[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9821-S9835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have a unanimous consent request that
would list the amendments that have been identified on both sides at
this point. I assume there is a little padding going on, on both sides.
But at least, if we could get this list agreed to, we would have then a
finite list we could work from. I believe, as the night proceeds and
the day proceeds tomorrow, we will not have to do all these amendments,
but I would like to go ahead, if I could, and get agreement on it.
I ask unanimous consent during the remaining consideration of H.R.
3666, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the following be the only
remaining first-degree amendments in order and they be subject to
relevant second-degree amendments, and no motions to refer be in order,
and following the disposition of the listed amendments, the bill be
advanced to third reading. The amendments are as follows:
An amendment by Senator Bond regarding multifamily housing; a
Faircloth amendment on HUD fair housing; Senator Bennett, GAO review;
another one by Senator Bennett, reimburse State housing finance
agencies; Senator Shelby, land transfer; Senator Thomas, antilobbying
general provision; Senator Thomas, decrease funding for Council on
Environmental Quality; Senator Helms, law enforcement in housing;
Senator McCain, two amendments, one on FHA mortgages, one on FEMA
disaster relief; one by Senator Bond regarding HUD grant and loan
programs; a technical amendment by Senator Bond; two amendments by
Senator Nickles, one on union dues, one on runaway plants; Senator
Bond, a managers' amendment; Senator Hatfield, relevant; Senator
Coverdell, relevant; Senator Lott, two relevant amendments; Senator
Lott, one on Iraq; Senator Nickles, an amendment on 48-hour hospital
stay.
Democratic amendments identified: Senator Bingaman on United States-
Japan commission; Senator Bradley, one amendment regarding hospital
stay for newborns; Senator Byrd, two relevant amendments; Senator
Daschle, or his designee, one on runaway plants and one on Iraq;
Senator Feingold, one on NASA; one by Senator Feinstein dealing with
Downy land transfer, one on biotech, one identified as relevant;
Senator Graham, veterans resource allocation; Senator Harkin, funding
vets health care; Senator Kennedy, an amendment on employment
discrimination; Senator Mikulski, four relevant amendments; Senator
Moseley-Braun, an amendment on mortgage registration; Senator Sarbanes,
an amendment on
[[Page S9822]]
NASA; Senator Wellstone, an amendment on mental health; Senator Levin,
an amendment on lobbying; and Senator Baucus, an amendment on
environmental quality.
It seems that any amendments that did not make it before the August
recess, or the heart may desire to be considered any time soon, is on
this list. I hope we will consider those that really do contribute to
development of legislation that we can pass for VA-HUD, and we will
work together and try to get that done. I so ask unanimous consent.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, my staff has advised me
that the majority leader's list did not include a Fritz Hollings
amendment on HUD.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that be included in the list of
amendments identified for consideration.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might
just address the distinguished leader, Senator Sarbanes and I are the
cosponsors of the amendment designated ``Sarbanes, NASA.'' I believe it
is my understanding that the managers have accepted that; is that
correct?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
Mr. BOND. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished managers.
Mr. LOTT. So that amendment has already been accepted; is that
correct?
Mr. BOND. It will be accepted. It has not yet been accepted.
Mr. LOTT. It is the Sarbanes-Warner amendment dealing with NASA.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader and managers.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I obviously failed to
list as one of our amendments the amendment relating to spina bifida.
That was supposed to have been listed. It was left off. I think
everybody just understood it was going to be here.
Mr. LOTT. I thought that was one of the two or three really serious
amendments we had for consideration that related to the bill itself. I
cannot believe we left that off. We will have an amendment by Senator
Daschle relating to veterans' program for children with spina bifida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
agreement?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not
expect to object, I think I understood the distinguished majority
leader correctly in that debate is not prohibited after third reading
in his request.
Mr. LOTT. That is correct, that the bill be advanced to third reading
and then stopped. I believe the Senator from West Virginia has made
clear his desire that we have a few moments to look at this legislation
when we reach that point, and we intend to do that.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I remove my
reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The request is agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I hope the managers of
the legislation will continue to work to see if they can reduce this
list. I hope tomorrow that a number of these amendments will, in fact,
be withdrawn and will be considered in some other forum another day. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I inquire what is the pending business?
Amendment No. 5167
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the Bond amendment, No.
5167.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we raised this issue and filed this
amendment yesterday. We had a good discussion on it. We had it printed.
We wanted everybody to have an opportunity to look at it. As I advised
yesterday, this is an attempt to deal with a very complex problem that
has some real consequences.
HUD has given us estimates that if we don't do something with the
oversubsidized section 8 contracts for multifamily housing, we are
going to do one of two things: No. 1, if we continue to renew the
contracts at existing rates, these are multifamily units where
subsidies were granted in the form of section 8 rental payments to get
people to develop housing for the elderly in rural areas, needed
housing in urban areas, these overmarket rent section 8 contracts would
have an exploding cost.
The appropriations for this year would be about $4.3 billion; for
1998, $10 billion; $16 billion by fiscal year 2000. The actual cost
each year would grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $4
billion in fiscal year 2000 and to $8 billion in 10 years. Those are
the costs. If we just refuse to renew the contracts, we could have tens
of thousands of people who depend upon these section 8 subsidized
contracts thrown out on the street. These could be elderly people in
rural areas. These are people in many parts of the country where there
are no readily available alternatives for which vouchers could get them
housing.
So we have proposed a system that sounds complex, but, basically, we
would write down a portion of the debt on the project and the
Government would take back a second mortgage that would be paid back at
the end of the first mortgage, writing these contracts down to fair
market rentals.
That is a very brief and overly simplistic discussion of the
amendment. We have worked on this on a bipartisan basis not only in the
Appropriations Committee but, more important, with the authorizing
committee, with Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Mack and
Senator Kerry. We appreciate very much their assistance on it.
This is a demonstration project for 1 year on the way to getting a
permanent resolution of these exploding contract costs. I hope that we
can adopt this amendment by voice vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond amendment.
I do it because it is the right thing to do at this time.
It starts to address a serious problem with our public housing. A
large number of section 8 multifamily housing projects are subsidized
by rents that far exceed the fair-market rent in the area. In fiscal
year 1997 alone, HUD estimates there are 40,000 units whose contracts
will expire at rents over 120 percent of the fair-market rent.
But Mr. President, this is not just an issue of numbers and
statistics. This is an issue about real Americans and real lives. If we
take the do-nothing approach, American taxpayers will continue to have
their hard-earned tax money wasted by paying excessive rents. The
Government can't afford to pay these excessive rents indefinitely.
If we take a strong-arm approach and try to force owners to lower the
rents and we reduce subsidies, we risk massive defaults. In addition to
the massive multibillion-dollar costs to HUD and the administrative
burden it would cause the Agency, it could lead to massive resident
displacement.
Mr. President, we're talking about real people in real communities
potentially being out on the streets. None of us wants to be a part of
putting people on the streets and increasing the homeless problem in
our Nation. We as a nation are better than that. The residents deserve
better and so do their communities.
I support the effort to begin addressing the problem. We must ensure
that while we do so, we don't create hollow opportunities, don't create
a generation of slum landlords, and don't create a new liability for
the taxpayers. We don't want to just address the problem, we want to
solve it--with creative and effective approaches.
This amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is a start. It
allows HUD to negotiate with landlords of oversubsidized projects with
contracts expiring in fiscal year 1997. HUD will seek to bring the
rents of units over 120 percent of fair-market rent in line with the
market rate where the units are located.
This amendment begins a process that we must continue to work on
during the coming year. Some will voice concerns that this amendment
goes too far, others will say it doesn't go far enough.
Mr. President, we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. A
modest beginning is better than no beginning. We can't afford to ignore
the fact that over 750,000 units with subsidy problems are in the
pipeline. The time to act is now. We can't afford to delay any longer.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
[[Page S9823]]
Mr. President, I just want to say this. This is not just an issue of
numbers and statistics, this is an issue about real Americans and real
lives. If we do nothing, the American taxpayer will continue to pay
excessive rents. If we take a strong-arm approach, we could risk
massive defaults.
I support this effort, because it absolutely begins to address the
problem. We must ensure that in doing so we do not create a hollow
opportunity for the poor, that Federal assistance does not generate a
new class of sublandlords and new liability for the taxpayers.
I believe the Bond amendment is the right approach that talks about
real opportunities for the poor, provides a safety net so that these
projects do not collapse, but we begin to bring this into discipline
and really focus on a market-based approach.
So, Mr. President, I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5167) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am most grateful for the assistance of my
ranking member in dealing with that very difficult question. We may
have to address this again in conference. But we think this is the
start on the right path.
We have a number of amendments that I believe have been cleared on
both sides. I propose that we proceed to those.
Amendment No. 5181
(Purpose: Prohibit HUD from removing regulatory requirements that HUD
issue public notice and comment rulemaking.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 5181.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Insert at the appropriate place at the end of the section
on HUD:
SEC. . REQUIREMENT FOR HUD TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC NOTICE AND
COMMENT RULEMAKING.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
maintain all current requirements under Part 10 of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's regulations (24
CFR part 10) with respect to the Department's policies and
procedures for the promulgation and issuance of rules,
including the use of public participation in the rulemaking
process.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is a prohibition on a HUD rulemaking
effort to eliminate HUD public notice and comment. The HUD recently
issued a proposed rule that would, as a practical matter, remove any
requirement for HUD to issue public notice and comments. This amendment
would prohibit HUD from doing that. The Administrative Procedures Act
does not require agencies to issue public notice and comment rulemaking
for grant loan programs, but HUD has traditionally deferred to
congressional and public interest that HUD programs be developed in an
open manner to ensure that the implementation of programs are
consistent with congressional intent and receive the benefit of public
input and scrutiny.
Basically, the requirement for HUD to issue the public notice and
comment rulemaking is not an accident. Because of the program abuses at
HUD in the late 1960's, HUD chose public notice, this public airing, to
get them out of a real crack, to convince people that a change HUD was
operating on the up and up. It is critical that they do this because,
without public notice and comment rulemaking, HUD can and has designed
programs in the past that are inconsistent with congressional intent,
not in the best interest of beneficiaries, and, frankly, smell.
