[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22161-22166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. BOND. I am prepared to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Maine who has a matter of great importance 
in her State.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by praising the terrific 
work done by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland in 
putting together this appropriations bill. I know a lot of the issues 
are very difficult. They have worked together in a bipartisan way to 
come up with a bill that is responsible fiscally and yet meets some 
urgent needs of many people in our Nation. I commend them both for 
their efforts in this regard.
  I appreciate the Senator from Missouri giving me this opportunity to 
engage him in a discussion on an issue of great importance to Maine and 
the Nation as a whole. That is the issue of providing fair Federal 
assistance to our homeless men, women, and children, regardless of 
where they live. Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have been leaders in 
addressing housing issues affecting underserved and vulnerable 
populations, especially our Nation's homeless population.
  Under their leadership, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development homeless assistance grants have increased from $823 million 
in fiscal year 1998 to $975 million in fiscal year 1999. I am very 
pleased to note that the appropriations bill that is before us now 
would further increase funding for vital homeless assistance grants by 
providing a little more than $1 billion for these critical programs.
  Senator Bond's continued dedication to this vital and often forgotten 
issue has served the public well, as has the commitment of the Senator 
from the State of Maryland. I salute them for their effort to direct 
the funding of the resources to those most in need.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Maine for her kind words. I know 
of her personal commitment to helping the homeless. I strongly support 
these important programs which do benefit the homeless men and women in 
America. I hope we can come up with a permanent solution to 
homelessness, especially for those persons with mental disabilities.
  Ms. COLLINS. Although Congress has done a good job in recognizing the 
need for more funding in this area to serve this very vulnerable 
population, I have become extremely concerned about the process that 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development has used to award a 
particular kind of homeless grant, and that is the continuum of care 
grant. This has been a real problem in my State, and I suspect

[[Page 22162]]

