to cash flow. There is simply no way

[[Page S7913]]

they can do it. Talk to dairy farmers who try to convince their sons 
and daughters that there is no more honorable profession to go into 
than to be a farmer, to be a dairy farmer, to produce nutritious milk 
for people at affordable prices, and yet people do not get a decent 
price for their work.
  In my State, fifty in the country in milk production, we have 8,000 
dairy farmers with an average herd size of 59 cows. It is a family 
dairy industry. It is not a factory farm industry, and we want to keep 
it a family industry. The milk production from Minnesota farms 
generates more than $1.2 billion for our states' farmers each year, and 
a recent University of Minnesota study determined that dairy production 
in Minnesota creates an additional $1.2 billion in economic activity 
for related industry. Our dairy industry is efficient and it is 
innovative, and it produces a plentiful supply of pure wholesome milk 
at extremely reasonable prices, but it is also an industry in crisis. 
It is a crisis not only for dairy farmers themselves, but for rural 
communities throughout the country because the health and vitality of 
our rural communities is not going to be based upon the size of the 
herds but the number of dairy farmers who live in those communities, 
who buy in those communities, who go to churches in those communities, 
who support the school systems and businesses in those communities.

  I am afraid, as I speak here on the floor of the Senate, that 
agriculture in our country is about to go through a transition where 
all of agriculture will be dominated by giant conglomerates. The result 
will be the total lack of a competitive sector, family farm sector, of 
agriculture. That will be a transition that we'll deeply regret and 
that is why we have to act now.
  Mr. President, I hope we can respond appropriately to the pleas that 
are coming from any State and other agricultural States all around the 
country. Due to a drastic reduction in the prices paid to farmers for 
their milk during the past year, thousands of farmers are going out of 
business. Since 1990 the number of dairy farmers in Minnesota has been 
nearly cut in half. This year alone we have already lost almost 300 
dairy farms. We will lose more if we do not change the course of 
policy. Federal dairy policy has allowed milk production and prices to 
fluctuate widely. This fluctuation has caused a tremendous amount of 
instability for producers and consumers but it has been especially bad 
for farmers. While retail prices for dairy farmers have gone down and 
while the price for farmers has been dramatically cut by 40 percent, we 
have seen no such decrease at the grocery store.
  The solution is a Federal policy that provides a decent living to 
hardworking family farmers producing needed milk. The average cost of 
production for milk in the United States is around $13 per 
hundredweight and yet farmers in my State are receiving less than $10 
for the same hundredweight. We need a system that will match output to 
need, and pay farmers a fair price.
  There is widespread support around the country for an increase in the 
price support. In fact the National Farmers Union and the National 
Farmers Organization, earlier this year, testified in support of an 
increase of the current price support of $9.90. Such a system will 
allow farmers to earn a price that covers the cost of production, and 
reduce the wild price fluctuations we have witnessed over the past few 
years.
  I want to make it very clear that I believe the vitality of the dairy 
industry is important not only to my State's economic health, and to 
the economic health of agricultural States all across the country, but 
to the maintenance of viable rural communities throughout our nation. I 
think it is important if we are to protect the environment. I think it 
is important if we are to have diversity. I think it is important if we 
are to avoid more concentration in the agricultural sector of our 
country. I think it is important if we are to continue to have family 
farmers who can produce wholesome milk at a decent price for consumers. 
I think it is important because it represents the very best of what we 
have been about as a nation. I hope we can make substantive dairy 
policy reforms this year, and I believe an increase in the price 
support is an important component, as is a targeted supply management 
mechanism. It is clear we must act soon. And I hope we can do it before 
the close of Congress.
  Mr. PRESIDENT, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2996

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program.--Section 141(h) of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251(h)) is 
     amended by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2002''.
       (b) Price Support Rate.--Section 141(b) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) During each of calendar years 2001 and 2002, 
     $12.50.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments; Recourse Loan Program for 
     Processors.--Section 142 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``$9.90'' and inserting ``$12.50''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``2001'' and inserting 
     ``2003''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Reed, Mr. L. Chafee, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2997. A bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the 
Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, 
safe, and affordable housing for low-income families; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


             the national affordable housing trust fund act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer the 
National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act which would establish a 
Trust Fund to fill the growing gap in our ability to provide affordable 
housing in this country.
  We are living through a time of great economic expansion. Many 
Americans are benefitting from the growing economy. On the flip side 
however, is that the economy is fueling rising housing costs. While 
these costs skyrocket at record pace, there are many families in this 
country who are unable to keep up.
  HUD estimates that 5.4 million low-income households have ``worst 
case'' housing needs. These families are paying over half their income 
towards housing costs or living in severely substandard housing. Since 
1990, the number of families who have ``worst case'' housing needs has 
increased by 12 percent--that's 600,000 more American families who 
cannot afford a decent and safe place to live.
  For these families living paycheck to paycheck, one unforseen 
circumstance, a sick child, a needed car repair, or a large utility 
bill can send them into homelessness. Just this week, on the front page 
of the Washington Post, an article detailed these problems right here 
in our own backyard. The article details the plight of low-income 
families living in apartments which are no longer affordable because 
the owners have decided to no longer accept federal assistance. For 
these families, the loss of their affordable housing unit means they 
may go without a home.
  We mistakenly view the housing crisis in this country as confined to 
specific demographics. This is untrue. There is not one metropolitan 
area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford to pay the 
rent for a two-bedroom apartment. A person needs to earn over $11 an 
hour to afford the median rent for a two bedroom apartment in this 
country. This figure rises dramatically in many metropolitan areas--an 
hourly wage of $22 is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 
in Boston; $16 in the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and, $13 
in Atlanta.
  Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves 
unable to afford housing. Using the numbers I just cited, a person in 
Boston would have to make over $35,000 just to afford a 2 bedroom 
apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police 
officers--these full time workers can have trouble affording even a 
modest 2-bedroom apartment.
  A story from my home state of Massachusetts highlights the problems 
faced by working families. On Cape

[[Page S7914]]

Cod, Susan O'Donnell a mother of three, earns $21,000 a year working 
full-time. Nonetheless, she is forced to live in a campground because 
she cannot find affordable housing. The campground she is living at has 
time limits, so the only way she is able to stay for a prolonged period 
of time is through cleaning the campground's toilets. When her time 
runs out at the campground, she will again be forced to move with her 
three children, though it is not clear where she will be able to afford 
to move. Skyrocketing housing costs have pushed her, and other full 
time workers on the Cape out of their housing and into homelessness.
  And, as I mentioned earlier, the problem is not only that we have 
failed to create additional affordable units. We have actually 
witnessed a tremendous loss in affordable housing. Between 1993 and 
1995, a loss of 900,000 rental units affordable to very low-income 
families occurred. From 1996 to 1998, there was a 19% reduction in the 
number of affordable housing units. This amounted to a dramatic 
reduction of 1.3 million affordable housing units available to low-
income Americans.
  The Washington Post article I mentioned previously, helps to show the 
real impact of these losses. Because of the ability of higher wage 
earners to pay higher housing costs, building owners are now choosing 
not to rent to households assisted with Section 8 vouchers.