Last year the inspector general raised some very real questions about
the way that empowerment zones had been selected. A lot of compelling
questions were raised in that report. I think it is necessary to keep
the spotlight on HUD so that we can be sure that we know what they are
doing, that Congress and the media and the public have a right to see
what they are doing, so that there will be less temptation to abuse the
process.
The most recent example of HUD's disregard of the congressional
intent is one that is particularly galling to many of us who fought for
the provision for a long time. There was a provision in S. 1494, the
Housing Opportunity Programs Extension Act, which provided public
housing authorities with broad authority to designate public housing as
``elderly only,'' ``disabled only,'' or a combination thereof. HUD
proceeded to issue a proposed rule that would require extensive
micromanagement by HUD and place an unreasonable burden on public
housing authorities that want to designate the public housing as
``elderly only'' or ``disabled only'' housing. It is finding out that
kind of activity before it occurs that should save us a great deal of
heartburn and avoid a lot of heartburn for HUD.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Bond amendment, even
though my State, my city of Baltimore got an empowerment zone. We think
we met the test. I still support the amendment. We believe that there
should be public notice. It was part of a reform. We believe that
public notices act in the public interest. It is as straightforward and
as simple as that. I urge the adoption of the Bond amendment and the
continuation of existing policy.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I have previously discussed, I remain
very concerned about HUD's ability and capacity to administer its
programs effectively, and in some cases, fairly.
In early 1995, Senator Mack and I requested the HUD IG to review the
HUD's procedures and decisionmaking in selecting and designating six
urban empowerment zones. As you know, the use of empowerment zones to
revitalize decaying urban centers has a long history, with perhaps its
greatest proponent in Jack Kemp, when he was Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development. Secretary Kemp never had an opportunity to implement
his vision of empowerment zones.
Empowerment zone legislation was finally enacted as part of the
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 on August 10, 1993. This
legislation proposed the establishment of nine empowerment zones, six
urban and three rural zones, in distressed communities. Empowerment
zones received some funding of $100 million as well as significant tax
benefits designed to encourage employment in the empowerment zone. On
December 21, 1994, President Clinton announced the designation of six
urban empowerment zones and three rural empowerment zones. Another 66
urban communities and 30 rural communities were designated as
enterprise communities with reduced benefits. The urban zones were New
York City, Camden/Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, and
Detroit.
Nevertheless, no program, however well intended and designed, will
work if the wrong people and the wrong communities are selected to
implement and carry through the program. Much to my concern, the HUD IG
confirmed my worst fears that HUD's designation of the empowerment
zones did not likely include those communities that had put together
the best partnerships and plans for implementing the empowerment zones.
The HUD IG report--pages 2, 6, and 7--indicates that the entire
selection process was handled as a discretionary process, with all
final decisions made by the Secretary. The report raises major issues
as to whether HUD used a competitive or meritorious process in
designating zones. The report is clear that if a competitive process
was used, there is no record of the decisionmaking.
This is no way to run a program. Cities and localities exerted
tremendous energy to forge partnerships and leverage local funding to
put the best empowerment zone plan forward. These cities and localities
believed that their applications would be considered on a level playing
field.
I have heard reports that many of the designated empowerment zones
have not performed well, that projected partnerships have faded and
that
[[Page S9824]]
groups in some cities are having a food fight over the funding and the
benefits. I know that major concerns have been raised with respect to
the empowerment zones in Camden/Phillie and New York City. I think that
it is time that we revisit and audit the current status of empowerment
zones. If Federal dollars are being misused or abused, we need to find
out, and we need to ensure that HUD is doing its job in preventing
abuses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I note that Kansas City got an empowerment
zone as well. But there were many questions raised in it. I have no
further debate on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5181) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5182
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to convey
certain real property to the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration. This amendment is offered on behalf of
Senator Shelby. It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Shelby,
proposes an amendment numbered 5182.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
Sec. 108. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may convey,
without consideration, to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama (in
this section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including any improvements thereon, in the
northwest quarter of section 28 township 21 south, range 9
west, of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, comprising a portion of
the grounds of the Department of Veterans Affairs medical
center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and consisting of approximately
9.42 acres, more or less.
(b) The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to
the condition that the City use the real property conveyed
under that subsection in perpetuity solely for public park or
recreational purposes.
(c) The exact acreage and legal description of the real
property to be conveyed pursuant to this section shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. The cost of such survey shall be borne by
the City.
(d) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may require such
additional terms and conditions in connection with the
conveyance under this section as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
Mr. BOND. I do not believe this is controversial. It provides
permissive authority to the Veterans' Administration to transfer lands
to the city of Tuscaloosa, AL, for a recreational facility.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we consulted with the Veterans'
Administration, and they have advised us they also concur with the
amendment. I do so and therefore urge that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is adopted.
The amendment (No. 5182) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 5176, As Modified
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be amendment
No. 5176, the McCain amendment on the Federal Emergency Management Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I send to the
desk a modification. This modification makes one small change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 75, line 10, after the word ``expended'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That no money appropriated for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be expended for the
repair of yacht harbors or golf courses except for debris
removal; Provided further, That no money appropriated for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be expended for tree
or shrub replacement except in public parks; Provided
further, That any funds used for repair of any recreational
facilities shall be limited to debris removal and the repair
of recreational buildings only.''
Mr. BOND. This change, after much intensive work, and extensive staff
discussion and thought, changes the word ``marinas'' to ``yacht
harbors,'' which I think satisfies the concerns that were raised in the
discussion of the McCain amendment. I believe it is agreeable on both
sides.
As I stated in the discussion of it, this is just the beginning of
what needs to be a major review of the limitations on disaster relief
for recreational and landscape facilities, a part of the process that
the FEMA IG has said must be undertaken. FEMA has agreed to undertake
it, and we may be revisiting this in conference. Certainly we will work
with the authorizing committees afterward to get a much better control
over the expenditures of disaster relief money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, Mr. President, the modification was made
at my request. As the Senator knows, marinas in many instances are
small businesses and are the equivalent in my State of family farms or
small ranches. So we thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in modifying
it. We do support the amendment because it is based on an IG report. We
think it really brings an important discipline to the FEMA program. We
can fund disasters but we cannot create a budget disaster for
ourselves. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the McCain amendment as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5176), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5183
(Purpose: Deletes EPA language relating to funds appropriated for
drinking water state revolving funds. This language is no longer
necessary given the enactment of drinking water state revolving fund
legislation)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 5183.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 72, beginning on line 11, strike the phrase
beginning with ``, but if no drinking water'' and ending with
``as amended'' on line 15.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical amendment. It
is cleared on both sides. It simply deletes a provision that we carried
in the bill when it was reported out of the Appropriations Committee at
that time. The drinking water legislation had not been enacted. It
obviously has now been enacted and signed into law. So we delete the
provision, and with the enactment of the drinking water legislation,
this language is no longer necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with Senator Bond's amendment
and urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5183) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S9825]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 5184
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Bennett and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Bennett,
proposes an amendment numbered 5184.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 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:
SEC. . GAO AUDIT ON STAFFING AND CONTRACTING.
The Comptroller General shall audit the operations of the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight concerning
staff organization, expertise, capacity, and contracting
authority to ensure that the office resources and contract
authority are adequate and that they are being used
appropriately to ensure that the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
are adequately capitalized and operating safely.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to add an amendment to H.R.
3666 which will emphasize my concern about the multiyear delay of a
scheduled GAO audit of the OFHEO, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight. OFHEO is required by statute to create an effective review
process to, in effect, ensure the fiscal safety and soundness of
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Quite frankly, it concerned me when I was
informed that OFHEO was, in turn, several years behind schedule in
producing a model to oversee these two important housing enterprises.
I continue to be concerned that mission creep may take hold of this
regulator. Trips abroad to consult with other countries on how to
regulate their housing enterprises should be curtailed until our own
regulator is up and running. Therefore, it is my intent to refocus the
GAO report to make sure OFHEO is still on track, and that it continues
to focus all of its efforts on completing its very important mission.
It is my intent to make sure that before OFHEO grows any larger, it is
on track with a clear vision of its goals and responsibilities.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Bennett has been a leader in this
area in attempting to develop adequate oversight of the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
He directs that the Comptroller General audit the operations to
ensure that the office resource's contract authority are adequate, they
are being used appropriately to ensure that the Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the amendment as offered by
the Senator from Utah. He raised this very important issue during our
hearings and was concerned very much about mission creep in this Office
of Federal Housing and Enterprise Oversight. It was his intent, as it
is ours, that it focus on ensuring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have
fiscal safety and soundness. It was not meant to take foreign trips and
see how the world is doing this. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been
around. It is our job to make sure that they are not only around, but
are safe and sound and ready to do the job. We want to make sure they
are fit for duty.
I support the Bennett amendment as offered by Senator Bond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5184) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5185
(Purpose: To prohibit the consolidation of NASA aircraft at Dryden
Flight Research Center, California)
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Sarbanes, Senator Warner, Senator Feinstein and
myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for Mr. Sarbanes,
for himself, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Mikulski,
proposes an amendment numbered 5185.
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:
On page 104, below line 24, add the following:
Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration by this Act, or any other Act enacted before
the date of the enactment of this Act, may be used by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to relocate aircraft of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to Dryden Flight
Research Center, California, for purposes of the
consolidation of such aircraft.
Ms. MIKULSKI. This is a very straightforward amendment, Mr.
President. What it does is preclude that no Federal funds be spent in
consolidating NASA aeronautics facilities at Dryden Air Force Base. We
feel NASA's proposal to do this is premature. Questions have been
raised about the NASA proposal by the inspector general. We have been
consulting with NASA about this and have lacked clarity from NASA in
terms of what its future intent is.
It is one thing, I think, to talk about consolidation, but the IG
raises many yellow flashing lights. So for now we wish to prohibit the
consolidation until NASA comes forward with justification that then
meets the requirements established by Senator Sarbanes, myself, Senator
Warner, and Senator Feinstein.
We hope this can be resolved before conference. In the meantime, we
support the fact that none of the funds be used by the Administrator to
relocate aircraft of NASA to Dryden.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has been concerned
and has been very active in bringing these matters to our attention. I
do agree we will look at this very carefully prior to conference. We
want to work with NASA to make sure that steps they are taking are,
indeed, efficient, effective and could not cause any unnecessary
dislocation or hardship.