the Senator from Missouri has heard from other States as well.
  Mr. BOND. Unfortunately, we have had a number of Members express to 
us their concern about the continuum of care grant award process. Many 
believe that the HUD process has proven to be confusing for applicants 
and perhaps even incomprehensible to anyone outside the HUD compound.
  Ms. COLLINS. I note that has been exactly the very unfortunate 
experience in my State. Let me give you a little background.
  The needs of the homeless population in Maine have increased in 
recent years. Often when we think of the homeless, we think of large 
cities. In fact, there are homeless people throughout this Nation, 
including in rural States such as Maine.
  From 1993 to 1996, Maine's homeless population grew by almost 20 
percent. It is estimated that more than 14,000 people are homeless in 
my home State today. Despite this great and growing need, however, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development denied both the 
applications from the State of Maine for continuum of care funding last 
year. In effect, the HUD competitive homeless assistance funding 
distributed to the State of Maine went from $3.7 million to zero. You 
can imagine the impact on my State.
  Moreover, we were stunned by HUD's decision because Secretary Cuomo, 
in 1998, had awarded Maine's programs with the HUD ``best practices'' 
awards of excellence.
  A vigorous public campaign by people in Maine and repeated efforts by 
the congressional delegation ultimately compelled HUD to provide $1 
million to the city of Portland to renew certain projects. This money, 
though welcomed, was far from sufficient to allow the State to meet the 
needs of its homeless population.
  That is the experience I wanted to share with the Senator from 
Missouri and the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. BOND. What happened to Maine, and other States, in the 
competitive award process simply should not have occurred. To me, it is 
quite puzzling. As many of us know, the problem of rural homelessness 
is complicated; it is pervasive. I live in a rural area. Rural areas 
have higher poverty rates and a higher percentage of the population 
living in inadequate housing, which are key factors contributing to 
homelessness. Providing service to the rural homeless is not easy. It 
is complicated by distance, isolation, and lack of effective 
communication.
  Ms. COLLINS. It seems to me that HUD needs to understand the impact 
on the homeless, on the very people we are trying to serve, of simply 
shutting States out from the housing award process. HUD needs to take 
greater care to work with States where funding may be in peril in order 
to ensure that we are not hurting the homeless people of our Nation.
  Contrary to what HUD seems to think, homeless men and women do not 
disappear. Their needs do not disappear when funding is cut off. In 
fact, their desperate needs still exist.
  To address these problems, I have introduced a Senate bill which 
would require a minimum distribution of continuum of care homeless 
assistance funding to each State. I realize that I cannot offer that on 
this bill because of the rule XVI issue, but I hope the chairman and 
the ranking minority member will agree with me that this is an 
important issue.
  Would the chairman agree that the goal of HUD should be to make every 
effort to ensure that every State can receive some homeless grant 
funding because every State has homeless people, unfortunately?
  Mr. BOND. I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by the 
Senator from Maine. I am very sympathetic to the intent of the bill. As 
she has pointed out, we are not able to accept it on this bill. But I 
do look forward to working with the Senator from Maine, and the many 
other Senators who expressed their concerns, to ensure that HUD does 
meet the homeless needs of every State.
  In the past, I have been a strong supporter of using block grant 
approaches to the States, which I think can best serve the needs of the 
homeless. We look forward to working with the Senator and the 
authorizing committee to solve the current HUD award process problems.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for bringing this very real and very 
compelling problem to our attention. I assure her we will continue to 
work to resolve the problem.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, a comment on the remarks made by the 
junior Senator from Maine. I, too, share her concern to ensure that the 
needs of the homeless are recognized, and we try to do that in our 
bill. As she knows, under this bipartisan coalition, we increased 
funding for the homeless by $45 million. We have to talk about not only 
more but how it is distributed.
  I share the Senator's concern about the rural homeless because it is 
not only isolated but it is often invisible because of distance and the 
very culture of small towns and also, I might add, in Maine, that 
Yankee spirit of ``we take care of our own,'' not wanting ``to turn to 
charity,'' yet at the same time facing very rugged winters, some of 
which now, with fall weather, are on their way. So when we think about 
Maine, it is not all L.L. Bean catalogs and fall foliage. It is some 
very serious problems.
  We want to work with the Senator on it. Know that we face some of 
these same rural issues in our own home States. I thank the Senator for 
bringing even more heightened visibility in our debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues for their 
assurances. I hope we have sent a very clear signal to HUD that it 
needs a funding process that ensures the needs of our homeless men and 
women and children, no matter where they live, are being met. It is 
particularly important in a State such as Maine, where our winters can 
be quite severe, that we provide that kind of shelter and assistance in 
helping people not only get a bed for the night but to put their lives 
back together.
  I thank my colleagues very much for their assistance in this matter, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I begin my brief comments this afternoon by 
complimenting our colleagues, Senators Bond and Mikulski, for a fine 
piece of work on this legislation under what were less than ideal 
circumstances, I am sure. I know they have labored long and hard to 
craft a bill that will meet the needs of our fellow constituents across 
the country. I, for one, appreciate their labors.
  I rise in the spirit of making this product even better. In 
particular, I rise in support of what I understand will be an amendment 
offered by Senator Kerry in the area of section 8 housing. I do so not 
only because I believe the merits of his amendment warrant our support, 
but also because I believe the American dream of quality affordable 
housing should be extended to every citizen across our country because 
I believe in the emphasis that we have been placing upon personal 
responsibility. Along with that must go the tools to ensure that every 
person has a chance to make personal responsibility become successful, 
and no one can deny that quality affordable housing is one of those 
basic building blocks of opportunity in our society.
  Finally, I rise in support of this prospective amendment because I 
believe in fiscally responsible solutions to the challenges that face 
America. Few can argue that quality affordable housing is a challenge 
that continues to face our great country.
  For well nigh a generation, there was a bipartisan consensus across 
our land for quality affordable housing for all Americans. This 
consensus was interrupted in 1995, when additional section 8 housing 
opportunities were frozen in place after more than 2 million Americans 
had been helped over the previous 18 years. Starting this fiscal year, 
we began to see a thaw in the freeze, but