  Right over the D.C. line, in Prince Georges County, Maryland, 300 
tenants in a apartment complex were recently told that they would have 
to move because the owner will no longer accept Section 8. This means 
300 families will lose their housing. And, it is not clear that there 
will be anywhere for them to go. The same article introduces us to a 
woman who experienced the same traumatizing eviction in Alexandria, 
Virginia. Ms. Evans is now living in a cockroach infested building with 
her children, because there are no decent units affordable to her. 
This, in part, stems from the fact that of 31 properties in Alexandria 
which accepted voucher holders in the past, 12 will not longer accept 
tenants with federal assistance.
  The loss of this affordable housing has exacerbated the housing 
crisis in this country, and the federal government must take action.
  However, the government has clearly not been doing enough. In fact, 
despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing, we 
have decreased federal spending on critical housing programs over time. 
From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999, we engaged in what I call 
the ``Great HUDway Robbery,'' diverting or rescinding over 20 billion 
dollars from federal housing programs for other uses. With a few 
exceptions, the funding increases of this past year have gone primarily 
to cover the rising costs of serving existing assisted families.
  We need to bring our levels of housing spending back up to where they 
belong. Between 1978 and 1995, the number of households receiving 
housing assistance was increased by almost 3 million. From 1978 through 
1984, we provided an additional 230,000 families with housing 
assistance each year. This number dropped significantly to 126,000 
additional households each year from 1985 through 1995.
  And, in 1996, this nation's housing policy went all the way back to 
square one--not only was there no increase in families receiving 
housing assistance, but the number of assisted units actually 
decreased. From 1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households 
dropped by 51,000. In this time of rising rents and housing costs, and 
the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we 
are not doing more to bring the levels of housing assistance back from 
the dead.
  It is high time that we focused on housing policies in Congress and 
around the country because housing is an anchor for families.
  It is no secret that housing, neighborhood and living environment 
play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Maintaining a stable home, 
made possible through housing assistance, has positive outcomes for 
low-income children. A child will be unable to learn if she is forced 
to change schools every few months because her family is forced to move 
from relative to relative to friend to friend because her parents can't 
afford the rent.
  What I am doing today, is standing up before the Nation and saying, 
``no more.'' We have the resources we need to ensure that all Americans 
have the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing, yet we are not 
devoting these resources to fix the problem.
  Today, I am proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable 
housing by establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund which 
uses excess income generated by 2 federal housing programs--the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA) and the Government National Mortgage 
Association (GNMA). These federal housing programs generate billions of 
dollars in excess income which currently go to the general Treasury for 
use on other federal priorities. It is time to stop taking housing 
money out of housing programs. These excess funds should be used to 
help alleviate the current housing crisis.
  My proposal would create an affordable housing production, ensuring 
that new rental units are built for those who most need assistance--
extremely low-income families, including working families. In addition, 
Trust Fund assistance will be used to promote homeownership for low-
income families, those families whose incomes are below 80% of the area 
median income.
  The Trust Fund aims to create long-term affordable, mixed-income 
developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income 
families.
  A majority of assistance from the Trust Fund will be given out as 
matching grants to the States which will distribute funds on a 
competitive basis like the low-income housing tax credit. Localities, 
non-profits, developers and other entities will be eligible to apply 
for funds. The remaining assistance will be distributed through a 
national competition to intermediaries, such as non-profits which will 
be required to leverage private funds for investment in affordable 
housing.
  This proposal will bring federal, State and private resources 
together to create needed affordable housing opportunities for American 
families.
  We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing, and the 
impact it is having on families and children around the country. It is 
not clear to me why this lack of housing has not caused more uproar. 
How many families need to be pushed out of their homes and into the 
streets, before action is taken. Earlier in this Congress, I proposed a 
program which would assist in maintaining the affordable housing stock 
that already exists. I hope that this preservation program is taken up 
this Congress and passed so that we can avoid losing anymore affordable 
units. However, we must also focus on producing additional housing, 
which is exactly what this Housing Trust Fund will do.
  Mr. President, I asked of the housing policy experts and 
practitioners in Massachusetts to work with me to come up with a viable 
program which would put the government back in the business of 
producing affordable housing. This legislation is a result of 
collaboration among numerous organizations and experts. I want to thank 
in particular, Aaron Gornstein of the citizens Housing and Planning 
Association in Massachusetts for helping to bring all of the relevant 
actors to the table to formulate this proposal. I appreciate the help 
of many people and organizations, but want to mention some people in 
Massachusetts who were critical in shaping the ideas behind this 
legislation: Vince O'Donnell of the Community Economic Development 
Assistance Corp; Peter Gagliardi with the Hampden Hampshire Housing 
Partnership; Conrad Egan of the National Housing Conference; Joe 
Flately with the Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation; Howard 
Cohen with Beacon Residential; and, Patrick Dober of Lendlease.
  I urge you to support this legislation which restores our commitment 
to providing affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn 
our backs on those families who struggle each month just to put a roof 
over their heads.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the legislation, along 
with a section-by-section summary, and letters of support from a number 
of organizations including the National Association of Homebuilders, 
the National Council of State Housing Agencies, the National Low-Income 
Housing Coalition, the National Coalition for the

[[Page S7915]]

Homeless, the National Housing Conference, and others put in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2997

