Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Objection.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have heard much discussion today about the cost of the space station. We have seen from independent analysis by leading scientists that there are truly significant scientific advances which can come from the International Space Station, and we noted it serves many other functions. As the international scientific endeavor is furthered, it offers practical applications in research and potentially commercial manufacturing and materials processing. This is a tremendous step forward. We have heard about the Chabrow report. In it the NASA advisory council says that the task force members, with considerable experience, found the program to be consistent with the level of funding and that they have endorsed it. We think that it is an important measure. We would urge when the vote occurs that Members oppose the amendment offered by Senator Bumpers.

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's strong interest in the Midwest Proton Radiation Institute. I believe this project will create economic growth in Indiana and contribute to improving our nation's cancer treatment activities. As we move to conference with the House on S. 2168, we will give this project every consideration for funding.

Mr. BOND. I understand the concern of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico in providing sufficient housing for the mentally ill. I know that here in the District of Columbia the supply of supportive housing is of ongoing concern. I would concur with my colleague with New Mexico that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should consider a proposal from Cornerstone, Inc., to continue constructing affordable housing for the seriously and chronically mentally ill in the District of Columbia.

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's attention to this issue. HUD has incorrectly interpreted the enhanced voucher language. Previously assisted residents who receive enhanced vouchers should be paying the same percentage of income for rent as they had before they had received the enhanced voucher. This means that if a resident's income decreases, their rental contribution should also decrease. The purpose of providing enhanced vouchers to previously assisted residents was to ensure that these residents would be protected from displacement or unaffordable rent increases. I would also like to state that I expect HUD to administer the enhanced voucher program in a manner that will ensure a smooth transition for residents in prepayment developments. I have heard of some administrative problems with the enhanced voucher program that has created undue and unnecessary hardship for the residents. I would like to reemphasize that the transition should be administered so that residents are able to continue their tenancy with as little disturbance as possible.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee for raising this issue. The Senator is correct that the Manager's Amendment contains language regarding the owner's right to prepay its mortgage and continues current housing policy that has been in effect for the past three years. This policy change was originally made in past appropriations legislation. Under the appropriations legislation and this year's legislation, the Congress restored the owner's right to prepay its mortgage under the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA). However, as a condition of prepayment, some resident protections were included in the appropriations law to prevent hardship for affected residents. Specifically, upon prepayment, an owner could not raise rents for 60 days and eligible residents were provided enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers so that they could choose to remain in their homes at an affordable rent. The provision of sticky vouchers were provided in lieu of the resident protections under LIHPRHA. In other words, the provision of sticky vouchers and the prevention of raising rents for 60 days permanently replaces the LIHPRHA resident protections that included (1) providing relocation benefits, (2) keeping rents at levels existing at the time of prepayment for three years, and (3) requiring owners to accept voucher holders.

Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Mack for raising these concerns. I completely agree that it is critical that the PAEs be in place by October if the program is to be able to operate at that time. I also add that the consequences of not implementing mark-to-market in a timely manner are serious and could create havoc with contract expirations and renewals. Even if the program is only delayed, HUD may have to extend the contracts at above market levels to provide the PAEs adequate time to restructure the properties. This will result in additional costs to the government and result in shortfalls in the appropriation for renewals. Further, the uncertainty surrounding the rules and regulations of the program will make it difficult for project owners and residents to prepare for mark-to-market. Mr. President, based on the Administration's less-than-adequate performance in selecting restructuring agents under the mark-to-market demonstration programs, I would say that the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee are valid.