Since there are a number of colleagues who have expressed great
interest in this, we will attempt to learn more about it prior to the
conference. We strongly support the amendment in the current form, and
urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5185) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5179
(Purpose: To amend provision appropriating monies to the Council on
Environmental Quality to the level approved by the House)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 5179.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment
numbered 5179.
In title III, at the end of the subchapter entitled:
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality, strike ``$2,436,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,250,000.''
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an amendment, obviously, that
decreases the funding level for the Council of Environmental Quality in
the amount of funding that was passed by the House, and I rise to
discuss this.
This amendment is offered largely because of what I think is the
unfortunate changes that have taken place in CEQ during the Clinton
administration. Congress established this council, the National
Environmental Policy Act, to facilitate the implementation of NEPA and
to coordinate the environmental activities of the executive branch.
Congress envisioned CEQ as a technical resource for Federal agencies
that were confronted with questions about NEPA. Unfortunately, the
intention and reality have diverged under the Clinton administration.
CEQ has
[[Page S9826]]
not fulfilled the statutory mandates of NEPA, nor many of the promises
which the chairman made to this Congress. I happened to be involved
with the committee hearings last year on the confirmation of this
chairman, and we talked a lot about how we were going to work together.
Instead, CEQ has been actively engaged in partisan kinds of things
with respect to those issues before the Congress. CEQ has not done many
of the things that have been prescribed under the law. NEPA requires
CEQ to provide an annual quarterly report--annual. The last report
prepared was completed 3 years ago, in 1993, and that report remains
the only report CEQ has prepared under the Clinton administration
despite the statutory mandate.
In that report, CEQ promised a handbook to facilitate Agency
compliance of NEPA. This handbook still has not been drafted, let alone
published for Agency use. CEQ promised the Congress a comprehensive
study of NEPA's effectiveness at the end of 1995. CEQ's effectiveness
study has still not been finalized despite repeated assurances that it
would be. They promised Congress it would assist the Forest Service in
streamlining the Agency's issuance of grazing permits. After some
initial progress, there has not been a meeting between the Forest
Service and CEQ in 6 months.
Last November, Senator Craig and I sent a detailed letter to Ms.
McGinty, the chairman, suggesting reform to NEPA, compliance at the
Forest Service. Other than an initial ``thank you'' for the letter, we
have not heard anything about those suggestions.
This lack of followup is all too common at the CEQ and indicative of
an Agency which apparently has lost its way. Things CEQ has been doing
under the administration, CEQ has been involved in every timber sale
which has occurred in national forests, been involved in the northern
spotted owl debate in the Pacific Northwest, and now injected itself
into the California spotted owl.
Ms. McGinty has taken up a number of things that are basically
political, propaganda, including grazing, and has characterized the
Public Rangeland Management Act, passed by this Senate, as a special
interest give-away; lambasted the Republican platform as full of
``anti-environmental language,'' such as private property rights and
streamlining regulations, despite the fact that in the hearings she
indicated that is what we ought to do, make it simpler and streamline.
On timber salvage legislation, House Members have written to the
President complaining about mischaracterization of the law.
Mr. President, I guess I use this opportunity to talk a little bit
about something that bothers me a great deal.
I am very much interested in the kinds of things that go on in the
environment and very much interested in the kinds of things that go on
in the West. I am very much interested in trying to simplify and make
more effective NEPA and some of the other activities that relate to
that. I think that this has not been done. I think it should be done.
There needs to be a wake-up call to that committee. Perhaps this will
be that.
Rather than pursue it, however, in view of the time and things we are
doing, I will withdraw my amendment. But I do want to have this
opportunity to say that I think we need to do something differently.
There are great opportunities for this committee to be effective and to
bring about less rhetoric and more action.
So, Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for this
opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn,
and I will continue to work with it in the conference committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 5179) was withdrawn.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to comment before the Senator
from Wyoming leaves the floor. I thank him for withdrawing the
amendment rather than embroiling us in controversy. I want to
acknowledge the concerns that he has raised, and I respect them. As we
move toward conference, perhaps there is report language or something
that prods EPA in the direction to be more responsive to Members'
inquiries and that the focus of the agency is to review environmental
legislation and comment on it from that perspective and not be a
propaganda machine. I acknowledge the validity of that.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Maryland, and I look forward to
further discussion.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me add my thanks, also, to the Senator
from Wyoming for allowing us to move past that particular amendment. We
have worked very hard to avoid some of the controversies. We are not
going to avoid all of them. But we did understand what he said and the
concerns he has. We have heard others raise those concerns. We will
work with him and other Members to try to resolve those concerns. We
very much appreciate his consideration in withdrawing the amendment.
fema audit of kauai county
Mr. INOUYE. I wish to raise an issue of concern with the managers of
the bill. It relates to the direction of an audit conducted by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's [FEMA] inspector general on the
county of Kauai and the State of Hawaii on the damages caused by
Hurricane Iniki. It looks to undo insurance settlements, sanctioned by
FEMA and agreed upon 4 years ago. In doing so, the inspector general
would renege on funding commitments FEMA previously made, thereby
leaving the county with outstanding obligations and in debt. The State
of Hawaii voluntarily purchased insurance over that which was required
after Hurricane Iwa hit in 1981. To now second guess the county's
settlement with its insurance carriers, and then use it as the basis
for denying previously approved damage survey reports [DSR's] is
without precedent. It is a disincentive for States and cities to insure
themselves against natural disasters. FEMA is wrongly penalizing a
State for its good faith effort to minimize future losses and reduce
the expenditure of Federal funds. There are currently no clear
guidelines in the Stafford Act.
Mr. BOND. As the Senator from Hawaii knows, I support efforts to
improve controls on disaster relief expenditures. However, I am
sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Senator. I understand that
the county of Kauai and the State of Hawaii are concerned with a FEMA
IG's audit report regarding damages caused by Hurricane Iniki, and I
encourage FEMA to reach a resolution in which FEMA ensures that the
county and State are reimbursed for all eligible costs resulting from
the 1992 event. The committee also directs FEMA to provide its policy
justifications and recommendations regarding this matter. Finally, I
believe that FEMA's policies should do everything to encourage, not
discourage, States for efforts to minimize future losses and reduce the
expenditure of Federal funds, such as strong insurance requirements.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I join Chairman Bond in encouraging FEMA to reach a
resolution in which FEMA ensures that the county of Kauai and the State
of Hawaii are reimbursed for all eligible costs resulting from
Hurricane Iniki. I also support the chairman's effort in directing FEMA
to provide its policy justifications and recommendations on this
matter.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the managers of the bill for your assistance in
this matter.
Mr. MURKOWSKI: Mr. President, I am here today because the people of
Alaska face a very serious problem. But, unlike other times when we
face problems and find solutions, in this case the solution may be even
worse. I'm referring to the use of oxygenated fuels to reduce the
emissions of carbon monoxide. These alternative fuels are required by
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Alaska has two areas where carbon
monoxide levels are above those required by the law. But when we tried
using gasoline treated with ether-based oxygenates, the people of
Alaska became ill. Headaches, coughs, nausea, as well as other
ailments, all resulted from exposure to these fuel additives.
Additionally, study after scientific study shows, oxygenated fuel
doesn't reduce carbon monoxide levels in the extreme cold of Alaska.
This finding was recently reinforced by a report of the National
Research Council [NRC].
[[Page S9827]]
The NRC recognized that oxygenated fuels decrease carbon monoxide
emissions under Federal test procedure conditions using fuel-control
systems, but also stated that ``* * * the data presented do not
establish the existence of this benefit under winter driving
conditions.'' And oxygenates increase the costs of gasoline for the
average working Alaskan. In sum, Mr. President, no environmental
benefit, adverse health effects, and higher fuel costs. This is not the
solution the Clean Air Act intended.
I am pleased to be here with my friend Senator Bond from Missouri and
my friend Senator Faircloth from North Carolina to discuss this issue
today. In previous years, the VA/HUD Appropriation Act has included
language that prohibited implementation of an oxygenated fuel program
in States where the winter temperature is below 0 degree. That language
was designed to allow time for additional studies to be conducted on
using ethanol-treated fuel in our cold weather, and to keep Alaskans
from suffering adverse health effects with no environmental improvement
in the quality of our air. I had hoped to see that amendment included
in this year's bill.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the situation facing the Senator from Alaska.
I know he also appreciates the situation of our committee. We in
Congress have tried very hard this year to address difficult issues
that arise over implementation of our environmental laws. America has
made significant progress in improving environmental quality, but
sometimes our efforts to protect health and the environment have the
opposite effect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult
and unwieldy to address each of these instances in appropriations
legislation.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Missouri, and I understand that
his appropriations legislation cannot be turned into the Senate's
version of the Corrections Day Calendar such as we have in the House.
It is my intention to refrain from offering my amendment at this time,
but I will need the able assistance of the chairman of the VA/HUD
Subcommittee, and my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air of the Environment and Public
Works Committee in addressing this problem. I believe the people of
Fairbanks want to take the appropriate steps to address their carbon
monoxide problem. I also think that the administration of region 10 of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is willing to work with them
in a cooperative, flexible manner. But the science is clear that
oxygenated fuel may not be the answer in very cold weather. I would ask
the assistance of the subcommittee chairmen in two areas. First, will
they aid us in working with the EPA to craft emission reduction
programs for Alaskans that are flexible and workable? And second, will
they work with the Alaska delegation to fix the provisions in the
statute that may be driving Alaska toward remedies for air pollution
that don't work?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I will be happy to assist the Senator from Alaska in
any way I can regarding the possible misapplication of Clean Air Act
requirements. The citizens of Alaska should not be forced to accede to
a regulatory scheme which imposes significant additional costs, has no
discernable health or environmental benefit, and may actually be
creating harmful health effects. Together with the EPA, we can work to
fix this situation for the people of Alaska and those similarly
situated in other parts of the country.
Mr. BOND. The Senator from Alaska can count on any assistance I may
be able to provide as he seeks a solution of this problem for his
affected constituents.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues and I thank the Chair.
Clean Lakes Program Funding in EPA Budget
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Clean Lakes Program, administered by
EPA under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act, is in serious jeopardy.
For many years, this valuable program helped define the causes and
extent of pollution problems in our Nation's lakes. States used program
grants to implement effective treatments to restore environmentally
degraded lakes, and to guard against future damage.
Nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a
lake, with a combined economic impact of billions of dollars. The Clean
Lakes Program has provided targeted assistance to these lakes resulting
in renewed recreational opportunities, increased wildlife, and enhanced
property values that improved water quality brings.
Despite this track record however, EPA is in the process of combining
the Clean Lakes Program with the much larger Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program, Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 is
designed to address polluted runoff from cities, farms, and other
sources. The needs of lake managers and lake users are too easily lost
when forced to compete with projects affecting entire watersheds.
Ironically, some of the most visible and immediate problems facing lake
users, such as controlling non-native nuisance aquatic weeds like
Eurasian water milfoil and hydrilla, are not even eligible for funding
under the 319 program. These weeds, introduced from Asia and other
locations, are threatening aquatic habitat, recreation, navigation,
flood control efforts, and waterfront property values. When Vermont
found a beetle that appeared to be controlling milfoil, the Clean Lakes
Program provided funds to investigate further to determine whether the
beetle could be used for weed control. Vermont's investigations have
now ended, but numerous other States around the country, including
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington, have
recently taken up the effort and are carrying on the work. Together,
this work may result in a cost-effective control method for Eurasian
milfoil. Without the Clean Lakes Program, Vermont would not have been
able to initiate the studies, and other States would not have been able
to expand on Vermont's efforts to solve a national problem.
The Clean Lakes Program has been highly successful in helping
individual States restore lakes with severe problems, and then using
the lessons learned in the process to help other States restore their
lakes as well. Each State needs the information and experience gained
by other States to cost-effectively restore their own lakes.
The Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of preserving
the important qualities of the Clean Lakes Program in the fiscal year
1996 Appropriations bill, as the House has done in its fiscal year 1997
report, by including language specifically requiring EPA to continue
funding the activities of the Clean Lakes Program through section 319.
Senator Bond, do you support the language included in the House
Appropriation bill specifying that activities like aquatic plant
control, previously eligible for funding under the Clean Lakes Program,
qualify for funding under the section 319 program?
Mr. BOND. Senator Leahy, I know you have been a long time supporter
of the Clean Lakes Program, and that the program has funded valuable
lake inventory and restoration activities in Vermont and around the
country. While this bill does not fund a separate Clean Lakes Program I
do continue to support the language included in the fiscal year 1996
Appropriations bill and again in the House appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1997, clarifying that activities funded under the Clean
Lakes Program should continue to be funded under the 319 program.
robert s. kerr environmental research laboratory
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank my colleagues for including language in last year's report that
accompanied the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill,
encouraging the ground-water quality and remediation procedure research
at the Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, OK. I would like
to particularly thank Subcommittee Chairman Bond and ranking member
Senator Mikulski. I would also like to thank my colleagues for
including the reauthorization of the Kerr Laboratory and University
Consortium in the Senate-passed Safe Drinking Water Act. The Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory is a vital component of our country's
environmental research. The laboratory is the premier ground water
research facility in the United States and the world. The work
accomplished at
[[Page S9828]]
this facility is vital to both the Drinking Water and Superfund
programs.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising the
importance of this research facility. The legislation under
consideration does not specifically reference the Kerr laboratory
although the importance of its research is fundamental to many of the
programs at the Environmental Protection Agency. It is my understanding
that the purpose of the Kerr Laboratory is to develop the knowledge and
technology needed to protect the United States' ground water supplies
and conduct research to develop better ways to clean up existing ground
water contamination. This research is important for the recently
reauthorized Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund Program.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleague from Missouri. As members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee we share a concern that
the programs at the EPA should be grounded in sound science and that
the Agency must continue to produce sound scientific research to be
used in the regulatory process. Continuing and encouraging the ground
water research at the Kerr Laboratory will not only help protect the
environment but will ensure that newly developed knowledge and
technology for ground water remediation at contaminated sites to be
made available to the remediation industry in a usable and timely
manner. This research facility is essential in continuing to protect
our country's ground water resources and I urge the EPA to continue to
support the Kerr Laboratory.
epa funding for the sokaogon chippewa community
Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee,
the Senator from Missouri, in a colloquy regarding EPA funding for the
Sokaogon Chippewa community in Wisconsin to assess the environmental
impacts of a proposed sulfide mine.
In the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Acts, funding has been provided to assist the
Sokaogon Chippewa community in Crandon, WI, in their efforts to gather
the baseline data needed to adequately assess the effects of a large
sulfide mine proposed adjacent to their reservation. As a result of the
proposed mine, concerns have been raised about the possible degradation
of the ground and surface water in the area, as well as possible
negative effects on the wild rice production activities within the
reservation.
I believe that the efforts undertaken by the Sokaogon Chippewa
community are very worthwhile, and have been helpful in allowing the
tribe to contribute accurate and up-to-date data to the Federal
agencies reviewing the mine proposal. Would the Senator from Missouri
agree that this project is very worthwhile?
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for raising the ongoing
concerns of the Sokaogon Chippewa community, and I concur with the
Senator that their efforts to be proactive in assessing the potential
efforts of mining on their lands are worthwhile and laudable.
Mr. KOHL. While funding has not been provided specifically for the
Sokaogon Chippewa in the Senate version of this year's bill, it is my
understanding that there are many other opportunities for securing
Federal funding for this project. First and foremost, I would like to
request the chairman's strong consideration for this project during
conference with the House. In the past 2 fiscal years, the conference
committee has included funding for this project, and the same arguments
for its inclusion continue this year as well.
Mr. BOND. I assure the Senator from Wisconsin that I will certainly
give this project every consideration in conference. Further, there are
many additional options available for funding important projects such
as this. For example, it is not unusual for EPA to fund projects
through the reprogramming of funds from other programs or lower
priority projects.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for his comments, and look forward to
continuing to work with him on this matter.
west central florida alternative water source project
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the subcommittee has generously funded
several alternative water source projects in west central Florida in
the last two EPA budgets. These funds have provided critical support to
assist with the development of new technologies and applications to
help ensure that the fastest growing State in the country will be able
to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for water for potable,
agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. The subcommittee's
support for these programs has been greatly appreciated as Senator
Graham and I have been working with our colleagues in both the Senate
and the House to establish an authorized program for Florida and other
Eastern States to assist with the development of alternative water
sources similar to those currently available to most of the Western
States through the Bureau of Reclamation. Although the subcommittee was
not able to make any funds available during fiscal year 1997 for the
projects in Florida, I want to thank the chairman for his past support
and look forward to working with him to address this important concern
in next year's appropriations bill for EPA.
Mr. BOND. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Florida and
commend him and others working on this to responsibly plan for our
Nation's future water supply needs. I share his concerns and look
forward to working with him. I would note that the VA/HUD bill provides
$1.275 billion for drinking water State revolving funds, providing much
needed assistance to every State for such meritorious projects as those
raised by the Senator from Florida.
upper midwest aeronautics consortium
Mr. DORGAN. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member
for including language in the report to accompany the fiscal year 1997
VA-HUD appropriations bill concerning the Upper Midwest Aeronautics
Consortium [UMAC], a group of universities and businesses which are
working with NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. I would simply like to
clarify one point about the report language.
Mr. BOND. We would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senator
on this matter.
Mr. DORGAN. The report language accompanying the bill states that
UMAC has successfully completed an initial study of the concept of
converting Mission to Planet Earth [MTPE] data into practical
information for use by the public and that NASA should give every
consideration to funding UMAC under a solicitation program for the
expanded use of MTPE data in the areas of agriculture, education and
natural resources. I would just like to clarify that UMAC is not
limited by the report language solely to funding under this grant
program but can seek additional assistance from other NASA sources as
well.
Mr. BOND. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. UMAC can seek
funding from any available sources within NASA, and is not limited to
the grant solicitation program mentioned in the Committee report.
Ms. MIKULSKI. That is my understanding as well. I am very pleased
with the work accomplished by UMAC to date in making data from MTPE
available to the public. This kind of practical application of
scientific data is exactly the type of public private partnership that
we should be encouraging. It has the potential for reaching thousands
of our citizens, providing them with a broader base of understanding
and support for the important work of Mission to Planet Earth.
Mr. DORGAN. I would like to thank both Chairman Bond and Senator
Mikulski for this clarification.
DIABETES INSTITUTES AT THE EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL
Mr. ROBB. Would the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee be willing to enter into a colloquy with this Senator
concerning some language included in the conference report to the House
passed VA/HUD appropriations bill?
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Missouri and I would be pleased to
enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague and I say to my friends, we have in
Norfolk, Virginia, a medical center--the Diabetes Institutes at the
Eastern Virginia Medical School--which is distinguished for its work in
diabetes research, education, and clinical care. The Diabetes
[[Page S9829]]
Institutes is interested in establishing a research program with the
Veterans' Administration to reduce the cost of care to veterans with
diabetes. The House of Representatives included report language in
support of the diabetes Institutes in this regard, and I wondered if
the Chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee here in the Senate
would be willing to work to retain the House language in conference.
Mr. BOND. I have no objection to the House report language.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be pleased to do what I can to retain the House
language in support of the Diabetes Institutes in the final conference
report.
Mr. ROBB. I thank my friends from Missouri and Maryland for their
kind assistance with this matter.
ONONDAGA LAKE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from
Maryland about funding for the Onondaga Lake Management Conference. As
they both know, the conference was authorized in 1990 to develop a plan
for the cleanup of Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the
country. The commission is composed of the State and local officials
involved in the cleanup effort, as well as representatives from the
Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
In addition to the ongoing planning effort, the Commission helps
support pilot programs to restore plants and fish to the lake,
demonstration projects to measure oxygenation of the lake, remediation
projects to address combined sewer overflow problems, and other
important initiatives.
Ongoing funding is necessary to complete the work of the conference,
including these projects. I ask my colleagues to consider an allocation
of $500,000 for the management conference when this bill goes to
conference.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the work being done by the management
conference, and that we have funded it each year since fiscal year
1990. I too hope we will be able to set aside funds for the operations
of the conference.