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Affordable Housing 
     Trust Fund Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) fill the growing gap in the national ability to build 
     affordable housing by using profits generated by Federal 
     housing programs to fund additional housing activities, and 
     not supplant existing housing appropriations; and
       (2) enable rental housing to be built for those families 
     with the greatest need in areas with the greatest 
     opportunities in mixed-income settings and to promote 
     homeownership for low-income families.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--There is established in 
     the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as 
     the ``National Affordable Housing Trust Fund'' (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Trust Fund'') for the purposes of 
     promoting the development of affordable housing.
       (b) Deposits to the Trust Fund.--For fiscal year 2001 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, there is appropriated to the 
     Trust Fund an amount equal to the sum of--
       (1) any revenue generated by the Mutual Mortgage Insurance 
     Fund of the Federal Housing Administration in excess of the 
     amount necessary for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund to 
     maintain a capital ratio of 3 percent for the preceding 
     fiscal year; and
       (2) any revenue generated by the Government National 
     Mortgage Association in excess of the amount necessary to pay 
     the administrative costs and expenses necessary to ensure the 
     safety and soundness of the Government National Mortgage 
     Association for the preceding fiscal year, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Expenditures From the Trust Fund.--For fiscal year 2001 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, amounts appropriated to the 
     Trust Fund shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development for use in accordance with section 4.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affordable housing.--The term ``affordable housing'' 
     means housing for rental that bears rents not greater than 
     the lesser of--
       (A) the existing fair market rent for comparable units in 
     the area, as established by the Secretary under section 8 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f); or
       (B) a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of the adjusted 
     income of a family whose income equals 65 percent of the 
     median income for the area, as determined by the Secretary, 
     with adjustment for number of bedrooms in the unit, except 
     that the Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or 
     lower than 65 percent of the median for the area on the basis 
     of the findings of the Secretary that such variations are 
     necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs 
     or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family 
     incomes.
       (2) Continued assistance rental subsidy program.--The term 
     ``continued assistance rental subsidy program'' means a 
     program under which--
       (A) project-based assistance is provided for not more than 
     3 years to a family in an affordable housing unit developed 
     with assistance made available under subsection (c) or (d) in 
     a project that partners with a public housing agency, which 
     agency agrees to provide the assisted family with a priority 
     for the receipt of a voucher under section 8(o) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) if the family 
     chooses to move after an initial year of occupancy and the 
     public housing agency agrees to refer eligible voucher 
     holders to the property when vacancies occur; and
       (B) after 3 years, subject to appropriations, continued 
     assistance is provided under section 8(o) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in that 
     section, if administered to provide families with the option 
     of continued assistance with tenant-based vouchers, if such a 
     family chooses to move after an initial year of occupancy and 
     the public housing agency agrees to refer eligible voucher 
     holders to the property when vacancies occur.
       (3) Eligible activities.--The term ``eligible activities'' 
     means activities relating to the development of affordable 
     housing, including--
       (A) the construction of new housing;
       (B) the acquisition of real property;
       (C) site preparation and improvement, including demolition;
       (D) substantial rehabilitation of existing housing; and
       (E) rental subsidy for not more than 3 years under a 
     continued assistance rental subsidy program.
       (4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' includes 
     any public or private nonprofit or for-profit entity, unit of 
     local government, regional planning entity, and any other 
     entity engaged in the development of affordable housing, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (5) Eligible intermediary.--The term ``eligible 
     intermediary'' means--
       (A) a nonprofit community development corporation;
       (B) a community development financial institution (as 
     defined in section 103 of the Community Development Banking 
     and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702));
       (C) a State or local trust fund;
       (D) any entity eligible for assistance under section 4 of 
     the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note);
       (E) a national, regional, or statewide nonprofit 
     organization; and
       (F) any other appropriate nonprofit entity, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (6) Extremely low-income families.--The term ``extremely 
     low-income families'' means very low-income families (as 
     defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) whose incomes do not exceed 30 
     percent of the median family income for the area, as 
     determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and 
     larger families, except that the Secretary may establish 
     income ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median 
     for the area on the basis of the Secretary's findings that 
     such variations are necessary because of unusually high or 
     low family incomes.
       (7) Low-income families.--The term ``low-income families'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 3(b) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.
       (9) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)).
       (b) Allocation to States and Eligible Intermediaries.--For 
     fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter, the total 
     amount made available to the Secretary from the Trust Fund 
     under section 3(c) shall be allocated by the Secretary as 
     follows:
       (1) 75 percent shall be used to award grants to States in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       (2) 25 percent shall be used to award grants to eligible 
     intermediaries in accordance with subsection (d).
       (c) Grants to States.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), from the amount 
     made available for each fiscal year under subsection (b)(1), 
     the Secretary shall award grants to States, in accordance 
     with an allocation formula established by the Secretary, 
     based on the pro rata share of each State of the total need 
     among all States for an increased supply of affordable 
     housing, as determined on the basis of--
       (A) the number and percentage of families in the State that 
     live in substandard housing;
       (B) the number and percentage of families in the State that 
     pay more than 50 percent of their annual income for housing 
     costs;
       (C) the number and percentage of persons living at or below 
     the poverty level in the State;
       (D) the cost of developing or carrying out substantial 
     rehabilitation of housing in the State;
       (E) the age of the multifamily housing stock in the State; 
     and
       (F) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Grant amount.--
       (A) In general.--The amount of a grant award to a State 
     under this subsection shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) 4 times the amount of assistance provided by the State 
     from non-Federal sources; and
       (ii) the allocation determined in accordance with paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Non-federal sources.--The following shall be considered 
     non-Federal sources for purposes of this section:
       (i) 50 percent of funds allocable to tax credits allocated 
     under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (ii) 50 percent of revenue from mortgage revenue bonds 
     issued under section 143 of such Code.
       (iii) 50 percent of proceeds from the sale of tax exempt 
     bonds.
       (3) Award of state allocation to certain entities.--
       (A) In general.--If the amount provided by a State from 
     non-Federal sources is less than 25 percent of the amount 
     that would be awarded to the State under this subsection 
     based on the allocation formula described in paragraph (1), 
     not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary 
     determines that the State is not eligible for the full 
     allocation determined under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall issue a notice regarding the availability of the funds 
     for which the State is ineligible.
       (B) Applications.--Not later than 9 months after 
     publication of a notice of funding availability under 
     subparagraph (A), a nonprofit or public entity (or a 
     consortium thereof, which may include units of local 
     government working together on a regional basis) may submit 
     to the Secretary an application for the available assistance 
     or a portion thereof, which application shall include--
       (i) a certification that the applicant will provide 
     assistance in an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount of 
     assistance made available to the applicant under this 
     paragraph; and

[[Page S7916]]

       (ii) an allocation plan that meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (4)(B) for use or distribution in the State of any 
     assistance made available to the applicant under this 
     paragraph and the assistance provided by the applicant for 
     purposes of clause (i).
       (C) Award of assistance.--The Secretary shall award the 
     amount that is not awarded to a State by operation of 
     paragraph (2) to 1 or more applicants that meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph that are 
     selected by the Secretary based on selection criteria, which 
     shall be established by the Secretary by regulation.
       (4) Distribution to eligible entities.--
       (A) In general.--Each State that receives a grant award 
     under this subsection shall distribute the amount made 
     available under the grant and the assistance provided by the 
     State from non-Federal sources for purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(A) to eligible entities for the purpose of assisting 
     those entities in carrying out eligible activities in the 
     State as follows:
       (i) 75 percent shall be distributed to eligible entities 
     for eligible activities relating to the development of 
     affordable housing for rental by extremely low-income 
     families in the State.
       (ii) 25 percent shall be distributed to eligible entities 
     for eligible activities relating to the development of 
     affordable housing for rental by low-income families in the 
     State, or for homeownership assistance for low-income 
     families in the State.
       (B) Allocation plan.--Each State shall, after notice to the 
     public, an opportunity for public comment, and consideration 
     of public comments received, establish an allocation plan for 
     the distribution of assistance under this paragraph, which 
     shall be submitted to the Secretary and shall be made 
     available to the public by the State, and which shall 
     include--
       (i) application requirements for eligible entities seeking 
     to receive such assistance, including a requirement that each 
     application include--

       (I) a certification by the applicant that any housing 
     developed with assistance under this paragraph will remain 
     affordable for extremely low-income families or low-income 
     families, as applicable, for not less than 40 years;
       (II) a certification by the applicant that the tenant 
     contribution towards rent for a family residing in a unit 
     developed with assistance under this paragraph will not 
     exceed 30 percent of the adjusted income of that family; and
       (III) a certification by the applicant that the owner of a 
     project in which any housing developed with assistance under 
     this paragraph is located will make a percentage of units in 
     the project available to families assisted under the voucher 
     program under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) on the same basis as other 
     families eligible for the housing (except that only the 
     voucher holder's expected share of rent shall be considered), 
     which percentage shall not be less than the percentage of the 
     total cost of developing or rehabilitating the project that 
     is funded with assistance under this paragraph; and

       (ii) factors for consideration in selecting among 
     applicants that meet such application requirements, which 
     shall give preference to applicants based on--

       (I) the amount of assistance for the eligible activities 
     leveraged by the applicant from private and other non-Federal 
     sources, including assistance made available under section 8 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) 
     that is devoted to the project in which the housing to be 
     developed with assistance under this paragraph is located;
       (II) the extent of local assistance that will be provided 
     in carrying out the eligible activities, including--

       (aa) financial assistance; and
       (bb) the extent to which the applicant has worked with the 
     unit of local government in which the housing will be located 
     to address issues of siting and exclusionary zoning or other 
     policies that are barriers to affordable housing;

       (III) the degree to which the development in which the 
     housing will be located is mixed-income;
       (IV) whether the housing will be located in a census tract 
     in which the poverty rate is less than 20 percent or in a 
     community undergoing revitalization;
       (V) the extent of employment and other opportunities for 
     low-income families in the area in which the housing will be 
     located; and
       (VI) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the 
     ability to maintain units as affordable for extremely low-
     income or low-income families, as applicable, through the use 
     of assistance made available under this paragraph, assistance 
     leveraged from non-Federal sources, assistance made available 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f), State or local assistance, programs to 
     increase tenant income, cross-subsidization, and any other 
     resources.

