Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, since completion of the VA-HUD conference, some confusion has arisen as to funding of drinking water health effects research. First, let me state unequivocally that I strongly support funding for drinking water health effects research to ensure that rules governing drinking water quality are based on the best science and result in cost-effective protection of public health. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I advocated amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to change the standard setting process and improve the scientific basis for regulations. As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to fund fully the new State revolving fund program for the construction of drinking water plants. The conference report before us includes $1.275 billion--$550 million as requested by the President, and an additional $725 million to restore funds previously appropriated for this program but released last month for clean water SRF's. Unfortunately, delays in enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments precluded in VA-HUD subcommittee's consideration of the many additional funding requirements associated with implementation of this legislation. However, the conference agreement acknowledges that the new legislation will require resources, and states ``the conferees expect EPA to address any funding requirements for implementation of [this] important statute, such as drinking water health effects research, in the agency's operating plan.'' Funding for drinking water health effects research--outside of the amounts included in the science and technology account--was not in either House or Senate version of the VA-HUD bill, and hence was not an issue in conference. While I object to off-the-top setasides from State revolving funds, I fully support funding for health effects research from the science and technology account, which funds all of EPA's research activities. Should EPA propose to increase the relative priority for health effects research as part of its operating plan, and request additional funding for such research within the $542 million appropriated for science and technology, it is my expectation that this would be favorably received. In conclusion, I encourage EPA to consider carefully the funding requirements associated with this new legislation, and propose a redirection of funds for these important activities within the $6.7 billion fiscal year 1997 appropriation. coordinated tribal water quality program

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct. The earmark is intended to be a floor from which the EPA may supplement the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program. The additional funding will allow the tribes to fulfill their roles as comanagers of water quality in Washington State.

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's support and work on this issue, and I look forward to our continued cooperative effort to develop a comprehensive portfolio restructuring program early next year. Section 8 Contract Renewals

Mr. BOND. I would like to assure my colleague that the budget-based rent provisions can be used to address the concerns you raise. Under the budget-based rent provisions, the owner of unique property located in a tight housing market which houses elderly families and where the market rates are greater than the current contract rents and the rents are in excess of 120 percent of the FMR, could be provided with a contract renewal at the current contract rent level for 1 year. Also, Congress should look at the use of sticky vouchers in the future.

Mr. BOND. That is correct. Properties where the operating costs exceed the comparable market rents are eligible for the budget-based rent provisions, but eligibility for budget-based rents is not limited to such properties. I emphasize that the mark-to-market demonstration is designed to ensure that HUD is particularly sensitive to the need to preserve existing low-income housing for the elderly and disabled.

Mr. BOND. The owner could be induced to continue to keep the property as an affordable housing resource by allowing the owner an adequate return on equity.

Mr. BOND. The Secretary would have the discretion to determine an adequate return on equity in this way if he so chose. section 8 housing for the elderly

Mr. BOND. The legislation is intended to preserve section 8 housing for the elderly and special populations. While debt restructuring may be unnecessary in most cases, it may be advantageous in some. Therefore, the chairman's intent is for HUD to review carefully each case and limit the use of debt restructuring to those rare cases where it is most advantageous. Furthermore, in any calculation HUD uses in determining the market rent for these projects, HUD must include compensation to cover services that meet the unique needs of the elderly and special populations.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have questions concerning the implementation of the section 8 multifamily housing portfolio demonstration--Section 8 mark-to-market--which was adopted as part of the conference report to H.R. 3666, the VA/HUD fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act. The purpose of this statement is to clarify these questions for my colleagues, as well as for HUD. The conference report adopts a bipartisan strategy to build on the section 8 multifamily housing portfolio restructuring demonstration which was adopted as part of the HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, H.R. 3019, a further downpayment toward a balanced budget. The conference report establishes a revised demonstration program to emphasize that portfolio restructuring needs to be undertaken to reform and improve the FHA multifamily housing programs from a financial and operating perspective, but not to abandon the long-term commitment to resident protection and ongoing low-income affordability. The revised demonstration, therefore, continues to give HUD a number of flexible tools for restructuring section 8 assisted, FHA- insured projects, while emphasizing the preservation of the existing stock as low-income housing by generally restructuring these FHA- insured mortgages and reducing the cost of renewing the section 8 contracts. I emphasize that this demonstration, including the concept of reasonable offer, is intended to preserve affordable low-income housing, prevent the dislocation of current residents, preserve