Mr. BOND. I agree that we should try to identify funds to keep the
management conference in operation.
sarasota bay national estuary program
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for the
chairman's support of my efforts in coordination with Senators Graham,
Lieberman, and Dodd to clarify the EPA's authority to obligate funds to
assist State and local governments in implementing comprehensive
conservation and management plans prepared through the National Estuary
Program. It is important that we do this so that the knowledge we have
gained since the program's inception is not lost for lack of the
Federal Government being able to contribute its fair share for
implementation activities. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
call to your attention the committee report which expresses its support
for the administration's request for, among other EPA programs, the
National Estuary Program, and of particular interest to me, ``full
funding of the Sarasota Bay project.'' As the Chairman knows, the
administration's request for the NEP is not adequate to support a full
implementation effort and I would ask for your confirmation of the
subcommittee's intent that EPA make every effort to make funds
available from other programs to supplement its budget request for the
NEP to support CCMP implementation efforts such as the Sarasota Bay
project.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this
important issue to the subcommittee's attention and appreciate his kind
words. We are glad to be able to help with this in cooperation with
Senator Chafee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I
concur that EPA should provide adequate support to the NEP, and request
a reprogramming if necessary.
Mr. CRAIG. If I might ask the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations about
the EPA review of the national ambient air quality standard for
particulate matter. I understand that there are recent epidemiological
studies that indicate a correlation between exposure to air polluted
with particulates and adverse human health effects, and that EPA is
studying this matter as a high priority.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Idaho for raising this important
point. The EPA has indicated to our committee that it is highly
concerned about the health effects of particulates. We have met the
EPA's request for funding for this program, and included $18.8 million.
These funds are for health effects research, exposure research,
improving monitoring technologies, modeling studies, and other key
requirements.
Mr. CRAIG. I am pleased to learn that the committee has directed this
level of funding to EPA for this important research. This comprehensive
research program is very much needed. At present, there appears to be
insufficient data available for the agency to decide what changes, if
any, should be made to the current standard. There is no scientific
consensus on whether it is necessary to change the current ambient air
quality standards for particulate matter to protect human and
environmental health. It has come to my attention that in a letter to
EPA on June 13, 1996, EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
concluded that ``our understanding of the health effects of
[particulates] is far from complete,'' and these scientific
uncertainties prevented the committee from agreeing on the agency's
suggested new particulate standards. In addition, the former chairman
of this advisory committee who is now a consultant to the advisory
committee, Roger McClellan, wrote the current chairman in May to advise
him that ``the current staff document does not provide a scientifically
adequate basis for making regulatory decisions for setting of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and related control of particulate matter
as specified in the Clean Air Act.'' Finally, in a peer-reviewed
article just published in the Journal of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, scientists John Gamble and Jeffery Lewis
conclude that the recent epidemiology studies that show statistically
significant acute health effects of particulate air pollution do not
meet the criteria for causality. They suggest that the weak statistical
correlations of increased mortality are as likely due to confounding by
weather, copollutants, or exposure misclassification as they are by
ambient particulate matter.
As the chairman is aware, EPA is under a Federal court order to make
a final decision on whether to revise the current clean air rule
regarding particulate matter. Under the court order, EPA must make a
proposed decision on or before November 29, 1996, and a final decision
on or before June 28, 1997. Can the Chairman inform me whether the
court order allows the agency to decide not to revise the particulate
standard until there is sufficient scientific basis for doing so?
Mr. BOND. It is my understanding that the court order only requires
the agency to make a final decision on whether to revise the current
ambient air standard for particulates, but the order does not require
the agency to promulgate a new standard.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If I might interject, the fact that EPA has found
several studies that indicate a correlation between loading of
particulates in the air and premature mortality is important. This
suggested link to human health problems needs to be promptly and
thoroughly investigated. My objective is to provide protection of
public health and the environment by designing control strategies that
reduce harmful particulates and other pollutants form the air people
breathe. However, I am concerned that EPA may be rushed to judgment by
the Federal courts before real science has been developed to inform the
agency about which particulates, in which geographic locations, and in
which concentrations are harming people and the environment. There are
many questions that need to be answered about particulate matter, as
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, referred to as ``CASC,''
made clear in its June 13, 1996, letter to EPA--to which the Senator
from Idaho just referred. For example, we do not know the mechanisms by
which particulates might affect public health. Since 1988, particulate
matter concentrations have declined by more than 20 percent, with
substantial future declines in particulates expected to result from
compliance with existing clean air standards. Moving forward with the
targeted research program recommended by the
[[Page S9830]]
CASAC is essential to understand the health problems associated with
particulates. That better understanding of the health effects caused by
particulates is needed before we can design an effective control
strategy. I would note for my colleagues that this EPA advisory
committee is meeting again in early September to design this
particulate research program.
* * * * *
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If the chairman would yield, I would ask whether any
of the money in the fiscal year 1997 funding for particulate research
will go to implementing an ambient air quality and emissions monitoring
program, and will EPA be placing the monitors, or simply telling the
States to do it? We want to know not just whether this expense will
bring any health benefits, but also whether it will create serious
unfunded mandates problems. I would ask the chairman if he would join
me in requesting that the EPA send the appropriate committees of
Congress, within 90 days, a description of the monitoring program they
will be implementing and to what extent EPA will fund the cost of that
program, and whether they intend to ask for additional funding in
fiscal year 1998.
Mr. BOND. Yes; the agency has informed me that it will be using the
1997 appropriation for both increased health effects research and, in
addition, more than $2 million will be for initiating an emissions
monitoring program. In addition, it is my understanding EPA will be
requesting additional funds for monitoring in its fiscal year 1998
budget submission. It is my expectation that the agency will request
the funds necessary to establish a thorough and scientifically
defensible monitoring program. I concur that EPA should send us a
description of their proposed comprehensive monitoring program and a
budget proposal.
I thank my colleagues, and I agree with my colleagues that EPA should
seriously consider a no change option as part of its proposed decision
due by November 29. However, I would add that in view of the potential
for harm to the public from particulates, a prudent option for the
November deadline would be to reaffirm the current ambient air
standard--and thus not disrupt ongoing programs--while moving
expeditiously to implement a sound research agenda upon which to base
future decisions.
Mr. President, I am also concerned that EPA must pay closer attention
to the potential adverse impacts of changes to the particulates
standard on small businesses. I am aware that EPA is taking the
position that changes to the particulates standard do not impact small
business in terms of implicating the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
because the EPA's standards do not create burdens on small business, it
is the State implementation plan. As a primary author of the 1996
amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I strongly disagree with
the agency's interpretation, and believe that EPA agency should fully
comply with the requirements imposed on Federal agencies by that act.
nasa work force restructuring report
Mr. GLENN. I would like to discuss an important issue with the
distinguished Chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee regarding
NASA's civil servant work force and their collective future. Last month
the General Accounting Office [GAO] provided me with an assessment of
NASA's efforts and plans to decrease its staffing levels. As ranking
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over the
Federal civil service laws, I was keenly interested in learning how
NASA was meeting its aggressive work force restructuring goals.
As my friends know, in the early 1990's, NASA was projecting its
civil service work force to be about 25,500; however, budget levels
have drastically changed that projection. Currently NASA's work force
stands at about 21,500, and plans to reduce it to 17,500 by fiscal year
2000. The GAO report, entitled ``NASA Personnel: Challenges to
Achieving Workforce Reductions,'' discusses various steps NASA has
taken to reduce its work force to current levels. The GAO report
suggests that NASA should provide to Congress a work force
restructuring plan which lays out in detail how NASA intends to meet
its work force goals. I would note that I have heard from employees at
NASA's Lewis Research Center outside the Cleveland who are very
concerned about their future, and the future of NASA-Lewis. I will
continue to do everything I can to make sure that Lewis remains a top
flight research facility.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The subcommittee is deeply concerned about the
timetable and process which NASA intends to follow to achieve its
stated goal of reducing the NASA work force from the current level to
17,500 by the year 2000. Notwithstanding its civil service goals, the
subcommittee believes that NASA should maintain the institutional
capability to accomplish our national aerospace objectives.
In part due to the severe budget constraints the agency faces,
various NASA initiatives have called for the following: One, shifting
program management from headquarters to field centers; two,
transitioning to a single prime contractor for space flight operations;
and three, privatization initiatives such as the science institute
concept. It is unclear how each of these proposals will contribute to
the future FTE goals.
Many employees at Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's Wallops island
facility and headquarters are my constituents, and have expressed
concerns similar to those my friend from Ohio has heard from NASA
Lewis. I will stand sentry to ensure that as many jobs as possible are
protected. I have asked NASA headquarters to explain why their current
approach is necessary.
Mr. BOND. I would add my recommendation that NASA develop a work
force restructuring plan to be submitted with the agency's fiscal year
1998 budget. This document should provide NASA's current plan for
reaching the fiscal year 2000 FTE figure. In developing this plan, the
Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of Labor, appropriate
representatives of local and national collective bargaining units of
individuals employed at NASA, appropriate representatives of agencies
of State and local government, appropriate representatives of State and
local institutions of higher education, and appropriate representatives
of community groups affected by the restructuring plan.
Mr. GLENN. I strongly support that such a plan be submitted to the
Congress. Further, I believe that for NASA headquarters and each field
center, the plan should clearly establish the annual FTE targets by job
description. The plan should also discuss what process and any
assistance that will be provided to those employees whose jobs will be
eliminated or transferred. To the extent possible the plan should be
developed so as to minimize social and economic impact.
I would note that the Department of Energy has a legislative mandate
to prepare a work force restructuring plan prior to any significant
change in the work force at any of DOE's facilities. I was a primary
author of this legislative provision--Public Law 102-484, section 3161.
I believe that NASA should take a careful look at how DOE has developed
their work force restructuring plans as it prepares the plan which we
are requesting.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator from Ohio. In addition, the
President has indicated the need for a national space summit to
elucidate our national space goals. I have been calling for such a
summit for several months, and am pleased to see the President take
this necessary step. Clearly the results of the space summit should
also be incorporated into this work force restructuring plan.
Mr. GLENN. I thank my friend from Missouri and my friend from
Maryland for their courtesy, and I would strongly encourage them to
adopt language in the statement of the conference managers which would
implement the work force restructuring plan we have discussed today.
Mr. BOND. The subcommittee will seriously consider the Senator's
suggestion, and will work to implement it during the conference on our
bill.