[[Page 22163]]

unfortunately the legislation now before this body would reinstitute 
that freeze. It is ironic that at a time of unparalleled prosperity for 
so many Americans we should see a freezing of the opportunities in the 
area of affordable housing. While 1 million elderly are finding 
themselves in a position where more than 50 percent of their disposable 
income is spent on rent or substandard housing, 2 million families with 
children find themselves in this position. More than 22,000 Hoosier 
families in my capital city of Indianapolis alone find themselves in a 
position of devoting a majority of their household income to rent or to 
substandard housing.
  As we gather, 1 million Americans find themselves on waiting lists. 
The question before us is, How long must they wait. In some cities--
Philadelphia, Los Angeles and others--families find themselves in a 
position of waiting for years, waiting with dreams deferred, hopes 
delayed, opportunities lost, this at a time when our robust economy and 
market conditions are driving rents up, pricing too many American 
families out of the market for quality affordable housing.
  My answer to the question of how long they must wait is that the time 
is now to act. The time is now to act to extend the opportunity of 
quality affordable housing to every corner of the land, to prevent this 
from becoming the first generation of Americans to be divided into 
classes of haves and have-nots. Now is the time to put flesh on the 
bones of personal responsibility, to ensure every family that is 
willing to work hard, play by the rules and save has a chance to get 
ahead and realize the American dream of quality affordable housing.
  Now is also the time to put into place fiscally responsible solutions 
to the challenges that face our great land. This proposed amendment by 
Senator Kerry is fiscally responsible. We will be taking money that was 
saved from this year's budget in unused welfare-to-work vouchers and 
using it for 50,000 new section 8 vouchers, which are also important 
for making the welfare-to-work process a success.
  I add my voice as strongly as I know how to Senator Kerry, to the 
Secretary of Housing, to Senator Mikulski, and my other colleagues who 
believe if we are to be a great nation, and not just a prosperous one 
but a compassionate one, we must address the unmet needs of housing for 
those who are less fortunate across our land. I conclude my remarks by 
saying: If not now, when our land is filled with plenty, then when?
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. Again, I thank Senators Bond 
and Mikulski for their yeoman's work. I think we can make a good bill 
even better by adopting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. I am a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies, and I know the severe funding challenges faced by 
Senator Bond, our chairman, and Senator Mikulski, our ranking member.
  They and their staffs have done an outstanding job in meeting the 
many priorities of this bill: critical health care services for 
veterans, homeless assistance funding for continued research in space, 
and funding for important environmental infrastructure projects along 
the United States-Mexico border.
  I can't adequately describe the pride I feel in the committee's 
decision to make veterans programs the highest priority in the bill. 
The committee provided $1.1 billion above the President's budget 
request for medical care for veterans. This increase will help address 
newly emerging health care challenges, such as the high incidence of 
hepatitis C among veterans, emergency care, technological advances in 
medicine, patient safety, and long-term and end-of-life care. I 
appreciate the commitment and sacrifices made by the men and women who 
served our country in wartime. This increase is worthy of them and 
worthy of the Senate.
  I am proud of the committee's decision to fully fund NASA at $13.6 
billion. The House dealt NASA a devastating blow in their VA-HUD bill, 