the rights of current owners who have complied with program requirements, and to not create any significant exposure of tax liability to owners. The section 8 mark-to-market inventory covers some 8,500 projects with almost one million units that are both FHA-insured and whose debt service is almost totally dependent on rental assistance payments made under section 8 project-based contracts. Most of these projects serve very low-income families, with approximately 37 percent of the stock serving elderly families. Many of these projects are oversubsidized and, without the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, are at risk of mortgage default. This raises concerns of owner disinvestment, resident displacement, and government ownership, management and disposition of this housing inventory. While continuing the existing subsidy arrangements would be very popular to both owners and tenants, the combination of the Federal Government overpaying for the value of this low-income housing resource as well as the growing tide of discretionary budget cuts require new policies and reforms to these programs. The cost of renewing the section 8 project-based contracts on this multifamily housing inventory emphasizes the many difficult budget and policy issues which need to be addressed as Congress reevaluates Federal housing policy. In particular, according to HUD estimates, the cost of all section 8 contract renewals, both tenant-based and project- based, will require appropriations of about $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1997, $10 billion in fiscal year 1998, and over $16 billion in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the cost of renewing the section 8 project- based contracts will grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000, and to some $8 billion in 10 years. Moreover, the unpaid principal balance [UPB] on the mortgages associated with this FHA-insured housing inventory represents a contingent liability of some $17 billion to HUD and the Federal Government. The section 8 multifamily housing portfolio restructuring demonstration is designed as an interim strategy and as a stepping stone for more comprehensive legislation by the authorizing committees as well as consideration of associated tax issues by the tax committees. This demonstration will require HUD to renew for up to 1 year all section 8 contracts with rents at or below 120 percent of the fair market rent for an area. In addition, project owners with expiring contracts above 120 percent of fair market rent may opt to have their section 8 contracts renewed at 120 percent of the fair market rent. This safe harbor will cover many of the 240,000 units which are supported by expiring section 8 contracts in fiscal year 1997, and will provide HUD with the administrative ability to focus on those FHA- insured multifamily housing projects with significantly oversubsidized rents. The projects with units which do not qualify for the contract renewal safe harbor will be eligible to participate in the section 8 multifamily mortgage restructuring portfolio demonstration and, at a minimum, will be renewed at budget-based rents. The demonstration would encourage HUD to enter into contracts with qualified State housing finance agencies, local housing agencies, and nonprofits either as a partner or as designee to administer the program for HUD. The conference report reflects the belief that balancing the fiscal goals of reducing costs with the public policy goals of preserving and maintaining affordable low-income housing requires an intermediary which is accountable to the public interest. Because of the Department's capacity and management problems as documented by the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, the demonstration reflects the understanding that capable public entities and certain qualified nonprofits should be accorded an opportunity to restructure mortgages on behalf of the Federal Government. I believe that many State housing finance agencies [HFA's], local HFA's, and other State and local housing and community development entities have the requisite capacity and expertise to implement the mortgage restructuring demonstration program and that developing this capacity and expertise will be important in the future for further establishing and building on both new and existing public and private partnerships for the development of affordable housing. I emphasize that nonprofits must be financially sound and have a demonstrated record in the area of affordable housing issues. I warn HUD to be very careful that sham nonprofits are not to be included, especially where a nonprofit is determined to be acting as a tool for the interests of some other entity. It also is expected that HUD and these public purpose designees will contract and subcontract with other entities, including private entities such as financial institutions and mortgage bankers and servicers, to enhance the expertise and capacity necessary to ensure that mortgaging restructurings are handled to the best advantage of the Federal Government, the project, the community, and the residents. It is hoped that these partnerships can be used to crossfertilize public and private approaches to low-income housing to create new strategies and leverage new funds for the preservation and creation of low-income affordable housing resources. The multifamily housing portfolio restructuring demonstration will provide HUD and the public agencies, and nonprofits, with a number of tools to restructure the FHA-insured mortgages and reduce the cost of section 8 project-based housing assistance. These tools include broad authority to restructure mortgages, including the forgiveness of mortgage indebtedness. For example, HUD could restructure a project mortgage so that a first mortgage would reflect the market value of a project while HUD holds a soft second on the remainder of the project debt. This would preserve the low-income character of the housing while reducing both the cost of the section 8 assistance and the risk of foreclosure. In exchange for mortgage restructuring, project owners would have to agree to preserve the housing as affordable for low- income families in accordance with requirements established by the Department or a designee. These requirements shall be balanced to ensure the long-term economic viability of the housing. The demonstration also allows HUD to implement budget-based rents to squeeze out any inflated profits