Improvement and Reform of the Federal Aboveground Storage Tank Program
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as the Senate considers fiscal year 1997
appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, it is only
fitting that we highlight the need for reform in the manner in which
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regulates aboveground
[[Page S9831]]
petroleum storage tanks [AST's]. Under current Federal law, no less
than five Federal offices are tasked with jurisdiction over these
tanks. The myriad of Federal and State statutes coupled with the number
of Federal offices administering the various regulations results in a
situation which is at best confusing for aboveground storage tank
owners, costly to taxpayers, and harmful to the environment.
Twice, once in 1989 and again in 1995, GAO has issued reports which
detail how EPA should strengthen its program to improve the safety of
aboveground oil storage tanks. While it is true that EPA has taken
steps to implement some of the recommendations, EPA has yet to take
substantive action on many others.
Ms. MIKULSKI. We are certainly committed to protecting and improving
our environment. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator for
highlighting this issue. I know that his State experienced a serious
leak at an aboveground storage tank farm in Fairfax County, VA. I am
interested in knowing how serious is the problem nationwide?
Mr. ROBB. In addition to the confusion created by the patchwork of
laws regulating these aboveground petroleum tanks, a far graver problem
exists with respect to the frequency with which these tanks and their
pipes are currently leaking, releasing petroleum into the environment.
Two GAO studies, one in 1989 and the other in 1995, found a significant
number of tanks were leaking between 43 and 54 million gallons of oil
per year.
More recently, there have been countless news reports on tank
releases, leaks, failures and fires. Unfortunately, current Federal law
only requires tank owners to report releases that contaminate surface
water. There is no similar reporting requirement for underground leaks,
and EPA does not have the authority to respond to leaks that
contaminate ground water. Just last month, lightening struck an AST at
a Shell gasoline facility in Woodbridge, NJ, igniting a fire that
seriously injured 2 people and forced the evacuation of 200 nearby
residents.
Although this fire was started by an act of nature, it's instructive
because it highlights the serious dangers associated with AST fires,
which pose complex challenges to firefighters, jeopardize nearby
communities, and threaten ground water contamination. From Anchorage,
AK, to the Everglades in Florida, damage from leaking tanks has been
incurred, and some areas permanently spoiled from millions of gallons
of leaked oil. This problem poses a critical threat to our country's
ground, surface, and drinking water. With approximately half a million
above-ground storage tanks located throughout this Nation, this is
simply a matter we cannot continue to ignore. The tank fire in New
Jersey serves to further demonstrate the need for improvement of AST
safety and operation. The future safety of our families and homes
depends upon meaningful reform in this area.
I think my colleague from South Dakota can also shed some light on
this problem. Mr. President, would the Democratic leader please share
his State's experience with an AST release that occurred 6 years ago in
Sioux Falls.
Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly, but first I want to take a moment to thank
the Senator from Virginia for his long-standing dedication and
leadership on this issue. We have worked together on AST legislation
since the 102d Congress, and again I appreciate this opportunity to
work with him.
Senator Mikulski may remember that 6 years ago Sioux Falls suffered
an AST leak of great magnitude. I can tell my colleague from personal
observation that the environmental and public health effects of the
spill were devastating, not to mention the costly cleanup expenses
incurred. We now have the means to prevent similar incidents in my
State and throughout the Nation.
My colleague from Virginia indicated the two GAO reports confirm that
AST leakage is a prevalent problem across the country.
Mr. ROBB. I want to add that the underground storage tank program at
EPA has enjoyed a wide measure of success. It is both comprehensive and
understandable. Certainly, the regulation of above-ground petroleum
tanks warrants similar consideration. Also, EPA has established an
effective response program to surface water oil-spills. EPA should now
place a focus on improving the safety of AST operations and on leaks to
ground water. This could only bolster EPA's spill prevention and
response program.
Ms. MIKULSKI. In the opinion of the Senator, what would be the most
effective means of addressing the issue?
Mr. ROBB. First, a commonsense approach is necessary. We can improve
the Federal program so that it complements industry's efforts to
improve voluntary AST standards. Some say that industry and
environmental groups cannot work together to improve the environment. I
simply do not believe this has to be the case.
In January, Senator Daschle, Senator Simpson, and I introduced a bill
on AST's that is the product of a coalition of several industry and
environmental groups. Our bill seeks not only to improve the
environment with respect to above-ground tanks, but also seeks to
reduce the regulatory requirements on industry.
We need Federal legislation to improve and reform the Federal program
regulating AST's. This will provide more clear, concise guidelines to
tank owners and operators, and enable EPA to deal swiftly and
effectively with threats to human health and the environment.
Specifically, the bill would require EPA to consolidate its
aboveground storage tank offices into one office on storage tanks. In
conjunction with this restructuring, the bill requires EPA to work with
the Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration to streamline and simplify the current regulatory
structure affecting aboveground petroleum storage tanks and their
owners.
To improve the safety of large AST's that store oil, the bill also
requires EPA to review current regulations to determine if gaps may
exist, specifically with reference to secondary containment, overfill
prevention, testing, inspection, compatibility, installation, corrosion
protection, and structural integrity of these large petroleum tanks.
Where current industry standards do not address those deficiencies
identified, the EPA would be responsible for promulgating rules in the
most cost-effective manner to alleviate those gaps.
Lastly, the bill would impose new reporting requirements for
petroleum leaks so that EPA will know when they occur underground. EPA
should not have to wait until leaks are too large to ignore or until
they have contaminated an important ground water source.
I believe EPA has worked hard to implement a strong AST program. But
I also know that more could be done. It is my hope that our bill will
not only compliment EPA's efforts, but also allow EPA to place a higher
priority on this issue.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would also like to emphasize one final point about our
AST bill. We are more than aware of the frustration felt by many over
the development and enforcement of Federal regulations and the lack of
sensitivity exhibited by Federal agencies, particularly in regard to
environmental statutes.
The bill does not exacerbate this problem. Rather, Senator Robb,
Senator Simpson, and I have worked together to ensure that our bill
creates workable and streamlined regulations to ensure proper
precautions are taken to prevent AST leakage and spills. This bill's
simplicity is its elegance. I thank the Senator for her attention to
this matter.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleagues for bringing this important issue
to the Senate's attention. I look forward to working with them to help
reach some meaningful resolution to the problem at hand.
Mr. ROBB. I want to thank our distinguished ranking member for the
opportunity to highlight the need for this type of reform and also look
forward to working with her in the future.
NCAR
Mrs. BOXER. As the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee
is aware, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, is in
the process of procuring a supercomputer to conduct complex weather
simulation analyses. NCAR is a major grantee of the National Science
Foundation, NSF.
[[Page S9832]]
NCAR published a request for proposals to provide the most capable
supercomputer for a fixed price of $35 million. Three companies made
proposals--Fujitsu, NEC, and Cray Research.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the proposed procurement. NCAR initially
selected NEC, but NSF announced last week that it is halting action on
the proposed procurement until the completion of an investigation into
illegal dumping.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very concerned by the possibility of dumping in this
case. An internal analysis conducted by Cray Research estimated that
NEC's costs exceed its sales price to NCAR by over 400 percent.
According to Cray's analysis, NEC proposed selling a supercomputer
fairly valued at almost $100 million for only $35 million.
The day after the selection of NEC was announced, Paul Joffe, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce for Import
Administration, advised Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science
Foundation, of the strong possibility of dumping in this case. In the
letter, Secretary Joffe states:
Using standard methodology prescribed by the antidumping
law, we estimate that the cost of production of one of the
foreign bidders is substantially greater than the funding
levels projected by NCAR's request for proposals. In
antidumping law terms, this means that the ``dumping
margin,'' that is, the amount by which the fair value of the
merchandise to be supplied exceeds the export price, is
likely to be very high.
Mr. KOHL. On July 29, Cray Research filed a formal petition for
investigation with the Department of Commerce and the International
Trade Commission. Under the antidumping law, the Department of Commerce
was required to decide whether or not to initiate a formal
investigation within 20 days. The ITC has 45 days to reach a
preliminary determination.
Mr. FEINGOLD. On August 19, the Department of Commerce announced that
it would initiate a formal antidumping investigation. The following
day, Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation
announced that the NSF was halting action on the supercomputer
procurement. Dr. Lane said in a written statement, ``It would be
inappropriate for NSF to approve this procurement until the dumping
issue has been resolved.'' I would ask the distinguished ranking member
of the subcommittee if she agrees with Dr. Lane's view.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I do agree. I especially agree with Dr. Lane's
statement that ``Acting now on this procurement would be inconsistent
with the responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.'' It is critical,
both from an economic and national security perspective, that the
United States maintain its leading role in supercomputing technology.
Because the supercomputer industry survives on relatively few sales,
each procurement project plays an important role in maintaining the
supercomputer industrial and technology base. I therefore strongly
concur with the NSF's recent action.
Mr. KOHL. The committee report, which was filed on July 17, notes
that no official determination of dumping, preliminary or otherwise,
has been made in this case. Would the Senator agree that this statement
is no longer accurate?
Ms. MIKULSKI. The decision by the Department of Commerce to initiate
a formal investigation is an official determination that illegal
dumping may have occurred. Furthermore, the letter written earlier by
Secretary Joffe strongly suggests the possibility of dumping.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished ranking member for sharing her
views on this important subject. I know that she shares my view that
the NSF is a very important agency and that this procurement is very
important both for NCAR and the U.S. supercomputer industry.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I will continue to monitor this situation and will do
all I can to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly by the NSF
and its grantees.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the
statement by NSF Director Neal Lane and the letter to Dr. Lane from
Secretary Paul Joffe be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science Foundation, on
Supercomputer Acquisition
The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced that it is
initiating an investigation to determine whether Japanese
vector supercomputers were being dumped in the United States
and whether these imports were injuring the U.S. industry.
The investigation includes a bid submitted in a supercomputer
procurement being conducted by the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR)--an awardee of the National
Science Foundation. In my view, it would be inappropriate for
NSF to approve this procurement until the dumping issue has
been resolved.
In light of the numerous questions raised about and
interest expressed in this procurement, I am pleased that the
issue of dumping is being properly addressed by the
appropriate federal agencies. The Department of Commerce and
the International Trade Commission have the statutory
authority, the expertise, and the established procedures to
determine whether this offer is being made at less than fair
value, and whether it would be injurious to America industry.
I am acutely aware that the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR), which is operated by UCAR, needs state-of-
the-art computational equipment to maintain U.S. world
leadership in climate modeling research. I feel, however,
that acting now on this procurement would be inconsistent
with the responsible stewardship of taxpayer monies.