       (C) Forms of assistance.--
       (i) In general.--Assistance distributed under this 
     paragraph may be in the form of capital grants, non-interest 
     bearing or low-interest loans or advances, deferred payment 
     loans, guarantees, and any other forms of assistance approved 
     by the Secretary.
       (ii) Repayments.--If a State awards assistance under this 
     paragraph in the form of a loan or other mechanism by which 
     funds are later repaid to the State, any repayments received 
     by the State shall be distributed by the State in accordance 
     with the allocation plan described in subparagraph (B) the 
     following fiscal year.
       (D) Coordination with other assistance.--In distributing 
     assistance under this paragraph, each State shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, coordinate such distribution with 
     the provision of other affordable housing assistance by the 
     State, including--
       (i) housing credit dollar amounts allocated by the State 
     under section 42(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (ii) assistance made available under the HOME Investment 
     Partnerships Act or the community development block grant 
     program; and
       (iii) private activity bonds.
       (d) National Competition.--
       (1) In general.--From the amount made available for each 
     fiscal year under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall 
     award grants on a competitive basis to eligible 
     intermediaries, which shall be used in accordance with 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Application requirements and selection criteria.--The 
     Secretary by regulation shall establish application 
     requirements and selection criteria for the award of 
     competitive grants to eligible intermediaries under this 
     subsection, which criteria shall include--
       (A) the ability of the eligible intermediary to meet 
     housing needs of low-income families on a national or 
     regional scope;
       (B) the capacity of the eligible intermediary to use the 
     grant award in accordance with paragraph (3), based on the 
     past performance and management of the applicant; and
       (C) the extent to which the eligible intermediary has 
     leveraged funding from private and other non-Federal sources 
     for the eligible activities.
       (3) Use of grant award.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each eligible intermediary that receives a grant award under 
     this subsection shall ensure that the amount made available 
     under the grant is used as follows:
       (i) 75 percent shall be used for eligible activities 
     relating to the development of affordable housing for rental 
     by extremely low-income families.
       (ii) 25 percent shall be used for eligible activities 
     relating to the development of affordable housing for rental 
     by low-income families, or for homeownership assistance for 
     low-income families.
       (B) Exception.--
       (i) In general.--If the amount made available under a grant 
     award under this subsection is used for a project described 
     in clause (ii), an eligible intermediary may use the amount 
     made available under the grant for eligible activities 
     relating to the development of housing for rental by families 
     whose incomes are less than 60 percent of the area median 
     income, and for homeownership activities for families whose 
     incomes are less than 80 percent of area median income.
       (ii) Project contributing to a concerted community 
     revitalization plan.--A project is described in this clause 
     if--

       (I) it is located in a community undergoing concerted 
     revitalization and is contributing to a community 
     revitalization plan; and
       (II) it is located in a census tract in which--

       (aa) the median household income is less than 60 percent of 
     the area median income; or
       (bb) the rate of poverty is greater than 20 percent.
       (C) Plan of use.--Each eligible intermediary that receives 
     a grant award under this subsection shall establish a plan 
     for the use or distribution of the amount made available 
     under the grant, which shall be submitted to the Secretary, 
     and which shall include information relating to the manner in 
     which the eligible intermediary will either use or distribute 
     that amount, including--
       (i) a certification that assistance made available under 
     this subsection will be used to supplement assistance 
     leveraged from private and other non-Federal sources, 
     including assistance made available under section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) that is 
     devoted to the project in which the housing to be developed 
     is located;
       (ii) a certification that local assistance will be provided 
     in the carrying out the eligible activities, which may 
     include--

       (I) financial assistance; and
       (II) a good faith effort to work with the unit of local 
     government in which the housing will be located to address 
     issues of siting and exclusionary zoning or other policies 
     that are barriers to affordable housing;

       (iii) a certification that any housing developed with 
     assistance under this subsection will remain affordable for 
     extremely low-income families or low-income families, as 
     applicable, for not less than 40 years;
       (iv) a certification that any housing developed by the 
     applicant with assistance under this subsection will be 
     located--

       (I) in a mixed-income development in a census tract having 
     a poverty rate of not more than 20 percent, and near 
     employment and other opportunities for low-income families; 
     or
       (II) in a community undergoing revitalization;

       (v) a certification that the tenant contribution towards 
     rent for a family residing in a unit developed with 
     assistance under

[[Page S7917]]

     this paragraph will not exceed 30 percent of the adjusted 
     income of that family; and
       (vi) a certification by the applicant that the owner of a 
     project in which any housing developed with assistance under 
     this subsection is located will make a percentage of units in 
     the project available to families assisted under the voucher 
     program under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) on the same basis as other 
     families eligible for the housing (except that only the 
     voucher holder's expected share of rent shall be considered), 
     which percentage shall not be less than the percentage of the 
     total cost of developing or rehabilitating the project that 
     is funded with assistance under this subsection.
       (D) Forms of assistance.--
       (i) In general.--An eligible intermediary may distribute 
     the amount made available under a grant under this subsection 
     in the form of capital grants, non-interest bearing or low-
     interest loans or advances, deferred payment loans, 
     guarantees, and other forms of assistance.
       (ii) Repayments.--If an eligible intermediary awards 
     assistance under this subsection in the form of a loan or 
     other mechanism by which funds are later repaid to the 
     eligible intermediary, any repayments received by the 
     eligible intermediary shall be distributed by the eligible 
     intermediary in accordance with the plan of use described in 
     subparagraph (C) the following fiscal year.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     promulgate regulations to carry out this Act.
                                  ____


     Section by Section of National Affordable Housing Trust Fund 
                              Legislation


                         section 1: short title

       National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2000.