while covering the debt service, operating costs and a reasonable return to the owners of these federally assisted projects. The use of budget-based rents are intended to be flexible enough to ensure the preservation of unique and critically needed low-income housing projects, such as elderly projects in rural areas, projects designed to house large families, projects in localities with low vacancy rates, and projects with operating costs which exceed any comparable market rents. I emphasize that the Department should exercise a special sensitivity to certain projects, such as elderly projects in rural areas, that house a special population, especially where the availability of other affordable housing is questionable. The conference report has elected to focus the restructuring demonstration on projects with contract rents above 120 percent of the fair market rents. According to recent HUD estimates, section 8 contracts affecting approximately 35,000 project-based assisted units will expire in fiscal year 1997. Of this amount, about 12,000 are assisted by HUD's section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation [NC/SR] programs. The program expects HUD to focus most of its mortgage restructuring efforts on the NC/SR assisted, or newer assisted portfolio since the costs of section 8 rental assistance attached to these properties are much greater than those assisted by HUD's section 8 loan management set aside [LMSA] program and the budgetary costs to maintain this inventory is greater. Therefore, the conference believes that greater budgetary savings will be realized on restructuring the newer assisted stock. Further, unlike rents on the newer assisted stock, section 8 contract rents on the older assisted stock are regulated on a budget-based process. As such, the rents are supposed to be set already at the minimum level necessary to meet operating and debt service expenses. Contract rents on the newer assisted stock also are higher than prevailing market rates due to the initial construction costs and automatic rent increases that have been provided during the term of the assistance contract regardless of operating needs. Finally, restructuring the debt on the older assisted portfolio would likely achieve only minimal section 8 subsidy savings since the UPB on the remaining mortgage is smaller than the UPB on the newer stock. For example, older assisted properties have an average UPB of $14,000 per unit compared to an average UPB of $35,000 per unit for newer assisted properties. Therefore, focusing on the older assisted properties for debt restructuring likely would not necessarily be cost-beneficial especially when considering the time and transaction costs of such a process. The conference bill also requires at least 75 percent of mortgages be restructured with FHA insurance. It is my belief that FHA mortgage insurance and other forms of credit enhancement are necessary for debt financing considering the short terms of section 8 contract renewals that are being provided in recent appropriation acts. Without long-term section 8 contracts, debt financing likely is to be difficult for restructured projects. If no insurance is provided when mortgages are restructured, debt restructuring costs also will be likely be higher, or mortgage debt discount deeper, than if the mortgages were restructured with insurance because private lenders would set the terms of the loans to reflect the risk of default. These projects could not have been built or financed without the original FHA mortgage insurance due to the inherent risks in developing low-income housing and the areas that these projects were built in. Nevertheless, I emphasize that the use of FHA mortgage insurance and other forms of credit enhancement should be explored carefully to minimize the default risk to the Federal Government. In some cases, mortgage insurance may not be necessary when owners can obtain reasonable financing without insurance. As a result, the demonstration program allows some discretion in exploring and creating new forms of credit enhancement that would reduce the default risk and credit subsidy costs to the Federal Government. The demonstration also includes the use of mortgage insurance under risk-sharing arrangements currently practiced under the mortgage risk-sharing programs enacted under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. Mortgage insurance under these risk-sharing arrangements would be encouraged by not applying the current statutory limitations on the number of units that can be made available for mortgage insurance under this program. There is also concern about the Department's plans to sell its benefits and burdens, including rights and obligations, under the FHA mortgage insurance program to public agencies as well as private entities. The demonstration permits HUD to sell to private entities the benefits and burdens of FHA multifamily mortgage insurance on up to 5,000 units. While it is important to test various restructuring strategies under the demonstration, the Department needs to ensure that the housing be preserved as low income, with residents and owners not displaced because of any risks associated with this mortgage refinancing strategy. The demonstration also allows HUD to test the use of vouchers on up to 10 percent of the units in the demonstration so long as the owner agrees and the residents are consulted. As a further protection for residents, this strategy may only be implemented where it is determined that residents will be able to use successfully vouchers to obtain decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Finally, this demonstration is an interim step to a more comprehensive long-term solution to the preservation of section 8 assisted housing. It is expected that the authorizing committee, consistent with hearings held by both the House and Senate authorizing committess, will consider reform of the section 8 mark-to-market inventory a priority for legislation during the next Congress. mark-to-market demonstration

Mr. BOND. I share the Senator's concern and believe that the demonstration authority does address ``sham'' nonprofits. Specifically, the demonstration requires the Secretary to select only these entities that have a long-term record of service in providing low-income housing and meet standards of fiscal responsibility. I expect HUD to issue detailed guidelines on what would constitute a qualified ``designee'' whether it is a nonprofit or public entity.