Mr. BOND. Based on their demonstrated performance as the Senator from Florida has pointed out and my own knowledge of the Missouri Housing Finance Agency, I would also expect HUD to approve many HFAs as PAEs. I also agree that HUD should not require the HFAs that act as PAEs to go through any unnecessary administrative steps in restructuring properties. I would especially be concerned if HUD created impediments in the HFAs ability to provide financing, such as risk-sharing, for restructuring transactions. owners' right to prepay fha mortgages

Mr. BOND. I also thank my colleague from Iowa for raising this issue. I concur with the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee that the five percent waiver is a national limit. This provision was included in mark-to-market to ensure that properties, especially those that serve elderly persons in rural areas, are not adversely affected by the debt refinancing and rent reduction process.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I regret that the minority leader has chosen to add a totally new subject to this debate. I know there have been discussions at the leadership level about scheduling debate on it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, this amendment includes clarifying provisions which have been cleared on both sides and are without controversy. First, on behalf of Senator Shelby, the amendment would allow the transfer of land from the Department of Veterans Affairs--Tuscaloosa VA Hospital--to the University of Alabama to use for the Ridgecrest Children's Center. VA has no objection to this language, and it is in keeping with the conveyance of land from Tuscaloosa authorized in the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD bill. Second, the amendment makes a technical correction to a provision under the American Battle Monuments Commission. Third, the amendment clarifies that States, in administering their clean water State revolving fund program, may charge borrowers loan origination fees. This language has been reviewed and approved by both EPA and the authorizing committee. Fourth, the amendment would make a number of technical amendments to the mark-to-market legislation enacted as part of the VA-HUD fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act with the concurrence of the administration and the Senate Banking Committee. Fifth, on behalf of Senator Harkin, the amendment would require that EPA recognize the differences between the environmental effects caused by spills of animal fats and vegetable oils, as opposed to petroleum oil, and issue regulations to accomplish this commonsense differentiation. Finally, the amendment would clarify the owner's right to prepay under the Preservation Program, as requested by the administration and cleared by the Senate Banking Committee. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m., there will immediately be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the product liability bill. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will debate the motion to proceed until the policy luncheons at 12:30. Following the policy luncheons, it is expected that the Senate will resume consideration of the VA-HUD bill. It is our hope that Members will come to the floor during Tuesday's session to offer and debate amendments to the VA-HUD bill. The Senate may also consider the IRS reform conference report Tuesday night, hopefully, under a short time agreement, with a vote occurring on adoption of the conference report Wednesday morning. The majority leader would like to remind Members that July will be a very busy month with late-night sessions and votes. The cooperation of all Members will be necessary for the Senate to complete its work prior to the August recess.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) proposed two amendments to the bill (S. 2168) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes; as follows: Amendment No. 3056 On page 73, line 11, strike ``$231,000,000'' and insert ``$239,000,000, including $11,000,000 for assisting state and local governments in preparing for and responding to terrorist incidents''. On page 42, line 14, strike ``$1,000,826,000'' and insert ``992,826,000''.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that full floor privileges be granted to Carrie Apostolou, a member of the subcommittee staff, during the consideration of S. 2168, the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 1999 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill, S. 2168. This legislation provides a total of $69.986 billion in discretionary budget authority and $80.78 billion in outlays, and an additional $23 billion in mandatory spending for veterans programs. The Subcommittee allocation was about $750 million below the President's request in budget authority. In addition, there were some significant shortfalls in the President's budget in such areas as veterans medical care and elderly housing. In attempting to balance all the competing demands, we were forced to make a number of tough decisions. The committee did its best to provide the needed funding for the important priorities within the bill, with the highest priority given to veterans programs and elderly housing. Other priorities included maintaining environmental programs at or above current year levels, ensuring adequate funds for our nation's space and science programs, and providing adequate funding for disaster relief. The committee also met the commitment we made to provide the necessary funding to cover all expiring section 8 contracts. On balance, I believe the recommendation is fair and balanced. Not everyone is happy, but I believe it is equitable. Clearly, we were not able to provide fully what each member requested--and I should note that we received about 1,000 requests from Members of this body for items in this bill--but we attempted to meet the priorities. Before describing what is included in this legislation for each agency, I want to thank Chairman Stevens for all his support, and I particularly thank my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for all of her hard work and cooperation in putting this legislation together. This is always a difficult task, and it is made for easier and more efficient by the professional and wholehearted cooperation of Senator Mikulski and her staff--Andy