                          section 2: purposes

       The purpose of this Act is to use profits generated by 
     federal housing programs to help alleviate the current 
     housing crisis by funding new construction of affordable 
     rental housing in mixed-income developments and homeownership 
     activities.


                 section 3: national housing trust fund

       This Section establishes a National Affordable Housing 
     Trust Fund (``Trust Fund'') in the Treasury of the U.S. 
     Excess revenue generated by the Federal Housing 
     Administration (``FHA'') and the Government National Mortgage 
     Association (``GNMA'') will be transferred to the Trust Fund 
     in fiscal year 2001 and each year thereafter for eligible 
     uses.
       FHA revenue, in excess of an amount necessary for the FHA 
     to retain 3% capital, will be transferred to the Trust Fund. 
     FHA is currently required to maintain 2% capital. GNMA 
     revenues will also be captured, above what the Secretary 
     determines is necessary for safe and sound operations.


  section 4: administration of national affordable housing trust fund

       This Section describes how Trust Fund assistance will be 
     allocated and for what uses. 75% of Trust Fund assistance 
     will be given as matching grants to States and 25% will be 
     awarded by HUD through a national competition, as follows:
       Matching Grants to States. 75% of the Trust Fund will be 
     given as matching grants to States on a formula based on 
     factors related to need for housing in the State. States will 
     be required to match 25% of the federal grant with non-
     federal funds. If a State does not come up with the requisite 
     match, public and non-profit entities can apply for the 
     State's portion of funds.
       States will distribute assistance according to need and 
     criteria, including: whether the development will be mixed 
     income; whether the development is located in a low-poverty 
     census tract or a community experiencing revitalization; and 
     the amount of additional funding devoted to the project.
       75% of Trust Fund assistance distributed by each State must 
     be used for the construction of rental housing for extremely 
     low-income households (income under 30% of area median 
     income) in mixed income developments which must remain 
     affordable for 40 years. The bill establishes a ``Continued 
     Assistance Rental Subsidy Program'' under which a developer 
     may use funds for up to three years of operating subsidy, so 
     long as it partners with a local housing agency to ensure a 
     stream of eligible tenants to the units, and the housing 
     agency agrees to provide any tenant in those units with a 
     voucher to move if the tenant so chooses.
       The other 25% of assistance may be used for low-income 
     families (incomes under 80% of area median income) for 
     construction of rental housing or for homeownership 
     activities.

                          National Competition

       25% of the Trust Fund will be awarded by HUD through 
     competitive grants to non-profit intermediaries, who will use 
     and distribute the funds based on the same criteria as 
     required by the States. While there is no specific matching 
     requirement, HUD must give priority to those intermediaries 
     which leverage the greatest amount of private and non-federal 
     funds.
       Like the State grants, 75% of assistance must be used for 
     rental housing for extremely low-income households in mixed 
     income developments, and the units must remain affordable for 
     40 years, and the other 25% of assistance must be used for 
     low-income families for rental housing or homeownership 
     activities. However, if a project contributes to a community 
     revitalization plan, these targeting requirements are waived, 
     so long as the households assisted in the project have 
     incomes under 60% of the area median income.


                         section 5: regulations

       HUD is required to promulgate regulations within 6 months 
     of the date of enactment of this bill.
                                  ____

                                             Citizens' Housing and


                                   Planning Association, Inc.,

                                        Boston, MA, July 26, 2000.
     Senator John F. Kerry,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of Citizens' Housing and 
     Planning Association (CHAPA), I wanted to express our strong 
     support for the national housing trust fund legislation that 
     you will be filing this week. CHAPA is the largest and most 
     diverse housing advocacy organization in New England, 
     representing more than 1,500 housing providers, advocates, 
     government officials, lenders, and others.
       In Massachusetts, we are in the midst of the most acute 
     housing crisis on record. The number of Massachusetts 
     households with severe housing needs has reached an all-time 
     high. Nearly 245,000 households pay more than half of their 
     incomes for rent, a 21 percent jump since 1990. Since 1997, 
     10,000 Massachusetts families have been homeless each year, 
     double the number since 1990.
       The clear solution to this problem is to build and preserve 
     more affordable housing for low income families. The trust 
     fund legislation, which you are sponsoring, will lead to the 
     creation of thousands of affordable rental units across the 
     country. We are pleased that the focus of this program will 
     be to create new housing for low income families who are 
     facing the biggest housing squeeze.
       We also are extremely pleased that the trust fund provides 
     flexible funds to the states and non-profit developers so 
     that these entities can tailor solutions to meet local needs. 
     The proposed program encourages the leveraging of private 
     funds and the creation of mixed income housing.
       Thank you once again for playing an outstanding leadership 
     role on affordable housing. We hope that Congress will act 
     expeditiously on this critical legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Aaron Gornstein,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  National Housing Conference,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2000.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: We, the National Housing Conference, 
     would like to extend our thanks to you for introducing the 
     National Housing Trust Fund Act of 2000. The NHC is a broad-
     based nonpartisan advocate for national policies that promote 
     suitable housing in a safe, decent environment across the 
     nation. The NHC consists of members from across the entire 
     spectrum of the housing industry. Since 1931, the NHC has 
     demonstrated itself to be known as the united voice for 
     housing.
       We are writing to pledge our support for your act because 
     we know you understand that:
       (1) There is a compelling need for federal legislation to 
     construct affordable housing. Last month, our research 
     affiliate, the Center for Housing Policy, released a report 
     titled ``Housing America's Working Families.'' The report 
     demonstrated that despite the unprecedented economic 
     prosperity that this nation has been experiencing, one out of 
     every seven families has a critical housing need--They are 
     either spending over half their total income on rent or they 
     are living in severely inadequate units. These families--many 
     of them moderate-income working families--are teetering on an 
     all-too precarious ledge. Housing is a fundamental human need 
     and we believe that it is a shame that so many of America's 
     families are faced with such pressing housing problems, 
     particularly in an era of such economic abundance.
       (2) The National Housing Trust Fund Act of 2000 would help 
     alleviate that need. The Act would allocate much needed funds 
     toward the construction and preservation of a range of 
     quality housing choices for low and moderate income people. 
     An increase in affordable housing options would provide many 
     needy families with better equalities of life. The National 
     Housing Trust Fund would supplement and complement existing 
     supply-oriented programs such as public housing, HOME, and 
     the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Furthermore, Ann Schnare, 
     President of the Center for Housing Policy said in a 
     testimony on June 20th before Senator Allard, ``Many states 
     and local jurisdictions have established Housing Trust Funds 
     to capture revenue from many sources for affordable housing. 
     An analogous trust fund should be established at the federal 
     level. . . It could further encourage and strengthen 
     affordable housing efforts at the state and local levels by 
     providing incentives and developing partnerships with various 
     entities.''
       It is important to note that the National Housing Trust 
     Fund would be in addition to existing appropriated funds and 
     would not supplant those appropriations. It would be financed 
     solely by excess income generated by the FHA and by Ginnie 
     Mae. If we establish this National Housing Trust Fund we will