Mr. BOND. The demonstration program is significantly based on S. 2042. Like S. 2042, the demonstration program addresses the Department's capacity constraints by requiring HUD to form arrangements with qualified third party public entities. The demonstration program assumes that the participation of public entities such as State and local housing finance agencies will be encouraged and utilized to the fullest extent possible by HUD. In response to the Senator's concern about HUD's liquidation policy, the demonstration does allow HUD to transfer or sell up to 5,000 units of HUD mortgages to private sector parties. This provision is not intended to be used as means of liquidating the housing stock. Instead, the intent is to test the efficiency and effectiveness of using private sector entities to preserve the affordable housing stock at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayer while recognizing the impact on communities and owners.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. Under present law, namely section 405(a) of the Balanced Budget Down Payments Act I, HUD has the authority to renew conventionally-financed section 8 contracts at up to 120 percent of fair market rents. Indeed, in August HUD sent out a memorandum stating that it would renew such contracts at rents not in excess of 120 percent of Fair Market Rent. Nothing in this year's appropriations bill withdraws HUD's authority under section 405(a) to renew such contracts. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the legal opinion by Judge Diaz, the General Counsel for HUD, which confirms this analysis.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the leadership and the Members on both sides for allowing the VA-HUD, independent agencies bill, H.R. 3666, to be passed.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am working with Senator Bumpers, my ranking member. We have agreed that we should pass H.R. 3719, the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act amendments, with a substitute. Senator Bumpers and I have tried to accommodate all of the concerns of Members, both of the committee itself and of this body. It is vitally important, if we are going to continue to provide funding for small businesses through the SBA programs, that we move on this. I am advised that there are still some clearances to be obtained on the other side. I serve notice on all my colleagues we are, we hope sometime later today, to proceed to unanimous consent to proceed with this measure so we can continue small business financing efforts. I acknowledge my colleague from Pennsylvania has been waiting a long time. I will not pursue this any further. But I want all of our colleagues to know that we hope to be able to get consent to pass this bill and send it back to the House for final action, we hope by tonight, because this is vitally important.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to present to the Senate the conference agreement on the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I'm especially pleased that this final step in congressional consideration of this measure is occurring prior to start of the fiscal year. Furthermore, we anticipate this measure will be separately signed into law and not become part of another continuing resolution, which has become quite a distinction for a major appropriations bill in this Congress. I would note that it is especially critical that we enact this bill immediately to avoid potential delays in processing of veterans disability compensation and pension checks. In addition, prompt enactment is necessary to prevent potential disruption in other critical governmental functions such as the sale and processing of Federal flood insurance policies and financing of VA and FHA mortgages. Mr. President, much of the recent attention paid to this bill has been over disposition of the three major health issues riders added during Senate floor debate: the Domenici-Wellstone mental health parity provision; the Bradley-Frist maternity health care amendment; and the spina bifida VA entitlement. While our appropriations conferees can't take credit for it, we are nonetheless pleased that at our urging the House and Senate legislative committees of jurisdiction, on a bipartisan basis, worked out agreements on these very substantial policy issues which are incorporated in our conference agreement. Moreover, at our urging, each of these legislative proposals now have delayed effective dates which permit a final legislative review in the next session of Congress, prior to implementation. Mr. President, beyond serving as a vehicle for these major health policy provisions, the underlying measure is itself the largest non- defense discretionary appropriations bill, with nearly a third of the Government-wide total. Its critical role in establishing program levels and direction for the environment, housing and community development, veterans health programs, and science and technology is the reason why Congress and the White House took so long to reconcile our differences during this past year. These are major funding issues which reflect profound policy disagreements. None of us, however, want to repeat the long delays and frustrations we experienced during the past year of being unable to enact this critical funding measure. We have attempted to avoid reopening past disagreements and controversies which blocked this bill last year. Our effort to facilitate this measure