cutting the programs by almost $1 billion. The funding provided in this 
bill underscores the Senate's ongoing support for exploration of the 
final frontier, including the space shuttle and the international space 
station.
  The international space station is the most ambitious scientific 
project ever undertaken. The efforts and resources of 14 nations are 
involved in the design, construction, and operation of the orbiting 
laboratory. Assembly of the international space station has already 
begun. We expect the international space station to provide 
unparalleled scientific research opportunities. It will enable advances 
in medicine, materials science and earth observation, new technologies 
developed in a microgravity environment, and accelerate the technology 
and engineering in Earth-based industries. Quite simply, the space 
station will maintain U.S. global leadership in space science and 
technology. And its successes will be felt by all of us here on Earth. 
The space shuttle's capabilities and versatility are unmatched by any 
spacecraft in the world. The space shuttle has been, and will continue 
to be, a critical element in space exploration well into the 21st 
century. The shuttle is also the vital transportation link in the 
assembly and utilization of the international space station. With 
plans, upgrades, and improvements by both NASA and industry, the space 
shuttle will continue to play a major role in future space exploration.
  Finally, we are providing the ongoing support of the Senate for the 
poorest part of our Nation, the United States-Mexico border. This bill 
provides $50 million for critical water and wastewater projects on the 
southwest border, most of which will be administered by the North 
American Development Bank.
  As an aside, when I first came to the Senate, I brought up the 
critical issue of environment and diseases on the border. It was at 
that time when the now ranking member, Senator Mikulski, was the 
chairman of the subcommittee and she said, ``This is outrageous in 
America and we are going to do something about it.'' That was the first 
funding that we got for the colonias on the border, where citizens of 
our country are living in filth. I appreciate that. We have added to 
that $50 million every year since I have been in the Senate, and now 
under the leadership of Chairman Bond.
  Washington, DC, is a long way from the border. Recently, I visited 
colonias--these colonies--along our border that have no infrastructure. 
I visited colonias near Laredo and McAllen, TX. On rainy days, the 
unpaved streets in these colonias wash out, making it impossible for 
schoolbuses to enter the neighborhood. Children walk to school on mud-
filled streets and yards, sometimes flooded with human waste that is 
overflowing from inadequate septic systems. Texas has nearly 1,500 of 
these subdivisions, with a population of nearly 350,000 people. The 
numbers in the other southwest border States are equally as staggering.
  The $50 million we provide in this bill, added to the $300 million 
that has accumulated in years past, continues the commitment we have 
made to end this national shame. No person in the United States should 
live as do the people in these colonias. I appreciate Senators Bond and 
Mikulski working with me to give this matter the proper attention in 
our subcommittee.
  I also want to mention we are working on another amendment that would 
deal with the phase II stormwater sewer regulations that are so 
important to our smaller counties around the country. I hope the EPA 
will work with us to try to make sure we don't put regulations on these 
smaller counties that they can't possibly accept and do not have the 
funding to do.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill is good for our Nation. I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their hard work and sensitivity to the 
critical issues in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