[[Page S7918]]

     ensure for countless future generations of Americans that 
     there will always be dependable affordable housing options.
       Clearly, the National Housing Trust Fund Act is a good step 
     in the right direction. Too many people in our country are 
     lacking a fundamental human necessity--adequate housing. This 
     act would create provisions to mitigate some of this critical 
     housing need. Trust funds have been developed in the past for 
     other national priorities such as Social Security, highways, 
     and airports. We're glad that you agree that it is about time 
     for us to make housing a national priority as well.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert J. Reid,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Realtors,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on 
         Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the more than 760,000 
     members of the National Association of Realtors, I am pleased 
     to indicate our support for your legislation. The National 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2000. We believe this 
     important legislation reduces the barriers to affordable 
     housing production and closes the gap in needed housing 
     opportunities for American families, and we welcome the 
     opportunity to work with you to gain its passage.
       As you know, millions of working American families are 
     facing a housing affordability crisis despite an 
     unprecedented run of economic growth and prosperity. This 
     phenomenon is exacerbated by the continuing decline of our 
     nation's affordable housing stock. The increase in demand 
     coupled with the diminishing supply of affordable units are 
     straining housing capacity in many communities nationwide, 
     leading to a rise in homelessness for many worthy American 
     working families.
       The National Association of Realtors believes the time is 
     appropriate to address our nation's affordable housing crisis 
     as a national priority and forge a coherent and focused set 
     of policies for immediate adoption. Your legislation 
     establishing a trust fund utilizing revenues created through 
     the popular and successful FHA homeownership program for 
     usage in other critical housing areas is an insightful and 
     innovative response to the shortage of affordable housing 
     units. We strongly support this objective and we stand ready 
     to work with you and the Subcommittee during deliberation of 
     your bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis R. Cronk,
     President.
                                  ____

         National Association of Home Builders, Federal Government 
           Affairs Division,
                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2000.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Housing and 
         Transportation, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the 200,000 members of the 
     National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I want to 
     extend to you our appreciation and support for your efforts 
     to introduce legislation to establish a ``National Affordable 
     Housing Trust Fund''.
       NAHB supports your proposal to establish a National 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the production of 
     affordable housing. Indeed, your goal to divert funds from 
     both the ``surplus'' existing within the Mutual Mortgage 
     Insurance Fund (MMI Fund) and excess revenue generated by the 
     Government National Mortgage Association into affordable 
     housing development, is laudable. The growing need for decent 
     affordable housing is well documented. We appreciate your 
     work and interest in this issue and want to assist you in any 
     way to facilitate movement of this legislation.
       Again, thank you for your efforts to address the shortage 
     of affordable housing in America.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gerald M. Howard,
     Senior Staff Vice President.
                                  ____

                                               National Council of


                                       State Housing Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the housing finance 
     agencies (HFAs) of the 50 states, the National Council of 
     State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) commends you for introducing 
     the ``National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act'' (Trust). 
     Given the tremendous and ever-growing need for decent and 
     affordable housing, it is imperative that any surplus the FHA 
     fund generates be rededicated to housing America's low income 
     families.
       In this era of unprecedented economic prosperity, the 
     number of families experiencing worst case housing needs has 
     increased dramatically. According to a recent study published 
     by The Center for Housing Policy, 13.7 million families had 
     critical housing needs in 1997, including six million working 
     and nearly four million elderly households. In the face of 
     these alarming statistics, the affordable housing stock has 
     lost over one million units between 1993 and 1998.
       Housing need, though great everywhere, varies dramatically 
     among and within the states. In some states, newly produced 
     rental housing for very low income families is the greatest 
     need. In others, preserving the irreplaceable low-cost rental 
     inventory is the highest priority.
       Your bill responds effectively to these diverse housing 
     needs by allocating Trust funds directly to the states. 
     States understand their housing needs and are in the best 
     position to leverage these funds with other housing 
     resources. The sound and efficient administration of the 
     Housing Credit and the HOME programs are clear evidence of 
     states' capacity to administer the Trust fund.
       We look forward to working with you as you move this bill 
     forward to design a delivery system that relies on the states 
     and their private and public sector partners to direct these 
     precious resources to their most pressing housing needs. 
     Thank you for all you are doing to expand affordable housing 
     opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                              Barbara J. Thompson,
     Director of Policy and Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                               National Low Income


                                      Housing Coalition/LIHIS,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the National Low Income 
     Housing Coalition. I am pleased to offer our support for the 
     National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2000, which you 
     will introduce shortly. HLIHC is a membership organization 
     dedicated solely to ending the affordable housing crisis in 
     America. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund that you 
     propose offers concrete and sustainable resources towards 
     achieving that goal.
       The dimensions of the affordable housing crisis are well 
     documented. As you know, nowhere in the United States can a 
     full time minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom unit at 
     the fair market rent. The housing wage, that is, the hourly 
     wage one must earn to afford the fair market rent, ranges 
     from $8.02 in West Virginia to $17.01 in Hawaii. The supply 
     of housing that is affordable to low wage workers and elderly 
     and disabled people on fixed incomes is dwindling while the 
     rents of the remaining units are escalating. Even those 
     families that are fortunate enough to receive a federal 
     housing voucher often are not able to find housing they can 
     afford with the voucher. The need for new affordable housing 
     production resources is serious and urgent.
       The Housing Trust Fund provides a dedicated source of 
     funding for the production or rehabilitation of rental 
     housing. The use of excess revenue from FHA and Ginnie Mae 
     for this purpose is sensible housing policy. We are very 
     pleased that a majority of the funds will be targeted to 
     housing that is to be affordable to extremely low income 
     households for at least 40 years. This is the population with 
     the most severe housing problems and for whom the fewest 
     resources are available to increase the supply of affordable 
     housing. We also commend the decision to make operating 
     support an eligible activity for three years and the 
     preference for projects that can demonstrate an ongoing 
     source of operating subsidy.
       We look forward to working with you towards passage of this 
     important new federal housing legislation. Thank you for your 
     continued leadership on housing issues in the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sheila Crowley,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        National Coalition for the


                                                     Homeless,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: ``They've got jobs, they just can't 
     find housing they can afford,'' is the comment we hear from 
     local providers across the country as they talk about the 
     unmet housing needs of an increasing number of families and 
     individuals who have consequently become homeless in their 
     communities. It is, therefore, with great enthusiasm that the 
     National Coalition for the Homeless supports the National 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and strongly encourages its 
     expedited enactment and implementation.
       As you know, for the past two decades, we have been 
     consistently rescinding our commitment to ``decent housing 
     for all Americans''. As a result, the need for affordable 
     housing is profound throughout the nation, in communities of 
     diverse sizes and socio-economic circumstances, and most 
     especially among extremely low-income households. For this 
     reason, we are seeing an unprecedented number of employed men 
     and women who have been forced into homelessness. I was 
     recently visiting a 250-bed single men's shelter in a urban 
     setting, where 70% of the residents were employed, most full 
     time, and what they got for their efforts, was a thin mat on 
     a concrete floor to call their `home'. We are also finding 
     very significant rates of homelessness among families who are 
     doing what they have been asked to do--moving from welfare to 
     work--but because of their low-wages are not able to afford 
     stable housing in healthy neighborhoods, which compromises 
     both their long-term employability and the health and well-
     being of their children. We all want welfare reform to work; 
     the missing link has always been affordable housing.
       Knowing that the availability of affordable housing is 
     fundamental to insuring that

[[Page S7919]]

     working families can expect to meet their basic needs, we are 
     very grateful for your leadership in taking us as a nation 
     down the path of truly valuing individual and family 
     stability enough to ensure housing opportunities for those 
     without the resources to do it alone. The National Affordable 
     Housing Trust Fund represents America at her best--
     opportunities and basic resources being made available to all 
     among us. Thank you for helping to bring America home again.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mary Ann Gleason,
     Housing Policy Analyst.
                                  ____