has meant that this bill, in a number of respects, reflects funding levels and policies which are compromises between very different viewpoints. One example is the inclusion of funds at the 1996 enacted level for the Corporation for National and Community Service. I, and many others, continue to have strong reservations about this program, but there is no doubt that failure to fund it would result in a Presidential veto. So despite our misgivings, this conference agreement maintains the current level of funding for this program, which continues to be more than I believe warranted, but less than what is requested by the White House. The House agreed with this position of the Senate, despite their previous opposition to providing any funding for continuing this program. With respect to other agencies funded in this bill, the conference agreement attempts to balance a wide variety of competing interests within a very constrained budget allocation. The conference agreement provides $17.013 billion for veterans medical care--an increase of $5 million above the President's request and $450 million above the 1996 level. This account received the highest priority in the legislation, and hence the largest increase. The amount provided will ensure that VA will continue to provide care to the 2.8 million veterans currently receiving VA medical services. The conference agreement also includes $100 million in 1996 supplemental appropriations for veterans compensations and pensions. If the Senate passes this critical legislation no later than today, September 25, these additional funds will ensure that veterans will receive their September checks on time. Delays may result in veterans checks being late. For EPA, a total of $6.7 billion is included--$184 million more than the fiscal year 1996 amount. This includes approximately $2.9 billion in funds for the States--of which $1.9 billion is for State revolving funds for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure--fully funded at the President's request level. It also provides the President's full request of $1.394 billion for Superfund, to ensure site cleanups are not slowed despite the need to reform the program. Despite the very compelling arguments made by some members, the conference agreement does not include so-called riders in EPA in view of our desire to keep this legislation as free of controversy as possible. For FEMA disaster relief, the conference agreement provides $1.32 billion--all of which would become available immediately--to meet the needs arising from hurricanes Fran and Hortense, and other disasters currently on the books. These funds, in addition to the $3.7 billion in previously appropriated disaster relief funds currently available for obligation, obviate the need for a supplemental appropriation for disaster relief at this time. The conference agreement includes a 1-year extension for FEMA's flood insurance program--so that there is no lapse in FEMA's ability to write flood insurance policies and carry out the flood mapping program. After the recent hurricane disasters, many homeowners are only too familiar with how critical this program is. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the conference recommendation continues the policies and programmatic reforms enacted last year. It was a major disappointment that Congress was unable to enact a comprehensive public and assisted housing reform authorization bill. This appropriations bill, however, contains temporary extensions of provisions needed to halt the ever-increasing cost of housing subsidy commitments and to continue progress in reforming wasteful and ineffective housing and community development programs. Equally important, this bill restructures funding of Department of Housing and Urban Development to eliminate bureaucratic overlap and promote local flexibility and decision making. I hope that the authorizing process will pickup where they left off this year and expeditiously enact these reforms as permanent legislative changes. Similarly, this appropriations bill contains multifamily housing restructuring proposals which were under consideration by the authorizing committee. We cannot afford to continue the excessive subsidies currently being paid to sustain this inventory of nearly a million apartments for low-income families. Unless Congress acts to reduce the excessive debt of this housing inventory, along with implementing other management improvements, there could be massive defaults and widespread resident displacement. The complexity and difficulty of developing a consensus on these issues are substantial. Project owners, including limited and general partners, project managers, residents, State housing finance agencies, local community development organizations, bond holders, and municipal governments are among those with significant interests in how we address this issue. These interests, however, frequently are divergent and competing. Of course, we must also be mindful of the billions of taxpayers dollars previously invested in this multifamily housing inventory, and the billions more which are at risk over the next several years depending on which policies and financing mechanisms we select to deal with these issues. The conference agreement reflects our attempt at finding a reasonable balance between these sometimes conflicting concerns. We cannot afford continuing to pay excessive subsidies for these multifamily housing projects, even those