Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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. 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.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and ask that I be notified when that 3 minutes has expired. I do wish to urge my colleagues who had wanted time to come over, those in support. The time is running out. I did want to answer the legitimate question asked by the Senator from Arkansas: What do you expect to get out of this? What good is going to come from it? Just a small sample, Mr. President. The National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association in a letter of July 27, 1995, to Administrator Goldin, the executive director, expresses ``our support for the human brain and neurological research that is part of NASA's international space station program.'' We have a similar letter from the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, saying: We are especially optimistic about a project on the station called Neurolab, dedicated to neurological research. This research could be essential to MS patients. Because MS is a neurological disease, the more we know about the brain, the closer we are to understanding and overcoming this illness. The American Medical Women's Association has written that: The space station will provide important research opportunities in the following areas: Diseases predominantly affecting women, including breast, ovarian and cervical cancers and endometriosis; Diseases more prevalent in women, such as osteoporosis, diabetes and other autoimmune diseases; Areas in which women are particularly vulnerable, such as biological rhythms, cyclic hormonal changes and balance disorders . . .. I ask unanimous consent all these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Does the Senator from Arkansas wish further time?

Mr. BOND. I just conclude these brief remarks by saying that Carl Sagan who, in the past, along with the Planetary Society, raised great questions about the space station serving no national purpose has, now, written saying that the defects in the space program ``have been remedied'' and it is meaningful. ``We ask your support now for the entire NASA program.''

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, does Senator Mikulski have additional time remaining?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have all the time we need on this side. The Senator from Maryland has 4 minutes, if she wants to use it. I can conclude in the little time I have. If the Senator from Arkansas is ready to yield back, I will offer a tabling motion.

Mr. BOND. Close enough for Government work.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, does my colleague from Arkansas wish any further time?

Mr. BOND. I am going to conclude with my 2 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held at 5:30.

Mr. BOND. With the time equally divided.

Mr. BOND. Under that scenario, I move to table the Bumpers amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I claim a minute of that time just to follow up on the comments I made earlier. There were questions raised about what we can learn from the space station. We have not learned anything yet. Well, we have not had the space station up yet. Here is a letter that I thought particularly compelling. This letter begins: On Earth, we are prisoners of gravity. Gravity influences all life on Earth . . . In orbit, there is very little gravity-- Or zero-g. The microgravity environment of space allows researchers to unmask gravity and to see, in many cases for the first time, deeply into physical, chemical, and biological processes which were previously obscured by gravity. . . . This promises to lead to radical new scientific discoveries about life on Earth. Fundamental insights from international Space Station research will produce broad-ranging benefits for humanity for generations to come. The writer says: I don't have space here to catalog all of the potential contributions that the international Space Station could make to the world's biomedical research efforts. I hope the examples I have provided will serve to illustrate this basic point: NASA technology and Space Station research will support the broader fight against human disease and make tremendous contributions to the quality of life here on Earth. The letter is signed, from the Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. Michael E. DeBakey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I suggest we can handle one or two other matters while we are waiting for that. They are procedural matters. We had set earlier in the day, immediately following the vote on the space station amendment, a vote for an amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Graham. We have on both sides worked with them.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, then I will not make the unanimous-consent request. We think during the course of this next vote that we can bring everybody together and point out that the modification has moved in the direction that would be very beneficial to the interest that Senator Harkin has raised. With that, the time of 5:30 has arrived.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.