[[Page 22164]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWINE and Mr. Hagel pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1617 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first I would like to ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Dick Durbin be added to amendment No. 1744, the Byrd, Stevens, 
Bond, Mikulski $600 million VA-HUD amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1777

(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to a special purpose grant 
          for the community of Kohala in the County of Hawaii)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to propose a technical amendment 
in behalf of Senator Inouye. This amendment is simply a technical and 
correcting amendment. It makes a technical correction to a HUD grant 
previously awarded to Hawaii. It has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1777.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     amount made available under the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-507) for a 
     special purpose grant under section 107 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 to the County of Hawaii for 
     the purpose of an environmental impact statement for the 
     development of a water resource system in Kohala, Hawaii, 
     that is unobligated on the date of enactment of this Act, may 
     be used to fund water system improvements, including 
     exploratory wells, well drillings, pipeline replacements, 
     water system planning and design, and booster pump and 
     reservoir development.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as I commented, it is technical and 
correcting and has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we accept the amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1777) was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is a good time to do a couple of 
things. We started off with a good pace and had a major amendment 
approved by voice vote. Then we had votes on two more amendments. We 
have had some wonderful speeches and some great colloquies. We are open 
for business. It is daylight. We want to get people here because we 
face a tremendous deadline with the end of the fiscal year approaching. 
We need to get this bill passed this week to make sure we keep these 
agencies funded. I ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, 
if you have amendments, colloquies, or items we need to deal with, 
please bring them. Otherwise, I am ready to go to third reading in the 
not too distant future.
  Something has been brought up which I hope we can spend some time 
discussing. A number of my colleagues have talked about the tremendous 
need for housing. They have equated that with the need for additional 
section 8 incremental or additional assistance.
  I want to go through some of the difficult problems we face. Perhaps 
as I straighten out in my own mind the complexity of section 8, my 
colleagues will understand why we came to this point. This bill does 
not provide any of the 100,000 incremental section 8 vouchers requested 
by the President. The addition of these vouchers to the bill would cost 
an additional $578 million per year. Last year, we agreed to the 
President's absolutely necessary request for 50,000 additional section 
8 vouchers. We pointed out at the time that this caused a real problem, 
and we would need additional money to fund them in future years. The 
representatives of the administration assured Members they would make 
provisions for that additional required budget authority.
  What did we get this year from the administration? We received a 
request that we defer $4.2 billion in budget authority to the following 
fiscal year. In other words, they were not able in their budget 
presentation to fund existing certificates, the section 8 vouchers, 
before we added the incremental, and they asked that $4.2 billion be 
deferred. In other words, their recommendation to us was $4.2 billion 
less than is needed to renew section 8 vouchers on a full-year basis in 
fiscal year 2000. That ought to demonstrate there is a problem.
  Let me explain as best as I understand it what the problem is. The 
section 8 account is one of the most difficult accounts for funding in 
the bill. Not only would the administration's request for 100,000 new 
incremental vouchers result in an annual cost of almost $600 million 
each year, it does not acknowledge or address the long-term funding 
needs of this account. Let me be specific. We currently fund some 3 
million section 8 vouchers or assisted living units, as well as 1.5 
million public housing units. Much of the cost of these 3 million units 
is hidden, meaning the annual cost in outlays is some $20 billion. In 
other words, we are paying out this year $20 billion in section 8 
vouchers. We appropriate around here on budget authority. Most of the 
costs were accounted for in previous year's budgets when the Congress 
approved long-term 15-year and 20-year section 8 contracts.
  Now, the budget authority was committed in future years, but they 
said OK, Congress, you are going to have to pay out all that money each 
year in outlays. What is even worse, the budget authority requirement 
each year goes up because as contracts expire, we renew contracts on a 
year-to-year basis. We have to put that budget authority in each year's 
budget. As these contracts expire, we have to pay for the expiring 
contracts as an annual recurring cost in the section 8 account.
  Let me show you a chart. This is how the budget for section 8 has 
gone up. In fiscal year 1997, we only had to appropriate $3.6 billion 
in budget authority to cover the $20 billion or so, almost $20 billion 
in section 8 vouchers. The next year, we had to come up with budget 
authority of $11.1 billion. In the current year we would have had to 
come up with $12.8 billion, but we have adopted, because of the tight 
budget, the administration's proposal to defer $4.2 billion of that 
into fiscal year 2001.
  Guess what happens. We are coming into fiscal year 2001 about $8 
billion short in budget authority. If we are to fund the existing 
contracts next year, we are going to have to come up with $8 billion 
more in budget authority. The news does not get any better. The next 
year, we would have to come up with $15.6 billion, the next year $17.0 
billion, the next fiscal year 2004, $18.2 billion.
  This year, the administration has requested and we have proposed 
deferring $4.2 billion. So we took the easy out. The only easy out was 
deferring that $4.2 billion in budget authority for those portions of 
the section 8 vouchers