which provide very good housing for low income families. And some portions of this inventory are little more than the slums they were intended to replace. The conference recommendation is not a comprehensive solution. It simply is an attempt to deal with these issues in that fraction of the multifamily inventory that have section 8 contracts which expire during fiscal year 1997. We are acting solely because affirmative action is required to prevent defaults and potential resident displacement during the fiscal year. I want to thank the Senator from Oregon, chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, for his support and assistance during our consideration of this bill. Changes in our budget allocation, made on his recommendation, enabled us to provide funding to reduce the potential for displacement of low-income families from currently subsidized housing. With this allocation we were also able to restore funding for the Community Development Block Grants program [CDBG] at the full current fiscal year 1996 funding level of $4.6 billion, and not withhold $300 million from obligation as was proposed in the House- passed bill. Mr. President, it is very unfortunate that the Senator from Oregon is retiring from the Senate since the funding requirements necessary to maintain subsidized housing are expected to grow even larger over the next several years, and his appreciation of the importance of this investment will be sorely missed. I would note, however, that with his help we have been able to begin weaning this inventory of housing from its continued dependence on heavy Federal subsidies. The conference agreement for NASA totals $13.7 billion, an increase of $100 million over the House--and adopts the Senate-passed restoration of funds for the Mission to Planet Earth program to study global climate change. The conference agreement also incorporates buyout legislation necessary to facilitate reductions in staffing without resorting to very disruptive reductions-in-force [RIF's]. Also included is transfer authority, similar to that enacted last year, which provides NASA the flexibility to redirect funding within the $2.1 billion total provided for the space station in order to avoid costly delays or schedule slips. Mr. President, after making adjustments for the necessary replenishment of the FEMA disaster relief account and for enactment of housing legislative savings, the net increase in actual appropriated program levels is only $84 million, or just one-tenth of one percent over the previous year. While an aggregate freeze, the total reflects some substantial increases offset by commensurate decreases for several of our agencies. The biggest increase, $569 million, was provided for discretionary programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The only other agencies to receive significant increases were the Environmental Protection Agency, with an $184 million increase, and the National Science Foundation which received $50 million more than last year. These increases were offset by cuts of $625 million in HUD, and $200 million in NASA. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Maryland for her assistance and cooperation in putting together this bill. We confronted major challenges, not only due to the complexity of some of the programmatic and budgetary issues within our jurisdiction, but also in dealing with some very sensitive policy concerns of a legislative nature. And, as has become an annual concern, we have had to deal with daunting budgetary constraints. She has been invaluable in guiding this difficult bill through some contentious points in the Senate and in conference. Amid the wide ranging issues and concerns we have dealt with in consideration of this bill, she has been steadfast in her determination to get our task accomplished. I am very grateful for all her help. Mr. President, I would also like to thank the many staff members who also have made a major contribution to consideration of this bill: Sally Chadbourne, Catherine Corson, David Bowers, and Liz Blevins on the minority side; and Stephen Kohashi, Carrie Apostolou, Julie Dammann, Jon Kamarck, and Lashawnda Leftwich on our side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lowell Mohler of Missouri, who is retiring after many decades of service to the Missouri Farm Bureau. Lord Chesterfield, an English statesman in the 18th century advised citizens to ``Be wiser than other people if you can, but do not tell them so.'' This advice has been practiced regularly by 20th century Missourian Lowell Mohler, from the halls of the University of Missouri to the State and Nation's Capitol, where he has advised farmers, professors, Governors, and Senators. Though Lowell's tenure at Farm Bureau was slightly more brief than the 20th century, his service on behalf of rural Americans has been immense. His approach is always warm, his counsel wise, his strategy practical, and his word true. Lowell Mohler is truly representative of the Missouri Farm Bureau, an organization of members who are characterized by common sense, work hard, value initiative and character, and who love agriculture, family, God, and country--not necessarily in that order. He, like they, live by a more stringent self-imposed code of right and wrong which is an example for all to observe. Lowell also has the typical nonmodern and unrealistic view of retirement. He said he is going to retire to spend more time extolling the virtues of