                                    The Enterprise Foundation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, 
         Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senate 
         Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of The Enterprise Foundation, 
     the more than 1,500 community development organizations that 
     we represent and the millions of low-income Americans living 
     in poverty, we applaud your efforts to increase the number of 
     permanently affordable homes available for those families 
     most in need by establishing The National Affordable Housing 
     Trust Fund. The proposed legislation, ``The National 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund of 2000,'' provides additional 
     funding to the states and nonprofit organizations for the 
     development of decent, safe and affordable housing for low-
     income families.
       The Enterprise Foundation is a national nonprofit housing 
     and community development organization dedicated to 
     rebuilding distressed neighborhoods. Central to our mission 
     is to see that all low-income people in the United States 
     have the opportunity for fit and affordable housing and to 
     move up and out of poverty into the mainstream of American 
     life. Therefore, we see firsthand the critical need for this 
     legislation as a way to combat the growing affordable housing 
     crisis faced by our nation.
       At a time of unprecedented national prosperity, it is 
     unconscionable that an ever larger number of Americans have 
     trouble securing decent, affordable housing. In fact, it is a 
     side effect of our booming economy that rents are rising 
     faster than wages for poor working Americans. This historic 
     legislation recognizes that now is the time to deal with our 
     national need to produce more safe and sanitary housing for 
     low-income Americans.
       Your bill strikes a thoughtful balance between devolution 
     to the states and federal innovation. It allows states to 
     decide how to spend the majority of the grant funds according 
     to their housing needs but also allows for federal funding of 
     innovative private/public partnership models as a way to 
     leverage limited public resources.
       We look forward to working with you on this bill throughout 
     the legislative process and admire your leadership and 
     continued efforts to address the critical housing needs of 
     our nation's lower-income families. With your support we look 
     forward to continuing our mission to rebuild distressed 
     communities by providing people the tools they need to move 
     out of poverty.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kristin Siglin,
                                                   Vice President.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support for the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act introduced 
by Senator Kerry. Establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund 
is a necessary and timely legislative initiative.
  The number of families in our country who live in substandard 
housing, or pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing 
costs--the factors considered in determining worst case housing need--
is staggering. Recent studies show that 5.4 million American families 
have worst case housing needs. This is 100,000 more families than were 
classified as worst case housing needs just last year.
  In addition, no family making minimum wage can afford the fair market 
rent for a two bedroom apartment in any metro area in the country. On 
average, a person needs to earn over $11 to afford an apartment in any 
American metro area, but this number is even higher in many parts of 
the country. For instance, in Baltimore a person must earn over $12 an 
hour, or $24,000 a year to afford the rent on a two bedroom apartment.
  Traditionally, the government has helped families who do not earn 
enough to afford a place to live with section 8 vouchers. However, in 
today's booming real estate market, a section 8 voucher is no guarantee 
of finding a place to live.
  Currently, families in Maryland wait upwards of 31 months to get a 
section 8 housing voucher. Once they receive the voucher, they face a 
new challenge: finding an apartment that is affordable for them.
  Recent articles in the Washington Post have highlighted the trials of 
poor working families attempting to find affordable housing both with 
and without federal assistance. One Fairfax, Virginia woman working 
full time and living in a shelter called over 30 landlords, none of 
which had vacancies that she could afford. Another social worker 
commented that the voucher holders she counseled had to call close to 
100 different developments to find a unit. The reality is that there 
are simply not enough affordable housing units in our country to meet 
the needs of low income Americans.
  This situation is simply unacceptable. The working poor of our 
country deserve decent places to live. Adequate housing is an essential 
need for all Americans. It is the anchor that allows families to 
thrive.
  Children can't learn if they are forced to attend 3 or 4 schools in a 
single year as their parents move from friend to friend because they 
cannot afford the rent. Workers can't find jobs or get training if they 
spend their days fighting to put a roof over their kids' heads. A sick 
person will not get well if she spends her days huddled on a grate, 
waiting for a bed in an emergency shelter.
  Senator Kerry's bill would address our country's severe affordable 
housing crisis by establishing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that 
will support the construction of additional affordable housing.
  The Trust Fund is designed to create long-term affordable, mixed 
income housing developments in areas where low-income families will 
have access to transportation, social services, and job opportunities. 
It is also designed to help in areas where local governments are 
committed to revitalization. These priorities are explicitly laid out 
in the legislation.
  The bottom line is that we need to provide more resources to states, 
local governments and non-profits who are working to build more 
affordable housing. Unless we build more affordable units we will not 
be able to solve the housing crisis we have today.
  This bill is an opportunity for us to take advantage of our booming 
economy to do this. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 
National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues here 
today as co-sponsor of this bill which represents an important step 
forward in solving the shortage of affordable housing. The need for 
affordable housing has reached epic proportions and touches all of our 
communities. The time for action is now.
  The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be used to produce 
housing that is affordable to very low income families. It will provide 
states matching grant funds to produce affordable housing and engage in 
homeownership activities. It will allow non-profit intermediaries to 
compete for funds to produce housing. Most importantly, however, is it 
will use the proceeds from our investment in promoting homeownership to 
build homes for low income families.
  Mr. President, in 1997, 5.4 million households with 12.3 million 
people paid more than one half of their income in rent or lived in 
seriously substandard housing. Who are these 12.3 million people? 1.5 
million are elderly persons, 4.3 million are children and between 1.1 
and 1.4 million are adults with disabilities. We can afford to do 
better. This is a prosperous nation that can afford to solve this 
problem.
  In may own states of Minnesota, a worker must earn $11.54 an hour, 40 
hours a week, 522 weeks out of the year to afford a fair market rent 
for a two bedroom apartment. $11.54. That's more than double the 
minimum wage. In fact, to afford a two bedroom apartment at minimum 
wage, families must work 88 hours a week. 88 hours. That's barely 
possible for a two parent family, and it is completely impossible for 
single parent families.
  The poorest families are particularly hard hit. In Minneapolis-St. 
Paul, a study conducted by the Family Housing Fund found 68,900 renters 
with incomes below $10,000 in Minneapolis-St. Paul and only 31,200 
housing units with rents affordable to those families. That is more 
than two families for each unit affordable to a family at that income 
level and there is every indication it is getting worse.
  Given this information, it isn't hard to understand why the number of 
families entering emergency shelters and