[[Page 22165]]

which would actually have to be funded, actually outlayed in fiscal 
year 2001.
  That is confusing. I have worked on it for a long time. I am happy to 
work with any of my colleagues who have questions about it. With the 
help of staff, I think we can explain it. However, we made long-term 
commitments in budget authority. Each year, we have been spending 
outlays at a very high level. However, we can't get the budget 
authority to rise to the level needed to maintain those outlays.
  What is worse, in the HUD budget submitted by OMB--this is their 10-
year budget. This is the budget projection they sent us--for this year, 
they said budget authority is right about what is needed, close to $14 
billion. But for the coming year, the next year, they have lowered that 
to $11.3 billion for BA.
  Here is the BA need creeping up each year. Each year, it increases. 
The long-term projection of OMB, the President's budget, the budget of 
the Department of HUD, is to keep that budget authority at a flat level 
of $11.3 billion. What would happen if that occurred? Very simply, 1.3 
million families or elderly or disabled would have to be kicked out of 
section 8 housing over the 10-year period. We do not have the budget 
authority, we do not have the funds, to continue supporting those 
residents who depend upon section 8 housing. That, to me, is a major 
problem. We have been forced, out of necessity, to defer $4.2 billion 
in section 8 assistance until 2001.
  While we have adopted this proposal--some would call it a gimmick--
let's say, because everybody seems to agree on it, this necessary 
budget tool for the year 2000, we have done so unwillingly and with the 
great concern that this will create a nearly untenable budget hole for 
next year, 2001, when we have to fund section 8 contract renewals by an 
increase of some $8 billion, for a total of $14 billion.
  In fiscal year 2000, some $6.8 billion was needed for section 8 
contract renewals, but in 2001 we have to make up the $2.2 billion in 
advance appropriations. So we are going to have to find some way to get 
an additional $6.8 billion and still defer the budget authority for 
outlays in future years to those future years.
  I am extremely worried about how HUD is handling this very 
complicated and difficult problem. We understand that HUD has 
underestimated renewal needs for this year and is close to running out 
of section 8 renewal funds. We are very concerned that we will not be 
in this position when that happens next year.
  The problem is, as I said in my opening statement, that HUD is a 
high-risk area designated by the General Accounting Office, the only 
Department so designated. HUD's management deficiencies are 
particularly acute in the section 8 area.
  Part of the problem is that HUD loses some $900 million per year in 
its public and assisted housing programs due to fraud and abuse in the 
collection of rent in the assisted housing program. If HUD and its 
agents were able to collect this $900 million, some 135,000-plus 
additional low-income families could receive section 8 assistance 
annually. That is why we have added $10 million in this budget for the 
inspector general to hire outside professional help to try to identify 
where those funds are being lost and to find some means of recovering 
those because that is a tremendous loss.
  Let me explain another problem. A major problem with section 8 is, 
while section 8 is one of the most important Federal housing programs, 
it is not a panacea for providing affordable housing for low-income 
families. While vouchers do provide choice in housing for low-income 
families, the fair market rent restriction is currently set at the 40th 
percentile of the housing market, and therefore it severely curtails 
housing choice. As a practical matter, this has created market 
distortions in the availability of section 8 housing, leaving many low-
income assisted families in very-low-income neighborhoods living in 
substandard housing.
  In a number of areas, families with vouchers are unable to use their 
vouchers to obtain affordable housing. I am told in St. Louis County 
their public housing authority has to release 100 vouchers to get 50 
vouchers that are actually used because half the people who are given 
the vouchers cannot find housing. The lack of choice can also result in 
de facto redlining.
  HUD has also suggested that incremental vouchers will mean the 
construction of new low-income housing units. I disagree. There is 
absolutely no evidence that incremental 1-year section 8 assistance 
will ever leverage construction funding. When we went from the 15- or 
10-year down to 1-year, we took away the financing incentives and the 
basis for constructing low-income housing to fulfill section 8 needs.
  I agree with HUD in that we do not have enough low-income housing 
units. We need to develop a housing production program with deeper 
targeting than the low-income housing tax credit program. This should 
be a theme in the next Congress. We need to continue to fund HOME and 
CDBG, which are used by communities to provide additional housing. We 
need the additional funds we put in section 202 housing to build 
housing for the elderly. We need to continue to work with organizations 
that are present in every State, and which we celebrated in Missouri on 
Monday with the 100,000th home through the Enterprise Foundation. 
Enterprise, Enlist and others are building affordable homes. Habitat 
for Humanity does a great job of rebuilding homes.
  But, frankly, there are many problems with the availability of 
affordable housing that go far beyond the availability of incremental 
section 8 vouchers. We have not identified the means to pay for the 
section 8 vouchers that we have already. Unless and until we do, I fear 
it is a hollow promise, to add incremental vouchers when we cannot 
assure that those people who now have them will be able to continue to 
get the vouchers and continue to get that housing assistance in the 
future.
  I assure you, this committee, and I believe everybody in Congress, 
wants to continue them. We are going to do everything we can to assure 
renewal, but right now it is a huge financial and budgetary task. We do 
not have the answers on how we are going to do it. Before we start 
adding incremental housing, I ask that somebody sit down and work with 
us on how we will pay for them next year, the year after, and the year 
after.
  We are going to be revisiting this issue frequently on the floor. I 
wanted to give that background so people will know what I am talking 
about when I say we have a tremendous wave of needs coming in for 
budget authority for section 8. We do not have the money. There is no 
projection we are going to get it. Before we continue to increase that 
outyear bow wave, we need to have some assurance we will be able to 
fund it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1778