I hope the investigations will proceed expeditiously and
bring a prompt resolution to this matter.
____
U.S. Department of Commerce,
International Trade Administration,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1996.
Dr. Neal Lane,
Director, National Science Foundation,
Arlington, VA.
Dear Dr. Lane: The Department of Commerce is responsible
for administering the U.S. antidumping law, which guards
against unfair international pricing practices that harm U.S.
industries. Injurious dumping, which is condemned by the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can have serious
adverse consequences for domestic producers and future
consumers.
As you requested, we have examined the proposed procurement
of a supercomputer system by the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is funded in part by the
National Science Foundation and other federal agencies
through the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research,
to determine if it involves dumping. We have evaluated the
NCAR procurement, and have information that we believe is
relevant.
Using standard methodology prescribed by the antidumping
law, we estimate that the cost of production of one of the
foreign bidders is substantially greater than the funding
levels projected by NCAR's request for proposals. In
antidumping law terms, this means that the ``dumping
margin,'' that is, the amount by which the fair value of the
merchandise to be supplied exceeds the export price, is
likely to be very high.
We have significant concerns that importation of the NCAR
supercomputer system would threaten the U.S. supercomputer
industry with material injury within the meaning of the
antidumping law, because the imports are likely to have a
significant suppressing or depressing effect on domestic
prices and because these imports could have a serious adverse
impact on the domestic industry's efforts to develop a more
advanced version of the supercomputer system to be supplied.
Antidumping investigations can be initiated either at the
request of the domestic industry or on the initiative of the
Department of Commerce. If the Department finds dumping
margins and the U.S. International Trade Commission finds
injury, the Department will issue an antidumping order and
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to collect from the
importer of the dumped merchandise an antidumping duty in the
amount of the dumping margin.
Please let us know if we may answer any questions you may
have. I may be reached at (202) 482-1780.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration.
lihprha funding
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate adopted an amendment to H.R.
3666, which was included in a package of managers' amendments, and
which originally was offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kerry], myself, and others. This amendment will restore some certainty
to the Senate's appropriation for assistance under the Low Income
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act, or LIHPRHA. I
appreciate the managers accepting this amendment.
Senators Moseley-Braun, Kemp- thorne, Kerry, and I had written
Chairman Bond earlier to express our support for appropriating at least
$500 million for LIHPRHA this year, and to note that, within a tight
and fiscally
[[Page S9833]]
responsible budget, this program remains a reasonable priority.
Mr. President, as always, I want to reiterate my commitment to
balancing the Federal budget and keeping it balanced. Balancing the
budget is all about setting priorities. This Congress, the bravest in
40 years, has passed balanced budgets and I have supported them. I have
no trouble finding room within those budgets for reasonable
appropriations for LIHPRHA.
I have spoken with Idahoans--tenants and owners alike--who have
turned to LIHPRHA as a cost-effective way to maintain private ownership
of low-income housing, to preserve that housing stock, and to keep it
in good repair. Just last month, such a transfer was concluded in
Moscow, ID, involving a seller and buyer who care about tenants of
modest means and wanted to see their affordable housing maintained.
The VA-HUD appropriations bill, as reported, had stated its hope and
intent that $500 million is available for LIHPRHA in fiscal year 1997.
But, because $150 million of that appropriation would have been
conditioned on recapturing interest savings when some owners sell what
we call section 236 projects and pre-pay their mortgages, the timing of
that funding stream would have been highly uncertain.
Such uncertainty would hamper effective decisionmaking in HUD's
regional offices and would discourage the very buyers and sellers who
want to keep low-income housing available to those who need it. This
preservation has noble, beneficial goals. But the current process
already takes too long and involves too much redtape. We don't need to
make things worse by making the timing its funding still more
unpredictable.
Also, it would have mixed apples and oranges to rely on money
generated when housing loses its status as low-income housing to pay
for a program intended to preserve low-income housing.
Our amendment offers the best of both worlds. The funding stream for
LIHPRHA would be more certain. Any unexpected surplus section 236
savings would go to deficit reduction. This creates a win-win
situation.
Our amendment is budget-neutral because LIHPRHA simply would be de-
coupled from the section 236 recaptured interest savings. These savings
would continue, as they do under current law, to go into the Treasury,
instead of being made directly available to LIHPRHA. This makes more
sense.
Chairman Bond and I have visited about this program last year and I
appreciate his continued willingness to support this program. I know
the committee has been looking for the best means of continuing the
program. I hope and believe that our amendment has been helpful to the
chairman and the committee in this regard.
Once this bill goes to conference, I urge the committee to do
everything possible to safeguard LIHPRHA funding. It is my hope that,
if possible, the conference committee on this bill could provide more
for this program.
The $500 million in this bill represents a 20 percent cut from fiscal
year 1996 dollars. Even at this level, there is much more low-income
housing ready for sale that can be accommodated by fiscal year 1997
appropriations for preservation. These are projects for which most of
the work on the part of the sellers and buyers has been completed, and
for which HUD has approved plans of action. Obviously, some sellers
will not be able to postpone selling until fiscal year 1998--if there
are appropriations then--and will have to sell sooner, without the
guarantee of preserving the low-income status of the housing.
I understand there are concerns that the results of this program may
not be as favorable and economical in every case as has been our
experience in Idaho. Some reforms can and should be made that would
make the program more cost-effective. Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry
are both members of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee,
and I look forward to their leadership in this area.
I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this amendment, I commend
Chairman Bond for his helpfulness in this process, and I thank the
managers and the Senate for accepting our amendment.
The President's Executive Order to bring Federal surplus computer
equipment to public schools
Mr. LEAHY. Earlier this year President Clinton signed Executive Order
1299 to aid in the process of transferring Federal surplus computer
equipment to our public schools. This is equipment that in the past has
sat on palettes in Federal warehouses gathering dust and becoming
obsolete while schools all around the country try to scrape together
the funds to buy computer technology equipment for their students.
I applaud the administration's effort to put this unused equipment to
work in our classrooms. To help support that initiative I offered an
amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government
appropriations bill with Senator Murray which reiterates the importance
of this initiative and urges Federal Agencies to work with the Federal
Executive Boards to implement it. I also strongly supported Senator
Murray's language in the legislative branch appropriations bill
bringing the Senate into compliance with the Executive order. We in
Congress should be leading the effort to bring computer technology to
our public schools.
Making unused computer equipment available to schools is too
important to let fall between the cracks of the many bureaucracies
involved in this initiative. A report to Congress at the end of the
year is needed to ensure that the Executive order is carried out and to
monitor its progress in bringing Federal surplus computers to our
educators. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has been deeply
involved in coordinating the implementation of the Executive order. I
believe that the office is the appropriate one to carry out such a
report.
I have written to John Gibbons, Director of OSTP requesting that his
office provide such a report to Congress by January 30, 1997. He
responded by concurring that such a report is needed and offering the
services of his office to carry it out within available resources. I
ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 31, 1996.
Mr. John H. Gibbons,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Old
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Gibbons: I would like to congratulate you on the
work your office has done to implement the President's
Executive order to bring Federal surplus computer equipment
to schools. This initiative is sorely needed to transfer
serviceable computer equipment no longer needed by Federal
Agencies to our public schools where the need for this
technology is great.
Senator Murray and I offered an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 1997 Appropriations report for Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government which reinforces the importance of the
Executive Order and urges governmentwide cooperation in
speeding its implementation. I also strongly supported
Senator Murray's language in the Legislative Appropriations
bill bringing the United States Senate into compliance with
the Executive Order. Congress should be leading the charge to
bring surplus and excess computer equipment to our schools--
Senator Murray's language will put the Senate in the race.
For your information, I have included a copy of the report
language in the Treasury and Legislative Appropriation bills.
I believe that the steps Federal Agencies are taking to
conform with the Executive Order will be effective in
bringing more surplus equipment to schools at less cost to
the government and the schools themselves. A timely analysis
of the progress that has been made and the problems
Departments and the Federal Executive Boards may have run
into would be very helpful in evaluating the success of the
initiative. Because of the central role your office has
played in this important effort to bring computers to
schools, I think the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) is the most appropriate body to carry out such an
evaluation.
Specifically, I request that OSTP report to Congress by
January 30, 1997 on the implementation of the Federal
Executive Order. This report should include information on
the progress of Federal Agencies and Congress in making
surplus computer equipment available to schools, and on the
effectiveness of the Federal Executive Boards in channeling
this equipment through the regions.
I look forward to working with your office to make sure
that unused Federal computer equipment is made available to
schools around the country. If you have any questions about
the requested report please contact Amy Rainone in my office
at 224-4242.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senator.
____
[[Page S9834]]
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy,
Washington, DC, August 1, 1996.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: As you know the President has worked
hard to ensure that education technology is used effectively
to prepare our children for the 21st century. I want to thank
you for the leadership you have provided in helping America's
schools make effective use of new technology. Your leadership
in the Senate Education Technology Working group is very much
appreciated.
I strongly concur with your recommendation that a study be
conducted to determine how effectively the executive order to
improve the transfer of excess federal computer equipment to
schools and nonprofit organizations is being implemented.
Within the limits of OSTP's resources, we will survey the way
federal agencies are responding to the order and provide an
estimate of the kinds of equipment that is being made
available to schools. The study will be provided to the
Congress by January 30, 1997 together with recommendations
about any administrative or legislative actions that may be
needed to improve the operation of the federal program and
advice about the need for further reviews and oversight.
Sincerely,
John H. Gibbons,
Director.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maryland support the
use of OSTP funds to cover the expenses of preparing this important
report for Congress?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that this is an important initiative and one
which Congress should support. Maryland schools are also trying very
hard to ramp up to the information highway by providing Internet links
and computer technology for students. I do think that producing such a
report is an appropriate use of the funds provided in this bill and I
join the Senator in urging OSTP to carry out the report by January 30,
1997.
Corporation for National Service, AmeriCorps USA
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Senate's
appropriation for the Corporation for National Service. In particular,
I want to talk about the appropriation for AmeriCorps. The program is
not yet out of the woods. Though the program may be funded, the Senate
should do so only with continued and close scrutiny.