the University of Missouri and to farm. He reminds me of the Missouri farmer who came out of retirement to farm and was asked if he was going to work full time. ``No, just 6 days a week,'' the elderly farmer replied. I hope that Lowell will now have some well-deserved time to spend with his terrific family, of which I know he is very proud. He and his wife, JoAnn, can grow asparagus and hornets and maybe catch some fish at their farm. They can invite large crowds of friends to backyard barbecues and leave the cleanup duties to the coyotes which come up from the river near his house and clean perfectly the remains. Only Lowell could make the availability of coyotes useful. It must relate to his affinity with members of the media and politicians that he can appreciate coyotes. If he is so inclined, he can come to Mexico, Missouri and help me keep the deer away from my tree orchards. Maybe we can plant some walnut trees. Lowell Mohler's career climbed heights he surely never expected, but has never lost sight of where he came from, or the conventions and needs of the ordinary women and men who live the life that makes this country great. His work made rural America better; he left his mark and he did it his way, the Farm Bureau way. He is and will be remembered as a great American example. JoAnn, thank you on behalf of everyone for sharing Lowell with us. We return him to you with immense gratitude, and wish you both well as you enter this new chapter of your lives.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I congratulate my fellow Missourian, Joseph J. Frank, on his election as national commander of the American Legion, at the 78th national convention, on September 5, 1996. I am very proud that the Legion, the Nation's largest veterans' organization, comprised of over 3 million members, will be represented by an individual with the kind of dedication, integrity, and commitment that has been Mr. Frank's hallmark. My State is proud of our military heritage, and we revere native military leaders such as John J. Pershing, the first six star general since George Washington. Joe Frank, born and raised in St. Louis County, MO, has achieved another first: he's the first Missourian and first Vietnam veteran to command the American Legion. I am sure both of these firsts will bring new insights and perspectives to the post. Mr. Frank served in Vietnam in 1968. He was wounded severely and continues to cope each day with the paralysis which resulted, but these wounds have not dampened his patriotism or his commitment to serving his fellow Americans. Immediately after recovering from the wounds he sustained in Vietnam, Mr. Frank founded the Crestwood Memorial American Legion Post 777, now the Joseph L. Frank Memorial Post 777, renamed in memory of his father. Since founding the post, Mr. Frank has gone on to serve as post commander, district commander, and state commander. He has also held several previous leadership positions on the national level, including national vice commander, chairman of the national economic commission, and chairman of the foreign relations commission. But Joe Frank's service radiates well beyond the American Legion. He has dedicated himself to helping individuals with disabilities through his positions on the Executive Board of the President's Committee on Employment of People With Disabilities, and the Missouri Governor's Council on Disability. Mr. Frank has also been recognized by the White House for his service to the Selective Service System. I am confident, Mr. President, that Joe Frank, from my own great State of Missouri, will serve his fellow veterans with dignity, vigor, and direction. He already has set forth part of his agenda, by identifying three priorities: increasing membership, protecting the U.S. flag from desecration, and improving and expanding health care to our veterans. Because of my own involvement in the area of veterans health care through my chairmanship of the Senate appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over veterans programs, I am especially delighted to recognize Mr. Frank's leadership in this area. It is my honor to join with Mr. Frank's wife, Barbara, his family, many friends, and especially his fellow American Legion members in saluting Joseph J. Frank for providing inspiration and a source of pride for veterans, Missourians, and for all Americans.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to Older Adults Transportation Service, Inc. [OATS]. It is a great pleasure to recognize OATS for its 25 years of loyal service to residents in the State of Missouri. OATS was founded in November 1971, as the Cooperative Transportation Service, to provide reliable transportation to seniors, people with disabilities and rural residents of Missouri in order to increase their mobility to live independently in their own communities. Since then, the not-for-profit corporation has grown from 3 buses serving 8 mid- Missouri counties, into a fleet of over 300 vehicles serving 87 out of Missouri's 113 counties. Today, over 1,000 volunteers and 342 drivers and staff dedicate their time and energy to increasing mobility and extending a lifeline for those with special transportation needs. As OATS celebrates its 25th anniversary on September 25, 1996, it is an honor to congratulate its members on their long lasting commitment to Missourians. I wish OATS the best of luck in all its future endeavors and continued success in its service to others.