         (Purpose: To increase funding for lead hazard control)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk which I ask 
be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1778.

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

       On page 42, line 12, strike ``$80,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) There is appropriated out of any money in the 
     Treasury that is not otherwise appropriated for fiscal year 
     2000 for expenses necessary to carry out section 1011 of the 
     Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 
     $20,000,000.
       (b) Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     for each program, project, or activity relating to salaries, 
     expenses, and program management under title I, II, or III

[[Page 22166]]

     of this Act (other than this section) that is not required to 
     be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of 
     law is reduced by the uniform percentage necessary to reduce 
     the total amounts appropriated for such programs, projects, 
     or activities by $20,000,000.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, Senator Feingold 
from Wisconsin, who was here before but graciously allowed me to go 
ahead to introduce this amendment.
  Also, having come to the floor earlier today and not only commended 
Chairman Bond and ranking member Mikulski for their valiant efforts to 
reach priorities in very limited financial circumstances, I will 
announce up front I am going to propose this amendment which would 
increase lead funding as a means to talk about the issue, but I will 
withdraw the amendment in recognition of not only the serious efforts 
the chairman and ranking member have made, but also in recognition that 
last year when I came to the floor, both Senator Bond and Senator 
Mikulski were instrumental in increasing the appropriation by $20 
million and, indeed, holding that appropriation at conference. So I am 
very confident, with their efforts, they will continue to work hard to 
make sure this remains a critical priority.
  The problem of lead exposure to children in the United States is 
something that I believe is critical, one that we must address. I have 
been supported in that opinion by many of my colleagues.
  Earlier this year, 14 of my colleagues joined me in a letter urging 
the chairman and the ranking member to do all they can to increase 
appropriations for lead abatement in this appropriations bill. Those 
colleagues include Senators Jeffords, Specter, Leahy, Lautenberg, 
Chafee--my colleague from Rhode Island--Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, 
Kerry, Boxer, Kohl, Snowe, Torricelli, and Durbin. All of them from 
across this country recognize the critical need to eliminate lead 
exposure, particularly with respect to children.
  But there are two of my colleagues who deserve particular praise. 
Senator Collins and Senator Torricelli are cosponsors of this 
amendment. Senator Collins has been a strong and very effective 
advocate for this program of lead abatement.
  I was pleased to join her in Providence, RI, several weeks ago for a 
hearing of the Public Health Subcommittee, where we looked at lead 
paint exposure to children in Rhode Island. It was a very good hearing. 
I am pleased to say I will be able to join Senator Collins in Maine in 
a few weeks to have a similar hearing.
  Senator Torricelli and myself have been very active not only with 
respect to this issue but also with respect to the issue of appropriate 
screening and treatment for children who have elevated levels of lead 
in their blood systems.
  I admit that over the last 20 years we have made significant progress 
in our society with respect to exposure to lead principally because we 
have banned lead paint, we have banned lead solder in food cans, and we 
have deleaded gasoline. This has resulted in significant reductions.
  But, nevertheless, nearly a million children enter kindergarten each 
year with elevated levels of lead in their blood. This is a preventable 
problem. This is a problem, if it is not prevented, that causes serious 