Givens, David Bowers, and Bertha Lopez. I extend my thanks to them. Their contributions to this process have been invaluable. Mr. President, for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the committee recommendation totals $42.5 billion, including $19.2 billion in discretionary spending. This is an increase of $373 million above the President's request. The amount recommended includes $222 million more for medical care, $53 million more for the state home construction program to reduce the large backlog of priority projects, and $79 million in additional funds for other construction programs. The additional funds are intended to ensure VA medical care is the best possible quality, and that it is available to as many eligible veterans as possible. The funds are also intended to ensure VA facilities are adequately maintained, safe, and seismically secure, and that the final resting places for our fallen heroes are maintained in an appropriate and dignified manner. The recommendation also includes an increase of $10 million above the President's request for VA research, for a total of $310 million. This is a critical program, veterans research, in improving the quality of VA care, in furthering our understanding of such illnesses as gulf war syndrome, in developing prosthetic devices and other items which will improve the quality of life to veterans and others, and in seeking cures to diseases which veterans and the Nation at large face. The programs is also key in the recruitment and retention of top-notch medical staff at VA hospitals. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the committee recommendation totals $24.1 billion, an increase of $2.66 billion over the fiscal year 1998 level. This means we have been able to fund HUD programs fairly while meeting our commitment to provide the needed funding for all expiring section 8 contracts and by more than fully funding the section 202 elderly housing program at $676 million, an increase of $31 million over the fiscal year 1998 level and an increase of $576 million over the President's request of $109 million. I emphasize that the section 202 Elderly Housing Program is the most important housing program for elderly, low-income Americans, providing both affordable, low-income housing and supportive services designed to meet the special needs of the elderly. This combination of supportive services and affordable housing is critical to promoting independent living, self-sufficiency, and dignity while delaying the more costly alternative of institutional care. Section 202 elderly housing is more than just housing--it is a safety net for the elderly, providing both emotional and physical security and a sense of community. I am very disappointed and puzzled by the administration's failure to propose the needed funding for the section 202 program. Moreover, at the direction of the Senate and House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittees, GAO conducted a very thorough budget investigation of the HUD section 8 accounts. Based on the GAO budget scrub and after discussions with HUD, we discovered that the administration's request for $1.3 billion in section 8 amendment funding is unnecessary for fiscal year 1999 and that a further $1.4 billion in section 8 project-based recaptures may be considered excess funding, which means we are actually above the President's request for HUD. These additional funds have provided us with needed flexibility to fund HUD programs as well as to fund other priorities throughout this bill. As a result, the committee has provided additional funding for HUD programs such as the HOME program, CDBG, Youthbuild, the HOPE VI program, and the Homeless Assistance Grants program. I think these all are needed additions that were made available as a result of this review by GAO and work with HUD. Nevertheless, HUD continues to be a troubled agency with GAO designating the entire agency as ``high-risk.'' In fact, HUD is the only agency ever to have received a ``high-risk'' designation agency- wide. Now, Secretary Cuomo has begun implementing the HUD 2020 management reform plan as his first step to agency reform and downsizing. Many of our future funding recommendations will depend on the success of this plan and I want to state my support of the Secretary in his efforts to reform the Department. Nevertheless, we expect to see tangible and quantifiable results. We need to know that HUD programs work, that HUD staff are capable of effectively administering HUD programs, and that there is accountability within HUD programs. Further, we also do not look to fund new HUD programs and initiatives until HUD can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Congress its ability to administer effectively its primary programs. I want to make it very clear that self-serving press releases by HUD that announce success carry little weight. I am from Missouri and I want to be shown. Finally, for the first time in a number of years, this bill would provide modest increases in the FHA mortgage insurance limits, raising the floor from 38 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, or some $86,000, to 48 percent of the conforming loan limit, or some $109,000, and establishing a new ceiling for high-cost areas from the existing 75 percent of the conforming loan limit, or some $170,000, to 87 percent of the conforming loan limit, or some $197,000. I know for some that this is considered controversial, but we have tried to strike a reasonable balance and I believe that the new limit is needed especially in non-urban areas where the price of new housing has escalated beyond the capacity of first-time homebuyers to use FHA mortgage insurance to buy a house. In my own state I have seen many areas where, because of the FHA lower limits, financing is not available for construction of first homes for families of workers with lower wages. Nevertheless, I remain concerned about HUD'S capacity to manage the FHA mortgage insurance programs and will be looking for additional ways to ensure the solvency of the mutual mortgage insurance fund. For EPA, the bill includes $7.4 billion. This is about $50 million more that the fiscal year 1998 level. The bill maintains level funding or provides some increases to all EPA programs, reflecting the priority we have placed on environmental protection