I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the President's
AmeriCorps Program. It has begun reform, but still needs more time to
succeed. AmeriCorps has former Senator Harris Wofford as its new chief
executive officer. He has approached me for assistance in helping the
program to succeed.
Senator Wofford has assured me that he is attempting to reform the
program. I think that the program deserves that chance. It is a high
priority for the President, and I believe that a President should have
the benefit of the doubt on his highest priorities. However, this
program still needs to meet the tough standards that the President set.
Frankly, AmeriCorps has not yet met those standards.
I want to praise the appropriators. In their subcommittee, Senators
Bond and Mikulski have funded the National Service Corporation for
fiscal 1997 at last year's levels. Because of my involvement, I am
particularly proud of one new initiative to be funded in the AmeriCorps
Program.
Awards for Education Only
I want to draw attention to this new cost saving initiative that I
helped to develop. Of the entire appropriation for the National Service
Trust, $9.5 million will be set aside to award true education
scholarships for service. AmeriCorps has announced that it is awarding
the first of 2,000 separate volunteers with scholarships, and only
scholarships.
In other words, for volunteerism there shall be a reward of
education. Gone will be the living allowances, recruitment costs, and
much of the administrative overhead. These education-only awards will
help true students go to college. The taxpayers will be rewarded with a
greater value for their dollar. I believe that this pilot project may
become so successful that it could become the future of AmeriCorps.
Matching Requirements
Senator Wofford has told me he has increased the program matching
requirement for all grantees. This requirement was 25 percent and has
become 33 percent. This means that 67 percent of the program subsidy
for AmeriCorps volunteers should come directly from the Federal
taxpayer. This might seem attractive to some, but I have reservations.
I am reserved because, if there is an immediate problem with this
target, then the problem could be in the sources of the 33 percent
matching funds. It seems that a sizable portion of these matching funds
will come from coffers of State governments. Because State taxpayers
are also Federal taxpayers, I think that the State taxpayers reasonably
expect that we in the Federal Government will do careful oversight of
their tax dollars. That is why I hope that AmeriCorps will quantify and
reach an acceptable goal for true private sector contributions. I
emphasize the words private sector, and I hope that AmeriCorps will
adopt a similar emphasis.
A New GAO Study
In its brief history, AmeriCorps has developed an infamous past. The
inspector general of the Corporation for National Service attempted to
audit the AmeriCorps' books and determined that the books were
unauditable. There has been a lack of financial controls. It seems that
some people who were in charge of writing checks were also in charge of
accounting for receipts.
Last year, the General Accounting Office found that the AmeriCorps
cost per participant was $27,000 instead of the $18,000 promised by the
President.
This year, Senator Bond and I have asked the General Accounting
Office to conduct another study. The GAO will go out to study the
AmeriCorps programs at the State level.
The GAO will audit matching funds gathered by the State programs. The
GAO will also look into the feasibility of giving more responsibility
to the State commissions under the AmeriCorps Program. Greater autonomy
for the State programs is a criterion that was reached in my agreement
with Senator Wofford.
The President's New AmeriCorps Initiative, Read America
Mr. President, before I conclude, I want to briefly discuss something
regarding AmeriCorps that the President mentioned at his political
convention. He mentioned that he would like to employ AmeriCorps
subsidized workers to help teach some children to read. Although
teaching children to read is a worthy cause, I will say two things
about using AmeriCorps to do it.
First, as far as I am concerned, AmeriCorps is still on probation
until it solves all of its current and continuing troubles. I question
the wisdom of sending more money and increased responsibility to
AmeriCorps until it has proven to the taxpayers that it is out of the
woods.
The President has called for a massive increase in a program that has
only had trouble. That plays into the claims of many that the President
has no real interest in seeing AmeriCorps succeed. To them it shows
that the President is only interested in seeing it used for campaign
promises and political commercials.
Second, I think that if the President wants to help kids to learn to
read, then he should allow parents to help their own kids to learn to
read. He could do this by delivering on the middle class-tax cut that
he promised. With fewer taxes, maybe both parents in a family will not
have to work full time as they currently do. I think that many parents
would enjoy teaching their own children to read if they only had the
time. In short, families do not need more government spending, they
need less government spending and fewer taxes.
Mr. President, AmeriCorps has reported that it is attempting to mend
its programs. I think that the program deserves that chance. I
conservatively support this appropriation with the reservations that I
have spoken of.
safe drinking water revolving loan fund
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of this
bill, Senators Bond and Mikulski, for providing the first-time
capitalization grant for the long awaited safe drinking water revolving
loan fund. The much needed $725 million for the recently established
drinking water loan fund will provide assistance to those drinking
water suppliers who are trying to comply with the Federal law.
There are so many communities, especially small communities, that
need
[[Page S9835]]
the funding and have been counting on Congress to act. Small
communities lack the economies of scale to spread the cost of
compliance among their customers, even though they have to comply with
the same regulations as large systems. The bill signed into law last
month recognizes these differences by, among other things, providing a
funding source.
I appreciate the manager's recognition of this need and look forward
to working with them in the future to ensure that this new loan fund
meets the needs of the Nation's drinking water suppliers.
YOUTHBUILD BUILDS FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESS
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank and congratulate my
colleagues on the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their wisdom in
providing $40 million for the Youthbuild program for fiscal year 1997.
This amount is the same approved by the Senate last year for the
current fiscal year, which was cut in half in negotiations with the
House.
The Youthbuild Program gives young adults in our inner cities a
chance. This program offers young adults ages 16 to 24 the opportunity
to rehabilitate housing for the homeless or low-income people while
attending academic and vocational training classes half time.
Participants typically alternate a week on a construction site with a
week in the Youthbuild classroom, where they work toward their GED's or
high school diplomas. Youthbuild programs usually run for 12 months,
after which graduates are placed in jobs or college. The programs are
able to provide another 12 months of followup to assist these graduates
to successfully complete their transitions from school to work.
The design of Youthbuild makes it unique among job training and
community development programs. Youthbuild places a major emphasis on
leadership development, with leadership defined as taking
responsibility to make things go right for yourself, your family, and
your community. Intensive counseling and a positive peer group provide
personal support and an affirmative set of values to assist young
people to make a dramatic change in their relationship to their
communities and their own families. Thus, through Youthbuild's
learning, construction, and personal components, students
simultaneously gain the educational skills, work training, and sense of
self they need to go on to productive, responsible futures.
In 1995 alone, Youthbuild programs helped more than 3,000 young
people to become positive leaders and peer models in their communities.
There are now 90 HUD-funded Youthbuild programs in operation in 38
States, and 56 organizations are planning to establish Youthbuild
programs in their own cities and rural communities. Over 540 community
organizations in 49 States and the District of Columbia applied to HUD
last year for Youthbuild funding.
Despite the program's success, fiscal 1996 funding for this program
was cut from $40 to $20 million at the behest of the House of
Representatives. The Senate bill had contained a $40 million earmark. A
return to the 1995 funding level is necessary if we are to maintain the
achievements and realize the promise of this valuable movement. This
program and the young people it serves--who also are the young people
who do much of its work--need our help. They are some of the best that
we have in this country and I am proud of their achievements and their
drive to help themselves and to help others around them. They are a
class act and the work they do is truly inspiring.
The $40 million for Youthbuild for fiscal year 1997 will allow
Youthbuild to enroll 2,000 more young people nationwide, directly
helping at-risk youth and furthering the development of affordable
housing for the communities in which they live. It will preserve the
infrastructure of local programs upon which we can then build and
expand while steadily leveraging increased local support. I want to
thank the 38 other Senators signing a letter to Senators Bond and
Mikulski requesting the $40 million figure and I urge my Senate
colleagues to insist on this amount in conference.
Mr. President, I would also like to offer my sincere congratulations
to Ms. Dorothy Stoneman, the founder and president of Youthbuild USA,
for her tireless and selfless contributions to the Youthbuild Program
and to youth across the United States. She was recently awarded the
prestigious MacArthur Foundation Award in recognition of her long fight
to uplift the lives of youths on the margins of poor communities. She
is a wonderful example of how individuals can really do good for others
in this world and I want to make known my great admiration and praise
for her efforts. This award is a testament to her hard work, and to the
youth that are making our cities and towns better places to live every
day. Her vision is inspiring and her enthusiasm contagious.
When people say that nothing works, when people say that poverty is
inevitable, and when people say that there is no way to change
injustice, Ms. Dorothy Stoneman is there to demonstrate that futility
is not inevitable. She is a real life hero and I would like to thank
her for her commitment to excellence. But what Dorothy Stoneman wants
more than anyone's words of praise is the ability to offer to more
young people Youthbuild's demonstrated ability to help young people
take responsibility for themselves and their communities--to rescue
down and out youths for lives of fulfillment and contribution. We help
our country when we help these young people via Youthbuild.
rouge river national wetweather demonstration project and the clinton
river watershed
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers have made
changes to the House-passed bill to allow the expenditure of $725
million in already appropriated funds for the new drinking water State
revolving fund in fiscal year 1996. I encourage the conferees to retain
this change so that money can flow to the States and local governments
as soon as possible.
As my colleagues may know, the Rouge River National Wetweather
Demonstration Project serves as a model for watershed-basin management,
but on a very large, very urban scale. It combines all the key
components affecting water quality in the Rouge watershed, which feeds
into the Detroit River and then into Lake Erie. Cleaning up the Rouge
River basin will have a beneficial effect on water quality from Detroit
to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River and beyond. The House bill
provides $20 million in fiscal year 1997 for this important project and
I strongly urge the managers and the conferees to maintain that amount,
if the final conference report includes project level recommendations.
Also, I would like to urge inclusion of approximately $500,000 for
the Clinton River watershed Council in the conference report. The
Clinton River Watershed feeds into Lake St. Clair, which experienced
severe pollution in the summer of 1994 that closed beaches and
threatened the local economy. Nutrient loadings, sewage overflows, and
zebra mussel infestation contributed to a very unpleasant, if not
public health-threatening situation. Clearly, something needs to be
done in this dynamic part of Michigan to ensure that growth is
sustainable. I encourage the managers and the conferees to include the
above requested funds so that an integrated and comprehensive watershed
management plan can be developed and executed. Some of the methods and
experiences of the Rouge watershed will be very useful in the Clinton
watershed.
I look forward to working with the conferees on these items.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that concludes the work on the VA-
HUD bill for the evening.
____________________