cognitive development problems with children. This is also a problem 
that is not exclusive to one part of the country.
  In fact, if you look at cities across the country, you will see there 
are elevated blood lead levels in children.
  In Baltimore, for example, there is a lead poisoning rate of 27.9 
percent. Almost 30 percent of the children who are tested have elevated 
lead levels. In Milwaukee, 22.5 percent; St. Louis, 23 percent; 
Chicago, 20.6 percent; Philadelphia, 38 percent; and Memphis, 12.1 
percent. This is a nationwide problem. The major cause of this exposure 
is lead paint in the homes of these children.
  Indeed, children who are in low-income circumstances, particularly 
children who are living in housing that was constructed before 1974, 
are significantly vulnerable to lead exposure and lead poisoning.
  More than half the U.S. housing stock was built prior to 1978, so as 
a result we have thousands and thousands of units that still contain 
lead paint which is the source of contamination for these young 
children.
  In fact, it has been estimated that 20 million housing units 
throughout the United States contain hazardous levels of lead paint.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, it is estimated that about 90,000 
units present moderate to high lead paint exposure risks to children 
who live there.
  This is a very difficult and expensive problem to deal with. It has 
been estimated that to modify and to remediate all these homes in my 
own home State, it would cost about $300 million. To deal with every 
seriously contaminated residential unit in the United States would cost 
something on the order of $500 billion. But those costs also must be 
measured against the cost of doing nothing, the cost of allowing 
children to be exposed to lead paint, and those costs are dramatic and 
severe.
  Many educators point to lead paint exposure as one of the reasons why 
special education costs are so high. In fact, it has been estimated 
that children with elevated levels of lead in their blood are seven 
times more likely to drop out of school before finishing high school. 
These costs are significant and severe. I think we have the obligation 
to try to remedy this problem before these children are exposed, before 
their academic, intellectual, and emotional development is impaired by 
exposure to lead.
  Since 1992, the Office of Lead Hazard Control in HUD has been dealing 
with this issue, principally through their Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Control Grant Program. They have been able, since 1993, to provide $435 
million to the States--31 States and the District of Columbia--to deal 
with this issue.
  These States have used the money for testing young people for 
exposure, inspecting and testing homes, modifying homes; in fact, to 
even relocate children who are exposed and the home cannot be modified.
  I have seen the results in Rhode Island.
  Since 1993, in Rhode Island, we have been able to perform lead 
abatement in more than 500 homes. But it costs money, the kind of 
resources that we need to incorporate in this bill, the kind of 
resources that are necessary to address a problem that spans this 
Nation.
  My amendment would propose an increase of $20 million for the Office 
of Lead Hazard Control. It would be offset by an across-the-board cut 
in salaries, expenses, and other program management budget items in the 
HUD budget.


                     Amendment No. 1778, Withdrawn

  Recognizing the severe constraints that the chairman and the ranking 
member are laboring under, recognizing the fact they are already 
demonstrating a commitment to provide for these resources, I withdraw 
this amendment in the hopes that as we go to conference, under the 
leadership of Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, we can find additional 
resources to address this extremely important and critical issue that 
affects the health and welfare of our children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. REED. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member and yield 
the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________