activities. Included in the recommendation is $350 million more than the President requested for state revolving funds, which he had proposed to cut by $275 million. The SRFs help to meet a need in excess of $200 billion nationally for water infrastructure financing. Cleaning up waste water and assuring safe drinking water should be at the top of our environmental priority list. The committee has provided 80 percent of the administration's request for the clean water action plan, including $180 million for nonpoint source grants and $106 million for water quality grants. The committee's action recognizes the importance of addressing polluted runoff and seeks to ensure that our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams are protected from polluted runoff, and are clean for recreation and for wildlife. These funds gives the states the tools they need to improve the quality of our Nation's water. I promised Administrator Browner I would try to find more funds for this critical program, and I have. The bill includes level funding for Superfund. Given the myriad problems with this program, coupled with the lack of a reauthorization bill, an increase simply was not warranted. I remind my colleagues, with respect to the fiscal year 1999 advance that was provided in last year's bill for Superfund, those funds were to be made available only if the program was reauthorized. We had a deal with the administration on this, and unfortunately the administration conveniently seems to have forgotten this deal. Further, the program continues to be listed by GAO as high risk, subject to fraud, waste and abuse. Such abuse recently was demonstrated in an IG report which found that Superfund was being used to rebuild homes at several times their market value. Finally, experts agree that funds invested in Superfund yield less reduction in risk to human health and the environment compared to other EPA programs. Our recommendation totals $13.6 billion for NASA, an increase of $150 million above the request to ensure adequate funds for space station and other critical NASA programs. It also includes a restructuring of the NASA appropriation accounts to improve fiscal accountability. In particular, we have included a new account for the International Space Station to ensure that Congress and this subcommittee gets honest figures for the ISS from the administration While I strongly support the ISS and the many important programs administered by NASA, the long history of space station overruns reached a new and unprecedented level with the recent release of the report by the independent cost assessment and validation team headed by Jay Chabrow. The Chabrow report estimates that the ISS will cost some $24.7 billion instead of $17.4 billion and will take up to 38 months longer to build than NASA's current estimates. For NSF, the recommendation includes $3.6 billion, an increase of about $220 million above the 1998 level. NSF is an investment in the future and this additional funding is intended to reaffirm the strong and longstanding support of this subcommittee to scientific research and education. Finally, for FEMA, there is a total of $1.3 billion, including $846 million in disaster relief and about $500 million in nondisaster relief programs. The amount recommended for disaster relief, coupled with the $1.6 billion provided in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental, approximates the 5-year historical average cost of disaster relief in 1999 dollars. The recommendation includes the restoration of $11 million in state and local assistance grants to state emergency management agencies. It also includes $25 million in the new pre-disaster mitigation program. Mr. President, as you know, the administration last month submitted a budget amendment to increase funds for FEMA counterterrorism preparedness activities. I intend to work with my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, to offer an amendment to increase funds for such activities in FEMA by $8 million, in addition to the $9 million currently included in the committee mark. These are critical activities. I think it is important we accommodate the administration's request, and I ask for my colleagues' attention to this very important measure. We think not only the work that goes on in FEMA, but the work that goes on elsewhere in the Federal Government, needs to take account of the risks that we face in these areas. Mr. President, that concludes my statement. It is a pleasure to turn to my ranking member, Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my distinguished ranking member for her very cogent and persuasive arguments. She makes an excellent case for the bill. I note when she says this is an interesting bill that there is an old curse that one should live in interesting times. But we are very fortunate to be able to work on a bill that has so many important programs and is of such great interest among our colleagues. I want to begin the debate. Before I turn the floor over to our colleague from Ohio, who I understand has other business, I urge all of our colleagues to please come forward if they have amendments, if they have colloquies. It would really help us if we could get as many of those in today as possible in order for us to complete work on this measure by tomorrow afternoon, which would be my hope. I know we have two amendments that are going to be argued with some enthusiasm and with great feeling on both sides. I hope we can complete those. In order for us to do that, I ask that all Senators who have amendments that might be cleared or colloquies which they wish to enter with us, they provide them by no later than the Tuesday lunches tomorrow so we may have an opportunity to look at them. If we get near the end it would be my desire to finish up, once we have dealt with the controversial amendments, and I would hate to have to turn down an amendment that might otherwise be agreed to because it is not presented in a timely fashion. In order for us to move forward with this bill so we can expedite the work of the Senate, I ask colleagues bring to us this afternoon, if possible, and tomorrow morning in any event, any amendments or colloquies or other matters it wishes to consider so we can complete work on them in as quick a fashion as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.