[[Page S7920]]

using emergency food pantries is on the rise. In fact, more and more of 
the homeless are working full time and are still unable to find 
housing.
  Mr. President, we must do more. The shortage of affordable housing is 
so drastic that in Minneapolis-St. Paul, like many other cities, even 
those families fortunate enough to receive housing vouchers cannot find 
a rental unit. Landlords are becoming increasingly selective given the 
demand for housing and are requiring three months security deposit, 
hefty application fees and credit checks that price the poor and young 
new renters out of the market.
  Let me share a story that truly struck me. In February, the 
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority distributed applications for 
families in the region interested in public housing. This was the first 
time since 1996 applications were accepted for public housing and it 
will likely to be last time for several years. Six thousand families 
sought applications for public housing in six days. An average of 1,000 
families each day requested applications to reside in public housing in 
one metropolitan area.
  Those families were not applying for free housing. Residents would be 
required to pay one third of their income in rent. This is not luxury 
housing. Many families seem to look upon public housing with disdain, 
though I know those communities are rich with the talents and 
contributions of their tenants. This is not even immediate housing. 
Many of those families will wait years to get into public housing.
  Clearly this is a sign that the demand for housing far exceeds the 
supply. There is an immediate need to produce more affordable housing. 
Fortunately, we can afford to do this. Fortunately, we have a plan to 
do this.
  Mr. President, I know it is hard to think about poverty when we are 
surrounded by so much prosperity. But economic prosperity has not 
touched every family. Instead the gap between income groups continues 
to widen and the gap between what low income families earn and what 
they must pay for housing also appears to be widening.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics report that between 1995 and 1997 
rents increased faster than income for the 20 percent of American 
households with the lowest incomes. The Consumer Price Index for 
Resident Rent rose 6.2 percent, higher than the 3.9 percent rate of 
inflation for the same period.
  The skyrocketing rents are fueled by the shortage of housing. The 
demand for housing exceeds the supply, so in the private market the 
rents spiral upwards and far beyond the reach of the poor and often 
well-beyond the reach of the middle class who find themselves priced 
out of the very communities they grew up in.
  This affects families with children, elderly persons and persons with 
disabilities. It affects the well-being of businesses. The cost of 
housing has skyrocketed in some communities to a level that businesses 
cannot retain workers because their workers cannot afford to live in 
those communities. The shortage of housing is making it difficult for 
communities to retain some of our most essential workers. Police, 
firemen, teachers are all being priced out of the very communities they 
seek to serve!

  Mr. President, I am proud to be part of this effort that will 
generate more affordable housing for low income families. It is time to 
heed the call we are all hearing from our constituents. There is not 
one town, county or metropolitan area in this nation where a family can 
afford a two bedroom fair market rental working full time, year round 
at minimum wage. Not one state where a family who receives TANF can 
afford a two bedroom fair market rental unit.
  Families respond to the shortage of housing by crowding into smaller 
units. A one bedroom. An efficiency. Perhaps they rent seriously 
substandard housing, exposing their children to lead poisoning, living 
in neighborhoods where they don't feel safe allowing their children to 
play outdoors. Housing with leaky roofs, bad plumbing, rodents, 
roaches. Perhaps they pay more than the recommended 30 percent of their 
income in rent, maybe 40 percent, 50 percent or more.
  Families may do without what we might consider necessities. Not 
luxuries, but necessities such as gas, heat, and electricity. Families 
so financially stressed that one small crisis can send them tumbling. 
Perhaps families double up, two families in a home. Multiple 
generations crowded under one roof. When the stress of multiple 
families becomes unbearable, they are left with homeless shelters.
  Mr. President, in a recent study of homelessness in Minneapolis-St. 
Paul, The Family Housing Fund reported that more and more children 
experience homelessness. In one night in 1987, 244 children in the Twin 
Cities were in a shelter or other temporary housing. In 1999, 1,770 
children were housed in shelter or temporary housing. Let me repeat 
that, 1,770 children in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area on one night 
alone sent the night in a homeless shelter or temporary housing. Seven 
times the number in 1987. And families are spending longer periods of 
time homeless. If they have a family crisis, if they lost their housing 
due to an eviction, if they have poor credit histories, if they can't 
save up enough for a two or three month security deposit, they will 
have longer stretches, longer periods of time in emergency shelters 
before they transition into homes.
  Mr. President, we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity. It is 
time to make a commitment to ensuring families have access to decent 
affordable housing. We can afford to do this. In fact, we cannot afford 
not to do this.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 3000. A bill to authorize the exchange of land between the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in McLean, Virginia, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


Bill to Authorize a Land Exchange Between the Secretary of the Interior 
   and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the George 
            Washington Memorial Parkway in McLean Virginia.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today simply 
allows for a land exchange between the National Park Service and the 
Central Intelligence Agency. This exchange will enable the CIA to 
address security issues at the entrance to their complex, while 
preserving access to the Federal highway Administration's Turner-
Fairbanks Highway Research Center.
  The exchange is currently the subject of an Interagency Agreement 
between the National Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway, 
and the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a simple exchange that I 
am sure can be acted on in short order.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill in its entirety be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3000

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to section 2, the Secretary of the 
     Interior (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') and 
     the Director of Central Intelligence (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``Director'') may exchange--
       (1) approximately 1.74 acres of land under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of the Interior within the boundary of the 
     George Washington Memorial Parkway, as depicted on National 
     Park Service Drawing No. 850/81992 dated August 6, 1998; for
       (2) approximately 2.92 acres of land under the jurisdiction 
     of the Central Intelligence Agency adjacent to the boundary 
     of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, as depicted on 
     National Park Service Drawing No. 850/81991, Sheet 1, dated 
     August 6, 1998.
       (b) Public Inspection.--The drawings referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be available for public inspection in 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service.

     SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) No Reimbursment or Consideration.--The exchange 
     described in section 1 shall occur without reimbursement or 
     consideration;
       (b) Public Access for Motor Vehicle Turn-Around.--The 
     Director shall allow public access to a road on the land 
     described in subsection (a)(1) for a motor vehicle turn-
     around on the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
       (c) Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center.--The Director 
     shall allow access to the land described in subsection (a)(1) 
     by--
       (1) employees of the Turner Fairbank Highway Research 
     Center of the Federal Highway Administration; and
       (2) other Federal employees and visitors whose admission to 
     the Center is authorized by the Center.
       (d) Closure To Protect Central Intelligence Agency.--

[[Page S7921]]

       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this section the 
     Director may close access to the land described in subsection 
     (a)(1) to all persons (other than the United States Park 
     Police, other necessary employees of the National Park 
     Service, and employees of the Turner-Fairbank Highway 
     Research Center of the Federal Highway Administration) if the 
     Director determines that the physical security conditions 
     require the closure to protect employees or property of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency.
       (2) Time limitation.--The Director may not close access to 
     the land under paragraph (1) for more than 12 hours during 
     any 24-hour period unless the Director consults with the 
     National Park Service, the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research 
     Center of the Federal Highway Administration, and the United 
     States Park Police.
       (3) Turner fairbank highway research center.--No action 
     shall be taken under this subsection to diminish access to 
     the land described in subsection (a)(1) by employees of the 
     Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center of the Federal 
     Highway Administration except when the access to the land is 
     closed for security reasons.
       (e) The Director shall ensure compliance by the Central 
     Intelligence Agency with the deed restrictions for the 
     transferred land as depicted on National Park Service Drawing 
     No. 850/81992, dated August 6, 1998.
       (f) The National Park Service and the Central Intelligence 
     Agency shall comply with the terms and conditions of the 
     Interagency Agreement between the National Park Service and 
     the Central Intelligence Agency signed in 1998 regarding the 
     exchange and management of the lands discussed in that 
     agreement.
       (g) The Secretary and the Director shall complete the 
     transfers authorized by this section not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF EXCHANGED LANDS.

       (a) The land conveyed to the Secretary under section 1 
     shall be included within the boundary of the George 
     Washington Memorial Parkway and shall be administered by the 
     National Park Service as part of the parkway subject to the 
     laws and regulations applicable thereto.
       (b) The land conveyed to the Central Intelligence Agency 
     under section 1 shall be administered as part of the 
     Headquarters Building Compound of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency.

                          ____________________