Mr. BOND

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. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Veterans' Administration Undersecretary for Health is doing an outstanding job in bringing modern, efficient, effective, and compassionate health care to our Nation's veterans. He testified before my subcommittee earlier this year that one of the barriers about which he was most concerned in attempting to change and improve the way the Veterans' Administration operates is the Congress. The Harkin amendment is precisely what the Veterans' Administration feared, because it would prevent the Veterans' Administration from making changes to see that the older and sicker veterans, wherever they live, get the care that they need. The Veterans' Administration opposes this amendment because it would prevent them from efficiently allocating resources to meet veterans' health needs in the most effective manner. I, therefore, move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the reasons I have outlined, both programmatic, as well as jurisdictional, it is my intent to sustain the Senate's deletion of the House provision in conference. And for the same reasons, I urge the National Science Foundation to reconsider its delay in this procurement. Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me thank the leaders for their cooperation in helping us come to what I had not expected to see at this point. We are deeply grateful for the accommodation. After we have acted on the pending amendments, then I believe we will be ready to go to third reading. Thanks and appreciation to all involved, particularly my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and our staffs on both sides.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, more than a month after the Committee on Appropriations reported the pending fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill, the Department of Commerce announced that it would undertake an investigation of the alleged below-market bid made by a Japanese vendor in a pending supercomputer procurement of the National Center for Atmospheric Research [NCAR]. This investigation is in accordance with the anti-dumping procedures specified in law. Subsequent to this announcement, on August 20, the National Science Foundation, which provides the bulk of Federal operating support for NCAR requested that the pending procurement be put on hold and await the resolution of the dumping issue. I have been asked if these actions negate or otherwise change the Committee's position with respect to the deletion of section 421 of the House-passed bill. That provision was intended to block the NCAR procurement by prohibiting the use of funds to pay the salaries of personnel who approve a contract for a supercomputer which is found to be in violation of the anti-dumping provisions of law. The answer is no. The House provision inappropriately attempted to impose a penalty for alleged dumping, separate and apart from that provided for in law. Current law specifies a clearly defined process for the Department of Commerce to investigate and determine if unfair prices are being offered by a foreign vendor. Furthermore, upon the determination that dumping has occurred, redress is provided through the imposition of compensating duties. The House proposal would require the National Science Foundation to determine whether dumping has occurred, an agency that does not have the expertise nor the authority to make such a finding. If this provision were to be enacted the Foundation would have to prejudge the outcome of the Commerce Department investigation. Unfortunately, by preventing any contract from being approved, NSF may lead to the adverse consequences that we are seeking to avoid. The decision of the Foundation to request a delay in the procurement pending competition of the anti-dumping investigation process now underway by the Commerce Department may jeopardize the pending procurement, and will certainly delay the needed acquisition of state- of-the-art supercomputing technology. Such potential consequences are very disturbing, especially since the NSF is under no obligation to delay these contractual negotiations. Indeed, the anti-dumping provisions remedies are premised on imposition of special duties, not on a rescission of any sales or a prohibition on any sale. If the action of the Foundation were to terminate the pending procurement, it would have the effect of nullifying the established process of investigating and determining whether dumping has occurred, a responsibility of the Commerce Department, not the National Science Foundation. Mr. President, the chairman and the ranking minority Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, wrote a letter objecting to the House provision, and urging that the normal process be followed. In addition, the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, also wrote on behalf of the Government Affairs Committee expressing his concern over the implications that the House provision would have on procurement procedures of the Government, under the jurisdiction of that committee. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his interest in EPA research programs. While I am not familiar with the merits of this particular project, it seems only fair to me that EPA should look closely at fulfilling previously initiated grant awards before beginning new ones.